HomeMy WebLinkAbout992059.tiff PUBLIC LAW 104-113-MAR. 7. 1996 110 STAT. 775
•
Public Law 104-113
104th Congress
An Act
To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 with opMc Mar.7. 1996
to inventions made under cooperative research and development agreements.
and for other purposes. (RR 21961
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. National
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE. - Technology
Transfer and
This Act may be cited as the "National Technology Transfer Act
of
lAd�an,5ce"'ent
and Advancement Act of 1995". 15 USC 3701
SEC.2.FINDINGS.
15 USC USC 3701
The Congress finds the following: note.
(1) Bringing technology and industrial innovation to the
r marketplace is central to the economic. environmental. and
t social well-being of the people of the United States.
(2) The Federal Government can help United States busi-
ness to speed the development of new products and processes
by entering into cooperative research and development agree-
ments which make available the assistance of Federal labora-
tories to the private sector. but the commercialization of tech-
nology and industrial innovation in the United States depends
upon actions by business.
(3) The commercialization of technology and industrial
innovation in the United States will be enhanced if companies.
in return for reasonable compensation to the Federal Govern-
ment can more easily obtain exclusive licenses to inventions
which develop as a result of cooperative research with scientists
employed by Federal laboratories.
SEC.3.USE OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY.
Subparagraph (B) of section 11(e)(7) of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710(e)(7)(B)) is
amended to read as follows:
"(B) A transfer shall be made by any Federal agency under
subparagraph (A). for any fiscal year. only if the amount so trans-
ferred by that agency (as determined under such subparagraph)
would exceed $10,000.".
SEC. 4.TITLE TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ARISING FROM COOPERA-
TIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
Subsection (b) of section 12 of the Stevenson-Wvdler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)) is amended to read
as follows:
"(b) ENUMERATED AUTHORITY.-(1) Under an agreement entered
j into pursuant to subsection (a)(1). the laboratory may grant. or
:0 1 992059
110 STAT. 782 PUBLIC LAW 104—;:13—MAR. 7, 1996
fasteners from two lots shall be conspicuously marked with the
lot identification numbers of both lots.
"(f) SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER.--IF a person who purchases fas-
teners for any purpose so requests either prior to the sale or
at the time of sale, the seller shall conspicuously mark the container
of the fasteners with the lot number from which such fasteners
were taken.".
(g) SECTION 9 AMENDMENT.—Section 9 of the Fastener Quality
Act (15 U.S.C. 5408) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
"(d) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary may designate officers or
employees of the Department of Commerce to conduct investigations
pursuant to this Act. In conducting such investigations, those offi-
cers or employees may, to the extent necessary or appropriate
to the enforcement of this Act, exercise such authorities as are
conferred upon them by other laws of the United States, subject
to policies and procedures approved by the Attorney General.".
(h) SECTION 10 AMENDMENTS.-Section 10 of the Fastener Qual-
ity Act (15 U.S.C. 5409) is amended--
(1) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking "10 years" and
inserting in lieu thereof"5 years";and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking "any subsequent" and
inserting in lieu thereof"the subsequent".
(i) SECTION 13 AMENDMENT.-Section 13 of the Fastener Quality
Act (15 U.S.C. 5412) is amended by striking "within 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act".
(j) SECTION 14 REPEAL.—Section 14 of the Fastener Quality
Act (15 U.S.C. 5413) is repealed.
SEC. 12.STANDARDS CONFORMITY.
(a) USE of STANDARDS.—Section 2(b) of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C- 272(b)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ", including comparing
standards" and all that follows through "Federal Government'
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (11) as para-
graphs (4) through (12), respectively;and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new para-
graph:
"(3) to compare standards used in scientific investigations,
engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and edu-
cational institutions with the standards adopted or recognized
by the Federal Government and to coordinate the use by Fed-
eral agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where
possible the use of standards developed by private, consensus
organizations;".
(b) CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT ACTIN/ME-S.—Section 2(b) of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
272(b)) is amended—
(1) by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (11), as
so redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section;
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12).
as so redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section. and
inserting in lieu thereof"; and"; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"(13) to coordinate Federal, State, and local technical stand-
ards activities and conformity assessment activities, with pri-
vate sector technical standards activities and conformity assess-
02
PUBLIC LAW 104-113-MAR. 7. 1996 110 STAT. 783
ment activities, with the goal of eliminating unnecessary
duplication and complexity in the development and promulga-
tion of conformity assessment requirements and measures.".
(c) TRANSMITTAL OF PLAN TO CONGRESS.—The National 15 USC 272 nate.
Institute of Standards and Technology shall, within 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, transmit to the Congress a
plan for implementing the amendments.made by this section.
(d) UTILIZATION OF CONSENSUS TECHNICAL STANDARDS BY FED- 15 USC 272 rote..
ERAL AGENCIES; REPORTS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (3) of
this subsection, all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by vol-
untary consensus standards bodies, using such technical stand-
ards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities
determined by the agencies and departments.
(2) CONSULTATION; PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out para-
graph (1) of this subsection. Federal agencies and departments
shall consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus stand-
ards bodies and shall, when such participation is in the public
interest and is compatible with agency and departmental mis-
sions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources, participate
with such bodies in the development of technical standards.
(3) EXCEPTION.-If compliance with paragraph (1) of this
subsection is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use
technical standards that are not developed or adopted by vol-
untary consensus standards bodies if the head of each such
agency or department transmits to the Office of Management
and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such stand-
ards. Each year, beginning with frs al year 1997. the Office
of Management and Budget shall transmit to Congress and
its committees a report summarizing all explanations received
in the preceding year under this paragraph.
(4) DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS.--As used in this
subsection. the term "technical standards" means performance-
based or design-specific technical specifications and related
management systems practices.
SEC.13.SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award program offers substantial benefits to
03
•
A, Co foe,. u0' i .nt found 11;,e ry often rh.e Oil roe(Or
will pay for the pernut lust as they pay forth necessary licenses
and connection costs. The reason the bill does not include
lees goes bark to the constitutional prohibit oh of"taxes"levied
on the fed r,J uocernrnent by state or local entities. Permit
fees, of course. are a cost for services rendered and are noe
Implementation
Section 21 (J states that there is no of liga6un to provide
plan rectew or inspection services to a federal project under
this legislation. If we all care more about compliance than we
do revenue, however. we will simply treat a federal project like
any other and as an opportunity to insure and enhance the
safety of our citizens.
With this bill conies the chance to review federal projects
in our jurisdiction. If we do so reasonably and with assistance
in mind, surely we will all benefit. If I can assist with any
questions, please feel free to call at 503.770-4466.
PUBLIC LAW 100-678-NOV. 17, 1983 102 STAT. 4051
ing for the purpose of determining the extent, if any, of failure
to comply with the specifications referred to in subsection (a).
"(2) Colsrreacr cLAusE.—The Administrator shall ensure that
any contract entered into for a building described in paragraph
(1) shall contain provisions permitting a reduction of rent
during stny period when such building is not in compliance with
such specifications.".
SEC 6.COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED CODES.
(a)IN GENERAL.—The Public Buildings Act of 1959(40 U.S.C. 601-
6161 is further amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
"SEC.21.COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED CODES. Public health
"(a)BUILDING CoDEs.—Each budding constructed or altered by the and safety.
General Services Administration or any other Federal agency shall ao USG 619.
be constructed or altered, to the maximum extent feasible as deter-
mined by the Administrator or the head of such Federal agency, in •
compliance with one of the nationally recognized model building
codes and with other applicable nationally recognized codes. Such
other codes shall include, but not be limited to, electrical codes, fire
and life safety codes, and plumbing codes, as de.:ermined appro-
priate by tha Administrator. In carrying out this subsection, the
Administrator or the head of the Federal agency authorized to
construct or alter the building shall use the latest edition of the
nationally recognized codes referred to in this subsection.
"(b) ZoNIN0 LAWS.—Each building constructed or altered by the State and local
General Services Administration or any other Federal agency shall governments.
be constructed or altered only after consideratior. of all require-
ments(other than procedural requirements)of—
"(1)zoning laws,and
"(2) laws relating to landscaping, open space, minimum dis-
tance of a building from the property line,maximum height of a
building, historic preservation, and esthetic qualities of a build-
ing,and other similar laws,
of a State or a political subdivision of a State which would apply to
the building if it were not a building constructed or altered by a
Federal agency.
"(C)SPECIAL RULES. •
-
"U) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION, REVIEW,
AND tNsetcrtoNs.—For purposes of meeting the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b) with respect to a building, the Adminis-
trator or the head of the Federal agency authorized to construct
or alter the building shall—
"(A) in preparing plans for the building, consult with
appropriate officials of the State or political. subdivision, or
both, in which the building will be located;
"(B) upon request, submit such plans in a timely manner
to such officials for review by such officials for a reasonable
period of time not exceeding 30 days;and 0 1
"(C) permit inspection by such officials during construc-
tion or alteration of the building, in accordance with the
customary schedule of inspections for construction or.alter-
ation of buildings in the locality, if such officials provide to
102 STAT. 4052 PUBLIC LAW 1C0-673—NOV. 17, 1933
"61a cupy of such schedule before construction of the
building is begun; and
"(ii) reasonable notice of their intention to conduct
any inspection before conducting such inspection.
"(2) LIMITATION ON STATE RESPONSIBILITIES.—Nothing, in this
section shall impose an obligation on any State or political
subdivision to take any action under paragraph(1).
"(d) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECODISIENDATIONs.—Appro-
priate officials of a State or a political subdivision of a State may
make recommendations to the Administrator or the head of the:
Federal agency authorized to construct or alter a building concern-.
ing measures necessary to meet the requirements of subsections (a)
and (b). Such officials may also make recommendations to the
Administrator or the head of the Federal agency concerning meas-
ures which should be taken in the construction or alteration of the
building to take into account local conditions. The Administrator or
the head of the Federal agency shall give due consideration to any'
such recommendations.
"(e) EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE.—No action may be brought:
against the United States and no fine or penalty may be imposed
against the United States for failure to meet the requirements of
subsection (a),(b),or(c)of this section or for failure to carry out any'
recommendation under subsection(d).
"(f) LIMITATION oN LIAaILrrt—The United States and its contrac-
tors shall not be required to pay any amount for any action taken by'
a State or a political subdivision of a State to carry out this section.
(including reviewing plans, carrying out on-site inspections, issuing
building permits,and making recommendations).
"(g)APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN BUILDINGS.—This section applies to
any project for construction or alteration of a building for which.
funds are first appropriated for a fiscal year beginning after Septem-
ber 30, 1989.
"(h) NATIONAL SECURITY WAIVER.—This section shall not apply'
with respect to any building if the Administrator or the head of the:
Federal agency authorized to construct or alter the building deter-
mines that the application of this section to the building would.
adversely affect national security. A determination under this
subsection shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review.
40 USC 619 note. (b) NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL ACENCIEs.—Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator of
General Services shall notify the heads of all Federal agencies of the
requirements of section 21 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959..
SEC.7.LIMITATION ON MAXIMUM RENTAL RATE.
Section 322 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 412; 40 U.S.C..
278a), is repealed.
SEC.S.PROTECTION OF FEDERAL PROPERTY.
(a) REFERENCE To GSA.—The Act of June 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 281; 40
U.S.C.318-318d)is amended—
(1) by striking out "Federal Works Agency" each place it.
appears . and inserting in lieu thereof "General Services
Administration";and
(2) by striking out "Federal Works Administrator" each place
it appears and inserting in lieu thereof"Administrator of Gen-
eral Services".
02
BUILDING OFFICIALS ION LOOS 0 of
ADMINISTRATORS BU INTERNATIONAL. OE O1111C11.
CONGRESS SOUTHERN BUILDING NTERNATiONAL erican
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CF B • •
BUILDING OFFICIALS
•
5263 LEESBURG PIKE•FALLS CHURCH.VA 22041
June 24, 1996 (703)931 3•FAX(7
)3731546
RICHARD P.KUCHNK3p
Ole IDSOffIYE LJFTICER
Dr. Belinda Coffins
Director, Office of Standards Services
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute of Science and Technology
Building 820, Room 287
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Dear Dr. Collins:
As you know, Public Law 104-113, recently sign by President Clinton, contains a requirement that
all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies, using such standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by agencies and departments. The law further requires NISI to develop a plan
to implement this requirement. On behalf of the Council of American Building Officials (CABO), I
am writing you concerning the implementation plan, particularily with respect to the correlation with
Public Law 100-678, which also requires Federal constriction.to comply with a nationally recognized
model building code.
The three Members of CABO: Building Officials and Code Administrators International, (BOCA),
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) and Southern Building Code Congress
International (SBCCI) all publish model construction codes (building, plumbing, mechanical, etc.).
These model codes, in setting forth comprehensive regulations for all aspects of building construction,
reference hundreds of consensus standards that are promulgated by a variety of authoritative sources.
The text of the model codes describes the manner in which a particular standard is to be used for
regulating purposes and then reference the particular standard.
All three model code organizations use an open consensus process in maintaining and updating their
model codes. All sectors of the building community, including Federal agencies are provided every
opportunity to participate in this process. CABO and its Member organizations have, for many years,
encouraged greater participation by Federal agencies in their respective code change processes and
have urged Federal agencies to adopt these model codes for regulatory purposes.
In 1988,Public Law 100-678 was enacted by Congress for the purpose of requiring Federal agencies
to comply with one of the nationally recognized model building codes and other applicable nationally 01
THE COUNCIL OF AMERICAN BUILD PIG OFFICALS iS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLJCS HEALTH.SAFETY.AND RELATED SOCIETAL NEEDS.
IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT ANO USE OF CONSENSUS BASED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS.ENHANCEMENT OF PROFESSIONALISM IN CODE
ADMINISTRATION.MID FACUTATTG ACCEPTANCE OF INNOVATIVE BUILDING PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS.
Co ci. of
B •
grican
recognized codes (plumbing, mechanical, fire, etc.) to the maximum extent feasible whenever
constructing or altering a building. We view the enactment of Public Law 104-113 as further
strengthening of the mandate enacted in Public Law 100-678.
I am requesting a clarification from you as to whether or not you consider it NIST's responsibility
to include, in the implementation plan for Public Law 1041.13, a requirement that Federal agencies
and departments participate in the development process,of the model building codes and the adoption
of these model codes when such participation is in the public interest and is compatible with agency
or departmental missions,authorities, priorities and budget resources. It is our belief that this action
is part of MST's responsibility, and consistent with Public Law 100-678. Therefore we urge that the
implementation plan for Public Law 104-113 include the use, by federal agencies and departments,
of the model construction codes produced by the Members of CABO.
I look forward to hearing from you concerning this request. Please contact me if you have any
questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely, / n
Richard P. Kuchnicla
Chief Executive Officer
RPK/lvm
c: Gerard GarofaJow, CABO President
Paul Heilstedt, BOCA CEO
Jon Traw, ICBO President
William Tangye, SBCCI CEO
02
��a� 10. 8
,f�
r c \ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
0 • rZII • National Institute of Standards and Technology
Cr1 g 1996 P Gaithersburg. Maryland 20899-0001
October 11, 1996
Mr. Richard P. Kuchnicki
Chief Executive Officer
Council of American Building Officials
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041
Dear Dick: -
It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk to you the other evening. As I mentioned
during our phone conversation, NIST transmitted the Implementation Plan for PL 104-113 to
Congress on June 7, 1996. A copy of that Plan is attached to this letter.
Although the Plan does not specifically task Federal Agencies with using specific voluntary
standards, it does ask them to develop strategic plans for their use. In that light your request k
in your letter of June 24, 1996, that Federal agencies begin to participate in the development and
use model building codes is most appropriate. I would greatly appreciate input from your
members on how we might begin to work more closely together and on the roles that Federal
agencies might play in the development and use of model building codes.
I look forward to meeting you here on October 22, 1996 to continue our discussion.
Sincerely,
`Belinda L. Collins, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Standards Services
Technology Services
cc: M. Rubin
03
NEST
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
PL 104- 113
March 7, 1996
Plan for Implementation
Congressional Action
On March 7, 1996, the President signed the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (PL 104-113) into law. The Act
directs NIST to coordinate with other federal government agencies
to achieve greater reliance on voluntary standards and conformity
assessment bodies with lessened dependence on in-house
regulations . The Act also tasks NIST with coordinating with
state and local agencies on standards matters, and gives NIST a
central role in coordinating conformity assessment activities
with government agencies and the private sector. Finally, the
Act requires NIST to report this plan to Congress by June 1996
for work with other government agencies and the private sector,
to build workable systems for standards and conformity assessment
that meet the needs of U.S. industry in a global market .
The specific provisions for standards-related activities
contained in the Act are the following:
1 o To compare standards used in scientific investigations,
engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and
educational institutions with the standards adopted or
recognized by the Federal Government and to coordinate the
use by Federal agencies of private sector standards,
emphasizing where possible the use of standards developed by
private, consensus organizations;'
o NIST will - coordinate Federal, State, and local technical
standards activities and conformity assessment activities,
with private sector technical standards activities and
conformity assessment activities, with the goal of
eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in the
development and promulgation of conformity assessment
requirements and measures;
o NIST will - transmit a Plan to Congress for implementing the
amendments by June 7, 1996 ; and
1 Italics indicate wording directly quoted from the
Act or from the National Research Council Report .
Full citations for each are given in the
References .
1
04
o Use of Consensus Technical Standards means :
All Federal agencies and departments shall use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such
technical standards as a means to carry out policy
objectives or activities determined by the agencies and
deparbnen ts;
Federal agencies and departments shall consult with
voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies
and shall, when such participation is in the public
interest and is compatible with agency and departmental
missions, authorities, priorities, and budget
resources, participate with such bodies in the
development of technical standards;
Exception - If compliance is inconsistent with
applicable law or otherw:'.se impractical, a Federal
agency or department may elect to use technical
standards that are not developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies if the head of
each such agency or department transmits to the Office
of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons
for using such standards. Each year, beginning with
fiscal year 1997, the Office of Management and Budget 4
shall transmit to Congress and its committees a report
summarizing all explanations received in the preceding
year under this paragraph;
"Technical standards" means performance-based or
design-specific technical specifications and related
management systems practices.
Background
As the United States increases its participation in the global
trading market, it is faced with a series of problems with its
lack of an agreed-upon infrastructure for standards and
conformity assessment . These problems arise because the systems
in the United States for standards and conformity activities are
decentralized, often competitive, with a mixture of public and
private participants . In contrast, the European Union (EU) has
been most active in building an agreed-upon technical
infrastructure among its members, but usually without considering
input from the rest of the world. The United States, however,
has adhered to pluralistic and uncoordinated systems for our
various standards- and conformity assessment-related activities .
While this approach may work domestically, it significantly
hampers the United States internationally. Furthermore, the
international and domestic costs of the various disjointed
conformity assessment activities are extremely high, with both
2
0
government and industry faced with multiple, duplicate
assessment . These increase product cost,. waste time and staff
resources, and could be perceived by our trading partners as a
technical barrier to trade . There is a need for the various
entities, both government and private sector, to work together to
create and maintain sound technical arrangements for the United
States on whose structures and functions all members of the
public and private sectors agree.
The need for greater coordination among public and private
entities is echoed in the 1995 report by the National Research
Council (NRC) in its analysis of standards and conformity
assessment activities in the United States. That report made a
number of specific recommendations for improving the current
processes to support global trade. The report states the
following:
The United States is the most productive and competitive
nation in the world. . . Continued progress, however, is needed
if we are to move forward into the twenty-first century and
achieve higher levels of productivity and economic growth.
This progress will come, in part, through aggressive and
targeted efforts to remove the remaining costly,
inefficient, and unnecessary barriers to industrial
production embedded in the U.S. national standards and
conformity assessment system. (p. 1)
The NRC study analysis of standards and conformity assessment
activities in the United States concludes that particular
attention must be given to conformity assessment issues,
including product certification, laboratory accreditation, and
management system procedures. The report states:
The information and data presented here support the
conclusion that in most instances, the U.S. standards
development system serves the national interest well . There
is, however, evidence to indicate that our domestic policies
and procedures for assessing conformity of products and
processes to standards require urgent improvement. . . . This
should involve an integrated strategy by the U.S. government
to link standards, conformity assessment and trade. . . (p. 2)
The NRC report states that the United States must exercise
leadership internationally to achieve effective global commerce .
It states further that the United States should exercise
continued self-analysis to streamline its own system of standards
and conformity assessment .
A high-level focus by government and industry on standards
and conformity assessment policy is one way of reaching
these goals and promoting a more productive national
economy. (p . 1)
3
0R
The NRC report made ten specific recommendations for improving
the health of the domestic standards and conformity assessment
system, including a greater role for NIST in coordinating among
other federal agencies, state and local authorities, and the
private sector. The report recommended that NIST develop a
system for recognition of conformity assessment activities done
in the private sector, while working to phase out federally
operated programs. It also recommended that NIST serve as the
"lead U.S. agency for ensuring federal use of standards developed
by private, consensus organizations to meet regulatory and
procurement needs" (p. 3) - thereby endorsing some of the
principles contained in OMB Circular A-119 Federal Participation
in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards. The NRC
report concluded that : "Effective, long-term public-private
cooperation in developing and using standards requires a clear
division of responsibilities and effective information transfer
between government and industry. Improved institutional
mechanisms are needed to effect lasting change. " (p.3) Thus, the
requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 and the NRC report are generally consistent at
defining a need, and describing NIST' s role in meeting that need.
Implementing PL 104-113 - The National Technology Transfer and
Advancement: Act
Background `
With the passage of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Congress has directed NIST to take
responsibility to provide public sector leadership in standards
and conformity assessment and in working cooperatively with other
government agencies and the private sector to support the
creation and maintenance of a sound technical infrastructure for
the United States . NIST is in a unique position to provide
coordination and policy input for standards and conformity
assessment structures and activities in the United States and
lead the development of a realistic, workable technical
infrastructure to support the goal of an effective global market .
The present plan defines the tasks for meeting the new missions
for NIST prescribed by the Technology Transfer Act . These
include actions in both standards and conformity assessment, with
identification of and agreement on structures and functions by
both public and private sectors.
To meet the goals of the Act and the challenge of the global
market, the United States must develop and implement a
functioning internal network of competent, nationally recognized
bodies (in both the private and public sectors) for standards and
conformity assessment, with meaningful processes to ensure and/or
recognize the competence of these bodies . While the United
States has effectively built some elements of this world-wide
infrastructure, such as fundamental standards and network of
4
07
inquiry points, much work remains to be done in other areas . A
U.S. system of agreed-upon standards and procedures must be
implemented for each of the key infrastructural elements :
voluntary standards;
- product certification;
- accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories;
registration of quality and environmental management
systems; and
- formal recognition procedures for private sector bodies
to support global trade.
At the same time, the U.S. procedures and systems must mesh with
those being developed internationally, making our participation
in the development of international standards and guidelines
critical. The national goal must be to work with both public and
private sector organizations to realize a viable standards and
conformity infrastructure in the United States - led by the
private sector, with active support and participation by the
government .
Standards Activities
To support a workable U.S. system of written, voluntary
standards, NIST must provide the public sector leadership needed
to make our distributed system of standards and conformity
assessment practices support our goals for world trade and
outreach to developing markets. To achieve this goal, NIST will
work closely with the principal standards organizations,
including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) , to
assist in the coordination of public policy and trade objectives
for standards . NIST will work with other federal agencies
through the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP) to
develop and implement consistent federal policies for use of
voluntary standards . NIST and the ICSP will develop mechanisms
for working with state and local governments to coordinate and
facilitate their participation in the standards arena, through
liaison with the National Governors Association and other
coordinating bodies.
The Federal Government currently takes part in the U. S. voluntary
standards process as a purchaser, participant in standards
development, provider of technical input and advice, trade
promoter, and partner with the private sector. The government
also issues regulations which can complement, override, supersede
or conflict wjth standards activities in the private sector. The
October 1993 revision of OMB Circular A-119, and the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (PL 104-113) , both
strongly encourage agencies to increase their reliance on
voluntary standards, particularly those that are internationally
accepted.
5
08
Implementation Mechanisms
The following sections present specific procedures for
implementing the Act . These require active cooperation among
NIST, OMB and other federal agencies . This cooperation will
occur under the umbrella of the :[CSP, and will require
participation by all members. In many instances, NIST' s
responsibility is that of leadership and guidance as agencies
develop and implement policies and procedures for using voluntary
standards and participating in the process . In some instances,
NIST has been identified as the responsible agency for carrying
out the particular task. While resources are not addressed
explicitly in this Plan, its complete implementation would
require more resources than NIST has available for this task.
Thus, the plan identifies the unique, high-priority items that
NIST must and will do. The remaining tasks are identified to
provide guidance for other government agencies and the private
sector.
Comparison. of Standards
Working closely with OMB and ICSP member agencies, NIST will
develop a plan for comparing the content of proposed new federal
standards with that of existing voluntary standards for
implementation in FY 1997. Under this approach, each agency will
3 review relevant standards for possible use when new federal
standards are planned. Reporting requirements to OMB under
Circular A-119 have already required identification of all
voluntary standards used to replace agency standards . This
information is contained in previous NIST reports to OMB and will
be included in any future summaries. The use of information
technology resources, such as the World Wide Web, will be
encouraged to make the information as widely available as
possible. In addition, NIST will enter information from previous
reports into a publicly available database that cross-references
agency documents with private sector documents . This activity
will be carried out in conjunction with the activities identified
in the following section.
Coordination with Federal Agenciee
The current Plan calls for the ICSP, originally set up under the
chairmanship of NIST for the Department of Commerce, to
coordinate standards policy and issues across federal agencies,
to serve as the implementing mechanism for the Act . KIST will
strengthen the ICSP role as a coordinating body of federal
agencies for developing effective standards-related policies,
monitoring use of voluntary standards and procedures , and
coordinating efforts of federal agencies . Essential to the
implementation of the Plan is ICSP encouragement of each agency
to develop and implement a standards policy that relates use of
voluntary standards to overall agency objectives, plus a
5
09
strategic plan that sets priorities and outlines how voluntary
standards will be integrated into agency programs . Strategies
will differ among agencies for regulatory, procurement and trade
purposes, with some competing interests that must be reconciled.
Working with the ICSP, NIST will provide guidance to assist
agencies in developing their strategic standards plans .
Working through the ICSP in coordination with OMB, NIST will
develop mechanisms to collate inputs from other agencies on their
participation in private sector standardization activities and
reliance on private sector conformity assessment mechanisms .
NIST will work with OMB to revise OMB Circular A-119 to document
NIST' s new responsibilities for conformity assessment, and
suggest mechanisms for greater coordination on standards
policies. In addition, NIST will request input from other
agencies on their use of voluntary standards to replace or
supplement agency regulations; their relationships with the
private, voluntary standards community; and any policy changes
required to implement the Act. The ICSP and its member agencies
must develop a standards-based culture within each agency with
supporting strategic plans. They must also develop strategies
for addressing cross-cutting issues. Specific steps are outlined
below, with references to activities that should be led by the
ICSP, individual agencies, or the private sector. The specific
activities are identified, along with the responsible agency.
NIST is responsible for overall leadership and guidance but
cannot accomplish all the necessary tasks without the active
cooperation of other federal agencies.
Specific Actions
The following actions are to be carried out by NIST in
cooperation with OMB and the member agencies of the ICSP.
o OMB, with advice and consultation with NIST, will revise OMB
Circular A-119 to implement the Technology Transfer Act .
The revised circular will require all federal agencies to
report annually to OMB through NIST on their use and non-use
of private sector voluntary standards in lieu of originating
new or revising old regulations . It will also direct
agencies to work with NIST with the goal of accepting the
conformity assessment results from any U.S. conformity
assessment body recognized and listed by NIST.
o NIST, with the assistance of OMB, will conduct a meeting for
key agency managers responsible for standards activities on
the effective use of voluntary standards in Federal programs
and solicit their cooperation in. directing their own
agencies to develop strategic standards management plans _
o NIST will prepare a summary repert to be submitted through
OMB to Congress based on agency submissions regarding use of
7
ID
private sector standards and conformity assessment
mechanisms . NIST will also prepare a similar report on the
participation by agency staff in private sector standards
activities .
The following actions will be carried out by other agencies
through the ICSP with leadership and guidance from NIST. NISI is
responsible for monitoring, but not directing, their efforts .
o The ICSP and NIST will consult with other agencies as they
develop strategic plans for effective use of voluntary
standards. The ICSP and NIST, working with other agencies,
will also examine relevant voluntary standards, gap
analyses, representational issues, regulatory agency
participation in voluntary standards bodies, updating
references to standards, coordinating agency positions
(within and among agencies) Eor particular standards,
copyright and licensing issues, industry interaction (FACA
issues) , financial resources , and implementation of agency-
wide strategic standards policies and procedures .
o In conjunction with the ICSP and consistent with resources,
an economic analysis of costs and benefits associated with
the use of voluntary standards to carry out agency missions,
including identification of resource benefits related to the
"1 use of voluntary standards in specific regulatory
J appli_ations, should be initiated by the appropriate
agencies .
o Through the ICSP, agencies must examine the process for
referencing voluntary standards and provide recommendations.
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, agencies seeking to
reference voluntary standards as part of mandatory
requirements must go through formal rule-making procedures
to adopt new standards and cite newer versions of standards
already referenced in agency regulations. The ICSP should
develop simplified procedures for adopting voluntary
standards as mandatory rules. At the same time, the cost of
standards compared with the "free" federal regulation must
also be examined. Under copyright laws, agencies can
reference private, voluntary standards in regulations, but
cannot reproduce the full text of those standards without
making prior arrangements with the copyright holder.
o Working through the ICSP and in consultation with. OMB, NIST
will establish mechanisms by which other federal agencies
provide periodic (annual) data on their . adoption of private
sector standards OR their reasons for developing
governmental standards rather than relying on voluntary
standards . NIST will summarize all material provided by
8
11
other agencies for input to the annual report to be
submitted by OMB to Congress.
o With technical assistance from other ICSP members and NIST,
each agency is expected to develop an internal process for
committing staff, including assessment of appropriate
financial support, and monitoring their participation, and
for ensuring adequate preparation and coordination. of
positions within and between agencies prior to meetings .
Failure to do this can result in duplication of effort and
missed opportunities, or even conflicts particularly when
there is multiple representation. The ICSP and agencies
must strengthen policy that supports the legitimacy and
desirability of participation in voluntary standards
activities .
o Each agency must define its own position on representational
issues -- as technical or policy input . The conditions under
which individual staff members participate in individual
activities should be made clear to agency staff and the
relevant standards organization.. Agencies must also examine
their legal requirements and determine any legislative and
policy changes required to increase the use of voluntary
standards. The ICSP should provide any recommendations for
change to OMB.
States and Local Authorities
NIST will schedule and conduct works'nops on standards and
conformity assessment policy with state and local groups (e .g. ,
National Governors' Association) to enlist their support and
cooperation. To support these activities, NIST will work with
ANSI to provide standards-related information through the
National Standards System Network (NSSN) and other electronic or
paper communications .
Specific Actions
The following activities are to be carried out by NIST. Complete
reporting on state and local use of voluntary standards may
require additional resources at NIST.
o MIST will work with state and local agencies to identify and
develop procedures for implementing standards and
conformity assessment activities through such associations
as the National Governors' Association and other
associations of state officials . State and local use of
voluntary standards should be documented in summary form.
o NIST will invite representatives from the National
Governors' Association and other relevant coordinating
bodies to meet with the ICSP and develop mechanisms for
9
12
•
coordinating state standards and conformity assessment
activities with the federal government .
o NIST will work with representatives of the various model
building code and other state and local organizations to
develop common policy for conformity assessment issues .
o NIST will also coordinate with EPA and the National
Environmental Accreditation Conference (NELAC) on
environmental accreditation issues and programs involving
the states .
ANSI and Standards Developers
Working under the ANSI-NIST MOU (signed July 24, 1995) and through
direct contact with major standards developers, NIST will identify
issues associated with federal participation in the voluntary
standards process, both domestic and international. NIST will work
to overcome identified obstacles and encourage wider government
support .
On the international level, the U.S. must work toward harmonizing,
or recognizing as equivalent, standards throughout the world,
relying on ANSI as the U.S. member body to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) and U.S. member body,
through the U. S . National Committee, to the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) . At the same time, NIST and \ ,
other .federal agencies must identify globally accepted U.S.
developed standards (e.g. , the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) Life. Safety Code, the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Boiler/Pressure Code, and similar standards
developed by ASTM (formerly the American Society of Testing and
Materials) , Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) , Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) , and other multi-
national standards and professional bodies) .
Specific Actions
The following activities are to be carried out by NISI.
o NISI will work with ANSI and the standards development
organizations (SDOs) to address federal agency concerns about
the proliferation and overlap of standards activities, as well
as the speed of standards development .
o NIST will work with ANSI and the SDOs to develop licensing
policies - that would encourage government use of voluntary
standards in regulation and procurement .
o NIST w:Lll work with ANSI and the SDOs to provide timely
notification to relevant federal agencies of proposed new
10
13
standards and solicit input on desired activities to assist
agencies.
The following activities are to be carried out by NISI in
conjunction with the ICSP and representatives of the private,
voluntary standards system, including, but not limited to, ANSI.
o NISI and the ICSP will develop mechanisms for coordinating
with the private sector, including ANSI, to stimulate more
effective interaction with ISO and IBC.
o NISI and the ICSP will convene a public forum to discuss the
issue of international standards and U.S. interests .
Conformity Assessment
The activities which are commonly termed "conformity assessment"
include product certification, accreditation of testing and
calibration laboratories, and management system registration (for
both quality and environment) . Each activity occurs in all
sectors of the standards system - including both government and
private entities. The overall U.S. goal is to coordinate among
all affected parties and develop national strategies for
implementing integrated systems for conformity assessment . Such
systems will provide national representation, and allow
recognition of U.S_ systems for international standards and
trade .
Specific Activities
o To support understanding of general conformity assessment
issues, NISI will undertake an economic analysis of the
costs of duplication in conformity assessment to governments
at all levels as well as to U.S . industry.
o The analysis will also include a policy analysis of the
potential barriers to trade, both domestic and
international, of the duplicate efforts in conformity
assessment .
11
14
Product Certification •
Most federal agencies have been r=_latively content to leave
product certification, per se, to the private sector, relying on
quality systems and direct procurement to obtain the products
that they desire. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, however, operates the National Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) Program which recognizes the competence of
laboratories, known as NRTL' s, to test products for electrical
and workplace safety. The ICSP should address domestic and
international recognition of product certification efforts,
including support for the EU/MRA negotiations and coordination of
relevant federal procedures. NIST will continue to provide
listings of various programs, information about specific
activities , and operation of the rational Voluntary Conformity
Assessment System Evaluation (NVCASE) . Under NVCASE, NIST
assesses the competence of U. S . conformity assessment bodies to
meet foreign government regulations . NIST plans to continue the
NVCASE program, assist other federal agencies in using private
sector programs, and work with others in building networks of
product certification entities .
Specific Activities
NIST has responsibility for the following activities.
o Work with OSHA to ensure domestic and international
acceptance of the NRTL program.
o Work with private sector certification bodies to obtain
their international recognition.
Laboratory Accreditation
A key goal for national laboratory accreditation efforts is the
development of a workable U.S . system of laboratory accreditation
with a recognized body that is empowered to sign MOUE for
formalizing relationships with European cooperation for
Accreditation of Laboratories (FAT ) , Asia Pacific Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) and other regional bodies .
Under the implementation of the Act., a primary focus for
laboratory accreditation activities includes strong efforts to
establish a national infrastructure: for laboratory accreditation
through the successor to the Laboratory Accreditation Working
Group (LAWG) ; coordination with other organizations such as the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
(NELAC) , National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) ,
National Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL) , and
International Congress of Building Officials Evaluation Service
(ICBO ES) ; and development of domestic and international
recognition systems for domestic laboratory accreditation
programs .
12
15
Specific Act.:vities
•
NISI has responsibility for these activities.
o In collaboration with ANSI and ACIL (formerly the
American Council of Independent Laboratories) as
principal representatives of the private sector, and
with federal regulatory agencies, NIST will work with
LANG to develop and implement a plan for coordinating
activities in laboratory accreditation in the United
States . This includes concluding an agreement to
proceed with a public/private U.S. organization for
laboratory accreditation in 1996, including development
of a constitution and procedures with support from
federal and state agencies, and linkages with
international bodies. This organization will be
designed to specify the requirements for a body to
qualify as a recognized or accredited conformity
assessment entity, founded on the principles of
accepted international standards and guidelines,
openness, transparency, and balance of interests . The
plan for operation will be presented in a Federal
Register notice and open Symposium in 1996, with the
body beginning operation in 1997 .
• o The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NVLAP) will continue to accredit calibration
laboratories to ensure the necessary traceability to
national standards. NVLAP will continue to accredit
testing Laboratories as mandated by Congress or as
requested by other federal agencies, but will plan for
possible transitional roles in the future.
Management System Standards
The federal government must continue to provide technical and
policy support for the development and implementation of
management system standards such as the ISO 9000 standards series
for Quality Management Systems (QMS) , and the ISO 14000 standards
series for Environmental Management System (EMS) as well as
tracking the development of similar standards, such as those
proposed for occupational health and safety; working with the
private sector registration bodies for both QMS and EMS to ensure
that federal viewpoints are represented and that their efforts
are accepted internationally; and working with other federal
agencies to achieve consistent federal use of quality and.
environmental management systems such as the Government &
Industry Quality Liaison Panel (GIQLP) . The ICSP will also
foster the activities of the GIQLP, as it works to implement a
government-wide system for ensuring q-.zality in procurement .
Specific Activities
13
16
The following actions will be carried out by other agencies
through the ICSP with leadership and guidance trom NIST. NIST is
responsible for monitoring, but not directing, their efforts.
o Federal agencies will continue to work through the
Government & Industry Quality Liaison Panel to ensure the
use of one quality system per supplier in the federal
procurement process. The ICSP will work to expand this
policy throughout the Federal. Government.
o NIST and other federal agencies will work together to
develop recognition plans for the competence of private
sector QMS and EMS suppliers, so that they can be officially
recognized for trade purposes.
Recognition of Conformity Assessment
The NRC report emphasized the importance of the federal
government in recognizing private sector conformity assessment
activities : "NIST should develop and implement a National
Conformity Assessment System Recognition (NCSR) Program. This
program should recognize accreditors of (a) testing laboratories;
(b) product certifiers, and ® quality system registrars. By the
year 2000, the government should rely on private sector
conformity assessment services recognized as competent by NIST. "
3 (p. 3)
Making .a recognition program a reality requires that various
federal agencies agree on means to ensure the competence of an
outside body. Clearly, the ICSP should focus on criteria for the
development and implementation of governmental recognition
systems to meet the requirements that other nations and. regional
groups impose for market access for products. NIST, the ICSP,
and the private sector will work to develop procedures to
facilitate the goal of one product, one standard, one test with
worldwide accept'nce.
The NIST NVCASE recognition of U.S. conformity assessment
activities is one way of providing recognition for products
regulated by foreign governments. Additional consideration
should be given to NIST' s role as an objective, neutral
"recognizer" for domestic activities - and means for working with
other federal agencies to ensure that accreditations,
certifications, or registrations accepted by one will be
acceptable to another.
14 17
Specific Activities
NIST has responsibility for the following activities.
o NIST will continue the NVCASE program for the
recognition of qualified accreditors where such
recognition is required for acceptance of U.S .
conformity assessment results by foreign governments,
as well as recognition (under the Act) for domestic and
foreign accreditation bodies responsible for fastener
testing.
The following actions are to be carried out by MIST in
cooperation with the member agencies of the ICSP and with the
appropriate private entities.
o NIST, along with the ICSP, will consider expanding the
NVCASE concept to provide for domestic recognition of
qualified conformity assessment organizations in the
United States as recommended by the NRC Report on
Standards, Conformity Assessment and Trade for the 21st
Century. This recognition will also meet requirements
imposed by foreign governments.
o NIST will work with both public and private sector
' N entities to consider the viability of a national
conformity assessment body. If developed, such a body
should maintain a widely available register (NSSN,
Internet, and hard copy) of all recognized conformity
assessment entities for use by public and private
sector organizations requiring accreditation of
laboratories or other forms of conformity assessment .
Conclusions
As NIST implements the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (PL 104-113) , we will pursue the tasks outlined
in this plan and coordinate with other federal government
agencies to achieve greater reliance on voluntary standards and
conformity assessment bodies and lessened dependence on in-house
regulations. We will also coordinate our activities with ANSI,
SDOs and state and local agencies on standards matters . The Act
gives NIST a central coordinating role with government agencies
and the private sector to build workable systems for standards
and conformity assessment that will meet the needs of U.S .
industry in a global market . NIST believes that the Act provides
the mechanisms for achieving the goals outlined in the NRC
report, including the following:
Significant improvement is needed in the U.S. system for
assessing conformity of products and processes to standards.
Our system has become increasingly complex, costly, and
15
18
_. - _ _.
burdensome to national welfare. This is reflected in
unnecessary duplication and unwarranted layers of
complexity at the federal, state, and local levels.
Manufacturers are increasing forced to perform redundant
tests and obtain repetitive certifications for products sold
in different parts of the country. Testing laboratories pay
unnecessary fees and undergo duplicative audits to
demonstrate their competence to multiple federal, state, and
local authorities. The result is higher costs for U. S.
manufacturers, public procurement agencies, testing
laboratories, product certifiers, and consumers. (p . 154)
The report recommends that Federal agencies maintain oversight
responsibility for conformity assessment, and increase
recognition efforts. NIST is continuing efforts to develop a
national system for laboratory accreditation, as presented at the
Open Forum on Laboratory Accreditation held at NIST on
October 13 , 1995 . Working with all stakeholders in laboratory
• accreditation, we are developing plans for a more effective
system for the United States . Similar efforts will be pursued in
all areas of conformity assessment, as the Act states .
Finally, NIST will continue to emphasize efforts to make the
Interagency Committee on Standards Policy a viable and effective
forum for coordinating federal efforts in both standards and
conformity assessment, and for encouraging and documenting agency
use of private sector voluntary standards . NIST will also work
vigorously with the states and localities in standards and
conformity assessment activities to achieve the goal of a
national system or systems that will be recognized and accepted
world-wide . These efforts will require active cooperation among
federal, state and local governments with the private sector - to
build systems to meet the goals of the Act and support U. S. trade
while maintaining our high standards of safety, health and the
protection of the environment .
References
National Research Council. Standards, Conformity Assessment and
Trade into the 21st Century. Washington, D.C. , National Academy
Press, 1995 .
Public Law 104-113 (104th Congress) . National Technolo-y
Transfer and. Advancement Act of 1995 . 15 USC 3701 . Washington,
D.C. Signed by the President, March 7, 1996 .
16
19
http://thomas.loc.gov/c. . .2196)++@1 (H.+R.+2196)++ http: //thomas.loc.gov/cg. . .+2196)++@1(H.+R.+2196)++
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search
Prev Hit Back Prey Document HomePage
Hit List Best. Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND ADVANCEAENT ACT OF 1995 (House of
Representatives-December 12, 1995)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield., he is correct. We used voluntary consensus
standards in the same manner that it would be used in the engineering and standards communities when
they talk about technical, mechanical, or engineering standards. The private sector consensus standards
bodies covered by the act are engineering societies and trade associations as well as organizations whose
primary purpose is development or promotion of standards. The standards they develop are the common
language of measurement, used to promote interoperability and ease of communications in commerce.
We meant to cover only those standards which are developed through an open process in which all
parties and experts have ample opportunity to participate in developing the consensus embodied in that
standard. Our use of the term'private sector' is meant to indicate that these standards are developed by
umbrella organizations located in the private sector rather than to preclude government involvement in
standards development. In fact, it is my hope that this section will help convince the Federal. Government
to participate more fully:in these organizations' standards developing activities to increase the likelihood
that the standards can meet public sector as well as private sector needs.
Mr. BROWN of California. I would assume from your comments that you would expect a rule of reason
to prevail in the implementation of this section and that new bureaucratic procedures would be
inconsistent with the intent of this section.
Mrs. MORELLA. If the gentleman would yield further, that was our intent in beginning the section with
the words 'To the extent practicable'. For instance, we would expect Government procurements of
off-the-shelf commercial products or commodities to be exempted by regulation from any review under
the act. We also do not intend through this section to limit the right of the Government to write
specifications for what it needs to purchase. Our focus instead is on making sure the Federal Government
does not reinvent the wheel. We are merely asking Federal agencies to make all reasonable efforts to use
voluntary, private sector, consensus standards unless there is a significant reason not to do so when
developing regulations or describing systems, equipment, components, commodities, and other items for
procurement. We expect Government specifications to use the private sector's standards language rather
than unique government standards whenever practicable to do so. However, as under OMB Circular
A-119, agencies would still have broad discretion to decline to use a voluntary standard if the agency
formally determined that the standard was inadequate for government, did not meet statutory criteria, or
was otherwise inappropriate.
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentlewoman for her clarification. I agree with the gentlewoman
and thank her for her explanations. I hope that they will assist in the interpretation of the meaning of the
language of the bill.
[TIME: 1830]
20
of 2 06/03/96 13:32:32
http://thomas.loc.gov/c. . .2196)++@1(H.+R.+2196)++ http: //thomas.loc.gov/cg. . .+219E;)++@1 (H.+R.+2196)++
Playing an important role in maintaining a future competitive edge is the ability to develop standards
which match the speed of the rapidly changing technology of the marketplace.
The key challenge is to update domestic standards activities, in light of increased internationalization of
commerce, and to reduce duplication and waste by effectively integrating the Federal Government and
private sector resources in the voluntary consensus standards system, while protecting its industry-driven
nature and the public good.
Better coordination of Federal standards activities is clearly crucial to this effort. These issues were raised
by the National Research Council (NRC) in its March 1995, report entitled, 'Standards, Conformity
Assessment, and Trade in the 21st Century.'
We have adopted some of the recommendations in the NRC report clarifying MST's lead role in the
implementation of a government-wide policy of phasing out the use of federally-developed standards,
wherever possible, in favor of standards developed by private sector, consensus standards organizations.
We also adopted the recommendation to codify the present requirements of OMB Circular A-119, which
requires agencies, through OMB, to report annually to Congress on the reasons for deviating from
voluntary consensus standards, when the head of the agency deems that prospective consensus standards
are not appropriate to the agency needs.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding so that I could put into the Record and explain the
benefits of the statements that he made with regard to standards.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Page: H14333]
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search
Prey Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents [Part] Content:: CR Issues by Date
21
2 o£ 2 06/03/96 13:29:18
http://thomas.loc.gov/c. . .2196)++@1 (H.+R.+2196)++ http://thomas.loc.gov/cg. . .+2196)++@1(H.+R.+2196)++
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search
Prey Hit Back Prey Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1995 (Senate-February 07, 1996)
ADDITIONAL PERFECTING AMENDMENTS
Mr. President, conversations with interested Senators have led me, after consultation with Chairman
Bums, to offer six other small perfecting amendments that clarify key provisions of the bill. I want to
mention them briefly, as well as thank the relevant Senators for working with us on these issues.
First, as discussed earlier,we propose to clarify that the field of use for which a collaborating party may
get an exclusive license is a pre-negotiated field of use. That is, the company alone does not pick the field
of use. Like other provisions of CRADA, the field or fields of use for which a license applies is the result
of negotiations between the company
and the laboratory. This has been the intent all along of both the Senate and House sponsors of this
legislation, as reflected in both House and Senate report language. However, Senator Domenici has
asked that we make this point explicit in the bill language itself; and I am happy to do so.
Second, as also discussed earlier, we want to make clear that an Agency will exercise its rights under the
bill to require the holder of an exclusive technology to share that technology only in exceptional
circumstances. Senators Bingaman and Domenici have requested this clarification, and I am pleased to
do so because this has been our intent all along. We know that there may be some exceptional, and very
rare, circumstances under which the holder of an exclusive license is not willing or able to use an
important technology or use it as provided in the original CRADA agreement. We feel strongly that the
Government must maintain some rights to deal with such a situation,but agree with our distinguished
colleagues that these rights should be exercised only under the most exceptional circumstances. We do
not want prospective CRADA participants to feel that the Government will exercise these rights on a
routine or arbitrary basis.
Third, Senator Johnston has asked that a provision from other Federal patent law—the Bayh-Dole
Act—be added to our bill's section regarding the exceptional circumstances under which the Government
may exercise its right to require a collaborating party, holding an exclusive license to an invention made in
whole or in part by a laboratory employee, to grant a license to a responsible applicant. That provision
from the Bayh-Dole is section 203(2) of title 35, United States Code, and as added here it would provide
a collaborating party under these exceptional circumstances a right to an administrative appeal, as
described under 37 CFR part 401, and to judicial review. In short, if the Government determines that it
has grounds to force a collaborating party to grant a license to additional party, according to the criteria
set forth in the bill, then that collaborating party will have a right of due process and appeal.
Fourth, Senator Glenn, in his capacity as ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
22
1 of 2 06/03/96 13:53:29
http://thomas.loc.gov/c. . .21:)6)++@1(H.+R.+2196)++ http://thomas.loc.gov/cg. . .+2196;++@1 (H.+R.+2196)++
should presume that a new private group could use section 12(d) to dictate regulations to Federal
agencies. The amended version of this subsection makes clear that agencies and departments use 'such
technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and
departments.'
Second, consensus standards are standards which are developed by voluntary, private sector, consensus
standards bodies. These organizations are established explicitly for the purpose of developing such
standards through a process having three characteristics—First, openness, defined as meaning that
participation in the standards development process shall be open to all persons who are directly and
materially affected by the activity in question; second, balance of interest, which means that the consensus
body responsible for the development of a standard shall be comprised of representatives of all categories
of interest that relate to the subject--for example, manufacturer, user, regulatory, insurance/inspection,
employee/union interest); and third, due process, which means a procedure by which any individual or
organization who believes that an action or inaction of a third party causes unreasonable hardship or
potential harm is provided the opportunity to have a fair hearing of their concerns. In short, a legitimate
consensus standards organization provides open process in which all parties and experts have ample
opportunity to participate in developing the consensus.
THIS SEARCH THIS Docasa21T THIS CH ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search
Prey Hit Back Prey Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
23
of 2 06/03/96 13:43:36
http://thomas.loc.gov/c. . .2196)++@1 (H.+R.+2196)++ http://thomas.loc.gov/cg. . .+2196)++@1(H.+R.+2196)++
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search
Prev Hit Back Prey Document HomePage
Hit List Best. Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1995 (Senate -February 07, 1996)
OTHER PROVISIONS IN H.R. 2196
Finally, the House version of the legislation also contains a set of nonspending amendments regarding
NIST operations and voluntary industry standards. While these amendments are not currently in S. 1164,
they did not lead to any controversy on the House floor.
One such provision, section 9, is intended to make it easier for Federal laboratories to loan, lease, or
donate excess research equipment to educational institutions and nonprofit organizations. As I will
explain shortly, I will shortly propose a perfecting amendment and colloquy pertaining to section 9.
Another provision, section 12(d), would codify an existing Office of Management and Budget circular,
OMB Circular A-119. Following the OMB circular, the amendment directs Federal agencies to use, to
the extent not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards organizations. We believe this step will reduce
costs for both government and the private sector. For example, if off-the-shelf products meeting a
voluntary consensus standards can, in the judgment of an Agency, meet its procurement requirements,
then the Agency saves money over buying products built to special government specifications and
commercial industry benefits from increased sales to the Government.
I will shortly discuss the several perfecting amendments that we are now offering to this bill, but here I
want to mention that one of these amendments clarifies the intent and scope of section 12(d). We have
worked closely with Senators Baucus and Johnston, and their staffs, on this rewrite. And here, based on
our discussions with these offices, I want to emphasize five key points about the intent and effect of this
provision, as amended, in order to deal with concerns that have been raised.
First, we are talking here about technical standards pertaining to products and processes, such as the size,
strength, or technical performance of a product, process, or material. The amended version of section
12(d) explicitly defines the term 'technical standards' as meaning performance-based or design-specific
technical specifications and related management systems practices. An example of a management system
practice standard is the ISO 9000 series of standards specifying procedures for maintaining quality
assurance in manufacturing.
In this subsection, we are emphatically not talking about requiring or encouraging any agency to follow
private sector attempts to set regulatory standards or requirements. For example, we do not intend for the
Government to have to follow any attempts by private standards bodies to set specific
environmental regulations. Regular consensus standards bodies do not do that, in any case. But no one
2 4
1 of 2 06/03/96 13:43:33
http://thomas.loc.gov/c. . .2196)++@1 (H.+R.+2196)++ http://thomas.loc.gov/cg. . .+2196)++@1(H.+R.+2196)++
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the gentleman from Tennessee, I would like to make a. few
concluding remarks with regard to my general support of the legislation.
I do rise in support of H.R. 2196, the Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, a bill which
does make significant incremental steps in the proper direction in Federal technology and laboratory
policies. Previous speakers have indicated the importance of the Federal laboratories as a part of the
Nation's scientific and technological infrastructure, and I would like to reinforce those statements in every
way that I can.
I would like to also mention again, because the gentlewoman from Maryland has already mentioned it,
that there is nothing in this bill more important than the provision which makes the personnel system at
the National Institutes of Standards and Technology permanent. A decade has now passed since the
Packard committee recommendations on civil service reform for scientists and engineers were presented
to the Congress. This is a report worth dusting off and reading anew.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search
Prey Hit Back Prey Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
25
2 of 2 06/03/96 13:32:35
`, *,� /
EWSLETTE
Council of American Building Officials-The Council of American Building Officials is dedicated to the public's health,safety,
and related societal needs,in the built environment through the development and use of consensus based regulatory documents,
enhancement of professionalism in code administration,and facilitating acceptance of innovative building products and systems.
News and Views from the Code Enforcement Profession
Federal Agencies Should Use Model
Code Change Consensus Processes
s the model code development further requires NIST to develop a plan to
Contents: system in the United States implement this requirement. (See The
undergoes transformation into CABO Newsletter,April [996.)
Federal Agencies Should Use i a single set of code documents,
Model Code Change the building industry is asking questions However, Public Law 100-678
Consensus Processes..- Page I about the consensus process used to (enacted by Congress in 1988)also
Homeownership Summitdevelop and maintain the International requires federal construction co comply
Celebrates National Codes. Questions arc also being asked with a nationally recognized model
Parmership... Page? about how this consensus process will be building code.These model building
coordinated with federal government codes,which are also developed under a
Task Force Harmonizes ANSI
A117 and ADAAG agencies in light of the National Perfor- consensus process in setting forth compre-
mance Review which is examining the hensive regulations for all aspects of
Amendment Proposes basic mission of government to find and building construction, reference hundreds
Manufactured Housing eliminate things that need of consensus standards that are
Consensus Committee Page nor be done by the federal T.,,, _ promulgated by a variety of
CABOIaunda Web Sic... Page g
overnment. r HBO authoritative sources.
ADAAG Review Booth Federal Use of Codes and ' entouages andr .t There is, therefore,a
Receives HammaAward... Page 5 Standards supports the need for NIST CO correlate their
development
Congressional Updarr... Page 5 President implementation plan for PL.
Clinton recently signed and 104-113 with PL. 100-678.
ANSI Rules in A40 Uniform maintenance of
Public Law 104-113
Plumbing rode;Appeal... Page 6 which requires that all codes and Open Consensus Process
Manufaaured Housing federal agencies and standards For more than 50 years,
Srandard Public Review Draft departments use technical through the all three model code organiza-
Available... Page6 standards that are private sector dons have promulgated model
developed consensus
CalendaroFUpcode documents using an o en
w Pd or adopted b
mingG4BOy process. P
Events... Page 6 voluntary consensus consensus proons.The Standard
standards bodies as a Codes,published by the
means of carrying out Southern Building Code
Volume 3 • Number 2 policy objectives or activities determined Congress International (S]3CCI), the
National Codes, published by the Building
by the agencies and departments.The law
August 1996
2 6 ... continued on Page 4
MEMBERS:
•Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. • Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.
•International Conference of Building Official;
(Continued From Page I)
Federal Agencies Should Use Model Code Change Consensus Processes
Officials and Code Administrators used in the past,with two important Several national consensus
International (BOCA),and the differences: procedures,such as those developed by
Uniform Codes,published by the the American National Standards
International Conference of Building 1. Hearings Institute (ANSI), require the member-
Officials (ICBO) form the basis for As with current procedures, ship of each standards committee to
most building codes in the U.S. an initial hearing will be conducted CO include balanced representation from
obtain a committee recommendation the industry. While the ICC code
All sectors of the building for each code change.The charge procedures may
community, including federal agencies second hearing,where the -lim_....!!!'gr'ra not be structured in
are provided every opportunity to membership votes co c q, ili : ,,„ this manner, the system
participate in this process. CABO and uphold or overturn the 74”....40930--Aiit: s" "" ''
P --believes"-3;.''''.':,..-,, includes the opportu-
its member organizations have, for recommendation,will be ';.there's a need nity for many to
many years,encouraged greater conducted during the for greater influence the content
participation by federal agencies in annual meetings of federal of the International
their respective code change processes BOCA, ICBO,and participation Building Code.
and have urged federal agencies to SBCCI.The result of each in the
adopt these model codes for regula- code change will be the consensus CABO Requests
tory purposes. cumulative totals of the process of the Clarification of NIST's
votes from each of the model code
Model Code Change Procedures organizations Role
g three meetings. and the ICC CABO encourages
BOCA,SBCCI,and ICBO process. and supports the
have utilized similar code change 2. Floor Votes development and
procedures co maintain their respec- During the initial maintenance of codes
rive codes.All three processes cur- hearing,anyone may and standards through
rendy include the following features: request a floor vote to immediately the private sector consensus process.
• Anyone can submit a code change. overturn a committee recommenda- CABO also believes :here is a need for
• Each annual code change cycle Lion.Anyone in attendance can make greater federal participation in the
includes two public hearings at a motion co overturn the committee's consensus process of the model code
which anyone can testify. recommendation,with a simple organizations and the ICC process.
•New codes are published following majority of those present (including Therefore, CABO has requested a
two to three annual cycles. industry) required to deny a change, clarification from NIST as co whether
• A code change committee issues or a2_/3 majority to approve a change. or not they consider it their responsi-
recommendations for each code bility to include in the implementation
change following the first public Industry Participation Iii plan for Public Law 104-113 a
hearing. As with any consensus requirement that federal agencies and
•The second public hearing provides process,all interested and affected departments participate in the develop-
the opportunity for the voting parties have the opportunity to ment process of the Model Building
members co overturn the influence the outcome of a proposed � Codes and the adoption of these Model
committee's recommendation. change.Although final voting is Codes when such participation is in the
limited co active members (state and public interest and is compatible with
ICC Code Change Procedures local code enforcement professionals) agency or departmental missions,
With the establishment of of each organization, testimony of the authorities, priorities and budget
the International Code Council in industry representatives is influential. resources. >
December 1994, a single set of code In addition co speaking at code change
documents, The International Codes, hearings, industry representatives can
will replace BOLA, ICBO,and participate as a voting member of an
SBCCI codes by the year 2000 (See ad hoc committee typically charged II,
The CABO Newsletter,April 1996.) with developing code language for a
The ICC is using a code change j specific technical issue.
process that includes many features
f l 2 '
CABO NEWSLETTER
4 Ai'or,cr 1QQh
New Law Encourages Use of Private Sector Standards
n March 7, 1996,President •Agencies and departments are CABO Supports Federal Use of
Clinton signed a bill directed to participate in the develop- Voluntary Standards
designed to facilitate the meet of these standards,as king as their CABO has always supported
development of new participation is in the public's best the Federal use of the voluntary
products and processes by the private interest and does not conflict with consensus standards process for
sector. HR 2196,which became Public other missions,authorities,or priorities. regulatory purposes. CABO President
Law 104-113,indudes langtage Lee Hauser states,"We in the code
encouraging federal agencies to use •If a standard is used that is not enforcement profession are responsible
private sector standards. developed by a consensus standards for enforcing regulations in our
body,an explanation of the reasons communities and states that protect the
The bill provides several must be submitted to the Office of health and safety of the building-using
amendments to the National Institute Management and Budget. public. We know that the private
of Standards and Technology Act[15 sector can efficiently produce effective
U.S.C.272(b)! related to federal use of • Federal,state,local and private sector building regulations through the model
prince sector consensus standards: conformity assessment activities must code system. There is little need for the
be coordinated with the goal of federal government to duplicate these
•To the extent practicable.Federal eliminating unnecessary dup.icrtion private-sector efforts,and even less need
agencies and departments must use and complexity in the development for it to attempt to enforce them."'a
standards that are developed or adopted and promulgation of conformity
by voluntary consensus stancards assessment requirements and measures. 3 C4B0 Newsletter,July 1995. page 3.
bodies for regulatory or procurement
purposes.
CABO NEWSLETTER
2 April, 1996
28
Procedures for ANSI A-40 Committee
Al. General (4) Maintain a roster of the committee and a list of
standards for which the committee is responsible
These procedures for an Accredited Standards Commit- (5) Provide a committee secretary to perform
tee meet the requirements for due process and develop- administrative work,including secretarial services;
ment of consensus for approval of American National meeting notices and arrangements;preparation and dis-
Standards as given in Section 1 of the ANSI Procedures tribution of meeting agendas,minutes,ballots,and
for the Development and Coordination of American draft standards;and maintenance of adequate records
National Standards. (6) Submit candidate standards approved by the
committee,with supporting documentation,for ANSI
review and approval as American National Standards
A2. Organization of the Committee (7) Publish or arrange with ANSI for publication of
its standards,revisions,and addenda(see 4.2)
The committee shall consist of its members and score- (8) Perform other administrative functions as re-
tariat. It shall have a title,scope,and an interest classi- quired by these procedures
fication system for its members.The membership shall (9) If composed of more than one organization
be sufficiently diverse to ensure reasonable balance with- (is-,co-secretariat),provide a written agreement de-
out dominance by a single interest category. fining explicit division of these responsibilities
A4. Officers
A3. Responsibilities There shall be two co-chairmen appointed by the
secretariat from the individual member or representa-
A3.1 Committee Membership.The committee shall be Lives of the committee subject to approval by majority
responsible for: vote of the committee. Each will serve until a suc-
(I) Developing proposed American National Stan- terror is selected and ready to serve. The secre-
dards within the scope of the committee Lariat shall designate the presiding co-chairman. The
(2) Voting on approval of proposed American Na-
tional Standards within its scope other co-chairman shall carry out the designated pre-
(3) Maintaining the standards developed by the siding co-chairman's duties if the designated pre-
committee up-to-date siding co-chairman is temporarily unable to do so.
(4) Adopting committee policy and procedures for The secretary shall be appointed by the secretariat.
interpretations of the standard(s)developed by the corn- AS. Membership
mittee (see All 3)
(5) Responding to requests for interpretations of Members cif the committee shall consist of orgardza-
the standard(s)developed by the committee(see A11.3) tions(preferably national in scope),companies.govern-
(6) Adopting committee procedures and revisions ment agendas,individuals,etc,having a direct and
thereof material interest in the activities of the committee.The
(7) Considering and acting on proposals for termi- addition or termination of members shall be subject to
nation of the committee (see Section A10) approval by vote of the committee after the applica-
(8) Other matters requiring committee action as tion has been processed in accordance with A5.I. or the
provided in these procedures membership reviewed in accordance with A5.2.
A3.2 Secretariat.The secretariat shall: • A5.1 Application.A request for membership shall be
(1) Organize the committee(see Section A2) addressed to the secretariat,shall indicate the appli-
(2) Apply for committee accreditation by ANSI and cant's direct and material interest in the committee's
maintain accreditation in accordance with ANSI require- work and qualifications and willingness to participate
ments,including submission of the committee roster actively,and.if the applicant is an organization„corn-
(3) Oversee the committee's compliance with these pany,or government agency,shall identify a represen-
procedures tative (and an alternate,if desired).
ENCLOSURE 2
' 01.
•
A5.1.I Recommendation. In recommending appro- accordance with the committee'sestablished categories.
priate action to the committee on applications for (See 1.2.2 and 1.2.3.)
membership,the secretariat shall consider the: The categories of interest shall be established or re-
(1) Need for active participation by each interest vised by a vote of the committee upon recommenda-
(2) Potential for dominance by a single interest lion by the secretariat. The rationale for the selection
category of categories shall be included in the committee ballot
(3) Extent of interest expressed by the applicant and submitted to ANSI as part of the accreditation
and the applicant's willingness to participate actively requirements.
(4) The representative identified by the applicant
organization, company-or government agency A5.5 Membership Roster.The secretariat shall main•
The secretariat may consider reasonable limits on rain a current and accurate committee roster and shall
committee size. distribute it to the members and their committee repre-
A5.I.2 Diverse Interests. If distinct divisions of an sentatives at least annually,and otherwise on request.
organization can demonstrate independent interests The roster shall include the following:
and authority to make independent decisions in the (1) Title of the committee and its designation
area of the activity of the committee,each may apply (2) Scope of the committee
for membership. For example.are division or operat- (3) Sec:retariat — name of organization,name of
ing company of a private corporation may show a pro- secretary,and address(es)
ducing or selling interest while another may show a (4) Officers— two co-chairmen
buyer/user interest:or a government agency may show (5) Members— name of organization or agency,its
a buyer/user interest in one department and a separate representative and alternate(as applicable),addresses,
regulatory concem in another department. and business affiliations;or name.address,and busi-
A5.1.3 Combined Interest.When appropriate,the ness affiliation of individual member(s)
secretariat may recommend that the applicant seek (6) Classification of each member
representation through an organization which is al- (7) Tally of classifications— total of voting
ready a member and represents the same or similar members and subtotals for each interest category
interest. (8) For each subgroup— title,chairman,and names
and addresses of all members
A5.2 Review of Membership.The secretariat shall re-
view the membership list annually with respect to the
criteria of Section A5.Members are expected to fulfill A6. Subpoups Created by the Committee
attendance,voting. correspondenm,and other obliga-
tions.Where a member is found in habitual default of
When one or more subgroups(subcommiucs,working
these obligations,the secretariat shall direct the matter
groups,technical subcommittees,writing groups.etc)
to the committee for appropriate action,which may in- are formed to expedite the work of the committee,
dude termination of membership.
their formation (and later disbandment)requires ap-
A5.3 Observers and individual Experts.Individuals proval by a majority vote of the committee and appro-
and organizations having an interest in the committee's priate public notice.The scope and duties delegated
work may request listing as observers.The committee to the subgroup shall be approved at the time it is
may also select individual experts to assist it. Individual formed,and subsequent changes in scope or dunes
shall also require approval.The charge to the subgroup
experts shall serve for a renewable term of one year
and shall be subject to approval by vote of the commit- shall clearly state whether:
tee upon recommendation by the chairman and the (I 1 The subgroup is responsible for the definitive
•
secretariat. Observers and individual experts shall be content of one or more standards and for responding
advised of the committee activities.may attend meet- to views ard objections thereon.Such subgroups shall
Ines. and may submit comments for consideration,but maintain a membership roster in accordance with
shall have no vote. AS 5(l 1 through A5.5(7)and shall comply with the
provisions in A5.4.A7.1.and Section A8 as appaied
A5.4 Categories of Interests. All appropriate interests to voting cn the standard(s). or
that might be directly and materially affected by the 12 i The subgroup is responsible for assisting the
standards activity of the committee shall have the op- committee (e.g. drafting all or a portion of a standard.
portunity for fair and equitable participation without drafting responses to comments,drafting positions on
dominance by any single interest.Each member shall international standards.or other purely advisory func-
propose its own interest cateeory as appropriate and in tsonsl.
2
02
.46.1 Chairman and Members of Subgroups. The chair- specific wording or actions which would resolve the
man and members of a subgroup shall be appointed by objection)
the chairman of the committee and confirmed by the (4) Abstain,with reasons(for example,"no in-
committee.The scope,duties, and membership of all terest")
subgroups shall be reviewed by the committee annually. A8.1.1 Vote of Alternate.An alternate's vote is
The officers and members of a subgroup need not be counted only if the principal representative fails to
members of the committee. vote.
A8.1.2 Single Vote. Generally no representative
A6.2 Approval of Standards. Draft standards and any
shall have more than one vote. However,if two or
substantive change in the content of a standard pro-
more organizations appoint the same individual to rep-
posed by a subgroup shall be referred to the committee resent each of them, that individual may cast a separate
for approval. vote for each organization represented.The organiza•
tions shall confirm in writing to the secretariat that
they are aware of and will accept the results..Addition'
A7. Meetings ally,representation of more than one organization by
the same individual shall require approval by a majority
Committee meetings shall be held,as decided upon by of the committee,excluding the vote of that individual.
the committee,the chairman-the secretariat, or by A8.13 Voting Period.The voting period for letter
petition of five or more members,to conduct business, ballots shall end six weeks from the date of issue or as
such as making assignments,receiving reports of work, soon as all ballots are returned,whichever comes earlier.
considering draft standards,resolving differences M extension may be granted at the chairman's option,
among subgroups,and considering views and objections when warranted.
from any source.Meetings of subgroups may be held as A follow-up letter requesting immediate return of
decided upon by the members or chairman of the sub- the ballot shall be sent,as appropriate,to members and
alternate members whose votes have not been received
group. within ten working days before the ballot doses.
A7.1 Open Meetings.Meetings of the committee shall
be open to all members and others having direct and A8.2 Actions Requiring Approval by a Majority.The
material interest. At least four weeks'notice of regularly following actions require approval by a maiarity of the
scheduled meetings shall be given by the secretariat in membership of the committee either at a meeting or by
ANSI's StandmdsAcrion:or in other media designed letter ballot:
to reach directly and mater. lly affected interests;or (1) Confirmation of officers appointed by the secre-
in both.The notice shall describe the purpose of the Lariat
meeting and shall identify a readily available source (2) Formation of a subgroup,including its proce-
for further information. An agenda shall be available dures,scope,and duties
and shall be distributed in advance of the meeting to (3) Disbandment of subgroups
members and to others exlpressing interest.The seae• (4) Addition of new committee members and desig-
tariat may optionally maintain a permanent mailing nation of their interest categories
list of other interests. (5) Approval of withdrawal of an existing standard
A7.2 Quorum. A majority of the members of the corn- Other actions requiring a committee vote may be
mittee shall constitute a quorum for conducting busi- approved by a majority of the members present at a
•
ness at a meeting. If a quorum is not present.actions meeting,including:
may be taken by letter ballot. (1) Approval of minutes
(2) Authorization of a letter ballot
A8.3 Actions Requiring Approval by Two-Thirds of
A8. Voting Those Voting.The following actions require a letter
ballot or an equivalent formal recorded vote with ap
A8.1 Vote.Each member shall vote one of the follow- proval by at least a majority of the membership and at
ing positions: least two-thirds of those voting,excluding abstentions:
(1) Affirmative (I) Adoption of committee procedures.categories
(2) Affirmative,with comment of interests,or revisions thereof
(3) Negative,with reasons(the reasons for a nega- (2) Approval of a new standard or reaffsnnauon of
rive vote shall be given and if possible should include an existing standard
3
03
(3) Approval of revision or addendum to part or all A9. Submittal of Standard
of a standard
(4) Approval of change of committee scope Upon completion of the procedures for voting,disposi-
(5) Approval of termination of the committee tion of views and objections,and appeals,the proposed
standard shall be submitted to ANSI by the secretariat.
A8.4 Authorization of Letter Ballots.A letter ballot If the secretariat does not submit the proposal to ANSI
may be authorized by any of the following: within a reasonable period of time,any member(s)of
(1) Majority vote of those present at a committee the committee may make the submittal.
meeting A9.1 Information Submitted.The information sup-
(2) The chairman plied to ANSI shall include:
(3) The executive committee (if one exists)
(1) Title and designation of the proposed American
(4) The secretariat
National Standard
(5) Petition of five or rnore members of the com- (2) Indication of the type of action requested(that
mittre
is,approval of a new American National Standard or
A8.5 Other Review.Proposals for new American Na- reaffirmation,revision,or withdrawal of an existing
tional Standards or reaffirmation,revision,or with- 3T oN copiesnal
oSf the fm)
(3) Two copies of the final proposed American Na-
drawal of existing American National Standards shall tional Standard
be transmitted to ANSI for listing in Standards Action
for comment. (4) A declaration that the accredited procedures
were fot.owed
The secretariat shall determine whether listing of
standards actions shall be concurrent with within A credte that e the the proposed standard is
proposed the accredited scope of the committer
the final committee letter ballot and whether announce-
ment in other suitable media is appropriate.The secre- (6) A declaration w that r there warn Americann identified d tionif-
icantconflicts with another known National
tariat shall transmit a copy of the proposed new,re- Standard
vised, or reaffirmed standard to the administrator(s) (7) A declaration that other known national stan-
of the appropriate USA Technical Advisory Group(s) dards have been examined with regard to harmoniza-
at the same time. tion and duplication of content
Views and objections resulting from the above shall (8) A statement that the proposed American Na-
be dealt with in accordance with A8.6.Any substan- tional Standard has been provided to the administra-
tive change made in the proposed American National tor(s)of the appropriate USA Technical Advisory
Standard shall be relisted in accordance with A8.5. Group(s)(see Appendix E)
• (9) A declaration that all appeal actions related to
A8.6 Disposition of View and Objections.When approval, of the proposed standard have been completed
the balloting has been dosed,the secretary shall for- (10) A summary of the voting and unretumed bal-
ward the ballot tally to the chairman of the committee lots in each interest category
or,if appropriate,of the subgroup;the chairman shall (11) Identification of all unresolved views and ob-
determine whether the expressed views and objections jections,names of the objector(s),and a report of
shall be considered by conespondence or at a meeting. attempt toward resolution
Prompt consideration shall be given to the expressed (12) A roster of the committee and applicable sub-
views and objections of all participants,including those groups at the time of committee ballot
commenting on the listing in Standards Action. A con-
certed effort to resolve all expressed objections shall be
made,and each objector shall be advised of the disposi-
tion of the objection and the reasoas therefor.
Substantive changes required to resolve objections, . A10. Termination of Committee
and unresolved objections.,shall be reported to the com-
mittee members in order to afford all members an op- A proposal to terminate an Accredited Standards Com-
portunity to respond to them or to reaffirm or change mittee may be made by a directly and materially af-
their votes within four weeks. fected interest.The proposal shall be submitted in writ-
ing to the secretariat and to ANSI and shall include at
A8.7 Report of Final Result.The final result of least the following:
the voting shall be reported,by interest categories, to (1) Reasons why the committee should be termi-
the secretariat and to the committee. nated
4
04
(2) The name of the organization(s) that will as- Al2.1 Complaint.The appellant shall file a written
sume responsibility for maintenance of any existing complaint with the secretanat within thirty days after
American National Standard(s)that are the responsibil- the date of notification of action or at any time with
ity of the committee respect to inaction.The complaint shall state the
• If it appears,after review by ANSI and discussion nature of the objection(s)including any adverse effects,
among the proponent of tt.e action,the secretariat, the section(s)of these procedures or the standard that
and the ExSC or its designee,that the desired objec- are at issue,actions or inactions that are at issue,and
tives can best be reached b;y termination,the proposal the specific remedial action(s)that would satisfy the
and supporting documentation shall be submitted to appellant's concerns.Previous efforts to resolve the ob-
the committee with a letter ballot to terminate the jection(s)and the outcome of each shall be noted.
committee and transfer responsibility,as appropri-
ate, for the affected standards.Concurrently,the pro- Al2.2 Response.Within thirty days after receipt of
posal shall be announced for comment in Standards- the complaint,the respondent(chairman or secretariat
Action- representative)shall respond in writing to the appellant,
specifically addressing each allegation of fact in the
complaint to the extent of the respondent's knowledge.
•
All. Communications Al2.3 Hearing.If the appellant and the respondent
are unable to resolve the written complaint informally
Correspondence of committee officers should prefer- in a manner consistent with these procedures,the
ably be on"committee correspondence"letterhead.prefer-
secretariat shall schedule a hearing with an appeals
panel on a date agreeable to all participants,giving at
A11.1 Formal Internal Communication-If correspon- least ten working days notice.
dence between subcommittees of between working
groups of different subcommittees involves issues or Al2.4 Appeals Panel.The appeals panel shall consist
decisions(i.e.,nonroutine matters)affecting other • of three individuals who have not been directly in-
subcommittees,copies shall be sent to all affected sub- volved in the matter in dispute,and who will not be
committee chairmen and to the committee officers. materially or directly affected by any derision made
or to be made in the dispute.At least two members
A1I.2 External Communication_Inquiries relating to shall be acceptable to the appellant and at least two
the committee should be directed to the secretariat, shall be acceptable to the respondent.
and members should so inform individuals who raise
such questions.All replies to inquiries shall be made Al2.5 Cesnduct of the H The appellant has the
through the secretariat. Hearing. Ps,
burden of demonstrating adverse effects,improper
A113 Requests for Interpretation of Standards.Written actions or inactions,and the efficacy of the requested
inquiries requesting interpretation of the committee's ap- action.The respondent has the burden of
proved American National Standards shall be responded demonstrating that the committee and the secretariat
to in accordance with the policy of the committee(see took all actions in compliance with these procedures
A3.1(4)). Revisions to the aandard resulting from re• and that the requested remedial action would be inef-
quests for interpretations shall be processed in actor- fective or detrimental. Each party may adduce other
pertinent arguments,and members of the appeals
canoe with these pro«dotes
panel may address questions to individuals.Robert's
Ruin of Order(latest edition)shall apply to questions
of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered
herein.
Al2. Appeals
Al2.6 Decision.The appeals panel shall render its
Directly and materially affected interests who believe decision in writing within thirty days.stating findings
they have been or will be adversely affected by a stan- of fact and conclusions,with reasons therefor.based
dard within the committee's junsdictian,or by the lack on a preponderance of the evidence.Consideration
thereof,shall have the right to appeal substantive or may be given to the following positions,among others.
procedural actions or inactions of the committee or the in formulating the decision:
secretariat. (1) Finding for the appellant.remanding the action
5
05
• - •" to the committee or the secretariat with a specific Al2.7 Further Appeal. If the appellant fives notice
statement of the issues and facts in regard to which fair that further appeal to ANSI is intended,a full record
and equitable action was not taken of the complaint, response,hearing,and decision shall
(2) Finding for the respondent,with a specific be submitted by the secretariat to ANSI.
statement of the facts that demonstrate fair and equit-
able treatment of the appellant and the appellant's
objections A13. Parliamentary Procedures
(3) Finding that new,substantive evidence has been
introduced,and remanding the entire action to the On questions of parliamentary procedure not covered
committee or the secretariat for appropriate recon- in these procedures,Robert's Rules of Order(latest
sideration edition)may be used to expedite due process.
•
6 -
06
EXECUTIVE STANDARDS COUNCIL APPEALS PANEL SUMMARY DECISION
On Appeal to the Executive Standards Council Concerning the
Accredited Standards Committee A40, Safety Requirements for
Plumbing
Appellant(s): Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association
Laborers' International Union of North America
Respondent(s): Accredited Standards Committee A40, Safety Requirements for
Plumbing
Hearing and Argument Date: May 29, 1996
ExSC Panel Members
Mary Anne Lawler (Chair)
Sam Chappell
James Converse
Scott Jameson
Alvin Lai
Sandra Paul
Robert Williams
Richard Wright
I. Appeal
The appellants have filed a complaint with the ANSI Executive Standards Council
(ExSC), which is the ANSI body responsible for accrediting standards developers,
alleging that the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) A40 and its co-secretariats have
violated ANSI procedures and requirements. Among other things, the appellants claim
that the administrative secretariat, and the interests that that secretariat represents, are
unfairly and improperly dominating the current revision process of the A40 "Safety
Requirements for Plumbing" American National Standard.
II. Decision
Having considered the written record, the oral presentations, and the responses to
questions posed by the ExSC Appeals Panel (the Panel), the Panel finds that the
accreditation of the ASC A40, Safety Requirements for Plumbing, shall be suspended
until such time as the actions outlined in Section V (Recommendations and Directives of
the Appeals Panel) of this decision have been completed to the satisfaction of the Panel.
01
2
At that time, i.f the Panel so decides, the accreditation of the ASC A40 may be reinstated
without the need for the A40 committee to re-apply for accreditation.
III. Factual Background Based on Evidence Submitted to the Panel
The ASC A4() has been an ANSI-accredited standards developing committee since 1986.
The current approved ANSI A40 standard is called the "ANSI A40 Safety Requirements
for Plumbing". It was approved as an American National Standard in 1993. For a period
of time prior to 1995, the co-secretariats of the ASC A40 were the Mechanical
Contractors Association of America (MCAA) and the National Association of Plumbing-
Heating-Cool ing Contractors (NAPHCC).
In 1994, the International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAF'MO),
MCAA and NAPHCC agreed to amalgamate IAPMO's proprietary Uniform Plumbing
Code (UPC), NAPHCC's proprietary code (called the National Standard Plumbing
Code), and the 1993 A40 standard. An Amalgamation Committee consisting primarily of
representatives from each of these three organizations was formed. At the ExSC Panel
hearing, IAPMO stated that the resulting amalgamated code was substantially similar to
IAPMO's original UPC. IAPMO has stated publicly that the amalgamated code is 85%
identical to the original IAPMO UPC. ' The fact that this amalgamated code is referred to
as the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), which appears to be a registered trademark of
IAPMO's, further supports this point.
After formulating the amalgamated UPC, MCAA, NAPHCC and IAPMO entered into
two agreements. One of these agreements (which was submitted to ANSI) provides that
IAPMO would become a third co-secretariat of the ASC A40 committee. As part of this
agreement, IAPMO also became the "prime" administrative co-secretariat.'`
To the knowledge of the Panel, the exact terms of the second agreement have net been
made public. At the ExSC Panel hearing, IAPMO stated that this agreement provides that
the three co-secretariats agreed to somehow process the UPC through the ASC A40
committee and, if the committee approved it, to call the "revised" A40 standard the UPC.
At IAPMO's September 26, 1995 meeting, the Executive Director of IAPMO stated to
IAPMO's members:
You folks made a commitment last year. You signed a contract with the
current or the then current secretariats of the A-40 code to make the
Uniform Plumbing Code the new ANSI A-40 code....
We [as the Amalgamation Committee] met, as I said yesterday, over
a period of three months with the specific intent to rewrite the
existing A-40 code to be based predominantly on the 1994 Uniform
See the transcript of the IAPMO September 26, 1995 meeting at the Red Lion Hotel in Sacramento,
California(hereinafter the"IAPMO Meeting Transcript")at 41.
2 See the letter from Mr. Chaney to Mr. Ives dated December 22, 1995.
A40FINAL.DOC
02
3
Plumbing Code. That is exactly what we did. That is what you
have in your hands right now. This is simply a step in that process to get
the IAPMO body comfortable and in full support of that amalgamated document
so that now we can take that amalgamated document through the A-40 process
and get it accredited with ANSI, and then we take that consensus document
to every jurisdiction in the country and say here is the only consensus plumbing
code in the world. It's got the support of various organizations from all
within the plumbing industry, and this is why it is best for the citizens in your
jurisdiction and so forth. And that is the beauty of this process, and that Is
exactly what we are doing.3
In June of 1994, MCAA and NAPHCC (then represented by the now current Executive
Director of IAPMO) wrote to ANSI asking if their interpretation of Section A6 cf the
ANSI Model Procedures was correct:
It is the interpretation of the Secretariat that: (1) because each subcommittee,
can only make recommendations and therefore serve in an advisory capacity to
the full committee and (2) because neither subcommittee is responsible for "one
or more standards and for responding to views and objections thereon"; (3)
therefore the subcommittees are governed under the provisions of Par. A6(2)
above (plus A6.1 and A6.2), and in their cases Par. A6(1) does not apply.
Ms. Somerville at ANSI wrote back on August 10, 1994:
In response to your question, please be advised that clause A6(1) is only
applicable when the subgroup created by the committee has responsibility
for the contents of a standard. In those instances where the subgroup is the
only body from which proposed revisions of a standard are provided to the
main committee, it is considered to meet the criteria outlined in A6(1) and the
requirements of that clause would be applicable. If the two subgroups being
formed by the ASC A40 have a limited scope, and the revisions to the ANSI
A40 standard will be considered by the ASC A40, the criteria in clause A6(1)
do not apply.4
ASC A40 had announced that it was going to revise the 1993 ANSI A40 Safety
Requirements for Plumbing standard, and at some point the A40 committee apparently
had received at least 190 proposed changes to the 1993 version of the standard. The A40
committee decided to form a "Code Change" subcommittee to review these proposed
changes and make recommendations on each of them to the main committee.
Originally during the May 24, 1994 A40 committee meeting, the committee approved Mr.
Kordulak, Mr. Bliss, Mr. Dicerson, Mr. Lancaster (a representative of appellant Plastic
a IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 20.
At ExSC Panel hearing,IAPMO asserted that this letter from Ms. Somerville showed that ANSI approved
or"blessed"in advance the activities of the A40 subcommittees. The ExSC Panel believes that Ms. Somerville's
letter, which speaks for itself, merely advised IAPMO on the meaning of certain sections in Annex A of the ANSI
Procedures.
A40F1NALDOC
03
4
Pipe and Fittings Association or PPFA) and Mr. Rochford (from the American Iron &
Steel Institute or AISI) as members of the subcornmittee.5 Later during that same
meeting, a motion was approved to eliminate the two representatives of"materials
manufacturers" (Mr. Lancaster of PPFA and Mr. Rochford of AISI) from the
subcommittee.° At the ExSC Panel hearing, respondents explained that the reason for
eliminating these two individuals from the subcommittee was that if these two individuals
were on the subcommittee, then representatives of all groups interested in "materials"
should also be on the subcommittee. According to the testimony at the ExSC Panel
hearing, the result of removing these two individuals from the subcommittee was that the
subcommittee was then comprised only of persons who were on the Amalgamation
Committee which formulated the amalgamated UPC code.
At the IAPMO September 1995 meeting, Mr. Kauffman explained the subcommittee
process as follows:
I left off one step. When this first goes to the A-40 committee, it will go to the
subcommittee. Now, my interpretation of the subcommittee, and I think it's
right, maybe Russ will know, that we could have a subcommittee made up of
many of our members. It doesn't limit the amount of people that can be on that
committee. It could be this convention, the way I see it. The A-40 committee
could adopt this as their subcommittee. It doesn't have to be formed in
percentages. Like on the regular Code Committee, the A-40 committee, you
must have a distribution of different industries on your committee. There can
only be a certain amount. We can't overload any industry. But on a sub-
committee, the way I read it, it doesn't indicate that. You could have every-
body as part of the subcommittee.$
At the March 14-15, 1995 A40 committee meeting, the subcommittee was given the
following specific charter in connection with the what-would-turn-out-to-be 190-plus
proposed revisions to the A40 standard that the full committee would address at its
March, 1996 meeting:
[F]or future proposed changes the Code Change Subcommittee will recommend
for each (a) Approval or (b) Disapproval (and Reason/Comment) or (c) Refer
to full Committee. The full Committee at its meeting would vote only on the
submittal by the Proponent, using the Subcommittee recommendation as
guidance only.9
The subcommittee met only for a short time. The subcommittee decided that, instead of
making a specific recommendation on each proposed change to the ANSI A40 Safety
5 See the May 24, 1994 Minutes of the ASC A40 Committee(the 1994 Minutes)at 4.
6 See the 1994 Minutes at 5.
7 At the ExSC Panel hearing, IAPMO claimed that the A40 committee unanimously approved the formation
of the subcommittee, but accordingly to the 1994 Minutes (at 6) it appears that PPFA voted against it when the
composition of the subcommittee was restricted to members of the Amalgamation Committee.
8 IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 30-31.
9 See the March 14-15 1995 Minutes (the 1995 Minutes)of the ASC A40 Committee al 21.
A40FINAL.DOC 0 'q
5
Requirements for Plumbing (as it was directed to do), it would recommend to the full
committee at i.ts March, 1996 meeting that it approve a "book-for-book" substitution of
the amalgamated UPC code for the current A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing.
While one of the reasons stated by respondents at the ExSC Panel hearing for not
including PPF'A on the subcommittee was that the subcommittee would not make any
recommendations on any type of"materials" to the main committee, the UPC apparently
prohibits the use of plastic material in certain circumstances.
The A40 committee had a four day meeting in March, 1996 to address the
recommendations from the subcommittee on the large number of proposed changes the
committee had received in connection with the ANSI A40 Safety Requirements :For
Plumbing. At the previous A40 meeting on March 14-15, 1995, the current Executive
Director of IAPMO (who was then with the co-secretariat NAPHCC) announced that the
committee had received two applications for membership.
The two candidates were Mr. Cavanaugh (who was a member of the Amalgamation
Committee) 10 and Mr. Ballanco (who was described at the ExSC Panel hearing as a
representative of, or affiliated with, BOCA). The current Executive Director of I:APMO
"recommended that Mr. Cavanaugh be approved; the Secretariat needs additional
information concerning Mr. Ballanco's application in order to make a proper
recommendation." Mr. Cavanaugh was approved as a member and Mr. Ballanco's
application was deferred.)I While at the ExSC Panel hearing IAPMO asserted that it tried
to encourage participation in the revision of the A40 standard by other organizations
which have proprietary plumbing codes, Mr. Ballanco, who apparently is affiliated with
the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), was not permitted
to be on the committee. As noted infra at footnote 15, at least eight of the fifteen voting
members of the A40 committee appear to be strong IAPMO supporters.12
Practically at the very beginning of the four day March 1996 meeting of the A40
committee, Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to accept the recommendation of the
subcommittee that a "book-for-book" substitution of the amalgamated UPC for the ANSI
A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing be made before the committee began addressing
each of the proposed changes to the ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing. The
motion passed., and it was then made clear before noon on the first day of the meeting that
the 190-plus proposed revisions to the ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing
would then only be considered vis-a-vis the UPC, which was a completely different
document. As a result, it was virtually impossible to review the proposed changes to the
1° IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 26. At the IAPMO meeting,Mr. Cavanaugh reassured IAPMO members
that"[a]s a member of that committee, I understand that the A-40 committee will probably be merged somehow in
the next year or two with the committees of IAPMO so we will have a more concise and understandable process."
IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 27.
See the 1995 Minutes at 4-5.
12 Respondents asserted that ANSI"approved"the membership of the ASC A40. ANSI does not now,nor did
it then, approve the membership of committees. Committee rosters are submitted to ANSI for information only. In
addition,the ASC A40 claims that the 1993 ANSI Appeals Board panel approved the membership of the committee.
This is not the case. The Appeals Board panel found that at the time, the appellant in the appeal did not provide
sufficient evidence to demonstrate a lack of balance on the committee. The Appeals Board panel in its written
findings did not approve or endorse the membership of the ASC A40.
A40FINAL.DOC
05
6
ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing and to identify how the UPC itself was
"modifying" the current American National Standard. According to appellants' testimony
at the ExSC Panel hearing, PPFA's attempts to raise issues of procedural and due process
violations to the A40 committee on this first morning and later in the four day meeting
were ruled out of order.
At the IAPM O September 1995 meeting (which was prior to the relevant meeting of the
subcommittee anti the March 1996 A40 meeting described above), the IAPMO members
were being asked to "allow IAPMO to pursue the ANSI accreditation" for the UPC.13
Throughout the meeting, the UPC was referred to as the "A-40 Uniform Plumbing Code"
or the "ANSii A-40 Uniform Plumbing Code",14 despite the fact that the current: ANSI
standard under revision was the "ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing". Several
IAPMO members expressed concern that they were giving up "control" over their UPC
by submitting it to the ANSI process. They were reassured that:
IAPMO does not lose any influence in that process. In fact, as part of this new
secretariat arrangement, IAPMO is the prime administrator of this new ANSI
A-40 code.
You're developing an ANSI standard right now.... We are prepared both from
the staff perspective and obviously from the membership perspective to do
that.
We [as the Amalgamation Committee] met, as I said yesterday, over
a period of three months with the specific intent to rewrite the existing A-40
code to be based predominantly on the 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code.
That is exactly what we did. That is what you have in your hands
right now. This is simply a step in that process to get the IAPMO
body comfortable and in full support of that amalgamated document
so that now we can take that amalgamated document through the A-40 process
and get it accredited with ANSI.
Now, just one other point I want to make. Tony Scarano pointed out something
that is so obvious that I missed it. A-40 committee members, please raise your
hand or stand up... These guys [six of them] are already on the A-40 committee.
They are already members of IAPMO and they participate very, very regularly
with IAPMO.15
... The IAPMO process is a very, very critical part and will be a very, very
critical part in the development of this consensus standard. As I've already
said, we are going to be the prime administrator. Your staff, your office is
going to develop this code from an administrative perspective, and you will
13 IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 44.
1° IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 7, 10,42,47.
is In addition to these six individuals,Mr. Hendrickson from]APMO and Mr. Crawford from the MCAA are
on the A40 committee. There.ore, it appears that at least eight of the fifteen voting A40 members are strong
supporters of IAPMO.
A40FINALDOC
05
7
have broad representation by virtue of the people that just stood up in this
room.
Q. What happens if this [revisions then underway at IAPMO to the UPC]
conflicts between what this change is and what the code is now we are voting to
adopt? Then you're going to have to find a way to wrinkle it out? A. It will
marry together down the road. Believe me.lb
IV. Findings
The Panel's findings address each issue raised by the appellants in the appeals as follows:
A. Issue: Is the A40 Committee Balanced and Does it Seek Consensus?
The Panel does not find conclusive evidence that the ASC A40 is not balanced,
although it is concerned about the failure of the committee to include Mr.
Ballanco of BOCA and representatives of other interest groups on it.
However, the Panel does find that there is evidence of dominance on the part of at
least one of the Secretariats, the International Association for Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), as well as on the part of plumber interests in
general. The Panel respects IAPMO's and its co-secretariats' skill and dedication
in promoting the interests of the plumbing industry and their right to do so. The
Panel also notes that IAPMO recognizes the value of the ANSI process and the
American National Standard designation. All of the parties to this appeal agree
that it would be beneficial to have one primary model plumbing code that is an
American National Standard as opposed to the numerous different and competing
codes that exist today.
"Dominance" is defined in Section 1.2.2 of the ANSI Procedures as " a position or
exercise of dominant authority, leadership. or influence by reason of superior
leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable
consideration of other viewpoints." In order to be a true consensus standard, any
plumbing code that seeks ANSI approval must be developed in a fair manner
without dominance by any one organization or interest group, and the consensus
body must fairly consider minority viewpoints.
The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that IAPMO is
improperly using the ASC A40 to advance the interests of its own organization
and its members, and to exclude the consideration of minority viewpoints. As
evidenced by the comments made during IAPMO's September, 1995 meeting,
IAPMO saw the A40 committee as an opportunity to have the UPC approved as
an American National Standard with few or no substantive changes, and it
16 IAPMO Meeting Transcript at 18, 20,33-34,41.
A4oFINALDOC
07
8
believed that it had sufficient control over the A40 committee, the Code Change
subcommittee, and the process to assure the members of IAPMO that their UPC
would survive the ANSI process virtually intact. Even at that September 1995
meeting (and at other times publicly), IAPMO began referring to the UPC as the
ANSI A40 UPC, even though the A40 committee was at that point collecting
proposed -evisions to the ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing.
The subcommittee was one of the principal mechanisms used to accomplish
IAPMO's goals. The subcommittee was chartered to review each of the 190-plus
proposed revisions to the ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing and
provide a recommendation to the full committee on each such proposed revision.
Instead, the subcommittee, which was in essence a subset of the Amalgamation
Committee, met briefly, apparently ignored the proposed changes, and
recommended the book-for-book plumbing code swap. It is the opinion of the
Panel that the subcommittee exceeded its authority and,by doing so, in effect
assumed responsibility for the content of the standard.
The Panel questions the rationale for removing PPFA and AISI (the American
Iron & Steel Institute) from the subcommittee (i.e., that then representatives of all
types of materials would have to be on the subcommittee;, when IAPMO also
claims that the subcommittee was not responsible for the content of the standard
and therefore it did not have to be balanced. If it did not have to be balanced, why
remove the representatives from PPFA and AISI from the subcommittee?
If the subcommittee was not responsible for the content of the standard, then the
Panel believes that it should have completed its task of reviewing and making
recommendations regarding the proposed changes to the urrent A40 standard
instead of"recommending" what was, in effect, an entirely different standard
altogether. In addition, the subcommittee was not supposed to make any
recommendations whatsoever regarding "materials", but the UPC does contain
restrictions on certain materials that were not part of the 1993 A40 Safety
Requirements for Plumbing standard.
At the ExSC Panel hearing, IAPMO argued that, in order to end up with the best
standard, the subcommittee should not be penalized for taking into account other
codes and materials. However, the evidence submitted strongly suggests that the
subcommittee did not just "take into account" the amalgamated UPC code; it
clearly was not interested in any other material besides the UPC.
Dominance also was evidenced by the full committee's quick adoption of the
subcommittee's recommendation to make the book-for-book switch with virtually
no discussion of the differences between the two codes, the proposed changes that
the subcommittee was charged to review, or the procedural issues raised by PPFA.
In addition, the Panel is concerned about the use of"individual" members on the
ASC A40. If the three "individual" members of the ASC A40 are individual
experts, then, in accordance with A.5.3 of the operating procedures of the ASC
A40FINALDOC
08
9
A40, Observers and Individual Experts, they would have no vote. Section A.5.3
states that "[o]bservers and individual experts shall be advised of the committee
activities, may attend meetings, and may submit comments for consideration, but
shall have no vote."
If the three "individual" members are not individual experts, then they appear to
be misclassified. Section A.5.4 of the operating procedures of the ASC A40,
Categories of Interest, states that "[e]ach member shall propose its own interest
category as appropriate and in accordance with the committee's established
categories (see 1.2.2 and 1.2.3)". However, the operating procedures of the ASC
A40 do not contain sections numbered 1.2.2 or 1.2.3. If the operating procedures
of the ASC A40 are referring to sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of the ANSI Procedures
for the Development and Coordination of American National Standards, then the
established categories are "producer", "user", and "general interest". Therefore,
the three "individual" members would have to be included in one of these three
groups.
n
Section A.5.4 goes on to say that "[t]he categories of interest shall be established
or revised by a vote of the committee upon recommendation by the secretariat.
The rationale for the selections of categories shall be included in the committee
ballot and submitted to ANSI as part of the accreditation requirements". Again,
the Panel notes that the ASC A40 has not submitted a list of their interest
categories and the definitions thereof to ANSI. Simply referencing sections 1.2.2
and 1.2.3 of the ANSI Procedures does not provide a sufficient level of clarity
regarding what the established interest categories of the ASC A40 are and what
they consist of.1s Based on the above, the Panel finds the current classification of
the membership of the ASC A40 to be out of compliance with its own, and ANSI,
procedures.
B. Issue: Was the Replacement of the ANSI ASC A40 Standard With the
IAPMO Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) Proper?
The Panel finds that extensive revision of, or even substitution of another
document for, an existing American National Standard is not unacceptable in and
of itself. However, the Panel believes that the substitution of the UPC for the
existing ANSI A40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing was not performed in a
way that provided materially affected and interested parties with proper due
17 The ANSI Procedures do not identify"individual members" as a type of membership classification.
Typically an "individual"(whether a consultant or otherwise)is to some degree"sponsored"by some company or
organization and can then be classified according to his or her sponsor's interests.
it Moreover,although the Panel recognizes that in accordance with section A.5,Membership, of the operating
procedures of the ASC A40, individual persons may seek membership on the ASC A40("[m]embers of the
committee shall consist of organizations...companies,government agencies,individuals,etc...."), the Panel believes
that these individual persons should be classified as having interests that are aligned either with
producers/manufacturers, labor or general interest. The ASC A40 appears to confuse"membership type"with
"interest category". Membership types are those outlined in section A.5,Membership, i.e., organization,company,
individual,etc. Interest categories, however,are used to describe the general point of view of the subject category,
or the stakeholders that the subject category primarily represents.
A40FINAL.DOC
09
to
process.
C. Issue: Was the Imbalance on the Code Change Subcommittee in Conflict
With ANSI Procedures?
The Panel finds that in both the ANSI Procedures and the A40 operating
procedures, there is a provision for two types of subcommittees. The first type of
subcommittee is one that is "responsible for the definitive content of one or more
standards and for responding to views and objections thereon" and the second
type is one that"is responsible for assisting the committee (e.g., drafting all or a
portion of a standard, drafting responses to comments, drafting positions on
international standards, or other purely advisory functions)".
The Panel finds that the ASC A40 misclassified the subcommittee at issue here.
While the subcommittee may not have had the authority to give final approval of
the draft standard, the Panel believes that its role was more than advisory in
nature, and therefore that it was improper on the part of the ASC A40 to restrict
the membership of the subcommittee (with the result that it was not balanced) and
to hold closed meetings of the subcommittee. At the very least, the Panel believes
that all subcommittee meetings of the ASC A40 should be open to interested
observers, which was not the case with the subcommittee at issue here. Excluding
interested parties from subgroup meetings is contrary to the spirit of the ANSI
Procedures. Interested observers should be allowed to attend all meetings.
D. Issue: Is There Substantial Duplication Between the Draft Revision of the
ANSI/A40-1993 and Other ANSI Standards?
The Panel finds that it is not within its scope to determine whether duplication or
conflict exists between standards. However, the Panel would caution the ASC
A40 that, pursuant to Section 1.3.1.1, Criteria for approval, of the ANSI
Procedures, when the ASC A40 submits the revised ANSI/A40-1993 to ANSI for
approval, the ASC A40 must certify that "any identified significant conflict with
another American National Standard was resolved" and that "other known
national standards were examined with regard to harmonization and duplication of
content".
E. Issue: Was There A Misuse of the ANS Designation?
The Panel finds that the ASC A40 referred to its draft revision of the ANSI/A40-
1993 in a way that caused confusion regarding the actual status of the draft
document. For example, the Executive Director of IAPMO testified before the
Committee on Urban Affairs of the State of Nebraska on February 13, 1996
(approximately one month before the March 1996 meeting of the A40 committee
at which time the "code swap" occurred) in favor of Nebraska's adoption of the
"American National Standards Institute Uniform Plumbing Code, ANSI A40-
1996" (a non-existent ANSI standard at that time). IAPMO's Executive Director
A40FINAL.DOC d a
11
repeatedly referred to amalgamated UPC as the "ANSI A40 Uniform Plumbing
Code"19 and stated:
This document, then, simply is the latest edition of the 1955 code that was
developed. Now,just one other subtle thing that some have made a point
out of, and there's been some misrepresentations made, we have the word
"pending" under the numerical designation of this document, and we're
required to put that there by ANSI until this document achieves
accreditation and let me just take a brief moment to explain that. The
ANSI A40, 1993 edition, is the edition that was accredited and is the
actual standard that is recognized by ANSI,but, as with all of the other
technical industries that I had mentioned earlier, the electrical, medical
gas, fuel gas, we continually update the documents to maintain the
technical efficiency of products to keep the document current with
building technology throughout the United States. So this is merely an
update of the '93 edition. It is going through the consensus process as
we speak, in fact, the committee is going to meet in just over four weeks in
Washington. So this document will ultimately gain consensus within a
very short period of time. It doesn't prohibit any state or municipality
or country from adopting, by reference, this document. Because, even
though it is not been accredited as an updated standard, it is already a
consensus standard in the '93 edition. You an simply getting ahead
of time and recognizing the most or the latest edition that will
eventually become accredited.
So this is simply the latest edition ... the very, very subtle but
major issue that you need to understand.2° (Emphasis added.)
Also, the cover of the draft revision of the 1993 A40 standard had the words
"AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD" on one side of the cover, and the word
"(pending)" in smaller letters under the designation of the standard on the other
side of the cover.21
The result of this confusion caused some parties to believe that the draft document
either was already an ANSI standard, or was to be approved by ANSI within a
very short period of time. In fact, as representatives of the ASC A40 clearly stated
at the hearing, it is not anticipated that the draft revision of the ANSI/A40-1993
will be ready for submission for some months, nor has it been approved as an
American National Standard. Therefore, the Panel directs the ASC A40 to use the
following format for all draft standards: "DRAFT REVISION of ANSUA40-
1993, Safety Requirements for Plumbing". Another yea- date shall not be used, as
19 Transcript of the Public Hearing before the Nebraska State Committee on Urban Affairs on February 13,
1996(Nebraska Transcript)at 5, 10. II.
20 Nebraska Transcript at 11-12, 17.
21 Respondents claim that Ms. Somerville at ANSI advised them that they could use the word"pending"and
that would be sufficient. However, it is the Panel's opinion that the placement and size of the word "pending" was
not approved by ANSI and was misleading.
A40FINALDOC _ I I
12
this may imply that the draft document has been, or will be, approved by ANSI
within that year.
In addition, the Panel finds that there was serious disregard for the ANSI
trademark on the part of the ASC A40.
V. Recommendations and Directives of the Appeals Panel
In conclusion, the accreditation of the ASC A40 is duly suspended, and shall be
announced as such in Standards Action. In order to have its accreditation reinstated, the
ASC A40 shall take and have documented the following actions:
• The ASC A40 shall correct the problem of the dominance of IAPMO. This may
involve the removal of IAPMO as secretariat of the ASC A40, or may involve an
outline of specific actions the ASC A40 shall take to prevent the possibility of
IAPMO or any other person, organization or interest group, dominating the
standards development activities of the ASC A40.
• The ASC A40 shall amend its operating procedures so that the interest categories
are identified and defined, and shall reclassify those members currently included
in the "inc ividual" category, or, if those members are to be considered "individual
experts", shall assign them no vote.
• The ASC A40 shall correct the problem of the dominance of plumbers' interests.
This may involve changing the membership of the ASC A40, adding new
membership categories and members, and reviewing the current categorization of
the committee members. The Panel encourages the ASC A40 to continue to
broaden the membership of the committee. The Panel particularly encourages the
ASC A40 to seek membership on the committee among government agencies
such as Housing and Urban Development and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
• The ASC A40 shall void all actions taken after March 1, 1996. This means that
any and all actions taken at the March, 1996 meeting of the ASC A40, and any
and all actions taken thereafter, shall be null and void.
• The ASC A40 shall set aside the current draft revision of the ANSI/A40-1993,
and shall return to the ANSI/A40-1993 as the base document for revision. That is
not to say that the ASC A40, once it has resolved its issues regarding dominance,
may not consider other codes in connection with the revision to ANSI/A40-1993,
or take another code as a base document to revise it, but this action, if taken, must
result from true consensus and an open process that reflects the application of due
process rules and concepts.
A40FINALDOC 1 2
13
• The ASC A40 shall address how it intends to address the 190-plus comments
received in response to the announced revision.
• If the ASC A40 intends to use another document as a base draft in the future, the
ASC A40 shall describe how it intends to document the differences between the
currently approved A40 standard and the proposed base document, so that those
voting on whether to accept a new base document as a point of departure for the
revision will have a clear understanding of the implications of such a change.
A detailed plan for the accomplishment of these tasks shall be submitted to ANSI by
October 15, 1996. The plan shall include the names and affiliations of all those who
participated in its preparation. Upon receipt of the plan by ANSI, it will then be
forwarded to the appellants in these appeals for their review and comment. The
appellants will then have two weeks within which to provide their comments to ANSI.
At that time, the plan and the comments of the two appellants shall be forwarded to the
ExSC Appeals Panel that heard this appeal for their review. If the plan is approved, the
accreditation of the ASC A40 may be reinstated. If the plan is not approved, the ExSC
Appeals Panel may request the ASC A40 to take additional action, or may terminate the
accreditation of the ASC A40.
At the ExSC Panel hearing, the respondents argued several times that it would be
inappropriate and premature for the ExSC to take this type of drastic action at this time.
The ExSC Panel agrees that its directives are somewhat drastic, but it believes that it
cannot overlook what it perceives to be a series of abuses of the ANSI process. The
respondents claim that the A40 standard still has to be submitted for public review, and
that there is still plenty of time for the document to be revised and become a true
consensus document. However, the ExSC Panel believes that the improprieties already
committed which resulted in the approval of the UPC as the draft A40 standard cannot be
remedied just by addressing new comments on the UPC and adding new members to the
committee, as both of these actions are somewhat "after the fact". The base document is
now radically different. The Panel believes that attempting to amend that radically
different document (which was not properly adopted as the base document) will most
likely not provide adequate redress to the appellants and those who submitted comments
on the 1993 version of the standard.
The respondents also argue that "setting the clock back" will cause enormous delay.
However, the ExSC Panel believes that if the clock is not set back and if the concerns
raised by the appellants in this proceeding are raised to the ANSI Board of Standards
Review (BSR) many months in the future when the standard is submitted for approval as
an American National Standard, it is highly unlikely that the BSR would approve the
standard regardless of what transpired hereafter because of the procedural improprieties
that already have taken place. Accordingly, it is the view of the ExSC Panel that: setting
the clock back a few months now and correcting these past improprieties will in fact be
more expeditious than permitting the approval process of the current draft standard to
proceed.
A4onINAL.00c 13
14
Finally, the Panel would like to note for the record that in its deliberations it did not
consider the draft minutes of the ASC A40 meeting of March, 1996 as provided by the
ASC A40 Secretariat, or the Side by Side Comparison of the ANSI A-40-1993 (current)
to the UPC/A.NSI A-40-1996 (pending), as provided by Mr. Robert Friedlander.
A40FINAL.DOC 1 4
PPFR
Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association
600 Roosevelt Rd.,Bldg.C,Suite 20•Glee Eryn.IL 60137-5133 • Phone:630/08-6540 • Fu:630/700-30115
October 4, 1996
TO: MO Secretariat
FROM: The Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association
REGARDING: MO COMMITTEE RE-ACCREDITATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
In its July decision, the American National Standards Institute conditioned the A40 Committee's
reinstatement of accreditation on the following points, among others:
a- the setting a.lide of its current draft revision of the A40-1993 Standard;
b. removal of"the problem"of Committee dominance by IAPMO and the plumber interests;
c. amendment of Committee procedures;and
d. use of the following format for all draft standards, "DRAFT REVISION of ANSI/A40-1993,
Safety Requirements for Plumbing.,,
Enclosed are recommendations including revised Committee procedures which we believe
appropriately addresses ANSI's directives. PPFA hereby requests the Secretariat to promptly seek
the Cm.;itee's approval of these recommendations.
EPP/kl
Enclosures: Recommendations for A40 Committee Re-accreditation
Reviled Committee Procedures
cc: A40 Committee Members
Amy Marasco, General Counsel,American.National Standards Institute
Daisy Delogu,America National Standards Institute
File: PPFA-IR
96-A40
H:IWTDOcSWPPAICODES&4O\%A40.004
.
15
MO COMMITTEE RE-ACCREDITATION PLAN
The American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) suspension of the MO Committee's
accreditation was warranted on the basis of 1) compelling evidence of procedural abuses by the
current Secretariat, and 2) the promotion of a non-consensus code as a replacement to the then-
current ANSI A40 1993 Standard.
The suspension of the MO Committee's accreditation should not, in any way, detract From the
worthwhile efforts of its membership to continue the development and maintenance of a consensus
based A40 Standard. In fact, it is all the more important at this time to put the train back on track
and continue in our efforts. To this end, the Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association, as a member
of the Committee, recommends the following plan for the re-accreditation of the Committee:
1. Void all actions taken after March 1, 1996,including the setting aside of the cummt draft
revision of the A40-1993 Standard, also known as the"Amalgamated Code"
2. Adopt the attached revised Committee procedures;
3. Identify and actively recruit membership into the MO Committee based on the following
categorization of membership to ensure a balanced standards development effort : a)
Regulatory, b) Conformity Assessment Organizations, c) Standards Developers, d)
Producers, e) Installers and or Specifiers, and f) Product Users;
4. Obtain the resignation of all current A40 Committee members who do not represent
organizations falling within one of the listed membership categories;
5. Obtain the resignation of the current MO Secretariat and elect (or select) a new
Secretariat. PPFA would recommend the selection of a neutral organization such as NSF,
UL or CABO as candidates to serve in the position of Secretariat; and
6. Direct IAPMO to delete or have deleted any reference to "ANSI," "A40," 'ANSI A40,'
or "Safety Requirements for Plumbing' in connection with any and all copies, of which
there are many, of the Uniform Plumbing Code currently in circulation, by recalling all
of those copies. IAPMO's failure to document this remedial action immediately will
prompt the Committee to bring the matter to the attention of federal and stare enforcement
agencies.
The PPM would lilce to express its gratitude to the membership of the MO Committee and the
American National Standards Institute for this review and consideration of these recommendations.
PPFA believes prompt adoption of these recommendations will once again raise the efforts of the
MO Committee to the procedural standards established by ANSI and allow the Committee to once
again focus on the business at band, the development of a consensus based standard for plumbing
products.
16
Recommended
Procedures for ANSI A-40 Committee
Al. General
These procedures for an Accredited Standards Committee meet the requirements for due process
and development of consensus for approval of American National Standards as given in Section 1
of the ANSI Procedures for the Development and Coordination of American National Standards.
This Accredited Standards Committee shall comply with the ANSI Procedures for the Development
and Coordination of American National Standards.
A2. Committee •
The committee shall consist of as members. It shall have a title, scope, and an interest classification
system for each member. The membership shall be sufficiently diverse to ensure reasonable
balance without dominance by a single interest category. Anyone who will be or reasonably could
be directly and materially affected by any standard developed by the Committee may apply to
become a Committee member.
A3. Committee Responsibilities.
The committee shall be responsible for.
(1) Developing proposed American National Standards within its scope
(2) Voting on approval of proposed American National Standards within its scope
(3) Maintaining they standards developed by the committee in accordance with the "continuous
maintenance method(see Procedures for Maintenance).
(4) Adopting Committee policy and procedures for interpretations of the standard(s)developed by
the committee(see A11.3)
(5) Responding to requests for interpretations of the standard(s)developed by the Committee(see
A11.3)
(6) Adopting committee procedures and revisions thereof
(7) Considering and acting on proposals for termination of the committee (see Section A10)
(8) Other matters requiring committee action as provided in these procedures
A3.1 Selection of Committee Secretariat
The Committee shall select by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the full Committee membership a
Secretariat or Co-Secretariat(s)who may or may not be Committee members. The Committee shall
approve any agreement between or among the Co-Secretariats for a division of their Secretariat
responsibilities. The Committee shall approve any contractual or other arrangements between the
Committee and its Secretariat and between the Secretariat(s), as Secretariat(s), and any third
parties. The Secretariat shall serve at the pleasure of the Committee. The purpose of the
Secretariat is solely to administer the affairs of the Committee. The Committee may not delegate
any of the Committee's non-administrative responsibilities to the Secretariat
A3.2 Committee Secretariat
The secretariat shall:
(1) Administer the organizational process of the Committee
(2) Apply for Committee accreditation by ANSI and maintain accreditation in accordance with ANSI
requirements, including submission of the Committee roster
17 .
(3) Oversee the Committee's compliance with these procedures
(4) Maintain a roster of the Committee and a list of standards for which the Committee is
responsible
(5) Provide a person to act as Committee Secretary to perform administrative work, including
secretarial services; meeting notices and arrangements; preparation and distribution of meeting
agendas, minutes, ballots, and draft standards; and maintenance of adequate records. Any
Committee member has the right to review any Committee or Secretariat record at any time by
giving reasonable notice thereof to the Secretariat.
(6) Submit candidate standards approved by the Committee,with supporting documentation, for
ANSI review and approval as American National Standards
(7) Publish or arrange with ANSI for publication of its standards, revisions, and addenda(see 4.2)
(8) Perform other administrative functions as required by these procedures or assigned to it by the
Committee
(9) If composed of more than one organization(Le., Co-Secretariat), provide a written agreement
defining explicit division of these responsibilities
(10) The Secmtariat(s) shall not chair or otherwise conduct or preside at meetings of the
Committee or any subcommittee thereof
(11) No Committee officer or person presiding at any Committee or subcommittee meeting shall
• be an officer, director or employee of anyone acting as Secretariat(s)
A4. Officers
There shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair elected from the representatives of the Committee members
by a majority vote of the Committee. Each will serve for a three (3)year term until a successor is
selected and ready to serve. The Chair,or in his or her absence, the Vice-Chair, shall preside at all
meetings of the Committee and shall approve all submissions by the Secretariat(s)to ANSI_ The
Vice-Chair shall awry out the Chairs duties if the Chair is temporarily unable to do so.
A5. Membership
Members of the Committee shall consist of representatives appointed by organizations(preferably
national in scope), companies and government agencies, eto having a direct and material interest
in the activities of the Committee. The addition or termination of members shall be subject to
approval by vote of the Committee after the application has been processed in accordance with A5.1
or the membership reviewed in accordance with A52.
A5.1 Application
A request for membership shall be addressed to the Secretariat, shall indicate the applicant's direct
and material interest in the Committee's work and qualifications and willingness to participate
actively, and, if the applicant is an organization,company, or government agency, shall identify a
representative(and an alternate, if desired).
A5.1.1 Recommendation
In recommending appropriate action to the committee on applications for membership, the
Secretariat shall consider the:
(1) Need for active participation by each interest
(2) Potential for dominance by a single interest category
2
p TOTAL P.11
18
(3) Extent of interest expressed by the applicant and the applicant's willingness to participate
actively
(4) The representative identified by the applicant
A5.12 Diverse Interests
If distinct divisions of an organization can demonstrate independent interests and authority to make
independent decisions in the area of the activity of the Committee, each may be eligible for
membership.
A5.1.3 Combined Interests
When appropriate,the Secretariat may recommend that the applicant seek representation through
an organization which is already a member and represents the same or similar interest.
A5.2 Review of Membership
The Secretariat and the Committee shall review the membership list annually with respect to the
criteria of Section A5. Members are expected to fulfill obligations of active participation. Where a
member is found in habitual default of these obligations,the Secretariat shall direct the matter to the
Committee for appropriate action, which may include termination of membership.
A5.3 Observers and Individual Experts
Individuals and organizations having an interest in the Committee's work may request listing as
observers. The Committee may also select individual experts to assist it. Individual experts shall
serve fora renewable term of one(1)year and shall be subject to approval by vote of the Committee
upon recommendation by the Chair and the Secretariat Observers and individual experts shall be
advised of the Committee activities, may attend meetings, and may submit comments for
consideration, but shall have no vote.
A5.4 Categories of Interests
All appropriate interests that might be directly and materially affected by the standards activity of the
Committee shall have the opportunity for fair and equitable representation without dominance by any
single interest.
My member may propose creation of an interest category as appropriate. The cateogries of interest
shall be established or revised by a vote of the Committee. The rationale for the selection of
categories shall be included in the Committee ballot end submitted to ANSI as part of the
accreditation requirements. Initially,the Committee shall have the following interest categories:
a. Regulatory
b. Conformity Assessment
e. Standards Developers
d. Producers
e. Installers/Specifiers
f. Product Users
3
19
A5.5 Membership Roster
The Secretariat shall maintain a current and accurate committee roster and shall distribute it to the
members and their Committee representatives at least annually, and otherwise on request. The
roster shall include the following:
(1) Title of the Committee and its designation
(2) Scope of the Committee
(3) Secretariat-name of organization, name of secretary, and address(es)
(4) Officers Chair and Vice-Chair
(5) Members -name of organization or agency, its representative and alternate (as applicable),
addresses, and business affiliations; or name, address, and business affiliation of individual
members)
(6) Classification of each member
(7) Tally of classifications-total of voting members and subtotals for each interest category
(8) For each subgroup-title, chair, and names and addresses of all members
A6.Subgroups Created by the Committee
When one or more subgroups (subcommittees, working groups, technical subcommittees. writing
groups. etc.) are formed to expedite the work of the Committee, their formation (and later
disbandment)requires approval by a majority vote of the Committee and appropriate public notice.
The scope and duties delegated to the subgroup shall be approved at the time it is formed, and
subsequent changes in scope or duties shall also require approval. The charge to the subgroup
shall clearly state whether.
(1) The subgroup is responsible for the definitive content of one or more standards and for
responding to views and objections thereon. Such subgroups shall maintain a membership roster
in accordance with A5.5(1)through A5.5(7)and shall comply with the provisions in A5.4, A7.1, and
Section A8 as applied to voting on the standard(s),or
(2)• The subgroup is responsible for assisting the Committee (e.g. drafting all or a portion of a
standard, drafting responses to comments, drafting positions on international standards, or other
purely advisory functions).
A6.1 Chair and Members of Subgroups
The Chair and members of a subgroup shall be confirmed by the Committee. The scope, duties, and
membership of all subgroups shall be reviewed by the Committee annually. The officers and
members of a subgroup need not be members of the Committee.
A6.2 Approval of Standards
Draft standards and any substantive change(see 1.2.9)in the content of a standard proposed by
a subgroup shall be referred to the Committee for approval.
A T. Meetings
Committee meetings shall be held, as decided upon by the Committee,the Chair,the Secretariat,
or by petition of five (5) or more members, to conduct business, such as making assignments,
receiving reports of work,considering draft standards, resolving differences among subgroups,and
considering views and objections from any source. Meetings of subgroups may be held as decided
4
20
upon by the members or Chair of the subgroup and in ac ordance with the procedures established
for the Committee.
A7.1 Open Meetings
All meetings of the Committee and of any subgroup(s)created by it shall be open to all, members
and others having cflred and material interest. At least four(4)weeks'notice of regularly scheduled
meetings shall be given by the Secretariat in ANSI's Standards Action; or in other media designed
to reach directly and materially affected interests; or in both. The notice shall describe the purpose
of the meeting and shall identify a readily available source for further information. An agenda shall
be available and shall be distributed in advance of the meeting to members and to others expressing
interest. The Secretariat may optionally maintain a permanent mailing list of other interests.
A7.2 Quorum
A majority of the members of the Committee or any subgroup shall constitute a quorum for
conducting business at a meeting. If a quorum is not present, actions may be taken by letter ballot.
A7.3 Recordation of Meetings
Due to the public health and safety issues addressed by this Committee, arty meeting of the
Committee may be recorded in its entirety by a member of the Committee or their authorized
representative by whatever medium of recordation is chosen. A member choosing to record such
a meeting must, however, inform the presiding Chair of his or her intention to record the meeting
before initiating recordation of the proceedings. The member will provide a duplicate copy of the
recordation to the Secretariat within ninety(90) days of the recorded meeting.
A8. Voting
A8.1 Vote
Each member shall vote one of the following positions:
(1) Affirmative
(2) Affirmative,with comment
(3) Negative, with reasons(the reasons for a negative vote shall be given and if possible should
include specific wording or actions which would resolve the objection)
(4) Abstain,with reasons
ASAA Vote of Alternate
An alternate's vote is counted only if the principal representative fails to vote. No proxies will be
permitted.
A8.1.2 Single Vote
Generally no representative shall have more than one (1) vote. However, if two (2) or more
organizations appoint the same individual to represent each of them, that individual may cast a
separate vote for each organization represented. The organizations shall confirm in writing to the
Secretariat that they are aware of and will accept the results. Additionally, representation of more
than one organization by the same individual shall require approval by a majority of the Committee,
excluding the vote of that individual.
5
21
A8.1.3 Roll Call Votes
All votes except votes to adjourn a meeting shall be retarded roll call votes.
A8.1 A Voting Period
The voting period For letter ballots shall end six(6)weeks from the date of issue or as soon as all
ballots are returned, whichever comes earlier. An extension may be granted at the Chair's option,
when warranted.
A follow-up letter requesting inunedrete return of the ballot shall be sent, as appropriate,to members
and alternate mentors whose votes have not been received within tan (10)working days before the
ballot closes.
A8.2 Actions Requiring Approval by a Majority
The following actions require approval by a majority of the membership of the Committee either at
a meeting or by letter ballot.
(1) Confirmation of officers recommended by the Secretariat
(2) Formation of a subgroup, including its procedures, scope, and duties
(3) Disbandment of subgroups
(4) Addition of new Committee members and designation of their interest categories
(5) Approval of withdrawal of an existing standard
Other actions requiring a Committee vote may be approved by a majority of the members present
at a meeting, including:
(1) Approval of minutes
(2) Authorization of a letter ballot
A8.3 Actions Requiring Approval by Two Thirds of Those Voting
The following actions require a letter ballot or an equivalent formal recorded vote with approval by
at least a majority of the membership and at least two-thirds (213) of those voting, excluding
abstentions:
(1) Adoption of Committee procedures, categories of interests, or revisions thereof
(2). Approval of a new standard or reaffirmation of an existing standard •
(3) Approval of revision or addendum to part or all of a standard •
(4) Approval of change of Committee scope
(5) Approval of termination of the Committee
(6) Approval of the Secretariat(s)and any agreement(s) entered into between the Secretariat(s)
in areas dealing with Committee matters
A8A Authorization of Letter Ballots
A letter ballot may be authorized by any of the following: _
(1) Majority vote of those present at a Committee meeting -
(2) The Chair
6
22
(3) The Executive Committee (if one exists)
(4) The Secretariat
(5) Petition of five or more members of the Committee
A8.5 Other Review
Proposals for now American National Standards or reaffirmation, revision, replacement, or
withdrawal of existing American National Standards shall be transmitted to ANSI for listing in
Standards Action for comment
The Secretariat shall determine whether listing of proposed standards actions shall be concurrent
with the final Committee letter ballot and whether announcement in other suitable media is
appropriate. The Secretariat shall transmit a copy of the proposed new, revised, replacement, or
reaffirmed standard to the administrator(s)of the appropriate USA Technical Advisory Group(s) at
the same time.
Views and objections resulting from the above shall be dealt with in accordance with A8.6. Any
substantive change(see 1.2.9)made in the proposed American National Standard shall be relisted
in accordance with A8.6.
A8.6 Disposition of Views and Objections
When the balloting has been closed, the Secretary shall forward the ballot tally to the Chair of the
Committee or, if appropriate, of the subgroup; the Chair shall determine whether the expressed
views and objections shall be considered by correspondence or at a meeting.
Prompt consideration shall be given to the expressed views and objections of all participants,
including those commenting on the listing in Standards Action. A concerted effort to resolve all
expressed objections shall be made, and each objector shall be advised of the disposition of the
objection and the reasons therefore. In addition, each objector shalt be informed that an appeals
process exists within procedures used by the Committee.
Substantive changes(see 1.29)required to resolve objections, and unresolved objections, shall be
reported to the Committee members in order to afford all members an opportunity to respond to
them or to reaffirm or change their votes within four(4)weeks.
When the above process is completed, in accordance with procedures of the Committee, the
Committee may consider any comments received subsequent to the dosing of the public review and
comment period, or shall consider them at the next review.
A8.7 Report of Final Result
The final result of the voting shall be reported, by interest categories,to the Committee.
A9. Submittal of Standard
A9.1 Submission Process
Upon completion of the procedures for voting, disposition of views and objections, and appeals, the
proposed standard shall be submitted to ANSI by the Secretariat. If the Secretariat does not submit
the proposal to ANSI within a reasonable period of time,any member(s)of the Committee may make
the submittal.
A9.2 Information Submitted
The information supplied to ANSI shall include:
7
TOTAL P.01
23
(3) The Executive Committee(if one exists)
(4) The Secretariat
(5) Petition of five or more members of the Committee
A8.5 Other Review
Proposals for new American National Standards or reaffirmation, revision, replacement, or
withdrawal of existing American National Standards shall be transmitted to ANSI for fisting in
Standards Action for comment.The Secretariat shall determine whether listing of proposed standards actions shall be concurrent
with the final Committee letter ballet and whether announcement in other suitable media is
appropriate. The Secretariat shall transmit a copy of the proposed new,revised, replacement,or
reaffirmed standard to the administrator(s)of the appropriate USA Technical Advisory Group(s)at
the same time.
Views and objections resulting from the above shalt be dealt with in accordance with A8.6. Any
substantive change(see 1.2.9)made in the proposed American National Standard shall be relisted
in accordance with A8.6_
ASS Disposition of Views and Objections
When the balloting has been dosed,the Secretary shall forward the ballot tally to the Chair of the
Committee or, if appropriate, of the subgroup; the Chair shall determine whether the expressed
views end objections shall be considered by correspondence or at a meeting.
Prompt consideration shall be given to the expressed views and objections of all participants,
including those commenting on the listing in Standards Action. A concerted effort to resolve all
expressed objections shall be made,and each objector shell be advised of the disposition of the
objection and the reasons therefore. In addition, each objector shall be informed that an appeals
process exists within procedures used by the Committee.
Substantive changes(see 1.2.9)required to resolve objections.and unresolved objections, shall be
reported to the Committee members in order to afford all members an opportunity to respond to
them or to reaffirm or change their votes within four(4)weeks.
Whenthe above process is completed, in accordance with procedures of the Committee, the
Committee may consider any comments received subsequent to the closing of the public review and
comment period,or shall consider them at the next review.
A8.7 Report of Final Result
The final result of the voting shall be reported,by interest categories,to the Committee.
AS. Submittal of Standard
A9.1 Submission Process
Upon completion of the procedures torvoting,disposition of views and objections,and appeals,the
proposed standard shall be submitted to ANSI by the Secretariat If the Secretariat does not submit
the proposal to ANSI within a reasonable period of time,any members)of the Committee may make
the submittal.
ASS Information Submitted
The Information supplied to ANSI shall include:
7
8
24
All. Communications
Correspondence of Committee officers should be on "Committee correspondence letterhead. The
'Committee correspondence letterhead shall be used only for Committee business All written
communications with ANSI or other external agencies dealing with the Committee's scope, its
procedures, or standards developed or developed by it shall be promptly provided to each of the
Committee members.
A11.1 Formal Internal Communication
If correspondence between subcommittees or between working groups of different sub-committees
involves issues or decisions(i.e., non-routine matters)affecting other subcommittees, copies shall
be sent to all affected subcommittee Chair, the Secretariat and to the Committee officers.
A11.2 External Communication
Inquiries relating to the Committee should be directed to the Secretariat, and members should so
inform individuals who raise such questions. All replies to inquires shall be made through the
Secretariat.
A11.3 Requests for Interpretation of Standard
Written inquiries requesting interpretation of the Committee's approved American National Standards
shall be responded to in accordance with the policy of the Committee (see A3.2(4)). Revisions to
the standard resulting from requests for interpretations shall be processed in accordance with these
procedures.
Al2.Appeals
Persons who have directly and materially affected interests and who have been or will be adversely
affected by a standard within the Committee's jurisdiction, or by the lack thereof, shall have the right
to appeal substantive or procedural actions or inactions of the Committee or the Secretariat.
Al2.1 Complaint
The appellant shall file a written complaint with the Secretariat within thirty(30) days after the date
of notification of action or at any time with respect to inaction. The complaint shall state the nature
of the objection(s)including any adverse effects,the section(s) of these procedures or the standard
that are at issue,actions or inactions that are at issue,and the specific remedial action(s)that would
satisfy the appellant's concerns. Previous efforts to resolve the objection(s) and the outcome of
each shall be noted.
Al2.2 Response
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the complaint, the respondent (Chair or Secretariat
representative)shall respond in writing to the appellant, specifically addressing each allegation of
fact in the complaint to the extent of the respondent's knowledge.
Al2.3 Hearing
If the appellant and the respondent are unable to resolve the written complaint informally in a
manner consistent with these procedures,the Secretariat shall schedule a hearing with an appeals
panel on a date agreeable to all participants, giving at least ten (10)working days notice.
9
25
Al2.4 Appeals Panel . •
The appeals panel shall consist of three(3)individuals who have not been directly involved in the
matter in dispute, and who will not be materially or directly affected by any decision made or to be •
made in the dispute_ At least two(2)members shall be acceptable to the appellant and at least two
(2) shall be acceptable to the respondent. Where the parties to the appeal cannot agree on an
appeals panel within a reasonable amount of time, the matter may be referred to the Executive
Standards Council or its designee,which shall appoint members of the appeals panel.
Al2.S Conduct of the Hearing
The appellant has the burden of demonstrating adverse effects, improper actions of inactions, and
the efficacy of the requested remodel action. The respondent has the burden of demonstrating that
the Committee and the Secretariat took all actions in compliance with these procedures and that the
requested remedial action would be ineffective or detrimental. Each party may adduce other
pertinent arguments, and members of the appeals panel may address questions to individuals_
Roberts Rules of Order(latest edition)shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the
hearing not covered here.
Al2.6 Decision
The appeals panel shall render its decision in writing within thirty(30)days, stating findings of fact
and conclusions,with reasons therefor, based on a preponderance of the evidence. Consideration
may be given to the following positions, among others, in formulating the decision:
(1) Finding for the appellant, remanding the action to the Committee or the Secretariat with a
specific statement of the issues and facts in regard to which fair and equitable action was not
taken
(2) Finding for the respondent, with a specific statement of the facts that demonstrate fair and
equitable treatment of the appellant and the appellant's objections
(3) Finding that new, substantive evidence has been introduced, and remanding the entire action
to the Committee or the Secretariat for appropriate reconsideration
A127 Further Appeal
If the appellant gives notice that further appeal to ANSI is intended, a full record of the complaint,
response, hearing, and decision shall be submitted by the Secretariat to ANSI.
A13. Parliamentary Procedures
On questions of parliamentary procedure not covered in these procedures, Roberts Rules of Order
(latest edition) may be used to expedite due process.
•
A14. Rights to the terms"A40"and"A40 Standard"
Notwithstanding any prior agreement among the Committee members, and subject to any rights
vested in or claimed by ANSI, any and an standards created under its auspices and any and all
copyrights or trademarks associated with these standards shall remain the sole and exclusive
property of the ASC A40 Committee. Any and all revenues derived from the sale of documents
created by the Committee or under its auspices shall remain the sole and exclusive possessions of
the Committee, subject to any rights vested in ANSI.
10
26
tJ ited States Model
for Code Development in
an Internationalc tit
by Jon S. Traw, P.E.
President
International Conference of Building Officials
Whittier, California
INTRODUCTION the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and the
The regional approach to code devel- Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCC0.
opment is no longer acceptable in an envi- There are numerous other organizations which have not been
ronment where the global economy is mentioned but have also played an equally important role in the
shrinking and the United States is faced creation of the current United States system of codes and standards
with competing with other technologically development.The point is not to provide a complete historical per-
developed countries.To preserve its prop- spective of what has evolved but to provide a sense of how our sys-
er place in the future, the United States tem might be perceived elsewhere in the world.To some observers
must evolve toward an improved system of outside the United States, our system is fragmented and viewed as
codes and standards development. It is one which would not work
insufficient to continue with a viewpoint within their country. To oth-
JON TRAW of isolation and a posture of"our system" ers, our system is looked on
and nothing else. While construction in "If partnerships with envy because we
the United States still continues to account for approximately 13 evolve which exclude accomplish so much through
percent of the gross domestic product, we must look outside the a methodology of voluntary
United States to the larger word market for the future. the United States efforts from all segments of
Historical Perspective because of incompat- the painful construction som industry.charac-
The A-
current approach to codes and standards development has the some may whievolved during the last 90 years as a result of need rather than fore- ibility with codes terize process by which
we promulgate codes and
sight.The great urban fire in Chicago in 1871 led to the instituting and standards gov- standards, the democratic
of local regulations requiring firewalls to impede conflagration.The ern%ng construction, nature of our society is highly
cry for electrical safety in the early part of the century created theappealing to other parts of the
need for formation of one of the major organizations dedicated to the United States world, as evidenced by the
public safety known around the world, the Underwriters stands to lose a great level of technical exchange
Laboratories°.The need to develop fire safety standards resulted in and requests for mutual
the creation of what is now the National Fire Protection deal." recognition discussions which
Association. The necessity to provide a mechanism for the devel- have been initiated in recent
opment of standards for the quality and testing of materials led to
the creation of the American Society for Testing and Materials. years.
Finally,the need to provide regional uniformity in construction reg- World Activities
ulations led to the creation of the regional model code groups: The initiation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade dis-
Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), cussions and the North American Free Trade Agreement have stim-
ulated a flurry of activity within many countries concerned about
protecting their interests both internally and externally.Other parts
Reprinted from Restructuring: America and Beyond, Volume 1, of the world are looking to form partnerships to better position
Proceedings of Structures Congress XIII, Boston, Massachusetts, themselves within the global construction marketplace of the
April 1995, with permission of the American Society of Civil future.
Engineers. The construction marketplace represents a significant percentage
n___:_._J t___ ae u_.. i..__ nnr ......... .-Oo..:1 A:.... Inearn.finnnl rnnf ranra I
of the world's gross dollar market. The Europeans have taken par- should be viewed as the primary documents which provide the
titular notice of this fact and have been developing codes and implementation mechanism for the mandating of compliance with
standards which each of the 13 and the enforcement of a wide variety of standards. On the other
European countries will adopt hand, standards provide the specifics for determining compliance.
and support under the This distinction is best illustrated by examples.
European Countries (EC) ban- "Only product The design formulas to be used by the architect or engineer in the
ner. These countries represent liability and the due sizing of steel, concrete or wood elements to resist wind or seismic
significantly more construction loading should be viewed as the"design standard" by which a safe
dollars of the world construc- process inherent in structure will be designed. The material qualities defined within a
tion market compared to the the democratic forum "material standard" and the testing methodology contained within
United States. a "test standard" also define the minimums by which the perfor-
Japan's construction market have impeded a mance of materials or systems, or both, may be determined. Taken
also does not represent as quicker incorporation individually, these standards do not lead to a complete design.
much as the share of the ofmaterials d Thus, one of the significant roles of codes is best defined as the
an
European countries. Theamalgamation of all the standards necessary to ensure a complete
Japanese are well aware of the alternate methods structure designed, constructed and maintained to provide prede-
need to create partnerships to termined levels of safety.
properly position themselves in into constructed In addition to being a compilation of required standards, codes
determining what codes and projects. " provide the administrative vehicle for ensuring that the standards
standards might be used not are enforced at the time of design and construction. This is essen-
only within Japan, but else- tially the system which is currently in place in the United States,
where in emerging countries of although the provisions within the current model codes do not
the world. always easily lend themselves to such a distinction.
These are mentioned as facts underlining the significant influ- With some critical adjustments,the United States could have the
ences which will have a bearing on how the United States might appropriate code development model which would both appeal
seek to obtain a healthy share of the world's construction market. If and be responsive to interna-
partnerships evolve which exclude the United States because of tional developments. The
incompatibility with codes and standards governing construction, regional development activi-
the United States stands to lose a great deal. ties must be merged ultimate- "A single national
ly into a single national activ-
United States Activities set of model codes
Recognizing where we have been is as important as where we ity and result in a single set of
need to go to properly position ourselves in the future world con- model codes. This effort is promulgated by the
struction economy. The competitive environment in which United underway through the efforts private sector and
States codes and standards have been developed has generally of BOC:A, ICBO and SBCCI.A
allowed the use of emerging technologies in a timely fashion.Only similar activity must be under- well-coordinated
product liability and the due process inherent in the democratic taken by the standards-writing private-sector devel-
forum have impeded a quicker incorporation of materials and alter- organizations who promul-
nate methods into constructed projects. gate the standards used by the opment of standards
codes. Additionally, the pri-
The II Orted b
regional approach to development of codes and standards vale sector, with financial supported y respon-
reS
which has served us well in the past will no longer be suitable in support from the government, sibly funded research
the future.A more coordinated approach with due consideration for must become more active in
the parties involved is warranted. This will require a critical exam- the international standards activity must be
ination of our current processes and a spirit of cooperation for the arena. Our activities have established."
benefit of the whole rather than an attitude of preservation of the thus far been sporadic and not
status quo. well coordinated.
There are those who advocate that the solution is the nationaliz-
ing of the codes and standards development process similar to those
of other countries. While this may ensure the singularity of the CONCLUSION
requirements (laws), it does not ensure a system where the require- To compete in the world marketplace, we must adapt our meth-
ments are most easily integrated into design and construction. It ods of codes and standards development to be as compatible as
also discounts the importance of the current voluntary activities, possible with the systems which are either in place or under devel-
which are cost effective and ensure a level of buy-in from those opment elsewhere in the world. A single national set of model
who participate. This is the aspect of the United States system codes promulgated by the private sector and well-coordinated pri-
which is the most appealing to other countries. vate-sector development of standards supported by responsibly
One of the keys to success lies in the development of a system by funded research activity must be established. Finally, participation
which the laws (codes and standards) are developed, incorporated in international standards-development activities, where our exper-
into the day-to-day designs and ultimately built into the finished tise may influence the outcome, is a must.
structure. This is the model which must be developed if we are to We must be forward thinking in our approach to position the
be successful in influencing what others in the world are doing or United States to continue to be the leader and not be relegated to
are inclined to accept. following others. We have the capability to adapt if we choose to
For the purposes of defining the proposed United States model, a do so.To not pursue this course will surely lead us into a secondary
distinction is made between "cotes" and "standards" The codes role,the results of which will be entirely predictable. 02 ■
Managing a Global Construction
Industry at the Local Level
by Bob Fowler, P.E., AIA, C.B.O.
Director of Building Inspection
City of Abilene
Abilene,Texas
Chairman
International Code council
INTRODUCTION Just as automobiles are being manufactured and sold all over
Although you may have held the same the world, so too are construction products. Large multinational
job for many years, if you work in the construction industry your companies have the money and interest to bring about interna-
job is changing every day. Whether you are the design profes- tional standards that will allow them to manufacture and market
sional, the contractor or the building official, you are faced with their products worldwide.The global economy is causing borders
ever-increasing complexity. • between countries to fade. The question is, will we as building
Design professionals and contractors officials have any say in what happens? How are our single-
who work in multiple jurisdictions face an often bewildering country codes going to fit into this global standards system?
maze of regulations. Different sets of regulations from jurisdiction The Role of ICBO ES
to jurisdiction discourage many in the construction industry from The obvious answer lies in our evaluation services. ICBO Eval-
trying to learn the codes. Building and fire officials employed in a nation Service, Inc. (IC BO ES), has taken the position that it must
single jurisdiction can generally concentrate on a single set of be technically prepared and supportive of internationalization
codes, but they are constantly asked to evaluate and approve new and harmonization of building requirements and building product
materials or different methods of construction. acceptance. With its highly competent technical staff, ICBO ES
A Single National Code has accepted the responsibility of providing technical evaluation
Most of you are probably aware of the effort underway by the of new products to assist our membership in the administration of
three model code organizations to create a single national volun- building laws.
tary model code system for the United States.This effort is being As political and economic forces throughout the world are
jointly handled through the newly organized International Code directed toward international trade, regulatory agencies cannot
Council, a process that is being monitored by our neighboring afford to create technical barriers. To avoid this, we must estab-
countries who will hopefully become involved. lish contact with countries in North and South America and along
What are the possibilities of a single code for the world? the Pacific Rim. An immediate high level of concern in establish-
Though buildings are designed to withstand similar types of loads ing working relationships with Canada and Mexico has been cre-
and hazards in all parts of the world, socioeconomic differences atecl by NAFTA. It is essential that we gain information and
between countries will make it impractical to consider a single develop a technical relationship that can be used to evaluate
building code for the foreseeable future. Quite simply, the expec- products for compliance with the codes we use in out local com-
tations are so different from country to country, as are the finan- munities. ICBO ES has already opened up many lines of commu-
cial abilities of individuals to afford housing built under strict nication and is recognized worldwide as a leader in this field.
code requirements,that no single code will work. The worldwide acceptance of the ISO 25 guide and the ISO
900) series standards is establishing the necessary standards for
A Global Economy accreditation programs. Working with these systems, however,
One area in which we are moving toward common world requires a high level of expertise and an international involve-
standards is in product manufacture and approval, as illustrated ment from ICBO ES.The availability of this service will allow the
by the International Standards Organization (ISO) 25 guide on local building official to literally manage a global industry.
laboratories and the ISO 900) series standards on quality assur-
ance. Additionally, the passage of the North American Free Trade CONCLUSION
Agreement (NAFTA) and the maturing of the General Agreement Our support for the manufacturers who are involved with
on Tariffs and Trade have accelerated the already existing trend ICBO ES and our support and encouragement to the ICBO ES staff
of global manufacturing of construction products. In the area of will go a long way in keeping this program strong.Our evaluation
testing and standards, the worldwide move toward uniformity is services are currently one of the only tools for managing the glob-
being accelerated at a dizzying rate. al construction industry at the local level. ■
Reprinted from the May-June, 1995, issue of Building Standards with permission of the International Conference of
Building Officials, copyright O 1995. Q 3
T ..4 _.L. b O
g`EED '
.:.„
tt.
....,
'- If NEWSLETTER
1912
Council of AmericatnBuild'utg Officials-The Council of American Buildmg,Offic als is dedicated to the public's health,safety • 1
and related.societal`needs;iirthebuilt environment through the developmentandtueof consensus based regulatory documents,
..•enhancemen[of profess tonalisin;incode administration,.and facilitating acceptanceiOEinnovative building products and systems.
News and Views from the Code Enfonenrent Profession
International Code Council Moves
Toward Single Model Code System
single model code system for the tional Plumbing Code(I.P.C.), the Interna-
A' United States is fast becoming a tional Private Sewage Disposal Code
reality. And no, the federal (LP.S.D.C.) and the International Mechani-
government is nor creating a cal Code(I.M.C.). Additionally,the ICC
federal building code that would preempt has assumed responsibility from the
all ocher codes in this country. This,we Council of American Building Officials for
know,would cause a revolt. The cost to the maintenance of the 000 One and
the federal government to produce such a Two Family Dwelling Code and the Model
Contents: code would also be enormous. Further,the Energy Code to provide proper interfaces
miss current trend is to reduce the power and with the International Codes.
Intonational Code Council influence of federal agencies. Thus,our
Moves Toward Single Model nation's three model building code Development Process and Schedule Set
Code System"' Page 1 organizations,recognizing that intern- Initial work has been done on
National ReviewProcess tional economic competitiveness is establishing the development process and
Seamlincs Product dependent upon more efficient and schedule for the International Building
Ewluation... Pag:2 effective governments which take a serious Code,and meetings have been held with
look at how codes are adopted,enforced, fire officials to determine the correct
New Law Encourages Use of
Private Set orStandards Page 2 and administered,have pooled their process for the production of the Interna-
resources through creation of the Interna- clonal Fire Code.These two codes are
ANSI A117 Committee clonal Code Council (ICC). The ICC
Meos to Consider Public .. continued on Page 4
CommentsPage 3 began,in 1994, the development of a =suss
complete set of construction codes without
CABO to Patidpate in the regional limitations—the International ICC Mission
•
National Homeownership Codes. Statement
Summit... Page 5
To promulgate a comprehen-
Gtendarof Upcoming ICC Combines Efforts of Existing Code sive and compatible regulatory
CABO Events... Page 6 Organizations
The ICC has made great strides system for the built environment
in the past year as it continues to combine through consistent performance
the efforts of the existing building code —based on reguhttions that are
Volume 3 • Number 1
organizations ro produce a single sec of effective, efficient and meet
April 1996 codes. Initial efforts of the ICC have government, industry and public
resulted in the publication of the Inertia- needs.
MEMBERS:
•Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. • Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.
•International Conference of Building Officials
04
(Continued From Page I)
systems offered through the National Evaluation Service,
Inc. (NES). The NES is the subject of a separate article on
International Code Council Moves ... page 2 of this newsletter.
scheduled for completion in time for adoption by the Insurance Industry Supports Single Code
Members of the ICC by 1999 so that the code user will The insurance industry supports the concept of a
have a coordinated family of model codes by the year 2000. single national code. W. Lawrence Schwab, Underwriting
Manager for Stare Farm Fire and Casualty Company states,
Uniform Adoption will Mean Higher Quality "If we, the citizens of the United States,are truly concerned
Construction about the.availability and affordability of property insurance
A single set of codes may influence states and that provides coverage for damages resulting from natural
localities that currently write their own codes,or amend the disasters,we can do nothing less than insist on a single
model codes, to begin adopting the International Codes national model building code that has been adopted and
without technical amendments.This uniform adoption i enforced in all 50 states."''►
would lead to consistent code enforcement and higher
quality construction. The code organizations can then
direct their collective energies toward wider code adoption 'Schwab,W Lawrence,A Proposed Movement Through the Adoption
and better code enforcement. Efforts to mitigate losses and Implementation ofa National Building Code to E'(jecrively
from disasters can also be expanded through national Improve the Quality of America's Homes, 1995,Technical Papers
cooperation. Code officials from across the country can from the NCSBCS/NIST/HUD Joint Technical and Research
have the strength of a unified position regarding national Conference in Albuquerque,New Mexico.
issues and federal government policies,while positioning
the United States in a lead role in the development of
international codes and standards.
Products and Services Available from -
The organizations that 46ro
-.CIcomprise the International Code
Council offer unmatched technical, —
..„,ii •
educational and informational products 2000
and services in support of the Interna- Interrudonal
ublCade
p
tional Codes. With more than 250 t tiishemdred
highly qualified staff members at 14 ` "-, .. .
1998-1999
separate offices located throughout the Public Hearings on
Intemanonal Building Code
United States,these products and :19961997
services are readily available to code Canmatee Dereowment of
users. Some of the available products the International 31dg code
and services include: •J'a 1
Publication of International Mechanical Code
•Code applications
•Training and educational •December 1995 ,_Z-.
Transfer of CABO One and Two
seminars Family Dwelling Code and
•Certification examinations Model Energy Code to ICC +P5 ^r
•Mandl 1995 " r G ., z:a
•Technical handbooks and >' '- F .!.."-...,;,.;;;;X,„,a . _
Publication of the International
workbooks Plumbing Code zi
• Plan reviews .Almost t}lere! .''x
•Automated products •December 1994
• Monthly magazines and �� Formation of the internaonal • Whea the package of
newsletters \ Code council dcc' ICC International Codes
•
• Publication of proposed \ 1993 is complete,it will replace
code changes Common Code Format developed. the Uniform,Standard
\I 1993 BOCA National Budding Code. 1 and National Codes.
N 1994 sBCCI Standard Building Code.
Another service that supports the \ 1994 lcBo uniform Building Code
PP \ published in common Iormat.
International Codes is an evaluation N l
and listing program for products and
CABO NEWSLETTER
Q 5 April, 1996
4
Which Is More Cost Effective,
IPCorUPC?
by Julius Ballanco, P.E.
President
JB Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C.
Munster, Indiana
Julius Ballanco,P.E., is president of 18 INSTALLATION COST COMPARISON
Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C., in In an evaluation of two model plumbing codes, the Interna-
Munster,p- (ndiana. The firm specializes in tional Plumbing Code'"' (IPC), published by the International
code and standard consulting for life safe- Code Council, and the Uniform Plumbing CodeTM (UPC), pub-
•- ty, fire-protection,plumbing and mechan- lished by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechani-
'`J t '®! ical engineering. Before establishing18 cal Officials, the difference in construction costs and available
Engineering, Mr. Ballanco was head of options was found to be significant. While both codes regulate
Plumbing and Mechanical Engineering plumbing system design and installation, the approach that each
for Building Officials and Code Adminis- code takes is completely different.
trators(BOCA)International, Inc.A well- The International Plumbing Code allows a variety of options,
known lecturer and instructor, he is a ranging from acceptable materials to system designs, while the
monthly columnist in both Plumbing& Uniform Plumbing Code is more restrictive in material use and
Mechanical and PM Engineer magazines. He is the author of system design. A more restrictive plumbing code normally trans-
BOCA® National Plumbing Code Commentary and Plumbing of lates into a higher cost of construction, but the only viable way to
Residential Fire Sprinklers and co-author of Illustrated National make that determination is by performing a cost comparison of
Plumbing Code Design Manual.Agraduate of Stevens Institute of the installation of a plumbing system in two identical buildings.
Technology in Hoboken, NewJersey, he is a registered proles- Such an analysis was performed on a single-family dwelling, with
sional engineer and a licensed master plumber, and serves on one plumbing system designed to the IPC and the other designed
numerous national standard committees. to the UPC.
To ensure impartiality, the layout of the single-family dwelling
INTRODUCTION was randomly chosen from a "build-your-own-home" magazine.
The dwelling selected was a two-and-a-half bath, four-bedroom
The expression "cost is no object" is often heard regarding house (Figure 1). The plumbing facilities included three water
construction codes. This expression is one of the biggest false- closets. four lavatories, two bathtubs, a kitchen sink and an auto-
hoods in code enforcement.Cost, in fact, is always an object. In a matic clothes washer standpipe. The gas utilization appliances
market-driven economy, a code cannot make declarations of included a kitchen range, furnace, water heater, dryer and gas log
greatness while raising the price of construction to unreasonable lighter. The design employed the lowest-cost plumbing system
levels. that would be permitted for each building.
Every code must recognize cost impact while maintaining the It is important to note that while the material and methods
necessary protection of the public's health, safety and welfare. were the lowest cost for this particular building, other materials
Codes are constantly accused of being controlled by select indi- and designs would have been acceptable. Endorsement of any
viduals who allow only what they consider appropriate. An effec- particular design or material was not intended when performing
tive code must be open to all innovative ideas and methods, pro- this comparison. Additionally, as technology advances and mate-
vided it achieves a minimum level of protection. rial and labor costs change, the lowest-cost plumbing installation
also changes.
The method of estimating the cost of construction follows the
National Labor Estimator and the National Association of Plumb-
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily ing, Heating and Cooling Contractors Labor Calculator
reflect the opinion or agreement of the International Conference of (NAPHCC). The material prices were obtained from a local
Building Officials. plumbing supply house in April 1997. The prices are the whole-
to 0 6 BUILDING STANDARDS/May-June 1997
.,—_2_7. AAAV
FAMILY ROOM L EAT—IN NOOK LJ ;a I' DINING • j 1/Z �y LAV
`U 1,
KITCHEN ROOM
2" AAV
_ I .I r_ _ LAV
3„
LAUNDRY - WC„,---•-• •
""�: �LAVWC •
-� - u--- TUB`'L fit' �'TUB�
Ir .wk w_
- --...-......--4 i. _ ,- LIVING ROOM 11/ „ •- 11/2'
AAV KEY
WC- WATER CLOSET
!I / I IV- il5S LAV- LAVATORY
GARAGE H u 3" TLB- BATHTUB
K
,! \ KS- KITCHEN CLOTHES
I
ACW- AUTOMATIC C
\ WASHER
VTR \ •
AAV- AIR ADMITTANCE VALVE
VTR- VENT THROUGH ROOF
j•
1/2 -,.
�E_ AAV�
��J
, Wi�AV A- 3"
.I /
•BEDROOM 3/�� MASTER I 11• 2
DEN i T I BEDROOM
it �I ACW 1
��/2 I— 2"
--' BEDROOM i I BEDROOMI
I 2 ,% 1 Figure 2—DWV system conforming to the IPC.
,� Figure 3 depicts the DWV system designed in conformance to
the UPC. What is immediately obvious is the additional vent pip-
Figure 1—Layout of single-family dwelling used in cost
comparison. ing that is required for the DWV system;the only combined vent-
ing is located on the second floor. The lavatories are common
sale prices charged to plumbing contractors. Contractors who vented, as permitted in UPC Section 905.6. The water closet,
purchase large volumes may receive larger discounts than the lavatory and bathtub are vented by a vertical wet vent, as permit-
prices reflected in the pricing tables, and in different parts of the ted in UPC Section 908.0. The Uniform Plumbing Code does not
country, supply houses may have different prices. The time of permit wet venting to be on the horizontal plane.
installation, or increments of labor, were taken from the refer-
enced documents.
The cost comparison was performed only for the piping sys- VTR (continued)
tems, which included the drainage, waste and venting system —---- 3"
(DWV); the water distribution system; and the gas piping system. 11/2°
I
The cost of installing the fixtures, traps and appliances would be 6 %�
the same under LAV
of the plumbingrsystemuld have an h on the cost differential W�\'•--- __I 11/
Y Only
the piping Y impact qv
I
,D,&_,3.,
N-.3.,
2" ��.�c Tu@,�
DWV System J 30
Figure 2 shows the layout of the DWV system that conforms to 3" 11/2" KEY
the IPC:. The cost-cutting measures used in this design are a corn- j 1/z 2". I WC- WATER CLOSET
bination of wet venting the bathroom groups and terminating the LAv- LAVATORY
KS TUB- BATHTUB
vents to air admittance valves. 2"----\✓ 3 KS- KITCHEN SINK
Section 909 of the IPC permits two bathroom groups to be y ACW- AUTOMATIC CLOTHES
ER
combined for venting purposes. While the drainage pipe may VENT THROUGH
P P g P P � VTR- VENT THROUGH ROOF
increase in size for this system, the amount of piping is greatly VTR 2„ 11/21
reduced. The other reduction in piping results from terminating 3„
the vents to an air admittance valve, permitted in IPC Section
917. When air admittance valves are used, one vent must extend I �C LAV j, 3"
to the outdoors. The vent for the automatic clothes washer stand- 1 .f
pipe was selected because the fixture is located in the one-story 1 /z 11/2" �.,\
area of the dwelling unit. ACW
Neither the combined wet venting nor air admittance valves E 2
are permitted by the UPC. Additionally, the IPC permits the drain
2
for the kitchen sink to be 11/2 inches (38 mm) in diameter while
the UPC requires a 2-inch (51 mm)drain. Figure 3—DWV system conforming to the UPC.
BUILDING STANDARDS/May-June 1997 0 7. 11
(continued)
TABLE 1—DWV MATERIAL AND LA13OR,IPC DESIGN
Price(each, Labor Total Labor Total Cost
Material Quantity $per ft.) (hours) (hours) of Material($)
—
11/2"PVC Pipe 67' 0.26 0.05 3.35 17.42
-
11/2"PVC Quarter Bend 6 0.26 0.28 1.68 1.58
11/2"PVC Sanitary Tee 4 0.47 0.42 1.68 1.89
2" PVC Pipe 30' 0.35 0.06 1.8 10.50
2" PVC Quarter Bend 2 0.33 — 0.4 0.8 0.67
2" PVC Sanitary Tee 1 0.67 0.6 0.6 0.67
2"x 11/2"PVC Double Sanitary Tee 1 1.69 0.6 0.6 1.69
2"x 11/2"Increaser 1 0.22 0.4 - 0.4 0.22
3" PVC Pipe 50' 0.70 0.09 4.5 35.00
3" PVC Quarter Bend 5 1.04 0.6 3 5.18
3" PVC Tee-Wye 4 3.21 0.9 3.6 12.84
3"Floor Flange 3 1.74 0.7 2.1 5.2?
3"x 11/2"PVC Tee-Wye 4 3.74 0.9 3.6 14.96
3"x 2"PVC Tee-Wye 1 2.34 0.85 0.85 2.34
3"x 2"Increaser 2 0.73 0.6 1.2 1.45
Roof Flashing 1 3.94 0.75 0.75 3.94
11/2"Air Admittance Valve 4 15.45 0.17 0.68 61.80
Total Labor Time and Material Cost for DWV System 31.19 $177.37
TABLE 2—DWV MATERIAL AND LABOR, UPC DESIGN
Price(each, Labor Total Labor Total Cost
Material Quantity $per ft.) (hours) (hours) of Material($)
11/2"PVC Pipe 80' 0.26 0.05 4 20.80
11/2"PVC Quarter Bend 11 0.26 0.28 3.08 2.90
11/2"PVC Sanitary Tee 4 0.47 0.42 1.68 1.89
11/2"PVC Double Sanitary Tee 1 0.87 0.42 0.42 0.87
2" PVC Pipe 75' 0.35 0.06 4.5 26.25
2" PVC Quarter Bend 4 0.33 0.4 1.6 1.33
2" PVC Sanitary Tee 2 0.67 0.6 1.2 1.35
2" x 11/2"PVC Sanitary Tee 1 0.67 0.6 0.6 0.67
2"PVC Tee-Wye 3 1.95 0.6 1.8 5.84
2"x 11/2" Increaser 1 0.22 0.4 0.4 0.22
3"PVC Pipe 73' 0.70 0.09 6.57 51.10
3"PVC Quarter Bend 9 1.04 0.6 5.4 9.32
3"PVC Sanitary Tee 2 1.79 0.9 1.8 3.57
3"x 11/2" PVC Sanitary Tee 2 1.37 0.9 1.8 2.74
3"PVC Tee-Wye 4 3.21 0.9 3.6 -12.84
3"Floor Flange 3 1.74 0.7 2.1 5.22
3"x 11/2" PVC Tee-Wye 1 3.74 0.9 0.9 3.74
3"x 2" PVC Tee-Wye 5 2.34 0.9 4.5 11.69
3" x 2"Increaser 2 0.73 0.6 1.2 1.45
Roof Flashing 1 3.94 0.75 0.75 3.94
Total Labor Time and Material Cost for DWV System 47.9 $167.73
12 BUILDING STANDARDS/May-lune 1997
08
ismai
TABLE 3—WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, IPC DESIGN
Price(each, Labor Total Labor Total Cost
Material Quantity $per ft.) (hours) (hours) of Material ($)
3/8"PEX Pipe 550' 0.21 0.01 5.5 115.50
1/2"PEX Pipe 30' 0.41 0.02 0.6 12.30
3/8"PEX to Faucet 19 0.57 0.16 3.04 10.87
Connector Fitting
Manibloc-Manifold 1 82.47 1.84 1.84 82.47
Total Labor Time and Material Cost for Water Distribution System 10.98 $221.14
A bill of materials and time increments for installation were For the water distribution system, the material cost using the
prepared for both designs. Table 1 indicates a material cost of manifold system permitted by the IPC is almost double, but the
$177.37, requiring 31.19 hours of labor, to install the DWV sys- labor required to install the system is cut almost in half. Similar to
tern designed to the IPC. Table 2 indicates a material cost of the DWV system, the savings come from lower labor costs, not
$167.73, requiring 47.9 hours of labor, for the UPC DWV system material costs.
design. While the cost of materials is lower for the UPC design,
the labor required is almost 54 percent greater than the labor
required for the system designed to the IPC. Gas Piping System
In most single-family dwellings, the gas piping is installed as a
part of the plumbing. The International Mechanical CodeTM (IMC)
Water Distribution System regulates gas piping installations; however,these requirements are
The cost of installing the water distribution system varies based duplicated in IPC Appendix G. The Uniform Plumbing Code reg-
on the type of material permitted by the codes. Section 605.5 of ulates gas piping installation in Chapter 12.
the IPC permits the use of cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) plastic One of the significant differences between the two codes is the
tubing. One of the savings of installing PEX tubing is the opportu- acceptable material for a gas piping installation. The IPC (IMC)
nity to install a manifold piping system, which has a central mani- permits the use of corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST), which
fold with separate hot and cold water lines to each fixture. While is not recognized in the UPC; therefore, a gas piping system
this system uses more pipe for the installation, the amount of time installed in accordance with the UPC would have to use black
for installation is greatly reduced. steel pipe.
Table 14-1 of the UPC permits the use of CPVC plastic pipe for A benefit of using CSST is that a manifold system can be
water distribution systems. A system piped with CPVC would not installed. While this system would use more piping material,
use a manifold system;the system would be piped throughout the again, the savings in labor would reduce the cost of the installa-
dwelling unit with take-offs for each fixture. This system would tion.
use less piping, but the labor required for installation would Table 5 indicates that the material cost was $225.33, with 9.16
increase. hours in labor, to install the CSST system designed in accordance
Table 3 indicates the cost of installing a manifold system in with the IPC (IMC). The material cost and labor for the gas piping
accordance with the IPC. The material costs are $221.14, while system according to the UPC, shown in Table 6, was $96.94 and
the labor required for installation is 10.98 hours. Table 4 shows 19.83 hours, respectively. When using the IPC, the material costs
the value for the water distribution system designed to the UPC as for CSST are more than double, but the labor required to install
$115.70 for material, requiring 18.92 hours of labor. the system is less than half.
(continued)
TABLE 4—WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, UPC DESIGN
Price(each, Labor Total Labor Total Cost
Material Quantity $per ft.) (hours) (hours) of Material ($)
1/2'CPVC Pipe 55' 0.23 0.03 1.65 12.82
1/2"CPVC Elbows 9 0.10 0.16 1.44 0.86
1/2"CPVC Tees 5 0.14 0.24 1.2 0.68
3/4"CPVC Pipe 165' 0.42 0.03 4.95 69.63
3/4"CPVC Elbows 17 0.22 0.16 2.72 3.66
3/4"CPVC Tees 12 0.31 0.24 2.88 3.66
Angle Stop and Supply 17 1.44 0.24 4.08 24.41
Total Labor Time and Material Cost for Water Distribution System 18.92 $115.70
BUILDING STANDARDS/May-June 1997 0 9 13
(continued)
TABLE 5—GAS PIPING SYSTEM, IPC(IMC) DESIGN
Price(each, Labor Total Labor Total Cost
Material Quantity $per ft.) (hours) (hours) of Material ($)
1" Steel Pipe 10' 0.98 0.06 0.6 9.80
P Elbow 1 1.02 0.56 0.56 1.02
3/4"CSST 15' 1.74 0.05 0.75 26.10
1/2"CSST 105' 1.34 0.05 5.25 140.70
CSST Appliance Connector 5 7.10 0.3 1.5 35.50
5-Port Manifold for CSST 1 12.21 0.5 0.5 12.21
Total Labor Time and Material Cost for Gas Piping System 9.16 $225.33
TABLE 6—GAS PIPING SYSTEM, UPC DESIGN
Price(each, Labor Total Labor Total Cost
Material Quantity $per ft.) (hours) (hours) of Material ($)
1/2"Steel Pipe 82' 0.59 0.05 4.1 48.38
1/2"Elbow 11 0.48 0.46 5.06 5.28
1/ "Cou lin 3 0.90 0.46 1.38 2.70
1/2"Union 4 2.13 0.6 2.4 8.52
3/4"Steel Pipe 15' 0.70 0.05 0/5 10.50
3/4"Elbow 2 0.58 0.5 1 1.16
3/4"x 1/2"Tee 2 1.38 0.73 1.46 2.76
3/4"x 3/4" Reducer 1 0.87 0.5 0.5 0.87
3/4"Union 1 2.45 0.6 0.6 2.45
1"Steel Pipe 10' 0.98 0.06 0.6 9.80
1"Elbow 1 1.02 0.56 0.56 1.02
1"x 3/4"Tee 1 1.75 0.73 0.73 1.75
1"x 1/2"Tee 1 1.75 0.69 0.69 1.75
Total Labor Time and Material Cost for Gas Piping System 19.83 $96.94
TABLE 7--COMPARISON OF LABOR AND MATERIAL COSTS Total Cost of Piping Installation
International Uniform The total cost of materials and labor required for installing all
Plumbing Code Plumbing Code the piping systems are listed in Table 7. The obvious difference is
in the labor required for installing the lowest cost system designed
Labor Material Labor Material in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. Using the UPC
Type of System (hours) Cost($) (hours) Cost($) would require 35 more hours to install the plumbing piping sys-
DWV System 31.19 177.37 47.9 167.73 tems than using the International Plumbing Code. Note, however,
that although the IPC provides labor savings, the material cost
Water 10.98 221.14 18.92 115.70 increases by $243.
Distribution
A thorough comparison of the total cost of the piping system
Gas Piping 9.16 225.33 19.83 96.94 must include the cost of labor. One of the problems in comparing
TOTAL 51.33 623.85 86.65 380.38 costs is that labor prices fluctuate from region to region. Most
plumbing professionals currently would agree that the national
labor price average is $35 per hour. Table 8 provides a compari-
son of costs for four labor prices, ranging from $20 per hour to
$65 per hour. In all cases, it is less expensive to install a plumbing
piping system in accordance with the IPC than to install the same
system in accordance with the UPC. At the national average of
$35 per hour, using the Uniform Plumbing Code results in an
increase of 41 percent in the price of the system.
14 BUILDING STANDARDS/May-June 1997
0
TABLE 8—COST COMPARISON BASED ON
DIFFERENT LABOR PRICE
International Uniform UPC
Plumbing Plumbing Increase
Labor Rate Code Code (percent)
$20 Per Hour $1,650.45 $2,113.38 28.05
$35 Per Hour $2,420.40 $3,413.13 41.02
$50 Per Hour $3,190.35 $4,712.88 47.72
$65 Per Hour $3,960.30 $6,012.63 51.82
CONCLUSION
When a cost comparison cf one single-family dwelling is per-
formed, it naturally raises questions of whether the systems were
rigged to favor one code over the other. In subsequent evaluations
of numerous other building .ayouts, in all cases, the plumbing
system designed in accordance with the International Plumbing
Code resulted in lower costs. The larger the building, the greater
the difference in the cost of the system.
Another factor that cannot be ignored is that not all plumbing
systems are designed at the lowest cost to the building owner.
That does not, however, dirmnish the fact that the IPC provides
the option for a lower cost system. It is important to note that both
codes require systems that perform as required.
If it could be proven that a system permitted by one code
would fail to perform,then there would be a valid reason for con-
cern. There is no merit, however, to any of the arguments regard-
ing the validity of the plumbing systems that result in lower costs
(as permitted in the IPC). Careful research of all the technical doc-
umentation and field investigations of the various systems permit-
ted by both codes has concluded that the level of protection of
public health, safety and welfare is maintained. Neither code will
jeopardize the public nor compromise the level of protection. ■
11
BUILDING STANDARDS/May-June 1997 15
L
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
College of Engineering
Masters of Science in Engineering
Special Option: Engineering Management
CE 573
ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, LAW AND CONTRACTS
CLASS FINAL PROJECT
DISCUSSION OF COURT CASES:
SESSIONS TANK LINERS,INC. ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT
Southwest Tank Liners,Inc. CORPORATION
Plaintiff-Appellant Petitioner
VS VS
JOOR MANUFACTURING,INC. INDIAN HEAD,INC.
Defendants-Appellees Respondent
Instructor:Ahmed Sobhy
Student: Sergio M. Barrueto
Due Date: 12/5/96
13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
A. THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 4
B. THE CONSENSUS STANDARD MAKING PROCESS 5
III. COURT CASE:
SESSIONS TANK LINERS, INC. vs. JOOR MANUFACTURING, INC.
A. BACKGROUND 5
B. LAW SUIT 7
C. RULINGS 7
IV. COURT CASE:
ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT, CORPORATION vs. INDIAN HEAD, INC.
A. BACKGROUND 9
B. LAW SUIT 9
C. RULINGS 10
V. CONCLUSION 10
APPENDIX A Approval of Proposal
APPENDIX B Handout Material
14
I. INTRODUCTION
The project assignment consist in the research of court cases dealing with building construction,
legal disputes or construction claims relevant to the CE 573 Engineering Specifications, Law and
Contracts course.
During the past few years there has been many meetings, discussions and debates regarding the
development process of building codes and the development of consensus standards. The
formation of the International Code Council (ICC) in 1994 was made possible by the mutual
agreement signed by the three model code groups located in the U.S.: the Building Officials Code
Administrators International (BOCA), the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
and the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). The ICC has already
developed a plumbing code and a mechanical code and is in the process of developing a building
code. These codes were and are being developed utilizing the model code process in which only
the enforcing authorities may vote on proposed code changes. The ICC will also develop a fire
code called the International Fire Code (IFC). However, there exists another organization called
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) which develops fire standards through the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus process which insistent in being part of
the development process of the IFC. The amalgamation of the two distinct processes is
interesting and the legal ramifications are unforeseeable. Thus this possible integration led me to
discuss the two court cases which were chosen to illustrate the differences in the development
between model codes and consensus standards.
The first court case selected is:
SESSIONS TANK LINERS, INC.
Southwest Tank Liners, Inc.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VS.
JOOR MANUFACTURING, INC.
Defendants -Appellees.
Nos. 86-6208, 86-6470.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
July 22, 1988
In this court case, Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. (plaintiff), which lined underground storage tanks,
brought action against Joor Manufacturing Inc. (defendant), which manufactured new tanks,
pursuant to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act alleging that the defendant improperly influenced the
code development process of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) in order to gain a commercial
5
CE 573 - Spec, Law&Contracts 2 Sergio M. Barrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
advantage and that this influence did not provide a fair representation. The case dealt with trying
to determine if the provision found in the 1982 Edition of the UFC Sec. 79.601(d), which
required that leaking tanks either be removed from the ground or abandoned in place in lieu of
allowing the installation of an interior tank lining was for safety purposes or if the requirement
had a commercial interest associated with i.t.ti)
The second court case selected is:
ALLIED TUBE& CONDUIT, 'CORPORATION
Petitioner
VS.
INDIAN HEAD, IVC.
Respondent
486 US 49Z 100 L Ed 2d 497, 108 S Ct 1931
[No. 87-157]
Argued February 24, 1988. Decided June 13, 1988
In this court case, Indian Head, Inc. (respondent), which manufactured plastic electrical conduit
for buildings, alleged that the NFPA standard development process was unfairly influenced by
Allied Tube & Conduit, Corporation (petitioner), which manufactured steel electrical conduits, in
violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Manufacturers of steel conduit recruited individuals off
the street, paid the NFPA membership fees and other expenses in exchange for a favorable vote
that would advance the steel conduit manufacturer's interests. Essentially, the steel conduit
manufacturers sought to not allow proposed code provisions to be incorporated into the 1981
National Electrical Code (NEC) which would allow the utilization of plastic electrical conduits
in buildings. The plastic conduit manufacturer filed an action against the steel manufacturer
alleging unfair trade and invoking the Sherman Act.0)
At the heart of both court cases are the different processes by which the building codes and the
consensus standards are developed. The first case illustrates the code development process of the
UFC and the second case illustrates the consensus standard making process of the NEC. The
project will consist in explaining both processes, allegations, interests, differences, outcomes and
rulings.
The case study will reference the Sherman Act and the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, thus a review
of both cases is helpful.
16
CE 573 -Spec, Law&Contracts 3 Sergio M. Barrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT
The antitrust laws in the U.S. are aimed at maintaining competition as the motive force of the
U.S. economy. The word "anti-trust"indicates opposition to the giant trusts that began to
develop after the Civil War. Trustees were given corporate stock certificates of various
companies; by combining numerous corporations into the trust, the trustees could effectively
manage and control an entire industry. Thus, the Cotton-oil Trust, Lead Trust, Sugar Trust, and
Whiskey Trust, along with oil, telephone, steel, tobacco, and others had become or were in the
process of becoming monopolies. The unions, not being able to organize and effectively combat
these companies, began to exert political pressure to curtail the power of these companies. The
result of this commotion was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, sponsored by Senator John
Sherman of Ohio. The Senator and others declared that the Act had roots in a common-law
policy that frowned on monopolies. This act gave power to the federal government to enforce a
national policy against monopoly and restraint of trade.(,)
Section 1 of the Sherman Act declares: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with
foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". This sweeping language was limited in 1911 by the
Supreme Court to "unreasonable"restraints of trade.C)
Section 2 of the Sherman Act proscribes monopolization: 'Every person who shall monopolize,
or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to
monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor".(,)
In 1914 the congress added two additional antitrust laws: the Clayton Act which outlawed
specific practices, such as price discrimination, exclusive dealing and tying contracts and
acquisition of a company's competitors; and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) which
outlawed "unfair methods" of competition, established the FTC as an independent admiinistrative
agency, and gave it power to enforce the antitrust laws alongside the Department of Justice.c)
THE NOERR-PENNINGTON DOCTRINE
The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine shields from antitrust scrutiny concerted efforts to restrain or
monopolize trade by petitioning government officials. As a general rule, activities that fall
directly within the authority of the regulatory agency are immune. The agency is said to have
exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct.
In 1961 representatives from the railroad industry lobby, extensively and eventually successfully,
17
CE 573 -Spec, Law&Contracts 4 Sergio M. Barrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
for state legislation that hampered truckers, the railroad competitors. In Eastern Railroad
President's Conference vs. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961), the Supreme Court
said that there was no conspiracy to restrain trade in what has become to be known as the Noerr-
Pennington Doctrine. This doctrine holds that antitrust laws to such activities would violate
First Amendment rights to petition the government. One exception to this rule of immunity for
soliciting action by the government comes when certain groups seek to harass competitors by
instituting state of federal proceedings against them if the claims are baseless or known to be
false.(,)
CODES VS. STANDARDS
Also, before continuing lets quickly define codes and standards.
CODES: Are a set of rules and regulations (law) developed, voted upon, promulgated and
adopted by governmental officials and jurisdictions that determines what is right and prohibits
what is wrong with the goal to protect the public and increase safety. Codes say when and
where to do something.
STANDARDS: Are a set of instructions developed, voted upon and promulgated by private
associations which have the technical expertise and know-how in a given subject area. These
standards are also developed to make sure that products meet the safety guidelines set forth
within the documents. These standards may be adopted by jurisdictions. Standards say how to
do something, much like a recipe book.
II. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
A. THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The code development process of the UFC today is conducted through the International Fire
Code Institute (IFCI). The process is a yearly democratic process where not only the members
can submit codes changes, but also any person that is not a member. The code changes
submitted are processed, published in a monograph and discussed in a public forum.
Two meetings are conducted annually. During the first meeting, known as the "Code Hearings',
the original code change proposals are presented in a public forum. The proposals are discussed
and debated and voted upon by the standing Code Development Committee. The votes are not
hidden, in other words, the individual committee member makes public his/her decision and
reasons for voting in a particular way. During the second meeting, known as the "Annual
Business Meeting" only the challenges to the standing Code Development Committee are
presented in a public forum. In other words, if any party does not agree with the committee's
• ,1 8
CE 573-Spec,Law&Contracts 5 Sergio M. Barrueto,P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
decision, they can challenge the committee by submitting a revised proposal to any of the
original code changes submitted. The challenges are discussed, debated and voted upon by the
voting membership.
In this type of system the voting members are fire officials and building officials, in other words:
the regulators and enforcers of the code. This is done with the idea that the only interest of the
voting parties is the public's safety, the protection of fire-fighters, the protection of property, the
continuity of operations and the protection of the environment.
B. THE CONSENSUS STANDARD MAKING PROCESS
The standard making process promulgated by NFPA follows the American National Standard
Institute (ANSI) accredited consensus standard development process and this is the system by
which the NEC is developed. The process is a yearly democratic process where not only the
members can submit codes changes, but also any person that is not a member. The code changes
submitted are processed, published in a report and discussed in a public forum.
The standards developed by the NFPA are subject to a three-year cycle. The proposed changes
to the standards are submitted and processed and published in a report for public comment. The
process can be rather difficult to follow given that after the initial new or revised proposal is
submitted, the proposal goes to a series of committees which meet behind closed doors to discuss
the issues and formulate their recommendations. Finally, the proposals go to public debate
approximately 100 weeks after the initial submittal where the general membership votes on the
proposal.
In this type of system the voting members is the general membership which is anyone that is a
member. That is to say, building and fire officials may vote; engineers and designers may vote;
architects, developers and contractors may vote; manufacturers may vote; operators and users
may vote; interest groups and associations may vote; academia and scientists may vote; industry
and private groups may vote; public agencies may vote; in conclusion, anyone with an interest,
whether the interest is safety or financial, may vote in this type of consensus standard
development process. The only requirement is that the individual be a member six months prior
to casting the first ballot.
III. COURT CASE: SESSIONS TANK LINERS, INC. versus
JOOR MANUFACTURING, INC.
A. BACKGROUND
Joor Manufacturing, Inc. manufactured and sold underground storage tanks for the storage of
19
CE 573 -Spec, Law&Contracts 6 Sergio M. I3arrueto,P_E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
flammable liquids, such a gasoline. These tanks were used in a variety of applications but
mainly they were found in motor vehicle service stations. Sessions, also known at the time as
Southwest Tank Liners, Inc. was dedicated to the repair of these underground storage tanks that
were exposed to corrosion. The repair was performed by cutting out the damaged area of the
tank and applying a protective coating of epoxy to the interior of the tank and resealing the
damage. This work was performed without removing the underground tank.
The two organizations commercially competed directly because the application of the tank
linings was performed without removing the tank, and the repairs apparently are quicker and
more economical than removing the tank because of savings associated labor costs. The
expenses were not only direct in terms of the labor costs, but also there was a down-time and a
business interruption expense associated with removing the underground tank for repairs. While
the cost of lining the tank was roughly equivalent to purchasing a new tank, customers preferred
to line the tanks because of the costs mentioned previously. Also, if a tank is removed for what
ever reason, the operators will normally replace the tank with a new tank and not apply the
lining.
In 1978 the Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA), which at the time of this court case was in
charge of the development of the UFC, created a subcommittee to revise Article 79 of the UFC
which set forth provisions for the storage, use and handling of flammable liquids. One of the
tasks of the Article 79 Subcommittee was to analyze the safety problems associated with tank
corrosion and to make recommendations to the membership in the form of a code change. The
alleged safety issue was that leaks caused by corrosion were very difficult to detect. Joor argued
that while repairing a tank utilizing epoxy lining might prevent leaks, the system does not
strengthen the tank walls which are weakened and thus the structural integrity of the tank is
questionable due to the ground pressure. Joor also argued that the lining would void the
Underwriters Laboratory (UL.) listing of the tank and insisted that an aboveground inspection
of the tank is necessary to properly determine the extent of the damage of the tank wall.
Joor's president, Howard Robbins, became a member of the Article 79 Subcommittee in
December of 1979 and argued against allowing tank linings as a repair method to leaks caused by
corrosion. On March 17, 1981 during a subcommittee meeting, and even though Mr. Robins
could not vote, he moved to approve a provision in the UFC that would require a leaking
underground tank be removed for repairs. This provision effectively deleted the cost advantage
of lining a tank. The provision carried unanimously.
During the subcommittee deliberations, industry representatives from all sectors were allowed to
participate in the deliberations, offer testimony, submit material for discussions, submit scientific
investigations or any other supporting documentation that would advance their cause; however,
they were not allowed to vote, and such was the case for Sessions. After the subcommittee's
deliberations were finished, the new proposal was submitted to the standing UFC Code
Development Committee for consideration at the code hearings and subsequently at the Annual
_ . 20
CE 573 - Spec, Law& Contracts 7 Sergio M.Barrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
Business Meeting. Sessions and other tank lining companies attended the WFCA Annual
meeting to submit materials that would support their cause in hopes of overturning the Article 79
Subcommittee's decision. However, the voting membership ratified the Article 79
Subcommittee's decision and the provision of requiring an underground tank be removed for
repairs was approved and became part of the UFC in the 1982 Edition.
This sections reads as follows:
Sec. 79.601(d) Leaking Tanks. Leaking tanks shall be promptly emptied and removed
from the ground or abandoned in accordance with Section 79.113.
B. LAW SUIT
Sessions filed suit on August 24, 1984 against Joors under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
alleging that Joor combined with other tank manufacturing interest to procure an unreasonable
restraint of trade, and that Joor was attempting to monopolize the relevant market. Sessions
further accused Robbins of making misrepresentations to fire officials inside and outside the
WFCA, of conspiring with the WFCA and of denying Sessions access to the Article 79
subcommittee.
Joor contended that, under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, it is immune from antitrust liability
for urging the WFCA to adopt UFC Section 79.601(d). Joor contended that, regardless of
whether it was protected by Noerr, Sessions had not established a violation of Article 1 of the
Sherman Act. To prove a violation of Article 1 of the Sherman Act, three elements must be
established.
A plaintiff must show:
I. That there was combination, conspiracy, or agreement to restrain trade,
2. That the agreement unreasonably restrained trade under either a per se rule of illegality or rule
of reason analysis, and
3. That the restraint affected interstate commerce.(3)
C. RULINGS
Mr. Robins was considered the expert witness on the Article 79 subcommittee. However, being
aware that the subcommittee considered him the most technically competent person on the
subcommittee and that his colleagues relied on his advice on engineering issues he took over the
decision making process, took advantage of his position and knowledge as a subcommittee
member and presented a partisan portrait of tank lining. First, he articulated all of the potential
21
CE 573 -Spec. Law&Contracts 8 Sergio M. Barrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
dangers associated with lining, but neglected to discuss the availability of tests to ensure that
lining would be perfectly safe. Second, Robbins made knowingly false statements to the
subcommittee, telling them that the lining process would "void" the U.L. listing. Third. Robins
drafted the text of Section 79.601(d) and moved the subcommittee to approve it despite the fact
that neither the subcommittee members nor the tank lining proponents had been notified that a
vote on the issue would be taken. Fourth, Mr. Robins prevented the proponents of tank lining
from fully and effectively articulating their contentions regarding the lining process to the
subcommittee. He did not make his arguments known to the proponents of the tank lining who
were scheduled to speak to the subcommittee on March 17. 1981.
Sessions showed that Joor's activities adversely affected competition between tank liners and
tank manufactures. As a result of the adoption of the UFC provision, the business of
underground tank lining was brought to a halt in many areas of California and other western
states. This provision deprived customers of a choice between tank lining and replacement.
Thus the courts concluded that UFC Section 79.601(d) adversely affected competition without
promoting competition in some other respect. Also, the court determined that an attempt to
justify restraint of trade on the basis of the potential threat that competition poses to the public
safety is nothing less than an assault on the basic policy of the Sherman Act since safety and
competition can coexist harmoniously.0)
The courts also found that there was little question that Joor's activities affected intestate
commerce. Sessions, a California company, imported all of the epoxy which it used to line tanks
from a company located in Florida. Moreover, Sessions lined many tanks in western states other
than California. All of these activities were disrupted by what Joor did. Finally, Sessions proved
that almost immediately after the adoption of UFC Section 79.601(d) by the subcommittee and
prior to its adoption by the WFCA, Joor "marketed" the stigma which it had caused the
subcommittee to place on tank lining by sending letters to public agencies and customers urging
its prohibition.li)
The Court rejected the contention that the adoption of the UFC by local governments caused the
injury plaintiff claims in this case. "To prevail under the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must not only
show an unlawful restraint of trade, but must also prove that the defendant is legally responsible
for this restraint". After establishing that the defendants antitrust violation caused the requisite
injury, the plaintiff was afforded considerable latitude in proving damages.[,)
In this case Sessions presented expert testimony to establish that it lost $1,160,606.00 in net
profits as a result of the stigma caused by Joor's actions in violation of the antitrust laws. The
plaintiffs expert testified that he derived this figure by comparing Session's business with the
business of other licensed applicators of epoxy produced by the Bridgeport Chemical Company
which were operating in jurisdictions unaffected by the WFCA's code. As the defendant
introduced no testimony refuting plaintiffs estimate, plaintiff was allowed to recover its lost
profits, trebled under 15 U.S.C. Article 15(a) (1988), for a total of$3,481,818.00. The plaintiff
22
CE 573 -Spec,Law&Contracts 9 Sergio M. l3arrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
was also entitled to recover its cost of suit and its attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Article
15(a) which was for $859,844.00 which was considered to be the lodestar (average) amount.0)
The courts also found that efforts to influence or lobby private, model code associations are
protected by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. However, they also concluded that "abuses" of this
type of system designed primarily to harm competitors axe a "sham" and fall outside of the
protection of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.
IV. COURT CASE: ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT, CORPORATION versus
INDIAN HEAD, INC.
A. BACKGROUND
The NFPA is a private organization which develops standards mainly dealing with fire protection
issues. The standards are developed utilizing the American national Standards Institute
accredited process and is a 3 year process. NFPA's National Electric Code (NEC) establishes
requirements for the design and installation of electrical wiring systems, is routinely adopted into
law by jurisdictions and is accepted by private product-certification laboratories, insurance
underwriters and electrical contractors and distributors. Throughout the relevant period, the NEC
permitted the use of electrical steel conduit. The respondent, Indian Head, manufacturer of
plastic electrical conduit and which commercially competed directly with Allied Tube &
Conduit, submitted a proposal to the NFPA for the NEC to also include the acceptance of plastic
electrical conduit. The proposal was approved by one of the NFPA's subcommittees, and thus
could be adopted into the NEC by a simple majority of the voting members attending the NFPA's
1980 annual meeting.0)
Before the annual meeting was held, the petitioner, Allied Tube & Conduit, members of the steel
industry, other steel manufacturers, and independent sales agents collectively agreed to exclude
Indian Head's product from the 1981 NEC by packing the annual meeting with the new members
whose function was to defeat Indian Head's proposal. Combined, the steel interests recruited 230
persons to join the NFPA and to attend the annual meeting to vote against the proposal. Allied
Tube & Conduit alone recruited 155 persons, including employees, executives, sales agents, the
agent's employees, employees from two divisions that did not sell electrical products. and the
wife of a national sales director paying over $100,000 for the membership, registration, and
attendance expenses of these voters. At the annual meeting, the steel group voters were
instructed where to sit and how and when to vote by group leaders who used walkie-talkies and
hand signals to facilitate communications. Few of the steel group voters had any or the technical
documentation necessary to follow the meeting. None of them spoke at the meeting to give their
23
CE 573 - Spec, Law&Contracts 10 Sergio M.I3arrueto,P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
reasons for opposing the proposal to approve polyvinyl chloride conduit. Nonetheless, with their
solid vote in the opposition, the proposal was rejected and returned to committee by a vote of
394 to 390.1,)
Remember that in this process a voting member is any person, that is to say: private industry or
governmental agencies, the only prerequisite? To have become a member by paying the required
membership fees 6 months prior to the casting the ballot.
B. LAW SUIT
After the proposal was defeated at the annual meeting arid an appeal to NFPA's Board of
Directors was denied on the grounds that even though the rules had been circumvented., they had
not been violated; on October 1981 Indian Head filed a law suit in Federal District Court,
alleging that Allied Tube & Conduit and others had unreasonably restrained trade in the electrical
conduit market in violation of Article 1 of the Sherman Act.01
Allied Tube & Conduit contended that its efforts to affect the product standard making process of
a private association are immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr Pennington doctrine
primarily because the NFPA's standards are widely adopted into law by state and local
governments.
In this case, the restraint of trade on which liability was predicated was the NFPA's exclusion of
Indian Head's product from the code, and no damages were imposed for the incorporation of the
code by any government. The relevant context is thus the standard making process of a private
association. Typically, private standard making associations like the NFPA include members
having horizontal and vertical business relations. Agreement on a product standard is implicitly
an agreement not to manufacture, distribute, or purchase certain types of products. Accordingly,
private standard making associations have traditionally been objects of antitrust scrutiny. When,
however, private associations promulgate safety standards based on merits of objective expert
judgements and through procedures that prevent the standard making process from being biased
by members with economic interests in stifling product competition, those private standards can
have significant competitive advantages. It is this potential for competitive benefits that has led
courts to apply rule-of-reason analysis to product standard making by private associaticns.0)
C. RULINGS
After many discussions the courts held that the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine immunity did not
apply and ruled in favor of Indian Head. Indian Head was awarded $3.8 million for lost profits
resulting from the effect that excluding polyvinyl chloride conduit from the 1981 NEC had of its
own force in the market-place.
24
CE 573- Spec, Law&Contracts 11 Sergio M. Etarrueto,P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
V. CONCLUSION
Both cases illustrate an abuse of the system by commercially interested parties. In the Sessions
vs. Joor case the abuse occurred during the subcommittee work where Mr. Robins, president of
Joor Manufacturing, used his expertise and knowledge to deceive the subcommittee and did not
provide accurate testimony. His actions caused a restrain in trade and commerce. In the Allied
Tube vs. Indian Head the abuse occurred when Allied Tube & Conduit signed up people at
random to become members of NFPA while paying their expenses in exchange for a favorable
vote that would advance their product in the NEC. Allied Tube & Conduit actions caused a
restriction in trade because by buying votes they sought t:o not allow the plastic tubing provision
to be incorporated into the NEC and thus limited competition and established a monopoly.
As mentioned previously, the courts found that since the voting members of the model code
groups are governmental officials the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine applies in protecting these
groups from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and thus from the formation of monopolies.
As a result of these cases the UFC no longer establishes official subcommittees. All the work
must be done in the two annual meetings; during the code hearings and during the annual
membership meeting. During these two meetings the voting members are those that represent
governmental jurisdictions and that have the responsibility to enforce the code. Both hearings
are in the open and anybody can submit testimony, counter-testimony and the dates are well
established in advance to give everybody an equal opportunity to participate. The 1982 Edition
of the UFC was also revised to allow tank lining provided certain requirements and precautions
were met.
In regards to the standard making process, the courts found that since the voting members of the
these associations are private individuals with a commercial interest, the Noerr-Pennington
Doctrine does not apply in protecting these groups from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and thus are
subject to the laws regulating and prohibiting monopolies.
The NFPA changed their process somewhat to prevent the last minute stacking of votes. They
continue to conduct closed door subcommittee meetings and to allow anybody that becomes a
member to vote whether they are governmental representatives or private industry
representatives. The change made was that in order to be able to vote at the annual meetings, the
individual must have become a member 6 months prior to the annual meeting. While this may
prevent last minute stacking of votes, individuals and organizations with a commercial interest to
keep a certain provision out of, or in, the standards can still stack the votes with a little planning.
and in fact, this method is still being utilized in certain standards.
Finally,the foremost duty of any professional dealing with codes, standards, design, engineering,
inspection, enforcement, manufacturing and contracting should be public safety and safety to
25
CE 573 -Spec, Law&Contracts ]2 Sergio M.13arrueto,P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
occupants. After this, the safety hierarchy may vary somewhat. From the point of view of codes
the hierarchy is: occupant safety, fire fighter safety, property protection, continuity of operations
and protection of the environment. Of course affordability, making a profit and efficiency must
be worked into this safety hierarchy and all those involved must constantly determine this
delicate balance.
END OF REPORT
26
CE 573 -Spec,Law&Contracts 13 Sergio M. Barrueto, P.E.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
REFERENCES
1. "U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Lawyer Edition".
2. Jethro K. Lieberman and George J. Siedel; "Business Law and the Legal Environment", pg.
1018-1020 and 1050, 1985 ed., publishers: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
3. "786 Federal Supplement. Pg. 1528."
(c:I wpdocsllbsusergl ce5731projct-3)
27
APPENDIX A
28
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY LONG BEACH
CE 573 ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, LAW AND CONTRACTS
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Student: SERGIO M.BARRUETO
Instructor: AHMED SOBHY
Due Date: 10/10/96
Court cases: Joors vs. Sessions and Indian Head vs. Allied Tube.
The project assignment consist in the research of a court case dealing with building construction,
legal disputes or construction claims relevant to the course.
The first court case selected is Joors vs. Sessions. In this court case, one party alleged that the
Uniform Fire Code (UFC)was influenced by certain interests and that it did not provide a fair
representation. The case dealt with trying to determine if the requirement that underground tanks
that leak be replaced in lieu of allowing the installation of an interior tank lining was for safety
purposes or if the requirement had a commercial interest associated with it.
The second court case selected is Indian Head vs. Allied Tube. In this court case, one party
alleged that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)was influenced by certain interests
and that it did not provide a fair representation. The case dealt with trying to determine if the
standard making process had requirements that unfairly did not allow plastic tubing for electrical
wiring systems in buildings.
At the heart of both cases is the different processes by which the building codes and the consensus
standards are developed. The first case illustrates the UFC code development process and the
second case illustrates the ANSI accredited consensus standard development process. The
project will consist in explaining both processes, allegations, interests, differences, outcomes and
rulings.
PROPOSED OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
General Description of the project. / I\ r
l l,'
H. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES �°
UFC code development process
ANSI accredited consensus standard development process
Differences
29
CE 573 Project Proposal Sergio M. Barrueto
III. JOORS VS. SESSIONS
Allegations
Rulings
Outcomes
Conclusion
IV. INDIAN HEAD VS. ALLIED TUBE
Allegations
Rulings
Outcomes
Conclusion
V. CONCLUSION
(a:\ce573\projct l a.573)
2
30
APPENDIX B
31
•
PROJECT
The project assignment consist in the research of court cases dealing with building construction,.legal
disputes or construction claims relevant to the CE 573 Engineering Specifications,Law and Contracts
course.
The first court case selected is:
SESSIONS TANK LINERS,INC.
Southwest Tank Liners,Inc.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VS.
JOOR MANUFACTURING,INC.
Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 86-6208, 86-6470.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
July 22, 198'8
In this court case,Sessions Tank Liners,Inc. (plaintiff),which lined underground storage tanks„brought
action against Joor Manufacturing,Inc. (defendant),which manufactured new tanks,pursuant to the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act alleging that the defendant improperly influenced the code development process of
the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) in order to gain a commercial advantage and that this influence did not provide
a fair representation. The case dealt with trying to determine if the provision found in the 1982 Edition of the
UFC Sec. 79.601(d),which required that leaking tanks either be removed from the ground or abandoned in
place in lieu of allowing the installation of an interior tank lining was for safety purposes or if the requirement
had a commercial interest associated with it.
The second court case selected is:
ALLIED TUBE&CONDUIT CORPORATION
Petitioner
VS
INDIAN HEAD, INC.
Respondent
486 US 492, 100 L Ed 2d 497, 108 S Ct 1931
/No. 87-1571
Argued February 24, 1988. Decided June 13. 1988
32
CE 573 -Spec,Law&Contracts Sergio M. Barrueto,RE.
Study of Court Cases Course Final Project
In this court case,Indian Head, Inc. (respondent),which manufactured plastic electrical conduit for
buildings,alleged that the NFPA standard development process was unfairly influenced by Allied Tube &
Conduit, Corporation (petitioner),which manufactured steel electrical conduits,in violation of the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act. Manufacturers of steel conduit recruited individuals off the street,paid the NFPA,
membership fees and other expenses in exchange for a favorable vote that would advance the steel conduit
manufacturer's interests. Essentially,the steel conduit manufacturers sought to not allow proposed code
provisions to be incorporated into the 1981 National Electrical Code (NEC)which would allow the
utilization of plastic electrical conduits in buildings. The plastic conduit manufacturer filed an action against
the steel manufacturer alleging unfair trade and invoking the Sherman Act.
At the heart of both court cases are the different processes by which the building codes and the consensus
standards are developed. The first case illustrates the code development process of the UFC and the second
case illustrates the consensus standard making process of the NEC. The project will consist in explaining
both processes,allegations,interests,differences,outcomes and rulings.
THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT
The antitrust laws in the U.S. are aimed at maintaining competition as the motive force of the U.S..economy.
The word "anti-trust"indicates opposition to the giant trusts that began to develop after the Civil War. The
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890,sponsored by Senator John Sherman of Ohio declared that the Act had roots
in a common-law policy that frowned on monopolies.
THE NOERR-PENNINGTON DOCTRINE
The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine shields from antitrust scrutiny concerted efforts to restrain or monopolize
trade by petitioning government officials. As a general rule,activities that fall directly within the authority of
the regulatory agency are immune. From the Eastern Railroad President's Conference vs.Noerr Motor
Freight,Inc.,365 U.S. 127(1961)case.
CODES VS. STANDARDS
Also,before continuing lets quickly define codes and standards.
CODES:Are a set of rules and regulations (law)developed,voted upon,promulgated and adopted by
governmental officials and jurisdictions that determines what is right and prohibits what is wrong with the
goal to protect the public and increase safety. Codes say when and where to do something.
STANDARDS:Are a set of instructions developed,voted upon and promulgated by private associations
which have the technical expertise and know-how in a given subject area. These standards are also developed
to make sure that products meet the safety guidelines set forth within the documents. These standards may be
adopted by jurisdictions. Standards say how to do something,much like a recipe book.
33
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
gL
rw_r sae FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date: June 17, 1998 a
To: Jon S. Traw, P.E., President, ICBO
562.699.8031
From: David Bullen, AIA
Director, AIA Center-for-Building—Performance
Phone: 202.626.7448 Fax: 202.626.7399 -
Pages: ( 7 ) Including this cover sheet.
cc: Bob Fowler, FAIR
Carroll Pruitt, AIA & ICBO
Subject: AIA Board Governance / Ends Policy
Jon, it was good to talk to you today. Here is the copy of the AIA
Governance Policies which were revised at the May 12-13, 1998,
board meeting in California. (I received a copy on Friday, June 12.)
The items of interest to you regarding the set of International Codes
is on page 6, Policy Type: Ends Policy, 1.03 Architects'
Contribution to Society, Items 1.a and S.a and b.
I have also included the Confirmation of Institute Direction which
was writen by the AIA Center for Building Performance Advisory
Group on May 1, 1998, which you may quote or use in your
presentations. Also included for historical reference is the
1991 Resolution L-1.
I hope this material is useful in support of a single integrated model
code system, including the International Plumbing Code.
Please call 202.626.7448 if you have any questions or problems with
this FAX Transmittal. The AIA FAX number is 202.626.7399.
1735 Net.'ml[ Av.atiw. 0
Wushiupon.DC 20000
292 1
Scicphonc 202.026.7.I00
Board of Directors
ease
MA
Governance Policies
As amended by the
Board of Directors
May 1998
The American imams ofMUd? as
1735 Nevi York Avenue.NW
Washington.OC 20006
(202)626.7300
Ends Policies
Policies in this section are those referred to in the Policy Governance Model as "ends." Ends is a
term intended to combine determinations about results,recipients of the results,and the cost of
those results.They are the Board's dictates about what benefits are to be created for which people
or needs at what cost.The broadest statement of this section is overall purpose. At a next-lower
level are policies in which the Board further defines these concepts. As is set forth in the Board-
EVP/CEO Relationship policies,the EVP/CEO is allowed to use "any reasonable interpretation"
of these words. Consequently, the Board goes into whatever level of specification will allow it to
be comfortable with this amount of interpretive latitude.
In the long run,this section is the most important area of board policy-making.It is where the
—Board's greatestgift is given,inasmuch as the long term"ends"are where the Board exercises its
most important strategic leadership.Concretely,the Board's cnncal coil i5i fibn to long-term
planning is to be found in these policies. Instead of putting its time into a plan document(which
can be tedious and even trivial),the Board merely states, and next year restates,its ends policies
with a long-term perspective. The entire Board year is built around reexamination of these
policies, gathering input and member consensus on them,and projecting the Board's broad vision
r
into the future.
03
Revised May 1998
POLICY TYPE: ENDS POLICY
1.03 ARCHITECTS'CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY
The quality of life will be better due to the application of architecture's body of knowledge and
architects'skills and insights. The results will be as follows:
1. The health, safety and welfare of society are protected.
a. Interstate Practice.Facilitate interstate practice through adoption and support of a-single
performance-based building code for the United States-
2. Society's evolving solutions to sustainable development incorporate the contributions of
architecture as a body of knowledge and as a profession in achieving: —
a. Workable, livable communities;
b. Good housing,with emphasis on the availability of shelter and affordable housing;
c. Historic preservation,restoration, and renovation;
d. Resource conservation; •
e. Preservation of natural areas;and
f. huyioved,adaptable work environments.
3. Buildings, spaces,and places are beautiful,inspiring,uplifting and delight the spirit.
4. Architecture as a body of knowledge and a profession incorporates cultural diversity.
Society's evolving responses to cultural diversity incorporate architecture as a body of
knowledge and a profession.
5. Global interdependence. international practice,and the international professional community .
of architects are enriched by the participation of American architects and this should be
achieved by an integrated ALA program.
a. Professional standards of practice established through consensus procedures are adopted
internationally.
b. ALA architects lead in support and use of the International Building Code.
6. Buildings and public spaces are universally accessible for all people,regardless of physical
or other disability.
iJ, 4
6 Revised May 1998
Governance Policy Amendments: Building Codes and Standards
1.03 ARCHITECTS' CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY
l.a. Interstate Practice. Facilitate interstate practice through adoption and support of a
single model building code for the United States.
5_a. Global Vision. U.S. architects placed in an international leadership position through
support and use of the International Building Code.
Confirmation of Institute Direction:
The creation of a single modeLbuilding_code for the United States is not only a major
improvement in the regulatory climate,but will better position us to participate actively in
international codes and standards. The membership of the American Institute of
Architects unanimously approved Resolution L-1 in 1991 which called for the creation of
the single model code. In 1994 the three organizations responsible for development of the
three model codes (BOCA,ICBO, and SBCCI)joined forces to create the International
Code Council (ICC)to develop a single integrated model code system. Cutrendy,they
have completed work on the International Mechanical Code,International Plumbing Code
and International Fuel Gas Code which have been adopted by many jurisdictions.Work
continues on the International Building Code, International Fire Code and International
Residential Code which arc to be completed in 1999. Successful adoption of the ICC
model codes requires the unwavering support of the ALA. Any deviation from this
approach may undermine the effort by many members of the AIA as well as engineers,
building owners,building officials, builders and the larger construction industry. These
Ends Policy Amendments reaffirm the 1991 Resolution L-1 and endorse the efforts of the
International Code Council to bring consistency CO codes and standards affecting our
practices on a day-to-day basis.
5/1/98
, 5
u
1991 Pasowao„s Ccenm*ee
rigor of the itaWutiW a Committee
1901 Rssolulon t-I
1991 Resolution L•1
Title A Single Model Building Code for the United States
Sponsors Gabor Lorant,FAIA Phillip T. Markwood, FAIA
Douglas Austin, FAIR Susan A. Mamian, FALL.
John M Barley II,AIA • James R, McGranahan,FALA
Raj Bar.-Kumar,ALA Thomas I.- McKitrtick, FAJA
Richard E. Barrow,AIA Robert C. Matchler,ALA
Joseph D. Bavaro;-FAJA William E. Pelham, AAA
Evan D. Cruthers, AIA Vernon Reed,FAJA
Kenneth DeMay, FAIA Lawrence Segrue, FAIA
Betsey O. Dougherty, FAIA Michael StranskyrAIA
Douglas IC Engebrerson,FAIA Willaam FI. Truer Jr., AAA
Francis A. Guffey II,ALA Cynthia Weese,FAIR
Lawrence J. Leis,FALA Gayland B. Witherspoon, FAIA
Thomas J. Lucas Jr., FALA Robert S. Woodhurst_ ALA
Donald H. Lutes, FALA
Intent To simplify the practice of architecture on a regional and national basis,
expand the marketability of architectural services op a global scale, and
position the U.S. to be a world leader in building code regulations.
Text of Resolution WHEREAS the international marketplace strives toward more
standardization and uniformity in building performance regulations and
code requirements,and
WHEREAS one of the primary missions of the AIA is to 'coordinate the
building industr, and
WHEREAS there is a continuing request that the architectural profession
lead this nation through the design and construction processes in concert
with other construction industry participants and
WHEREAS the recognized model building codes currently in use in the
United States need to be more consistent, uniform in format and content,
and more applicable to all areas of the country, and
WHEREAS more and more federal agencies are deferring their building
performance requirements and standards to model building codes instead of
to their own previous individual standards, and
CopyA9ht 1991 The American Me94Me or Architect
Washington,DC
ii,-I
1991 assnireiors Comrades
Peron at are tissol,eiona Commines
1991 aesowebn L-1
WHEREAS conditions that previously were considered sensitive to only
certain geographic areas of the country,such as seismic confirm in the far
West,hurricane wind conditions in the Southeast, flood conditions in the
Mississippi valley,etc,are now being addressed in equal importance
throughout the entire country,and
WHEREAS the advent of reciprocal architectural licensing throughout the
US,coupled with the latest state-of-the-art telecommunication and
facsimile transmissions as well as with easily=risible air travel,makes the
practice of architecture on a national and global scale a very practicable
situation for firms of all sizes,and
WHEREAS the simplicity of using a single building code,which addresses
multi-regional needs,will assist in keeping the United States in a
competitive position on a world scale in the field of building construction;
therefore be it
_____ RESOLVED that the AlA endorses the concept of a single building code
for the UnuefStates which could be administered by the present model_____
code organizations in their respective geographic areas,and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the ALA, through its Building Performance
and Regulations program,develop and promote the concept of A Single
Model Building Code for the United States.
w
Copyright 1991 The American Institute a1 Architect
Washington.oC
07
** TOTAL PRGE.97 **
15th1201 ingt S.DC,NW
Washington.DC 20005-2800
NAI70MAI.�ssoclAT10N (202)822-0200
OF HOME Bi7I11)FRS (800)368-5242
Fax(202)822-0559
http://www.nahb.com
1998
SENIOR OFFICERS
President March 13, 1998
DONALD D.MARTIN
Martin Development Corp.
Albuquerque.NM Mr. Paul K. Heilstedt, P.E.
1{800)460.8139 President, International Code Council &
(505)344-2484 FAX
E-Mail 7617 430 Chief Executive Officer, BOCA International
@compuserve.com 4051 West Flossmoor Road
First Vice President Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795
CHARLES.1.AMA
Davidson Phillips,Inc.
•
Columbus,OH Dear Paul:
1{800)785-7862
(614)297-6430 FAX
E-Mail 76176.2365 The purpose of this letter is to clarify the position of the National
@compuserve.com Association of Home Builders relative to the International
Vice President/TreasurerPlumbing Code (IPC) and its adoption by local and state
ROBERT L.MITCHELL jurisdictions. It is NAHB's stated policy that building codes and
Mitchell&Best Group 11.C standards should comprise the most cost-effective
Rockville,MD
1{800)762-5066 requirements and guidelines to assure the safety and health of
(301)762-5066 FAX
•,, E-Mail 76176.2523 building occupants. We believe that the provisions of the
@compuse^'c.com CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code currently best
Vice President/Secretary satisfy our stated policy for plumbing code requirements.
BRUCE C.SMITH
Smith Quality Homes At our December 15th meeting in Dallas, you asked us to
Walnut Creek.CA
14888)724.2001 consider the possibility of the adoption of the IPC in
(510)820-4171 FAX jurisdictions where the Uniform Plumbing Code is the
E-Mail 75220.2636 (UPC))
@compuserve.com only other option being considered. This request was made in
light of NAHB's finding that the IPC is more affordable than the
Immediate Pan President UPC.
H.DANIEL PINCUS
HDP Industries of SC
Hilton Head Island,SC The Construction Codes and Standards Committee met during
14800)622-5010
(803)686-2514 FAX our annual convention in January and the IPC issue was on the
E-Mail 76176.2231 agenda. You, along with other representatives from the ICC
@compusmc.com
Board and staff, attended this meeting and reiterated ICC's
Executive Vice President& request. You further requested that instead of fighting the IPC,
ChiefExecutive Officer
KENT W.COLTON,Ph.D. NAHB should work with the ICC to resolve its differences with
W(zah 8gton.22-040 DC
the CABO plumbing provisions. We would like to have that
(202)822-0374 FAX dialogue with you.
E-Mail 76176.2017
@wmpuserve.corn After careful consideration, the Committee approved a motion •
recommending that, in the interest of housing affordability,
NAHB support the IPC in those jurisdictions where the UPC is
C8
Paul Heilstedt
March 13, 1998
Page 2
the only other option being considered and our state or local
affiliate is in support of the IPC. Also, a motion was approved
that NAHB and the ICC should work together to reconcile the
differences between the CABO plumbing provisions and the
IPC.
Clearly, when faced with the choice of adopting either the IPC
or UPC, the IPC is the more cost-effective code. Further, I
believe that support of the IPC for a local jurisdiction faced with
this choice is in accordance with NAHB policy. Therefore, I
have directed NAHB staff to, upon request, assist our state and
local associations in supporting adoption of the IPC in those
jurisdictions where the UPC is their only alternative.
In addition, I have requested that the NAHB representatives on
the Intemationai Residential Code (IRC) Drafting Committee
work to reconcile the differences between the CABO plumbing
provisions and the IPC during development of the IRC: draft. It
is my sincere hope that the IRC drafting process will result in a
single set of plumbing provisions for one- and two-family
dwellings that satisfies NAHB's policy relative to cost-effective
code requirements.
Best regards,
Kent W. Colton
Executive Vice-President &
Chief Executive Officer
me
v
KWC/ms
99
MAAmerican Gas 1515 Wilton Soutard,Arlington.VA 22209¢469
Association Te kat(703)5412612.Fos(701)M39609
E-mail duad,erlaga.oem,Weaske http://w-./w.a(acod,
David N.Parlor
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 1998
To: A.G.A. Member Company Delegates
Enclosed is a copy of the inaugural edition of the International Fuel Gas Code(IFGC),a brand
new model code for the installation of natural gas appliances and equipment in homes and
businesses. This new code, which is the result of an agreement signed last July between A.GA.
and the International Code Council(ICC), will help make the installation of new natural gas
technologies more efficient,more cost-effective by using the most technically sound state of the
art coverage. It also means that proposals for code changes will be presented to one oversight
body instead of the regional groups of the past. All existing model mechanical and plumbing
code coverage for natural gas equipment will be centralized into the IFGC and therefore
streamline the code approval process.
Best of all, this(mprecedentcd agreement with the ICC provides natural gas utilities with equal
representation on the IFGC oversight committee. Having gas industry representatives actually
serving on the committee can greatly improve our ability to be heard on key natural gas model
code proposals.
By way of background,the ICC comprises three regional model code organizations—Building
Officials and Code Administrators(BOCA),International Conference of Building Officials
(1CBO),and Southern Building Code Congress,Inc.(SBCCI). As a result,the new IFGC is
expected to be widely adopted throughout the U.S. These organizations are available to help you
obtain local adoption of the IFOC in your service territories.
In addition to our role with the IFOC,A.G.A.will continue to maintain the National Fuel Gas
Code. The two cones are compatible. Additional copies of the IFGC are available from the
publication departments of any of the three organizations (BOCA,ICBO or SBCCI) listed in the
code.
mcerely,
411, aAf
le
David N. Parker
Enclosure . .
10
LABORERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
vu Position Statement of the
Laborers' International Union of North America
Regarding IAPMO' s Uniform Plumbing Code
February 1997
•
We are informed that representations have been
made before state and local governmental bodies that
IAPMO' s Uniform Plumbing Code is endorsed by organized
labor. That assertion is false. In this Position
Statement the Laborers' International Union sets forth
both its interest in, and its reasons for opposing, the
Uniform Plumbing Code .
The Laborers' International Union of North America
is a labor organization of over 700, 000 members . Among
� � this membership, the Laborers' International Union and
its more than 700 affiliates represent approximately
300, 000 workers in the construction industry. Even
1 URI F \' I"' ]R more specifically, annually tens of thousands of
° Laborers are employed in the utility industry, the
laying of water and drain lines from mainlines in the
public thoroughfare to the building line . Accordingly,
the Laborers' International Union has a keen interest
in the Uniform Plumbing Code because of its coverage of
utility work.
Unfortunately, over the years the Laborers' Inter-
national Union has found itself fundamentally at odds
with IAPMO, the body sponsoring the Uniform Plumbing
Hi 1,, ; - ; Code . We have found that organization to be controlled
by narrow interests, all too willing to mold the terms
of the Uniform Plumbing Code to serve parochial
concerns . IAPMO has repeatedly attempted to insert in
the Uniform Plumbing Code a requirement that all
plumbing work, including utility work, be performed by
licensed plumbers . We make no comment upon the desira-
bility of licensure for plumbing work inside buildings .
However, we are adamantly opposed, and believe it self-
evidently unjustified, to require a plumber' s license
of those who dig the ditches and lay the pipes from the
main thoroughfare to the building line . This work has
been performed for decades by trained, skilled and
experienced Laborers without any evidence that the
public health or safety has been compromised. Even
more pointedly, the same Uniform Plumbing Code
officials who declare that licensure of the utility
11
INNOVATION
Position Statement of the Laborers'
International Union of North America
February 1997
Page 2
industry is critical to the public health and safety on private
property make no call for the licensure of the public employees
who perform virtually the identical work in laying the mainline
water and sewer drains in the public thoroughfare .
The use of licensure as a means of disenfranchising certain
groups from employment is always suspect . The use of licensure
requirements to bar Laborers from the utility industry is
particularly objectionable (1) because of the many decades of
experience that Laborers have in performing this work satis-
factorily and (2) because Laborers draw heavily from minority
groups . Fortunately, efforts to use licensure as a means of
barring Laborers from the utility industry have fared poorly in
the courts over the years . White v. City of Evansville, 310 F.
Supp. 569 (S .D. Ind. 1970) (municipal ordinance requiring
plumber' s license of those working in the utility industry
constitutes racial discrimination against African-Americans and
deprives Laborers of their liberty and property without due
process) ; Utility Contractors Association of New Jersey v. Toops,
502 F. 2d 83 (3d Cir. 1974) ; Barletta Engineering Corp. v. Board
of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters, No. 92(-00621
(Sup . Ct . , Mass. 1994) ; Mechanical Contractors Association v. New
Jersey, No. A-3661-90T2 (Sup. Ct . , App. Div. , N.J. 1992) .
This consistent pattern of judicial decision has not dis-
suaded IAPMO from seeking to use licensure to bar Laborers from
the utility industry, resulting in 25 years of litigation and
appeals before HUD. Laborers' Local 1184 v. City of Hemet,
California, No. 71-2579 (C.D. Cal . 1971) ; Laborers' Local 1184 v.
IAPMO, No. 88- 1071 (C.D. Cal . 1988) . As recently as 1993, IAPMO
approached, and was rebuffed by, HUD in yet another effort to
reintroduce a licensure requirement that would bar Laborers from
doing utility work. The 1997 version of the Uniform Plumbing
Code continues the tradition; it again starts down the road of
requiring that: all plumbing work, including utility work, be
subject to licensure requirements .
We believe that IAPMO' s insistence upon including licensure
requirements in the Uniform Plumbing Code is unlawful and is an
indefensible attempt to disenfranchise Laborers from our tradi-
tional work. We set forth this description of our dispute with
IAPMO both to express our view that IAPMO is narrowly controlled
by those operating in their own self-interest and to explain why
we are unable to endorse the Uniform Plumbing Code . The Un_form
Plumbing Code is not "the labor code . "
12
Views and Comments
of IPC Users on the
International Plumbing Code
(IP C)
(An interview with individuals in the industry)
ocsEN CE Op GG
/
-+ UNIFORM
+ BUILDING si
CODE o
d
eNt' 1922 'S�
International Conference of Building Officials
(A participating publisher of the International Plumbing Code)
Note: The views expressed here are those of the individuals commenting and do not necessarily reflect the opinion
or agreement of the International Conference of Building Officials.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Introduction Page 2
• Single Family, Commercial and Industrial Plumbers . . . . Pages 3
• Plumbing Officials Pages 7
• Plumbing Engineers and Consultants Pages 12
• Building Officials Page 14
• Homebuilders Page 15
• Building Owners' Representatives Page 16
• Architects Pages 17
• Federal Officials Pages 19
• Interview Participants Biographies Pages 21
Page 1 of 25
Introduction:
The International Plumbing Code (IPC) has been subjected to intense
scrutiny since its original publication. Numerous documents have been
published and distributed intended to discredit the IPC and to prevent
various governmental entities from trusting the IPC for adoption. Contrary
to such pressures, the United States Department of the Navy adopted the
IPC soon after its original publication. Many state and city governments
have already adopted the IPC, and the list of adopting cities i.s growing
rapidly.
Nevertheless, 1:o show the real world of IPC, it was felt that reflecting the
experiences and opinions of those individuals already using the IPC would
be more accurate and of more value than any exchange of rhetoric between
staff members of the respective plumbing code publishing entities. It was
this point that lead to an interview with various individuals in the
construction industry who either directly or indirectly deal with plumbing
design, construction and inspection. Most individuals interviewed are
practicing under the IPC as well as other plumbing codes. Seventeen
individuals were interviewed whose backgrounds and credentials are listed
at the end of the interview. These interviews have been edited to produce
a document of manageable size.
Page 2 of 25
SINGLE FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING
1. How long have you been plumbing under the International Plumbing Code?
What other codes have you plumbed under or are you plumbing under now?
RONALD BRAUN: I am still plumbing under the 1991 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) in the
State of Washington. I started with the UPC's 1976 codebook.
MIKE DENNY: IPC,-3 years; and UPC, 10 years.
GEORGE CARPENTER: We have been under the IPC about 9 months in Lubbock [Texas]. We
also operate under the Southern Building Code and the UPC in other cities.
2. Did you or your plumbers have to go through extensive and unreasonable re-
training as a result of being required to plumb under the IPC?
MIKE DENNY: No.
GEORGE CARPENTER: We did not have to go through extensive refraining. We only had to
have training sessions on the IPC to make ourselves familiar with the change in format and
a few of the changes from the other codes.
3. Tell us about your overall experience after starting to plumb under the requirements
of the IPC?
GEORGE CARPENTER: There was no change in the overall requirements of IPC,and therefore
it was very easy to make the change,bearing in mind that proper plumbing techniques as well
as sanitary and safety requirements are the basis of all good codes.
4. Based on your experience, do you feel that the plumbing systems you install under
the IPC are more prone to future problems and failures compared to plumbing
systems installed under other plumbing codes?
MIKE DENNY: No.
Page 3 of 25
SINGLE FAMILY,COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING INTERVIEWS
GEORGE CARPENTER: I do not feel that there will be more plumbing problems and failures
under the IPC than other codes. The IPC is easier to operate under and is based on accepted
industry standards rather than rules that may not apply in our location that other codes
require.
5. Are there any provisions in the IPC that lead you to believe that the plumbing
systems permitted under the IPC would fail to protect the health and the safety of
the public?
RONALD BRAUN : None that I have seen or heard about.
MIKE DENNY: No.
GEORGE CARPENTER: I feel the IPC,when properly applied,will protect the health and safety
of the public.
6. Have you experienced an increase or a decrease in the cost of plumbing
installations since you have been plumbing under the IPC?
RONALD BRAUN: It is obvious that the IPC usage costs less for material and labor than the
UPC.
GEORGE CARPENTER: I have not experienced any increase or decrease but have noticed that
it allows me some flexibility to apply different materials when they are best suited.
7. Would you have any reservations or difficulty in recommending to your fellow
plumbers that the /PC be used to design and install plumbing?
RONALD BRAUN: No. I have spoken favorably to other plumbers about the IPC.
MIKE DENNY: No.
GEORGE CARPENTER: I would highly recommend it because it and its companion mechanical
code are very easy to read and understand.
Page 4 of 25
SINGLE FAMILY,COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING INTERVIEWS
8. Is understanding the text and the requirements of the IPC more difficult or easier
than understanding other plumbing codes you have used or are using now?
RONALD BRAUN: The tables are better placed and the code is more methodic.
GEORGE CARPENTER: The IPC seems to be less of a problem for my people in the field to follow.
9. Is installing plumbing under the IPC more difficult than installing plumbing under
other plumbing codes with which you have familiarity?
RONALD BRAUN: No, The IPC is designed to give more choice in plumbing installations,which
translates to more successful jobs.
MIKE DENNY: No.
GEORGE CARPENTER: Plumbing is not more difficult under the IPC.
10. Have you had to carry several volumes of various standards and documents since
plumbing under the IPC as some would allege?
MIKE DENNY: No.
GEORGE CARPENTER: No. I have not had to carry several volumes. We have always used
various standards for reference and clarification.
11. Do you feel closed out of the code development process associated with the IPC?
MIKE DENNY: No.
GEORGE CARPENTER: Certainly not. I get the proposed changes both pro and con and feel
much more informed, and I enjoy seeing what is and is not passed each year. I recommend
each user join the association.
Page 5 of 25
SINGLE FAMILY,COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING INTERVIEWS
12. Do you have any other information or comments that you would like to share with
us?
RONALD BRAUN: There are many instances as a plumbing contractor that I have to tell the
general contractor that plumbing designed by the architect, wanted by the owner, will not
work according to the current UPC. The IPC, since it is performance based, allows for
designed systems along with many small changes to the code as we know it,which unbinds our
creativity to make a system that will work and that does not compromise health or safety
concerns.
GEORGE CARPENTER: I feel that it is much easier for the Building Inspection Department as
well as the contractor. I believe it has been written in an open and professional manner. Some
of the other code books have self-serving requirements for both products and labor.
Page 6 of 25
PLUMBING OFFICIALS
1. As the plumbing official of your jurisdiction, please tell us about your role in the
recommendation of adopting the IPC over the plumbing code your jurisdiction
previously used.
CLYDE LACKEY: As the Plumbing Official,I carefully did an extensive review of the 97 IPC to
determine the quality of this document as the recommended plumbing code for the City of Fort
Worth. In a very thorough investigation of codes that Fort Worth used prior to 1972 and the
report from the Department of Commerce Bureau of Standards on the minimum plumbing
requirements, I found this code to be the best code for the City of Fort Worth.
DAVID SARTOR: I, as well as the other inspectors,were asked by the Building Official and the
Assistant Building Official what I thought of the IPC, and if I felt it was a good code, did it
safeguard life,limb and property at least as well as the code we were under at the time. After
a review,I told them that in my opinion the IPC did accomplish that at least as well as the code
we were under. One factor was the progressive approach to acceptance of new products and
materials under the IPC. Also the performance provisions that allow the code official more
options to meet the code requirements.
2. It has been alleged by some that the IPC has been mainly developed by building
officials and is, therefore, not a reliable plumbing code. Do you share this concern?
DAVE CANTRELL: No! First, the code was developed through a process utilizing existing
plumbing code documents that are modified and utilized by both the plumbing industry and
code officials within the United States. The IPC continues to involve these same groups in its
process. Having been actively involved in the International Code Council process this year,
I can testify to the fact that the code development hearings involved members of the plumbing
industry (i.e., installers, manufacturers, engineers, code officials, etc.), which proved most
effective and informative.
BOB KONYNDYK: Having over 30 years of experience in the field of plumbing and being one
of the individuals responsible for the IPC development, leads me to believe those statements
are from individualswho are not informed on the IPC code development process.Professionals
in the plumbing industry — whether installers, code officials or designers — must have an
overview of construction to recognize that properly installed plumbing is closely associated
with a parent building code. That association fosters a safe building environment.
CLYDE LACKEY: Anyone could research the ICC makeup and find that it is made up of three
of the oldest model'.code organizations,which have written codes for many years. These code
groups' codes are used all over the country.
Page 7 of 25
PLUMBING OFFICIALS INTERVIEWS
JOEL SHELTON: As to the reliability of the IPC document, the IPC is as reliable a tool of
plumbing design and installation as any document currently referenced, because it offers the
broadest potential for collective input. To my knowledge, no other code document currently
referenced has as much capability for consensus review. The ICC process provides an absolute
vehicle for consensus review and input by providing a forum for code change and development
that is open to one and all. The forum provided by the ICC recognizes all interests in the
pursuit of the collective opinion.
DAVID SARTOR: No. There are plumbers involved in the development of the IPC from the
start; besides that, the IPC, in my opinion, is a very reliable code no matter who wrote it.
3. Have you had to provide an unusual amount of training for your staff as compared
to previous plumbing code updates in your jurisdiction? •
DAVE CANTRELL: Due to state adoption we have not gotten this far yet, but most of the
technical differences do not require extensive training. My perspective is that installers could
continue to install plumbing per designs that they are familiar with and still meet the
minimum provisions of the IPC.
BOB KONYNDYK: Those areas previously enforcing nationally recognized codes without several
old philosophical technical amendments,whether BOCA or IAPMO,have not experienced an
unusual amount of training needs. This is evident in BOCA code areas near the greater
Detroit area and in IAPMO code areas surrounding the City of Saginaw, Michigan.
JOEL SHELTON: Our staff has found the transition to the IPC relatively easy.
4. Please share with us some of your own and your staffs experiences since your
jurisdiction adopted the /PC.
JOEL SHELTON: I deal directly with many entry-level licensees that come to the state after a
number of years of trade experience seeking their official Oklahoma recognition into the
trades;i.e.,journeyman's license. Many of these individuals are used to performing their job
by locally mandated standards; i.e., BOCA Plumbing Code, Southern Plumbing Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code,National Plumbing Code with local amendments. Many times these
individuals are from other states where they are used to this same variety of codes. Probably
the most profound fact that I hear regurgitated is that once they really reviewed the IPC,they
found the similarities to be numerous.
DAVID SARTOR: At first, there was a resistance to change. We used the code review and
adoption process for training. There has been a good response to the new IPC provisions.
Especially as to approval of new products and material. It is now faster to gain acceptance
through the IPC. It saves time and money for the contractors. There are probably more
plumbers with code books now than anytime before. More important,they are reading them!
Page 8 of 25
PLUMBING OFFICIALS INTERVIEWS
5. Are the plumbing methods and systems permitted by the IPC completely new, or
have such systems had the test of time?
DAVE CANTRELL: One can find the same and/or similar design and performance criteria in the
National Plumbing Code,the Standard Plumbing Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. If
it works in one code (or one part of the country),why not in another?
BOB KONYNDYK: The IPC methods mirror all the nationally recognized model codes as evident
from where the development committee refined its original proposals.
CLYDE LACKEY:The plumbing systems and methods in the IPC code are not new and have been
around since the early 1930s. The City of Fort Worth has used all these systems with the
exception of one for over 50 years. The one system that has not been used in Fort Worth has
long been used in the Southern Plumbing Code for many years. All of the systems have proven
themselves reliable and safe for a long period of time.
JOEL SHELTON: The IPC is a compilation of plumbing methods and systems that have been
referenced for years in past editions of BOCA, Southern and Uniform Codes. To my
knowledge,there has been no spontaneous generation of new plumbing methods and practices
since the organization of the IPC.
DAVID SARTOR: It is my understanding that almost all the provisions of the [PC were in
existence in one of the codes for many years. They have been in use and working well. Just
because it is new to us, doesn't mean it will not work.
6. Is the IPC format and organization easier or more difficult to follow than that of other
available model plumbing codes?
DAVE CANTRELL: To me there really is no difference, since these codes are in model code
format.
BOB KONYNDYK: The IPC common code format is being used by all of the major codes as a
direct result of industry's professional development.
CLYDE LACKEY: The IPC format is far more easier to use than the previously used code in Fort
Worth. All the information needed is in the chapters or sections for any item or method of
installation. The user of this code will not have to look in several chapters or sections to find
all the information needed. It is a more user-friendly code for the installers and engineers and
is very easy to understand and interpret.
Page 9 of 25
PLUMBING OFFICIALS INTERVIEWS
JOEL SHELTON: The IPC format is a standardized common code format recognized by all
model codes. The process is constantly striving to standardize. The ICC organization is
somewhat more complex because there are more entities involved. The process is being refined
gradually to create a more streamlined process.
7. Please teil us about the assistance and support, such as various support
publications, automated products, seminars, staff, etc. for the IPC and how this
compares with similar services offered in conjunction with the plumbing code your
jurisdiction used prior to adoption of the IPC.
DAVE CANTRELL: While the State of Washington is not currently administering the IPC, the
location of a regional ICBO office in the northwest is most convenient in providing support •
and training opportunities and for obtaining assorted reference materials in a very quick
response time frame, not to mention the ease and timely ordering and obtaining of
publications.
BOB KONYNDYK: The IPC enjoys the same benefits that the three major model codes offer. In
fact, in reviewing the BOCA magazine numerous code classes are available.
CLYDE LACKEY: The IPC support programs are similar to the previously used code programs.
The biggest difference is that when requesting any information or assistance, the user of this
code receives an immediate response and does not have to wait long or keep asking for the
information requested.
DAVID SARTOR: ICC produces a Code Commentary for the IPC. This is very useful in
learning the true intent and meaning of the code,and applying it. ICC offers training courses,
manuals and booklets. The code books are on CD Rom and the Internet. The support staff
that I use for the IPC is the same staff I used under the UPC, ICBO Engineering Technical
Services. I also call BOCA for assistance. I have and can use the same support staff as before,
and have additional support I didn't have with the UPC.
8. Have you experienced a notable change in the number of red tags and re-
inspections the plumbers in yourjurisdiction are receiving since the adoption of the
IPC?
JOEL SHELTON: The quantity of red tags and re-inspections is no different today than is was
when we used the old National Code.
DAVID SARTOR: There has not been a noticeable change, either way, in the number of
corrections or reinspections.
Page 10 of 25
PLUMBING OFFICIALS INTERVIEWS
9. Do you feel that the code development process of the ICC allows adequate
opportunity for participation by contractors, manufacturers, labor unions and other
industrial interests?
DAVE CANTRELL: Absolutely! Even though I am involved in code administration, I am a
plumber. This is my trade and where the majority of my experience is associated.
BOB KONYNDYK: The ICC development process provides ample opportunity for all parties to
participate in the adoption of new text. I find it amusing that the very code body
(International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials) that advocated only
plumbers voting on proposals now cries foul. Polling contractors and manufacturers
concerning the use of new products indicated the fairness in the ICC system.
JOEL SHELTON: The ICC code development process•provides the broadest opportunity for
participation by contractors,manufacturers, labor unions and any interest group directly or
indirectly associated with the building code process ever offered by any model code
organization. The process is open and consensus agreement is achievable if participation is
sought. One only needs to look at the committee makeup and attend the forums to see this take
place.
10. Are there any other issues or comments you would like to share with us?
JOEL SHELTON: If you insist that any given point of code should be more restrictive or less
restrictive,first question your intent and motive behind such objectives. Seek to achieve only
that which will produce the minimum requirements that provide safe, sanitary results in the
interest of the public health and well-being.
As a public health professional, and as a plumbing official that represents a commitment to
the preservation of public health and safety through the promotion of sound sanitary
plumbing practices,I do not perceive the ICC and any subsequently developed code as a threat
to these principles.
Page 11 of 25
PLUMBING ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
1. Please give us a sense of the evolution of plumbing principles on which today's
plumbing codes are based.
RAY MOORE: Evidence of plumbing systems have been around for almost 6000 years.
Washington D.C.. enacted the first plumbing code in the country in 1870. In 1921 the U.S.
Department of Commerce started to develop a model code. They worked with the National
Bureau of Standards in investigating the engineering principles behind properly designed
plumbing systems.
2. Are the engineering principles underlying the IPC completely different from the
principles underlying other plumbing codes that have been used in this country?
RAY MOORE: The same engineering principles are used in developing all of the model
plumbing codes throughout the country. It is just the interpretation of these principles that
is different.
3. It has been alleged by some that the IPC does not provide adequate safety margins
to protect the public from insanitary installations. Can you comment on this issue?
RAY MOORE: I feel both codes provide a minimum level of safety to protect the public from
insanitary conditions. It has been my observation that the UPC has taken a very conservative
stance with regard to safety. In many cases,the UPC provides an extreme margin of safety.
In most cases,the UPC overdesigns the plumbing system so that there will never be a problem,
even in extreme cases. The IPC has taken a more liberal view. The IPC uses basic engineering
principles,and assumes that the probability of a problem is very low. But both codes provide
sufficient levels of safety. As a plumbing engineer, I feel that if I design a plumbing system
using the IPC,I have more options and am able to provide the client with a good design while
minimizing costs.
4. In a typical single family building, all else being the same, is there a major difference
in water pipe sizes and vent pipe sizes allowed or required under the IPC and the
UPC?
RAY MOORE: In the plumbing design classes I have taught,I use an example where we size the
same system using the method shown in the IPC and the method shown in the UPC. Both
methods give similar results. I do not feel that the method of pipe sizing has any significant
impact in the cost of the water piping system.
Page 12 of 25
PLUMBING ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS INTERVIEWS
5. Please tell us about wet venting and circuit venting. What type of problems do these
types of venting cause? Does the IPC allow more instances of such venting
compared to the UPC?Are you aware whether there has been a move in the UPC
to allow any instances of wet venting and circuit venting?
RAY MOORE: The UPC allows the use of vertical wet venting with specific restrictions,but does
not allow the use of horizontal wet vent or circuit venting. The IPC allows the use of vertical
and horizontal wet venting and circuit venting. Circuit venting and other types of venting
acceptable in the IPC allow the plumbing system designer to design the most appropriate
system for the specific project. There is sufficient diversity in a plumbing system that the
probability of simultaneous operation of multiple fixtures is minimal in most situations. I have
witnessed those individuals in favor of the UPC complain about the use of circuit venting and
other venting systems. They give specific examples of where these systems don't work. When
the examples are reviewed in detail, it is discovered that the systems were not installed
properly, and that is the reason they did not work.
I hear rumor that the UPC is considering the adoption of circuit venting, but I have yet to see
any official announcement regarding this possibility.
6. Do you feel closed out of the code development process associated with the IPC?
RAY MOORE: The level of the involvement in the IPC code development process is the same as
it has been for many years for most model codes. Any interested party in the world may
submit code changes, many of which are typically submitted by the industry. The ICC code
development committees,including the IPC,allow participation of qualified individuals from
all segments of the industry as committee members. I feel all those involved in the code
development process of any model plumbing code in this country should have sufficient
knowledge of the basic principles of plumbing design and installation.
Page 13 of 25
BUILDING OFFICIALS
1. What criteria do you generally use to recommend a model code for adoption in your
jurisdiction? How did the IPC meet this criteria?
ROGER EVANS: In the adoption of the code,it is important that the code is not in conflict with
the other codes that you adopt and that the code recognizes new innovation and technology.
The International Plumbing Code fits that criteria.
CURTIS INGLIS: We conducted research through available publications and discussed
preferences with other code officials. We found the IPC to be more responsive to
governmental regulations, better organized, easier to use and more performance oriented.
AL GODWIN: The code must be a competent code that provides a smooth transition from the
current code so as not to upset industry.
2. Please tell us about the experiences of your staff and the plumbers since the
adoption of the IPC in your jurisdiction.
ROGER EVANS: The State of Utah adopted the International Plumbing Code after three years
of hearings to become law in January of this year. During the 1998 calendar year, plumbing
contractors and homeowners can use the 1991 Uniform Plumbing Code or the 1997
International Plumbing Code. This year is a transitional year and gives the technical colleges
time to make the transition of the curriculum to the International Plumbing Code. The
response to the adloption has been positive with the plumbing industry and the mechanical
engineers, because it allows for more design flexibility.
CURTIS INGLIS: We have had only positivefeedbackwith the change from the 1985 UPC to the
1995 IPC. We have since adopted the 1997 IPC.
3. Do you feel that the code development process of the ICC allows adequate
opportunity for participation by contractors,manufacturers, labor unions, and other
industrial interests?
ROGER EVANS: The code development process is very open and fair. It allows everyone to
participate, but the actual voting is by the people who regulate. The regulators are the only
group that does not have a vested interest,and as a result,you have codes that do not exclude
certain products or materials.
CURTIS INGLIS: I feel that the ICC code development process allows adequate opportunity for
participation by contractors, manufacturers and other industrial interests.
Page 14 of 25
HOMEBUILDERS
1. Is the use of coordinated building, fire, plumbing and mechanical codes in which
conflicts and duplication between and among requirements are held to a
minimum of any benefit to your firm?
JOE POWELL: Ye;. With a Universal Code of this type we would be able to set standards
that would be the same in all our 52 major metropolitan areas around the country. It
would also give us an advantage to use a national contract for purchasing plumbing
supplies.
Page 15 of 25
BUILDING OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVES
1. Are you aware of any statistics,information,polls or studies that would suggest that
the initial costs and instances of problems, and needed repairs and maintenance
for the building plumbing system is more in certain regions of the country as
compared to other regions? If yes, has this been directly linked to the plumbing
code enforced by the jurisdictions?
LARRY PERRY: I am not aware of any patterns indicating a problem with plumbing systems
on a regional basis, and am not aware of any deficiencies in the various plumbing codes
currently used across the country. Building Owners and Managers Association's (BOMA)
concern is the opposite: In some jurisdictions regulations appear to be overly conservative,
adding unnecessarily to the costs of construction and operation of commercial real estate.
2. Are you aware of any major problems that the use of the IPC would cause for the
short-term or long-term performance of buildings as compared to other plumbing
codes?
LARRY PERRY: I am not aware of any significant shortcomings in the IPC that would affect
the short- or long-term performance of plumbing systems. BOMA does have a few specific
concerns with the current IPC, and is working through the code development process to
address these issues.
3. Do you feel closed out of the code development process associated with the IPC?
LARRY PERRY: I do not feel"closed out"of the IPC code development process.Working in the
code development process in multiple arenas,I hear the same concerns raised again and again.
I have been involved in the code development process of ICC, ICBO, Building Officials and
Code Administrators International, Southern Building Code Congress International, and
National Fire Protection Association - all are different,yet I believe all work fairly well.
Page 16 of 25
ARCHITECTS
1. Is the interest of the architectural community in one set of coordinated national
codes a recent development?
WAYNE MEYER: The American Institute of Architects Building Performance & Regulation
Committee (previously called Codes and Standards) has been pushing for a single set of
national codes for over 20 years. It issued a white paper on the subject, mid '70s.
2. What are the benefits to the construction industry in general and the architectural
community in particular in using one set of coordinated codes nationally?
CHUCK FOSTER: We do projects from coast to coast, and use the SBCCI, BOCA, and ICBO
codes, and numerous other codes written by other states that have written their own codes.
We do our own code reviews and are familiar with each of the codes. We run into numerous
problems with multiple codes. One of our clients develops hotels across the country.
Generally the hotels use similar designs,but dependent on which code is used the construction
cost will vary up to $100,000.
WAYNE MEYER: The construction industry would have a single set of regulations,as would the
designers, making everything simpler and more economical across the board.
3. Do you or your colleagues across the country have any difficulty designing and
managing your projects under the IPC?
CHUCK FOSTER: No.
4. Do you feel closed out of the code development process associated with the IPC?
CHUCK FOSTER: No.
WAYNE MEYER: The code development process is similar to what I have been used to through
the BOCA code change process,which is a very open and consensus-oriented process.
5. Do you have any general impressions of the IPC?
WAYNE MEYER: I strongly support the ICC and its efforts to create a nationally accepted
family of codes.
Page 17 of 25
ARCHITECTS INTERVIEWS
6. Do you have any other issues or comments that you would like to share with us?
CHUCK FOSTER: We often run into problems when a code official might not have specific
background or expertise in a certain field. Often,we the designers find our decisions directed
by the prescriptive requirements of the code as interpreted by the code official even when we
feel that it may not be the best way to handle the situation. The IPC has provisions for
alternate engineered design which is consistent with various state architectural and
engineering registration acts. The licensed designer with the specific training,who stamps the
drawings and has the liability should be able to make the judgment. The IPC alternate
engineered design allows for this.
WAYNE MEYER: I strongly support the ICC and its efforts to create a nationally accepted
family of codes.
DAVID BULLEN (MR. SULLEN'S GENERAL RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE INTERVIEW
QUESTIONS WAS PROVIDED TOGETHER IN THE FOLLOWING FOUR PARAGRAPHS):
The concept of a single set of integrated building codes has been strongly supported by the
American Institute of Architects for many years. In 1975, the MA Codes and Standards
committee produced a major report on the need for building regulatory reform. In 1991, the
AIA passed a convention resolution calling for a single model building code for the United
States.
Over the years, the institute has pursued this goal by working with the model code
organizations as they have come together to produce the International Building Code and
related codes such as the Intern ationalPlumbing Code. The MA has consistently encouraged
its members to participate fully in the development processes of the model codes and
referenced standards.
The benefits to the design profession are great. The design process is simplified and the cost
of producing design and construction drawings is often lowered. The benefits are shared with
the building owner when the resultant savings are passed on to the client. In addition,
organizations that are building in more than one region of the country or in foreign countries
will benefit from the use of coordinated set of building codes.
The MA thinks that a large benefit will also accrue to the architectural and engineering
schools and colleges with the inherent simplification of teaching codes and standards to the
students who are our nation's future design professionals.
Page 18 of 25
FEDERAL OFFICIALS
1. When did the U.S. Department of the Navy adopt the IPC? Does this mean that
the plumbing of all navy facilities anywhere in the world are now designed and
installed under the IPC?
TERREL EMMONS: The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) adopted the
Intern ationalPlumbing Code(IPC) immediately after it was published, as criteria, to be used
in conjunction with (in most cases in lieu of) other, Navy-unique criteria on plumbing. The
fact that it is used as criteria is an important distinction. The Department of Defense is not
required to follow any building code anywhere it undertakes construction on a DoD
installation. Historically, we have maintained all of our own criteria — most often of a .
significantly higher order than the "minimally legal" requirements of a building code. Due
to a recent desire to adopt and use industry guidance (standards, codes and other guidance)
whenever possible in lieu of our own unique guidance,we have been adopting such industry
guidance whenever appropriate. This direction results from a combination of: (a) a desire to
"get on the same sheet of music" as the Architectural and Engineering and construction
community to facilitate smoother, more efficient projects; (b) an inability to continue to
maintain all of our current criteria and guidance due to personnel reductions and resulting
loss of technical expertise necessary to stay abreast of changes; and (c) a desire to adopt,
whenever possible,performance criteria,standards and codes that facilitate the adoption and
use of new technologies and materials, and which simply work better with increasing use of
design-build procurement methods. NAVFAC still maintains criteria on plumbing, but it is
criteria where we seek to have the designer exceed the requirements of the code. Now, we
build our criteria around the IPC noting only these exceptions, or higher level requirements.
Given the above,one could not say"all Navy facilities around the world follow the IPC"; this
is too simplistic. What can be said is that "all Navy and Marine Corps (and other) facilities
around the world follow NAVFAC's criteria,which has been built around and based on the
IPC."
2. Please tell us about the approximate size of the construction for the Navy facilities
in the world.
TERREL EMMONS: Between $4 and $5 billion in construction per year.
3. Why did the Navy select IPC over other plumbing codes?
TERREL EMMONS: The IPC was selected because it is part of a suite of national codes—
some already published; others (the most important one) to be published by 2000. The key
consideration was the consistency between the suite of codes.
Page 19 of 25
FEDERAL OFFICIALS INTERVIEWS
4. Have you encountered any major problems or difficulties since the Navy's
adoption of the lPC?
TERREL EMMONS: No
5. Do you feel closed out of the code development process associated with the lPC?
TERREL EMMONS: No
6. Do you feel that the code development process of the ICC allows adequate
opportunity for participation by contractors, manufacturers, labor unions and other
industrial interests?
TERREL EMMONS: Yes
7. Are there any other issues or comments you would like to share with us?
TERREL EMMONS: The U. S. codes must become performance-based codes.
Page 20 of 25
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
RONALD BRAUN
In the construction industry since 1977, mainly in the area of plumbing for more than 20
years. Instructor ofplumbing apprentices. Plumbing plan review experience and the owner
and operator of Pacific Rim Plumbing a six year old small plumbing company working on
residential,multi family and commercial plumbing. Certified in Plumbing Mechanical and
Combination Dwelling.
DAVID BULLEN
Director of the Center for Building Performance Program for the American Institute of
Architects in Washington, D.C., is a licensed architect and engineer in the state of Texas.
A gueit speaker at numerous universities and professional conferences, has been a
consultant to the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development and to the
National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. A member of BOCA, ICBO,
SBCCI and NFPA.
DAVE CANTRELL
In the plumbing/mechanicalf eldfor over 25 years in residential,commercial and industrial.
"Technical Lead" with the Snohomish County Planning and Development Services in
Washington State. The senior technical specialist for the plumbing and mechanical codes.
Instructor of plumbing codes. Various plumbing certifications and participati on in plumbing
related committees.
GEORGE CARPENTER
In the plumbing, mechanical and refrigeration field since 1955, a member of City of
Lubbock, Texas, plumbing board during the 1970s, a Lubbock City Council member from
1983 until 1990. A past member of Texas State Task Force for Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration licensing rules. Present licenses in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Involved in local chapters of Air Conditioning Contrators of America, American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning, Engineers, Inc. and National Association of
Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors and has plumbed under IPC, Standard
Plumbing Code and UPC.
MIKE DENNY
Bayer and Associates has been in business 51 years doing mechanical and plumbing. Mike
Denny,president,has been with the company 22 years and performs estimations and buying
A graduate of the University of Texa he holds a Master Plumbing license, HVAC license,
L.P. Gas, Boiler Installer license and has plumbed under IPC for three years and under
UPC for 10 years.
Page 21 of 25
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
TERREL EMMONS
Chief Architect and Associate Director of Engineering for the headquarters office of the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). Has held positions of Director of
Design Support, Director of Technology and Associate Director of Design for NAVFAC
since 1987. In these positions has been responsible for engineering and design policy,
particularly focusing on improved building performance,design process improvements, life
cycle cost, and the utilization of new technologies, including CADD. International issues,
industry and federal agency liaison on engineering and design matters.
A fellow of AIA and advisory member of AIA Center for Building Performance and
Regulations, AM Steering Committee on Codes and Standards: Chairman of Design and
Construction Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, Federal Facilities Council;
and member of American Society for Testing and Materials E-06(performance of buildings)
and E-50 committees.
ROGER EVANS
Salt Lake City, Utah, Director of Building Services and Licensing. Under his management
the department inspected over$600 million of construction valuation and issued over 9,000
permits during the last 12 months. A graduate of the University of Utah and Building Code
Instructor for over nine years.
Served on various ICBO committees, including the Administrative Fire and Lift Safety and
the Special Inspection Advisory committees. Currently serving as a member of the IBC
Steering Committee while continuing service on the Board of Directors of ICBO and as
Chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee.
Past president of the Utah chapter of ICBO, has served on numerous committees.
Committee member of the Architectural Advisory Committee of the Uniform Building
Commission. Served on the Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Gas Association.
CHUCK FOSTER
A practicing architect for the past 12 years, partner and director in a firm offering
architectural, engineering interior design and planning A member of the Technical
Planning Committee for the Springfield Contractors Association and a Board Member of
Ozark Greenways.
Page 22 of 25
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
AL GODWIN
Fort Worth, Texas Building Official, worked in construction from 1978 through 1984.
Graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineeringfrom the University of Texas
at Arlington and started work in the Building Inspection Department of Dallas, Texas, May
1984. Over 14 years experience with codes.
Holds ICBO certifications as Plans Examiner, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector and
Mechanical Inspector, CABO certification as Building Official. Serves on ICBO Fire Life
Safety Code Committee, the North Central Texas Council of Governments Code Committee
for Building Code, the Committee for Fire Code, and the Oversight Committee of all
subcommittees.
CURTIS INGLIS
Building Official for the Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport. Texas Registered Architect,
American with Disabilities Act Facilities and Services Coordinator and Executive Secretary
to Dallas/F. Worth International Airport Board of Appeals.
CLYDE LACKEY
Chief Plumbing Inspector for the City of Fort Worth, Texas. Mr. Lackey was born into a
family of second generation plumbers and learned plumbing from his father, a licensed
plumber for over 50 years.He has 28 years of experience in the plumbing trade as a
licensed plumber and a licensed plumbing inspector. Holds ICBO and IAPMO Plumbing
Inspector certifications and is a member of ICBO, IAPMO, ASSE(American Society of
Sanitary Engineers) and the Plumbing Code Subcommittee of the North Central Texas
Council of Governments.
BOB KONYNDYK
Raised in a family of plumbing contractors, began as an apprentice in the United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada. Licensed Journeymen and Master Plumber and licensed
Mechanical Contractor. Previous owner ofa successful plumbing contracting company for
10 years. State of Michigan Chief of Plumbing Bureau where he directs and supervises the
states plumbing licensing program. Chairman of the Council of American Building Officials
One and Two Family Dwelling Plumbing Code Committee and member of various plumbing
code committees of national code organizations. A participant in the National Sanitation
Foundation and Educational Testing Services.
Page 23 of 25
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
WAYNE MEYER
An architect and code consultantfor nearly 20 years, Mr. Meyer is a principal of Arcodect,
a division of GBBN Architects,which provides code expertise for the firm and provides code
and accessibility consulting services on large assembly projects (arenas, stadiums,
performing arts centers, etc.) across the country.
Member, AM BP&R Committee since 1981; Chair '98; Chair of Codes and Standards
Subcommittee, 1986-1994. Member, ASTM since 1983; Committee E06 on Performance of
Buildings, Membership Secretary 1991-1997; Subcommittee E06.25 on Whole Buildings
and Facilities, Chair 1994-Present; Member, BOCA since 1979; served on numerous
committees (Interpretations, Existing Structures, Mixed Uses, etc.).
RAY MOORE
A mechanical and plumbing engineer dealing with design of mechanical and plumbing
systems to comply with building, mechanical,plumbing and electrical codes for
approximately 28 years. Responsible for overseeing all aspects of design and construction
for the multidiscipline consulting engineering firm. Licensed Mechanical Engineer in nine
states. A member ofASHRAE, American Society Plumbing Engineers, NSPE and IAPMO.
A member of'Utah State Plumbing Advisory Committee and instructor of plumbing classes
for ASPE.
LARRY PERRY
An architect by background and an owner of a code consulting firm, since 1991 Mr. Perry
represents the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International (BOMA
members own or manage over 6 billion square feet of office space in North America) in the
code development of model codes. Currently serving and has previously served as a member
of numerous technical committees ofNFPA, CABO/ANSI A117.1, ADAAG Review, IFC and
IPC.
JOE POWELL
Involved in the construction industry (residential, commercial and industrial)for over 50
years. Vice President of Construction for Centex Homes. Responsible for construction
personnel and troubleshooting,Mr. Powell is a constructionforensic expert and administrator
of nationwide training and national contracts for Centex Homes.
Page 24 of 25
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
DAVID SARTOR
From a family of plumbing industry professionals for three generations, Mr. Sartor has been
in the plumbing industry since 1977. Mechanical/Plumbing Inspector for the city of Abilene,
Texas, for the last 5% years and has inspected under both the UPC and IPC Plumbing
continuing education instructor for Texas A & M Education Extension 1994-1995, member of
IPC' Code Change Committee, Licensed Texas Plumbing Journeyman and Inspector, and
certified Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector.
JOEL SHELTON
Currently the field investigator for the plumbing section of the State of Oklahoma
Occupation!Licensing assignedto the Northeast quadrant region.A Registerea'Professional
Sanitarian,advisor to the plumbing program of the Tulsa Technology Center and advisor to
. the Construction Technology program at Oklahoma State University. Has directly
participated in writing plumbing licensing examinations. Has served BOCA, ICC and CABO
Code Change Committees. A member of the National Evaluation Services for review of
plumbing materials and products for their listing and compliance with national standards.
Page 25 of 25
05/11/99 0:1:04 FA,( (�J00:1
_iQRT`
r.0 4. egttp of fort ittpton
tm.„ .
P.Q.BOX 148 COUNTY OF WELD
130 8.McKINLEY AVENUE
FT. LUPTON. CO 80621 (303)857-6694
poi atatt!..--'
5-10-99
Dave Sprague
Weld County Inspection Department
Greeley, CO
To Whom It May Concern:
The City of Fort Lupton has adopted and has been enforcing the 1995 International Plumbing
Code since 1996. We have not had any problems as the code requirements are almost'the same as
those found in the Uniform Plumbing Code. There are a few minor differences and they have not
caused any problems. I recommend that all.jurisdictions adopt the International Plumbing Code
as this code will be used both nationally and internationally and will provide uniformity.
Please contact me av: 970-352-1791 if you have any questions regarding this matter
Sincerely,
John Swallow
Building Official
ai EXHIBIT
A.
05/11/99 08: 10 TX/RX N0.5745 P.002
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES
Roy Romer, Governor
THE EXAMINING BOARD . ,
LUBERS t,
OFPM ,
yy
W ,,
'1 y bV ' 2i1,t, 'If.\1:4-;;:t.
Colorado State Law; Rules and Regulations,'
�;
`Colorado Plumbing Code Amendments if .
OF'COl
/a' 9O
r,,, O
* 4 (WIj� I *
-SC ~
/` ' '
X876 #
EXAMINING BOARD OF PLUMBERS
1580 Logan Street, Suite 550
Denver, Colorado 80203-1941
(303)-894-2319
J
EXHIBIT
i F(A**.c' jG-.tn.
nie,iiJ J.
990759 7o • I'A
TITLE 12
PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS
ARTICLE 58
Plumbers
12-58-101. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly
hereby finds that:
(a) Improper plumbing can adversely affect the health of the
public and that faulty plumbing is potentially lethal and can cause
widespread disease and an epidemic of disastrous consequences;
(b) To protect the health of the public, it is essential that plumbing
be installed by persons who have proven their knowledge of the sciences
of pneumatics and hydraulics and their skill in instaaing plumbing
(2) Consistent with its duty to safeguard the health of the people of
this state, the general assembly hereby declares that individuals who
plan, install, alter, extend, repair, and maintain plumbing systems should
be individuals of proven skill. To provide standards of skill for those in
the plumbing trade and to authoritatively establish what shall be good
plumbing practice, the general assembly hereby provides for the
licensing of plumbers and for the promulgation of a model plumbing code
of standards by the examining board of plumbers, and this article is
therefore declared to be essential to the public interest
12-58-102. Definitions. As used in this stole. unless the context
otherwise requires:
(1) "Board" means the examining board of plumbers.
(1 5) "Gas piping" means any arrangement of piping user to
convey fuel gas, supplied by one meter, and each arrangement of gas
piping serving a building, structure, or premises whether individually
metered or not. "Gas piping" or "gas piping system" does not include the
installation of gas appliances where existing service connections are
already installed. nor does such term include the installations, alterations.
or maintenance of gas utilities owned by a public utility certified pursuant
to article 5 of title 40, C.R.S., or a public utility owned or acquired by a city
or town pursuant to article 32 of title 31. C.R.S
(2) "Journeyman plumber" means any person other than a raster
plumber, residential plumber, or plumbers apprentice who engages in ci
works at the actual installation. alteration, repair. and renovation of
plumbing in accordance with the standards. rules. and regulators
established by the board.
(3) "Master plumber" means a person v.-ho has the nececsa��
qualifications. training, experience, and technical kno.aledge to prcper.y
plan, lay out, and install and repair plumbing apparatus and equipmeH'
including the supervision of such in aocerdanoe .vith the standards. rules
and regulations established by the board
(4) 'Colorado plumbing code means a code establshed by the boa,
which con-lsts of standards fcr plumbing Installation pi':mh':a mater
and solar plumbing which could r'rP,ctly affect the potatle :.ate,sr�rpcl,
- >.-0p N ^ a) N a) a) a) N T3 O)— -0 U t a) W — '- ..- U;
O (`4 0 '- w ca)m v.CLt=_cC N a) C•m O a)'— L m _c C.c 0 U w C O i (_ - ((, •
�w co '-'I— 0)� 0 O C S] a) iv 0. .- -. J ---C +-' O U lL` _ (p t, ••-• 0
.
m v) � - O c c CO U) J.O woo E -0 E a.C) •- O
to a) a) N 0 a) O F._).— 0c i..-1-1a)
l O O)E m O CL ` C'} C O.a) ` C v) c •-• :>, a)".' w ;Vs
7 T U)
m 0-4) O u N U c "O ..0 N J E 0 O a) a) „, `- — U = m () •— al :0 0 .0 _C jj " -CI v: L'_
E C c-0 o -0 mom: E QE 0 m E N E 0-x a) L�-0 O)a 0 u " •
w0 - +)•
R3 43 ro (s .O = L ;�( 1 O O a U a) C O)O ) ` (a N (n > as
` Q '> O i ` LI )
C-C N O C O C a.J 4.O d' c
m L0- >'0E- (1) (1)O 0 — 0 0 N > .C 0 O ` �q ,n v
C11 Cr) ro .r V) V) O O-_c J a) rn c. E U .0 rz ti •a) (li 'U l
n O L ,7ilaO O C n� cl a) 0) 0T7 r > O 0. r C J a)a) ` U Q .- N '- -C C) u) U V) t
` (s a) , m a)'O C ._ a. C c w E _ O C N E as to a) -, Cn p 0 Lp O _c O p - N •� C `...
al L Cl) a) '.- �-- :.- n- C O fl-O C O N C H _4- C m ro [D O _.
.C ,-, 0 L7 0 O m y C• Q Q p O C O •.- J row U C O O cs c0 o q N D.ln 0-E s3
��c c E c�M > ter" as 43) m L•�� m m o >.m 0 n.C C.C.)) rn E ..2.,--;0160 C a) m- -r
o (UU —a L o C ° a. c N-U...._ w `" > m v) r- a L - -- m Ec �'.'• 0 .0>. Y � a�+
�" u•- m c 00.E .:2--.-= o_ a) m L O a.o Oro o v c 'n 0=- __: >,_ a) Q - a' 0.) s`) '=
a) • C E N .a >•- .Ct' > N C N Cl) x_c a. 0 O - >.>N -uD •- ;
a.C U a x C E Ew U M O E E O C 0 04' a) — p J C >. C7 ,- 02"W • 1.- L- - „,:.,
T•' 0.5 x `o v) C)' . a ca E E•
0).-- c o "► �a o Ern rnQ � m� Q�O� RS � .� ? ,'
((UU0'0w0 CL-C coy(;oco ` m - m40C -' y m • CL,_ � ` >o „, a)M CS) L 43) •L
mCa) C l� Na) ma}_ O a)-QCmw � CO a) Na) a) '- > — a) O •
0 vs-O O c-c a.w :• of ` O C O E 0 13 N -0 O M a) y >,rn t«1] O -0 a) - u c -p m `,- ro.�i M
- C— O._ mow. - N•- U E _. —_C U
MCC)
CO CU MI cum C Cam— u Q, `L� O �O C •a) � � � a) rn(s Ow"(52
C min rJ
J2 C 0)-5 as N C 0 O 0-a) =-0 L_ O.� 1-= V._— E C (n a) N 4) Q N C O 4
E C 3 U y N C L; E:_. a) .... O)a) to m 4- 7 a) >+ t S] t_ O a) u-
0 N.— O C l.. Q O cL_ U C ,-. _ O U U C mL (s L_ T+- J a)•- u)
�'�� .� wow
cU (-L° c:— Qv cw Q mgr • 3 a) co a `m i u E Om c cu n m o u m 0 c
O 0 E C1t m C.L C w c O s— of c ` N a) a) m N a) Qm cs— 0-04--
E a)-a . 0 (5) m,mo`- 2 ) ( 5-eo )mQgo ,N,) ov) m, E `-2f- o vQ-c6pp `) oE2 1-2
J O ��� q N a).N! E rn— o me a c m E _�— vOi J m p E m m u m w Q 3 3 X �) cc
a,- rn v, a) -- o C: >.o a) El U cv o ,_ 00.c .Z'.� a) a) a) c o o E a) a)�. o n a`) .- o o - a) 0 D
a) C .--. co h m a) J .>'`R' is a) 0)a) >.— E a) V) C N > m a).c C .-. t_. > a.— to U E O
c•.c C C CA cu m•N N �'� E O N c U i0 c Se a) U O 43 oa)_0 O N ` °� rn E 0_, _ ro O O c w U 7."
m= 0 a) W� w mC o 0 0) o o EiU m a) 0'-. -.0 a) `oA U oar aEi ° L u
O 0- . cu x 0_ ]..c (s ` O N m C E m >, .�_c«•p C M E-0 O ` -C C'cs E °).‘4-i N O O p >_ 73 T3
(n c ��•v C= 9.4 --- - Iii o °) � w n w a) O-c•OQ 01-• 4- E O o a) a) is l—. . E ro N. , w miuC�i� o a
N m O m T O r C C C L. C C VI O C 0. • C O O E C ._E•,----
o O . m 2 a) a) vi U) 0 0 0 to N a) C O ro ts_o.o m E (`-s 0 cu.0 i_ C Ja J O a) E CV ao co tl-0 U` y
>,0S1 E mu? E to E E'c''—v, u ..) 0)c-c (° w-o ,o`-C"a) Cl) a— C CLa) = z c ca c c) N -a)•`)
1):.- maa) Or-0 -t -C• .. O (Uc_ � sroa) m .0 > xcoca-_ a) 0 -0 —.>< 0,..,10 (',, n i
CA C• .C , >N , m L m m E:N 3= .L..'0 N «. C a) t.M_.EC�. O O m _c uv LotU. a) N
�- (s '- O' a) o_(U a.a.-0..O C_ > E m 41 C 0-U E to C U r- —.C E 0
O >. _o C Q) O a) W O O O 0 a) a)..- m a) O 0) a.0 N a) m «! :v J J _. .._
.°0%o CIS F-o_av-aQ. 2.E um rn .c<13 o ... E -c-c vs mn E LP_ E c v) -o (U ate.
m � m �rnv; Emvurn,,; >.atna)ro �,O (no �13tn (n Oiaa) - q • ' u) i.'"_
_c Ca) J-Cw? N.C U [Cs a) N(Cs ).•m (C6 -C C C N C 0 C p d? _ f C_;O ElZ mi
w
.c . 0—, 5 ° ' E C `) w e-E ` U U � .O D o- en p N t6 m m O 4) Oro O C - --
N 0 0 = _ 0
C, .C ,-• 3 CI 13 > a) ` O CL 0130 Q d-5 a) C O C O O O O ` C E . i O G t N U to
7.".
o•c a a m z7 N 3 c .� E c c E m co = Rs V)
omc7) cs =Z C Cmc .—L.- c 2—O mom - 4-E Q. 1C0 (U (1) u : C (CC)
am rnN n)7. 0 d a; y C O N f0 N N .�-.- O Q. N C C a) - E aw O E E •_ 41 .«CI C '
0-0
Q q a) m 0= O 0)'w c O) a•E i_ R) O1 E:-0 "' C C 3 u M C U O..-. •-. L- 0).O (S TJ L L '� O o 7
C a) C U (U E o O C C a) O a) O L U >,O-_CV (2 C a ro L. U
E o J > O U O C a) U o a) C O E — 3 Rs (/j m.3 a) E w (s .— a) ` (n u) C O `_ o c. .... .,„
O N C U N O
U .c — O- 0- > a) o > .- e) C(p•_. C U.,c _ _. to ro N ..a)- a)
mo)EC O� 0
_'O O 0 U C O N 0).c V) N •≤ ,_ .� a) Ot0 ,-, a) E O •(--n• U O N-N.= a) > > ro C �- 0
O)D'� m E O)m o w a) C_ Oc E 0 N N 0- to O C N O iti ri e U Q Q)sr ro Q U O)a) U V) V)
7 O) N �_ a O O p J. E "J CU V) c • a)C7 >` - ) Q N N >.'«r C. rn L i{)
1] cu .V) ro C — C a)'.. 0 C 0 N 0 - p >i p• a) c)•---,u _ a) ` C a) (U > c ro N D`-0 c O 0 -
6 )
a) m C.C O 7 Rs a) > v U a) C >, c.N.fl C mu '(V C Q) •O.O c0O ro.c a) C — U17 ` - E
• w .....
>`•
N.O N a_ E N �.- O L C N J y 0-N'O O O-O 0 4) O — tn C O >> N to i L L O)(.;) 7 C) ► ,_ S- N
a cu U 0 L m v) .N C W— N E-0 w O a) , C ` cD L C V)_ C N w U
w O O == > O 3 -c t_ >.�. a m N a) w C 0_ C C m C)-):f C p C >, in m U a).C a) O C O-O 1] •ro t
a) v) cU•— v) vi o a) N w O >>-0 m m a)N _o a)-'C (° r M O D E ily cr, . ro (p E >j 1
fn - C .ua) wc wy Eo.mc ` a) x .— Xa) � O D ' EE .E is 73
a) , Nc.ci.c='Oa UN > N ro wLn a) al NQmQUO _q Own_` VO_ Wm (7t1C
J.� U >i .%�+ a) C (Us Q)'C3 al N Va)) >`»r co a) Q) - C •U ,. (n s. Q C,0 .. U (in t �- -Cr Cp - N Y) a) ro
C N N O •� C L E w TU) C a) �6 Q ' C'— C ,n 'C C Mc
L- m N C .... 4-.--7.
ro m 0 U 0 E (n
C . u)
4>— a) C J a) m O () 4� C O O (�6.C O al 0 O C d t. ro O•- O C E 4- I- ( T3 : C ti C O c ro N
- N m c6 a) 0-m N > U c - O E IZ ro—�- m .m O ,- (a L- vi E O O O.N N O U 1= O -- E L O
mm .c C].0 C--o_.N C•U ca_ L._( N -.-- w17)4-
v) O O — -U7 O — C OU O U ((7 O �- -him w Cly
-0 N 0_N .- O_au) 73 O_'•- 0.N O Cr 0. C m C "J t in a) a) a) N cu cam , 0(V rnLO •- m O Um o_0 4._•-•. D (13 0-
ECM— 7 OYp O C 0-C ro a) O a) �.- r„ N ... C— L U V C E C ( C_ N m 0 '. . -C
= 00,--.. x._C C (d m'> a) _c Q m O 4--•� - m J _b N a) 0 N p O - N
Q_ C w ro 1).... X CTn �.. a) m O O Z v ---,, o_m m Cr m — rn— ro .' U a) n m O O C O 4 -V O
_ J a) m to C a) Q).M O c O C C N u) q 'V N-----
000J C C 7 C - O-"-
O = Cc ()C a)•C C.a.u) V. m-0 V) C Q)-O C m.-.C-0 a) C ro-J a al c) �,O O Q
C C - >,p- (U al Y ,_ - O E
''rnauxi E (uU +n �'n � ln� � vi � N � u � aEi u•n � ccU ccU N W— ��a E aCi •� � _ �N O� E
c v, '' E— ` m E a) E._ E (� m u u m — O J = -- -a — u a) rn .oz) m v � t
� - Q c_ 0-a). a„ OC � a) cUc (U (v toE U (nw cE uco` (ar_ a. EEcEco R)
c O C] (s u N ,, ill O-v) ro C MD U to C.C CL CL S] L- v J j v). " J 0.)•• 0 - J C co --T-5 O
J._ `_. a) >.C %->. O >,C >,O O a) a) J O- T3 T 7 7 T) O._ C C O C 0 .200.0. 0
.2 O 0-0. 0 (U -0
.a.�n.iUv � (n._ � (U (n3u (nm (n � c) � �. (n: cU� ca.ci (vc) O_ ._ ro .^a) t
CD
>• 0 - 10 O .- O C O (110 .0 o or C — m t0 m ea C Z .c N O m U N m as La-_, Loo m °O c- .a`-) r➢ w
t_0
R C Cp D O N c .O .- U - .- N O L N m C U ,z a) C N d co a L h- '>. V) 0 `) . .�
a7 - C — m c E- m Z -O c 3 ETa o E 7 m - c N — N .E
m . cn o .5 6 .-= -C c o mL m a m o 7 0 � ? a Q� E n E Qm r° E u. o,
u) N 1.9 N T7 N N O. O - m E a,.. 2 N C O N a= MC' O-O .C O X O X O ` N �..: m in C
O 7 N L.. O C N O 3 E- m a) --c N >`o a N CT C CO
D N V L- m „ m N.0 a) ... N N O [➢
o — c C C'- Z7 'p C N C -C CO _0 Q.L.- O m N U .N C .-. L C .O O - �aL � � V �.
a) E .- � o m� c m m o t , c — T Z E •- O) c o N H m .. E m a,En y 0 O 0a m a-) o
> w. ,, 2 7 CO CO m air Ea) 3 m --0 a) c_ o ° c m am c � �' -- aN `0 aTi E E
d O N _o 7.0 O N L N O cis ,- N N 7 a) Ilc O N _a m 0)cn 0 CO D m C O O -CIE m a) al.= a) -Op
m U U 0 aL c a) c (1 �� N raj C E_ O N E C ca m C o) m E .O L U C >, m N 0110
� 0 DE � ° L 0 '- S 2 E o c In ;n ... P E 7 m 4 c c I:-
a �E � ^ a L-- _c _a m ®
c 7 o m mw m 4i Y CV .0)N -o N a) aO) 7 - o 0 0 a) .- .« -
m •-0 O L N > ' n o N Ca C O r (U 0.1- (0 --,°) a) N ,_ p N a U _ C C C U .m J •w 0 -c m 0 O
73 ` :E - cow .c__,° - ommna� v .C° ° E) Cm ° EacE. my, m � o1 o
>'E 3 O 0 -Eo 3 a) -6+ � .r 3 c°' o- :Lin:
` ° " o 3 —' : E .... m �� m � � o o us o °icm O C. - N CC _C w - r0 a) a) La) C — mCCImNa) O m m O Y ° O N CN a) a La) 0 „_ a) a Oa) mx 0-0 L m X .D a) a) c N •- TJpo ° CinCca) 0 — ccn ma) o EE . ° ' a, � �a aa ENa) mma) �= am` " > m rn
°E in Emo m3c � m � a... o73 — mm> Na .. Nm'No � L � ? n .≥ Ea nE a) 1.) L °
V m � O) .CL Tl CaC— aCm > 7 'L" c 7Ea) C OOm O'm N � > C N — > ° 8
N ...w_cO C 'N T7 d", Nc Es. 73
a-0 N Em .O NC -oN a) ,≥,,_ O r03C .— W CUC mS) 2 -C OQ U
C m N 7 •— O a CO a) m a) W 7 N .N C O C 7 a) X a) 1— p U N m
0 0 0 7 EO m p N 't ° CEO V 7— ° '-' a) �' N 2 I_ m N rn N N — O m J L E m -E 2 a) -
o .C E c O a) E a C .. m c a r6 .020c 'C p N O C N N N C a-o t .�- E p -. a) a V a N
m c a) O E ".O 0) '•- N O) E E m CU c m ID C T a) C 'O L_ a) O O S .� a) O E N N C a) V .- a - C a) L
N'0 a C
O O Q.m. an d c
o c, N L U L a N N N •7 C € m N a, _c C a) O N V .o r .`�- m m r➢ O m m C
._ a p �. m N N E= C -_ N E E O N a y) a, m a) m c C L.- a) a m m a m �n U 2 L a U .0
V a) I.= C a N L 7 m 'C 7 'C Da) E U a'm C L N n a) .N a N w O a • 7 J C E 7 N a..-. L
rya-00 , ,Bo p C CU s2 CI- -c 7 C OL am a�a Q) -- (a ,„-- , EEL > N m O a) O m N ° � Q O at 00
p N c0 N tD N N .�a) 'O 3— .N-O TJ a)H ` O C Cn m 7 a) J N a) m a) C C O '_' N C 'C C T2 3
d .0 U d' E O V h C_.V CJ D .L-. as a) L O coo a N CO — E • C� a) N .≤ L m a) " N a 7 V a) C [1-O
a) y m oo Cx co N'� m1J �a o C _C CL...- aZ c a) ° .c C - o m p C Vo c E � F-- t- •- c ti o a) U < .o p al ^ OD~ N .2 &)) v) (U .Eu a 3 m `o m T m u "m E M r a)) m , c m a, co 1Q .� c o m a `o E > -c m �, °-
a11-5
^a) to.— N h 3 N O N.— _V -- 7 C 7 in C N N CV O CON a) al a r` N
7ca) �.- . m-orZ � mE- `m ` mom N m . > Ec.- � � � u� . 7oDE Em xalLEa E
a`�j= a 7 C,.- N 000 7 CO a C C) V 7 U N O D C N L m 7 C 7 C 1) m a) m 7 X O
3 O a 0 =' v m ,._ _0 0_0- -O n m .°'- a Cl N N N w a L a m >.E .. 'a) t1.a ° Cr E-.
•
V a) C -O > N -- o N V a) a) C m U o D p C O V — V N V 0 m C bJ C L C C
-cfloct--
O N Cp 000 L.. ≥ 7 t4 C m m C m C co ,2E-:w E coo -
ca C N N m -O C O N o r- m . 00 N P. L p L N
N ,- N N ° 0100 _ 46 N C O to Ili CO - L N Cn N O •(n a -0 ui 3 N �0 CU
N E rn ..'r j m - a) is N O) N N O U a) ° _ • 0
N N m a) N 01 is a) y) "- C
C C C)) w N. W NO O .C O ,CC p U _c V N L a ` U > •I O _C'CI
VO m a) m
"' E (_) ,� o a) 0-.C D, D ca m E " .` ? �` w .. m o CJ V c U rs N
o0 m V > C U a CD
C a) m N . a' C !T .- C L O m Cn p — a T L a C - ' 'Cr al vs m C C N
7 a) a) a) m C O) m y C 2. C �O m - .a) 7 N CU • N L - {_ ^' p a) �-�
N N ! r E U_ Na Y -0 D ` co a)N C T O J � N L a) 7 -ti N H � ,i O V N E a
IU �. C t a) E m a u) m 0 a C _ C N O N m w V r➢ ,_ w N _- Q a) m a O.
m o `oo ate - E cc c p - UN uom E T7pmc =; E0D ?' T
N V a) " a CJ) > O v) .O = cN E C C 2- a ` C V CT m C U ll „`) ... C V V O — V rJ L. C O C m C1 a) O m (➢ .C a) V 7 O a) a) E. U a)
a `) TS c c.m N E ._ 0.E .o) .- m - o .E 0 E -- ra c9 "- <n o-n .�) oL D) =' E T `„
C N .z t - o N 0) �) 7 N 7 a) a m p � 1 p m 0- N S C c 7 y • I N O `. .`= N � 7 M -0
m m _m O co- m a N _= O C U E (7 7 Q V N 0 D) m m o - O a) ,._ C)C - = 7 E ? E
m m 0 0 >O c N �-0 O U V -C C V CO U N -Cl a) C ''n 'N -0-U E O)L �O N ,p Q) E_ E •-..C d .l
m r 9 c TS am r➢ 1° .D W73,--
m -O o Tic w C m m o o a co 'o m `moo a -ii a E —
O . N i p m L — C L 2 CT.- — 0-,.- a N N _- a
E _. - -N T� N Ti N U ..- .. -O C O O L 0 m _ m m ,.- aL E o t o C N a`) O L L ra T)
m :- a) L_. a)C a) c O .- U N m _C _ �➢ N. N a V m N .- ._ L0 m to
> L E �) mom N 7 c .--to N L 7 p a) m 7 a m m (1 N ... Z` )
d -0 )a U .$ m e 0 t Ca L N CO t N m 0 V U > C O U o a a vs m _O 5 m = m m O
m � u y m CD- m o >> C• t- U 7 CO-C Crop ci >.2 . . -0 a) -0 o a) f o m -D D' m o m
x a) U'O c) .O p us a) a c C O m _ c 7 U) °a _a_ a) �) ,_➢ ° L V a Z? « p d O .n —
0 U' O Q C O Ol a) 0-D U• L y) CV O.Q C N a m O- m m .. L a $ l0 O m C U N U a) U
C N — m "" N a a) N Q) m O V y) CT a) O ` w >> m V N m 1
t6 O TJ C L-. U a C �0 C `- 'O C co T) L X o a) — m a) m C E U t0 .- o C C 2 a).C L c E C a) 01— =n
CT c 0 J — o d N - > .N p N C U a) ` L- C- w N ,j_; :1-50 0) c ..._ T'N O C_N O a) E i0 -O at
J - {n OFD- 0060 .-_350C
FD 7 CO O OO _J.0 O .- 7 . .. m 0) •- •(= -° " ° 40 m V N s3 ' O J O m n ra @ Q) m L-
Op ` - > an d Q.c a 0c _c t➢ - .> CO 7 m Q D .- ar. N C E N m _ a p -° «0 N O O a v D O -J
w ca o Q c act) ;_c Nw o o .• .--03—,___
;v) oo OO n. o)O > a m N = FL E) as aU D-w � o-C to o a) v≤ar aym, o 0 --
-O N C E N _ con__ CJ)L .- N L l0 m p s. ~ C N m N al C °p ---P r m f0 N C J ,-.° m N N a a
C 2"' m s U) m "D U - a) C N O L C
� �� '➢ m m N � •CT7 "' C �, L .�CD C CA p J`-Z " �O U00 C O ._•-i mE O
m „'C7 a) " N O r) N L rC7 — rn LC �1,
RI ) w -c U Cn E_ .O N a) V -Q -es
.C C p CO 3 a m -o ' _➢ O). E O _ 'J
-5,a) L L C 0) S) E a) ,;.-2 C 4 L C - m C C J U 7 T O c V la ra 7 N a a) L) C')-gin
u a) > JLL Y) i.,,,._
I .> O m D O - it! - - 0, no > m_ � O -
rU w- ) o — > O V ' 7 —' .C X a) GS O N N V E
a) L. O $ m C.) O) m a 3 S m -O N vl N m N cp .= u, C m °' Ern E _0 r C.--C. ma:,m m r J
'I
l
INSTALLATION COST COMPARISON
UNDER
THE 1997 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
AND
THE 1997 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE
BY
J. RICHARD WAGNER, PE, CIPE
EDWARD W. SALTZBERG, PE, CEM, CIPE
ROBERT C. PAYNE
MAY 15, 1998
EXHIBIT
l ioo non,r_.„„„.
.174
qq 6 759
DATE: May 15, 1998
TO: Code Enforcement Officials, Members of Plumbing Code Adoption Boards,
and Interested Members of the Plumbing Community
FROM: Edward Saltzberg,* PE, CEM, CIPE
J. Richard Wagner,* PE, CIPE
Robert Payne*
RE: Uniform Plumbing Code/International Plumbing Code - Plumbing
Cost Comparison for Various Types of Residential Installations
There have been a number of claims over the last few months as to the supposed savings in using
the minimum required plumbing installations with the International Plumbing Code over the
Uniform Plumbing Code. The authors of this report, in order to either substantiate or refute the
claims of rough plumbing cost variances, decided to independently evaluate three various
plumbing installations. The following are the results of our investigation and our conclusions.
•
CONCLUSIONS
ROUGH PLUMBING SYSTEM COST APPROXIMATE
%DIFFERENCE
APPROXIMATE OF TOTAL
DIFFERENCE % COST OF FINISH PLUMBING
• UPC SYSTEM IPC SYSTEM UPC>IPC IPC>UPC DIFFERENCE PLUMBING SYSTEM COST
TOWNHOUSE $ 3,483.47 $3,371.57 $ 111.90 - 3.2% $2,975.00 1.7%
SMALL RESIDENCE $ 3,190.74 $3,246.05 - $ 55.31 1.7% S 2,720.00 0.9%
LARGE RESIDENCE $ 10,085.81 $9,720.92 $364.89 -- 3.6% $6,847.50 2.2%
1. For breakdown of costs for the various installations, see individual schedules in this report.
2. Cost of finish plu-nbing for fixtures is shown on Page 5.
As indicated by the summary above, there is not much difference in total cost between the rough
plumbing installations under the two competing plumbing codes for most residential projects.
Furthermore, any differences that do occur could be easily changed by local plumbing contractor
bidding procedures. Also, the writers feel that, whereas there are some small cost differences,
there are significant quality differences in the subject plumbing installations between the two
competing systems. The writers feel that using air admittance valves, with their required wall
boxes and wall grilles in finished walls, as opposed to installing vents through the roof, and
* A brief hio on each writer is included at the end of this report. A complete Curriculum Vitae on each writer is included
at the end of this document.
UPC/IPC Cost Comparison 2 May 15, 1998
reduced pipe sizing for water is not in the consumers' best interest and does not achieve
appreciable savings for the developer, the contractor, or the homeowner.
The authors hope this independent cost comparison of three different residential installations
puts to rest any discussion regarding the supposed significant cost savings achieved through the
use of one plumbing code over the other. In addition, even though there is little cost difference
between the two code systems, the authors wish to emphasize that initial cost should never be the
leading criteria for a plumbing system design. We believe the workability, the long-term life
cycle costing of a plumbing system, as well as the health and safety of the public, should be the
major deciding factors. Based on all of these criteria, we feel that the installation provided under
the Uniform Plumbing Code provides a better minimum system for the ultimate user and is
superior to that provided under the International Plumbing Code and still does not cost the
consumer much more.
REPORT
In order to establish the actual minimum rough plumbing costs for installations required by both
the Uniform Plumbing code and the International Plumbing code, the authors decided to use
three typical type projects and bid the rough plumbing costs for each project. 'The authors,
therefore, took three types of typical residential construction which were representative of the
great variety of residential construction nationally. These three types of residential construction
projects comprise the bulk of the residential market and the authors were interested in seeing and
comparing the actual cost of the rough plumbing systems designed per the minimums of the
Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code. These three projects were actual
projects the authors had encountered in their current practices. These projects did not include
any unique or abnormal construction features not normally encountered in common construction.
As part of the rough plumbing cost comparison, the authors excluded the cost of the plumbing
fixtures or shower mixing valves, fixture connections, the water service to the building, the
sewer lateral, the trenching, plumbing permits, etc., as all these items would be the same under
both code rough plumbing installations. Therefore, the authors used only the actual rough
plumbing systems which theoretically would incorporate any difference in plumbing costs
created by the two different plumbing codes. Furthermore, sales tax was excluded. as this item
varies considerably from state to state across the nation. Also, as part of the rough plumbing
cost, no amount was added for overhead and profit, as this varies considerably from contractor to
contractor. To obtain the approximate percentage difference of the total plumbing systems
shown on Page 1, the approximate finish cost of the individual plumbing fixtures as shown on
Page 5 was multiplied by the specific quantity of fixtures in each project. This amount was then
added to the rough plumbing cost to obtain the approximate total plumbing system cost. The
rough plumbing cost difference between the two code systems was divided by the approximate
total plumbing system cost to determined the approximate percentage difference.
The authors designed minimum plumbing systems as allowed and required by the 1997 Uniform
Plumbing Code and the 1997 International Plumbing code. Edward Saltzberg designed the UPC
plumbing systems clue to his knowledge of the UPC, and J. Richard Wagner designed the IPC
plumbing systems due to his knowledge of the BOCA/IPC codes. Robert Payne, former
UPC/IPC Cost Comparison 3 May 15, 1998
plumbing contractor, prepared an actual plumbing takeoff of materials and labor in consultation
with other plumbing contractors in order to obtain actual current labor factors. The results of
this study are shown in the conclusion at the beginning of this report, and the breakdowns of the
various rough plumbing systems and drawings for the various individual projects and piping
systems are included later in this report.
The authors wish to acknowledge that the following items were incorporated into the rough
plumbing system pricing.
1. IPC PEX water piping - 3/8" piping increased to 1/2" piping because 3/8" PEX fittings cost
double 1/2" fittings, plus extra fittings are required to reduce down in sizing. It is,
therefore, cheaper to use 1/2" PEX pipe and fittings.
2. ABS fittings - Changed 1-1/4" pipe and fittings to 1-1/2" pipe and fittings because 1-1/4"
fittings are double the cost of 1-1/2" fittings and there is only a small selection of 1-1/4"
fittings. Therefore, it is cheaper to use 1-1/2" ABS pipe and fittings.
3. Used sanitary tees in place of vent tees because they cost less.
4. Used 1/4 bends in place of vent ells because they cost less.
5. Increased size of IPC waste lines in some places to install cleanouts as required by the IPC.
The three representative residential building types used in the plumbing cost comparison consist
of:
1. A two-story townhouse consisting of approximately 1,353 square feet, with two bedrooms,
two and a half bathrooms. The townhouse contains three water closets, four lavatories, two
bathtub/showers, one kitchen sink with garbage disposer, one dishwasher, one refrigerator
with icemaser, two hose bibbs, one forced air unit, one washing machine, one clothes
dryer, one water heater, one fireplace, and one barbecue connection. The approximate cost
of fixtures, trim and final installation is $2,975.00. The townhouse is shown on drawings
identified with a T.
2. A small single-story residence consisting of approximately 1,593 square feet, excluding the
garage, with three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms. The small residence contains two
water closets, three lavatories, two bathtub/showers, one kitchen sink with garbage
disposer, one dishwasher, one refrigerator with icemaker, two hose bibbs. one forced air
unit, one washing machine, one clothes dryer, one water heater, one fireplace, and one
barbecue connection. The approximate cost of fixtures, trim and final installation is
$2,720.00. The small residence is shown on drawings identified with an S.
3. A large two-story residence consisting of approximately 5,400 square feet with four
bedrooms, four full bathrooms, two half bath. The large residence contains six water
closets, seven lavatories, one bathtub/shower, one whirlpool tub, four showers, one kitchen
UPC/IPC Cost Comparison 4 May 15,1998
sink with garbage disposer, one dishwasher, two bar sinks, one refrigerator with icemaker,
eight hose bibbs, three fireplaces, one laundry sink, one washing machine, one clothes
dryer, one water heater, and one barbecue connection. The approximate cost of fixtures,
trim and final installation is $6,847.50. The large residence is shown on drawings
identified with an L.
The following is a summary of the rough plumbing for the three typical residential plumbing
projects used in this study.
TWO-STORY TOWNHOUSE ROUGH PLUMBING
UPC SYSTEM IPC SYSTEM
LABOR MATERIALS LABOR MATERIALS
WASTE&VENT 23.65 HOURS $ 178.55 22.13 HOURS $ 231.87
HOT& COLD WATER 22.88 HOURS $ 188.90 18.45 HOURS $ 321.18
GAS 12.74 HOURS $ 152.52 12.74 HOURS $ 152.52
TOTALS 59.27 HOURS $ 519.97 53.32 HOURS $ 705.57
TOTAL COST* $ 3,483.47 $ 3,371.57
DIFFERENCE 5.95 HOURS+ I - -- I $ 185.60 +
TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE* THE IPC INSTALLATION IS LESS EXPENSIVE BY$ 1 1 1 .90
• Cost difference is bcsed on plumber's labor cost of$50.00 per hour.
SMALL RESIDENCE ROUGH PLUMBING
UPC SYSTEM IPC SYSTEM_
LABOR MATERIALS LABOR MATERIALS
WASTE&VENT 19.24 HOURS $ 167.61 17.30 HOURS $ 227.41
HOT& COLD WATER 22.00 HOURS $ 198.43 20.95 HOURS $ 314.45
GAS 12.22 HOURS $ 151.70 12.70 HOURS $ 156.69
TOTALS 53.46 HOURS $ 517.74 50.95 HOURS S 698.55
TOTAL COST* $ 3,190.74 $ 3,246.05
DIFFERENCE _ 2.51 HOURS+ -- -- I $ 180.81 +
TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE' THE UPC INSTALLATION IS LESS EXPENSIVE BY$ 55.31
Cost difference is based on plumber's labor cost of 550.00 per hour.
LARGE RESIDENCE ROUGH PLUMBING
UPC SYSTEM IPC SYSTEM
LABOR MATERIALS LABOR MATERIALS
WASTE& VENT 58.75 HOURS $ 473.59 58.49 HOURS $ 719.90
HOT& COLD WATER 82.80 HOURS $ 1,063.70 65.23 HOURS $ 1,302.24
GAS 23.15 HOURS $ 313.52 23.67 HOURS $ 329.28
TOTALS 164.70 HOURS $ 1,850.81 147.39 HOURS $ 2,351.42
TOTAL COST* $ 10,085.81 $ 9,720.92
DIFFERENCE 17.31 HOURS+ I -- -- I $ 500.61 +
TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE:` THE IPC INSTALLATION IS LESS EXPENSIVE BY$ 364.89
Cost difference is based on plumber's labor cost of$50.00 per hour,
UPC/IPC Cost Comparison 5 May 15, 1998
The following chart of plumbing fixture costs and final installation was used to establish the total
plumbing system cost. The cost of the fixtures, trim, and final installation was added to the
rough plumbing system cost in order to arrive at the total plumbing system cost.
ESTIMATED COST OF FIXTURES AND TRIM PLUS INSTALLATION
FIXTURE OR APPLIANCE COST OF FIXTURE, TRIM& INSTALLATION
WATER CLOSET $ 120.00 _
BIDET 535.00
LAVATORY(CHINA) 135.00 _
SHOWER(HBERGLASS) 222.50
BATHTUB/SHOWER(FIBERGLASS) 420.00
WHIRLPOOL TUB 1,400.00
LAUNDRY SINK(FIBERGLASS) 157,50 _
KITCHEN SINK WITH DISPOSER(PRESSED STEEL) 295.00
DISHWASF ER CONNECTION ONLY 50.00
BAR SINK(STAINLESS STEEL) 230.00
ICEMAKER CONNECTION ROUGH-IN 25.00
WASHING MACHINE CONNECTION ROUGH-IN 62.50
w/Box
FAU GAS CONNECTION ONLY 40.00
COOKTOP CONNECTION ONLY 45.00
OVEN OR OVEN/RANGE CONNECTION ONLY 45.00
FIREPLACE GAS CONNECTION ONLY 40.00
CLOTHES DRYER GAS ROUGH-IN 37.50
WATER HEATER 390.00
WATER SERVICE TO BUILDING 100.00
SEWER TO LATERAL CONNECTION 150.00
i2� S .�..gc't , — o��G
Edward Saltz • PE,C ,CIPE Wagner ,ne • PE, Robert C.Payne
Date: 5/15/98 Date: 5/15/98 Date: 5/15/98
State Licenses: State Licenses: Contractors Licenses:
Active Not Active Maryland C-36 Plumbing Contractor(Primary)
Arizona Massachusetts Connecticut C-16 Fire Protection Contractor
California Nevada Iowa C-20 Warm Air Heating,Ventilating&
Colorado New Jersey Kansas Air Conditioning
Florida New Mexico Michigan C-34 Pipeline Contractor
Georgia Ohio Tennessee C-42 Sanitation Systems Contractor
Illinois Oklahoma Texas B-I General Building Contractor
Indiana Pennsylvania Washington HAZ Harzard Substance
QppfESSlp,
�D SA(Tj i, 1fr,�H M p AJc ,
No. 12692 g 1
fife
"Miksi44 its
't hie
IffCHAt6 ,p Tsna ��
`l `TONAL E
aC
18 +.ti 1 (teem Sheep]
UPC/IPC Cost Comparison b May 15, 1998
J. Richard Wagner, PE, CIPE, is the principal engineer for the Environmental Engineering
Company in Baltimore, Maryland. He has forty-three (43) years of experience in the design and
construction of mechanical systems and is active on various plumbing code committees
including Baltimore County, the National Standard Plumbing Code (NSPC), the Uniform
Plumbing Code (UPC), and the A.40 Safety Requirements for Plumbing.
Edward Saltzberg, PE, CEM, CIPE, is a consulting engineer with over forty years of
experience in the design and forensic review of plumbing, piping, HVAC, indoor air quality, and
fire protection systems for all types of structures and systems. He has physically worked at most
facets of construction, taught plumbing and mechanical system design, has been very active in
code writing and interpretation, and has written and spoken extensively on plumbing matters.
One of the co-founders, and past president, of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, Mr.
Saltzberg has served the Society in many capacities over the years. He is currently licensed as a
professional engineer in 14 states, a registered fire protection engineer, a certified energy
manager, a journeyman plumber, and a fellow in the National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
He has owned his own consulting engineering firm in southern California for 30 years and serves
as its president. He has been retained by plaintiffs or defendants in over 180 litigation cases
concerning plumbing and/or mechanical systems.
Robert C. Payne, Master Plumber, has been employed in activities in the plumbing engineering
community for approximately 40 years. Mr. Payne has been a design and install plumbing
contractor for various companies and had his own plumbing company for lb years. Mr. Payne
has been involved in various plumbing organizations and currently has his own firm, California
Management Association Trust. Mr. Payne has been involved in numerous plumbing
associations and has had leadership roles in the trades associations and is very knowledgeable on
cost estimating.
The following pages include the architectural floor plans, the basic plumbing criteria, the
plumbing installation drawings, and the material take-off sheets for all systems for both the
Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code for each of the three typical
projects.
TOWNHOUSE
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
AND CRITERIA
[ I
1.101
HB
OR BBO
LIVING RM[
LOCATION OF FP[
GAS SOV FOR
FIRE PLACE
JP
Nee'
i O
I KS 00!DWI -
bib OlvenG,
WM O L
Refr. tennl
Water I
Heater I
II, GRAPHIC SCALE
i I 0 1' 5' 10'
t T
HB
S TO SEWER COLD WATER SOURCE.
Gas Service+i Gas Meter PRESURE 50 PSIG.
TOWNHOUSE
1st FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON T - Al
Ern tl 11'171
L L
L L
SCEIHI
BT
W
BT
`. O
Ji.LI.. 7
O � FAU
L C LA °
BELE
LOCATION OF GAS
SOV FOR FAU
(FURNACE)IN ATTIC
er
1711:11#4141:i7111
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1' 5' 10'
L 1
TOWNHOUSE
2nd FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON T - A2
Water pipe maximum Cold water 100 Feet
lengths Hot water 70 Feet
Incoming water pressure 50 PSIG
Water meter size 3/4"
Gas pipe maximum 100 Feet
length
Gas load 242,000 BTU/HP total input consists of
50 gallon water heater 30,000 BTU/HR Input
Furnace 37,000 BTU/HR Input
Stove/Oven 65,000 BTU/HR Input
Fireplace 25,000 BTU/HR Input
Barbecue stub 50,000 BTU/HR Input
Clothes dryer 35,000 BTU/HR Input
PIPING MATERIALS
DWV piping ABS pipe and fittings
Water pipe Type M copper pipe and wrought solder fittings and/or PEX pipe
with copper fittings
Gas piping Black steel pipe and malleable fittings
PLUMBING FIXTURE CRITERIA
Water closets Gravity ultra low flow 1 .6 GPF
Showers Mixing valve with 2.5 gallon per minute shower head
NOTE: Plumbing cost comparison is to include rough plumbing piping systems ony but not fix-
tures. Fixture connections, water heater, or circulating pump, as fixtures, etc., would be the
same for both code comparison installations.
TOWNHOUSE
PLUMBING SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
5/15/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON T - A3
TOWNHOUSE
UPC PLUMBING PLANS
AND
MATERIAL TAKE - OFF SHEETS
HE
2"Waste from
2"Waste in L� ~ Lavatories above
Ceiling Space
2"Waste with V/CO
down to below Grade, 2" "Trap Vent up to 2 T p Arm to KS
above Ceiling
1-1/2"Waste from 3"Waste
Bathtub above 2" r rK; from WC 3"above WasteCeiling from
'1, a
2"Waste, 2' above to below Grade
1-1/2"Vent up 1-1/2" .1/4, 3" I with WCO
1-1/2"Waste Vent upR1-1t
from Bathtub above -- 2"VTRj-I M to Sta/2"ck
Waste
3' X31 U to Stack
2
1-1/2"Wash:from 1-1/T ' 2"Waste from
Lavatory above la waste Washing Machine
"NVeHe Standpipe,1-1/2"
from W C r
above 2"VTR Vent to Header
0. 3„
3 Waste from WC,
2"Vent to above Ceiling
LEGEND
WASTE PIPING
(BELOW GRADE)
WASTE PIPING
3" (ABOVE GRADE)
VENT PIPING
VTR VENT THROUGH ROOF
1I wco WALL CLEANOUT
GRAPHIC SCALE
o r s 10'
3' Waste
to Sewer L 'IB
TOWNHOUSE
UPC WASTE & VENT PIPING 1st FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P1
wxH
2"Waste down, _,._...
1-1/T Vent up
through Roof
1-1/2" 1-1/2"
foisimito
Tr.' .'a.;
t,
1-1/2"Vent from
below&up to above-_,
Ceiling 82"VTR BT
1-1/2"Vent WC
from below F'
11/2' ' BT
FA
2` Vents from
1-1/2"Waste down below up
1-1/2"Vent to . 1 1/ "wC through Roof
1-1/
above Ceiling �L2^
' LEGEND
' WASTE PIPING
?'f VENT PIPING
"i'ir--+ -�tL+,!t .,, „c VTR VENT THROUGH ROOF
P
i..;1
GRAPHIC SCALE
- - - - -
o 1' 5' 10'
TOWNHOUSE
UPC WASTE & VENT PIPING 2nd FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UIPC/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P2
U
M
c'JJ
N`^A` N
(V /N r N 2
7 / VI, 1,,,( N c•)71.
N d
YJ
` 3(n
N ` M M M 0 M
` N Ii
r \, 7 t
m
> ; N N
h
_4JJ &c),‘
M
U
M
1 M 4 O
U Z‘lM p (n
/ r U re
ry 5 M 2 a
N N in ILI 2
.2->-:
Ny V
w
V M Nri Y r 1 OZ V cn
~
/ N Z 0 O
/ N
JN 0i_ 0 U 7 I—ZU
0.
Ai
cc
N 11\ acn
F J N mU r
> r aN0r ; N `
N N U UOU
N N `` (V Z Ur Z r
N gza0
r N r \ m 5. O- 0 H
` Zu) z -Jz0
LL
` O 'N ZS: W < WO
U W ,; > > C[
♦t \ V J Raft
V N
V
T U - P-4
LABOR & MATERIAL ESTIMATE SHEET
Job Name: Townhouse System ,ABS Waste&Vent
Date: 5/15/98 Code UPC
LABOR MATERIAL
ESTIMATE LABOR UNIT QUANTITY SIZE DESCRIPTION UNIT EXTENSION
3.52 , .08 44' 3" ABS Pipe, Schedule 40 Net .51 22.44
5.64 .06 94' 2" ABS Pipe,Schedule 40 Net .26 24.44
3.85 .05 77' 1-1/2" ABS Pipe,Schedule 40 Net .20 15.40
62.28
FITTINGS
1.05 1.05 1 3" Combination wye and 1/8"bend 62.67 62.67
1.05 1.05 1 3" x 3"x 2"combination wye and 1/8"bend 45.58 45.58
1.40 1.40 1 3" x 3"x 2"x 2"double wye 96.20 96.20
1.05 1.05 1 3" x 3"x 2"wye 32.36 32.36
1.40 .70 i 2 3" Long sweep 1/4" bend 27.64 55.28
2.10 .70 3 3" 1/4" bend _ 23.52 70.56
1.40 1.40 1 3" Double fixture fitting (street) 147.88 147.88
.70 .70 1 3" 1/8" bend _ 19.84 19.84
1.05 1.05 1 3" Cleanout tee w/plug 65.47 65.47
1.05 1.05 1 3" x 2"x 3" 1/4"bend with low heel inlet 46.09 46.09
.35 .35 1 3" x 2" bushing _ 14.70 14.70
.70 .70 1 4" x 3"closet bend reducing _ 65.09 65.09 _
.35 .35 1 4" Closet flange w/gussets _ 36.59 36.59
.70 .35 2 4" x 3"closet flange w/gussets 38.82 77.64
1.32 .44 3 2" Long sweep 1/4"bend _ 14.84 44.52
1.76 .44 4 2" 1/8"bend 6.92 27.68
.66 .66 1 2" x 2"x 1-1/2"combination wye and 1/8"bend _ 30.80 30.80
.88 .88 1 2" x 1-1/2"x 2"x 2"double fixture tee _ 56.23 56.23
1.76 .88 2 2" x 1-1/2"x 1-1/2"x 1-1/2"double fixture tee _ 52.99 105.98
.66 .22 3 2" x 1-1/2" bushing 4.29 12.87
.66 , .66 1 2" Cleanout tee w/plug 43.19 43.19
.44 .44 1 2" P-trap 32.36 32.36
.66 .66 1 2" Sanitary tee 13.68 13.68
1.32 .44 3 2" 1/4"bend 7.62 22.86
.66 .66 1 2" x 1-1/2"x 1-1/2"sanitary tee _ 14.51 14.51
.66 .66 1 2" x 2"x 1-1/2"sanitary tee 13.11 13.11
1.20 .60 2 1-1/2" Sanitary tee _ 9.10 18.2O
4.00 .40 10 1-1/2" 1/4"bend _ 5.34 53.40
2.00 .40 5 1-1/2" 1/8"bend 6.34 31.70
.80 .40 2 1-1/2" P-trap 19.99 39.98
46.80 1,397.02
x .0518 — 72.37
Inc. 4 Flashings Net 2.35 9.40
.50 .25 2 Cleanout covers w/screws 9.75 19.50
47.30 Less 50%
23.65
Pipe 62.28
Fittings _ 72.37—,
Flashings _ 9.40
Cleanout covers — 19.50
Miscellaneous-glue, straps, etc. 15.00
178.55
10
1/2"Gas
HB Stub
for BBO - -
.+urn-.. ... -:_.... <uua
1/2"
1/2"Lo FP
Lighter g 1/2"
1/2" Valve
3/4" 4/2"
KS DW.
3/4'
1/2"Gas to Stove/' �
Stove1Oven " Oven
WM 1/2"Gas.
to Dryer
1/2"Gas to
Water Heater .
Fi D WC
1/2'
" 1/2"Gas
1-1/4 `3/4" 3/4 up to Attic
Gas Piping
in 1st Floor
Ceiling Space
(Typical)
1-1/4"
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 t' 5' 10'
*� 1-1/4" , 1� 0 H BTUrHI: 4
°S \L INPUT INPUT HB
Gas Meter
Gas Service-n, TOWNHOUSE
UPC GAS PIPING 1st FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P5
BT
WC
BT
ey FAU
WC
.
L '
1/2"Gas
1/2"Gas Piping
in Attic[o FAU =' from below
(Furnace)
GRAPHIC SCALE
rr“_ten
TOWNHOUSE ° 5' 7°'
UPC GAS PIPING 2nd FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P6
T U - P-7
LABOR & MATERIAL ESTIMATE SHEET
Job Name: Townhouse _ System Gas Pipina
Date: 5/15/98 T Code UPC & IPC (Same)
LABOR MATERIAL
ESTIMATE LABOR UNIT QUANTITY SIZE DESCRIPTION UNIT EXTENSION I
2.24 .07 32' 1-1/4" Black Pipe T&C Net 1.00 32.00 J
.48 .06 13' 1" Black Pipe T&C Net _ .73 5.84
1.35 .05 27' 3/4" Black Pipe T&C Net .65 17.55
4.30 .05 86' 1/2" Black Pipe T&C Net -- .55 47.30
102.69
.60 .60 1 1/2" Log lighter valve Net 8.91 8.91
GAS FITTINGS- BLACK MALLEABLE
1.10 1,10 I 1-1/4" x3/4"x 1"tee 10.87 10.87
2.10 .70 3 1-1/4" Elbows 5.20 15.60
.90 .90 I 1" x 1"x 1/2"tee 5.22 5.22
.90 .90 I 1" x 3/4"x 1/2"tee 6.33 6.33
1.60 .80 :2 3/4" x 1/2"x 1/2"tee 4.50 9.00
.55 .55 1 3/4" _ Elbow 1.82 1.82
7.50 .50 15 1/2" Elbows 1.51 22.65
.36 .36 I 1-1/4" Cap 3.22 3.22
1.50 .25 6 1/2" Cap ,_.- 1,53 9.18
Inc. I 1-1/4" x 6"nipple 2.00 2.00
inc. 6 1/2" x 6"nipple .41 2.46
25.48 Less 50% Discount 65% 88.35
12.74 30.92
Pipe 102.69
Log lighter valve 8.91
Fittings 30.92 -
Miscellaneous-pipe dope, straps, etc. 10.00
152.52
I —
12
HB 1/2"CW to
Hose Bibb
1/2"b.
v'I.-E.(' Rif IL'Ca 3'Y
1/2"
FP
1/2" .,_ 1/2"CW up
to Lavatories
1/2"
1/2"CW to
Kitchen Sink 1/2"
•�b3/4 ow
1/2"CW uE 1/2 XS
to Bathtub:
..' - 1/2"CW up to -
3/4" Water Closets
1/2"CW up to
Lavatory&
1/2"CW down 1/2' 4I 1/2"
to Icemaker .' 3/4" WM ?�'1/2 3/4"CW to
WC,WM&L
Water
Heater 3/4"CW with
SOV to
Water Heater
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 V 5' 10'
"4. 1"CW SERVICE
HB .-_ WITH SOV.
TOWNHOUSE PRESSURE 50 PSIG.
UPC COLD WATER PIPING 1st FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5/15/98
1997 UF'C/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P8
1fro m
1st/2"FlCoorW
Ceiling Space
1/2"
is ra
L L
G
BT
2"< WC
BT
1/2"
112"CW from
below(typi gal) G
L WC
GRAPHIC SCALE
TOWNHOUSE 01'= 5' "'
UPC COLD WATER PIPING 2nd FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'- 0" 5/15'98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P9
HB
FP
•
1/2"HW up
to Lavatories
1/2"HW to
Kitchen Sink
&Dishwasher 1/2"
1/2"
1/2"HW up KS pW
to Bathtub .-3/4" _.-- . 1/2"HW to
Washing
Machine&
1/2"HW up Lavatory
to Bath ub 3/4" V11N1... 1/2"
l/2"
1/2"HVJ up 1/2"
to Lavatory 3/4"
3/4"HW-rom 172"
WC
Water Heater D
L Water
Heater
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1' 5' 10'
HBO
TOWNHOUSE
UPC HOT WATER PIPING 1st FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5115/98
1997 UPC/IPC COST COMPARISON TU - P10
4F s
`
4ir i
1/2"
qd (3.,
{" BT
WC
1/2" , 4:- BT
1/2"HWfrcm �.;���
below(typical) 'v L WC
caua�zaoq..r.: �..Kam, .,,
GRAPHIC SCALE
_
TOWNHOUSE 0 _S — _ 1
UPC HOT WATER PIPING 2nd FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5O 5,198
1997 UPCJIPC COST COMPARISON TU - P11
TU - P-12
LABOR & MATERIAL ESTIMATE SHEET
Job Name: Townhouse System Hot&Cold Water
Date: 5/15/98 _ Code UPC
LABOR MATERIAL
ESTIMATE LABOR UNIT QUANTITY SIZE DESCRIPTION _UNIT EXTENSION
2.20 .05 44' 1" Copper pipe,Type"M" Net .64 28.16
1.28 .04 22' 3/4" Copper pipe,Type"M" Net .44 14.08
5.60 .04 140' 1/2" Copper pipe,Type"M" Net _ .27 37.80
80,04
.50 .50 1 1" Gate valve 7.54 7.54
.50 .25 2 1/2" Hose bibbs - 3.08 6.16
x.50 13.70
6.85
FITTINGS- COPPER
.75 .75 1 1" x 1/2"x 1"tee 9.67 9.67
.75 .75 1 1" x 1"x 3/4"tee 9.67 9.67
.75 .75 1 1" x 3/4"x 1"tee 9.67 9.67
.75 .75 1 1" x 3/4"x 1/2"tee 9.67 9.67
.75 .75 1 1" x 1"x 1/2"tee 8.14 8.14
2.52 .63 4 3/4" x 3/4"x 1/2"tee 2.55 10.20
1.26 .63 2 3/4" x 1/2"x 1/2"tee 3.11 6.22
.63 .63 1 1/2" x 1/2"x 3/4"tee 3.11 3.11
1.68 .42 4 3/4" Elbows 1.51 6.04
3.60 .60 6 1/2" Tee 1.15 6.90
20.25 .45 45 1/2" Elbows .71 31.95
2.00 .50 4 1" Elbows 3.50 14.00
Inc. 2 3/4" Stubout air chambers 2.39 4.78
Inc. 16 1/2" - Stubout air chambers 1.50 24.00
45.77 Less 50% ~ x .50 --_ —' 154.02
22.88 77.01
. _ __-__,--,
_Pipe 80.04
Valves 6.85
Fittings 77.01
Miscellaneous-solder, straps, etc. 25.00
188.90
Hello