MEETING

OF THE

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

PLENARY SESSION MINUTES

February 3, 2009

 

                                            PENDING APPROVAL

 

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul L. Rodriguez at 9:04 a.m., Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at the Crowne Plaza Melbourne Oceanfront Hotel, Melbourne, Florida.


 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman

Richard Browdy, Vice-Chairman

Jeffrey Gross

Angel Franco

Jeff Stone

James Goodloe

James R. Schock

Herminio Gonzalez

Robert G. Boyer

Hamid Bahadori

Drew W. Smith

Chris Schulte

Mark Turner

Randall J. Vann

Scott Mollan

Jon Hamrick

William Norkunas

Anthony M. Grippa

 

 

 

 

 

Kenneth L. Gregory

Joseph “Ed” Carson

Raphael R. Palacios

Paul D. Kidwell

Tim Tolbert

Dale Greiner

Matt Carlton

Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Jeff Blair, FCRC Consensus Solutions

Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

                                                                       

 

 


 

 

 

WELCOME

 

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Melbourne for the February 2009 plenary session. He then stated the meeting was the Commission’s first meeting of 2009, and represented the initiation of the new six-meeting per year format. He further stated there would not be a split plenary session for the February meeting, providing additional time for key workgroup meetings. He stated the primary focus of February’s meeting was to initiate the repeal of several rules and to consider the adoption of the 2008 National Electric Code.  He explained if anyone wished to address the Commission on any of the issues before the Commission they should sign-in on the appropriate sheet and as always, the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics.  He concluded by stating public input was welcome, and should be offered before there is a formal motion on the floor.

 

            REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

 

            Mr. Blair conducted a review of the meeting agenda as presented in each Commissioner’s files. 

 

            Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended to reflect that rule repeal hearings would be held on February 4, 2009, consistent with Florida Administrative Weekly noticing.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

REVIEW AND APPROVE DECEMBER 9 & 10, 2008 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S SUMMARY REPORT

 

            Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and the facilitator’s reports from the October Commission meeting.

 

            Commissioner Schock stated in the December minutes his name had been incorrectly spelled and his middle initial was an “R”.

           

            Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the minutes as amended and the Facilitator’s Report as approved from the December Commission meeting.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

 

 

           

            CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

            Chairman Rodriguez first announced the following appointments to the TACs and workgroups:

 

            Energy TAC

 

            Larry Maxwell was appointed to the Energy TAC.

 

            Education POC

           

            Ken Gregory was appointed to the Education POC.

 

            Roofing TAC

 

            Lorraine Alisio Ross was appointed to replace Buck Buchanan on the Roofing TAC.

 

            2010 Florida Energy Code Workgroup

           

            Rusty Carrol was appointed to the Energy Code Workgroup representing Broward BORA.

 

            2010 Florida Accessibility Code Workgroup

 

            Jon Hamrick was appointed to the Accessibility Code Workgroup to represent Florida Department of Education. Diana Ibarra was also appointed to the Accessibility Code Workgroup to represent ADA consultants. Shelley Siegel was appointed to the Accessibility Code Workgroup to represent interior designers.

 

            Green and Energy Efficient Roofs Workgroup

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the December 2008 meeting the Commission agreed to convene a Green Roofs Workgroup to evaluate issues regarding green and energy efficient roofs in the Code. He then stated to date the following the appointments to the workgroup had been made: Chris Schulte, Craig Parrino, and Lorraine Alisio Ross.

 

 

 

Window Wall Workgroup

           

            Jim Westphal and Jim Stropoli were appointed to the Window Wall Workgroup.

 

            CO Detector Workgroup

 

            Richard Roberts was appointed to the CO Detector Workgroup representing the CO Detectors Manufacturers’ Association.           

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the rule development initiatives.  He stated there had been a Rule Development Workshop on the Cost Effectiveness Test.  He then stated since the Commission completed adoption of the 2007 Florida Building Code and adoption of Glitch Amendments to the 2007 Code, the Commission could focus on the development of the 2010 Code Update process. He stated Section 109, HB 7153 directs the Commission to develop a rule for determining cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures to be considered

for inclusion in the Florida Building Code. He then stated the rule must be completed and applied to the update of the energy provisions of the 2010 Florida Building Code. He further stated the Commission would be working with stakeholders via the Energy Code Workgroup to develop cost effectiveness test criteria to be applied to justification for increased residential building energy efficiency requirements, and will conclude rule making in time for the adopted rule to be effective for inclusion in the 2010 Code Update. Chairman Rodriguez concluded by stating in order to complete this Legislative assignment as required the Commission needed to initiate rulemaking during the current plenary session.

 

            Commissioner Browdy moved approval of initiating rule making to develop a rule for determining cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures to be considered for inclusion in the Florida Energy Code, by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez reminded the Commission of the Rule Adoption Hearings on Rule 9B-72.090 (self-affirmation) and Rule 9B-72.180 (equivalency of standards).  He requested the commissioners plan to participate in the Product Approval rule adoption hearings which would be conducted via telephone conferences on February 17, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.  (Telephone number 888-808-6959, code 9221867).

            Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the Annual Effectiveness Survey.  He stated each year the Commission conducts an Effectiveness Assessment Survey to gauge the Commission’s perspective on a variety of issues.   He further stated over the years the survey input has been the basis for many enhancements to the Commission’s procedures.   He then directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for an overview of the survey.

 

Mr. Blair explained the process and requested that the Commissioners complete the on-line survey. He stated the results would be discussed at the April 2009 meeting. He then stated he would email Commissioners the survey link on Thursday, and requested that members take the few minutes required to complete the survey by Friday, February 27, 2009.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez next addressed amending evaluation entities in law.  He stated in response to the assignment regarding the recommendation to the 2009 Legislature on how evaluation entities should be recognized in law, at the December 2008 meeting the Commission voted to recommend eliminating entities no longer in existence, to include the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Evaluation Service in the Law, and to alphabetize the list of approved evaluation entities.  He then stated the text the Commission approved in the Report to the 2009 Legislature did not strike the now defunct “National Evaluation Service” from the list. He continued by stating in order to be consistent with the Commission intent, the text should be amended as follows:

 

The Commission recommends amending the list of evaluation entities in law as follows: (1) Include IAPMO Evaluation Service (ES) in the law as an approved evaluation entity. (2) Recommend changing the law to read as follows (update list to eliminate entities no longer in existence, add IAPMO ES, and alphabetize the list of approved evaluation entities): (a) Evaluation entities that meet the criteria for approval adopted by the commission by rule.  He then stated the Commission shall specifically approve the National Evaluation Service, the International Conference of Building Officials Evaluation Services, the International Code Council Evaluation Services, the Building Officials and Code Administrators International Evaluation Services, the Southern Building Code Congress International Evaluation Services the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Evaluation Service, and the Miami-Dade County Building Code Compliance Office Product Control.  Architects and engineers licensed in this state are also approved to conduct product evaluations as provided in subsection (5). Commission recommends…”

 

            Commissioner Greiner moved approval to amend action previously taken.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the motion to amend the report to the Legislature, December Facilitator Report, and the December Minutes.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then stated a motion was needed to amend the Report to the 2009 Legislature and the December 2008 Facilitator’s Report and Meeting Minutes to revise the text regarding evaluation entities recognized in law to: eliminate entities no longer in existence, to include the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Evaluation Service in the Law, and to alphabetize the list of approved entities.

 

            Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the motion as stated.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then stated he had reviewed and approved the Report to the 2009 Legislature (as authorized by the Commission), and the report was now under review by DCA prior to submittal to the Governor and Legislature as required.  He stated the Final Report would be posted to the Commission’s website and would be available for download once conveyed.

           

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

 

            Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan February 2009).

 

            Mr. Dixon stated he would address only changes or additions to the workplan.  He stated that under the Hurricane Protection Standards task the contract with the University of Florida has been extended to conduct testing on soffit systems.  He then stated the appointed workgroup would both establish labeling requirements for soffit systems and at the request of the industry, look at performance criteria for soffit systems to be integrated into the 2010 edition of the Building Code.  He further stated the workgroup meetings would be held February 4, April 9, and at the June Commission meeting. 

 

            Mr. Dixon then stated the Department of Community Affairs and FEMA requested the Commission reevaluate the policy regarding the inclusion of NFIP flood standards in the Code versus leaving those outside the Code and to local jurisdiction adoption.  He stated the project was being funded by those two entities and would begin in March with meeting dates in March, April and May and with recommendations to the Commission targeted for the June or August meeting.  He further stated it was anticipated the recommendations would be more of an administrative nature that go into statute rather than actual technical requirements that are placed in the Code. FEMA is satisfied with the standards in the International Building Code so there would probably not be very much discussion or changes to those technical standards. 

 

            Mr. Dixon stated that at the last Commission meeting the window industry asked that the policy considering labeling of windows be reviewed specifically as it would apply to storefronts and curtain walls of commercial building systems. He stated the project would begin in April and work would continue through the summer with proposals being submitted for the 2010 Code Development process by December of next year.

 

            Mr. Dixon then stated the Legislature and Governor tasked the Commission with a number of initiatives for updating the energy standards for building construction in Florida.  He stated the Commission had implemented the 15% increased efficiency requirement directive of the Governor, issued through his Executive Order for the 2007 Code.  He then stated that during the last session the Legislature established a schedule for increased efficiency requirements going out through 2019.  He further stated the immediate directive to be implemented by the 2010 Florida Building Code was an energy efficiency requirements increase by another 5%, for a total increased efficiency requirement of 20% effectively from the 2006 amendments to the Florida Energy Code. He then stated a workgroup was appointed work on the code changes and to develop a recommendation for a cost effectiveness test, required by the current statute, that has to be adopted by rule.  He stated workgroup meetings were scheduled for February 3rd and an additional two meetings in March before the April Commission meeting during which a rule workshop was to take place.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated there were a couple of other tasks which fall under the Energy and Climate Change heading.  He stated some were directives of statute and some were projects proposed by different TACs.  He then stated the Legislature mandated the Commission evaluate technologies recognized in the Energy Code for achieving the increased efficiency requirement targets that have been set.  He further stated, the Legislature also directed the Commission to evaluate and establish, together with standards already established in law, requirements for pools and spas and a list of technologies the Legislature stated had to be included in the code, including cool roofs.  He stated a workgroup was appointed at the February 3rd Commission meeting to work with the Energy workgroup to evaluate the green roof portion of the cool roof systems.

 

Mr. Dixon stated another project that came out of consideration of a late proposed amendment to the Energy Code during the glitch amendment process deals with looking into how requirements for upgrading air conditioning systems when an air conditioning unit is replaced. 

 

Mr. Dixon stated high humidity problems in the hot and humid climate are an ongoing issue with competing effects on energy conservation and indoor air quality. The amount of fresh air brought into a building effects energy use and air quality. How the introduction of the fresh air is controlled is important to both. He stated the project would be ongoing throughout all Energy Code considerations as it moves forward.     

 

            Mr. Dixon stated a very large workgroup had been assembled made up of state agencies that have some regulatory role in licensing facilities that impact persons with disabilities, representatives of groups that represent persons with disabilities, the Commission’s Accessibility Technical Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Council to work on development of the next edition of Florida’s Accessibility Code.  He then stated the law directs the Legislature, the Commission and agencies to take all steps necessary to maintain the federal certification of Florida’s Accessibility Code.  He explained that meant when the federal government changes the base standards the Florida Code uses as the foundation for most of the Florida Accessibility Code, the Code had to be updated quickly. He then stated it was anticipated the Department of Justice would be completed with the next version of the Standards for Accessibility Design sometime in the summer.

 

            Mr. Dixon then stated another project the Commission approved towards the close of the glitch amendment process was to form a workgroup that would look into how existing pools might be upgraded or how they are required to be upgraded through the codes to better address the entrapment problems and to match with the new federal guidelines on entrapment prevention. 

 

            Mr. Dixon reminded commissioners the approved updated workplan was always included as an attachment to the Facilitator’s Summary Report which is posted to the website one week after each Commission meeting.

 

            Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

           

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

 

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Jack Humburg for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications. 

 

Mr. Humburg presented the waiver applications for consideration.  Recommended approvals were presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals and denials being considered individually. 

 

#1 Trademark Cinemas

 

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended approving the design for the larger theaters and deferring action on the smaller ones to permit the applicant to redesign the layout so no seats have sightlines greater than 30 degrees.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated typically there was a consent agenda with the particular items that had been approved without conditions by the Council.  He asked Mr. Humburg if there were any approved without conditions and if so could he read those first so the Commission could deal with the consent agenda first and then take the other waiver applications individually.

 

Mr. Humburg stated all the waiver applications were approved with a couple having conditions.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the question was if he wanted to do the others without conditions with the consent agenda.  He then stated since there was one waiver already presented the Commission should take action on it before continuing to the others.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

 

#2 Strike Industries

 

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended granting the waiver as the applicant satisfied the condition that it would be disproportionate to the cost of the alteration to install the lift.

 

#Magic City Casino

 

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended granting the waiver as it concluded it is unnecessary that all rows of seats be made accessible.

 

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the consent agenda for items 2 and 3. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

 

# 4 North General Plaza

 

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended granting the waiver.  All council members present had the implicit understanding that an elevator would eventually be installed, but this was not clearly stated in the motion. He offered a friendly amendment that the condition be an elevator would be installed as part of the construction of the second floor.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. 

 

Commissioner Norkunas thanked Mr. Humburg and his council.  He stated he felt it incumbent that he should make a couple of comments to his fellow Commissioners since all of the Commissioners represent stakeholder groups.  He continued by stating the stakeholder group he represents is 17% of Florida’s 17 million population or 2.89 million people.  He then stated he encouraged individuals with disabilities from around the state to go online to the website and read the waiver applications. He stated the Commission should keep in mind when a waiver is granted no further changes can be made to the waiver.  He continued by stating changes could be made in rules but once the Commission grants a waiver it means for the next 20, 30 or 40 years folks with wheelchairs just cannot go there.  He further stated anyone with two good legs can go there because they can go up the stairs.  Commissioner Norkunas then stated after the Waiver Council makes its decision he sends it out in a mailing list he created to over three thousand people and organizations.  He continued by stating he then wakes at 5 a.m. on the morning of each plenary session to read the responses.  He stated some individuals with disabilities just cannot come to the Commission meetings.  He explained he had encouraged those individuals to come, but they just cannot, some having attendants and so forth.  He then stated he had received a lot of responses to this particular waiver application. 

 

Commissioner Norkunas added if any of his fellow Commissioners were to open the application and look at ‘A’ they would see that what the applicant had done was build out the first floor of a building and are doing nothing with the second floor and in the application they wrote “declining market conditions dictate that it is an inappropriate time to complete the second floor as a tenant is not attainable so nothing is being done with the second floor.” He further stated the supplicant wrote “the cost of an elevator is $40,000.00,” adding if nothing was going on with the second floor and there was no tenant, the applicant should not have come for a waiver.  He continued stating the consensus among individuals with disabilities in the state of Florida was all that has to be done to get a waiver and save the $40,000.00 was to get by the Waiver Council.  He further stated he had cautioned and pleaded with his fellow Commissioners that they are an oversight committee who approves these waiver applications.  He then stated he was discouraged they have even come up to do this.  He stated again his thanks to the Waiver Council for catching it but asked his fellow Commissioners to do diligence for the people who were coming to the Commission for waivers for something they should not have come there for.  Commissioner Norkunas concluded by stating if the Waiver Council had not found it there would have been a waiver from installing an elevator, then when a tenant was found for the second floor, installation of an elevator would not be required. 

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

#5 Green Monkey Yoga Studio

 

Mr. Humburg stated the application had been withdrawn by the applicant. 

 

No action necessary.

 

#6 Bayfront Park

 

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended approving the waiver, provided all wheelchair seating locations are not on the ends of the rows.  They concluded it was unreasonable to require access to all rows in the performance venue.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. 

 

Commissioner Browdy asked if there was a plan presented that showed accessible seating dispersed throughout or was the condition only that accessible seats be on the end rows.

 

Mr. Humburg stated accessible seating was dispersed at three levels but for the front row it was at the ends of the row. He stated the council recommended approval with the condition those seats at the end of the row be moved in one position.

 

Commissioner Browdy asked if there were also companion seats at the end of the row.

 

Mr. Humburg responded stating there were.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

# 7 Barnett Park Gynmasium

 

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended deferring action on the request to allow the applicant to redesign the bleachers to integrate wheelchair seating to provide two locations with companion seats in each of the three bleacher sections. He then stated the applicant, as advised by council, had submitted a design just prior to the plenary session which provided integrated seating for 6 wheelchairs and companion seats which were integrated into the bleacher system.  He stated the council recommended approval of the resubmitted design.

 

Commissioner Schock asked if the resubmitted design was approved by the entire council.

 

Mr. Humburg responded stating it was not.  He then stated there had been a lengthy discussion with the applicant regarding the seating positions and it was submitted to him and staff just before the plenary session. 

 

Mr. Bunton asked if the council had given specific direction to exactly what was needed.

 

Mr. Humburg stated yes.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Mr. Bunton asked Mr. Humburg if the waiver was being granted based on technical infeasibility.

 

Mr. Humburg stated that was correct.

 

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

 

            Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Commissioner Carson for presentation of entity approvals.

 

            Commissioner Carson stated there were no entities to be considered.

 

            Mr. Blair added it was the first time ever that there were no entity approvals.

 

            Mr. Blair stated there was a consent agenda for all those issues that were posted with the same result from all four compliance methods either for approval, conditional approval or deferral. He stated these were the ones without comment or there was no change to the recommendation as proposed presented.  He stated if no Commissioner wished to pull any products for individual consideration he asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda for all four compliance methods for approval, conditional approval and deferral.

 

            Commissioner Carson entered a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended for all four compliance methods for approvals, conditional approvals and deferrals.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

 

            10849 Simpson Strong-Tie Co

 

            Withdrawn

 

            11449 Stanek Vinyl Windows

 

            Withdrawn

 

            11949 JELD-WEN

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition to amend the NAMI certification to indicate the manufacturer of the door slabs and the corresponding Florida Product Approval Application Number for the door slab; indicate on the limits of use the utilization of the Right Concept door slabs on the assembly; new installation instructions to be provided.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            11218 Mesker Door, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition that the applicant revise evaluation reports to indicate that test reports were made under the accreditation of IAS and signed and sealed by a Florida P.E.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

11542 Mesker Door, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition that the applicant revise evaluation reports to indicate that test reports were made under the accreditation of IAS and signed and sealed by a Florida P.E.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

11622 Silverline Building Products Corp.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition to revise glazing configuration for products .1, .3, .4 and .5 to provide "safety glass".  Revise evaluation reports and installation drawings for products .6 and .7 to indicate tempered glass on sacrificial lite.  If not tested with "safety glass" indicate "No" for HVHZ.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

11915 Atlas Roofing Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the condition that after obtaining a reissued test report, the applicant revise the evaluation report to indicate that the test report is signed and sealed by a Florida PE that witness the test and is listed on the laboratory accreditation as a witness engineer.  Otherwise, indicate "No" for HVHZ.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

 

 

11986 Eagle Window and Door, Inc

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition that after obtaining a reissued test report, the applicant revise the evaluation report to indicate that the test report is signed and sealed by a Florida PE that witness the test and is listed on the laboratory accreditation as a witness engineer.  Otherwise, indicate "No" for HVHZ.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

11494 Overhead Door Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating an obsolete commentary remained on the agenda list.  The application was complete and recommended for approval.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

821-R1 United Steel Products Company

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition that the applicant substitute the evaluation report with latest version of ICC-ES ESR-2753.  Delete the products on application for the HTT Series.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR ACCREDITOR AND COURSE APPROVAL

 

Accreditor Approvals

 

Commissioner Browdy stated there were no applications at present for accreditor approval.

 

 

 

Course Approvals

 

Commissioner Browdy stated there were two courses being submitted for consideration by the Florida Building Commission that have been reviewed by the Education POC:

 

An Overview of the 2007 Florida Building Code, Building Volume

FBC Course # 337.0

 

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

An Overview of the 2007 Florida Building Code, Building Volume – Online FBC Course # 336.0

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated the following courses were approved on the Education POCs consent agenda for administratively approved Updated Advanced Courses:

 

2007 Advanced Code: Building/Structural Summary, FBC Course # 323.0

2007 Advanced Code: Building/Structural Summary (internet), FBC Course # 324.0

2004 Advanced Building/Structural Summary, FBC Course #168.2

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation for consent agenda of administratively approved courses.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Advanced 23 Hour (SREF) Course, FBC Course # 309.1

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Hamrick stated he needed to abstain from the vote on the course approval.

 

 Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. (Commissioner Hamrick abstained).  Motion carried.

 

CONSIDER LEGAL ISSUES AND PETITIONS FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT: BINDING INTERPRETATIONS: REPORTS ONLY

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

 

            Legal Issues:          

 

Binding Interpretations:

 

Declaratory Statements:

 

            Second Hearings:

           

            DCA08-DEC289 by Glen Lathers, Hillsborough County Public Schools

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

 

Commissioner Tolbert moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.        

 

DCA08-DEC-331 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA, Inc.

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

 

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.        

 

DCA08-DEC- 337 by Roger Sanders, Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

 

Commissioner Goodloe moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.        

 

            First Hearings:

 

DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan Arlington, St. Johns County Building Department

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

 

Commissioner Goodloe moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.        

 

DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshall/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He stated the petitioner had agreed to extend consideration as the petition pertains to carbon monoxide protection and may be the subject of legislation.  He then stated rather than sending out a response to the question which could be misleading in light of potential legislation, the petitioner would like to see the petition continued and resolved at a later date, not dismissed at present.   

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the Commission needed to vote on a continuance.

 

Mr. Richmond responded unless there was an objection it could just be rolled on the agenda.

 

DCA08-DEC-339 by Jose Sanchez, Fenestration Testing Laboratory, Inc.

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He stated the committee recommended dismissal in absence of the requested additional information.

 

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if it was usual for a testing laboratory to conduct, evaluate and set up a separate company in which the CEO would be the same.  He further stated he was unfamiliar with how this type of testing facility would work.   He stated the petitioner quoted a Roy Burroughs in Leon County.  He stated he knew a Ray Burroughs.  He also stated the attachment letter was not found.  He then stated he knew it was mute since it was being dismissed but offered clarification for future reference.

 

Mr. Madani stated this came up in light of a revision made to the Product Approval Rule where it stated a test lab cannot validate applications for product approval.  He then stated this entity was trying to create another subsidiary to do just that.  He further stated question was raised whether or not there were still financial connections.  He stated the committee wanted additional information to be able to make a decision on the petition.  He then stated it appeared at present that the lab had decided not to pursue it. 

 

Commissioner Grippa entered a request for future entities that there would be no financial commonality between a tester and an inspection.  He further stated in this case the petitioner stated in the email he would be CEO of both but the books would be maintained separately.  He stated it did not seem constructive with the rule Mr. Madani referenced.  

 

Mr. Madani stated for the future that point was not reached because staff wanted more information from the applicant to make a determination, then the applicant decided not to continue.  He then stated until the situation comes up again it could not be determined whether there is a conflict between financially connected entities.

 

Mr. Richmond stated the issue of financial ties was most likely the reason the petition was being dismissed because there is a point the Commission gets beyond its jurisdiction and into the scope of corporate law, which is not within the purview of the Commission.  He then stated staff was seeking to get the petitioner in this case to research the issue so it could be determined whether it was something that was problematic or not, then when the petitioner did not comply the question could not be answered.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if in the past the Commission had approved a tester and a validator that had common ownership.

 

Mr. Richmond stated he was not sure.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated he was not referring to this specific entity. He asked if the Commission had ever approved both.

 

Mr. Madani stated he was not sure.

 

Mr. Richmond stated staff would have to research the issue.  He explained the change that excluded test labs from being validators was relatively new therefore there was probably not a lot of motivation to have separate entities prior to 8 or 10 months ago.  He then stated it can be looked at to the extent data on particular ownership staff would be more inclined to look at the professionals involved and their licensure.  He further stated there was direct conflict of interest on the information obtained and there is a concern of who their principals are, but he was not sure if staff would go to boards or shareholders on that level of scrutiny.

 

Commissioner Carson stated if Ted Berman was present, if anyone could answer Commissioner Grippa’s question it would be him.

 

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

DCA08-DEC-344 by Alvin Scolnik, National Electrical Manufacturer’s Assoc.

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He then stated the committee recommended the case be deferred until it can be taken up by a joint meeting consisting of the Mechanical, Electrical and Fire TACs.  He stated if there were no objections he would roll the item forward on the agenda with the request for that meeting to occur at the end of the plenary session. 

 

DCA08-DEC-345 by James Reed, Southwest Progressive Enterprises, Inc.

 

Mr. Richmond stated the committee had decided to defer petition to the next meeting due to insufficient information.

 

DCA08-DEC-357 by Fred S. Cardwell, P.E.

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated it looked like they were also asking about a warranty.  He asked if he were reading it correctly.

 

Mr. Richmond stated he had not actually looked at that.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated maybe it was better for the Commission not to get into what the warranty might be.

 

Mr. Richmond stated Commissioner Grippa’s comment had triggered his memory. He then stated the references made to warranties as to whether inclusion of underlayment might void the warranty of the roofing.  He further stated it was kind of a subsidiary question to question 1.  He then stated given the Commission’s answer to the question it was really no issue at all.  He stated he did recall some testimony submitted at the committee stating there were really no warranty issues involved here as the underlayment has no impact on the warranty.  He explained that would be a private contractual type of obligation the in which Commission would not want to get involved.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated he was a little confused with the answer to question 1 because it does not seem like it was answering the question.  He then asked if the TAC had indicated that the engineer had to show the underlayment on the plans one way or the other and the Code specifically states he does.  He requested clarification if that was the Commission’s intent.

 

Mr. Richmond responded it was.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated it sounded like when the question was asked he did not understand what was stated in the Code.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated if it was required in the Code the applicant would be required to show it. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated the Code states underlayment shall be required and you must follow manufacturer’s installation instructions included and these instructions included at least permissive use of their product without underlayment.  He further stated he believed his principal in designing a certain shed was pressed for him to save the money involved with underlayment.

 

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Schulte stated the first question went through the Roofing TAC and the second question went through the Fire TAC.  He asked if the 80 inch rule applied with this being a non-habitable space.   He then stated he understood the plans showed they were built drawn pursuant to the 2004 Building Code and at the same time on the plans there were wall heights of 6 feet.  He stated obviously it was tough to put an 80 inch doorway through a 6 foot high ledger.  He stated he was curious how that was discussed at the Fire TAC.

 

Commissioner Goodloe stated the TAC had an extensive discussion on that issue.   He then stated it basically came down to the fact the lower height walls were not addressed in the Code so the TAC only ruled on what the Code language stated if the Code called for an 80 inch door that was the only ruling the TAC could give.

 

Commissioner Schulte stated he assumed there was no exception for the non-habitable space.

 

Commissioner Goodloe stated that was correct in terms of the height of the door.  He stated the TAC narrowed the question down to just the door itself.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

DCA08-DEC-359 by Michael J. Wolfe Advanced Shelter Solutions, Inc.

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He then stated the committee determined the issue to be outside the scope of a normal declaratory statement and recommended that it be dismissed.  He further stated the petitioner had asked the Commission to confirm or ratify a decision it made some months back with regard to a particular issue.  Mr. Richmond continued by stating a declaratory statement is not an appropriate means to confirm or ratify a decision.  He then stated he did not believe the petitioner reflected the decision affected his personal decision with the petition.

 

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the committee recommendation to dismiss.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Gross asked what governs the format for submitting declaratory statements.  He stated in going through the declaratory statements for the meeting, he noticed some declaratory statements were not complete, some were letter format, and some formatted very well.  He then stated a form or some kind of format for submitting declaratory statements had not been previously considered.  He then stated if a standard form were used it might be easier to review and evaluate each petition.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating there was no designated format and the Commission has no authority to restrict it to a particular format.  He stated there were substantive limitations contained in Chapter 120 of Florida Statute.  He then stated he was familiar with something the Fire Marshall’s office had developed or that has been developed on their behalf and circulated.  He further stated it was a kind of form that could be utilized with the appropriate changes.  He stated he was not certain if the Commissioners had received any comments from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee but the agency had run into some difficulties when they have actually been looking through the Commission’s website to determine what authorities it actually had or did not have.  He stated for declaratory statements the Commission has no authority to adopt a form.

 

Commissioner Greiner asked what the result of the last declaratory statement DCA-DEC-359. 

 

Mr. Richmond responded it was dismissed.

 

Commissioner Goodloe stated on the form the Fire Marshall uses it is clearly stated in their rule that it is an optional form but if the form is completed it would speed up the response because all of the information needed is requested on the form.  He stated it was beneficial but not required and letters can still be submitted.

 

DCA08-BC-360

 

Mr. Richmond stated there was one more case to discuss and although it was not a declaratory statement the number is DCA08-BC-360.  He then stated it was the final case number issued by the agency in 2008 and involves a complaint filed by Power Steel Corporation with regard to a product approval issued by the Commission to Cast Crete Corporation.  He further stated both parties were represented at the meeting and the Commission was represented at the committee level.  He stated Fred Dudley and Eric Adams would scope the issue, but he wanted first wanted to lay the groundwork.  He then stated if at any point in going through the proceedings here and the discussion and it becomes apparent to anyone they have a conflict of interests then recusal would be the appropriate result or potentially withdrawal.  He further stated the Commission has a specific conflict of interest rule not generally applicable to all bodies which actually requires recusal if the proceedings impact their direct financial interest or the interest of any relative as well.  He then stated if there had been exparté communication regarding this particular issue and it really affects a Commissioner’s ability to consider this in a fair and impartial manner he should consider withdrawal as the most appropriate means to deal with it.   He further stated the change in rules was because in these circumstances the Commissioners were sitting essentially as opposed to the circumstances when the Code or rule was being written, sitting in more of a legislative role.  He stated as such the Commissioners need to provide fair and impartial forum for the decisions of cases such as this.

 

Commissioner Greiner asked for clarification on what exactly the Commission was doing i.e. what type of proceeding was being held, a declaratory statement, a binding interpretation.

 

Mr. Richmond stated a complaint had been filed by Power Steel and requests an investigation of the manufacturing processes and practices of another company, Cast Crete, with further action by the committee after the investigation.  He then stated the Commission had adopted rules which the parties would refer to during their presentations.  He further stated the issue before the Commission was to determine whether to proceed with an investigation or not.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the case had been brought before the POC. He asked Commissioner Carson if he would be reviewing the recommendation of the POC.

 

Commissioner Carson stated he was going to recuse himself based on the advice of Mr. Richmond.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated for the record the committee had denied the request for an investigation because there was no valid concern provided.  He then stated Commission Gonzalez and Commissioner Carson abstained from voting and the vote was 3-0 in favor or denying the request for further investigation. 

Commissioner Greiner asked Chairman Rodriguez to repeat the vote results.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the vote had been 3-0 in favor of denying the investigation.

 

Commissioner Greiner asked if that was a recommendation to the Commission.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was.

 

Mr. Dudley, Holland & Knight, representing Power Steel Corporation

 

Mr. Dudley stated in answer to Commissioner Greiner’s question Rule 9B-72-170 provides for investigation of product noncompliance.  He then stated it may be the first time the Commission had received a petition under the rule.  He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to try to explain the reasons for the petition and the reason an investigation was requested.  He continued by stating he believed the Commission’s counsel would advise that the proceeding was not an evidentiary hearing, not a case to hear testimony or be asked to adjudicate as a jury or a judge might adjudicate.  He further stated the sole issue was to determine if the Commission believed if there was substantial material evidence, which is what the rule states, to have an investigation conducted.  He stated the rule requires that investigation, should the Commission order it, be conducted by the Quality Assurance Entity, in the case Miami-Dade Office of Building Code Compliance. 

 

Mr. Dudley then stated it was not about how nice Mr. Parrino was, how long the company has been in business, or a record of successes or failures.  He stated it was about a violation of the Building Code the Commission has adopted and products approved with its vote, which in part was based on incorrect drawings.  He then referred the Commission to paragraph 3 of the petition which was in the Commissioners’ packets.  He stated paragraph 6, a, b and c were the alleged code violations being addressed.  He then stated he would refer the Commission to the exhibits and photographs which were attached.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked where the packets were located.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated the Commissioners seemed to have no packet.  He asked if there was going to be something they could see on the screens.

Mr. Dudley stated, for the record, he had the certified testing lab reports which were submitted to staff.  He then stated he had filed the petition on December 31st and assumed, maybe incorrectly, it would be included in the Commissioners’ packets as the other petitions did.  He suggested asking Commissioner Carson if it was part of the packet for the POC, because staff might be able to capture that if it had been.

 

Commissioner Carson stated it was part of the packet for the POC.

 

Mr. Dudley asked if hard copies were being printed if the Commission would like to defer the proceedings until copies were made.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated staff was trying to get the information on the screen. 

 

Mr. Dudley asked if there were a way members could access it on their laptops.

 

Chairman Rodriguez responded there was not.

 

Mr. Dudley stated Mr. Blair stated there was a way.

 

Chairman Rodriguez clarified there was not a way at the moment.

 

Chairman Rodriguez then stated if it was okay the Commission would defer the proceeding until the technical staff had caught up.

 

Mr. Dudley responded it was okay.

 

***Staff was attempting to put information on the overhead projectors and/or in the laptops for the Commission members to view.  It was not readily available and the discussion was tabled until the information was viewable at a later point in the agenda.

 

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Electrical TAC

 

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Code Administration TAC.  (See Code Administration TAC Minutes February 2, 2009).

 

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to accept the report.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Fire TAC

 

            Commissioner Goodloe presented the report of the Energy TAC.  (See Fire TAC Meeting Minutes January 27, 2009).

 

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to accept the report.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Mechanical TAC

 

            Mr. Blair presented the report of the Mechanical TAC.  (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes February 2, 2009).

 

            Commissioner Browdy moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

 

 

Roofing TAC

 

Commissioner Schulte presented the report of the Roofing TAC.  (See Roofing TAC Meeting Minutes January 27, 2009).

 

            Commissioner Schulte moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Structural TAC

 

Commissioner Kidwell presented the report of the Structural TAC.  (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes February 2, 2009).

 

            Commissioner Schulte moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Education POC

 

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education POC.  (See Education POC Meeting Minutes February 2, 2009).

 

Actions:

 

Commissioner Browdy stated the committee recommended a rule development workshop to discuss 9B-70.002, the Education Process. He requested the Commission approve the recommendation for the workshop to be conducted at the April Commission meeting in Gainesville.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval to conduct a rule development workshop on 9B-70.002 at the April Commission meeting.  Commissioner Boyer entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried. 

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

 

            Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC.  (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes February 2, 2009.)

 

            Actions:

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommended the revocation of the following products.  He explained the revocations were due mostly in part to the inability to contact the manufacturers regarding their expired quality assurance entity.  He explained he would present each manufacturer and its products individually.

 

            Uroll Shutters FL#s: 3941-R1; 6331; 9945; 9946; 9947

 

            Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee’s recommendation for revocation of the products as stated.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            TNT Roofing Manufacturer FL#s: 5486; 5497

 

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee’s recommendation for revocation of the products as stated.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Atlantic Windows and Doors, Inc. FL#s: 7140; 7617; 7618

 

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee’s recommendation for revocation of the products as stated.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Commissioner Schulte moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

2010 Florida Building Code Assembly Process Ad Hoc

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated after the December Commission meeting the Code Assembly Ad Hoc Committee met to consider staff’s proposal for the 2010 Code assembly process. He then stated the Ad Hoc, consisting of Commissioners, voted unanimously in favor of DCA staff’s proposal to use the 2007 FBC Code document as the template for the 2010 Code assembly process.  He further stated the 2009 I Code changes to the 2006 I Code would be integrated into the 2007 FBC to create a starting draft of the 2010 FBC.  He continued by stating now that there was conceptual approval from the Ad Hoc, Staff is discussing the proposed Code assembly process with ICC to evaluate the technical and financial impacts before making a final recommendation to the Commission for proceeding.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Accessibility Code/ADAAG 2.0 Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Accessibility Code/ADAAG 2.0 Workgroup.  (See 2010 Accessibility Code/ADAAG 2.0 Workgroup Meeting Minutes February 2, 2009.)

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

REPEAL OF RULE 9B-3.0477 ELECTRICAL BONDING OF POOL DECKS REPEAL OF RULE 9B-3.0475 WIND MITIGATION RETROFITS

REPEAL OF RULE 9B-3.0472 CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated although the rule hearings on the repeals of would be held on February 4 at 8:30a.m. Anyone who wished to comment on those repeals should offer their comments.

 

Commissioner Gregory asked, for the record, if the bonding issue had been put into the 2008 Electrical Code.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating all three of the rules being repealed were rolled into the 2007 Electrical Code.  He stated they were essentially almost temporarily placeholders and since the 2007 Code will take effect March 1 there was no further need to have separate rules.

 

Commissioner Gregory stated there had been some concern from the industry this would not be the case.

 

No public comment.

 

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING 2008 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the October 2008 Rule Development Workshop conducted for the purpose of considering amendments to Rule 9B-3.047 Glitch Amendments, the Commission considered whether to adopt the 2008 National Electrical Code as a Glitch Amendment. He then stated the criteria provided in Chapter 553.73(7) F.S for considering Glitch Amendments specifies the Commission may consider updates to the NEC if delay of implementing the updated edition causes undue hardship to stakeholders, or otherwise threatens the public health, safety and welfare. He further stated the Commission considered testimony on both sides and voted to defer action on deciding whether to consider adoption of the 2008 NEC as a Glitch Amendment in the 2008 Glitch Process, and to set a schedule for a separate rulemaking to implement the Commission’s actions relative to adopting the 2008 NEC, by July 1, 2009. He stated the NEC was reviewed by the Electrical TAC, and the TAC provided recommendations regarding adopting the 2008 NEC into the Florida Building Code and proceeding with rule making. He concluded by stating the TAC recommended that the Commission adopt the 2008 NEC in whole and conduct a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting.

 

Commissioner Carson stated public comment was heard and several were debated and this was the decision of the TAC.  He then stated the second and final discussion of the TAC in review of the 2008 NEC was conducted and it was recommended by the TAC the Commission adopt the 2008 NEC without exception.  He further stated the TAC also recommended moving forward with the Commission’s workplan for a rule workshop in April.

 

Commissioner Gregory stated public comment was taken and he was part of the public comment.  He then stated the pool industry had concerns about the NEC 2008 Electrical Code with the inclusion or requirement of a GFI on circulating pumps He further stated in Florida there was bonding requirement for all equipment.  He stated he had extensive electrical background and there was no possible way for electrocution with a pump so bonded.  He then stated in other states, such as Texas, the Code was quite lax and he could see the need for that.  He explained in Florida the manufacturers association represented no evidence that there was any harm.  He stated the industry would like to bring this up during the rulemaking and hopefully get the Commission to agree this might be an exception to the Code. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated there would be further opportunities to speak on the issue.  He stated at present a motion was needed to proceed with rule development to adopt the 2008 NEC and the interior designer issue into the FBC by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting.

 

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the motion as stated.  Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.

 

Mr. Madani stated as staff he would not normally ask to make comments but in this situation an issue came up regarding a roofing nail and there may be a typo in the mitigation rule.  He stated staff would requested this be addressed during the glitch code process.  

 

Mr. Richmond stated this would probably be the appropriate means to consider it.  He then stated a notice could be crafted to include that issue.

 

Commissioner Tolbert moved approval of the motion to proceed with rule development to adopt the 2008 NEC, the interior decorators settlement agreement, and correction of the roofing nail size error in the FBC, by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

DCA08-DEC-360 (CONTINUED)

 

**Staff had information ready for the Commissioners’ review and discussion continued on the item.

 

Commissioner Gonzalez stated he would recuse himself from voting.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated both Commissioner Carson and Commissioner Gonzalez would also recuse themselves from the vote.

 

Mr. Dudley stated on page 3, paragraph 6, he had set forth a, b, and c which are summaries of the three alleged code violations being brought to the Commission’s attention, described as follows:

 

a)     Required minimum concrete coverage of the steel reinforcing bar that is in the product.  He referred the Commission to section 1907.7.3, the adopted ACI standard 318, and 1926.5, which is a comparable section for the HVHZ or hurricane zone requirements.

b)     Welding standards, the Commission had adopted the AWS standard D1.4 section 1922.4.4 which restricts the manor and method of welding certain types of steel by a qualified welder

c)      Section 1922.4.5 for the HVHZ product and 1903.5.4 for the non HVHZ.  He stated both of those sections require any welding of reinforcing steel must be indicated on the drawings with specificity as to the welding procedure to be used.  He then stated none of the drawings submitted for this product approval reflect or describe any information at all regarding welding, in fact they do not even show that welding was taking place with this product. 

 

Mr. Dudley stated more important than what he was presenting to the Commission as an attorney was the letter attached to the petition (Exhibit A), which is a summary report from Certified Testing Lab, which is a Commission certified testing laboratory. He then stated the test results (Exhibit B) show destructive testing of nine specimens of product FL158.  He confirmed Exhibit A was the summary letter from Certified Testing Laboratory dated December 23, 2008.  He stated the second paragraph sums up what was found in the actual test result report, attached to the petition as B.  He read from the second paragraph,

 

The results obtained in Procedure A indicate that specimens 4, 5, and 6 did not meet the minimum requirements or concrete coverage for concrete exposed to weather as stated in ACI 318-05, Section 7.7.3 and specimens 4 and 5 did not meet the minimum requirements of concrete coverage not exposed to weather as well.” 

 

He then stated the results obtained in procedure B as described in the test report itself indicate specimens 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 did not meet the minimum requirements of acceptable fill it well profiles set forth in AWSD 1.4.  He further stated Exhibit B shows the procedures used, (A and B) at the bottom of the first page.  He stated the report was signed by a professional engineer who went through extensive testing and photographs and what was indicated on the concrete coverage issue six specimens were checked in three locations with a cross-cut to determine where the steel was located and in those 18 locations that were tested or measured only 5 had the allowable minimum coverage, 13 did not.  He then stated these were specimens of the products purchased by Certified Testing Lab in the open market.  He further stated the products were not sent to them, picked or handpicked.  He stated the report indicated 2 came from the Miami area and the rest were from around the state.

 

Mr. Dudley stated the letter dated November 5, 2008, signed by Christopher W. Reed, with CTL, described himself as a certified weld inspector, showed the 8 pictures that followed in the report of six different specimens which revealed unacceptable welds per the PS standards.  Mr. Dudley continued by stating the proceeding was not an evidentiary hearing, nor was he asking the Commission to find that there were Building Code violations.  He stated there was no preparation for hearing testimony, to cross examine witnesses, or to present experts.  He explained the purpose of the petition was simply to provide the Commission with enough information to approve an investigation of the allegations.  He stated even though a professional engineer’s report was from a certified testing facility, it did not have to be considered evidence that there was a Code violation but simply evidence that these allegations of Code violations should be investigated.

 

Eric Adams, Shotts and Bow??, representing Cast Crete

 

Mr. Adams stated in the interest of efficiency he intended to only show a few slides from the 30 minute presentation of the approximately 60 slides presented at the POC meeting.  He then stated he believed the most important thing to discuss first was the structure of the Commission and its committees.  He continued by stating a lot of time was spent on the issue with both Mr. Dudley and himself speaking back and forth during the POC.  He further stated after presenting the case to the POC two members abstained, one because of his affiliation with Miami-Dade and the other because of communication issues.  He stated there was a unanimous vote of the non-abstaining members to dismiss the petition for its lack of substantial and material evidence.  He then stated he would request the appropriate deference by the full body of the plenary session be afforded to the POC. 

 

Mr. Adams stated a lot of time was spent on the issue but it did not go before the Structural TAC.  He stated the unique part of the makeup of both the POC and the TAC have a common member, Commissioner Kidwell, a professional engineer who also chairs the Structural TAC.  He stated Commissioner Kidwell voted with the two other members that the petition be dismissed.  He continued by stating the importance to discuss what was not in the petition as much as what was contained in the petition.  He stated he was not going to talk about Code sections, but what Power Steel had ignored, which were concrete lintels.   He then stated Power Steel ignored 1) in the ACI 318 there was a tolerance of 5/8 coverage to the steel measured to the steel with a tolerance which allows it to be 3/8, found within the same code, but not discussed at all within the petition.  He stated the POC had heard comments from both sides on the issue; 2) With respect to a welding related issue it was believed AWS1.4 applies because the welds were not structural welds.  He stated hearing Mr. Dudley discuss the issue it would seem the welding was structural, bar to bar, but the weld was 7/32 wire to rebar.  He further stated the purpose of the weld was not structural, but to ensure proper placement of the rebar inside of the concrete.  He continued by stating once the concrete and rebar were made one the weld has no structural purpose.  He stated the concept of suggesting AWS1.4 of structural welds was applicable to this case simply was not.  He then stated in ACI 318 there was a commentary to one of the sections which states “When you are welding wire to steel AQS1.4 does not apply”, which was not mentioned in the chose to ignore the code exception which does not make the product a code violation.

 

Mr. Adams stated even if the Commission decided this was a situation where the AWS1.4 may apply there was discretion afforded to the engineer.  He then stated in the very first section which discusses the scope which states “There is discretion afforded to the engineer to deviate from processes.” He further stated there is a competitor, Power Steel, who makes a steel product which is a steel lintel and the competitor has attempted to hijack the Commission and put a black eye on Cast Crete and whomever makes concrete lentils in the future.  He stated his comments were what he felt in his heart, but he also has empirical evidence about that particular issue.  He continued by stating less than 3 weeks after filing its petition, Power Steel’s Florida distributor sent an email to 20 of Cast Crete’s customers .  He explained the email included bold conclusary statement that there were building code violations, attached to the petition.  He stated the distributor did not wait for two weeks to hear a decision from the Structural TAC or the Commission before they began boasting about it.  He then stated if the unwarranted attention of the petition to order an investigation was granted he would imagine an email would go out before he got home to Tampa from the meeting.  He stated this was a situation of a competitor abusing the process.  

 

Mr. Adams stated Mr. Dudley had stated not was not about how long Cast Crete had been on business or what a nice guy Mr. Parrino was, but it was about the product.  He then stated the product was approved through the certification process Miami Dade as the quality assurance entity.  He further stated a representative of Miami Dade stood before the POC and talked about the fact they had inspected and audited the manufacturing processes which was part of having them as the quality assurance entity.  He stated those manufacturers processes include the very welds the petitioner was trying to dissect and find certain alleged code violations which were unsupported by the code.  He further stated the product had gone through extensive destructive testing to the point of fail.  He stated hundreds of lintels over the years had been destructive tested for load bearing and all of those test results were reviewed by the quality assurance entity.  He concluded by stating it was about the product.  He further stated it was approved by the most astringent process allowed for by the Commission.  He stated there were 50 million of these products in the marketplace and no failure. 

 

He concluded by respectfully requesting the Commission give deference to the POCs decision and no investigation be ordered because it was not warranted.  He stated the reason he would make those requests was because the Florida Administrative Code 9B-72.170, referred to by Mr. Dudley, states there had to be substantial and material evidence that supports his petition and supports a violation under 9B-72.160.  He reiterated Mr. Dudley has to show a code violation, not allege portions and ignore other tolerances or exceptions and he has not.  He then stated there was one other issue raised by Mr. Dudley in the petition.  He stated although it had not been discussed before the Commission, he felt it needed to be addressed for the purpose of completeness.  He continued by stating the issue was a personal attack on Mr. Parrino, suggesting he was serving as an independent quality assurance entity because of something that appeared on an internet form.  He stated Miami-Dade serves as the quality assurance entity and visits the plant once a year and audits manufacturing processes.  He stated the quality assurance program was well founded and authorized by the Florida Administrative Code in this particular body.  He further stated there was concrete coverage within the tolerance permitted in ACI 318, which were ignored in Mr. Dudley’s report and by his expert.  He stated there were non-structural welds to which AWS1.4 does not apply and to which the concrete code provides specific exception because structural steel was not being welded to structural steel, but a wire to steel weld for the purpose of positioning of rebar.  He further stated the welds were not pretty but do not need to be pretty to ensure the rebar was in the right spot inside of the lintel.   He concluded by stating there was a lack of substantial and material evidence in this particular situation and he respectfully requested the Commission give deference to the POC, which heard more extensive argument on this particular issue,  and dismiss the petition for its lack of substantial and material evidence.

 

Mr. Dudley stated he could rebut and close if the Commission preferred or he could rebut and then Mr. Adams could have an opportunity to speak if there were additional comments from him before closing.   He stated Mr. Adams made a fine presentation at the POC and he was sorry he had not gone through the presentation with the Commission because he believed it would have made the point that there were questions which needed to be answered.  He then stated from the start he told the Commission this was not a personal attack on Mr. Parrino.  He then stated the reason Mr. Parrino was shown on the petition was because he was shown on the Product Approval website under a category called Quality Assurance Representative.  He further stated he did not know what that meant and he had not found any reference to it in the rules.  He continued by stating Power Steel, his client, also had individuals identified under the same role on the website and he did not know what those individuals’ rights, duties or responsibilities were.  He further stated he brought the issue because if an investigation was conducted one of the questions he would like answered for his client would be “Does the person shown as the representative of the quality assurance agency have any duties and responsibilities and if those duties and responsibilities should be identified and whether or not they were met.  He stated he hoped that would not be taken as a personal attack on Mr. Parrino because that was not the way it was intended.  He further stated he had known Mr. Parrino for a number of years and had worked with him as a member of the Commission.  He stated he had found him upright and honest to deal with and he has no reason to question his integrity.  He then stated he just did not know what it meant to have him listed as a quality assurance representative on the Commission website, along with 2 individuals from Power Steel. 

 

Mr. Dudley stated yes Power Steel was a competitor. He stated the Commission rule which requires an investigation be ordered under these circumstances was there so product approval deficiencies could be brought to the Commission’s attention, otherwise there would be no purpose for the rule.  He asked how the Commission would ever know about alleged deficiencies or code violations in a product.  He stated there would be two ways to find out:  1) there would be a failure, although he had no evidence this product had any evidence or failure or 2) or competitor would come forward and state they did not believe their competitors’ product lived up to the Code, which was fair game because the Commission would be dealing with violations of the Building Code it adopted.  He asked why they were there.  He then stated if the sections were not important then they should be repealed.  He continued by stating if all that was needed is 50 million products which have never failed then make tat the basis for product approval and require no testing, no engineer, no certification method.  He stated just state simply if the criteria were met an approval was deserved.

 

Mr. Dudley stated regarding the welding issue there was a lot of material which states thou shall not weld.  He then stated he was not telling the Commission the Code and the standards the Commission had adopted as part of the Code have an absolute bar on welding, but it does raise the question if rebar could be welded.  He then asked does AWS apply.  He stated his client believed it did apply.  He then stated if it could be welded under what conditions.   He stated Mr. Adams stated there was the use of a design professional who can decide under what circumstances it could be welded.  He stated that was fine, but where were those conditions and where was the engineer, who was Mr. Parrino in this case who signed the drawings for the NOA, where were the conditions he had set for welding. He further asked if welding was okay why it wasn’t submitted on the drawings like the other sections of the code require, required by the Commission. 

 

Mr. Dudley asked of tolerances were allowed on concrete coverage.  He stated he believed they were, but he was not an architect or an engineer.  He stated if they were allowed how were the tolerances calculated and were they met in this case.  He then stated he had submitted to the Commission a complete signed report from a test lab that showed exactly what the measurements were. He further stated he assumed during the investigation someone could run the calculations and easily determine whether or not those placements of steel within the concrete meet the allowable tolerances. 

 

Mr. Dudley stated Mr. Adams had made reference to the rule.  He then stated his client believed there had been a misrepresentation at the product approval which did not mean it was intentional or a bad thing.  He stated they also believed there had been a failure to comply with code standards.  He further stated either one of those would be sufficient for revocation.  He stated they were not asking for revocation or suspension, nor to be the judge and jury, but simply to approve an investigation which would take place under the rule by the quality assurance entity.  He stated they were very comfortable with Miami Dade in that role.   

 

Mr. Adams offered comment regarding Mr. Dudley’s remark concerning how an issue with a product would not be discovered unless there was product failure or unless a competitor came before the Commission.  He then stated he disagreed that those were the only two ways, there is the certification process, Miami-Dade serves as the quality assurance entity with visitation to the plant and auditing the manufacturing process.  He further stated this did not happen in a vacuum without anyone’s knowledge.   He stated Miami-Dade was familiar with the Code sections and was familiar with is manufacturing processes and had certified this particular product from Cast Crete with a certificate of competency which was current at the present time.  He then stated Mr. Dudley had a lot of questions or inquiries about what people should and should not do, but that was not what the petition had to show.  He continued by stating the petition had to show substantial and material evidence of the particular violations, not questions or possibilities that it might happen.  He restated substantial and material evidence were needed, not reports from experts who ignore tolerances or commentary to the Code, that would suggest the welding of wiring to rebar was an exception to AWS1.4.  He stated he felt the report was like Swiss cheese with the number of things it does not address which were applicable to this particular product.  He reiterated he would encourage the Commission to uphold the unanimous decision of the POC and dismiss this particular petition with no order of an investigation to let this end at this point.

Mr. Dudley stated he respected the process of going through the TACs and POCs.  He further stated he had seen it work very well with this Commission.  He then stated he had not always seen the Commission agree with the recommendations of the TACs or POCs but for the most part it did, because like anybody else, it relied on the expertise of the committees.  He stated he respected that, but there were 25 members on the Commission and 3 have voted against an investigation.  He then stated the rest of the Commissioners not seated on the POC were seeing this petition for the first time since it was not available for review before the meeting.  He thanked the chairman for allowing time for that time to happen.  He stated the most important issue of the day, the only issue of the day, was Rule 9B-72.170 on investigations states “1a) The Commission shall initiate an investigation of product non-compliance on the basis of a written complaint including substantial material evidence.”  He then stated the test was simply whether the product was before the Commission for the very first time and had never been approved when someone came forward and stated they had problems or questions regarding the product; wouldn’t the Commission want those questions answered before approval was given to the product.  He stated it was a “reasonableness” test; i.e., what would a reasonable person want under these circumstances.  He then stated during the hearing Mr. Richmond stated “The allegations are sufficient for an investigation.”  He continued by stating Mr. Richmond did not have a vote on the Commission but listened to the testimony and it was his understanding of Mr. Richmond’s opinion that the petition met the substantial material evidence test. He stated it was not a test which required conclusiveness, because if it were expert testimony would be heard and they would not be asking for an investigation.  He concluded by stating after hearing two non-engineers who disagree they hoped Commission would look at the CTL report and ask where Cast Crete’s testing reports were on these points and why wasn’t the welding reflected on the drawings, as required by the Code.  He stated he did not know the answers, but hoped the Commission would help find those answers.

 

Mr. Adams stated lawyers can be in the same room and not hear the same things.  He further stated he had to take exception to the way Mr. Dudley characterized Mr. Richmond’s comments to the extent that he wanted to quote what Mr. Richmond did or did not say.  He then stated he believed all of Mr. Richmond’s words and comments were distinctly different.  

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Richmond was in the room and he would call on him for clarification after public comment was heard.  He then called for public comment.

 

No public comment.

 

Mr. Richmond offered clarification stating he would need to listen to the audio.  He stated he “misspoke” for better or worse to either side’s benefit or advantage, as it was not his place to tell the Commission how to decide.  He further stated the Commission had that unique authority unto itself.  He then stated clearly the issue before the Commission was whether the allegations or complaints were significant to warrant an investigation.   He stated the threshold for that decision was whether the allegations present substantial material evidence of noncompliance.  He continued by stating it was not a matter of different engineering opinions, but a matter of what had been alleged and how the code works with what has been alleged.  He then stated at this point the committee has recommended dismissal or denial as the appropriate disposition along those same lines if the Commission wanted to do so, it could move forward and order an investigation.  He clarified that those were the two options for the Commission at this point in the discussion.  He then stated procedurally, an explicit motion is needed that disposes of the three issues that were presented or a motion is needed subject to reviewing a final order, similar to what is done with declaratory statements.  Mr. Richmond stated he was uncomfortable taking a lot of technical editorial license because he was not an expert on engineering.  He stated the three primary issues contained in the petition were:1) programmatic issue and what was the quality assurance representative identified on the form, a form which was adopted by reference in the rule, but with no scoping for it within the text of the rule within 9B-72; 2) the concrete coverage issue; and 3) the welding issue.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated he was going to make a motion and if a second were entered he would make additional comments.  He then moved approval of the recommendation of the POC to dismiss the petition.  Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated nothing was heard in the plenary session that had not already been heard in the TAC meeting.  He then stated just about every product has a list of quality assurance representatives.  He further stated it was not for the Commission to provide education on items especially for stakeholders in the process.  He stated it was not the Commission’s responsibility to educate on the definition of a quality assurance representative for a company.  He continued by stating this company has a quality assurance entity in Miami-Dade, a third party entity, which was not mentioned in the petition.  He then stated what was mentioned in the petition was that Mr. Parrino removed himself as the quality assurance entity representative and he had done no such thing.  Commissioner Kidwell stated that was fraudulent.  He then stated the Commission also did not need to provide education on issues of engineering.  He further stated an engineer reading through this report with a background in the subject matter would say “You’ve got to be kidding me.”  He continued stating this was someone who does not understand the issues bringing forth this petition.   He then stated it was also not necessarily the Commission’s place to provide education on the methods of the quality assurance entity, be it Miami-Dade.  He concluded by stating this case was one competitor versus another and with the Commission’s budget constraints, he did not understand why time and budget were being wasted by looking at the issue because it was a non-issue.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated he was fairly new on the board, but he was remiss as to why it would not be investigated given the fact that one of the Commission’s evaluators actually opined, although he was not sure how it had occurred.  He asked whether counsel could tell if there was any potential conflict when the Commission contracts with a particular entity and then they show up with a petition and opine that the technology being utilized does not meet the Code, the same entity, CTL, shich represents the Commission on other tests. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated the status of CTL was as an approved test lab.  He further stated he believed they had applied to the Commission and received approval as do many test labs throughout the state.  He stated it was sort of point of entry into the Product Approval process.  He continued by stating the only person who could represent the Commission in that process would be Ted Berman, the contract administrator.  He stated the rest were subject to approval and at risk of losing that approval, therefore the right to serve as a test lab.  He stated he did not believe an approved test lab in concept could be said to represent the Commission. 

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if the Commission had reviewed CTL proposed products and approved them.

 

Mr. Richmond stated CTL would not propose the products, the product manufacturer would.   He then stated he was sure it had approved some. 

 

Commissioner Grippa stated he apologized for his vernacular since he was new.  He asked if counsel could help him with that.  He asked if they had evaluated products in the past that one of the manufacturers brought to the Commission.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating he believed they had.  He stated there would be no reason otherwise for them to be a certified test lab.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if the Commission relied on their data.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating what the Commission truly relies on was the validation of the data, a kind of second layer of review.  He then stated yes, in part the Commission has relied on the test data and the test standards adopted by the Commission in the Code and their accreditation test lab.  He explained it was a multi-layered system.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated now the lab was coming forward and if he was reading the report correctly, it seems to state there was an issue with the product and how it meets the Code, the Code the Commission decides.  He further stated if the Commission at times relied on their expertise and their data products were approved, certainly the Commission would seem to rely on their expertise as individuals if the Commission were going to disapprove a product.  He continued by stating he believed this puts the Commission in an interesting situation.  He stated there were a couple of issues raised by the two counsels 1) the Commission was not an expert; he stated he had no earthly idea in the difference if the weld was good or not good, which would be what an investigation would determine, and would be what the Commission was being asked to do.  He then stated while he appreciated the argument for the POC and he believed it to be important to rely on the expertise of the commissioners, he was surprised a lawyer would suggest to unlawfully delegate authority as a Commissioner to a committee.  He stated he was somewhat amazed that would be a legal argument.  He further stated he believed counsel would agree with him that the Commissioners sit as individually appointed Commissioners to make their own decisions.  He stated the Commissioners should certainly rely on the expertise of their colleagues, but he did not think under any circumstances their authority should be delegated to the committee.  He continued by stating the more he reviewed the three allegations he certainly did not want to determine if they were right or not right, which would be the purpose of an investigation.  He asked counsel if it would be in the Commission’s authority to investigate the allegations being put forward. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated he believed it would be in the Commission’s authority.  He then stated the real crux was whether the Commission finds the petition has substantial material evidence.  He stated if it does, an investigation would be ordered.   

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if an investigation were ordered would it come back to the Commission.

 

Mr. Richmond responded yes.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if at that point in time the Commission could determine whether the claims were valid or not valid. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated at that time the Commission would decide whether to proceed and seek to revoke an approval. 

 

Commissioner Grippa stated there certainly must be some civil action between the two entities, as competitors do the competitive back and forth. He stated although he understood the argument he did not believe it was his role to decide.  He asked if that should be handled civilly and not within the purview of the Commission. 

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating it was not within what the Commission was considering. 

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if he should be considering Power Steel and Cast Crete as to whether they were arguing or making allegations.  He asked if he should check into that as a Commissioner.

 

Mr Richmond responded stating he believed the focus had to be on the petition and if it warrants an investigation pursuant to the Commission rules.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated the Commission had removed products, then asked if the Commission had ever conducted an investigation.

 

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission had not.  He then stated the Commission has had the administrator look into one product, but never formally conducted an investigation through a certification body.  He further stated the only revocations the Commission had been called upon to issue had been as a result of quality assurance agencies dropping a certain number of manufacturers, typically because they had gone out of business.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if an option was to have staff look at the individual product or if it was that not at the Commission’s discretion. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated he believed the Commission’s discretion was very broad in this area.  He then stated one thing that was conceivable was more information could be obtained from a quality assurer in this case, the particular entity that proceeds.  He stated he believed staff could obtain that voluntarily without initiating an investigation if the Commission wanted that additional information.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked who was the quality assurer.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating it was Miami-Dade in this case.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked if that were what the petitioner had been asking, to have the quality assurer come back to the Commission.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating what the petitioner was asking for was an investigation of the allegations, how that would proceed and what Miami Dade would need would be within their discretion.

 

Commissioner Grippa stated he would look forward to more discussion although the motion was on the table.  He further stated he did not feel comfortable and would be voting against the motion.  He then stated he was aware there is a former Commission member involved.  He continued by stating he did not have any of the material prior to the meeting.  He stated he did not feel comfortable that counsel should be telling the Commission whether it meets the threshold for investigation or not because clearly that was a legal issue, not a substantive issue, as they were not engineers.  He concluded by stating he was disturbed by the process. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Grippa for his comments.

 

Commissioner Gregory requested clarification for when products are approved whether they are approved based on how they were submitted; i.e., not necessarily meeting other external standards such as ACI 318 which has explicit coverage of concrete.  He stated perhaps on this particular lintel coverage was not a problem.  He stated when product was initially approved were these standards either invoked or these tolerances taken into consideration or were they presented to meet these explicitly with no tolerance.

 

Mr. Dixon stated the applicable standards referenced in the Code are what product approvals are based on and that Miami-Dade County did the certification, analysis and review of the evidence presented to show those standards had been complied with for this product.  He further stated it was his understanding the ACI standard and all sub-referenced standards within the ACI standard would apply.  He then stated the issue of whether or not additional standards within the Building Code, or additional criteria in the Building Code would apply was questionable.  He added the law states any alterations of a referenced standard requirements has to be placed in the Building Code.  He further stated the way the Commission has historically ruled on this was that changes to referenced standards had to specifically state they were changes to that standard and not be just another criteria tagged on top of the referenced standard. 

 

Commissioner Gregory asked if it were acceptable to ask Cast Crete a question.

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating it was not an appropriate time.  He explained it was not an evidentiary proceeding where testimony would be received.  He stated the Commission needs to look to the petition, the Building Code and the Commission’s rules for the relevant information before them. 

 

Commissioner Gregory stated since this was a squabble between competitors he thought both would want an investigation to clear up any discrepancies or any dispersions on the inadequacies of anyone’s product. 

 

Commissioner Schock stated he understood Mr. Adams’ concern since his building department received the petition from Power Steel a week ago to their inspectors.  He then stated now the word is getting around that there was a problem and inspectors were asking questions.  He further stated going forward would just lead to more of that, in his opinion.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated his understanding was the Commission was to determine if there was sufficient cause to proceed with an investigation.  He continued by stating Mr. Dudley raised some very valid questions that were technical in nature and refer actually to code questions and code interpretations.  He further stated those questions could have probably been answered or addressed in a request for a declaratory statement rather than a defamatory investigation which was what was before the Commission.  He then stated Commissioner Schock just alluded to the fact that the request and movement in that direction was clearly defamatory to one competitor over another.  He stated it was the petition for an investigation rather than a request for the normal Commission processes that makes Power Steel’s request suspect and makes their allegations suspect.  He concluded by stating he would vote to uphold the recommendation of the POC and support Commissioner Kidwell’s recommendation.

 

Commissioner Vann stated in the report from Certified Testing Lab of the comments “allowable not met”, 31 of 36 comments were allowable not met.  He asked if Commissioner Kidwell or anyone else could explain what that meant.

 

Commissioner Kidwell asked Commissioner Vann to clarify where he was looking.

 

Commissioner Vann responded stating he was talking about the testing report.

 

Commissioner Kidwell asked which page.

 

Commissioner Vann responded stating page 207, exhibit B.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated during the committee meeting the parties went back and forth regarding where that coverage was to be measured from.  He stated cast Crete’s take on it, in which he is in agreement, goes from the reinforcing bar.  He explained the little piece of wire there was not a structural component.  He then stated the petitioner’s take on it was that it should be measured from that component because of its use of the word stirrup in the application.  He further stated because the word stirrup was used in the application that made it a structural member.  He continued by stating he had a local municipality where he lives where if he designed a house for 121mph no matter where the house is located it would now be in a windborne debris zone because he said it was for 121mph.  He stated it was the same thing, a nonstructural component and just because it was named a stirrup does not mean it was a structural component. He stated it was the same thing with the welds where a TAC weld versus a wire tie.  He further stated wire ties were not exactly the most structural item in the world, serving no purpose other than making sure the rebar stays in its appropriate location until the concrete sets.  He stated that was it.  He added the Commission could investigate baked enamel on windows and how it affects the structure of them.  He stated what is being discussed was the effect non-structural components on a structural component. 

 

Commissioner Vann stated he was still confused.  He explained he did not understand where the testing company says “allowable not met”.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated the testing company was measuring from the edge of the wire.  He explained when they say “allowable not met,” they are measuring that coverage.  He stated in his reading of this they were reading it from the wire to the edge of the concrete, not from the structural rebar to the edge of the concrete.  He stated they were using that as the threshold to determine if the allowable.  He added they did not take into account the tolerance in this report.

 

Commissioner Vann stated the Commission was hearing from two very eloquent attorneys who both presented a great case.  He then stated the questions

he had were was welding required, yes no he had no idea, no one with authority has said if it was or was not.  He asked if the welding was required.  He also stated he heard tolerances were allowed, but did not know what they were.  He further stated he had unresolved issues and he wished more POC members were present who voted because a 3-0 POC vote does not carry the same weight as a unanimous Commission decision.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated there were only five members and two had to be recused, that was why there was a 3-0 vote.  He further stated Commissioner Stone has asked to weigh in his comments in the discussion.  He then asked Commissioner Kidwell if he had any answers to Commissioner Vann’s questions.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated in looking at the ACI 318 the coverage could be determined and the coverage requirement was from the structural rebar.  He stated the question would need to be answered by whomever, in his mind it was already answered, from an engineer’s perspective.  He further stated a layperson would not necessarily know this.  He reiterated he viewed it as the structural rebar to the edge of concrete which was supposed to be a distance of 5/8 inch with a tolerance to as close as 3/8 of an inch.  He stated he believed the tolerance to be plus or minus a quarter or plus a quarter minus a 1/8 as determined in ACI 318.  He continued by stating the question raised indirectly by the petitioner indirectly by the test lab was whether the distance was to be measured from the outside edge of the 7/32 wire which goes around the outside to the edge of the concrete or whether it should be measured from the #5 rebar to the edge of the concrete. He stated in the petition it was measured from the edge of the wire to the edge of the concrete.  He concluded by stating in his opinion that was incorrect.  

 

Commissioner Palacios asked what the area of expertise of the other members of the POC who voted.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Stone was next to speak and then Commissioner Schulte.

 

Commissioner Palacios stated he would like to hear from both commissioners and then had additional comment. 

Commissioner Stone stated he had made the motion he specifically stated it based on the oral and written testimony submitted he did not believe the question arose to the levels of justifying an investigation by the Florida Building Commission that a code violation existed.  He then stated clearly a controversy existed over the interpretation of referenced standards.  He then stated he had not stated it in the POC but a binding interpretation or a declaratory statement would have been more appropriate.  He further stated there was no substantial evidence was submitted that proved Miami Dade was not performing their duties as an evaluation and certification entity.  He concluded by stating those factors were the basis of his motion and his vote.

 

Commissioner Schulte stated he was the third vote in the POC and he had never claimed to be an expert in anything.  He then stated he puts good common sense towards any decision he makes.  He further stated he listened to both sides and he wished the presentation from the defense was available for the plenary session to view because a lot of the issues brought to light were answered in the defenses’ presentation.  He stated he felt very comfortable making his decision based on the information presented to the POC.  He further stated he agreed with Commissioner Kidwell and Commissioner Stone and the comments they had made.  He then stated he had heard various commissioners stating they had unresolved issues and technical questions regarding the petition.  He continued by stating he had heard the terms slippery slope and bad precedent.  He stated he believed it would go that direction if the Commission gave the petition this attention because other competitors would be bringing products forward, it would not be the last time if this petition goes forward.  He concluded by stating he had been very comfortable making his decision based on the information the POC was presented with.  He restated he was no concrete expert; he was a roofing contractor relying on the information being presented to him and based on that he decided to support the motion that was put in place at the POC and would do so again.

 

Commissioner Palacios asked what the motion on the floor was.

 

Mr. Blair responded stating the motion was to deny the investigation per the POC’s recommendation.

 

Commissioner Palacios clarified 2 of the POC members who voted were knowledgeable in that area and the third member felt confident in his vote after viewing the presentation at the POC.

 

Commissioner Boyer stated he supported he was not a member of the POC, but he sat through it and watched both sides.  He also stated he wished the presentation would have been brought to the Commission because it would have answered a lot of questions.  He further stated if he had been a member he would have supported the motion just as he would support the motion on the floor.

 

Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Kidwell asked if the stirrup wire was structural or to just hold the rebar in place. 

 

Commissioner Kidwell responded stating in the presentation the other party presented at the POC it was explained the purpose of that wire was so they could be put into the machine which is the form for the concrete components and not a standard stirrup generally seen needed to resist sheer forces. 

 

Commissioner Gregory stated it was his understanding that concrete coverage so that water intrusion was not allowed so that water can obtain access to the reinforcement rod that would begin to corrode it, which would then structurally makes the member unstable.  He then asked if the wire was attached to the rebar and it was out of tolerance for coverage would it be allowing water intrusion a possibility of degradation of the rebar

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated the determination of what the purpose of that bar is, was very important.  He then stated the way the Code was written it speaks that the measurement was to be taken from a structural steel to the edge of the concrete.  He further stated it did not refer to tie wire or any other steel component in that system if that component was not a structural component.  He continued by stating the defendant’s testimony at the POC negated the bar was there for the purpose of putting it into the machine, not as a structural component and had no purpose beyond the setting of the concrete.  He concluded by stating that was why the measurement would be taken from the #5 rebar as opposed to the 7/32 wire.

 

Vote to approve the motion to deny the investigation resulted in 19 in favor, 4 opposed (Vann, Grippa, Norkunas and Gregory).  Motion carried.

 

Mr. Dudley asked for a motion to either grant or deny that petition because it was a final agency action. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated he would take from the general motion to support the POCs recommendation for a motion to deny an investigation, but he would bring back a detailed final order at the next Commission meeting the commission’s approval so all the details could be included.

 

Mr. Dudley agreed that was acceptable.

 

 

 

 

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

 

Steven Bassett

 

Mr. Bassett asked what a Commission meeting would be without commentary from him at the end.  He then stated at last Commission meeting he was graciously given a plaque for his years of service and it wasn’t until the last person received his plaque that someone had the chance to say something.  He continued by stating he wanted to come back and say thank you to all of the commissioners he had served with over the years. He stated he had enjoyed it very much and he had learned a lot.  He then stated he had one piece of advice to give the new commissioners who are serving now and that advice was to always vote your convictions.  He further stated he had proof that sometimes it comes back and you end up winning even though at that point in time you voted against something.  He reiterated the commissioners should vote their convictions and stick with their convictions.

 

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Bassett for his comments and for remaining involved in the process. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated he brought discs containing the Sunshine Law and public ethics guides available from the attorney general’s office and the open government office.  He stated he did not have enough for everyone, but some commissioners had picked their copy up 3 or 4 meetings previous.

 

Commissioner Gross stated there were a lot of new commissioners and in an effort to get to know one another he wanted to spend a few minutes introducing himself and his shareholder.  He then stated maybe in the future each commissioner could take 5 minutes to introduce themselves, as well.  He continued by stating he was a 45 years resident of the state of Florida.  He stated he started his career as a union apprentice carpenter. He further stated he still had his tools but his wife only lets him build shelves in the garage these days.  He continued stating after his carpentry career he decided to attend the University of Florida to obtain a degree in architecture.  He stated he did all of his stents locally, as president of the Architect Association, president of CSI, served on local committees and boards.  He then stated he practices architecture doing mostly corporate commercial work.  He stated his first building was a medical building and he had done a lot of ACCA approved work.  He then stated he had worked very well with the agency for healthcare administration.  He stated he had done a lot of broadcast television, office interiors, and pharmaceutical facilities.  He then stated about half of his practice was accessibility, which was what he specialized in, which was how he became chairman of the Accessibility TAC at the Commission.  He further stated he had done about 700 defense cases for people who have been sued on ADA and a lot of modification drawings. 

 

Commissioner Gross stated the brochure regarding his shareholder was what stimulated him to talk at the meeting.  He then stated as he had previously stated every commissioner represents a certain shareholder and a certain interest.  He further stated represented the commercial real estate industry, a shareholder who is the third largest sales tax generator in Florida which gets a lot of attention from legislatures and the governor, making commercial real estate very important in the state of Florida.  He continued by stating he was a member and represented a group called BOMA, Building Owners and Managers Association, people who own and operate the big office buildings in major cities around the country.  He stated in Florida there were 7 chapters and also a state organization he belonged to, as well as a regional and international.  He further stated within BOMA he was a member of its Energy and Government Affairs Committee and also of the Toby Committee, which was in the brochure he handed out.  He stated the brochure was of the Toby awards most chapters have around the country in BOMA.  He then stated if they had not gone to a Toby Awards he recommended attending indicating it was like an Academy Awards night for office buildings.  He stated prior to giving the awards the judges go through the buildings with white gloves, into the bathrooms, the mechanical rooms and janitorial closets.  He continued by stating they even talked to tenants when the landlords were not there, asking how the buildings were serviced, the landscaping, accessibility and a number of other issues.  He then stated at a black tie event people were given awards which people were really impressed with.  He reiterated if any commissioner had not been to one, they should try to experience one Toby judging.  He continued by stating besides BOMA there were some other organizations and commercial real estate he was active in: ICSE – shopping center people in which Publix was very active in, IRM – the real estate managers financial ends; and CREW – a real estate organization of women. He then stated the agenda the commercial real estate industry was very simple: keep codes uniform within the state, try to stick to the IBC as much as possible.  He further stated commercial real estate was very involved with accessibility, wanting their buildings to be accessible, and with existing buildings they want fairness.  He stated energy was a very big issue and they have watched the reductions and energy use for years, office buildings that use mostly just lighting and air conditioning were the biggest energy users have been retrofitting and changing; existing building triggers were very important to them, too because of the cost.  He then stated 2 non-Building Commission issues: forced communication entry (communication companies coming into the building with communication lines without the owner’s permission and the owners’ taxes have always been big users.

 

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Gross.  He stated the veteran Commissioners would be receiving an email from staff recommending each Commissioner, if willing, will tell their fellow Commissioners about themselves.  He further stated the importance of knowing of the stakeholders each commissioner represents i.e. what each commissioner brings to the table.  He stated it was important to do these introductions during the plenary session so that all of the information is out in the Sunshine.  He concluded by stating the Commission cares about how the new appointees do and it was incumbent on the veterans since they had been there longer just to let you know a little bit of what the commissioners do.  He concluded by stating the email was on its way and as many as possible would be heard each meeting depending on the agenda.  He stated there were approximately 15 veteran commissioners.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated under the topic Florida Building Commission website there were a number of notices, including an informational notice on pool and spa drain safety.  He then stated the notice refers directly to section 424.2.2.6 and was put into place in June of 2002.   He then stated the Commission had put into the code various areas with respect to entrapment and this particular section and in particular ANSI APSP7.  He further stated ANSI APSP7 now takes the specific section and is recommended for use only in accordance with ANSI APSP7.  He then stated so the Commission does not put out misleading information and unnecessary information the notice needs to be removed from the website. He further stated he knew the Commission voted to put it on the website as a recommendation from the TAC and he was not sure of the correct legal way to remove it. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Dixon had noted it and would look into it.  He further stated it was important when any commissioner noticed an inconsistency it should be brought forward for correction.  He stated it was hard to maintain any website and this one in particular. 

 

Commissioner Browdy stated in view of financial realities of the moment it would seem appropriate to schedule a Commission budget committee meeting for the April Commission meeting in April.  He requested Mr. Blair add that item to the schedule if it was appropriate.

 

Commissioner Gregory stated because there were pending issues facing the industry and after talking with Commissioner Browdy he thought it appropriate to make a suggestion to revive the Swimming Pool subcommittee which had been under the Plumbing TAC.  He asked Commissioner Vann if it would approve that.  He further stated he would like to revive the swimming pool subcommittee to hear the issues and ten make the recommendation to the Commission.  He stated there had been an existing Code problem, a drain problem with commercial pools and residential pools and it would give the industry the voice it surely needs. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated with Commissioner Gregory on the Commission as a designate he believed it would be appropriate.

 

Commissioner Gregory stated he would volunteer to chair the subcommittee if he were so appointed.

 

Mr. Blair stated the Energy Workgroup would be having its first meeting at the end of this plenary session.  He encouraged the commissioners to attend if they were going to be available.  He stated the next morning, February 4th the three rules repeal hearings and a Soffit Workgroup meeting.  He then stated it was very important the commissioners write down the following information for upcoming teleconference calls:

 

February 17th @ 10:00a.m. Rule 9B-72.

 

February 24th @ 10:00a.m. Roofing TAC meeting.

 

 

RECESS

 

11:55 a.m. Adjourn.