Legal Report
April 17, 2014
THE GAYLORD PALMS
6000 WEST OSCEOLA
PARKWAY
KISSIMMEE, FLORIDA
PA POC/Structural TAC
DS
2014 - 023 by Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm
Interpretation No.1
A. Does the Storm Stoppers product as described fall within the scope
of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building?
Answer: Answer
is not possible. No specific project/level of work was provided, and
there are no specific facts and circumstances provided.
B. If the answer is yes, then what are the specific Code provisions
from the 2010 Florida Building Code, Existing Building, that apply?
Answer: See answer to question A.
Interpretation No.2
A. What are the specific statutes, Code
provisions and laws that give the Florida Building Commission jurisdiction or
legal authority to regulate or approve any product for use on an Existing
Building AFTER the building has been constructed and received a certificate of
occupancy, when such product is not used or incorporated into the permanent
structure, nor attached with permanent anchors that penetrate into the
structure of the building's frame?
Answer: Answer is not possible. Question is too general.
B. Are wood structural panels (i.e. plywood)
as-described in the Florida Building Code, Residential, exempt from having to
comply with Florida Statutes Section 553.842(5)?
Answer: Answer is
not possible. This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s
product.
C. If, in the opinion of the Florida Building
Commission, wood structural panels (i.e, plywood) are exempt from Florida Statutes Section 553.842 (5),
then would Storm Stoppers be entitled to receive the same exempt treatment
as wood structural panels assuming the Storm Stopper product is
equal to if not better than wood structural panels, for the temporary or
emergency protection of window or doors from wind and rain?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to
the Petitioner’s product; and there are no specific facts and circumstances
provided.
D. What is the Florida product approval number
for wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) showing that product
was approved by the Florida Building Commission?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to the
Petitioner’s product.
E. Since the Storm Stoppers product is equal to
if not better than wood structural panels Identified in Section
1609.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential, is Storm Stoppers entitled to receive the same treatment as wood structural panels
and not apply for a product approval number?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This
question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
F. Is Keddo Enterprises and Florida Building Commission recognized groups like the
IHPA, FLASH, FEMA and the IBHS permitted to advertise
or market wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) for "Wind-borne
Debris Protection, " as a "Shutter" and
for "Hurricane Protection" in Florida (even though plywood does not have a Florida product approval number)?
Answer: Answer is not
possible. This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
G. Is the Florida Building Commission violating Section 553.842(5) in their promotion of Table 1609.1.2 in the Florida Building Code,
Residential, by advertising wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) as "Wind-Borne Debris Protection" (at a time when plywood does not have a Florida product approval number and has not been shown
to pass the ASTM Large Missile Impact Test and the Cyclic Pressure
Differential Tests)?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question
does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
H. Can Keddo Enterprises, Including home improvement stores, advertise, sell, offer, market or distribute plywood
for wind-borne debris protection or hurricane protection, since plywood is actually sold by home improvement stores throughout Florida for
that purpose both long before and during an approaching, hurricane?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to
the Petitioner’s product, and it is not
allowed to comment on the conduct of another in a declaratory statement
petition.
I. Additionally, major home improvement stores
advertise or sell plywood in Florida as a Shutter, hurricane protection or as protection from wind-borne debris both long before and as a hurricane is approaching. For example, the home improvement
chain Lowe's has a YouTube video showing how to board up windows with plywood
(which consumers can purchase from Lowe's). See video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jCUrYY3lEk&feature=share&list=PLA3F904701785FEB8
Can
Keddo Enterprises create a similar video advertising
or marketing plywood as a "shutter," "hurricane protection" or as "protection from
wind-borne debris", without violating Florida Statutes Section 553.842(5)?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to
the Petitioner’s product, and it is not allowed to comment on the conduct of
another in a declaratory statement petition.
Interpretation
3:
Does the Storm Stoppers product fall outside the scope of Rule
61G20-3.001, State Product
Approval Program?
Answer:
The answer is “Yes”. The product in
question is a proposed alternative to the Wood Structural Panels (prescriptive
specification method for protection of opening) as specified in Section R
301.2.1.2, Exception, of the Florida Building Code “FBC”, Residential. As per Section 104.11 of the Florida
Building Code, Building, an alternative method of construction to that
prescribed in the FBC is subject to review and approval by the local building
official, when such alternative is substantiated to be equivalent of that
prescribed in the FBC in quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and
safety. Therefore, the Florida Building
Commission has no authority to approve said alternate as part of the State Product
Approval Program.
Revised answer for
further clarification:
Answer: The answer is “Yes”. The product in question is a structural protection system (product) which is proposed to be used as an alternative to the Wood Structural Panels (prescriptive specification method for protection of opening) as specified in Section R 301.2.1.2, Exception, of the Florida Building Code “FBC”, Residential. As per Section 104.11 of the Florida Building Code, Building, an alternative method of construction to that prescribed in the FBC is subject to review and approval by the local building official, when such alternative is substantiated to be equivalent of that prescribed in the FBC in quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and safety. For the product in question, local approval must be in accordance with Section 553.8425, Local Product Approval, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Florida Building Commission has no authority to approve said alternate as part of the State Product Approval Program.
PA POC
DS
2014 – 024 by Warren W. Schaefer, P.E. of W.W. Schaefer Engineering &
Consulting, P.A
Question #1:
To the question #1: Situation 1: I am the engineer that prepared, signed and sealed the
window drawings NO. 1518, 1519 &1520 that exist as part of Dade County
NOA's 13-0829.18, .19 & .17 & Florida approvals FL10015, 10022&
10026 respectively. The manufacturer of these products is in process of
applying for 1A state approvals using the referenced NOA's, listing Dade as the
QA & certification entity. The manufacturer desires to list me as the
validator. I have no financial interest in any of the parties involved
(manufacturer, Dade, test lab), I will not be listed on the applications as any
entity in the application, and I am listed with the state as a validator. Can I
validate these approvals?
Answer: No, as per Rule
61G20-3.009 (4), the work in question is considered to be an evaluation as
defined in Rule 61G20-3.002 and therefore a validator/Engineer cannot validate
his/her own evaluation. This is because, in this case, the Petitioner would receive financial
compensation by performing the said validation.
Question #2:
To the question #2: Situation 2: I am
the engineer that has prepared, signed and sealed installation instructions for
products being issued to the State of Florida for product approval under method
1A (Entity certification) & Florida approval FL16258. WDMA will be the
certification and QA entity for these products. In the product listing, the
manufacturer will be uploading my certified installation instructions. The
manufacturer desires that I be the validator.
I have no financial interest in any of the parties involved
(manufacturer, WDMA, test lab), I will not be listed on the applications as an entity in the
application, and I am listed with the state as a validator. Can I validate the
approvals?
Answer: No, as per Rule 61G20-3.009 (4), the work in
question is considered to be an evaluation as defined in Rule 61G20-3.002 and
therefore a validator/Engineer cannot validate his/her own evaluation. This is
because, in this case, the Petitioner would receive financial compensation by
performing the said validation.
Swimming Pool TAC
DS
2014 - 032 by Ryan Holland of Evolution Pools & Construction Services
Inc.
Question #1:
To the
question #1: Is a baptismal special use pool considered to be a commercial pool? If
Answer:
No. The project in question
“baptismal pool – not for use for bathing or swimming” falls outside the scope
of the definition for “Public Swimming Pools” as defined in Section 424.1 of
the 2010 Florida Building Code (FBC), Building and therefore it is not subject
to the provisions of Section 424, Swimming Pools and Bathing Places (Public and
Private) of the FBC, Building.
Question #2:
To the
question #2: Does this special use pool require a 48-inch high fence?
If the
answer to question 1 is that this is not a commercial pool then this would have
to be classified as a residential pool.
The code is very clear that an approved ASTM F 1346 cover can be used on
a residential pool to comply with 42.2.17 through 424.17.3.
Answer:
No. The project in question
“baptismal pool – not for use for bathing or swimming” falls outside the scope
of the definition for “Private Swimming Pool/Residential” as defined in Section
424.2.2 of the 2010 Florida Building Code (FBC), Building and therefore it is
not subject to the provisions of Section 424.2, Private Swimming Pools, of the
FBC, Building.
Special Occupancy TAC/Structural TAC
DS
2014-035 by Scott E. Rudacille, Esq. of Blalock
Walters. P.A.
Question 1: Does a voluntary alteration project to a pre-FIRM
single-family residential structure involving removal of more than 30% of the
truss system in order to create a tray or vaulted ceiling constitute Substantial
Structural Damage pursuant to FBC Existing Building Section 202, or is it
reviewed as a structural alteration under FBC Existing Building Section 807.4?”,
Answer: The project would not be classified as
“Substantial Structural Damage” and would be reviewed under 807.4.
Question 2: If an alteration project is deemed to be Substantial
Structural Damage under FBC Existing Building Section 202, is it automatically
deemed to also be Substantial Damage for flood design requirements, regardless
of whether the project meets the definitions of Substantial Damage and
Substantial Improvement in FBC Section1612.2 (ie. The
“50% Rule”)?”
Answer: The answer is no. Regardless of the impact to the roof system,
flood design requirements for new construction are only triggered if the
project exceeds the “50% Rule”, as described in the definition of Substantial
Damage and Substantial Improvement in FBC Section 1612.2.
Special Occupancy TAC/Structural TAC (Note:
action need to be resolved for Question #4)
Special Occupancy TAC:
DS2014-037 by Wayne R. Thorne, Building
Official of Longboat Key Building Department
Question 1:
To the
question” As it relates to noncompliant
flood elevation buildings, is it the intent of the Florida Building Code,
Building Section 3109.1.1 exception to prevent any repairs and require the
building to become compliant by elevating them on new foundations, relocating
the building, or rebuild the buildings at the minimum required elevation?”, the answer is not possible.
This question is general and falls outside the scope of the declaratory
statement process.
Question 2:
To the
question” As it relates to the definitions of repair, would sealing of
fractures and fissures be considered a repair or modification?”, the
answer is repair. The work in question is
considered patching/restoration of building elements for the purpose of
maintaining such elements in good condition and thus falls within the scope of
“Repair” as defined in Section 202 of the Florida Building Code, Existing
Building.
Question 3:
To the
question” As it relates to the definitions of repair, would cleaning of
corroded
reinforcements and applying concrete patching or filling the spalled areas be considered a repair or modification?”, ?”, the answer is repair. The work in question is considered
patching/restoration of building elements for the purpose of maintaining such elements
in good condition and thus falls within the scope of “Repair” as defined in
Section 202 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building.
Question 4:
To the question” As it
relates to the definitions of repair, would replacement of reinforcements or
ties, or realignment of sprung reinforcements, be considered repair or
modification?”,
the answer is alteration/modification. As per Section 403.1 of the 2010 Florida
Building Code, Existing Building, the work in question falls within the scope
of Level 1 Alteration and thus is considered alteration /modification.
Question 5:
Would Florida Building Code, Building Section 3109.1.1
exception have the same requirements if the building was built as compliant
with a pile foundation and for the flood elevation? ”, Answer is not possible. This question falls outside the scope of the
project in question.
Structural TAC:
DS2014-037 by Wayne R. Thorne, Building
Official of Longboat Key Building Department
Question 1:
To the question” As it relates to noncompliant flood elevation
buildings, is it the intent of the Florida Building Code, Building Section
3109.1.1 exception to prevent any repairs and require the building to become
compliant by elevating them on new foundations, relocating the building, or
rebuild the buildings at the minimum required elevation?”, the answer is not possible.
This question is general and falls outside the scope of the declaratory
statement process.
Question 2:
To the question” As it relates to
the definitions of repair, would sealing of fractures and fissures be
considered a repair or modification?”, the answer is repair. The work in question is considered
patching/restoration of building elements for the purpose of maintaining such
elements in good condition and thus falls within the scope of “Repair” as
defined in Section 202 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building.
Question 3:
To the question” As it relates to
the definitions of repair, would cleaning of corroded
reinforcements and applying concrete patching or filling the spalled areas be considered a repair or modification?”, ?”, the answer is repair. The work in question is considered
patching/restoration of building elements for the purpose of maintaining such
elements in good condition and thus falls within the scope of “Repair” as
defined in Section 202 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building.
Question 4:
To the question” As it
relates to the definitions of repair, would replacement of reinforcements or
ties, or realignment of sprung reinforcements, be considered repair or
modification?”,
the answer is repair. The work in question is considered patching/restoration
of building elements for the purpose of maintaining such elements in good
condition and thus falls within the scope of “Repair” as defined in Section 202
of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building.
Question 5:
Would Florida Building Code,
Building Section 3109.1.1 exception have the same requirements if the building
was built as compliant with a pile foundation and for the flood elevation? ”, Answer is not
possible. This question falls outside
the scope of the project in question.