1.
DCA08-DEC-168 by Leonard Terry,
President, Omnicrete
Question:
Is Omnicrete
exempt from the process to apply for a Florida Product Approval?
Answer:
State Product Approval is an option to local approval and
not a minimum requirement. Products that are not approved at the State level
may be subject to approval by the local authority having jurisdiction. No, it
does need a Florida Product Approval, either at a local level or the state
level. A structural wall system that is constructed to fit specific plans and
design is outside the scope of Rule 9B- 72. However, construction systems that
use forms to form the wall system on site do fall within the scope of Rule
9B-72.
2. DCA08-DEC-193
by Richard Mihalich, Plans Examiner and
Inspector, City of
Question 1: Does the code require artificial lighting in these areas when they are occupied?
Answer: Yes: Section 1205 of the code does not offer exceptions relative to general lighting.
3. DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan
Arlington, St. Johns County Building Department
Tabled/Deferred to December meeting
4. DCA08-DEC-201 by Michael Schultz, P.E.,
Buckeye
Question: Does Buckeye UltraFiber 500 fall within the scope of Rule 9B-72 for a Florida Product Approval?
Answer: No, since the product in question is
assembled and placed in the field, the product is outside the scope of Rule
9B-72. However, the product is subject to approval by the local authority
having jurisdiction.
5. DCA08-DEC-204 by Robert Jamieson,
Underwriters Laboratories
Question 1:
The final checkbox on the Administration Validation Checklist that states “… the Certification documentation submitted with this application indicates that the product, method, or system or construction described in this application meets or exceeds the Florida Building Code requirements and reference standards listed in the application” is intended for validation entity to validate to the Commission product compliance only with the test standards referenced in the Florida Building Code and is not intended to include the full scope of the Florida Building Code?
Answer:
The validation
entity is required to validate applications within the scope of the
application. In this case, if the application is using a certification mark or
listing indicating compliance with the standard adopted by the Code, the validation
entity is responsible to validate to the Florida Building Commission that the
standard listed on the product certificate complies with the test standard
referenced in the Code and the full structural scope
of the Code.
Question 2:
Please confirm that the Florida Building Commission is
willing to accept “Administrative Validation Checklist” submittals from UL in
which Check Box #12 is checked recognizing that Check Box #12 is not applicable
to “Administrative Validation Checklist” submittals from UL
Answer:
This is to confirm that, if an application for product approval using the certification method of compliance does not use rational analysis or evaluation report and the installation instructions are as tested, the checkbox 12 of the Administrative Validation checklist from UL is not applicable for the application.
DCA08-DEC-205 by Neil Melick, City of
Question 1: Is
it the intent of Section 301.13 of the
Answer: Yes.
Question 2: Does the phrase “appliances…shall be designed” in Section 301.13 mean that it is the responsibility of the appliance manufacturer to design their outdoor appliances to resist wind pressures since the manufacturer is the designer of the appliance?
Answer:
Yes. This is not just a
Question 3: Is it the intent of Section 301.13 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical that ALL mechanical appliances and equipment, including package units, condensing units and fans that are exposed to wind be designed and installed to resist wind pressures in accordance with section 1609 of the Florida Building Code, Building?
Answer: Yes
Question 4: If the answers to the above are in the affirmative, is there a different standard to be applied to mechanical appliances, equipment and their supports due to the use of the word “resist” in Section 301.13 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical rather than the use of the word “withstand” as stated in Section 1609.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building?
Answer: No, the intent of the language “resist” and “withstand” is the same.
Question 5: If the answers to questions 1 through 3
are in the affirmative and the answer to question 4 is in the negative, would
then the proposed installation be in violation of Section 301.13 of the
Answer: Yes, the installation would be in violation of Section 301.13 of the 2004 FBC-Mechanical.
Question 6: If the answer to question 5 above is in the affirmative, then what recourse/options do I have as a Code Official? Do I have the authority to withhold the Certificate of Occupancy?
Answer: Section 110 of the Florida Building Code gives the building official the authority to withhold or revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for violation of the provisions of the code.
.
DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshall/Building Official,
City of
Deferred for further
consideration by the Mechanical TAC at the next Commission meeting
Question 1: Does the rule
apply only to new construction of a new building, or does it also apply to
additions or alterations as defined in the FEBC?
Answer: The rule
applies to all buildings for which a permit for new construction is
issued. In this case, it would apply to
construction of new buildings, additions and level 3 alterations as defined in
the FBC-Existing
Building.
Question 2: If the rule
applies to additions, does an addition require the complete existing structure
to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)
For example: If an attached garage or a
screen enclosure is added to an existing home, are CO detectors required to be
installing within the complete existing structure?
Answer: YES, existing
buildings must be brought into compliance if the addition meets the
requirements of Rule 9B-3.0472, such as fossil fuel appliances or attached
garage. If not, NO.
Question 3. If
the rule applies to all alterations, does it require the complete existing
structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)
a.
Example #1: If a new gas furnace is installed in an existing
home, whereas it was electric before, are CO detectors required to be
installing within the complete existing structure?
b.
Example #2: If any type of permit is issued on the existing
structure are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete
existing structure?
Answer: YES, it applies to the complete existing
structure if it is a level 3 alteration (as defined in the
Question 4. If the answer is yes to the questions 2
or 3 above, must hardwired CO detectors be installed with a battery backup?
Answer:
For additions
(Question 2), YES.
For Level 3 alterations (Question 3),
YES.
Question 5.
Does
the rule apply to repairs, as defined by the FEBC?
Answer: NO.
Question 6. Does the rule apply to a change in occupancy,
as defined by the FEBC?
Answer: YES, if the change of occupancy meets the
requirements or intent of Rule 9B-3.0472.
DCA08-DEC-208 by Luke Ismert of Schier Products
Question: Does the code permit interceptors for use in public sewer systems that are less than 750 gallons in liquid capacity and conform to PDI G101/ASME A112.14.3 to be installed that have a grease retention capacity that is at least equal to or greater than a 750 pre-cast interceptor and are are our products in compliance with the code for this project?.
Answer: No, According to Section 1003.5, the minimum tank volume of grease interceptors shall be 750 gallons (2839 L). The only way a smaller size could be used would by invoking Section 104.11, Alternate material and methods, of the Florida Building Code, Building. Subject to approval of the local authority having jurisdiction, (note: the answer is consistent with the Commission action on DCA04- DEC-072).
DCA08-DEC-209 by Tom Hardiman of the
Modular Building Institute
Question One: Can the date of an executed contract be used to determine which version of the codes apply for a manufactured building?
Answer: A clear executed contract to construct a specific building or number of buildings may be used to determine which version of the Florida Building Code applies. A contract must provide for specific data, that mirror the data required by an application for permit e.g. date of execution, building owner or dealer, date of completion, etc. The contract is subject to verification by the Department of Community Affairs.
Question Two: If the answer to question one is yes, how long may a manufacturer continue to build under that contract?
Answer: Construction/sale of manufactured buildings under an executed contract must commence within six months from the date of the executed contract. Otherwise construction must be in accordance with the current Florida Building Code.
DCA08-DEC-210 by Joseph Valencia of Zyscovich
Architects
Deferred to local appeal board.
DCA08-DEC-212 by Jason Padgett, Millwork Information and Training
Dismissed due to no response to date to staff from petitioner
DCA08-DEC-216 by Vincent Vaulman, CCE, Regional
Manager, Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
Question One: Explain the differences between Alteration
Levels 1, 2, 3?
Answer: This
question is too general, and outside the scope of the declaratory statement
process. Question must be specific to a project in question.
Question Two: Would it make any difference if repairs had to be made to
more than 50% of the area if there is no change to room layout or arrangement?
Answer: No, the
scoping section of the Existing Building Code relative to repair (302.1) does
not take in consideration the percentage of work area.
Question Three: What impact
would pre-existing conditions (i.e., deteriorated metal studs) have (in
addition to hurricane damage) on the determination of alteration level if there
is no change to room layout or arrangement?
Answer: None. In order to determine whether the work is to be classified as repair or one of the alteration levels, one must consider the definitions of each term.
Question 4: What alteration level would you consider the removal and replacement of materials of like kind to return a property to pre-existing condition with no change to wall assembly/layout or floor plan.
Answer: Alteration Level 1.
DCA08-DEC-236 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Question 1: Are there any impact requirements outside the High Velocity Hurricane Zone when no ductwork is attached to the louver?
Answer: No.
Since the louver is not protecting an intake or exhaust ventilation ducts, the
impact requirement of Section 1609.1.2.1 does not apply.
Question
2: Are impact resistant louvers
required above 30 ft?
Answer: Louvers
are not required to be impact resistant when installed above 30 feet of grade.
Question
3: Are louvers subject to cyclic loading after impact test as well as
the static test mentioned in 1609.1.2.2.1?
Answer: Louvers are not subject to cyclic
loading test after impact. However, they are subject to the static test of
Section 1609.1.2.2.1
DCA08-DEC-237 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Question
1: Do all louvers installed
in buildings that are not in the wind borne debris region or the high velocity
hurricane zones, where impact resistance is mandated require
Answer: All louvers are subject to review and approval by the local authority having jurisdiction. However, the State Approval may be obtained as an alternative to local approval. In order for a standard louver to demonstrate compliance with the Code, it must be tested to the applicable standards specified by the Code (Rational analysis cannot be used in lieu of testing).
Question
2: If the answer to the above
is that they must have a
Answer: See Answer to Question 1
Question
3: If DCA04-DEC-219 is valid,
must local building officials accept the louver installation if the
calculations are stamped by a
Answer: DCA04-DEC-219 is specific to “custom one-of-a-kind” louvers. Custom one-of-a-kind louvers are outside the scope of Rule 9B-72, and therefore, subject to review and approval by the authority having jurisdiction.
DCA08-DEC-238 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Hospitals and nursing homes-
Question 1: Does this mean that the only large missile impact test to be used is from a 9 pound 2x4 traveling at 50 feet per second plus the cyclic wind pressure testing?
Answer: Yes, however the cyclic wind pressure test is not required for louvers.
Question
2: If the space behind the structure
is designed as an open structure, is impact protection required?
Answer: Yes, because the space is always required to be designed as enclosed.
Question 3: Is there ever a requirement for the 2x4 to impact at 80 feet per second?
Answer: This question is too broad.
Question 4: Does the large missile test only apply to louvers below 30 feet?
Answer: Yes, however the test applies to louvers including those at 30 feet.
Schools-
The questions below are related to schools that are Enhanced Hurricane Protection Areas (EHPA):
Schools that are
designated as Enhanced Hurricane Protection Areas (2007
Question 1: Does
this mean that the only large missile impact test to be used is from a 9 pound
2 X 4 traveling at 50 feet per second plus the cyclic wind pressure testing?
Answer: Missile impact test specification must be performed in accordance to SSTD 12; however the cyclic wind pressure test is not required for louvers.
Question 2. If the
space behind the structure is designed as an open structure is impact protection
required?
Answer: Yes, because the space is always required to be designed as enclosed.
Question 3: Is there ever a requirement for the 2 X 4 to impact at 80
feet per second?
Answer: This question is too broad.
Question
4: Does
the standard apply only to louvers below 30 feet?
Answer: No, the standards applies to louvers at any height.
DCA08-DEC-239 by W Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.
Question 1: Must all louvers installed in high
velocity hurricane zone (Miami-Dade and Broward Counties) have a Dade County
NOA or is a Florida Approval number sufficient?
Answer: All products used in HVHZ must be in compliance with the Code requirements that are specific to the HVHZ. Demonstration of compliance with the Code can be either by obtaining local approval or state approval.
Question 2: Section 1626.1.g exempts all louvers in a high velocity hurricane zone from impact testing as long as they properly consider ASCE 7 in the design of the building. Does this mean that if the room or duct is designed as an open structure (internal pressure coefficients are zero) that there are no impact requirements for the louver?
Answer: Yes, there are no impact requirements provided the structure properly considers ASCE 7 in the design.
Question 3: If louvers are installed in high velocity hurricane zone are subject to large missile impact, is the only impact to be from a 9 pound 2 x 4 traveling at 50 feet per second no matter what the building occupancy?
Answer: This question is too broad.
DCA08-DEC-255 by Joseph R. Hetzel of Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association International (DASMA)
Withdrawn by petitioner
DCA08-DEC-257 by Chris Birchfield of No-Burn SE Inc.
QUESTION:
Do No – Burn products fall within the scope of Rule 9B-72?
Answer:
No, since the product is not structural, it falls outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. Products that are not approved at the State level may be subject to approval by the local authority having jurisdiction
DCA08-DEC-258 by David E Sands of Bamboo Technologies
QUESTION:
Do Bamboo Technologies structural
Bamboo poles products fall within the scope of Rule 9B-72?
Answer:
No. The inquiry in
question is specific to the material and strength “properties” of the Bamboo
poles which falls under category “structural components” and sub-category
“materials”. Sub-category “structural components/materials” were removed from
Rule 9B-72 during the revision to the Rule and consequently, the product in
question will not fall within the scope of Rule 9B-72. Products that are not
approved at the State level may be subject to approval by the local authority
having jurisdiction.
DCA08-DEC-266 by Timothy Graboski of Ridged Systems LLC
WITHDRAWN by applicant
DCA08-DEC-267 by Glen Lathers of Hillsborough County Public Schools
Dismissed due to no response to date to staff from petitioner
DCA08-DEC-268 by Sandra Gump of Fomo Products, Inc.
QUESTION:
Do Handi
Foam Fireblock and Handi
Foam spray foam products fall within the scope of Rule 9B-72?
ANSWER:
No, since the products are not structural, they fall outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. Products that are not approved at the State level may be subject to approval by the local authority having jurisdiction.
DCA08-DEC-275 by Ken Norton of Power Design Inc
Case 1: A proposed project located in the City of
Ft. Meyers FL, is designed as a 7 story residential condominium structure that
surrounds a three level enclosed parking garage. The living units on the first
3 levels are separated from the garage by the required fire walls and a
corridor. There are also units built over the garage on the remaining 4
stories. It appears excessive to require the installation of CO detection
outside a sleeping unit on the 7th floor, when the only requiring criteria, and generating source of carbon monoxide is a
mechanically ventilated, enclosed parking structure on the lowest 3 levels of
the building.
a. Is the Rule intended to require that, with
no other fossil burning appliances in consideration, the entire building will
need to be equipped with carbon monoxide detection within 10 feet of every
sleeping area?
Answer: Yes. The project in question is one building and according to Rule 9B-3.0472 the whole building is subject to the requirements of the Rule.
b. Is there any consideration given for
a carbon monoxide monitoring system installed in the garage area?
Answer: No.
Case 2: A proposed
project located in
a. Does the Rule require carbon monoxide detection in every
other residential unit within 10 feet of
each room used for sleeping purposes, without taking into consideration their
proximity to the actual appliances?
Answer: Yes, the Rule would apply to the whole
building.
b.
Would
the detection only be required in the units where the appliances reside?
Answer: No. The detection will apply to the whole
building.
Case 3: A proposed 30 story residential high rise
in
Will the Rule require that all units
in the building be provided with carbon monoxide detection outside every
sleeping area, no matter how distant they may be from the generator?
Answer: Yes, all units in the building must be
provided with carbon monoxide detectors.
General 4: It appears that based on the provisions for
hospitals, in patient hospice facilities, and nursing homes, the Rule
recognizes the value of a monitored detection system in the area of the
production of the carbon monoxide gas.
a. Could this provision be expanded
to cover the circumstances outlined above?
Answer: No. The Florida Building Commission has
no authority to approve alternatives.
b. As an alternative, could a reasonable direction be given addressing carbon
monoxide detection in selected units based on their proximity to the expected
source of the gas, as in only being required in the area of origin and all
immediately adjacent units, above, below and to the sides?
Answer: This question is outside the scope of the
DEC statement process.