Issue: The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether a Building Official is allowed to accept a engineered foundation for a modular building as an alternate method rather than the prescriptive requirements of Chapter 18 of the Florida Building Code, if the design can be shown to transfer all uplift, lateral, gravity and soil bearing loads as required by the Florida Building Code.

Question - Can a Building Official accept a engineered foundation for a modular building as a alternate method rather than the prescriptive requirements of Chapter 18 of the Florida Building Code, if the design can be shown to transfer all uplift, lateral, gravity and soil bearing loads as required by the Florida Building Code?

Answer - Yes, according to section 104.11 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Building, the Building Official has the authority to accept alternative design to that of the prescriptive requirements of the code where he/she finds that the proposed design/alternative complies with the intent of the code.

DCA07 DEC-047. [May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: [The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether a Professional Engineer is required to prepare design plans for an electrical project at 920 S. Tamiami Trail, Venice Florida. The project will involve adding a 400 amp feeder circuit, and the cost will be $65,000.00. The petitioner also asked if language in the Florida Statutes (471.003) trumps (overrides) language in the Florida Building Code (Section 105.3.1).

Question One - Does the language in the Florida Statutes trump (override) language in the Florida Building Code.?

Answer - Yes.

Question Two - Does the above mentioned project require an Engineer to prepare the plans?

Answer Option One - Yes, the project exceeds $50,000.00.

DCA07-DEC-141 [August 2007 Legal Report]

Question - Does the above mentioned project require an Engineer to prepare the plans?

Answer - Yes, the project exceeds 240 volts.

DCA07-DEC-146 [August 2007 Legal Report]

Question One - Is a temporary 48'x56' Modular Sales Office building exempt from all of the Florida Building Code except for the requirements in chapter 11 relative to accessibility issues?

Answer - Yes, the Florida Statutes exempts Temporary Modular Office buildings from the Florida Building Code except for the requirements in the code relating to accessibility by persons with disabilities.

Question Two - Do Florida Building Code sections 107.1 (relative to temporary structures), and 1805.2 (relative to footings) apply to buildings which are exempt from the Florida Building Code?

Answer - No, the only part of the Florida Building Code that is applicable to these buildings are those pertaining to accessibility issues.

Question Three - Can a local government pass a local ordinance that limits the amount of time, (e.g.180 days or less) for such a building in order for it to be considered temporary?

Answer – Application of the code to address the issue in question is not appropriate since the building is exempt from the code by statute.

Chapter 4 Special Detailed Requirements Based on Use and Occupancy.

DCA06-DEC-131 [July 2006 Legal Report]

Question 1: Section 407.1.2 states that the wind design shall be based on the code in effect at the time the building was permitted. However, in section 407.3.2.1.1, the wording Florida Building Code, Building implies that the current code should be the basis of the evaluation. Please clarify which code is to be used.

Answer: According to Section 407.3.2.1, building sustained substantial structural damage is required to be evaluated by a registered design professional necessary to substantiate whether the entire structure of the building in question is adequate in accordance with the building codes that were in effect when the building was permitted.

Question 2: If the evaluation finds the repaired building meets the original building code but not the current building code and the response to question 1 is the current code, does this mean that all walls on all levels must be modified to meet the current code?

Answer: where the original construction is determined to be adequate as per the evaluation indicated in the answer to Question #1 above, then only the repairs are required to comply with the current Florida Building Code.

Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is to upgrade all walls on all levels, does this mean that the windows and doors must also be made to conform to the current code as this building is in a wind-borne debris region?

Answer: Based on the answer to Question #2 above, no answer is needed to this question.

Question 4: If the answer to all the above is to upgrade the building, are there any intended limits to the cost of upgrading versus the value of the building. An example: a twenty story building has 40% damage to one floor, is it intended that this will trigger and upgrade of the entire structure?

Answer: Based on the answer to Question #2 above, no answer is needed to this question.

DCA07-DEC-002 [February 2007 Legal Report]

Question: Is the 975 gallon maximum allowable quantity limit for corrosive liquids shown in Table 414.2.4 modified by the provisions contained in Note “f” to said table, thus allowing maximum capacity of 1,950 gallons of liquid if the provisions of the Florida Fire Prevention Code for an outside control area have been satisfied.

Answer: Yes. Table 414.2.4 of the Florida Building Code – Building, allows maximum quantities of 975 gallons with an increase of 100 percent in outdoor control areas in accordance with Section 414.6.

Chapter 5 General Building Heights and Areas

DCA06-DEC-218 [October 2006 Legal Report]

Question: Can the project in question as described in item #1 above be constructed as one building?

Answer: Yes, as long as the building in question is in compliance with requirements of Section 507.2 of the Florida Building Code, Building.

Chapter 7 Fire-Resistance-Rated Construction

DCA07-DEC-011 [February 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner is requesting an interpretation of Section 703.4.1 and Chapter 35 ASTM E 136 of the Florida Building Code, Building.

Question 1: Does the CBPB flooring element have to be noncombustible in Type II-B construction?

Answer: yes, in Type IIB construction, flooring assembly is required to be noncombustible.

Question 2: Does CBPB tested to ASTM E-136 with a modified ten (10) minute test comply with the Florida Building Code requirement for noncombustibility?

Answer: No. Neither the code nor the standards allow for modification of ASTM E -136. Thus the product in question is combustible.

Chapter 9 Fire Protection Systems

DCA05 DEC-142 [August 2005 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner seeks to determine whether the 2004 Florida Building Code, Residential requires fire protection sprinklers on single family dwellings three or more stories.

Question - Does the Residential Code require fire protection sprinklers on single family dwellings three or more stories.

Answer - No, for three or fewer stories. The 2004 Florida Building Code, Residential (FRC) is limited in scope to “not more than three stories in height” According to the FRC, a three story single family dwelling is not required to be sprinklered. However, The Residential Code is NOT applicable to buildings more than three stories in height. Those buildings would have to meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code, Building. According to section. 903.2.7, an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 is required.

DCA06-DEC-162 [August 2006 Legal Report]

Question: Is it the intent of the Florida Building – Section 910 to require smoke and heat venting for ESFR sprinkler protected buildings as specifically for Crossroads- ~~Lot 4~~ Lot 1 building?

Answer: Yes. According to Section 910.2.1 and 903.2.8, both a smoke and heat vents, and an automatic sprinkler system are required to be installed in the project in question. In addition to the requirements of Section 910.2.1 and 903.2.8, the project in question must also comply with the requirements of Sections 910.2.3 and 413.1. However, section 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment, may be used to allow for other alternates subject to approval from the building official.

DCA06-DEC-181 [August 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: Is it the intent of the Section 902.3 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Existing Building, that the existing warehouse be renovated with draft curtains or/and an ESFR sprinkler system, and be provided with roof vents in accordance with the requirements of Section 910 of the Florida Building Code, if an addition is to be provided without a 4 hour fire resistive rated building separation wall?

Answer: Yes. As per Sections 910.2.1 and 903.2.8, the project in question will be required to provide for smoke and heat vents and an automatic sprinkler system for both the addition and the existing building.

Question #2: Is the intent of the 2004 Florida Building Code that additions cannot be provided for warehouses of non-rated construction, built following the unlimited area provisions of the 2001 FBC, unless the existing facility is altered to meet the new building code requirements for venting in Section 910 of the 2004 FBC, or bringing the existing structure up to Type I-A construction?

Answer: In order for the proposed project to be built following the unlimited area provisions of Section 507.2 or Table 503, both the existing warehouse and the addition will be required to meet the requirements of Section 507.2 or be of Type I-A construction.

Chapter 10 Means of Egress

DCA06-DEC-175 [August 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: Is the correct allowable travel distance in Table 1015.1 for an S-1 Occupancy supposed to be 400 feet?

Answer: No. According to Table 1015.1, the maximum exist access travel distance for the project in question is 200 feet (without sprinkler system) and 250 feet (with sprinkler system).

Question #2: If not, is the travel distance allowed to be increased to 400 feet if smoke and heat vents are installed?

Answer: Yes. There is a Scribner's error in section 1015.2 where the reference to S1 was deleted unintentionally. Therefore, it was the intent of the code to allow the travel distance to be increased to 400 feet for S1 occupancy when smoke and heat vents are installed.

Chapter 13 Energy Efficiency

DCA06-DEC-130 [July 2006 Legal Report]

To the question, Is the orientation of the structure a part of the statement “on the building”?, the answer is YES, to accurately size the cooling and heating loads on a building, the orientation of the specific building must be considered.

To the question, Is it the code's intent to allow a worse case scenario orientation for an equipment sizing load calculation to be performed on this building?, the answer is NO, the equipment sizing calculation needs to be specific to the building.

However, in the case of the single family home referenced above, should a master plan be filed, sizing calculations for this building facing each of the 8 cardinal directions may be submitted until the mechanical permit is pulled for the house.

In the case of the townhomes described above, if one home is identical to the next a single sizing calculation may serve for homes facing the same orientation.

DCA06-DEC-299 [February/March 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation of Sections 13-104.4.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building. [The TAC did not have a quorum for action.]

ACTION: To the question, EPL Display Card form. According to Chapter 13, Section 13-104.4.1 of the FBC (copy attached), the “builder” is required to sign the EPL form. What does the term “builder” mean?, the answer is: The builder is the person who pulled the building permit in accordance with Section 105 of the Florida Building Code.

DCA07-DEC-048. [May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation of Sections 13-415.1.ABC.1.1 and 13-415.1.ABC.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Building.

1. To the question, Am I correct in saying that these buildings, despite being less than 5,000 s.f., shall have occupancy sensors installed to turn off the lighting within 30 minutes of the occupants leaving the various rooms and offices?, the answer is: NO, only classrooms (except shop classrooms, laboratory classrooms and preschool through 12^th grade classrooms), conference/meeting rooms and employee lunch and break rooms have to have a control device installed that automatically turns lighting off within 30 minutes of all occupants leaving a space except spaces with multi-scene control.

2. To the question, Does Section 13-415.1.ABC.1.1 only pertain to the rooms exempted from section 13-415.1.ABC.1.2 and larger open storage/warehouse spaces in buildings that are larger than 5,000 s.f.?, the answer is NO, Section 13-415.1.ABC.1.1 applies to all buildings larger than 5,000 s.f. (with exceptions for security lighting).

DCA07-DEC-105 [June 2007 Legal Report]

3. To the question, Would an office that is enclosed by ceiling-height partitions be considered a space per the FBC?, the answer is: YES, the code considers an office with ceiling-height partitions to be a space.

4. To the question, Is it the intent of this code section to require some form of control to either manually or automatically control lighting within this building with an individual override for each space (i.e. each room within the building, including mechanical, electrical, individual offices, conference rooms, training rooms, storage rooms with lighting, and open office space)?, the answer is YES, the intent of the code is for all rooms in the building to have an override for any time-of-day scheduled shut-off control.

5. To the question, In the case of this building, would it be permissible to use just two overrides per floor in lieu of installing at least one override control in each space?, the answer is NO, each space enclosed by ceiling-height partitions must have an override control unless controlled by a signal from another control or alarm system that indicates occupied or unoccupied status.

DCA07-DEC-115 [August 2007 Legal Report]

To the question, Is the intent of the code to provide a master switch that controls the guestroom only or is the intent to include the bathroom?, the answer is that Section 13-415.1.ABC.1.3 requires all permanently installed luminaries and switches receptacles to be controlled by a master control device at the main room entry; there is no exception for bathroom lighting.

DC06-DEC-176 [August 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: When changing the air handler unit only of the split system located in New Port Richey in the Park Lake Estates subdivision, does it constitute as a repair or a replacement?

Answer: It constitutes a REPLACEMENT because a major component is replaced that would change the performance of the system.

Question #2: If it constitutes a replacement, does the combined efficiency of the outdoor/indoor unit have to meet the minimum efficiency listed for that type of equipment in Table 13-607.1.ABC.3.2A?

Answer: The answer is NO, Section 509.1 of the FBC- Existing Building, requires existing mechanical systems undergoing alteration to comply with Section 301.11 of the FBC-Mechanical, which requires defective material or parts to be replaced or repaired in such manner so as to preserve the original approval or listing of the equipment.

Chapter 15 Roof Assemblies and Rooftop Structures

DCA05-DEC-151 [August 2005 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement to clarify if their product (Elixir E-5000 Aluminum Roof System - an aluminum roll panel, factory seamed roof over system) falls under Product Approval Rule 9B-72, if so – clarify the requirements for successful processing of a Product Approval application.

Question 1 - Whether the product in question should be listed under Category: Structural Components; Subcategory: Roof-Deck or Category: Roofing; Subcategory: Other?

Answer to Question 1 - The product could be listed in either category. POC with input from A&A, DCA Staff and manufacturer should discuss then identify the Category and Subcategory.

Question 2 - Whether the product in question should be in compliance with the uplift requirements of Chapter 15 of the 2004 Florida Building Code?

Answer to Question 2 - In accordance with Section 1504.3.2 Metal Panel Roof Systems of the 2004 FBC, this metal roofing system is required to be tested according to the requirements of UL580 or ASTM E 1592.

DCA07 DEC-017 [March 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner seeks clarification relative to one of their projects and have appended the drawings, to determine whether section 1519.16 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) is applicable to balconies and parking garages decks when such balconies and decks are not part of the top surface of a building and are not the weather-exposed surface immediately above habitable space.

Question - Does section 1519.16 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) apply to balconies or parking garage decks when such balconies and decks are not part of the top surface of a building and are not the weather-exposed surface immediately above habitable space?

Answer. - No, with the exception of the balconies and parking garage decks in question are not part of the building roof assembly and thus section 1519.16 does not apply to this case. However, the project in question is subject to comply with Section 1926.5.5 of the Florida Building Code, Building.

DCA07-DEC-016 [March 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation regarding the applicability of Section 1521.4 of the Florida Building Code, Building, concerning whether a sunroom is habitable space.

To the question, “Does Brevard County, Florida, or any part of it, fall within the “High-Velocity Hurricane Zone” as defined by Section 1521 of the Florida Building Code, thereby requiring compliance with Section 1521.4 of the Code?” the answer is NO, no portion of Brevard County, Florida, falls within the “High Velocity Hurricane Zone” and compliance with Section 1521.4 of the Code is not required.

Include the note below as part of the code background information on the issue. NOTE: Reroofing permits applied for in counties other than Miami-Dade and Broward after December 8, 2006, for Alteration Level 1 or greater must meet the provisions of Section 511.1.2, Florida Building Code, Existing Building.

Chapter 16 Structural Design

DCA06-DEC-160 [August 2006 Legal Report]

Request: The Petitioner is requesting that the Commission clarify that the intent of FBC 2004 Table 1607.1, Item number 27, “Residential one-and two family dwellings, Uninhabitable attics without storage” and FBCR 2004 in Table R301.5, “Attics without storage” is to provide consideration of the application of a minimum uniformly distributed attic non-storage live load, 10 psf in this case, be applied non-concurrently with roof live load or wind load.

Answer: The 2004 Florida Building Code, Residential (Section R802.10.2), and the 2004 Florida Building Code, Building (Sections 2306.1 and 2319.2.1.1), adopt by reference the ANSI/TPI 1-2002, National Design Standard for Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss Construction, as the specific design standard for metal plate connected wood trusses. Since ANSI/TPI 1 is more specific in addressing the issue in question than the FBC (FBC, Building Table 1607.1 and FRC Table 301.5), the ANSI/TPI 1 would prevail on this issue (see Section 102.1 of the FBC, Building). Therefore, it is the intent of the FBC 2004 Table 1607.1, Item number 27, “Residential one-and two-family dwellings, uninhabitable attics without storage” and FBCR 2004 in Table R301.5, “Attics without storage” to provide consideration of the application of minimum uniformly distributed attic non-storage live load, 10 psf in this case, be applied non-concurrently with other live loads.

DCA06-DEC-201 [October 2006 Legal Report]

Question: I need to know for certain what is acceptable by code as the tributary area of a window/door/shutter system to be considered in the wind load analysis.

Answer: With regard to the cladding (window/door/shutter) fastener and in according with Section 1609.2, Definition, the effective wind area shall not be greater than the area that is tributary to an individual fastener. However, with regard to the cladding panels, neither the Code nor ASCE 7 provide minimum tributary area for the cladding in question. Therefore, determination of such tributary area is subject to accepted engineering practices (see ASCE 7 –02, Commentary for guidance).

DCA05-DEC-089 [June 2005 Legal Report]

Issue: the purpose of this petition is to clarify the intent of sections 1607.9 and 405.3.5 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Building.

Question #1: Please advise as which method of live load reduction to adopt for design of a parking structure.

Answer: Live load reduction of either section 1607.9 or 1607.9.2 may be utilized in the design of the open-parking garage in question. Section 107.9.2, Alternate floor live load reduction, is an alternative to Section 1607.9, Reduction in live loads.

Question #2: Is the following interpretation of the above referenced section “406.3.6” of the Code correct?

Per table 406.3.5, this garage falls in type IB construction. However, per paragraph two of Section 406.3.6:

Gross tier area of the parking garage = 4x80,000 = 320,000 sq.ft.

Allowable gross tier area = 8x50,000= 400,000 sq.ft.

Gross tier area of the parking garage < Allowable gross tier area

Therefore, using paragraph 2 of Sec. 406.3.6, the above parking garage can be classified as Type IIB.

Answer: Yes. Section 406.3.6 allows for increasing the allowable tier areas of Table 406.3.5 as long as the open parking garage is constructed to a height less than the table maximum and the gross tier area of the garage does not exceed that permitted for the higher structure.

Question #3: Which of the following is the correct definition of “interior area”?

Clear height which is the clear distance between top of floor slab and underside of the beam, or

Floor to Floor height of the structure, or

Any other (please explain with an example)

: In accordance with the definition of “interior” as per Webster's Third New International Dictionary as referenced in section 201 of the 2004 FBC, the definition of “interior area” means the area within the limiting surface of the boundary. Meaning that the clear height is the clear distance between top of floor slab and underside of the beam.

DCA06-DEC-300 [February 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The Petitioner is requesting clarification regarding the definition of Exposure C as defined in Section 1609.4 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Building (amended December 8, 2006).

Question #1: Is Lot 19 considered Wind Exposure Category B or C?

Answer: Based on review of documentation provided, lot 19 should be classified as Exposure B. However, any final determination should be made by the design professional based on a review of site specific circumstances and condition.

Question #2: What is the definition of “Scattered Obstruction”?

Answer: Determination whether a terrain includes “scattered obstruction is subject to accepted engineering practices (see ASCE 7 –02, Commentary for guidance).

DCA07-DEC-116 [August 2007 Legal Report]

Question One - Is Exposure “D” a valid Exposure in Florida for the single family home in question?

Answer – Yes.

Question Two - Does Exposure “D” apply to only to the first building on the shoreline next to the water?

Answer –In accordance to ASCE 7-02, exposure D applies to the first building where no obstructions exist. Beyond the first building, an analysis must be performed to determine which is the appropriate exposure.

Question Three - What is the transition zone length from exposure D to the next applicable inland exposure category B for the subject case?

Answer - The transition zone is 1500 feet.

DCA06-DEC-284 [December 2006 Legal Report]

Question: With the new changes in RAS 118 and RAS 119 effective December 8, 2006, is adhesive still an acceptable means for fastening the first course of tile in lieu of a clip?

Answer: In accordance with Section 102.4 and with regard to the issue in question, the provisions of 1518.8.4.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building, would prevail over the requirements of both RAS 118-3.08(A)(5) and RAS 119.3.09(B). Therefore, the use of other alternatives including an adhesive is an acceptable means for fastening the first course of tile as long as it is part of an approved roofing system and meets the requirements of chapter 16 for wind resistance.

Chapter 35, Reference Standards

DCA05-DEC-075. [May 2005 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner requests clarification regarding ASTM E 1300 as referenced in the 2004 Florida Building Code, Residential and Building Volumes.

Question 1. Clarify whether the difference in how 2004 FBC, Chapter 35 and 2004 FRC, Chapter 43 which respectively reference E1300 as “E1300-02 or 98 (HVHZ)” and “E1300-98 or 02 (HVHZ)” has any significance.

Answer: the discrepancy between the reference in Chapter 35 of the FBC, Building, and Chapter 43 of the FBC, Residential with regard to ASTM E 1300 is editorial in nature. The reference of ASTM E 1300 in R613.3.1 of the FBC, Residential, is consistent with the FBC, Building.

Question 2. Clarify which version of ASTM E1300 is applicable in the HVHZ and which is applicable in the non-HVHZ areas of the state.

Answer: (1) HVHZ: both ASTM E 1300-98 and ASTM E 1300-02 are applicable in the HVHZ.

(2) Non-HVHZ: only ASTM E 1300-02 is applicable.

Question 3. Dependent upon the responses to the above, please address the following questions.

1. If different versions of the ASTM E1300 is being mandated to different parts of the state; why and to what purpose?

2. E1300-02 and above represent the latest developments in glass load resistance technology and brings the non-factored load charts into agreement with the determination of applied wind loading from ASCE 7 (i.e., change from 60-second charts to 3-second charts corresponding with ASCE 7's use of 3-second gust wind speeds for wind pressure determination.

The primary differences in the E1300-00 and earlier versions vs. the E1300-02 and later versions is the use of 3-sec. non-factored load charts in the 2002 and later revisions vs. the 60-sec. load charts in earlier versions and inclusion of new non-factored load charts for laminated glass developed by DuPont in the 2002 and later revisions.

Given that, why are two versions of the E1300 referenced that will yield different glass load resistances for the same configurations of monolithic, insulated or laminated glazed fenestrations being allowed for use?

3. If the 2004 FBC and/or 2004 FRC do not mandate applicability of the E1300-02 in all areas of the state, Florida Extruders International, Inc, implores the FBC to consider doing so in response to this Declaratory Statement or under the Product Approval Rule using equivalency of standards methods.

Answer:

(a) For the non-HVHZ area only ASTM E 1300-02 is required. However, in the HVHZ the code allows both ASTM E1300-98 and ASTM E1300-02 to be used so that manufacturers producing products for the HVHZ have the flexibility to use either standard.

(b) See the answer to (a) above.

ASTM E 1300-02 statewide would require a code change.

Florida Building Code, Existing Building

Chapter 4 Repairs

DCA05-DEC-283 [February 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: Would the actual damage would be classified as roof covering repair or alteration (Level 1) as described in the 2004 Existing Building Code?

Answer: As per Section 407.3, Damaged Buildings, of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Existing Building, work necessary to restore damage to the building in question falls within the classification of work “repair” and level 1 Alteration.

Question #2: If the restoration of the claimed damage (yet to be confirmed on this project) is deemed to be repair and the extension of that is beyond twenty-five (25) percent of the total roof covering area, would the owner need to replace the entire roof covering as per Section 1521.4 of the 2004 Florida Building Code Commercial Buildings?

Answer: Repair of damage to the building in question falls within the scope of Section 407.3.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Existing Building, and Section 1521.4 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Building. Therefore, the total roof covering area of the Building in question must be replaced.

Chapter 5 Alterations – Level 1

DCA07 DEC-065. [May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether section 505.1 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building (FBC, EB) allows the installation of emergency egress windows the same size of the existing ones. This is for a home in Boynton Beach, and the new windows in sleeping rooms do not meet the current code requirements relative to minimum size.

Question 1. Does section 505.1 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building (FBC, EB) allow the installation of emergency egress windows the same size of the existing ones.

Answer - Yes. The section does not require replacement windows to meet the current code requirements for emergency escape and rescue openings. An emergency escape and rescue opening is only required to meet the requirements for emergency escape and rescue openings in effect when the building was built. Additionally, the section allows a reduction of up to 5% in the size of the opening.

DCA06-DEC-270 [December 2006 Legal Report]

Question 1: Does section 507.2.2 of the Florida Existing Building Code (FEBC) require that roof deck attachment be checked when 50% of the roof or 50% of an area of roof is removed?

Answer – Yes. The wood roof deck in question is an integral part of the roof diaphragm.

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is additional fastening needed when found to be deficient?

Answer: Yes.

Note: The remainder of the questions are general in nature and thus fall out side the scope of this specific request.

Florida Building Code, Mechanical

DCA07-DEC-105 [June 2007 Legal Report]

6. To the question, Would an office that is enclosed by ceiling-height partitions be considered a space per the FBC?, the answer is: YES, the code considers an office with ceiling-height partitions to be a space.

7. To the question, Is it the intent of this code section to require some form of control to either manually or automatically control lighting within this building with an individual override for each space (i.e. each room within the building, including mechanical, electrical, individual offices, conference rooms, training rooms, storage rooms with lighting, and open office space)?, the answer is YES, the intent of the code is for all rooms in the building to have an override for any time-of-day scheduled shut-off control.

8. To the question, In the case of this building, would it be permissible to use just two overrides per floor in lieu of installing at least one override control in each space?, the answer is NO, each space enclosed by ceiling-height partitions must have an override control unless controlled by a signal from another control or alarm system that indicates occupied or unoccupied status.

Chapter 6 Duct Systems

DCA07-DEC-080. [May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation of Section 607.5.5.1 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical concerning whether smoke dampers shall be installed under certain conditions in residential high-rise buildings.

To the question, Would the advantages of automatic sprinkler protection be equally applicable to the described group R occupancies, which the 2004 FM Code recognizes for group B occupancies?, the answer is YES, based on NFPA and life safety codes, the advantages of automatic sprinkler protection should be equally applicable to group R occupancies as an acceptable alternate material, design or method of construction and equipment subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction [building official].

To the question, would the omission of smoke dampers be acceptable for the described group R occupancies, considering that the 2003 IMC Commentary recognizes that “smoke dampers in steel exhaust sub-ducts extended at least 22 inches vertically in the exhaust shafts would not significantly increase safety to the building occupants” when there is a continuous upward outflow to the outside? The answer is YES, based on NFPA, life safety codes and the 2006 International Mechanical Code the omission of smoke dampers should be acceptable for group R occupancies as an acceptable alternate material, design or method of construction and equipment for the described group R occupancies subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction [building official].

To the question, would the omission of smoke dampers be acceptable for the described group R occupancies, considering that for smoke barriers NFPA 90-A, 2002 ed., recognizes the following exceptions, which are applicable in these instances?

a. #5.3.5.1.3 Smoke dampers shall not be required where the air inlet or outlet openings in ducts are limited to a single smoke compartment.

b. #5.3.5.1.4 Smoke dampers shall not be required in ducts where the air continues to move and the air-handling system installed is arranged to prevent recirculation of exhaust or return air under fire emergency conditions,

1. The answer is YES, the omission of smoke dampers per NFPA 90-A should be an acceptable alternate material, design or method of construction and equipment for the described group R occupancies subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction [building official].

2) To the question, would such smoke dampers, as required, lead to decreased life safety considering their serviceability and maintainability in practical reality? Typically, such smoke dampers would be located above hard ceilings, in congested areas where accessibility is limited or, at times, non-existent, the answer is that it is beyond the scope of this Declaratory Statement.

DCA06-DEC-182. [August 2006 Legal Report]

On a motion by Crum with a second by Andrews, the TAC voted to uphold the original recommendations to the Florida Building Commission as follows:

To the question, “Does the referenced code allow the transfer of bathroom exhaust make up air from the corridor to the guest room?” the answer is NO.

To the question, “Does the referenced code allow the transfer of bathroom exhaust from the guest room to the bathroom?” the answer is YES.

To the question, “Does the referenced code allow the bathroom exhaust to be supplied through the corridor?”, the answer is NO.

To the question, “Is the guest room corridor an occupied space?” the answer is NO.

Florida Building Code, Plumbing

Chapter 4 Fixtures, Faucets and Fixture Fittings

DCA05-DEC-215 [December 2005 Legal Report]

Question: Is it the intent of the Code to use only Section 403.8.of the Florida Building Code, Plumbing to determine the required plumbing fixtures for both the outdoor swimming pool and deck?

Answer, No, Section 403 covers minimum facilities and would cover the assembly area of the deck. Section 403.8 covers the pool itself.

Florida Building Code, Residential

Chapter 3 Building Planning

DCA07 DEC-067. [March/May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) and section 1609.1.4 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) requires a non-glazed garage door to be wind-borne debris resistant in areas outside the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) and whether the wind-borne debris resistant requirements different between residential and non-residential occupancies.

Question 1. Does section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) and section 1609.1.4 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) require a non-glazed garage door to be wind-borne debris resistant?

Answer - No, in areas outside the HVHZ impact resistance to wind-borne debris only applies to glazed openings.

Question 2. Does section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) require wind-borne debris resistance in any area outside the High Velocity Hurricane Zone?

Answer - Yes, but only for glazed openings.

Question 3. Does section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) requirements for wind-borne debris resistant differ between residential and non-residential occupancies?

Answer – No

Rule 9B-72

DCA05-DEC-113 [August 2005 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation of sections 1610 and 1612 of the 2001 Florida Building Code, Building, and sections 1604.3 and 1613 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Building.

Question 1: To the question, “Do deflection limits prescribed by FBC 2001 sections 1610 and 1612 apply to the approved products?”, the answer is YES. Testing standards referenced in the code do not provide deflection limits for the products in question; therefore sections 1610 and 1612 shall apply. To the question of, “Do the deflection limits prescribed by the footnote of Table 1610.1 apply to the products?”, the answer is NO. The footnote of Table 1610.0 relates to formed metal sheeting and does not refer to fiberglass materials.

Question 2: To the question, “Do deflection limits prescribed by FBC 2004 sections 1604.3 and 1613 apply to the approved products?”, the answer is YES. Testing standards referenced in the code do not provide deflection limits for the products in question; therefore sections 1604.3 and 1613 shall apply. To the question of, “Do the deflection limits prescribed by the footnote of Table 1604.3 apply to the products?”, again the answer is NO. The footnote of Table 1604.3 relates to formed metal sheeting and does not refer to fiberglass materials. To the question, What are the deflection limits for the products?, the answer is as follows:

v For non-HVHZ according to Table 1604.3 (FBC 2004) for product #FL4097(skylights), deflection limits shall not exceed those relating to “roof members not supporting ceiling”. For products #FL4229(windows) and #FL4230(panel walls), deflection limits shall not exceed those relating to “exterior walls and interior partitions with flexible finishes”.

v For the HVHZ according to Section 1613 (FBC 2004) for product #FL4097(skylights), deflection limits shall not exceed L/240, which relates to “roof members or components not supporting plaster”. For products #FL4229(windows) and #FL4230(panel walls), deflection limits shall not exceed L/180 which relates to “vertical members and wall members or components not required to meet all conditions of Section 1613.1, item 4”. Section 1613.1, item 4 states “Vertical members and wall members or components consisting of or supporting material that hardens in place, is brittle or lacks resistance to cracking caused by bending strains”.

DCA05-DEC-135 [August 2005 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement to clarify the application process that Tamlyn & Son's Wood Connectors can use to submit an application in accordance with Product Approval Rule 9B-72.

Question 1: “If Tamlyn files a Florida Product Approval Application ICC as the evaluation entity (where the engineering calculations for ESR 1347 was prepared by L.M. Gabert), Gabert-Abuzalaf as a Q/A entity and Vipin N. Tolat, a Florida P.E. as a validation entity, will it be acceptable?”

Answer to Question 1: “No” according to 9B-72.110, an entity is not permitted to be party to an evaluation entity and at the same time be a QA entity for same product. Serving both products constitutes a conflict of interest.

In addition as of August 19, 2005, Gabel-Abuzalaf's application as an entity is currently in the “Pending” Status. When Gabel-Abuzalaf's application is approved; they will be eligible for use as a Q/A entity.

Question 2: “When a Florida Product Approval Application is submitted using the evaluation report method with ICC as evaluation entity, can the Florida PE who signed and sealed the calculations in the ICC-ES report, also validate this application?

Answer to Question 2: “No”, According to 9B-72 .110(4), a Florida registered Professional Engineer is not permitted to be party to an evaluation report and at the same time be the validator for the application. Serving both functions constitutes a conflict of interest.

DCA05-DEC-245 [February 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: Does the language in the updated Rule mean that all substantiating data must be uploaded to the DCA website?

Answer: With regard to compliance using an evaluation report from an approved evaluation entity, substantiating data such as testing data or rational calculations are not required to be included in the evaluation report as long as they are referenced within the evaluation report.

Question #2: If the answer to Question #1 is “No”, will substantiating data be handled by both Manufacturers and the DCA the same way as the old Rule?

Answer: No answer is needed.

DCA05-DEC-282 [February 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: In the above stated new language, can “test lab” also be interpreted as “test facility”?

Answer: Yes. A test lab is also a test facility.

Question #2: In the case of the evaluation report method of product approval, can either a Florida registered design professional or a representative of an approved test laboratory accredit a test facility?

Answer: No. Florida registered design professional or a representative of an approved laboratory are not recognized as accreditation entities as per Rule 9B-72.100.

Question #3: Is a statement from a Florida registered design professional certifying the accuracy of both the test equipment and the test results considered adequate to satisfy the accreditation requirement as a substitute for an accreditation body?

Answer: No. Also, see answer to question #2,

Question #4: Can the same party both accredit a test facility and witness testing?

Answer: Yes. Rule 9B-72 does not prohibit accreditation entity from rendering both functions.

DCA05-DEC-284 [February 2006 Legal Report]

Question: Does the Fastnet System for Roof Protection as depicted by the Petitioner falls within the scope of Rule 9B-72, specifically under category (roofing) and sub-category New Technology and Roof accessories?

Answer: No. The product in question fall out side the scope of Rule 9B-72. As per Rule 9B-72.005, the rule is limited in scope to products and systems, which comprise the building envelope and structural frame.

DCA06-DEC-067 [March 2006 Legal Report]

Question: Can a manufacturer use test reports initiated before January 1, 2006, compliant with the Rule in effect at the time of initiation of the testing, when applying for state product approval under the current Rule?

Answer: No. According to Rule 9B-72.070(4), testing must be performed in test lab which is accredited by an approved Accreditation entity for the test performed.

DCA06-DEC-072 [March/May 2006 Legal Report]

Question: Does a non-structural accessory for siding application such as our Plvcem Trim falls within the scope of Rule 9B-72?

Answer: Yes. The product in question is siding and therefore falls within the scope of Rule 9B-72.

DCA06-DEC-094 [July 2006 Legal Report]

Issue: The Petitioner is requesting clarification regarding Rule 9B- 72 regarding product test reports. Question: Can a Testing Lab test a product and make a test report available to other manufacturers of the same product to use as their own?

Question – Can an entity that is not an approved test lab make a test report available to other manufacturers of the same product to use as their own?

Answer – Yes. A manufacturer can use a test report issued by an approved testing lab for the purpose of obtaining product approval as per Rule 9B-72 as long as the product is manufactured in accordance with the test report and an approved QA agency. (Note: a notice of Authorization must be uploaded by the manufacturer authorizing the use of the report).

DCA06-DEC-179 [August 2006 Legal Report]

Request: the Petitioner is requesting clarification relative to whether the full range of structures manufactured by Roll-A-Cover fall under the roof panel, wall panel and glazing sub-categories required for a Florida Product Approval.

Answer: In accordance with Commission's action on DCA04-DEC-070 (see Item #. 3 above), the buildings in question are custom fabricated buildings in accordance with Section 553.842(11), Florida Statutes. Thus, separate approval for individual building per Rule 9B-72 is outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. However, local approval for components of the building, which are required to be designed and fabricated in accordance with specification standards referenced in the Florida Building Code, may be achieved through building plans review and inspection providing such product/ components are inspected by an approved inspection agency in accordance with Rule 9B-72. In addition, deck-roof and wall/siding of the buildings in question are within the scope of Rule 9B-72 and must demonstrate compliance through local or optional state approval. Furthermore, accessory components such as windows, doors, etc. are also within the scope of Rule 9B-72.

DCA06-DEC-200 [October 2006 Legal Report]

Question #1: Are the proposed anchor substitutes acceptable to what was tested providing they are reviewed and certified by a Florida Licensed Engineer?

Answer: Yes. According to Section 1714.5.4.1, the doors in question are required to be anchored in accordance with the published manufacturer's recommendations to achieve the design pressure specified. Neither the FBC nor Rule 9B-72 requires that the anchors in question must be as tested. However, as per Rule 9B-72.070(7), review and verification of installation instructions, including anchorage requirements by either the certification agency or by the manufacturer's licensed design professional is required.

Question #2: If not acceptable, would they be acceptable if the frame anchors were at the same spacing as the tested nail fin nails (10” O.C.)?

Answer: See answer to question #1 above.

DCA06-DEC-273 [December 2006 Legal Report]

1. To the question, does the product fall under Rule 9B-72?

The answer is Yes, Hurricane Shutters and their components are covered by Rule 9B-72. Note: No answer is given to the remainder of the questions. These questions are more specific to product development which fall outside the scope of the Declaratory Statement request.

DCA06-DEC-282 [December 2006 Legal Report]

Question: Does the product in question fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72?

Answer: No, Fasteners other than roofing fasteners are outside the scope of the Rule.

DCA06-DEC-283 [December 2006 Legal Report]

No, this product is an aftermarket retrofit and does not fall within Rule 9B-72 which is limited in scope to components of the building envelope and structural frame. Further, the product application falls outside the scope of the Florida Building Code.

DCA06-DEC-287 [February 2007 Legal Report]

Background: Their product is used in post frame construction to replace the section of the support which is in contact with the ground. This member is typically composed of pressure treated lumber. The Perma Column in this case is used and is beneficial because it offers superior durability and insect resistance in ground contact when compared to treated lumber.

Question: Does the product fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72?

Answer: yes. The product in question falls within the scope of Rule 9B-72 and within the subcategory of products, “structural component”.

DCA06-DEC-294 [February 2007 Legal Report]

Question: would this window receptor system be accepted under the new and innovative product ruling?

Answer: yes. Under the Rule 9B-72 category “Windows”, subcategory “New and Innovative Products”.

Question 2: would its use be permissible with any window having Florida product approval?

Answer: no, however, the use of the product can be evaluated on a case by case basis and would have to be evaluated by the specific window manufacturer for the specific installation.

DCA07-DEC-034 [March 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on Rule 9B-72 as it pertains to their product.

To the question, Does the product fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72?

Answer: Yes. Based on Rule 9B-72 9B-72. 010 Definitions, this product is within the scope of the State Product Approval Rule 9B-72. This product falls within Rule 9B-72 as a “Structural Component” category product, within the “Structural wall component” subcategory.

DCA07-DEC-050. [May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner, Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, President, Hunker Down Systems.com , seeks a Declaratory Statement on Rule 9B-72 as it pertains to their product.

To the question, Does the product fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72.

No, the Product in question is outside the scope of Rule 9B-72.

DCA07-DEC-078. [May 2007 Legal Report]

Issue: The petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on testing procedures for Statewide Product Approval under Rule 9B-72 F.A.C. [May 2007 Legal Report]

To the question, A. Are there any additional tests required for use in the HVHZ if state wide product approval would be granted for such product?

Answer: If the product in question meets the requirement for the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) then it is acceptable for use in the HVHZ.

To the question, B. Are there any additional tests required for use in the HVHZ if state wide product approval would be granted for such product?

Answer: If the product in question meets the requirement for the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) then it is acceptable for use in the HVHZ.

Florida Statutes

DCA07-DEC-020 [March 2007 Legal Report]

QUESTIONS:

1. Does the Building Official have the authority to issue phased permits without the approval of the “appropriate” firesafety inspector? Answer: No, according to 553.79(2), Florida Statutes, review and approval of the fire inspector is also required.

2. Florida Statute 553.79(2) refers to the “appropriate” firesafety inspector. Would the “appropriate” be a person certified pursuant to 633.081 who must also be authorized under Florida Statute 633.121? Answer: appropriate means appropriate as per Chapter 633, Florida Statutes.

3. If the answer to number 2 is no, who would qualify as the appropriate firesafety inspector? Answer: See answer to question 2.

4. Does the Building Official have a responsibility to monitor project, allowed to start work prior to the issurance of a permit, to verify that they do not proceed beyond the first required inspection prior to the issuance of the permit? Answer: No, it is the responsibility of the building owner that he does not proceed beyond the first required inspection.

5. If the answer to number 4 is yes, does the responsibility to monitor the progression of the work, allowed to begin prior to the issuance of a permit, extend to projects that are submitted as permit by affidavit? Answer: It is not applicable, see the answer to question 4.

6. If the answer to numbers 4 or 5 is yes, would the Building Official be required to issue a stop work order for a project that was allowed to start work prior to issuance of a permit and that proceeded past the first required inspection without receiving a valid permit? Answer: no further action is needed. See answers to questions 4 and 5.

DCA07-DEC-038 [March 2007 Legal Report]

QUESTIONS:

v Does the building official have the authority to over turn a stop order issued by properly licensed and authorize fire inspector? Answer: the Florida Building Commission has no authority to answer this question. The State Fire Marshal is the authority having jurisdiction on the subject. [The committee also voted to refer to the State Fire Marshal requests for Declaratory Statement on this issue and site statutes sections which delineate fire official versus building official authority.]

v Is that particular provision of the interlocal agreement, which gives the building official temporary authority over the fire official valid or is it in violation of Florida Statute 633.121 or 553.73(1) (c)? Answer: The Florida Building Commission has no authority to address this question. It is a local matter.

BUILDING

CHAPTER 5—GENERAL BUIDLING HEIGHT & AREAS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5—GENERAL BUIDLING HEIGHT & AREAS

v DCA05-DEC-162—Sections 506.1, 506.3 and 506.4

CHAPTER 7—FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION

v DCA05-DEC-174—Section 705.4.1

CHAPTER 13—ENERGY EFFICIENCY

v DCA05-DEC-217—Sections 13-103.1.1.1 and 13-400.3.ABC.1

CHAPTER 16—STRUCTURAL DESIGN

v DCA05-DEC-220—Section 1609.1.1

CHAPTER 24—GLASS & GLAZING

v DCA05-DEC-219—Section 2403.2

RESIDENTIAL

CHAPTER 3—BUILDING PLANNING

v DCA06-DEC-014—Section R301.2.1.2

v DCA05-DCA-136—Sections R302.1 and R302.2

v DCA05-DCA-235—Sections R303.8

v DCA05-DCA-216—Sections R309.1.1

v DCA06-DEC-068—Section R311.4.3

EXISTING BUILDING

CHAPTER 3—CLASSIFICATION OF WORK

v DCA05-DEC-283—Sections 302.1, 303.1, 407.3, 407.3.1, 407.3.2, 407.3.2.1, 407.3.2.1.1, 407.3.3, 507.2.2, and 511.1 (Also Building Sections1521.1-1521.5)

MECHANICAL

CHAPTER 5—EXHAUST SYSTEMS

v DCA05-DEC-175—Section 513.1 (see also Building Volume Section 403.15)

Product Approval