Legal Report

February 6, 2007

Issue: DCA06-DEC-287 The petitioner, Phillip Stoler, Perma-Column, Inc.

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”.

Issue: DCA06-DEC-293 by Dan Wilson of Wilson 's Air Conditioning was withdrawn.

Issue: DCA06-DEC-294 by Joseph R. Webster, Atlantic Windows and Doors.

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.

ISSUE: DCA06-DEC-299, Amended. 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.]

Petitioner in DCA06-DEC-299 seeks clarification as to:

EPL Display Card form. According to Chapter 13, Section 13-104.4.1 of the FBC, the “builder” is required to sign the EPL form. What does the term “builder” mean?

Question: EPL Display Card form. According to Chapter 13, Section 13-104.4.1 of the FBC, the “builder” is required to sign the EPL form. What does the term “builder” mean?

Answer: The builder is the person who pulled the building permit in accordance with Section 105 of the Florida Building Code, Building .

Issue: DCA06-DEC-300 by Thomas E. Miller, PE of Structural Engineering and Inspection. 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).

Issue: DCA07-DEC-002, Kari Hebrank of 4 th Floor Advocacy

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.

Issue DCA07-DEC-004 by Stephen R. Walsh, PE., recommended for dismal due to the fact that the Commission has no authority to address the issue.

Issue: DCA07-DEC-011. The petitioner Mr. Billy Tyson, CBO, 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 or the standards allow for modification of ASTM E -136. Thus the product in question is combustible.