Florida Building Commission

April 3, 2012

Hilton University of Florida

1714 S.W. 34th Street, Gainesville, FL 32607

 

 

Legal Report

 

First Hearing-

 

DS 2011-096 by Jeffery Cooper of EPOX-Z Corporation

Question: Does the EPOX-Z cool roof coating product fall within the scope of Rule 9N-3?

 

Answer: Yes, the product in question is a roofing system and thus falls within the scope of Rule 9N-3.  However, approval of this product is subject to approval under the local authority having jurisdiction product approval or the state product approval.

 

DS 2011-097 by Jeffery Cooper of EPOX-Z Corporation

Question: Do the abovementioned EPOX-Z industrial products fall within the scope of the Rule 9N-3?

 

Answer:  Yes: When used as a roofing product or component, the products in question do fall under Rule 9N-3 and thus are subject to approval under the local authority jurisdiction product approval or the state product approval.

 

DS 2012 – 013 by Ralph Koerber of ATCO Rubber Products, Inc. (Withdrawn)

DS 2012 – 016 by Kenneth Gregory of Holland/Evolution Pools (Withdrawn)

DS 2012 – 017 by Andrew Finlayson (Deferred)

Assistive listening device is to be made available at the next meeting.  Staff will contact Mr. Finlayson regarding the date, time and location of the next meeting.

Recommend dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.  The Petitioner is requesting a clarification on whether the BO should be required to go back to an existing facility and require accessibility upgrades long after a permit and CO have been issued and without a new permit having been applied for.

DS 2012 – 019 by Lorraine Ross

The answer to the question, In Table 502.1.1.1(2), which is the correct insulation level for Roofs, an R-value of 38 or a U-factor of 0.033, which  equates to an R-value of 30? If the correct answer is R-38, then the corresponding U-factor should be 0.025, the answer is that the R-38 roof insulation value is correct; the corresponding U-value should be (U≤0.027).

 

DS 2012 – 020 by Lorraine Ross

Question 1.

    1. The answer to Question 1, Are the U-values for mass walls incorrect as listed in Table 402.1.1.3 (reference by prescriptive path Section 402.1.1.2) and its applicable footnote b? the answer is Yes. Table 402.1.1.3, Equivalent U-Factors, was intended to reflect the R-values in Table 402.1.1. Table 402.1.1.3 now compares the U-factor for insulation located on the interior of mass walls to that specified for insulation located on the exterior of mass walls in Table 402.1.1.  Thus, footnote b should be corrected to read: “When more than half the insulation is on the exterior interior, the mass wall factors shall be a maximum of 0.165.”
    2. The answer to the question, Are the U-values stated in Table 402.1.1.3 in violation of Florida Law, because these values contradict the value of thermal mass by requiring more insulation on the exterior of the wall than the interior side of the wall? The answer is that this question is beyond the scope of this DEC statement.

 

Question 2.

The answer to the question, If only the insulation for mass walls, as shown in Table 402.1.1 and Table 402.1.1.3 meets the applicable R-factor or U-factor, does this alone constitute “compliance with the Florida Energy Code”, or must all footnotes contained within Table 4021.1.3 also be met in order to use the prescriptive path? the answer is that all other prescriptive criteria of Table 402.1.1, the prescriptive criteria in Section 402.1.2.4 and footnotes to Table 402.1.1.3 shall also be met.

Question 3.

The answer to the question, How has the compliance software and applicable reports derived from this software addressed the discrepancies in the insulation values for mass walls using the prescriptive compliance path as well as the requirement that ALL footnotes shown in Table 402.1.1 and Table 402.1.1.3 must be met before compliance with the Florida Energy Code can be claimed? the answer is that this question is beyond the scope of this DEC statement.

 

DS 2012 - 021 by Joe Belcher of JDB Code Services, Inc. (Deferred for further consideration by the Energy TAC)

 

Question 1.

The answer to the question, Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet the provisions of FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the code definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure.

Question 2.

The answer to the question Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet the provisions of the FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the statutory definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. The definition in Florida Statutes has been appropriately clarified by the code.

Question 3.

The answer to the question, Is Note d to Table 101.4.1 intended to codify Chapter 553.902 Florida Statute?, the answer is YES, when Florida law was superimposed upon the language in the base document (the International Energy Conservation Code), the renovations clause was included under Section 101.4 of the Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation, Applicability, as footnote d to Table 101.4.1.

Question 4.  

The answer to the question, Regarding the conflict between Sections 101.4.1 and 402.3.6, does 101.4.1 prevail since it reflects statutory requirements?, the answer is YES, the criteria of Section 101.4, including footnote “d” to Table 101.4.1, take precedence to the requirements of Section 402.3.5 because they determine applicability of the code to existing buildings as determined by Florida law.