I have read over the proposed changes to Section N1103.3.3 (R403.3.3)

Surprisingly it appears that all reference to duct tightness limits has been crossed out and not added back in at any place. Surely the test must still have a limit by which a pass/fail can be established. 

I also wonder at the vagueness that allows contractors to do their own testing as long as “The contractor shall have been trained on the equipment used to perform the test.”   Will there be clarity on what that training  requirement will be?

Duct Tightness Testing Commentary

After Reviewing the proposed changes to Section N1103.3.3 (R403.3.3) I have the following comments:

It appears that all references to duct tightness testing limits have been redacted out of the text, and there have not been any added testing limits suggested to be placed into the code. There should be a testing threshold added in to the code to ensure energy efficiency at some level.  As an national average, existing homes can lose as much as 20 percent of each energy dollar due to duct leakage.  For the code testing to have any impact on energy efficiency, reasonable thresholds must be placed in the code for compliance. 

Most states that adopt a similar code require some type of certification and training to ensure that the person engaged in testing is qualified to perform such types of testing.  I would suggest making it a requirement that any person performing duct tightness testing should be accredited by a nationally recognized agency, such as RESNET or BPI.  This will ensure consistency and accuracy in the code testing findings, and a level of assurance that the testing is being performed by a professional.

Lastly, I would add that the testing agent should be a third party, and not have any involvement in the financial success of the building the tester is testing.  This will also ensure accurate and fair testing for all parties concerned.

On the surface, this proposal and the stated reasoning behind it would seem consistent with a well-intentioned effort to decrease the cost of doing business by eliminating apparent regulatory conflict in favor of a less restrictive construction requirement.  Comparing the adopted model codes, the International Fire Code (IFC) exempts any quantity of distilled spirits stored in any size wooden barrel from the more rigorous protective measures required by the International Building Code (IBC).  There are distinct reasons why this perceived discrepancy exists.  Just as the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code is, at its core, a maintenance code, so is the referenced model, the IFC.  Research conducted into the origin of the exemption in the IFC resulted in the discovery that it came from one of the legacy organizations of the International Code Council.  It is likely that code officials in some parts of the country occasionally sought to require the retrofit of existing facilities based on requirements in a more recent edition of the building code.  Seen in this context, it is clear to many that there is no conflict between the requirements for new facilities under the IBC and facilities which may have been operating for a considerable number of years and should be allowed to continue without upgrades.  This is a long-standing regulatory philosophy for Virginia’s USBC and SFPC but not necessarily so across the country.  That being said, it is recognized at the national level that this product, under certain conditions, should not be considered a high hazard use.  When the exemption was first presented, development of the 2018 International Codes was underway and a proposal to address the issue had been submitted for consideration.  Essentially, the proposal (G26-16) reduced the classification to moderate-hazard storage when accessory to a distillery but continued to recognize the higher hazard potential by including a requirement for sprinkler protection and ventilation regardless of the amount of product.  The proposal was eventually withdrawn but review on a wider scale was initiated.  The ICC Building Code and Fire Code Action Committees held numerous work group meetings and other forums resulting in the development and submission of F276-18 for the current code development cycle.  One of the documents consulted during the drafting process was one involving recommended fire protection guidelines published by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.  The proposal eliminates the exemption upon which this amendment to the USBC is based and adds a new chapter to the IFC dealing specifically with distilled spirits and related products with correlating changes to the IBC for consistency.  It was recommended for approval by the International Fire Code Committee in April and will be presented for final consideration this fall.  It addresses storage in barrels and casks and provides protection against the recognized hazards inherent to the product:  ventilation, spill control and fire protection.  Instead of a blanket exemption to any requirement for protection, this pending change to the IFC lowers the hazard classification to eliminate, among other things, a need for more fire-resistant construction and restrictions to locations within a building but provides a trade-off in the form of lowering the threshold for protection.  Again, on the national level, the change that is being supported is to eliminate the exemption from the International Fire Code.

This comment is provided for the purpose of ensuring the Board is fully aware of issues discussed in the process leading up to this proposal and that the reasons for it are not fully represented in the summary contained in the Virginia Register of Regulations.  There must be no doubt that the Board knows how this issue came to be and how it is being approached through the consensus code development process at the national level.  Understandably, there is concern among craft distillers who operate in non-farm locations due to the long-standing life safety exemptions provided by the General Assembly for activities that can in any broad-based perspective be seen as having even the most remote association with an agricultural purpose or process.  The creation of this unfair advantage lies solely with the legislature.  Exempting the product does not change its physical characteristics and the potential hazard they present, it only increases the number of people who are exposed to the potential hazard.  The Board is directed by statute to promulgate regulations consistent with recognized standards of health and safety.  This is an example of an action that runs counter to that directive.

May 23, 2018

Elizabeth O. Rafferty

VA Board of Housing and Community Development

RE: Proposed Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, 13V AC5-51, 13VAC5-63

Dear Ms. Rafferty: 

The National Elevator Industry Inc. (NEII) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed revisions to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.  Safety is a top priority for NEII and its member companies.  NEII members are actively involved in the development of all of the model codes that impact the building transportation industry.  The most effective way of ensuring the safety of the riding public, as well as elevator personnel, is by the adoption of the latest version of these model codes without deviation.  NEII supports the proposal to update the Virginia building code based on the 2015 IBC; however, we have concerns with some of the proposed amendments and possible correlation issues with the requirements in ASME A17.1/CSA B44 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators which is referenced by the IBC. 

Specifically, the proposed addition of Section 3005.7, Items 1 and 3, address requirements that are already covered by ASME A17.1/CSA B44, NFPA 13 and NFPA 72.  The proposed requirements are not necessary since they are already addressed by the other model codes and adding them here would create a conflict with those codes.  We strongly recommend that this section be deleted from the proposal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the elevator industry’s comments. NEII is committed to public and elevator personnel safety and is ready to support you in this process.  Representatives from NEII and our member companies operating in Virginia are available to discuss specific questions regarding these comments and provide additional technical input as needed. Please let us know if you would like to meet for a more in-depth dialogue.

For additional information, please contact:

Kevin L. Brinkman, PE

NEII VP, Codes & Safety

Eureka, IL 61530

Tel: 309-467-2379

Amy Blankenbiller

NEII VP, Government Affairs

Topeka, KS  66610

Tel:  785-286-7599

NEII  is the premier national trade association representing the interest of firms that install, maintain and/or manufacture elevators, escalators, moving walks and other building transportation products. The NEII  headquarters is located in Centreville, VA and our membership includes the top elevator companies in the United States, if not the world, and reports more than eighty percent of the work hours for the industry. Member companies include: Otis Elevator Company, Schindler Elevator Corp., ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, KONE, Inc., and many other companies.  Safety for the riding public and industry personnel is a top priority for the industry and the NEII® member companies.

.

The need to revise the definition of “work area” from 2012 to 2015 was because the definition had undefined terms in the definition (“reconfigured space” was not defined, so how could one define a work area?) which led to confusion and inconsistent applications of what a “work area” was. 

So, the 2015 VEBC deleted “reconfigured space” in the work area defintion and replaced those terms with the “involving walls” language - mainly because the term "wall" was defined in Chapter 2 of the IBC.

However, the 2015 version of the definition for "wall" added “(for Chapter 21)” to the definition that did not exist in the 2012 edition (or previous editions for that matter). IBC Chapter 21 is for masonry walls only.  So, could someone say the work area definition only applies when masonry walls are involved, and when masonry is NOT involved (e.g., wood studs, steel studs, plastic, etc.), anything goes? 

Our intent (as a participant of the VBCOA Rehab Code Committee and instructor of the Virginia Existing  Building Code for the Code Academy) was when we crafted the new "work area" definition by using a defined term (wall), we thought we were making things easier to interpret and thus be more consistent in its application.  However, we were not aware (we had used the 2012 version of "wall") that ICC had added “(for Chapter 21)” in the definition which will most likely lead us back to a confusing definition for "work area."

Therefore, I am asking the BHCD to revise the IBC Chapter 2 defintion of "WALL" back to the previous versions (2012 and before) by deleting "(for Chapter 21)" from the "WALL" definition.

Thank you for your consideration.

The Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association (“VCTA”), by counsel, hereby submits comments to the Board of Housing and Community Development (“BHCD”) on suggested revisions to the BHCD’s proposed new version of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (“USBC”) as set forth in the April 30, 2018 Virginia Register of Regulations.

I.          Introduction

            Since 1966, the VCTA has served as the trade association for cable television operators in Virginia and their affiliates.  As envisioned by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, cable television operators have entered the telecommunications market (through corporate affiliates) as competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) and have become the principal facilities-based competitors to the incumbent local exchange carriers.

II.        Background

            In February 2017, BHCD published amendments to the USBC, including amendments to 13 VAC 5-63-20.D (regarding exemptions from permits) and 13 VAC 5-63-80.B (regarding permit applications), which were two sections of the USBC of particular interest to communications companies (the VCTA had previously commented on and obtained amendments to those sections in 2003).

            The VCTA offered suggested changes to the new proposed language by Comments filed on May 26, 2017 with BHCD.                                                             

During the summer of 2017, the Department of Housing and Community Development initiated a sub-workgroup to address the issues raised by public comments submitted by the cable and telecommunications industries.

            The communications sub-workgroup included representatives of the cable and telecommunications industries, municipal associations, and representatives from the building and fire inspector communities.

            The sub-workgroup reached a consensus and agreed on revised language of the two sections to update and clarify their provisions, as set forth in Workgroup Proposal No. C-102.3.

III.      Summary and Conclusion

            The VCTA supports the consensus language developed by the communications sub-workgroup, and urges the adoption of these two provisions (13 VAC 5-63-20.D and 13 VAC 5-63-80.B) as part of the USBC.

            The VCTA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments and to help ensure that the Virginia USBC reflects current communications technology and best practices.

                                                 Respectfully submitted, 

                                                 VIRGINIA CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

                                                 By: Cliona Mary Robb, Counsel,  May 30, 2018

Cliona Mary Robb

Christian & Barton, L.L.P.

909 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

(804) 697-4109

pbroadbent@cblaw.com

VSB No. 34344