| Date |
Text |
| 2016-09-29 18:03:00 | 2ND REVIEW: FBC 2010 |
| | |
| | AS NO PRODUCT APPROVAL IS AVAILABLE FOR THE DOOR |
| | PRODUCTS, PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF FBC 1715.5.5.3. OR AN ENGINEER'S LETTER |
| | DETERMINING THE DOOR IS ENGINEERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| | ACCEPTED ENGINEERING PRACTICES PER FBC 1215.5.3.2. THE |
| | TESTING YOU PROVIDED IS AN ASTM TEST APPARENTLY |
| | PERFORMED BY THE DOOR MANUFACTURER AND NOT A THIRD |
| | PARTY TESTING AGENCY, BUT APPARENTLY DEMONSTRATING |
| | CERTAIN RESISTANCE. ADDITIONALLY YOU HAVE PROVIDED A |
| | SHOP SUBMITTAL WITH EVIDENCE OF REVIEW BY THE |
| | ENGINEERING FIRM. THIS IS HELPFUL, BUT THERE IS NO |
| | PRODUCT APPROVAL OR AN ENGINEER SIGNING AND SEALING THE |
| | SUBMITTAL TAKING RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE THE CODE |
| | REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THE |
| | EXCEPTIONS TO FBC 1715.5.5.3 ARE APPLICABLE, |
| | |
| | WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS PROVIDE THIS TESTING INFORMATION |
| | TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD OR A DELEGATED ENGINEER AND |
| | THAT PERSON SHOULD ANALYZE THE TEST REPORTS AND THE |
| | PRODUCT INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE DESIGN PARAMETERS |
| | FOR THE BUILDING AND THE MANUFACTURERS INSTALLATION |
| | INSTRUCTION AND DETERMINE THAT THE DOORS ARE ENGINEERED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED ENGINEERING PRACTICE AND |
| | SIGN AND SEAL A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT. SUCH LETTER, IF |
| | BY A DELEGATED ENGINEER MUST BEAR EVIDENCE OF REVIEW BY |
| | THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. YOU SHOULD THEN SUBMIT ALL OF |
| | THAT INFORMATION TO ME IN DUPLICATE AND I WILL ISSUE |
| | THE PERMIT. |
| | |
| | |
| | STEVEN KENNEDY, CBO |
| | CHIEF PLANS EXAMINER |
| | (561) 805-6710 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
