Volume 46, Issue 8 - September 2011

ContractGlazing

 

N.C. Clarifies Windborne Debris Protection for Replacement Glazing

If you sell products into North Carolina you should know that a windborne debris interpretation was issued recently by the North Carolina Department of Insurance.

According to the interpretation, windborne debris protection is required for replacement windows in exterior walls of structures located in the windborne debris region as defined in NC Building Code, Section 1609.2, and NC Residential Code, Section 202, in certain situations. The situations that may arise, and whether or not they require updated protection, are as follows:

a) Replacing only a glazing panel and not an entire window in a double-hung or casement type unit:
No, windborne debris protection is not required, unless the existing window is designed for it, in which case the replacement panel is required to provide windborne debris protection. The glazing panel is considered repair and can be repaired with a like material.

b) Replacing only a window sash and not an entire window:

No, windborne debris protection is not required, unless the existing window is designed for it, in which case the replacement sash is required to provide windborne debris protection. The sash is considered repair and can be repaired with a like material.

c) Replacing a window but not removing the existing window frame:
Yes, windborne debris protection is necessary. The window unit is considered new construction and must meet the requirements for new construction.

d) Replacing a window and the existing window frame:
Yes, windborne debris protection is necessary. The window unit is considered new construction and must meet the requirements for new construction.

e) Replacing a storefront glazing panel in an existing window frame:
Yes, windborne debris protection is necessary. The glazing panel is considered new construction and must meet the requirements for new construction.

Additional information, including illustrations of requirements, is available by viewing previous interpretations posted on the NCDOI website, www.ncdoi.com.

The effective date for the North Carolina codes was September 1, 2011, with a mandatory effective date of March 1, 2012.

Dwight Wilkes, the American Architectural Manufacturers Association Southeast codes consultant, says that the interpretation provides answers to frequently asked questions.

“It is a good document and when any enforcement agency says this is what you have to do when you have to do it, that helps clarify the code,” he says.

As far as permits Wilkes says it is always important to check with local jurisdictions before beginning work.

“A lot of states will adopt a code but not the administrative section. It does get very complex,” he says.

“Following the above clarifications is not a problem,” comments Thomas Sauers, vice president of sales for Wind-Tech Products in Cross Hill, S.C. However, he adds, “I do question the understanding of the recipient of the upgrade to the storefront mentioned in point E … just because an existing storefront not designed for impact glass receives an impact glass replacement, this does not make the installation an impact-rated installation. Typically an installation meeting impact requires an increase in the anchorage pattern and a stronger anchor than used in typical construction. Impact-rated designs also allow for increased frame coverage on the glass (bite) and the existing frame does not provide this. Bottom line is, the
replacement is better, but not an impact-rated package.”

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against U.S. Green Building Council
The United States District Court in New York City dismissed in its entirety the lawsuit brought against the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in Washington, D.C., by Henry Gifford and others, holding that none of the plaintiffs in the action had alleged or could allege any legal interest to be protected by their lawsuit (see November 2010 USGlass, page 14).

The court dismissed the federal false advertising claims “with prejudice,” meaning that the court’s dismissal of those claims is final and that plaintiffs are barred from filing a new suit based on those claims. The court’s ruling simultaneously dismissed plaintiffs’ state law false advertising claims.


USG
© Copyright 2011 Key Communications Inc. All rights reserved.
No reproduction of any type without expressed written permission.