I sincerely hope that rule development is a long time away, it is a thankless job that requires countless hours, phone calls, conference calls, emails, study, thought and discussions listening to many differnt perspectives, even those like Mr Meeker, he is not alone in his opinion.
I will make sure we include this group if and when there is another round.
I do not believe that it is a “line in the sand” situation in this case. I believe that IF you are involved and going to be a contributor that you have a responsibility to make policy as correct, with logical thinking, as possible. I think it is pretty much accepted that the insurance industry is always positioning for increased revenue and this is nothing but politics.
How difficult would it be to hire 3 engineering firms to publish findings and vote on an appropriate inspection form. Majority of three. Maybe I am incorrect, been there before.
I would agree.
Perhaps my post here a year ago had something to do with the form being changed to accept the Sanibel Strap as a double wrap.
I have a request in to Simpson to determine what two straps nailed as pictured in my post above, would be rated as.
I suspect another form change is in order…or as I predicted, the doing away with wind mitigation inspections all together.
Sanibel was a double on the old from, it was just not listed. The data is not there for all the combinations of straps we would like(ie one nail with two on the opposite side)
It was not listed, being the operative term.
I am certain all the data for the different combinations of straps is somewhere.
There was a study done on the wrap with on nail on one side and two on the other. It is why the form got changed this time to include that as a single wrap.
I have it here somewhere.
Agree big time…
Thanks for the info, Darius. Two quick questions about this (for anyone that knows)…
Anyone know where to find these “directives”?
How can inspectors directly request a Declaratory Opinion if they have a question?
I did it once or thought about it. I am not quite sure how it ended up. I wanted an answer on something and they did what they do. Dodged the hell out of the question and the diverted every part of it away from themselves “the O.I.R.” It was a legal pain in the a s s. They make up crap and attach credentials that it takes to do it then tell you to use your credentials and figure it out yourself.
They are a joke and should be completely re done from the start. Everyone in the O.I.R should be removed and replaced with folks that do not care what Citizens insurance company says. The O.I R. should do what their name entails. They should Regulate the insurance business. Instead they just do whatever the insurance companies want or claim to need. Have you ever seen then deny a Citizens request ???
Darius is correct, I have gotten policyholders credit for having an SFBC product approval number on a pre 02 roof outside the HVHZ. You just have to have judicious documentation from the roofer who installed and unfortunately most people don’t keep judicious records.
A. All roof coverings listed above meet the FBC with a FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval Listing current at time of installation OR have a roofing permit application date on or after 3/1/02 OR the roof is original and built in 2004 or later.
B. All roof coverings have a Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of installation OR (for the HVHZ only) a roofing permit application after 9/1/1994 and before 3/1/2002 OR the roof is original and built in 1997 or later.
C. One or more roof coverings do not meet the requirements of Answer “A” or “B”.
D. No roof coverings meet the requirements of Answer “A” or “B”.
As you’ll notice in section 2 letter B of the current Wind Mitigation form OIR-B1-1802 (Rev. 01/12) Adopted by Rule 69O-170.0155, it is clearly stated at the end of the paragraph “OR the roof is original and built in 1997 or later.” which clearly entitles any home in or out of the HVHZ to marked as answer letter B regardless of any one persons interpretation of where they think the home should be located in order for that home to qualify for answer letter B.
First of all this thread is 5 years old. And second of all, you need to get some more training. You have no idea what you just wrote.
Just had this discussion with a client the other day. He questioned why I didn’t chose B as his home was built in 1998. I explained to him the HVHZ and FBC compliance. I also explained that I base my choice on the available information. No permits are available after 10 years (seems all counties purge records after 10 yrs) and he had no paperwork to say what was originally installed so…I don’t think he was too happy about it.
Not sure if this is what the client tried to show you, or are you making this statement?
Not sure either, but it would be interesting to see what the company he works for says. 
In the meantime, say a home was built in 1998 in Orlando.
On the form, question one would be answered as:
A. Built in compliance with the FBC: Year Built _________. For homes built in 2002/2003 provide a permit application with
a date after 3/1/2002: Building Permit Application Date (MM/DD/YYYY) __________________No
B. For the HVHZ Only: Built in compliance with the SFBC-94: Year Built ______. For homes built in 1994, 1995, and 1996
provide a permit application with a date after 9/1/1994: Building Permit Application Date (MM/DD/YYYY) _______________ No.
C. Unknown or does not meet the requirements of Answer “A” or “B” Yes.
Now, please explain how the “structure” is not in compliance with either code, but the roof is.
Also, the 97 date refers to question 1, answer B.
As I said in this very post 3 years ago, the form wasn’t designed very well.
This is how question 2, answer B should have been written:
B.For the HVHZ only: All roof coverings have a Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of installation OR a
roofing permit application after 9/1/1994 and before 3/1/2002 OR the roof is original and built in 1997 or later.
The very first SFBC (Dade County Edition) was developed in the early 1950’s and adopted in 1957, not 1994. Broward County had its’ own edition shortly after. So yes, there was a “Dade County Edition” of the SFBC.
“Miami-Dade” wasn’t even around in 1994 to adopt the SFBC during that time period, “Dade County” didn’t become “Miami-Dade County” unit 1997.
The original SFBC(s) WERE NOT based on the SBC, it used the UBC (first published in 1927) as a base model. It also used the NBC, among other standards. The only reference the 1994 SFBC made to the SBC (Southern Standard Building Code) was in the context of the SBC not taking precedence in Counties that mandated the SFBC (Florida had adopted the SBC as the statewide enforceable building code in 1974).
The very first NOA’s (Dade County) for roof coverings were produced in the late 1950’s. This technically means that ANY roof covering installed after the adoption date of the SFBC could potentially have a NOA, not just those installed after the 1994 SFBC or in Dade/Broward Counties.
The very first wind mitigation forms (not uniform), including state mandated credits for installed mitigation techniques, took place in the early 1990s via statute 627.0629. The first state mandated uniform mitigation document was developed via joint effort that included the Florida Building Commission, among others, in 2007. The Florida Building Commission “Wind Mitigation Workgroup” developed the mitigation techniques we use today.