Codes do make reference to the fact that the Window pictured does come within 18" of the floor… no? I’ve run across this before, subsection 308.4 IRC… can find others too
I had mentioned that I was curious if there was a reason not to make mention, although I would.
Input why it’s not necessary *if it’s not already tempered???
*The GFCI thing is different… a recommendation is different, but I do get your point and will agree to some extent.
Tim
No, I saw it. There’s nothing in that attachment that would require this to be safety glass (by my interpretation) based on the information provided in the original post.
The exposed areas of those panes are less than 9 sq ft., they are not near a door as far as I can tell, there is no exterior walking surface as far as I can tell.
What am I missing?
Unless this is classified as a “hazardous location,” all of the following **must be met **for safety glass to be required;
Exposed area must be greater than 9 sq. ft.
Bottom edge must be less than 18" above the ground/surface
Top edge must be more than 36" above the ground/surface
The window must be within 36" (horizontal) from the walking surface
I smell a Home Inspector english comprehension class in the near future.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
I would put GFCI outlets near that window myself. 
LOL Brian
How are you?
Fat and Happy baby. Actualy did and inspection today, yippee. :mrgreen:
I think it boils down to if you count Muntins as individual or as a group forming one area.
Unfortunately that area is not addressed specifically.
Also are we assuming that there are individual panes of glass in the frame?
I have seen one single pane of glass with muntins as decorative only.
I am sure the Muntins do not pass the 50 pound per foot test.
You left off this: “Exposed area of an individual pane larger than
9 square feet (0.836 m2).” (IRC R308.4)
If that condition isn’t met then the conditions you cited do not apply.
The window pictured does not have an individual pane larger than 9 SF. Therefore, it “must” *not *be tempered.
I think I see where your coming from:
On the GFCI note I would have to put the lamp, the outlet next to the window and the wall switch next to the door on GFCI in case I’m coming in from the snow with my wet hands(switch protection), go to kick my boots off and end up flinging snow into the outlets.:mrgreen:It’s All About Safety:mrgreen:
I’ll give it to you that these are a “single pane” window and equal to, or greater than 9 sq ft. (I don’t believe it to be true, but for argument sake), however, there is no “walking surface” (as defined by code) adjacent to the window, therefore, the window does not require tempered/safety glass.
So now I’m not allowed to walk on the floor from the door to the table to put my keys on it because it’s not a walking surface.](*,) This thread just took another turn:weird:
Actually the surface that is mentioned and Jeff is referring to in 308.4 would be a surface to *walk out onto… ie. a walkthru hazard as mentioned in the code…
*I mentioned 308.4 specifically and I also looked at the picture again…
It doesn’t appear that there is a surface to walk out to within 36" Horizontally…
I will look and see if I can find anything in regards to safety requirements in fenestration/windows if anything falls into the 18" req. alone (thought it had)
From the picture, as mentioned I looked again and can not see a surface to walk out onto… A, B and C are there in the code… not D. As mentioned and Jeff was correct ALL must be there. 
Tim
You’re not seriously going to start debating “walking surface.” :|.) It was nothing more than a joke;-). I’ll stick to what is right for me and my mind set as safety (not code) will let me sleep knowing I’m keeping my clients well informed that they could have a possible safety hazard to their young children.
As I stated before, I can see this turning into another GFCIthread :roll:
So I’ll ask it again - Do you inform your clients of the potential hazards of living in the flight path of an airport?
Code or not ,I would warn my clients with kids about potential safety hazards.
Bob,
Wasn’t making an attempt to make conversation at the comment you had made regarding walking surface…
Just clearing up something I said,…was directed to Jeff. I had made that in bold to try to keep clear.
Take care,
Tim
BTW
Anyone done an impact study (personally of course) as to whether there is an increased risk of living in the flight path of Airport. I am thinking of adding a disclaimer at bottom of inspection report… I’ll give you author credit
Jeff ,on Saturday I did a report on a Condo with egress onto a fire escape in the heart of a busy neighborhood…
In my report I suggested it may be a good idea to have a security system installed,
My guess is that you would consider my report suggestion as not needed.
True or False?
Your answer will tell a lot.
Code-wise, when I reviewed the picture a second time, it was apparent Jeff was correct. I wasn’t looking for the missing component for the walkthru hazard which is a surface to walk out onto within 36".
Recommendation-wise: Suggesting a security system in your mention… or the window resting at floor level. Good topic/point to bring up.
I guess it depends on the situation, but in the right case, I’d mention the window, and in the case of the window you mentioned…maybe so!
Good point,
Tim
Long and the short of the matter we are not code keepers but we do work for the buyer
I would call out the windows in my report just for safety and explain (IMO) Safety could be concerned depending if there would children or handicap people involved ( like a wheel chair) . Depends on your outlook i guess. code references are there but are only minimum standards in most cases , As everyone knows every district can have higher standards in Place. Is it Our responsibility Probably not . Is it a good idea to cover your _ss Priceless. it will not cost you a dime to mention it.
Aggree