| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Western States Fire Protection Co. of AK v. Municipality of Anchorage (11/10/2006) sp-6069
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
| WESTERN STATES FIRE | ) |
| PROTECTION COMPANY OF | ) Supreme Court No. S- 11895 |
| ALASKA, | ) |
| ) Superior Court No. | |
| Appellant, | ) 3AN-04-4479 CI |
| ) | |
| v. | ) O P I N I O N |
| ) | |
| MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, | ) No. 6069 - November 9, 2006 |
| ANCHORAGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, | ) |
| FIRE PROTECTION DIVISION, | ) |
| ) | |
| Appellee. | ) |
| ) | |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage, Philip R. Volland, Judge.
Appearances: Lea E. Filippi and Barbra Z.
Nault, Bankston Gronning OHara, P.C.,
Anchorage, for Appellant. Dean T. Gates,
Assistant Municipal Attorney, and Frederick
H. Boness, Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for
Appellee.
Before: Bryner, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Fabe, and Carpeneti, Justices.
CARPENETI, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
More than one hundred acoustic tiles hang from the
ceiling of the auditorium at A.J. Dimond High School in
Anchorage. The acoustic tiles hang below the fire sprinklers.
The fire department determined that the tiles obstructed too much
water from the sprinklers. The board of building examiners,
finding that the sprinkler installation complied with local fire
codes, overruled the fire department. The superior court
reversed the boards decision and the sprinkler installer now
appeals. Because interpretation of the fire code calls for the
boards technical expertise, we ask only whether the boards
decision has a rational basis in law and fact. However, even
under this deferential standard of review, we hold that the board
failed to determine whether the sprinklers and the tiles in their
current configuration actually permit adequate water coverage.
We therefore vacate the decision of the board and remand the case
to the board for reconsideration, which may include taking
additional evidence.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Western States Fire Protection Company of Alaska
(Western States) designed and installed the sprinkler system in
the new auditeria of A.J. Dimond High School. Overhead in the
auditeria more than one hundred acoustic tiles, known as clouds,
hang approximately twelve feet below the ceiling. Each of the
clouds is four feet wide and eight to twelve feet long. Western
Statess technical drawings, which the Anchorage Fire Department
preliminarily approved, show the positions of the clouds relative
to the sprinklers. The parties disagree on the distance between
the clouds. Western States asserts that the clouds are spaced
roughly two feet apart, referring to photographs of the auditeria
ceiling and technical drawings. However, based on the same
drawings, the fire department asserts that the clouds are only
six inches apart.1 In any case, Western States conceded that the
sprinklers and clouds are not configured to take advantage of the
open gaps between the clouds.2 After the clouds and sprinklers
were installed, the fire department inspected the auditeria and
issued a fire inspection notice expressing the departments
concern over the number of clouds and their position below the
sprinkler heads. According to the inspection notice, the clouds
would disrupt the sprinkler discharge pattern, resulting in
inadequate coverage of any fire erupting below the clouds. The
fire marshal refused to approve the sprinklers until Western
States remedied the situation by remov[ing] obstructions and/or
add[ing] additional sprinkler heads as necessary.
Western States appealed the fire departments decision
to the Anchorage Board of Building Regulation Examiners and
Appeals.3 At hearings before the board, Western States pointed
out that before construction it showed its sprinkler installation
plans to five different entities (including the fire marshal),
who signaled their approval. According to Western States,
because of the clouds, only sixty-eight percent of the floor
coverage is open to water application. Western States also
indicated that the sprinklers are placed closer together than
legally required, although the resulting additional water they
provide would not make up for the water blocked by the clouds.
Western States additionally noted that fire alarms and a nearby
fire station provide backups for the sprinkler system. Although
Western States was asked several questions about water flow and
coverage during the hearing, it is unclear from the record
whether the board reached any conclusion about the amount of
water actually capable of reaching the floor from the sprinklers
and whether the amount would provide adequate protection against
fire hazards in the auditeria.
The fire departments fire inspector urged the board to
find that the sprinklers [should] be extended through or between
the acoustic panels to a level that [will] extend the coverage to
the area below, in other words, to the floor area below, which is
where the hazard is. Otherwise, according to the inspector, the
sprinkler system fails to comply with the National Fire
Protection Association standard for sprinkler systems (NFPA 13)4
as incorporated into Anchorages fire code.5 The fire department
submitted a letter from the manufacturer of the acoustic clouds,
which stated that similar installations, including one at a high
school in Fairbanks, were required to include additional
sprinklers either in the gaps between the clouds or penetrating
the clouds themselves.
In deliberations after the hearing, the board members
discussed NFPA 13s four-foot benchmark for sprinkler
obstructions in connection with the four-foot width of the
accoustical tiles.6 According to one board member, over four
feet is not the same thing as four feet or more, and this is
pretty clear[,] it says over four feet. Following this comment,
another board member made a motion to grant Western Statess
appeal, remarking, Thats our only option. The board then voted
unanimously that Western States had complied with NFPA 13.
The fire department appealed the boards decision to the
superior court. Anchorage Superior Court Judge Philip R. Volland
reversed the boards decision, applying the substitution of
judgment standard of review. According to the superior court,
substitution of judgment was appropriate, since [t]he
interpretation of such non-technical terms as continuous, non-
continuous, fixed obstructions, and over four feet wide . . .
does not involve agency expertise or broad policy formulations.
The superior court determined that the boards literal
interpretation of NFPA 13 produced an absurd result, since the
sprinkler-cloud arrangement might technically comply with NFPA 13
while negating the standards purpose, which is to ensure that a
sufficient amount of water from the sprinkler reaches the hazard.7
Western States appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Where the superior court acts as an intermediate court
of appeal from an administrative decision such as the boards, we
review the administrative decision directly.8 When the boards
interpretation of law turns on its technical expertise or the
determination of fundamental policies within the scope of the
[boards] statutory function,9 we inquire whether the
interpretation has a rational basis. As we stated in Tesoro
Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., two circumstances
generally call for rational basis review: (1) where the agency is
making law by creating standards to be used in evaluating the
case before it and future cases, and (2) when a case requires
resolution of policy questions which lie within the agencys area
of expertise and are inseparable from the facts underlying the
agencys decision.10 When applying the rational basis test, we ask
whether the decision is supported by the facts and has a
reasonable basis in law.11
The rational basis test may be appropriate even when
interpreting commonly used words, if there are technical and
policy reasons to defer to the administrative agency, and
especially if the legislature has granted the agency broad
discretion. For example, in Matanuska-Susitna Borough v.
Hammond, we applied the rational basis test to a decision of the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, and deferred to its
interpretation of the statutory term population.12 We affirmed
the departments interpretation of population for the sake of
revenue sharing and tax limitation in that case because the
legislature had granted broad discretion to the department by
permitting the department to make a population determination
based on data which, in the judgment of the department, is
reliable.13
Similarly, in this case, although the disputed
provisions of NFPA 13 contain common terms like continuous and
noncontinuous, they also contain open-ended terms whose
interpretation requires technical expertise. For instance, the
board, and not the judiciary, is qualified to determine whether
the size of the clouds relative to their location will impair the
functioning of the sprinklers, such that the clouds prevent
adequate coverage.14 NFPA 13s terminology permits the building
inspector and the board to determine compliance on a case-by-case
basis. For instance, it states that [i]n some situations, the
obstruction cannot be avoided, and additional sprinklers are
necessary to compensate for areas under the obstruction that
would not receive adequate coverage.15 Additionally, a four-foot
wide obstruction (that is, one that is not over four feet) does
not automatically comply, since [t]he size at which obstructions
become too large to ignore is typically 4 ft (1.2 m).16 Finally,
the Anchorage Assembly has granted broad discretion to the board.
According to AMC 03.60.050:
[The board] may hear and decide de novo all
matters appealed and may exercise independent
judgment as to the weight of evidence
supporting or refuting the findings of the
administrative official . . . from whose
decision the appeal is taken, and may
exercise independent judgment on legal issues
raised by the parties.
With the relatively deferential rational basis test in
mind, we now turn to the boards decision in order to decide
whether the board correctly determined that the sprinkler
installation complied with the fire code.
IV. DISCUSSION
The fire department disputes the boards conclusion that
the sprinkler system complies with the fire code, although it
does not dispute the boards finding that the clouds are four feet
wide and the boards determination that NFPA 13 determines the
sprinklers proper configuration in relation to them. The overall
objective of NFPA 13 is to ensure that a sufficient amount of
water from the sprinkler reaches the hazard.17 According to this
standard, additional sprinklers are required where a horizontal
obstruction more than four feet wide is situated more than
eighteen inches below the original sprinkler.18 Yet this rules
converse is not necessarily true; i.e., the rule does not imply
that an obstruction exactly four feet wide (and more than
eighteen inches below the original sprinkler) will never require
an additional sprinkler below it. Contrary to Western Statess
argument, the sprinkler requirement for obstructions more than
four feet wide does not establish that obstructions, like those
at issue here, that are exactly four feet wide or less than four
feet wide, are never subject to the requirements.19 The Anchorage
Municipal Code is consistent with this interpretation, since
technical compliance with the NFPA leads to a rebuttable
presumption rather than a conclusion that the sprinkler system
provides adequate coverage.20 NFPA 13 also covers obstructions
four feet wide or less that fail to permit adequate sprinkler
coverage. It provides, The size at which obstructions become too
large to ignore is typically 4 ft (1.2 m).21 This indicates that
obstructions exactly four feet wide may obstruct the water flow
to such an extent that they are too large to ignore. In other
words, if an obstruction of any size interrupts the water
discharge in a manner to limit the distribution of water to the
hazard, then additional sprinklers may be necessary to compensate
for areas under the obstruction that would not receive adequate
coverage.22
On this critical question whether water coverage in
the event of a fire would be sufficient there is no evidence in
the record indicating that the board made a decision. It did not
make any findings on the distance between the clouds, their
number, or their effect on the sprinkler discharge pattern.
Rather, it appears that the board believed it had no choice in
the matter and regarded its approval as mandatory on account of
the clouds four-foot width. Therefore, we hold that it failed to
consider other relevant provisions of NFPA 13, especially its
overall purpose to ensure that a sufficient amount of water from
the sprinkler reaches the hazard.23
V. CONCLUSION
Administrative expertise requires deference from the
judiciary. However, because the board has not answered the
crucial question, that is, whether adequate water reaches the
floor, we VACATE the decision of the board and REMAND the case to
the board for additional proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
_______________________________
1 In its reply brief, Western States maintains that the
clouds are more than six inches apart.
2 According to Western States, [T]he sprinklers are not
aligned to the gap between the clouds; rather, the sprinklers
were configured to avoid obstructions above the clouds at the
roof level of the auditeria.
3 The board is composed of eleven building experts. See
AMC 23.10.204.3.
4 See infra note 18 for the text of relevant provisions
of NFPA 13.
5 According to Uniform Fire Code 101.3 (1997) (formerly
incorporated into the Anchorage fire code by AMC 23.45.100):
[C]ompliance with applicable standards of the National Fire
Protection Association . . . shall be deemed as prima facie
evidence of compliance with the intent of this code. . . . [But]
[n]othing herein shall derogate from the power of the chief to
determine compliance . . . .). This text is now incorporated
into the Anchorage fire code by reference to the International
Fire Code. See AMC 23.05.010; Intl Fire Code 102.7 (2003). See
Natl Fire Prot. Assn Standard 13 (NFPA 13) 5.5-5 (1999) (amended
2002). The 2002 amendments to NFPA recodified section 5.5-5 as
section 8.5.5.2 although the substantive provisions remain the
same. In this opinion we refer to the 1999 version of NFPA 13.
6 NFPA 13 5-5.3.1 provides, in part, that [s]prinklers
shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft. (1.2 m)
wide . . . .
7 NFPA 13 5-5.5.
8 Raad v. Alaska State Commn for Human Rights, 86 P.3d
899, 903 (Alaska 2004); Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe
Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903 (Alaska 1987).
9 Tesoro, 746 P.2d at 903.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Hammond, 726 P.2d 166, 175
(Alaska 1986) ([T]he reasonable basis standard is the appropriate
standard of review here because both agency expertise and
fundamental policy decisions are involved in the determination of
population, and because the legislature intended to place the
decision in the hands of the department.).
13 Id. at 169 (quoting former AS 29.88.015). See id. at
175-76, 176 n.17.
14 NFPA 13 A-5-5.3.
15 Id. (emphasis added).
16 Id. 5-5.5.3.1 (emphasis added).
17 Id. 5-5.5.
18 This conclusion follows from the NFPA 13 sections
quoted below.
NFPA 13 5-5.5.3 provides:
Continuous or noncontinuous obstructions that
interrupt the water discharge in a horizontal
plane more than 18 in. (457 mm) below the
sprinkler deflector in a manner to limit the
distribution from reaching the protected
hazard shall comply with [this section].
According to A-5-5.3:
Once the sprinkler discharge pattern is
developed, obstructions in the horizontal
plane can prevent the sprinkler discharge
from reaching the protected hazard. In some
situations, the obstruction cannot be
avoided, and additional sprinklers are
necessary to compensate for areas under the
obstruction that would not receive adequate
coverage.
According to 5-5.5.3.1:
Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed
obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) wide such as
ducts, decks, open grate flooring, cutting
tables, and overhead doors. . . . The size at
which obstructions become too large to ignore
is typically 4 ft (1.2 m).
19 See, e.g., Ward Bros. Co. v. Zimmerman, 166 N.E. 545,
546 (Ind. App. 1929):
[A]ppellant sought to have the court instruct
the jury that . . . a speed of less than 35
miles an hour was prima facie not negligent,
this being urged in view of the statute . . .
making speed greater than 35 miles per hour
prima facie negligence. It is true that, by
the statute referred to, a speed in excess of
the limit there fixed is prima facie
negligent, but the converse is not
necessarily true. The statute provides that
no person shall operate a motor vehicle on a
public highway at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent, and it is easily
conceivable that one might violate this
provision of the statute, and still be well
within the prima facie limit fixed.
See generally A.R. Lacey, A Dictionary of Philosophy 49 (defining
denial of antecedent as the [f]allacy of arguing that if the
antecedent of a conditional statement is false, so is the
consequent, e.g. If all cats are black, Tiddles is black; but not
all cats are black, so Tiddles is not black. ); 5 Encyclopedia of
Philosophy 37, 42 (Paul Edwards ed., 1967).
20 See former AMC 23.45.101.3, supra note 5.
21 NFPA 13 5-5.5.3.1.
22 Id. 5-5.5.3 & A 5-5.5.3.
23 Id. 5-5.5.
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
