Florida Building Commission

Florida Building Commission

Product Approval/Manufactured Buildings

Program Oversight Committee (POC)

Minutes

December 6, 2010

9:00 A.M.

Crown Plaza Hotel, Melbourne

2605 Highway A1A North

Product Approval Program Oversight Committee members present: Ed Carson, Chair, Chris Schulte, Herminio Gonzalez, Tim Tolbert, Jeffrey Stone, Nicholas Nicholson and John Sherer. DCA and Commission Staff attending included: Mo Madani, Suzanne Davis, and Ted Berman.

1. The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Chairman, Ed Carson. The agenda and minutes were approved as presented.

2. Product Approval Program issues

A. Staff presented the Product Approval Entities and Statistics Report (1/1/2006 – 11/15/2010).

A. Product Approval Administrator’s Survey – The overall rating for this cycle was good to excellent.

1. Discussion Items:

A. Review and Discuss the Structural TAC’s action on the Following Declaratory Statements and Provide Recommendations on Questions Related to Rule 9N-3 as Applicable: – The POC accepted the Structural TAC’s recommendation for the following declaratory statements:

DCA10-DEC-209, DCA10-DEC-217, DCA10-DEC-219, DCA10-DEC-220, DCA10-DEC-221, DCA10-DEC-222, DCA10-DEC-224, DCA10-DEC-225

The POC approved staff’s recommendation for DCA10-DEC-216 as follows:

Question 2: “Does our anchoring system fall within Rule 9N-3 “State Product Approval System?”

Answer 2: NO, the product in question is not part of the building envelope and thus does not fall within the scope of Rule 9N-3.

B. Status Report on Shutters Used Within HVHZ that Have Deflection Larger Than Allowed by S.1613.1.9 – Ted Berman read into the record those manufacturers that were contacted and in need of revising their application for compliance with Section 1613.1.9 of the FBC, Building. Seven (7) manufacturers did not respond. The POC recommended that staff begin the revocation process for those that did not comply: FL #’s: 12888, 13271, 13569, 13663, 9655, 10348, and 13227.

C. Minimum Requirements of AAMA 506-06 as Related to Anchorage Details – Staff reported that the Declaratory Statement DCA10-DEC-217, referenced in item 3-A above, clarified this issue.

D. Complaint: Signature Door, Inc. – Alleged Misuse of Product Approvals – Motion was made and seconded to direct staff to review and provide for options to address Mr. Shaffer’s recommendation to amend Rule 9N-3 for the purpose of addressing misuse of product approvals.

E. Review and Provide Recommendations on Clarification Issues Raised by JAPC Regarding Rule 9N-3 – JAPC has requested that Rule 9N-3 be revised to clarify who is responsible for determining whether good cause has been demonstrated.

The POC reviewed the proposed changes to Rule 9N-3 as drafted by staff and recommended approval with the following modification to item 4(e):

4(e). The Commission shall review the products as recommended by the POC and comments submitted in opposition to the POC recommendation and either ratify the Department’s approval of the product or direct further action by the POC, the Administrator or the applicant ~~for product approval~~ as necessitated by the particular circumstances.

2. Ted Berman & Associates Report – Products and entities were reviewed and approved recommendations were provided. DCA approved products were made available on the agenda as required by rule and no comment was raised at the meeting regarding those products.

Note: FL #. 8809 - the POC requested that staff refers the evaluation report for this product to the Structural TAC for review and evaluation and that a letter be send to the validation entity regarding this matter.

Public Comment:

Chairman Carson requested that staff provide an update at the January 2011 meeting regarding applications that were recommended for revocation from the October 2010 agenda.

Mr. Ben Jakubauskas shared concerns with Product Approval FL12545 as related to ASTM E 2203. The POC suggested that the applicant submit a Declaratory Statement requesting clarification for his product.

Commissioner Jeff Stone requested that staff notify all parties involved of the concerns raised by West Coast Aluminum Mfg., Inc regarding application numbers FL11349-R2 and FL11352-R2.

5. Adjourn – Meeting adjourned at 12:02 P.M.

Actions Needed by the Commission:

1. Ted Berman and Associates report – Products and entities were reviewed and approved. Recommendations were provided.

POC Action: The Committee recommends the products and entities listed in the Administrator’s report be approved, deferred, conditionally approved or denied as per voted on by the Committee.

2. Shutters Used Within HVHZ that Have Deflection Larger than Allowed by S.1613.1.9 – The POC recommended that staff begin the revocation process for those that did not comply: FL #’s: 12888, 13271, 13569, 13663, 9655, 10348, and 13227.

2. Review and Provide Recommendations on Clarification Issues Raised by JAPC Regarding Rule 9N-3 – JAPC has requested that Rule 9N-3 be revised to clarify who is responsible for determining whether good cause has been demonstrated. The following are the proposed changes to the rule as recommended by the POC:

Rule 9N-3.007 Product Approval by the Commission

(d) Product Application that rely upon a product certification mark or listing from an approved certification agency shall be approved for use statewide in accordance with its approval and limitations of use to demonstrate compliance with the Code as follows:

1. An application of a product submitted for state acceptance pursuant to paragraph 9N-3.005(1)(a), F.A.C., shall be approved by the Department after the Program System Administrator (the Administrator” verifies that the application and required documentation as per Rule 9N-3.006, F.A.C., are complete.

2. The verification by the Administrator must be completed within 10 business days after receipt of the application.

3. Upon approval by the Department, the Administrator shall add approved products to the list of the state-approved products maintained by the BCISU. Approvals by the Department shall be reviewed and ratified by the Commission’s Program Oversight Committee (“POC”) except for a showing of good cause that a review by the full Commission is necessary. The Department shall schedule review of products it approves for the next POC meeting noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly. Comments concerning such products shall be accepted utilizing the BCIS.

4. For the purpose of curing deficiencies identified within product applications approved under this section, the following steps will be undertaken:

a. If a comment is received on a Department approved Product, the Administrator shall immediately evaluate the comment and determine whether the comment is technically relevant;

b. If the comment as determined by the Administrator is technically significant, the Administrator shall post the comment received in the comment box for the application;

c. The Administrator shall immediately notify the manufacturer of the comment received on his or her application requesting that the manufacturer respond to the comment and revise the application as deemed necessary; and

d. Any ~~outstanding~~ comment(s) shall be subject to review and determination by the POC whether the matter demonstrates good cause for review by the Commission~~,except for a showing of good cause that a review and determination by the full Commission is necessary~~. Any party in disagreement with the POC action on a comment is authorized to bring the matter before the Commission by providing public comment to the Commission during its meeting following POC consideration.