RE: Minutes from the February 2, 2010 Commission Meeting

DCA09-DEC-411 Manny Sanchez of Fenestration Testing Laboratory, Inc.

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Chuck Anderson, President AHMA

Mr. Anderson stated he believed the staff the recommendations were in line for the most part. He then stated he requested some language be added to the second one. He continued by stating he agreed with the first one stated the standard said to test three specimens and three specimens were not tested. He believed the answer to be correct. He further stated in the staff recommendation that was presented at the POC under the background and situation it stated the reviewing engineer who was doing the evaluation was requesting a test report bearing the PE seal and he stated it was not up to the laboratory to decide if what was tested was ample for a product approval. He stated he believed the test labs were ill equipped to make that call. He then stated the test lab has a standard when a product was brought to the lab it was tested to the standard to determine if it passed or failed. He continued by stating doors were more complex i.e. there could be a latch that latches at a jam, a latch that latches to a fixed panel, there could be two panels that both move and they latch, there were pocket panels, panels that interlock, panels that bypass, single point locks, multipoint locks, etc.

Mr. Blair asked Mr. Anderson what he would like to see added to the language.

Mr. Anderson stated he believed the test labs were responsible for saying whether or not the product passes the test. He then stated he did not believe the test labs were certifying the products for product approval as they do not have the means or guidance in the standards which tells them which of the combination of panels needed to be tested in order to qualify the product line.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification Mr. Anderson if he was satisfied with the answer but would like to see some other language added to the second answer.

Mr. Anderson stated he believed the test lab, once off the hook, did not wish to be making the decision the product met the requirements for product approval.

Mr. Madani stated, as Mr. Anderson said, the test lab’s responsibility was to test the product according to the standard. He then stated when the code revised the standard if it says test three specimens it was the responsibility of the lab to comply with the revision of the standard.

Mr. Anderson stated the line of questioning appeared to be to decide if it was the test lab’s responsibility to determine if it was ample for product approval. He then stated he believed it was different. He continued by stating he believed certification entities set up rules for certification. He further stated if tested to the standards it qualified whole product line. He stated, for instance, in his company’s certification program there were ways to tell how the doors should be tested and how many combinations of these tests should be done to qualify all of them.

Mr. Blair asked if he were able to draft the answer to question #2 what it would say.

Mr. Anderson responded by stating he would add a sentence stating “it is not the jurisdiction of the test lab to determine whether the assemblies meet the requirements for product approval.”

Mr. Dixon asked if Mr. Anderson was the petitioner.

Mr. Anderson responded stating he was not the petitioner.

Mr. Dixon stated, given the other parties who may be affected by the answer, further clarification of what the question was might be necessary. He then stated a different question. He further stated Mr. Anderson was asking something different than what was interpreted. He asked if it would be appropriate to defer the petition back for more information from the petitioner to clarify.

Mr. Madani stated it was his understanding the questions were limited to the standards and the revisions of the code to the standard. He then stated the petition could be sent back requesting more information from the petitioner for clarification.

Commissioner Carson stated he believed it would be a prudent decision.

Commissioner Nicholson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.