WINDOW WORKGROUP REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APRIL 10, 2007

Overview

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chair of the Florida Building Commission, has made appointments to the Window Workgroup, and they are found below. Members are charged with representing their stakeholder group’s interests, and working with other interest groups to develop a consensus package of recommendations for submittal to the Florida Building Commission.

Workgroup Membership

The following members were appointed to serve on the Window Workgroup:

Robert Amoruso, Chuck Anderson, Bob Boyer, Rusty Carrol, Jaime Gascon, Dale Griener,

Jon Hill, C.W. Macomber, John McFee, Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Roger Sanders,

Jim Schock, Steve Strawn, Sigi Valentine, and Dwight Wilkes.

SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP’S KEY DECISIONS

Opening and Meeting Attendance

The meeting started at 9:05 AM, and the following Workgroup members were present:

Robert Amoruso, Chuck Anderson, Bob Boyer, Jaime Gascon, Dale Greiner, John McFee,

Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Roger Sanders, Jim Schock, Steve Strawn, Sigi Valentine, and Dwight Wilkes.

The Following members were absent: Rusty Carrol, Jon Hill, and C.W. Macomber.

Members expressed appreciation to the Institute of Business and Home Safety (IBHS) for the use of the meeting space.

DCA Staff Present

Joe Bigelow, Rick Dixon, Mo Madani, and E. J. Wozniak.

Meeting Facilitation

The meeting was facilitated by Jeff Blair from the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium at Florida State University. Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/

Project Webpage

Information on the project, including agenda packets, meeting reports, and related documents may be found in downloadable formats at the project webpage below:

http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/wwg.html

Meeting Objectives

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 13 - 0 in favor, to approve the agenda as presented including the following objectives:

ü To Review Scope of Meeting and Issues for Consideration

ü To Identify and Discuss Proposed Option(s)

ü To Evaluate Option(s) for Acceptability

ü To Consider Public Comment

ü To Adopt Package of Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission

ü To Discuss Next Steps and Recommendations Delivery Schedule

Work Group’s Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines

Jeff Blair reviewed the Workgroup’s decision-making procedures found on page 3 of the agenda packet.

Approval of May 31, 2006 Facilitator’s Summary Report

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 13 - 0 in favor, to approve the November 1 - 2, 2006 Facilitator’s Summary Report as presented.

Overview of Workgroup’s Scope and Charge

Jeff Blair explained that the revised scope of the Workgroup was to discuss and develop consensus recommendations for a template for installation instructions submitted for product approval submittals. Chairman Rodriguez agreed to reconvene the Workgroup at the request of workgroup members.

It was explained that the Workgroup’s recommendations would be submitted to the Product Approval POC, and the POC’s comments along with the Workgroup’s recommendations, would be submitted to the Commission during the May 2007 plenary session. It is anticipated that the Commission will vote on a package of recommendations and move to amend Rule 9B-72 in order to implement the recommendations.

Jeff explained that Workgroup members are charged with representing their constituent interest groups, and should consider this in the context of the deliberations. Jeff explained that the format and process for the meeting was as follows:

For each option:

* Overview of proposed option

* General discussion with Workgroup and staff on the option

* Identification of any new option(s),

* Public comment on the option,

* Initial ranking of option,

* Identification of member’s reservations (if any),

* Second ranking if any member(s) wishes to change their ranking based on the discussion(s),

General Public Comment

Prior to the Workgroup voting on the package of recommendations, Jeff Blair offered members of the public an additional opportunity to provide feedback to the Workgroup. Several members of the public provided comments to the Workgroup.

Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 13 - 0 in favor, for the package of consensus recommendations for submittal to the Structural TAC, and to the Commission.

Next Steps

The Structural TAC and Product Approval POC will review Window Workgroup’s recommendations, and make recommendations to the Commission.

The Commission will decide on Workgroup’s recommendations at the May or June 2007 meeting. Any Code changes will be reviewed by TAC’s per the Commission’s adopted Code review process, and rule changes will be developed through the rule development requirements in Chapter 120.54.

Adjournment—Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 13 – 0 in favor, to adjourn at 12:00 PM.

CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS

(April 10, 2007)

Consensus recommendations are defined as those options that achieved a 75% threshold of

4’s and 3’s in relation to 2’s and 1’s.

Installation instructions shall indicate the following:

The maximum rough opening gap between the product and the substrate that it is being attached to.

The type, and grade of anchor, and/or manufacturers anchor specifications; including minimum nominal size, minimum penetration into substrate, and minimum edge distances.

The type, physical dimensions, material and grade of any accessory item or strap, if applicable.

The spacing of anchors, shims, accessory items and straps.

Illustrated diagrams of the attachment of the product to the structure.

OPTIONS ACCEPTABILITY RANKING EXERCISE

During the meeting, members were asked to develop and rank options, and following

discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options as refined. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. A four-point ranking scale will be used, and in general, 4’s and 3’s indicate support and 2’s and 1’s indicate opposition to the option. A 75% threshold of 4’s and 3’s will be required for an affirmative recommendation to the Commission. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercise(s):

Acceptability

Ranking

Scale

4 = acceptable, I agree

3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations

2 = not acceptable, I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed

1 = not acceptable

Following are all of the Options that were evaluated by the Workgroup during the April 2007 meeting:

Installation instructions shall indicate:

Maximum rough opening gap between the product and the substrate that it is being attached to.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

4/10/07

Allow for a

Tolerance factor

1-12 in favor: failed

Summary:

This option was discussed, various amendments/revisions were considered, and the final version as provided above the matrix box was recommended for approval.

The type, and grade of anchor, and/or manufacturers anchor specifications; including minimum nominal size, minimum penetration into substrate, and minimum edge distances.

	*4=acceptable*	*3= minor reservations*	*2=major reservations*	*1= not acceptable*
Ranking 4/10/07	11	2	0	0
Revised Ranking with changes	13	0	0	0
Vote to delete: ~~Length~~	13 – 0 in favor: passed
Replace least diameter with: minimum shank diameter	10 – 3 in favor: passed
Add minimum before: edge distance	13 – 0 in favor: passed
Replace minimum shank diameter with: minimum nominal size	10 – 3 in favor: passed
Add language: and or structural sealants, if applicable	Not supported
Add material	8-4 in favor: failed
Add: (and or manufacturers anchor specifications	13-0 in favor: passed

Summary:

This option was discussed, various amendments/revisions were considered, and the final version as provided above the matrix box was recommended for approval.

The type, physical dimensions, material and grade of any accessory item or strap, if applicable.

	*4=acceptable*	*3= minor reservations*	*2=major reservations*	*1= not acceptable*
Ranking 4/10/07	13	0	0	0
Delete: ~~Insert~~ And Replace with: accessory item	13 – 0 in favor: passed
Delete: ~~Used~~ and replace with: If applicable	13 – 0 in favor: passed

Summary:

This option was discussed, various amendments/revisions were considered, and the final version as provided above the matrix box was recommended for approval.

The spacing of anchors, shims, accessory items and straps.

	*4=acceptable*	*3= minor reservations*	*2=major reservations*	*1= not acceptable*
Ranking 4/10/07	11	2	0	0
Add: shims	11 – 2 in favor: passed
End sentence at straps. Delete: ~~at all points of attachment.~~	13 – 0 in favor: passed
Replace: ~~inserts~~ with: accessory straps	13 – 0 in favor: passed

Summary:

This option was discussed, various amendments/revisions were considered, and the final version as provided above the matrix box was recommended for approval.

Illustrated diagrams of the attachment of the product to the structure.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

4/10/07

Summary:

This option was discussed, various amendments/revisions were considered, and the final version as provided above the matrix box was recommended for approval.

Design Pressure Capacities.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

4/10/07

Summary and Rationale

This proposed option was discussed and evaluated, but did not achieve consensus.

Sealants for structural applications (Quantity, Location).

Summary and Rationale

This proposed option was discussed and evaluated, but did not achieve consensus.

It was considered with the discussion on item 2.

Other Issues Discussed:

1. Flashing Instructions

The Workgroup agreed this is an important issue that must be discussed, but felt it was a separate topic and outside the scope of this meeting on installation instructions.

2. Equivalency Language

The issue of providing for equivalency was briefly discussed, but in general it was decided this is primarily a code issue, and building officials currently have authority to approve alternate methods and materials.

APRIL 10, 2007

Tampa, Florida

APRIL 10, 2007

Overview

Workgroup Membership

SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP’S KEY DECISIONS

Opening and Meeting Attendance

Meeting Facilitation

Project Webpage

ATTACHMENT 1

WINDOW WORKGROUP MEETING III

April 10, 2007—Tampa, Florida