Product Approval / Manufactured Buildings Program Oversight Committee (POC)
Minutes
June 8, 2009
9:00 am - 1:00 pm
Embassy Suites Hotel
3705
813-977-7066
Meeting Objectives:
Product Approval Program Oversight Committee members present: Ed Carson-Chair, Chris Schulte, Paul Kidwell, Herminio Gonzalez, Jeffrey Stone and Tim Tolbert.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Called to Order reviewed and approved the agenda as submitted and April 2nd Minutes.
2. Product Approval Program Issues
a. Staff presented the Product Approval Entities and statistics report.
3 Discussion items:
a. Discussion of FL 2982-R3 as it relates to affirmation. Ted Berman, the Administrator provided a summary of the concerns which consisted of lack of QA contract date and the use of wrong method of compliance (testing method in lieu of evaluation method)
Committee Action: The Committee recommends that the administrator deny affirmation to the 2007 application due to the lack of an active QA contract.
b. The Committee discussed the request from the manufacturer of wind breakers to reinstate windbreakers subcategory back into Rule 9B-72. Certain Committee members pointed out that windbreakers (removable acrylic panels) are not structural products/not part of the structural building envelope and for that this product falls outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. However in order to clarify the matter to users and local governments it was recommended that the manufacturer obtain a declaratory statement on the subject.
c. Staff presented the results of the survey that was conducted regarding whether future product approval POC meetings should be held by conference call or via a live format. The Committee discussed the issue including the use of webinars and directed staff continue the onsite/live format meeting until staff research and provide for other viable alternatives.
d. Rule 9B-72.090 – Staff presented Product Approval revenues collected through the lifecycle of the product approval program and provided options for adjusting fees and negotiations for the purpose of ensuring the program is self supporting and contributing to the Commissions overall budget.
Committee Action: The Committee recommended that Option 4 plus fee adjustments for products which require further review and inspection. (Option 4: Includes No fee adjustments and negotiations with the vendor)
e. The Committee discussed IAPMO expiration date of approval as an evaluation entity by October 1, 2009. Staff presented the history and background of the subject matter pointing out that an immediate action is needed, otherwise IAPMO will lose its approval as an Evaluation entity and all products approved using IAPMO as an evaluation entity will be void.
Committee action: The Committee requests that the Commission open Rule 9B-72 to allow for establishing criteria for approving IAPMO as an evaluation entity. Utilize the following criteria as the basis for approving evaluation entities: Certification agencies meeting ISO 65 are deemed approved as evaluation entities.
Note: Also in the interest of time, the Committee recommends that the rulemaking to carry out this task be done via teleconference.
f. The Committee discussed limiting number of products per application. DCA staff expressed concerns that several applications with high product numbers may be affecting system performance. Staff provided information regarding ISF (Information Systems of Florida) findings that their recommendation is to not have applications to have more than 150 products. The Committee recommended deferring the issue to the August meeting and directed staff to clarify the issue through consultation with ISF whether the issue is the number of products per line or number of products. Also the Committee requested that the impacted manufacturers provide detailed concerns to staff for consideration at the next meeting. Also if possible the Committee requests that the BCIS contractor be present to discuss this topic.
5. Declaratory Statement
DCA09-DEC-139 by David G. Karins, P.E. of Karins Engineering Group, Inc. Staff Analysis
Question: Can an expired test report be used to seek a Florida Product Approval or does testing of the same standards need to be retested?
Answer: An expired test report can be used to seek product approval under Rule 9B-72, as long as the testing standard as referenced in the FBC has not changed.
5. Ted Berman & Associates Report
A. Review product approval and entity applications.
Other Business: Ted Berman the Administrator expressed concern regarding the review process of FL 12017 expressing that the validator may not be doing his/her due diligence in reviewing the applications. The Committee voted to defer the consideration of the matter to the next meeting to allow staff to research the matter.
6. Adjourned at 1:00 PM
Action
Needed By The Commission:
1. Committee Action: The Committee recommends that the administrator deny affirmation of FL 2982-R3 to the 2007 due to the lack of an active QA contract.
2. Committee Action: With regard to Product Approval fees and adjustments, the Committee recommended that Option 4 including fee adjustments for products which require further review and inspection. (Option 4: Includes No fee adjustments and negotiations with the vendor)
3. Committee action: The Committee requests that the Commission open Rule 9B-72 to allow for establishing criteria for approving IAPMO as an evaluation entity, Utilizing the following criteria as the basis for approving evaluation entities: Certification agencies meeting ISO 65 are deemed approved as evaluation entities.
Note: Also in the interest of time, the Committee recommends that the rulemaking to carry out this task be done via teleconference.
4. Committee action: DCA09-DEC-139 by David G. Karins, P.E. of Karins Engineering Group, Inc. Staff Analysis
Question: Can an expired test report be used to seek a Florida Product Approval or does testing of the same standards need to be retested?
Answer: An expired test report can be used to seek product approval under Rule 9B-72, as long as the testing standard as referenced in the FBC has not changed.
5. Committee action: The Committee recommends the products and entities listed in the Administrators report be approved, deferred, conditionally approved or denied as per voted on by the Committee.