Product Approval POC
Minutes
July 10, 2006
8:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.
Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino
1 Seminole Way
Hollywood , FL 33314
Phone: 1-866-502-7529
1. The agenda was approved. The minutes were approved as is.
Attendees: Ed Carson, Craig Perrino, Chris Schulte, Nan Dean, Herminio Gonzalez,
Do Kim, and Christ Sanidas.
2. Update on the Prototype Buildings Program:
ARA provided status report. In this report Mr. York stated the following: Di Vosta has submitted a total of 91 use requests and the “system” continues to be working well.
3. Product Approval Program Issues.
(A) Entity Approval status – How to make the renewal process for entities more practical.
Concerns raised by entities: “Out of business” while pending
Current Status:
1. Renewal – Without changing restricted fields. The only approval required is
the approval of the Accreditation Entity. Under this option entities can come into the system and renew their status to “approved” as soon as their accreditation entity approves them.
2. Renewal with Revision or Revision – Edit restricted fields
1. System limitation – During their revision process, Entities lose approval status in the BCIS while new revisions are pending FBC approval. In the BCIS these require two approvals. One from the Accreditation body and one from the commission. In this pending status Entities are Unselectable in Manufacturer application dropdown.
POC Action:
With regard to item Number 2 above, change BCIS to rely on the approval/affirmation of the accreditation entity for changing the status of the entities on the system, then affirm approval at the next commission meeting.
• Editorial Changes – What are considered editorial changes to an application?
Background:
Currently the BCIS system does not differentiate between editorial change or technical change. Determination is being left to the applicant and Arnold and Associates. This has caused confusion and additional costs to the applicant who selects that their changes are editorial to later find out from Arnold and Associates that their change is technical. This cost is $100 for the editorial change and another $300 for a technical revision.
POC Action:
• Discontinue editorial revisions and continue the $300 fee for any technical or editorial change made. ( This action to be implemented at the time when the rule is due for revision)
• Continue to allow the editorial change, however enhance the system to allow for interaction with Arnold and Associates. i.e. a note can be added under the editorial change to require the applicant to contact Arnold and Associates to determine whether or not the changes are editorial or technical. On the BCIS, this can be done with a warning. ( This action is to be implemented in to the system as an interim solution )
(C) BCIS System enhancements:
Note 1:
Automated email sent to A&A or DCA when an Entity Renews or Revises, depending on if the restricted fields were edited or not (determines who receives the fee $). (No action needed)
Note 2: POC Action:
Upon entity renewal or revision, set the new Expiration Date to 1 year from the previous
Expiration Date, not 1 year from the Date of Approval.
4. Legal provided the POC with the status of the following applications in the process of revocation:
DCA06-BC-139 – Alufab
DCA06-BC-140 – Alside
DCA06-BC-141 – FLAMM ROOFING, INCORPORATED
DCA06-BC-142 - FLORIDA POWDER COATING AND SHUTTERS, INC.,
DCA06-BC-143 - WEATHERGUARD BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.
DCA06-BC-144 - WINDSOR DOOR COMPANY
5. Statistics of products and entities approved were provided by staff.
6. Discussed and provided recommendations for the following request for
Declaratory Statement:
DCA06-DEC-094 by James V. Miller, QMJ Security Solutions.
ISSUE: DCA06-DEC-094. The Petitioner is requesting clarification regarding Rule 9B- 72 regarding product test reports. Question: Can a Testing Lab test a product and make a test report available to other manufacturers of the same product to use as their own?
Revised Question – Can an entity that is not an approved test lab make a test report available to other manufacturers of the same product to use as their own?
Answer – Yes. A manufacturer can use a test report issued by an approved testing lab for the purpose of obtaining product approval as per Rule 9B-72 as long as the product is manufactured in accordance with the test report and an approved QA agency. ( Note : a notice of Authorization must be uploaded by the manufacturer authorizing the use of the report).
7. A&A Report. A&A provided a report with recommendations on products and entities for consideration.
8. Other Business: The POC discussed a letter regarding the structural strength of hurricane screens as applied to concrete balconies and deferred the issue to the Structural TAC for further discussion.
9. Adjourned at 12:14 P.M.
Commission Action Needed :
1. The POC recommends that the Commission approve the following actions as stated above:
• Item #3(A),
• Item #3(B), and
• Item #3 (C)(2).
2. Recommend that the products reviewed for approval, conditional approval, deferral, and denial be approved.
3. Recommend that entities reviewed for approval be approved.