Comments received at the July 20, 2009 Workshop for consideration by the Commission at the August meeting as of July 28, 2009
|
Name: |
Comment: |
|
Comment 1: Staff comments to
the July 20, 2009 Workshop – Rules 9B-72.100 & 9B-72.130 |
Option #1: Revise Rule 9B-72.100 to provide for criteria by which the Commission can approve evaluation entities. The approval will be processed manually. After an entity is approved as an evaluation entity, the BCIS will be revised by the Contractor to add the approved evaluation entity. 9B-72.100
Approval of Product Evaluation
Entities, Product Validation Entities, Testing Laboratories, Certification
Agencies, Quality Assurance Agencies and Accreditation Bodies. (1) Approved Product Evaluation Entities.
Approval by the Commission is limited to the scope established by Section
553.842, F.S. (a) The following entities are approved evaluation
entities: 1. The National Evaluation Service (NES); 2. The International Conference of Building Officials
Evaluation Services (ICBO ES); 3. The Building Officials and Code Administrators
International Evaluation Services (BOCA ESI); 4. The Southern Building Code Congress International
Evaluation Services (PST ESI); 5. The 6. The International Code Council, International Evaluation
Services (IES). 7. The International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials Evaluation Service (IAMPO: and (b) Architects and
engineers licensed in this state are also approved to conduct product
evaluation. (c) Evaluation entities and certification
agencies accredited as meeting the requiremnets of ISO/IEC Guide 65, other than architects
and engineers registered in this state, shall apply to the Commission for
approval as an evaluation entity by submitting correspondence
to the Commission substantiating accreditation and independence. Upon approval by the Commission,
subparagraph 9B-72.100(1)(a) above shall be amended to include the applicant
as an evalution entity. (2) through (6) no change Total Cost for
this option: $2,395.00 Option #2: Revise both Rules 9B-72.100 and 9B-72.130 to provide for criteria by which the Commission can approve evaluation entities. This option would require change to the BCIS necessary to add “evaluation entities” to the application for entities. Proposed language: Option #2: Revise both Rules 9B-72.100 and 9B-72.130 to provide for criteria by which the Commission can approve evaluation entities. This option would require change to the BCIS necessary to add “evaluation entities” to the application for entities. 9B-72.100
Approval of Product Evaluation
Entities, Product Validation Entities, Testing Laboratories, Certification
Agencies, Quality Assurance Agencies and Accreditation Bodies. (1) Approved Product Evaluation Entities.
Approval by the Commission is limited to the scope established by Section
553.842, F.S. (a) The following entities are approved evaluation
entities: 1. The National Evaluation Service (NES); 2. The International Conference of Building Officials
Evaluation Services (ICBO ES); 3. The Building Officials and Code Administrators
International Evaluation Services (BOCA ESI); 4. The Southern Building Code Congress International
Evaluation Services (PST ESI); 5. The 6. The International Code Council, International Evaluation
Services (IES). (b) Architects and
engineers licensed in this state are also approved to conduct product
evaluation. (c) Evaluation entities and certification
agencies accredited as meeting the requiremnets of ISO/IEC Guide 65, other than architects
and engineers registered in this state, shall apply to the Commission for
approval as an evaluation entity by filing an
application in accordance with subsections 9B-72.130(1) and 9B-72.090(3),
F.A.C., including a Certificate of Independence in accordance with Rule
9B-72.110, F.A.C., and submitting fees pursuant to subsection 9B-72.090(2),
F.A.C. (2) through
(6) no change Total Cost:
$50,395.00 |
|
Comment 2: Randy Shackelford Simpson Strong-Tie 800-999-5099 rshackelford@strongtie.com |
Mr. Madani- I am writing regarding
the rule workshop on Rule 9B-72.100 and Rule 9B-72.130 that will be held on
July 20. I would like to provide
the following comment. Simpson Strong-Tie is in
support of the Florida Building Commission action taken at the Commission
meeting on June 9 that recommended the criteria for approving Evaluation
Entites for use by the Florida State Product Approval System. We agree that the criteria for approval of
Evaluation Entities should be that they will be deemed approved if they are
accredited as meeting ISO 65. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide comment. |
|
Comment 3: |
Include IAPMO in the rule under list of Approved
Evaluation entities |
|
Comment 4: Joseph T. Holland, III Phone: (706) 755-4811 Fax: (706) 595-6600 E-mail: jholland@frtw.com |
I see changes are proposed to
modify the language for Product Approval Entities. Recommend caution. Strongly recommend that IAPMO not be
recognized. They do not have staff
qualified to do review. It is farmed
out to a consultant. They do not have
evaluation criteria for the products they are issuing reports on. They are relying on ICC-ES. I have been in contact with
IAPMO and discussed their process. I
have concerns about the process and reservations as to their goals. Based on my contacts with them the primary
item of important is "SPEED".
What I got out of the conversations was, "If you want a report
fast, come to us." While speed is
important it should not be the number one consideration. Recently, IAPMO issued a report for a product using an
ICC-ES evaluation criteria. The
criterion used was developed for a laminated product (Blazeguard). It is being used for a painted product. ICC-ES has taken the position the Criterion
(AC264) has been misapplied (see below). *Unauthorized Usage
Notice to Building Regulatory Agencies* ICC-ES is aware of a
recent report published by a Product Certification Agency (PCA) that makes
unauthorized and inappropriate use of an ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria. The
Acceptance Criteria in question is AC264 (Wood Structural Panels Laminated
with an Inert, Inorganic Fire Shield), dated October 2004. We have been made
aware that AC264, which is directed to laminates, has been used by a
PCA to recognize a coating that is factory-applied to OSB panels. As was determined by the
ICC-ES Evaluation Committee, there are clear differences between a coating
and laminate requiring a separate acceptance criteria. To date, the
Committee has conducted four open hearings addressing this issue. Development
of the new criteria has been subject to significant scrutiny by industry and
the regulatory community. Information on the status of the new criteria
(AC405) can be viewed on the ICC-ES web site <http://www.launchmailerpro.com/t/63424/32692562/24092709/0/>. ICC-ES Acceptance
Criteria are intended solely for use in the development of ICC-ES Evaluation
Reports, and have not been approved by ICC-ES for use by others in publishing
code-compliance reports or for product certification activities. Regulatory
agencies are urged to check with ICC-ES before considering listings issued by
PCAs, other than ICC-ES, that use ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria as the basis for
their listing. The incorrect use of AC264 demonstrates the need to limit the
use of ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria to ICC-ES Evaluation Reports, which is the
purpose for which they were intended. Questions should be
directed to Michael O'Reardon <mailto:es@icc-es.org>, P.E., Regional Manager, at (800) 423-6587, extension
3289. Witness the Evaluation Report
0158 issued June 2009 by IAPMO. The
product in the marketplace has 3 mils of dry film thickness. The report requires 45 mils of dry film
thickness. Based on the information
that I have there has been no testing of the product at the thicker coating
to insure it will perform. In
discussion with fire protection engineers, this type of paint goes through a
phase change and becomes a liquid when exposed to high heat. It will drip off the wood panel. As stated in the ICC-ES
comment the ICC-ES looked at AC264 and even proposed it be modified to
include paints. The Evaluation
Committee rejected the changes and directed the staff to develop criterion
for the painted product. A proposed
criteria was developed. It is not
approved. And if approved it is the property of ICC-ES. Is it appropriate or prudent
to recognize an agency with no technical staff, that misuses the intellectual
property of another agency, issues a report for a product that has not been
tested and doesn't compare to the product in the marketplace? Recommend IAPMO not be
recognized. Recommend a procedure be
established, if there is a need, for recognizing approval entities that
require, technical staff that are employees with a background in the area of
the product to be evaluated, evaluation criteria developed through a
recognized consensus process and owned by the entity evaluating the product
be developed. If you, the Commission, or
staff have any questions, please call or e-mail. |
|
Comment 5: Michael D. Huddy, PhD President and CEO Barrier Technology Corporation (800) 638-4570 (612) 309-3534 cellular www.intlbarrier.com |
Dear Mr. Madani: There is a relatively new product being
introduced in The name of the product is FlameDXX and
it is a factory applied intumescent paint. It has an ESR from the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)
because ICC has not been able to agree on an appropriate set of
Acceptance Criteria for factory applied paints intended to be used in
structural, fire resistive applications. The AC committee for ICC has met on
this topic 4 times in the last year and a half. The next hearing on this
topic in front of an ICC AC committee is scheduled for October, 2009. ICC
has published a memo on their website which you can view on this link: http://www.icc-es.org/News/unauthorized_usage.shtml. If you have any questions or comments
related to this, please give me a call at: 800-638-4570. |
|
Comment 6: Craig
H. Wagner, P.E. Director
- Code Compliance Architectural
Testing, Inc. Fax: 717.764.4129 Email: cwagner@archtest.com Web: www.archtest.com |
Mr. Madani, Please see the attached
document for our formal proposal for changes to Rule 9B-72.100. The following comments briefly
summarize our proposal. 1. ATI agrees that there
should be criteria by which the commission can approve evaluation entities
and that it should include accreditation to ISO/IEC Guide 65 2. It should not be necessary
to maintain a list of approved entities within the context of the rule. The
current online system maintains a list of approved evaluation entities. 3. It is important in the
understanding of criteria for approved evaluation entities to recognize that
ICC-ES (listed by the rule as an approved entity) is a certification body
accredited to ISO/IEC Guide 65. It is also important to understand that the
ICC-ES is not government. It is an independent agency. ATI operates one of only three
nationally recognized code compliance evaluation programs in the Regards, |
|
Comment 7: Gary G.
Nichols, PE Vice
President/Birmingham Operations ICC
Evaluation Service, Inc. 800-423-6587,
x5684 205-599-9800
phone 205-599-9850
facsimile gnichols@icc-es.org www.icc-es.org |
I am writing to voice ICC
Evaluation Service’s opposition to proposed changes being considered to Rules
9B-72.100 and 9B-72.130 as proposed in the e-mail notice that we received on
July 20, 2009 (see below). While evaluation entities and
certification bodies are both often accredited to ISO Guide 65, we believe it
is in the interest of the State of 1. It should be noted that ISO Guide 65 is
quite general in nature so that it can cover a broad range of product
certification activities, building products being a relatively minor
area. For example, certification
bodies are often accredited to ISO Guide 65 to certify products such as toys
and consumer electronics. For this
reason, ISO Guide 65 certification alone should not be used as a basis for an
authority having jurisdiction’s decision to approve an evaluation
service. Since evaluation entities are
often involved in reviewing alternative materials not specifically addressed
in the code, we believe the State of 2. The scope of services and how any
findings relative to the evaluation or certification process are published
typically differ between these two types of agencies. Few certification bodies state that the
products they certify meet building codes and the findings of these agencies
are usually published through publication of a listing rather than an
evaluation report. While product
certification by a certification agency works well under Method 1 of
Florida’s product approval process, we do not think it is appropriate for
Method 2 of the system. 3. The scope for which an evaluation service
is accredited is usually different from the scope of accreditation granted to
a certification body, even in cases where they are accredited by the same
accreditation body. We believe it is
very important for the Commission to look at the scope of an agency’s
accreditation before it approves them as an evaluation entity so that the
Commission can verify that their accreditation is compatible with Method 2 of
the product approval system.
Evaluation entities are typically accredited to evaluate a wide range
of products for conformance to building codes and publish their findings in
evaluation reports. Certification
bodies are usually accredited to issue listings for products falling into
certain areas of specialty and those listings are usually based on
conformance to certain standards, not building codes. We appreciate the opportunity
to comment on the proposed changes. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or the Commission might have. |
|
Comment 8: Randy Shackelford Simpson Strong-Tie 800-999-5099 rshackelford@strongtie.com |
I would like to add to my comment for consideration by the
Florida Building Commission at their August meeting. We support adding criteria for approval of evaluation entities,
and agree that this criteria shoud be that the entity be accredited as
meeting ISO/IEC Guide 65. In addition, we support either Option 1 or Option 2 as submitted
Staff Comment at the workshop. If
Option 1 is more economical, then we support that. We will also be submitting a letter in support of Comment 3 this
afternoon. |
|
Comment 9: Kari Hebrank |
Just want to reiterate my verbal
comments from the rule workshop that we support the adoption of criteria
for approval of product evaluation entities that includes criteria
that the entities meet and are accredited to the ISO/IEC Guide 65
standard. Thank you |