Product Approval/Manufactured Buildings
Program Oversight Committee (POC)
Minutes
August 5, 2010
9:00 A.M.
Teleconference Meeting
Tallahassee, Florida
Product Approval Program Oversight Committee members present: Ed Carson, Chair Chris Schulte, Herminio Gonzalez, Tim Tolbert, Nicholas Nicholson
DCA and Commission Staff attending included: Jim Richmond, Mo Madani, Suzanne Davis, Ted Berman; Absent: Jeffrey Stone and John Scherer.
1. The Meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M. by Chairman, Ed Carson. The agenda and minutes were approved as presented.
2. Product Approval Program issues
A. Staff presented the Product Approval Entities and Statistics Report (1/1/2009 – 7/19/2010).
B. Product Approval Administrator’s Survey - Staff presented the survey to the POC members and stated that the overall performance of the Administrator is good to excellent.
3. Discussion Items:
A.
Provide Comments to the Rule Development
Workshop – Staff indicated that the workshop regarding the proposed
revisions to Rules 9N-3.002, 9N-3.007 and 9N-3.008 would take place August 10,
2010 during the Commission meeting in Melbourne, Florida. Comments from the POC members on the proposed
rules will be provided to the Commission as part of the POC meeting minutes. Staff indicted two written comments were
received: One comment was from Mr. Randy Shackleford, Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, requesting that the proposed Rule 9N-3.002 be expanded to add two new
product subcategories (“Steel Connectors” and Fasteners”); and the second comment
was from Chairman Ed Carson suggesting changing the term “technically
significant” to “technically relevant.”
With regard to the first comment, Mr. Jim Richmond, Legal Counsel
cautioned that the proposed rule notice was only issued to implement HB 663 and
that considering additional changes that are outside the scope of the proposed
rules would require noticing of an additional workshop and thus slowing the rulemaking
process down considerably. Further, Mr.
Richmond advised that this comment be postponed for possibly re-opening the
rule at a later date. Based on the
information provided by Legal, Mr. Shackleford withdrew his request. With
regard to the second comment, the POC agreed that the
comment will provide clarification to the proposed rule and thus voted to
forward this comment to the Commission for consideration. Jim
Richmond requested that the cross-references to “9B-72” be cleaned up to
reflect the new rule chapter. Jamie
Gascon of Miami-Dade had clarifying questions regarding section 4a and 4d of
the proposed rules. Legal clarified that
these questions and clarifications regarding he proposed rules are best be
handled at the upcoming rule workshop.
Staff
pointed out that as part of the proposed rule, the payment screen will be changed
to allow for split payments “two payments”: one partial payment for the
Department and a second partial payment to the Administrator (Ted Berman and
Associates, LLC).
B. Revocations – The POC voted to recommend that the Commission initiates revocations proceedings on the following PA numbers due to the lack of QAs: FL#s: 4141, 4865, 5484, 6339, 8853, 10881, 10997, 11326, 11327, 11004, 11015, 11199, 11272, 12086.
C. Complaint: R.M. Enterprises, Inc. vs. BMP International, Inc. – FL #3203-R1 Both parties presented their issues. The POC voted to direct staff and Ted Berman to review the current manufacturer’s literature and affirm compliance with the scope of Product Approval number “FL3203-R2”.
D. Shutters used within HVHZ that have deflection larger than allowed by Sect 1613.1.9 - The POC voted to direct Ted Berman and Associates, LLC to further review the applications of concern and determine on a case-by-case basis specific compliance criteria for each deficient application. Proposed resolution of deficient applications will be placed on future POC’s agenda(s) for consideration. If no resolution is reached regarding a specific application, the POC will recommend revocation of such application.
4. Ted Berman & Associates Report – Products and entities were reviewed and approved recommendations were provided
Public Comment:
- All product evaluation entities need to be held to the same standard regarding the use of acceptance criteria.
- With regard to the deflection issue, one rule should be used for all applications.
5. Adjourn – Meeting adjourned at 11:42 a.m.
Actions
Needed by the Commission:
1. Comments to the Rule Development Workshop
POC Action: The Committee recommends the following changes to Rule 9N-3:
Sections 4 a and b: change the term “technically significant” to “technically relevant” throughout the proposed rules.
2. Revocations.
POC Action: The Committee recommends
that the Commission initiate revocations proceedings on the following product approval
numbers due to the lack of quality assurance:
FL#s: 4141, 4865, 5484, 6339,
8853, 10881, 10997, 11326, 11327, 11004, 11015, 11199, 11272, 12086.
3. Ted Berman and Associates report.
POC Action: The Committee recommends the products and entities listed in the Administrator’s report be approved, deferred, conditionally approved or denied as per voted on by the Committee.