ISSUES
Issue 1. Manufactured Buildings - Statutory changes needed:
1.
The issue of
intermediate disciplinary authority for mfgrs &
3rd Parties who commit minor or repeat offenses, rather than decertifying them.
2.
The need to modify the
language in s 553.375 FS, which now
reads: “Prior to the relocation,
modification or change of occupancy of a manufactured building within the state….”, to read: “Prior
to modification or change of occupancy or relocation to a higher wind speed
design and construction of a manufactured building within the state,
...........”
3.
Fire safety plan
review/inspection residential
4.
Delete Mfgr Disposition report
5.
Change form MBP 1-00
to reflect Public/Pvt Ed
6.
Delete Insignia
Disposition Report
7.
Delete raised seal
plans retention in lieu of electronic
8.
Rule 9B-1.006(4)9c)
changes
9.
s. 553.415(11) need to
change to mfgrs data plate vs. DCA insignia
10. Precluded foundation plans in MBP plans
11. ch 428.4.2 change to read posted on the BCIS vs. submit to DCA on CD
Issue 2 . Cat-5 Net, Non - Impact
Wind Abatement & Hold-Down System , FL6498. The product has been approved by the Commission. However, there is a concern from our staff that approval of this product is in conflict with the Commission action on DCA05-DEC-284 – Fastnet . Committee Action from August meeting: The Committee recommendation is to have the applicant withdraw his application. Staff will archive the FL number. If the applicant by some means chooses not to withdraw, revocation process will start.
Application archived September 22, 2006
Issue 3 .
BCIS Improvements -
Status report
from Information Systems of
1.
Manufactured
Buildings System Conversion
·
In Design Phase –
Design, Prototype, and Program Specifications
·
August 28th: Conduct 1st Prototype Review work
session with DCA staff
·
Provide link to
Manufactured Buildings online prototype for external entities to provide any
feedback
·
September: Continue Design Phase and begin Development
2.
Product Approval
Enhancements
·
Developing a
number of enhancements agreed upon by DCA and A&A staff
·
Will deploy in at
least 2 groups to allow for quicker deployment of most important issues
·
ISF is currently
testing the higher priority 1st group of enhancements
May 06 Fixes
1.
Updated the
procedure that sends out the Product Approval Entity Expiration Emails to start
at 90 days before an Entity’s Expiration Date
July 06 Fixes
1.
Fix so that users can now remove files
from their Product Approval applications.
2. Fixed urgent Product Approval Security Issue
3. Include the “id_revision” # along with the FL
# in any Product Approval Application Emails. Right now the emails only
contain the FL #, so it’s confusing users with Revisions.
4. In the “DCA Administration” section > “Manage Organizations” > “Search
All Organizations”, when an Organization is first set to “Approved”, use the
“Organization Expiration” Dates set up for that Organization Type. However, if the Organization is already set
to “Approved”, and a user is trying to just update the Valid Dates, allow the
system to update to the Valid Dates the user is entering.
5. For Validation Entities
a. If no edits were made to restricted fields on Renewal, the system needs to reset the Valid Dates since they
need to get extended.
b. If no edits were made to restricted fields on Revision, the system needs to reset the Valid Dates since they
need to get extended
6. Administration Section Error
a. In the “DCA Administration” section > “Manage Item Fees” and “Manage
Core Courses”, I created a “New” Item Fee under “Training Materials”
Type. The first one saved successfully. However, when I tried to
create another Item Fee, I get the error “The new record you tried to create already
exists”.
7. Proposed Code Modifications Enhancement
a. Currently, a User can only submit 1 Comment per Modification. If a
User submits more than 1 Comment, the system overwrites the previous Comment
they submitted. DCA would like this changed to allow a User to submit as
many Comments as they wish on 1 Modification without overwriting any past ones.
8. Prototype Buildings Shed Enhancement
9. Product Approval Task – adding Restricted Field markers
a. On the appropriate Product Approval Organization Registration screens
(ones that have “restricted” edit fields on them), add a new “type” of field in
addition to the blue (*) “required” fields. This type of field is the
“restricted” edit field. These field
labels should be in red font with a “+” next to them, similar to the “required”
fields. There should be a label at the top of ONLY these Product Approval
Organization Registration pages to show what these fields mean as well.
10. Product Approval Support Issue
a.
The BCIS database showed an
Organization as editing a restricted field while Renewing, but in reviewing all
the data and histories, I saw that no restricted fields were actually
changed. Check to see if a user
changes a restricted field, but then removes the changes before paying, is the
system treating that as a “restricted” edit field change? It should
not since the user removed that change before going through with the
payment.
11. Page Text Bug
a. If a user copies and pastes something from another site into the System
Text page, it will put HTML code in the HTML editor window, then when the page
saves, it causes issues if there is offensive HTML in the window that will mess
up the corresponding page.
12. Product Approval Self-Affirmations
Issue 4 . Staff raised concern that products meeting the HVHZ are being approved for use in the non-HVHZ without any substantiating documentation demonstrating compliance with the non-HVHZ portions of the Florida Building Code.
Issue 5. Discussed the equivalency of standards and how they should be used in relation to the base standard in the Florida Building Code.
Other Business
From August Structural TAC meeting: Considered a request from Donald Chalaire of Chalaire and Associates, Inc., regarding a potential safety hazard from vertical loads added by hurricane screens attached to concrete balconies. This request was deferred from the Product Approval POC.
The committee took the following action:
The committee recommended that the POC contact the holder of the product approval application and request that they revise their application to address, within limitation of use, that the installation of their product be accompanied by site specific engineering assessments of their reaction loads of specific structure.