Product Approval/Manufactured Buildings Program Oversight Committee (POC)
Minutes
August 10, 2009
8:30 am – 11:00 am
Crowne Plaza Oceanfront Hotel
Meeting Objectives:
Product Approval Program Oversight Committee members present: Ed Carson – Chair, Chris Schulte, Herminio Gonzalez, Jeffrey Stone and Tim Tolbert
Meeting Agenda:
1. Called to Order reviewed and approved the agenda as submitted and June 8th Minutes
2. Product Approval Program Issues
A. Staff presented the Product Approval Entities and statistics report.
B. Product Approval Administrator’s Performance Survey – staff presented the survey to the POC members.
3. Discussion Items:
A. The POC reviewed and discussed the request that the manufacturer for FL5343 be changed from Alternative Technologies to “Silverwood Technologies, LLC”.
Action: As per the Court Order in question, the POC recommends that the login and the password for FL#5343 be released to Glenwood Capital, LLC so that a revision can be made to the original approval designating Silverwood Technologies, LLC d/b/a Green Product Technologies as the manufacturer.
B. The POC reviewed and discussed the request that the manufacturer of the following product be changed to “ARXX Corporation”
FL3619 of American Polysteel, LLC
FL2253 of Eco-Block, LLC
FL1350 of
Action: The POC recommends that the login and password for the product in question “FL3619, FL2253 and FL1350” be released to ARXX Corporation.
C. Staff report/findings regarding
the Validator of FL12017
Action: Deferred to the October 2009 meeting as recommended to allow the Validator to be present at the meeting.
D. Staff report regarding limited number of products per application of 150 products.
Action: The POC recommends that the number of lines in an application be limited to 150 and this means that the application will be limited to 150 product sequence numbers. This would only be applicable to new and revised applications. This will not apply to editorial changes or affirmations.
E. Staff report on alternative meeting methods.
Action: Staff to work with the Chair and determine whether a conference call meeting is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
F. Update on Rule 9B-72 fees. Staff updated the Committee on the status of the rule.
G. Discussion of Revocations (1712-R2, 1714-R1, 5030, 7173, 8993, 8994, 9635, 9639, 9910, 15567, and 10798)
Action: The POC recommended the following: 1) FL1712-R2 and 1714-R1 halting the revocation process to allow staff to work with the manufacturer to revise the application, 2) 7173 will be archived, 3) Legal staff to proceed with the revocation process of the following: 5030, 7173, 8993, 8994, 9635, 9639, 9910, 15567, and 10798.
4. Declaratory Statements
DCA09-DEC-129 by Bermuda Roof Co., Inc.
Question #1: Can we use SSTD-11-99 testing results for hips and ridges as a basis for obtaining approval for the use of the mortar adhesive system in the HVHZ?
Answer: No. The product in question falls outside the scope of Rule 9B-72 with regard to hip and ridge as applied to the HVHZ.
Question #2: Should a hip and ridge system with demonstrated performance that is equal or superior to the current system in use in the HVHZ be allowed?
Answer: Yes. Subject to approval of the local authority have jurisdiction.
Question #3: Should the Commission issue a declarative statement supporting the use of a new technology such as the mortar adhesive hip and ridge tile system in all areas of the state based on the fact that it exceeds the state minimum Building Code requirements?
Answer: No. The Commission has no authority to approve alternative to a prescriptive requirement of the Code.
DCA09-DEC-263 by Steven P. Clisset of Windstrips, LLC Staff Analysis
Question: Does the Windstrips
product fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72 under the category “roofing” and
subcategory “products introduced as a result of new technology”?
Answer: No. The porduct in question falls out side the scope of Rule 9B-72. However, as per Section 104.2.8, approval of this product is within the scope of local authority having jurisdication
5. Ted Berman and Associates Report – Products and entities were reviewed and approved recommendations were provided.
Note: the application of section 2411.3.3.7 was discussed and it was advised that the manufacturer submit a non-binding interpretation or declaratory statement to further clarify the intent of this section.
6. Ajourn – Meeting adjourned at 10:59 a.m.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actions Needed by the Commission: