Product Approval/Manufactured Buildings
Program Oversight Committee (POC)
Minutes
October 7, 2010
9:00 A.M.
Webinar/Teleconference Meeting
Tallahassee, Florida
Product Approval Program Oversight Committee members present: Ed Carson, Chair Chris Schulte, Herminio Gonzalez, Tim Tolbert, Jeffrey Stone, Nicholas Nicholson; DCA and Commission Staff attending included: Jim Richmond, Mo Madani, Suzanne Davis, Ted Berman; Absent: John Sherer
1. The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 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 (1/1/2006 – 9/17/2010).
B. Product Approval Administrator’s Survey – There were no responses from the August cycle.
3. Discussion Items:
A.
Provide Updates
Regarding the Status of Rules 9N-3.002, 9N-3.007, and 9N-3.008 (Previously
known as 9B-72) – Mo Madani reported that September 21, 2010, the Commission held a
hearing on the proposed rule and voted unanimously to publish a Notice of
Change incorporating the suggested language “Approval by DCA. Approvals by DCA
shall be reviewed and ratified by the POC and/or the Commission if necessary”, to
proceed with rule adoption without an additional hearing and to authorize the
Rule to be effective on November 1, 2010.
B. Update on Complaint: R.M. Enterprises, Inc. vs. BMP International, Inc. – Mo Madani reported that at the last meeting, the POC asked staff to review the current manufacturer’s literature “R.M. Enterprises” and affirm compliance with the scope of the current product approval number FL 3203-R2. As per this request, staff (Mo Madani and Ted Berman) reviewed the literature as published by R.M. Enterprises with regard to FL3203-R2 and found that the manufacturer’s literature complies with the approval.
C. Complaint: FL10654 & 8363-R1 – Mo Madani reviewed this issue and explained that this subject had come before the Structural TAC in 2006. At that time, the Structural TAC advised the POC that reactions reflecting catenary-type behavior of the products are needed so that assessments of their application to a specific substrate or a specific structure can be made. Staff was asked to contact the manufacturers and ask them to provide the information of concern. Ted Berman was asked to provide some clarification on discussions with the manufacturers. Mr. Berman stated that one of the manufacturers will revise his application and the other has an issue with the deflection and concerns raised at the last meeting. The POC directed staff to continue working with these manufactures to make sure that they are in full compliance with the Structural TAC’s recommendations.
D. Status Report on Shutters used within HVHZ that have deflection larger than allowed by Sect 1613.1.9 – Ted Berman provided a status report “see status report attached to the POC’s agenda”.
POC Action: The POV voted to request that Ted contact the applicants and inform them that either they demonstrate compliance with the deflection limit of Section 1613.1.9 by the next agenda submittal cut- off date or their product approval will be subject to revocation by the Commission.
E. Update
on Application Submittal Timeline – Staff gave a brief explanation of the
2011 timeline and the reason why the timelines were adjusted. Staff noted that there are two things that
are important to point out, 1) Adjusting the dates to allow for a conference
call or webinar two weeks before the Commission meeting and 2) Adding to the
POC’s agenda DCA approved product as of November 1, 2010. The POC voted to approve the 2011 Product
Approval Submittal Timeline.
4. Ted Berman & Associates Report – Products and entities were reviewed and approved recommendations were provided
Public Comment:
Alan Zangan, representing R.M. Enterprises and Ray Manucy, requested clarification on the agenda topic #3B. Mo Madani stated that the issue was resolved and that information regarding the resolution will be provided as part of the meeting minutes.
Commissioner Schulte: if a product approved by DCA and then the POC changed the approval to a conditional approval, when does it become actually approved or ratified? Answer: There is no such thing as conditional approval. The POC can direct the product to be revised or send a recommendation to the Commission that it not be ratified. The status will change on the website.
John Canman of MEA Engineers Comment on 1613.1.9. It is not clear why those products are not approved for that usage when glazing is not directly affecting the product.
Answer: A declaratory statement can be submitted to clarify the glazing issues.
5. Adjourn – Meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.
Actions
Needed by the Commission:
1. Ted Berman and Associates report – Products and entities were reviewed and approved. Recommendations were provided.
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.