Product Approval POC

Minutes
May 6, 2007
9:00 am – 5:00 pm

Tampa , Florida
Embassy Suites Hotel
3705 Spectrum Blvd , 33612
813-977-7066

Product Approval POC Attendees: Ed Carson - Chair, Herminio Gonzales, Nan Dean, Do Kim, Chris Schulte. Staff present were Mo Madani, Joe Bigelow

There was a quorum present.

1.  The minutes for the March 26th POC meeting minutes were approved with amendments; The amendments were to add Chris Schultee as a POC attendee, and change the date on the minutes from May 26,2006 to March 26, 2007. The agenda was approved as submitted.

2.  Update on prototype program by Michael Ashworth of DCA.   He stated that that no proposals were submitted in response to the “Request for Proposal” issued by the Department to solicit a new administrator for the program. 

Committee action: It was agreed that the program be put into a temporary status and be brought back if interest in the program increases.  To temporarily suspend the program would require rule change to Rule 9B-74.

3.  Product Approval Program Staff Report
(A). The Committee heard oral presentations from two proposals for the Product Approval Administrator position:  CAP Government and Ted Berman and Associates.  The Committee asked a set of questions to both parties and scored on their response.  Staff will combine the scores of the oral presentation with the score of the written response. The final results will be posted on the Department of Management Services (DMS) website Monday, May 7, 2007. 

Committee action:

(B).  Product Approval and Entities Statistics Report.
     Staff provided the committee a statistical report, including products and entities approved to date.

 (C). The Committee reviewed the staff report from the February POC and validation meeting and other requests to modify the subcategories of the products listed in Rule 9B-72.  For more information see attached report from the POC (Proposed Comments to Rule 9B-72 as recommended by the POC). 

(D) Jesus Gonzales Discussion and Staff Letter

The Committee reviewed the draft letter and based on comments of interested groups the committee directed the stakeholders to work with staff to come up with another draft for consideration at the June meeting.


4. Discussion of Declaratory Statement: The committee discussed and provided recommendation on the following request for the following Declaratory Statement:

DCA07-DEC-050 by Alfonso E. Oviedo-Reyes, President, Hunker Down Systems.com
DCA07-DEC-078 by Siegfried W. Valentin, Southeast Region Director, AAMA

5. Other Business: none

6. Public Comment : Bob Lutz expressed that the evaluation report for FL1901 R-3 is not valid due to the fact that the evaluator has a statement in the evaluation report stating that he has no responsibility for the engineering calculations which form the basis for the evaluation report.

7. A&A Report

(A) Review product approval and entity applications.
      The committee reviewed and provided recommendation on product applications provided by A&A.  See attached report.

(B).  A&A provided a report with recommendations on nine entities for consideration as follows:

1.      TST 4120, Architectural Testing, Inc. Wisconsin - (Product Testing Laboratory) - Approved

2. TST 4744, National Certified Testing Laboratories-York . - (Product Testing Laboratory)- Approved

8. Adjourned at 3:40 P.M.

______________________________________________________________________________

Action needed by the Commission:

1.  Action: It was agreed that the program be put into a temporary status and be brought back if interest in the program increases.  To temporarily suspend the program would require a change to Rule 9B-74.

2. Action on the following entities

1.     TST 4120, Architectural Testing, Inc. Wisconsin - (Product Testing Laboratory) - Approved

2. TST 4744, National Certified Testing Laboratories-York . - (Product Testing Laboratory)- Approved

3.  Action on products reviewed for approval, conditional approval, deferral, and denial be approved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Comments to Rule 9B-72

as recommended by the POC

May 7, 2007

 

1.  Regarding Continuing Education Requirements for Validation Entities: 

Because of the current improvements to the validation process under the proposed changes to Rule 9B-72 the Committee decided that continuing education for the validators is not necessary and the task requiring continuing education should be removed from the Commission workplan.

 

2.  Revise 9B-72.010 Definitions (31)(e) shutters to add subcategory “fabric storm panel”.

3. Revise section 9B-72.070 (4) (e) and 9B-72.070 (5)(e) to add the following: Exception:  Installation instructions for windows including attachment at minimum shall include the following:

1. Type, and grade of anchor, and/or manufacturers anchor specifications, including minimum nominal size, minimum penetration into substrate and minimum edge distances.

2. Type, physical dimensions, material and grade of any accessory item or strap, if applicable.

3. Spacing of anchors, shims, accessory items and straps.

4. Illustrated diagrams of the attachment of the product to the structure.

 

4. Validation Checklist

(A)Modify the following language to Rule 9B-72.130 (3)(a) Certification Method

-  Verify that no rational analysis is conducted under this method. Otherwise the evaluation method must be used use another compliance method to seek product approval.

 

(B) Modify the following language to Rule 9B-72.130 (3)(b) Test Report -  Verify that no rational analysis is conducted under this method. Otherwise an evaluation method must be used use another compliance method to seek product approval.

 

(C) Modify the following language to add to Rule 9B-72.130 (3)(c) Evaluation Report From an Archtect or Engineer

-       If the Evaluation is not performed by a third party independent of the manufacturer then verify validator’s certificate of independence.

 

(D) Modify the following language to Rule 9B-72.130 (3)(d) Evaluation Report From an Evaluation Entity as follows

-       Verify submission of the evaluator’s certification of independence.

-       Verify the manufacturer installation instructions, including are in accordance with the[JG1]  evaluation report, and attachment, that they are provided.

 

 

 


 [JG1]Validator to check is these are qualified by the evaluation report.