Florida Product Approval System March 2010 Administration Florida

Florida Product Approval System March 2010

Administration: Florida Building Commission Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd | Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 | (850) 487 -1824 www. floridabuilding. org Mo Madani Senior Technical Manager 850 -921 -2247 mo. madani@dca. state. fl. us

Product Approval Contractor: Ted Berman and Associates, LLC THEODORE BERMAN, P. E. Product Approval System Administrator SIMON SEGAL, P. E. RANA RADMANESH VERDA LA RUE Note: FL selecting administrator on 3/3/10, to begin 7/1/10. Ted’s company may be retained Senior Engineer, Product Approval Application Reviewer Product Approval Specialist Product Approval Application Reviewer

Key Items • Building Code Information System (BCIS) • Rule 9 B-72 • Florida Building Code http: //www 2. iccsafe. org/states/florida_codes/

Subjects • Background and overview • State versus local approvals • Approval methods • Application options • Validation • Installation instructions • Quality assurance • Recent issues and changes • Obtaining formal clarifications or interpretations

Background and Overview • Hurricane Andrew prompted a Commission study • 1997 report: Develop and implement a product approval program • Commission established a Product Approval Oversight Committee • 2002: Product approval program enacted

State versus Local Approvals • Can get series of local approvals instead of a state approval • Local approvals subject to local costs • Individual company business decisions

Product Approval Methods Four Methods for State Approval n n Certification Method Evaluation Report from a Florida licensed Architect or a Florida Professional Engineer Test Report Evaluation Report from an Evaluation Entity

Product Approval Application There are four ways to apply for a Florida Product Approval • • New Application Full Revision of an existing application Editorial Change Self-Affirmation of existing application

New Application FBC 2007 New Application: • Evidence such as a certification, test report or an evaluation report demonstrating compliance must be submitted. . • New Application cost $500.

Revision FBC 2007 IMPORTANT IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PRODUCTS WITHIN THE SAME APPLICATION (FL#), THEN EVIDENCE FOR ALL THE PRODUCTS MUST BE SUBMITTED. THE ENTIRE PRODUCT LINE MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE NEW STATE PRODUCT APPROVAL RULE AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THEREIN

New Application Process Changes made to the new application process include: n n n Applications must be validated by COMPLETION DEADLINE No more recommendation for Conditional Approval or Deferral by the Administrator. Applicants work at their own pace to complete applications by the posted deadline date. Early submittals will have more correction time if needed. Only those applications that are complete by the Completion Deadline are recommended to the Product Oversight Committee (POC) and listed on the meeting agenda

New Application Process

Revised Applications FBC 2007 Revised Application: • If the standards or restrictions pertaining to your product in the 2007 Code have changed, then a full revision application must be submitted. • New evidence such as a certification, test report or an evaluation report demonstrating compliance must also be submitted. • New products may be added to application. • Full Revisions cost $500.

Editorial Change FBC 2007 § Editorial Change § Used for editorial corrections with no new performance evidence provided. § Used to change quality assurance entity § Requires validation (ensure that application is limited to the above restrictions). § Editorial Change cost $150.

Self–Affirmation FBC 2007 § Application Using Self Affirmation § Self Affirmation indicating that the change in building code does not affect the performance of product. § Does not require validation § Self Affirmations cost $100.

Validations 9 B-72. 080 Product Validation Two Types of Validation n Administrative Validation n Technical Validation NOTE: All applications, except self-affirmation, require validation. Applications requiring corrections have to be re-validated.

Administrative Validation Overview

Administrative Validation Applicable to: n n n A certification mark or listing from an approved certification agency An evaluation report from a Florida Registered Architect or Licensed Engineer independent from the manufacturer An evaluation report from an approved evaluation entity.

Administrative Validation Criteria consists of: ü Verification of certification or evaluation report, product description, testing standards per Florida Building Code and compliance documentation are compliant with the current code. ü Verification of installation instructions, anchorage requirements and product performance are as per certification or evaluation report. ü Verification of any limits are within the scope of certification or evaluation. ü Verify that certification is not based on rational analysis. ü Verify that if rational analysis was used for installation instructions that an evaluation report is included.

Certification Validation Checklist

Administrative Validation Checklist

Evaluation Report by Florida PE/RA Administrative Validation Checklist

Evaluation Report by Florida PE/RA Validation Common Errors (1) • Testing Standards on Evaluation Report (ER) are not the same as on face of application. • Testing standards are not as adopted an equivalency of standards has not been provided. • Design Pressure on application exceeds design pressure on ER. • Limits of use indicate impact resistance and testing standards for impact were not performed. • Certificate of Independence was not provided or is not from the evaluation engineer/architect. • Description of product on application is not the same as on ER.

Evaluation Report by Florida PE/RA Validation Common Errors (2) • Installation Instructions are not in accordance with Rule 9 B 72. 070(4)(e) or as described on ER. • Testing was not conducted at an accredited, by an approved accreditation agency, testing laboratory. • Testing was not performed on the product as described on ER and the data cannot be verified. • Certification of plastic structural components was not provided or is expired (glass laminates, plastic extrusions). • Validation checklist is for the correct method and signed and sealed after validation on-line. • Verify that rational analysis was not performed in-lieu of testing standards required by the building code.

Evaluation Report by Evaluation Entity Administrative Validation Checklist

Technical Validation Overview

Technical Validation Applicable to: n n n A test report from an approved testing laboratory An evaluation report from an approved evaluation entity that is not an independent third party from the manufacturer Installation instructions designed by in-house to the manufacturer, non independent third-party professional.

Technical Validation Criteria n In addition to criteria for Administrative Validation, Technical validation includes: n Determination that the evaluator has complied with acceptable standards of engineering principles. n Engineering verification that the evaluation complies with the Code. n Copy of the application complying with all aspects of rule 61 G 15 -36 F. A. C. must be filed with the Commission.

Technical Validation Checklist For the technical validation when using the Certification, Evaluation Report by Florida PE/RA and Evaluation Report by Evaluation Entity methods, the validator needs to complete the corresponding Administrative Validation checklist plus the following Technical Validation checklist.

Technical Validation Test Report Method Checklist For the technical validation when using the Test Report method, the validator needs to complete the following Validation checklist.

Test Report Method Validation Common Errors (1) • Testing Standards on test report are not the same as on face of application. • Testing standards are not as adopted an equivalency of standards has not been provided. • Design pressure on application exceeds design pressure on test report. • Limits of use indicate impact resistance and testing standards for impact were not performed. • Certificate of Independence was not provided or is not from the testing laboratory. • Description of product on application is not the same as on test report.

Test Report Method Validation Common Errors (2) • Installation Instructions are not in accordance with Rule 9 B 72. 070(4)(e) or as on the test report. • Testing was not conducted at an approved testing laboratory or the laboratory was not accredited for the test performed. • Testing was not performed on the product as described on the application. • Certification of plastic structural components was not provided or is expired (glass laminates, plastic extrusions). • Validation checklist is for the correct method and signed and sealed after validation on-line. • Verify that rational analysis was not performed and the product performance is as tested.

Validation Entities n n n All approved Validation Entities must retain documentation of the product application Approved Certification and Evaluation agencies can validate their own certifications/evaluations Testing Labs are not allowed to conduct validations

Installation Instructions Installation instructions also require verification: n n If prepared by company engineers then technical validation is required If prepared by independent engineers then administration validation is required, unless using the Test Report Method (which always requires a technical validation)

Installation Instructions Installation instructions criteria: Determination that the evaluator has complied with acceptable standards of engineering principles. n Engineering verification that the evaluation complies with the Code. n Copy of the application complying with all aspects of rule 61 G 15 -36 F. A. C. must be filed with the Commission. n n. Exception: n Technical Validation is not required if the installation instructions including attachments are verified by the product certification agency or the product evaluation agency.

RULE 9 B – 72 Optional State Approval with updates

Quality Assurance Expiration n For all methods of compliance, a field is added to collect the Expiration Date of the Quality Assurance Entity contract for each product on the application An email is sent to the Manufacturer with a copy to DCA when the Expiration Date has elapsed. Search criteria on the Product Search webpage allows searching for expired Quality Assurance Entity contracts.

Recent Oversight Committee Issues n Applications with Alternate Materials are not allowed for statewide product approval. n Alternate materials is a claim that a product compliance is equivalent to the provisions of the code, but is not evaluated as required by the code. n Example: Evaluation report with this language: “The system is an alternative exterior wall covering to those specified in Chapter 25”.

Recent Oversight Committee Issues n n n Roof Insulation Applications (1) The approval is limited to roof insulation (2) Fire classification and thermo performance of the insulation is not part of the approval (3) Not a structural component – may be considered part of the load path (4) Scope of approval is limited to an approved roof covering which list specific insulation as a component part of an approved roof assembly

Recent Oversight Committee Issues n Testing/Certification of Plastic Components n Plastics used as structural components of an assembly [i. e. vinyl (PVC), fiberglass and laminates (for impact glazing)] are required to be tested and or certified as required on Chapter 26 and be under a quality assurance audit contract.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes 1. Upload certification to new code on Self-Affirmations now allow an uploaded letter of certification of compliance to the new code, as documentation supporting a product approval to a preceding edition of the Code specifically refers to that earlier edition. The rule is amended to ensure accuracy of the affirmation and to address the potential for violation of law pertaining to licensure of those performing engineering services in the State.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes 9 B-72. 090 Product Approval by the Commission. (1)(a) through (d) No change. (e) When a new edition of the Code does not require a material or substantive change for an approved product, the manufacturer of the approved product shall affirm that his or her approved product meets the new edition of the Code. As part of application for selfaffirmation, if the evaluation report refers to the previous edition of the Code, the manufacturer of the approved product shall submit a statement from the original evaluation entity necessary to certify that the product complies with the subsequent code version via an attachment uploaded and submitted through the BCIS. Self-affirmation is subject to review and verification by the Program Administrator.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes 2. Equivalence of Standards 9 B-72. 180 Equivalence of Standards. (1) Equivalence of product standards. Where conformance to the Code is based on standards, then product evaluation shall rely on national and international consensus standards referenced in the Code. ………… * *

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes (3) Standards which meet or exceed standards referenced by 2007 edition of the Code and recognized as equivalent for determining Code Compliance are: (a) ANSI/DASMA 108 -02 Standard Method for Testing Sectional Garage Doors and Rolling Doors: Determination of Structural Performance under Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference equivalent to ANSI/DASMA 108 -05; (b) TPI 1 -02 National Design Standards for Metal-Plate-Connected Wood Truss Construction equivalent to TPI 1 -07; and (c) ASTM E 1300 -02 Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass in Buildings equivalent to ASTM E 1300 -04.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes (4) Equivalence of product standards for specific product application. Standards which meet or exceed standards referenced by the Code and certified as equivalent for determining code compliance by one of the following entities shall be considered as equivalent by the Commission: (a) An approved certification agency; (b) An approved test lab; (c) An approved evaluation entity; (d) Florida licensed professional engineer or architect; or (e) A nationally recognized standard writing organization.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes 3. State Increase of Fees for Product Approval 9 B-72. 090 Product Approval by the Commission. (1) Approval of a product or system of construction for state acceptance shall be performed by the Commission through the following steps: (a) A product manufacturer or owner of a proprietary system or method of construction, or its designee (applicant) shall apply to the Commission for approval by filing an application in accordance with subsection 9 B-72. 130(2), F. A. C. , validated in accordance with Rule 9 B 72. 080, F. A. C. , and submitting fees pursuant to subsection 9 B-72. 090(2), F. A. C. Application shall be made through the Building Codes Information System on the Internet, www. floridabuilding. org, and payment shall be by credit card or electronic check. (b) through (g) No change. (2) Fees for state approval of products. (a) Fee for approval, Five Hundred Dollars ($500. 00) per subcategory of product. The Commission shall review annually and adjust fees accordingly.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes (b) Fee for reinstatement after suspension, Fifty Dollars ($50. 00) per product, plus billable staff hours at Fifty Dollars ($50. 00) per hour, plus consultant fees. (c) Fees for approval of evaluation entities, certification agencies, testing laboratories and validation entities; for first time approval, Six Hundred Dollars ($600. 00), annual renewal fee, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250. 00), revision fee, Two Hundred Dollars ($200. 00). (d) Fee for revision of an existing approval, Five Hundred Dollars ($500. 00) for a revision that results in a material change to the performance of a product or product design specification or both, and which may include addition of products within the same subcategory. (e) Fee for editorial revisions of an existing product approval that does not result in material change to the performance of a product or product design specification or both, One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150. 00). (f) Fee for affirmation of an existing product approval for compliance with a new edition of the standards adopted by the Code, One Hundred Dollars ($100. 00). (3) Applications, affirmations and revisions shall be made through the Building Codes Information System on the Internet, www. floridabuilding. org, and payment shall be by credit card or electronic check.

Recent Rule 9 B-72 Changes 4. Restriction of Products on an Application to 150 The Rule limits product approval applications to no more that 150 per application. Forms related to product and entity approval are amended to reflect revised fees adopted within Rule 9 B-72. 090, F. A. C. 9 B-72. 130 Forms. The following forms are adopted for use in reference to the Product Evaluation and Approval System. Copies of these forms are available from the Department of Community Affairs, Codes and Standards Section, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, and via the Building Codes Information System on the Internet, www. floridabuilding. org. (1) Florida Building Commission, Application for Organization/Entity Approval, Form No. 9 B 72. 130(1), effective November 10, 2009 updated October 11, 2005 (electronic version). (2) Florida Building Commission, Application for State Product Approvals, Form No. 9 B 72. 130(2), effective November 10, 2009 updated October 11, 2005 (electronic version). New and revised applications received after January 11, 2010 shall be limited to a maximum of 150 product sequence numbers. This limitation shall not be applicable to editorial revision or affirmation of an existing application. (3) No change.

Obtaining formal interpretations/clarifications • Declaratory statements • Currently no cost (this may change) • Must cite particular section(s) of the Code or Rule 9 B-72 • Must cite a particular job • Need to pose the interpretations/clarifications in the form of yes/no questions • Staff prepares response, then reviewed and voted on by Product Approval Oversight Committee, and then by the Commission • Given three hearings – takes 6 months total to finalize • Declaratory statements become public records, but are non-binding

Questions Comments Suggestions