NFRC 700, Dash Language Goes Forward, TDD Labels Headed Back to Task Group

Chair John McFee oversees discussion on TDDs

NFRC's Labeling Subcommittee met this afternoon, with an extensive discussion on TDD labels taking center stage.

The first topic undertaken by the subcomttiee, however, involved NFRC 700, Dash Language.

NFRC 700, Dash Language

This ballot pertains to language required to identify example label formats, which must conform to Appendix B, section B.3. It also pertains to language required to clarify use of a dash “-“ on the label – Appendix B, section B.10 and Figure B-10.

This ballot did not draw any negatives and a motion to forward it to the Ratings Committee passed by unanimous voice vote.

NFRC 700, TDD Labels

Following the recent unsuccessful ballot for additional TDD labeling options, the TDD Labeling Task Group (TG) was expanded to include most members who had submitted persuasive negatives.

This expanded TG reviewed the NFRC 600 and the NFRC 700, ultimately creating this ballot, which is concerned with clarifying NFRC’s requirements for labels applied outside of the manufacturer’s facilities.

One negative that arose was that the provisions outlined by these changes suggest that a non-licensee is permitted to make labeling decisions that affect the rating given the product. The negative contended that this is a dramatic change to NFRC procedure and called for tighter controls before allowing this.

After the negative was presented, a motion was passed to find it persuasive and substantive and to send back to TG for resolution.

The motion triggered considerable discussion. One member pointed out that the TG already considered this issue and determined that existing procedures allowed this. Another member confirmed that this issue arose in the TG, but added that the TG could find no alternatives. A third member expressed concern that someone not covered under a license could leave NFRC with no one to go back to should a problem arise.

Following the discussion, a vote on the motion resulted in an 18-18 tie, and by rule, the motion failed.

Chair, John McFee (WDMA), then recommended a new motion to work toward resolution. This, however, drew some concern from the membership that they would be voting in haste rather than carefully evaluating the issue.

A vote to send the ballot back to TG ultimately passed, 20-15.