Third Day of Meeting Ends with Labeling Committee Business

The Labeling Committee rounded out the third day of the Spring Membership Meeting this afternoon.

The Labeling Subcommittee presented one action item to the Labeling Committee. The committee passed a motion to move the NFRC 700-2010 FMC ballot forward to the Board for approval and to implement upon publication. The Labeling Subcommittee also reported that it formed a task group to address a new label idea for tubular daylighting devices presented to them this afternoon.

Then, the CMA Certification Subcommittee brought forward one action item, the NFRC 705 CMA-PCP ballot. The subcommittee reported that it addressed negative comments concerning the definition of commercial buildings and modified the language to stay with the definitions that are currently in the NFRC 600 Glossary document. The Labeling Committee then passed a motion to move the NFRC 705 CMA-PCP ballot as revised forward to the Board for approval and to implement upon publication.

The subcommittee also reported that it formed a task group to look into the issue of expiration of ratings.

The Labeling Committee then turned its attention to new business on its agenda, forming an Annual Energy Performance Rating Task Group.

Meeting Attendees Hear Latest on ENERGY STAR

Richard Karney, with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), discussed ENERGY STAR program changes during the Regulatory Affairs and Marketing (RAM) Committee meeting.

Last fall, DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) under which EPA takes over management of the ENERGY STAR program, including windows.

Karney said that the MOU calls for all products to provide independent laboratory tests to verify results. However, this does not affect fenestration products because ENERGY STAR-qualified fenestration products have to be NFRC-certified, so they already fulfill the requirement for independent certification.

He noted that there will be some form of fenestration verification (i.e., a blind purchasing testing program), but the government’s goal is to minimize, or not even create, any additional burden for manufacturers. DOE, EPA, and NFRC are in talks about it.

Labeling Subcommittee Proactive Regarding Attachments

The Labeling Subcommittee presented its ideas regarding the proposed attachments label.

In particular, the subcommittee discussed the potential shape, color, and the specific information to be printed on the NFRC attachments label.

Leonard Greenberger of Potomac Communications Group recently conducted several focus groups, where he collected preliminary information from consumers regarding the particulars of the attachments label. The subjects of the focus groups included homeowners who had completed home improvement projects within the past year. Using this as his starting point, Greenberger ultimately shifted the conversation to NFRC and attachment products. Greenberger is still in the process of evaluating and analyzing the results of the focus groups, and he plans to use the information he gathers to guide futher efforts to refine the attachments label.

During its presentation, the Labeling Subcommittee, sought to promote awareness and to seek feedback regarding the shape, color, and specific information to be printed on the attachments label. This discussion triggered considerable dialogue.

The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) said they disapproved of the triangular shape of the proposed label because it is, at this point, simply a draft and therefore cannot be approved as it is.

The American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) said the information printed on the proposed attachments label is misleading because the sample values are ambiguous. AAMA also said the attachments label seems to compare attachment products to whole products, which is inconsistent with NFRC’s vision. AMSCO took a similar point of view.

Despite the negatives that arose, the subcommittee reiterated that its intention was merely to create awareness regarding the options being considered for developing the attachments label.

The subcommittee realized prior to the meeting that nothing definitive would be decided during its session. Instead, the subcommittee sought to be proactive and to introduce the proposed attachments label while informing the audience about how development of the attachments label will proceed.

RAM Committee Forms Two Task Groups

The Regulatory Affairs and Marketing Committee formed two new task groups today, per the recommendation of the NFRC Board of Directors. The task groups will explore whether consumers would want NFRC to develop fenestration performance ratings for daylighting and ventilation.

Attendees Hear Latest on Energy Codes

The Regulatory Affairs and Marketing (RAM) Committee kicked off the second half of the day’s business with Committee Chair Garrett Stone, of Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts, & Stone, P.C., making a presentation about energy codes.

He provided a refresher on the importance of energy codes, and said that today there is substantial emphasis on energy codes to achieve national policy objectives.

Stone explained that modern national energy model codes incorporate NFRC procedures as the exclusive method for determining fenestration energy performance (SHGC and U-factor) for residential and non-residential buildings.

Then, he discussed increased residential energy efficiency requirements in the most recent International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), such as lower SHGC and U-factor in the south. The overall changes result in a 10-15 percent more efficient residential code compared to the 2006 IECC. He also noted that there are significant changes in the performance path.

Stone explained that there are increased energy efficiency requirements in current non-residential code, too, and further increases in commercial energy efficiency requirements are expected in the near future.

He also discussed the American Recover and Reinvestment Act of 2009, noting that there is a lot more activity in energy codes at the state level, happening in a lot less time, since the stimulus package took effect.

NFRC Meeting Has a Worldwide Audience

NFRC News Now checked its analytics report this afternoon. Readers from five nations – the United States, Canada, Australia, India, and Sweden – are following the meeting online so far.

Technical Committee Meeting Concludes First Half of Day

The Technical Committee wrapped up the first part of the day’s business by taking action on items presented by its subcommittees, including passing motions to:

• Move to the NFRC Board to approve the adoption of the Base Case windows in the NFRC 100A Ballot for use by all attachments, with the exception of applied films and DASD, in the NFRC 100A and 200A technical procedures.
• Move to the Board to approve Window6/Therm 6 software for CMAST (Component Modeling Approach Software Tool).
• Recommend that the Technical Committee chair ask the Ratings Committee chair to form a task group (under the Ratings Committee) to develop an annual energy rating.
• Revise the scope of the Annual Energy Performance (AEP) Subcommittee (which is currently limited to homes) so that it includes other buildings.
• Move the Air Leakage Ballot as revised by the subcommittee for Board approval to be implemented upon publication. (NFRC staff will look into NFRC governing documents regarding the rounding of values for Air Leakage ratings).
• Move the NFRC 400 – TI Ballot for Board approval to be implemented upon publication.
• Remove language that commercial garage doors are not allowed in the definition of Garage Doors listed in NFRC 100.
• Forward the CMA Complex Products Ballot as modified (without Section 5.9.6.3.5) by the CMA Technical Subcommittee for NFRC 100 CMA section 5.9 to the Board for approval.

After the Technical Committee finished addressing these and other actions items from its subcommittees, Committee Chair Jeff Baker discussed NFRC’s documents revision cycle. He encouraged anyone with thoughts on the matter to share them with him before the Board meeting.

Bipin Shah Leads Discussion on Solar Heat Gain

Bipin Shah of WinBuild led the Solar Heat Gain Subcommittee through a discussion regarding the language to be used to discuss the solar heat gain of garage (vehicular access) doors.

New language for garage doors was initially balloted in the Fall 2009. Although no negatives were received, comment feedback was substantive enough to warrant refinement to the proposed language. One change in the NFRC 200 involved the removal the wording, “edge-of-glazing parameter.” The motion passed and will be implemented upon publication

An editorial negative brought forward regarding the removal of parenthesis was withdrawn in the NFRC 200 TI, and the motion passed.

In the NFRC 201 – 2010 TI, a ballot was intended to add currently approved Technical Interpretation language from the 2001/2004 Technical Interpretations Manual (EOA30).

One negative in this ballot called for the removal any language currently used in the NFRC 201. The motion was recommended to be sent to TIPC for further work. Sending the motion to TIPC passed by voice vote.

In closing, the subcommittee recommended the formation of a SHGC task group, but there were no volunteers for a chair for the group. Jeff Baker and Bipin Shah agreed to review the subject offline.

U-factor Subcommittee Review Ballots, Forms New Task Group

Jeff Baker, WESTLab, welcomed attendees to the U-factor Subcommittee meeting. After hearing reports from its task groups, the subcommittee turned its attention to a number of ballots:

• After a lengthy discussion about on the NFRC 100 Casement – Awning Ballot, the subcommittee found the negative comment from Anderson Corporation to be persuasive and substantive and moved to return the ballot to task group to further investigate and justify any size changes.

• The single negative comment on the NFRC 100 Validation Matrix Ballot was withdrawn and the subcommittee passed a motion to approve this ballot (as balloted) and move forward it to the Technical Committee with implementation upon publication.

• The subcommittee found the one negative on the NFRC 100 Garage (Vehicular Access) Door Ballot to be persuasive and substantive and sent it back to task group. The negative comment on the NFRC 100 TI Ballot was withdrawn and the subcommittee passed a motion to move the document forward to the Technical Committee for implementation upon publication.

• The subcommittee then reviewed comments on the NFRC 102 TI Ballot which is intended to roll in a currently approved Technical Interpretation language from the 2001/2004 Technical Interpretations Manual (E0A30). The subcommittee found the negative comment about Section 5.1.1.2 to be persuasive and moved to revert back to the original document.

• Then, the subcommittee turned its attention to updating a section in the NFRC 100 Garage (Vehicular Access) Door document to reflect that a commercial garage door methodology now exists. The subcommittee passed a motion to recommend to the Technical Committee and the Board of Directors that the language in the definition of Garage Doors in 100 be stricken by NFRC staff action.

• Finally, the subcommittee passed a motion to recommend to the Technical Committee and Board that a footnote for sliding glass doors be re-instated to Table 4-3 of NFRC 100 per NFRC staff recommendation.
  

The subcommittee concluded with the formation of a Sightline Grouping Task Group.

Technical Block Continues with Air Leakage Subcommittee Meeting

The Air Leakage Subcommittee got down to business this morning under the Technical block.

The sole negative comment on the NFRC 400-2010 TI ballot was withdrawn, and the subcommittee passed a motion to move the ballot forward to the Technical Committee to be implemented upon publication.

The subcommittee then reviewed comments on the NFRC 400-2010 ballot. One of those comments, about Section 4.E (“measure to one decimal point”), suggested the use of two decimal points for air leakage instead of one. After discussing the issue, the subcommittee passed a motion finding this negative comment to be non-persuasive.

Then, the subcommittee voted to move the ballot forward as revised to the Technical Committee to be implemented upon publication.

NFRC Members Unwind in New Orleans

Good Morning from New Orleans

It's the dawn of day three of NFRC's Spring Membership Meeting. Our coverage will begin at 8:00 a.m. (CT). Be sure to check back often for the latest news on the proceedings.

The meeting will begin with part two of the Technical Committee Block, which is slated for 8:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.

Subcommittees scheduled to meet include Condensation Resistance, Air Leakage, U-factor, Solar Heat Gain, and CMA.

Join us for what promises to be yet another lively day.