Hayden Provides Insight on NFRC's Spring Membership Meeting

NFRC's Board Chair, Joe Hayden, said NFRC's staff did an outstanding job of making the Spring Membership Meeting successful -- once again.

Following are Hayden's specific thoughts on last week's proceedings, in no particular order:

1.) What a pleasure to see a record attendance of 135 registrants, including 31 first-time attendees. Reports are that the economy is starting to turn around, but we all know that conditions are still tough. As such I know it can be difficult to justify the time and expense to travel to and participate in a week-long event like this. Thanks so much to everyone who attended and participated.

2.) Clearly NFRC’s major topic of interest was once again the development of rating procedures for attachment products. As is the norm for NFRC, we have many varied positions and opinions, indicated by our usual spirited debates. To say there’s much more work to be done is an obvious understatement, and in particular the issue of validation testing needs to be settled. However despite the challenges we faced this week, I believe we continue to make excellent progress at a rather remarkable pace. So once again I must commend the attachments community for the way they’ve “stepped up to the plate” to make this happen.

3.) On the other side of the coin, the minimal time we had to spend on CMA issues gave me a sense of great reward and accomplishment. Those who have been involved in NFRC for the past 5 years or more know all too well how hard we’ve worked to get to this point. It’s a great example of what NFRC can accomplish when we stay true to the consensus process. I was asked by some if it really should have taken that long, and I believe the answer is YES! Achieving true consensus is a hard thing to do, and on something as important as CMA it can’t be rushed. We must take the time to get it as “right” as we can. Once again, kudos to everyone for this great accomplishment!

4.) Congratulations to my good friend Jeff Baker for receiving the 2009 Member of the Year Award. Jeff’s unwavering dedication and tireless efforts for NFRC are an inspiration to us all. Thank you Jeff! Also, thanks to Roland Temple for coming back to present the award. It was great to see him once again.

5.) I’m looking forward to “hearing” (not seeing) everyone for the Summer virtual meeting. I’m excited about NFRC venturing into this new territory and about the potential benefits it has for us all. Please be sure to take advantage of one or both of the planned trial runs. Stay tuned for more details to come on that.

6.) Lastly, but certainly not least, I must acknowledge the outstanding job done by NFRC Staff once again in making these meetings run as smoothly as they did. Their efforts behind the scenes often go unnoticed, but they are always greatly appreciated.

Until next time, and as always (or should I say once again,) … THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO !!!

Joe Hayden

Hayden's Thoughts Forthcoming

Be sure to visit early next week. NFRC News Now will bring you Board Chair, Joe Hayden's, reflections on this week's membership meeting.

Thursday Morning's Board Meeting Features Reports, Motions, and a Touch of Levity

NFRC’s Board of Directors met on Thursday morning to consider motions and to hear various reports.

Accreditation Policy Committee

Marcia Falke reported on the week’s activities in the Accreditation Policy Committee (APC), saying one new lab was inspected in February. Additionally, Falke said all 2009 inspection reports were completed and in process with labs or APC.

Furthermore, Falke reported that four simulation and test labs are slated to be inspected in 2010. Additionally, all current NFRC Certified Simulators are required to undergo ASL training to satisfactorily model in THERM6 for modeling frame and spacer components and then import them into CMAST.

Technical Interpretations Policy Committee (TIPC)

Tom Culp provided a report on the (TIPC). Culp’s report included a motion whereby new glazing options are added to an existing matrix, clarifying that the initial SHGC / VT 0.00 and 1.00 tables shall be used for the entire certification cycle and only be updated upon recertification. The idea here is that this avoids the impractical situation of having to go back to change all previous ratings which used the initial table. The motion was approved by the Board 10-0-0.

Culp also moved to approve TI-2010-02 with the following directions to NFRC Staff, Laboratories and IA’s on how to implement this TI:

For approved frame components already in the CMAST Frame Library and marked as “Vertical Meeting Rail”: NFRC staff shall remove the frame component and notify the sim lab.

• The SIM lab shall correct the Cross Section Type to “Jamb” and resubmit the frame component.

• The IA shall approve the modified component.

For frame components that have been submitted by the lab but not yet approved:

• The IA shall reject the frame component to send it back to the sim lab.

• The sim lab shall correct the Cross Section Type to “Jamb” and resubmit the frame component.

• The IA shall continue with their normal review for approval.

Following some discussion, it was determined that it would be best to consider this more closely during a future meeting. Culp’s motion therefore failed. A subsequent motion to have TIPC develop an implementation plan passed 10-0-0.

Certification Policy Committee

Steve Johnson reported that the Certification Policy Committee (CPC) the 2009 CAP inspection reports are scheduled to be completed by the end of April. Johnson also said the 2010 CAP inspections will be scheduled.

Furthermore, the 2009 CAP workshop was held and completed in early January 2010, and the CAP workshops are scheduled and will be held 3 to 4 weeks after each membership meeting.

Johnson reminded and informed the members about the IG Certification date requirement; the extension requests to be submitted to NFRC staff; the $250 extension request fee requirement will begin on June 1st and will be reflected in the NFRC 704 (Fee scheduled). Additionally, Johnson informed the membership for those interested in NFRC recognizing 3rd party specifications, such as European specifications for IG testing, to bring forth proposals to NFRC demonstrating an equivalency or ability to exceed NFRC specification requirements.

Research Subcommittee

Werner Lichtenberger spoke for the Research Subcommittee, moving to recommend approval of the Awning Rating Research Final report and approve contractor payment. Lichtenberger also moved to extend the CMA CR Research project completion deadline until fall 2010 Membership meeting. A second motion asked to approve the NFRC 703-Research Program Manual as modified by ballot.

Lichtenberger added some levity to the meeting by addressing the Board while wearing a hat from what he called "the best donut shop in New Orleans."

A third motion asked to extend the TDD U-factor Research deadline until the Fall 2010 membership meeting. Finally, Lichtenberger moved to extend the Window 6 Therm 6 Validation Research Project deadline until summer 2010 membership meeting.

All three of Lichtenberger's motions were approved.

Lichtenberger also said Complex VT Research PMTG reported their progress and will present a final report at the Summer 2010 membership meeting. Furthermore, a Ventilation Task Group was created and will report to Research SC. A scope was created, task group members volunteered, and a chair was appointed.
Also, a motion to approve NFRC staff reviewing the NFRC 600 for any conflict and to come back to the BOD with any conflicts will be considered during the Board’s closed-door meeting later in the day Thursday.

There over-riding idea here is that NFRC staff will review all NFRC documents for variation of definitions and then report to the BOD with any conflicts. Any conflicts would be removed from the definition from the NFRC 600, and NFRC’s staff will work with the Glossary TG to resolve them.

Thermophysical Properties of Materials Subcommittee

This subcommittee moved to approve the NFRC 101-Thermophysical Properties of Materials for NFRC approved Software as modified by ballot. This was passed unanimously.

Additionally, seven thermophysical property testing labs have completed testing of the NFRC interlaboratory samples. NFRC staff will report on results at the summer membership meeting. Completion of the ILC will enable NFRC 103-Thermophysical Properties Versification Program to be enforced.
Garrett Stone reported that the Regulatory Affairs and Marketing Committee (RAM) had no motions, but reported that it formed two new task groups to consider ventilation and daylighting ratings.

Air Leakage

Jeff Baker made a motion for the Air Leakage Subcommittee. Baker asked the Board to approve the NFR 400 Air Leakage Ballot to be implemented upon publication and to move the Air Leakage Ballot as revised by the subcommittee for Board approval to be implemented upon publication. Baker said staff will look into NFRC governing documents regarding the rounding of ratings values for Air Leakage ratings. This motioned passed, 8-0-2.

Baker also motioned to approve the NFRC 400 – TI Ballot for implemented upon publication. This passed 10-0-0.

CMA Subcommittee

Additionally, Baker motioned to approve the CMA Complex Product ballots as approved at the Technical Committee to be implemented upon publication after going back to subcommittee for further work. This motion passed 10-0-0.

Another motion from the Ratings Committee moved to have the NFRC 705 CMA-PCP ballot, as modified by the CMA Subcommittee to be forwarded to the Board for approval and to be implemented upon publication. This motion passed, 10-0-0.

Attachments Subcommittee

Furthermore, Baker made a motion to approve the adoption of the Base Case windows in the NFRC 100A ballot for use by all attachments, with the exception to applied films and DASD, in the NFRC 100A and 200A technical procedures. The motion passed 9-1-0.

Solar Heat Gain Subcommittee

Baker also motioned to approve the NFRC 200 Garage Door ballot to the Board for approval and recommendation it be implemented upon publication. There was also a Technical Committee motion to move forward the NFRC 200 Garage Door ballot to the Board for approval and recommendation it be implemented upon publication. This passed unanimously.

Technical Committee

The Technical Committee moved to proceed with the NFRC 200 TI, looking for Board approval. The motion recommended it be implemented upon publication. The motion passed by voice vote, 10-0-0.
The Technical committee also motioned to approve the modification of the language in the NFRC 200 for garage doors, section 2.2.1.B and 2.2.2.B. The proposed change would change the term ‘not covered’ to ‘covered’ products, and the change would be implemented upon publication. The Board passed this motion.

Furthermore, the Technical Committee reported that a SHGC Task Group was formed to review the entire NFRC 200.

The Technical Committee also asked that the NFRC 100 – TI be approved for implementation upon publication. The motion passed 10-0-0.

Software Subcommittee

The Software Subcommittee motioned to approve the Window 6 and Therm 6 software for CMAST. The motion passed 10-0-0.

U-factor Subcommittee

The U-factor Subcommittee brought forth a motion to approve the NFRC 100 Validation Matrix Ballot. This motion carried 10-0-0.
A motion to approve a new date, January 1, 2011, for requiring a U-factor rating for Applied Films due to the modification of the Attachment Products Directory to accommodate adding the rating was approved 10-0-0.

NFRC Membership Meeting Closes

NFRC’s Spring Membership Meeting drew to a close this morning, but NFRC News Now will continue providing you with valuable information.

Tomorrow, we will post the details of this morning's Board meeting, including summaries of the various motions and reports.

Early next week, we will also post Joe Hayden’s insight regarding the entire meeting and the results of the Board’s Monday night meeting regarding how to simplify NFRC’s certification process. The Board's goal is to make the process work faster without compromising its efficacy.

Be sure to come back over the next few days to get this information.

In the meantime, however, NFRC extends a special word of thanks to its sponsor China Southern Glass Holding(CSG), Co., Ltd.

CSG was established in 1984, and it is one of the leading enterprises in China’s glass industry. The company manufactures and supplies all categories of architectural glass products, and it is the first and largest low-e glass manufacturer in China.

The photo above shows Cheryl Gendron, NFRC's Meetings Manager (far left) and NFRC's Senior Technical Services Manager (far right) with NFRC's sponsors.

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.