The board of directors of the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) met today at the Peabody Hotel in Memphis, Tenn., and voted to approve several items from the Certification, Technical and Ratings Committees. The board also received an update on the organization’s Independent Verification Program (IVP), among other measures.
For the Certification Committee, the board approved all the topics brought to vote. One of these topics was a motion to modify the language “to include and clarify the labeling requirements of composite unit products comprised of product types listed in the NFRC 100, Table 4-3.” The board approved the changes.
Next up, the Certification Committee addressed the identifying products which cannot be rated in the NFRC 700 program (covering composites) and the products which need to be rated through the NFRC 705 program, which is the Component Modeling Approach Product Certification Program (CMA PCP)
“The NFRC 705 is also being submitted to include language which identifies those products which are special cases and can only be rated through the 700 program for site-built products,” according to Joe Jonely, chair of the NFRC 700 Subcommittee.
“The intent of adding the new language was so that existing products rated through the NFRC 700 shall continue to be authorized for certification until time of recertification,” he added.
The NFRC 705 subcommittee also pushed forward a motion to clarify the term “actual size” in CMA PCP.
The CMA PCP subcommittee also sought the board’s approval to remove redundant Approved Calculation Entity (ACE) calculation review language.
Finally, the CMA PCP subcommittee pushed to “clarify the products rated using the CMA method versus the site-built method.”
The Technical Committee introduced some measures the board also passed. The CMA Technical subcommittee pushed forward an agenda to clarify the actual term “size” in NFRC 100.
The same subcommittee also moved to modify the NFRC 100 using the results of the CMA Improved Algorithm Research Project.
“This research determined a modification to a spacer algorithm will enable CMAST to produce more accurate results,” according to subcommittee co-chairs Sneh Kumar and Gary Curtis.
Moving on, the board received an update on the NFRC’s IVP. In 2013, the IVP was scheduled to test 120 products.
“We’ve currently completed 107 studies,” said Scott Hanlon, the NFRC’s program director. “Twelve are in process and one was canceled because the partner left.
In 2014, the program is expected to test 240 products.
“We received the 2014 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nominations last week,” Hanlon said. “The EPA nominated 120 and 120 came from the NFRC algorithm. Sixty are in process.”
There have been no unsuccessful EPA tests, according to Hanlon, who discussed the results.
“Partners are doing a good job,” he said. “NFRC has encountered discrepancies worthy of action,” he added. “Currently, 31 of the studies required staff to inform partners to check on discrepancies and work with the lab and Independent Certification and Inspection Agencies to update as necessary. … There were no issues with NFRC rating tolerances, only profile variations (reinforcement, stile/frame/rails modifications, etc.)”
There are 251 EPA partners, according to Hanlon. He said 243 are enrolled in the IVP.
An IVP workshop will be held in April with testing laboratories.
“The spirit of cooperation was evident throughout the meeting. Our members leave here with plenty of newly-acquired knowledge to share with their clients and colleagues. That’s really what our meetings are all about,” said Tom Herron, NFRC’s senior manager of communications and marketing, summing up the event.
In the fall, the NFRC will host a membership meeting in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. For more information, visit www.nfrc.org.