and Labeling Discussed During NFRC Task Group Meetings
by Ellen Giard
The National Fenestration Rating Council's (NFRC) summer meeting
began today at the Grand Hyatt in downtown Denver. Members started
work early this morning with a number of task group meetings, including
a heavy focus on the development of the Component Modeling Approach
(CMA) program. While a number of points were raised during the task
group meetings, all recommendations will be forwarded to their respective
subcommittees for discussion later this week
Michael Thoman with Architectural Testing Inc. led the first CMA
meeting, the validation task group. Thoman said the group has had
a number of conference calls over the past nine months and was optimistic
that today's large group would generate a good amount of feedback
and input. He began by discussing an outline of the validation procedure
for the framing system.
According to the outline, each framing system product line will
be required to have validation testing prior to be being accepted
into the CMA with the exception of product lines that may be included
in the validation test matrix. In addition, the outline will not
require validation for the total products calculation done using
CMA software, after validation of framing system members.
"I'd like feedback on whether these two seem reasonable and can
we go forward without results of the research project [a separate
group working to determine how framing systems should be grouped],"
Tom Culp, with Birch Point Consulting, who is leading the research
project, said the group's goal was to have a ballot of technical
language by the fall meeting. Greg Carney with the Glass Association
of North America said one of his concerns is that it's important
to truly define what the product line is and what defines it as
a system. "I believe that it's important to understand the product
line definitions, but I don't think that's the task of this group,"
Carney responded by saying that he does think that the validation
testing should be done before the products go into the "buckets"
and that users then "use the tools that have been proven as the
resources that work."
Test sample construction and determining validation were also covered
during the session.
In closing the meeting, Thoman said the committee planned to have
a ballot for the frame grouping rules by the fall meeting and would
likely have proposed language for the validation procedure to be
The CMA labeling task group also met this morning, chaired by Charlie
Curcija with Carli Inc. The group discussed the draft of a label
certificate form that will be used by the approved certification
Carney said his concern with the proposed label is that it can
be confusing for the code officials.
"Architectural specifications in no way relate to this format …
the building code official could not look at this form and the architectural
specifications and know they have the same product," said Carney.
"All of the identification relates to NFRC and not the real product
… it needs the reality of what everything is called by the manufacturer."
The label provides the actual size of the product as well as NFRC
size, which some attendees see as a good compromise.
Focus group feedback from the building code community regarding
the proposed CMA label certification was also reviewed. Leonard
Greenberger with Potomac Communications Group led the discussion.
Some of the points made by the building code officials in the focus
- They trust the numbers they see on the NFRC labels;
- They would like to see the NFRC name on the CMA certificate;
- They have a high level of respect for the commercial industry
but said it would be helpful to have some type of certification
- They would like to know how they can know that what's on the
label is what's actually used in the building;
- They would like to see more information (U-factor, visible transmittance,
SHGC, etc.) on the label; and
They found the actual versus NFRC sizes to be the most confusing
part of the label."They're willing to accept both, but they wanted
an explanation as to why they are both there, though there was a
strong preference for the actual size," said Greenberger of the
While the labeling task group debated what information should be
included, they did not come to consensus on the matter.
Task group meetings continue this afternoon with the CMA PCP and
IG Certification, followed by the membership meeting. The meeting
continues through July 26.