Manufacturers role still under scrutiny in nonresidential ratings program
During its Spring Meeting March 5-8 in Austin, Texas, the National Fenestration Ratings Council of Silver Spring, Md., addressed about 220 negatives in the most recent ballot version of the Component Modeling Approach.
A large portion of the negatives to the CMA ballot surrounded the role of a manufacturer as an approved calculation entity. The latest ballot says that manufacturers can serve as an ACE, but only with 100 percent review from an inspection agency, says Margaret Webb, executive director for the Insulating Glass Manufacturers Alliance in Ottawa, Ontario.
“This was a substantial change to what had been proposed previously, where this ACE would be subject to 100 percent IA review, but with proven compliance proposed a reduced rate of IA review,” Webb says.
The membership voted to have the CMA task group develop a proposal to decrease the rate of review for the manufacturer ACE in spite of warnings from CMA Ratings Subcommittee Co-chairman Gary Curtis. During the meeting, Curtis, the president and founder of the West Wall Group LLC in Salem, Ore., cautioned that the board would likely hold firm on its decision to require 100 percent IA review.
“Gary Curtis offered multiple statements saying he didn’t see the board moving from its decision,” says Greg Carney, technical director for the Glass Association of North America in Topeka, Kan. “The membership voted and said ‘we don’t care, this is critical.’”
Several negatives to the ballot also addressed the lack of involvement from architects, building owners and specifiers; these parties would act as the specifying authority within the CMA, Webb says.
To make sure those groups are aware of the program, the next draft of the CMA will be forwarded to the executive directors of the American Institute of Architects and the Building Owners and Managers Association International, both in Washington, D.C., and the Construction Specifications Institute, of Alexandria, Va.
Membership also voted for whole product labels, rather than separate labels for each component in a window, Webb says.
“It was agreed that the component labels added bureaucracy to the process without adding value,” Webb says. “The information that was included in the component labels is also on the product and project label. So, it was agreed by the majority that this was redundant.”
Jim Benney, executive direct of NFRC, says the board of directors approved a bid from a vendor to develop and implement the CMA program. “Contract negotiations are currently underway; we will have a formal announcement when the contract is approved and signed,” he says.
The board committed to having information about the program cost by the next meeting, Webb says.
Read about developments in NFRC’s insulating glass certification program in next week’s e-glass weekly.
-By Katy Devlin, e-Newsletter Editor, e-glass weekly