NAFS Committee Update - Amazon Web Services...NAFS is a technical standard widely relied upon in North America in the making of decisions regarding the suitability of fenestration

NAFS Committee Update

Steve Fronek (Apogee Enterprises) – Co-Chair, Architectural Steve Strawn (JELD-WEN) – Co-Chair, Residential

2019 Joint AAMA IGMA Summer ConferenceWednesday, June 19, 8:30-9:30 a.m.

2

JDMG Participation

AAMA Voting Representatives• Steve Fronek (Apogee Enterprises) – AAMA’s JDMG Co-Chair• Ray Garries (MI Windows and Doors)• Greg McKenna (Kawneer)• Steve Strawn (JELD-WEN)

AAMA Staff Representative• Richard Rinka

3

WDMA Representatives• Brad Fevold (Marvin Windows) – Co-Chair• Al Barstad (Andersen) • Joe Hayden (Pella)• Roger LeBrun (Velux) • Steve Orlowski (WDMA Staff)

CSA Representatives• Greg Hildebrand (EXP) – Co-Chair• Jeff Baker (WESTLab)• Robert Jutras (UL)• Jean Marois (Energi Fenestration Systems) • Andy Kwong (CSA Staff)

JDMG Participation

4

JDMG Participation

Other Frequent Participants• Lisa Bergeron (JELD-WEN Canada)• Gary Blad (Loewen)• Mark Fortun (Endura)• Chris Griffin (Roto-Frank)• Mark Mikkelson (Andersen) • Dan Parrish (Pella)• Dan Raap (AmesburyTruth)• Todd Stratmoen (Larson)

5

Voting Guidelines

• Yellow Badges – Architectural and Residential Products Groups• Orange Badges – Architectural Products Group only• Light Blue Badges – Residential Products Group only

See color bars on each slide:

For reference:• White (non-voting members except at regional level)• Green (industry organization, prospective member, press)• Pink (registered spouse)

Review of Minutes

Agenda

8

Meeting Block Agenda Items

Discussion/Action Items• Simplified NAFS Ballot 2 Substantial Item Comment Review• NAFS Simplification Gateway Language Work Group

o Motion to disband pending publication • Secondary Storm Products (Simplified NAFS) Work Group

o Motion to disband pending publication of final approved version of NAFS-20XX

New Business• Form/Disband Groups; Discuss Dormant Groups

9

Reporting Items

Written reports provided in presentation slides only; no verbal reports are delivered

• Corner Weld Test Work Group• Decoupling Air-Water-Structural Perform (NAFS) Work Group

Simplified NAFS Ballot 2 Substantial Item Comment Review

11

NAFS Ballot Review Update

Ballot of Draft #2 of NAFS Update• Survey Code 19-1015• Successful Ballot

o 31 Approveo 12 Approve with Commento 4 Disapprove with Commento 31 Abstain

• Comment Items – 255, Draft #1 had 295 Comment Items

12

Ballot Comment Resolution

• Three NAFS Committee Callso April 26o May 17o May 31

The guidelines for how NAFS Committee calls will be run were reviewed. These are:• The meeting were limited to what has been outlined on the call notice.• Like comments were grouped together whenever possible.• If a member wishes to have a topic discussed at either an interim meeting or National

Conference a motion needed to be made prior to voting on the subject.• Once a motion was made and a topic was resolved the subject will not be open for further

discussion without the proper motion.

13

Ballot Comment Resolution

Current Progress

• 59 comments deemed editorial by staff and accepted as editorial by NAFS Committee• 39 additional comments have been adjudicated by NAFS Committee

Deferred to Larger Meetings• Gateway Comments – Objections to LC Only• Limited Water – Sliding Glass Door• Like/Identical/Equivalent – Discussion Only

14

Ballot Comment ResolutionGateway Size – 10 Comments

S Fronek Apogee After consultation with Apogee’s EFCO business unit, both a) gateway test specimen size for LC Class, and b) R Class gateway size and alternative minimum sizes, should be changed back to the NAFS-17 criteria. Rationale: This change may open the door in the future to undesirable loss of stringency in CW and AW Classes.

Kevin Seiling VEKA Inc. Add original R class minimum gateway sizes back into document verbatim

Ray Garries MI Windows and Doors, LLC.section 4- in the event that r gateway size resumption is contentious, consider again these three ideas; one- pick new smaller minimum size that will be grade 20 instead of 15, two- add wording that "any size r product under the minumum span of nafs 17 shall be tested to the higher Dp reqirrements of the AMTS chart in LC, three- limit the DP rating of r products to a 30? and require a jump to LC for DP above this set #.

Ray Garries MI Windows and Doors, LLC.R class minimum gateway size has been a matter of ongoing discussion procedural focus. No substantial evidence was brought forward and AAMA voted 38-6 to reinstitute R minimums. Meaningful R product comparison is promoted by maintenance of the minimum gateway size. It should not be that only three of the four classes have strong minimum test protocols.

Ray Garries MI Windows and Doors, LLC.section 4- Add wording- For all classes the gateway test specimen minimum size is requiredRay Garries MI Windows and Doors, LLC.section 4- add wording- For R and LC classes an alternative minimum size is available for use

Ashley Welton Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

Section 4.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, Clause 4.2 Gateway PerformanceRequirements

We recommend adding “for Class LC products only” after the added language ending in “Clause 8.1.3”

Commentary: Aswritten it is not clear that Clause 8.1.3 only applies to Class LC products without going to that section and reading further. It is recommended to clarify the applicability in this first section that references it.

Ashley Welton Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

Section 4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, Clause 4.2 Gateway Performance Requirements

Second paragraph, we recommend striking out “for LC products, the applicable alternative minimum test size specified” if accepting previous SGH comment 6 above as this less direct clarification is no longer needed.

Commentary: We recommend clarifying Class LC applicability at first mention of Clause 8.1.3 in a direct manner as opposed to the current text which is not as direct or clear as proposed in our revisions.

Gregory B. McKenna Kawneer Company, Inc.

Section 4.2: Delete first sentence of second paragraph and add gateway test size for R rated windows back into the standard. Reason: A proposed code change (S-108-19) submitted by AAMA modifies theexception in section 1709.5 of the IBC to allow the design pressure rating to be determined by comparative analysis on a different size unit than tested (either smaller or larger) based on AAMA 2502.Without having a gateway test size for R windows, this optional compliance path could base comparative analysis on a very small specimen that would not be appropriate or, due to the size, aid in passing air and water testing. Keeping the minimum test size in the standard would prevent using comparative analysis on an inappropriate size test specimen and require air and water testing to be done on a realistic size unit.

If gateway test sizes are not added back for R class windows and S-108-19 passes, then AAMA 2502 should be updated to exclude R rated windows from using comparative analysis for code compliance purposes.

Christopher Griffin Roto Frank of America

In section 4.2 – The Words “and LC” should be added to the opening line of the second paragraph define classes.The minimum gateway size for both R and LC should be re-implemented if there is a perceived value to this by a portion of the member's then this should be left in.The burden of justification should fall on the proponents of change.If there is a stalemate it should remain as-is.

15

Ballot Comment ResolutionLike/Identical/Equivalent

• Discussed during May 31 conference call• Comment found non-persuasive• Identical is too restrictive and the term like was result of previous discussion• Anyone wishing to prepare a definition of “like construction” would be accepted for review

by the committee

16

Ballot Comment ResolutionLimited Water – Sliding Glass Doors

• Should limited water be allowed in products other than side hinged doors• Committee has only reached one comment and more are possible

Ray Garries MI Windows and Doors, LLC.

section 4 - change wording that disallows SGD having a 0 water test.... remove sliding doors from this list... this is because allowing all standard sliding doors to have LW and to have no minimum size creates a credibility gap for our industry. Just when the recent hurricanes have put a spotlight on water infiltration expectations, and "resilient" housing is gaining, AAMA should not lessen water resistance of all sliding doors. it has also been estimated that 1/2 or more of sliding doors do not have a protective overhang that was the main argument for swing doors to be allowed LW testing and rating]

17

Ballot Comment ResolutionGeneral Comment

From Paul Gary – The Gary Law GroupNAFS is a technical standard widely relied upon in North America in the making of decisions regarding the suitability of fenestration products by code officials, architects and engineers, to name a few. As written, the specification of NAFS provides comprehensive coverage for fenestration products. This represents a success for the many volunteers who have committed themselves to this outcome.NAFS certification evolved over time to include refinements and features that have fostered that acceptance even though they areoutside of the essential processes required for measurement of the cornerstone air/water/structural rating. The cumulative voluntary adoption of the existing NAFS provisions, even when complex or costly, is a record of achievement. A product design with NAFScertification is robust in all these regards.Industry standards, NAFS being no exception, are also used in the situation of a formal dispute with regard to product design. Compliance with a recognized industry standard is normally relevant in that context. There, an arbiter is called upon to evaluate the standard impartially, with interested parties free to comment. The argument that NAFS is written by industry-insiders for industry-insiders is not new and should not be enabled by reducing the scope of its prescriptive character.The phrase “NAFS simplification” has been heard for many months and I respect that the balloted terms are the result of the vigorous negotiation in that regard. Still, modifications to NAFS which tend to lighten the burden of compliance, and can create a disconnection with the market’s existing expectation, should be considered cautiously. Evidence of what the NAFS standard had, but lost, will always be there for comparison. Of course, improvements over time are sought. But changes that can be negatively mischaracterized should be avoided or accompanied by a statement of the rationale for such action with any objective basis for such an action emphasized.

18

Ballot Comment ResolutionInterim Meeting

Should meeting be scheduledPotential meeting datesWill be held at AAMA offices in Schaumburg

19

What To Call This EffortSuggestion to replace “Simplified” with some other term“Simplified” means different things to different peopleSuggestions for alternates:• Streamlined• Modernized• Restructured• Reorganized• Refined• Clarify/Clarified• Consolidated• Updated• NAFS v5• NAFS Fifth Edition

NAFS Simplification Gateway Language Work Group

21

NAFS Simplification Gateway Language Work Group

• Motion to disband pending publication

Secondary Storm Products (Simplified NAFS) Work GroupTodd Stratmoen

23

Secondary Storm Products (Simplified NAFS) Work Group Todd Stratmoen

• Motion to disband pending publication of final approved version of NAFS-20XX

Reporting Items

25

Reporting Items

Written reports provided in presentation slides only; no verbal reports are delivered

• Corner Weld Test Work Group• Decoupling Air-Water-Structural Perform (NAFS) Work Group

26

Corner Weld Test Work Group

• Chair: Kevin Seiling (VEKA)• Staff Liaisons: Rich Rinka (AAMA)• Scope: To develop language on corner weld test for inclusion in NAFS.

• This group has not met.

27

Decoupling Air-Water-Structural Perform (NAFS) Work Group

• Co-Chairs: o Mark Mikkelson (Andersen)o Dean Ruark (PGT Innovations)

• Staff Liaisons: Rich Rinka (AAMA)• Scope: To investigate the potential decoupling of air-water-structural performance and

review what has been successful in Canada for potential consideration in the U.S.

• Group is waiting for completion of this draft before beginning work