WINDOW WORKGROUP REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NOVEMBER 1 - 2, 2006

Overview

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chair of the Florida Building Commission, has made appointments to the Window Workgroup, and they are found below. Members are charged with representing their stakeholder group’s interests, and working with other interest groups to develop a consensus package of recommendations for submittal to the Florida Building Commission.

Workgroup Membership

The following members were appointed to serve on the Window Workgroup:

Robert Amoruso, Chuck Anderson, Rusty Carrol, Jaime Gascon, Dale Griener, Jon Hill, C.W. Macomber, John McFee, Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Roger Sanders, Jim Schock, Steve

Strawn, Sigi Valentine, and Dwight Wilkes.

SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP’S KEY DECISIONS

Day One Opening and Meeting Attendance

The meeting started at 1:05 PM, and the following Workgroup members were present:

Robert Amoruso, Chuck Anderson, Rusty Carrol, Jaime Gascon, Jon Hill, C.W. Macomber,

John McFee, Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Jim Schock, Steve Strawn, Sigi Valentine, and Dwight Wilkes.

The Following members were absent: Dale Greiner and Roger Sanders.

Day Two Opening and Meeting Attendance

The meeting started at 9:10 AM, and the following Workgroup members were present:

Robert Amoruso, Chuck Anderson, Rusty Carrol, Jaime Gascon, Jon Hill, C.W. Macomber,

John McFee, Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Jim Schock, Steve Strawn, Sigi Valentine, and Dwight Wilkes.

Note: Jon Hill had to leave early, and was not able to vote on the package of recommendations.

The Following members were absent: Dale Greiner and Roger Sanders.

DCA Staff Present

Rick Dixon, Mo Madani, and Betty Stevens.

Meeting Facilitation

The meeting was facilitated by Jeff Blair from the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium at Florida State University. Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/

Project Webpage

Information on the project, including agenda packets, meeting reports, and related documents may be found in downloadable formats at the project webpage below:

http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/wwg.html

Meeting Objectives

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 12 - 0 in favor, to approve the agenda as presented including the following objectives:

ü To Review Issues and Options Worksheet

ü To Review Consensus Recommendations from Worksheet

ü To Identify Any Additional Options for Evaluation

ü To Evaluate Options for Acceptability

ü To Consider Public Comment

ü To Adopt Package of Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission

ü To Discuss Next Steps and Recommendations Delivery Schedule and Phase III Scope

Work Group’s Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines

Jeff Blair reviewed the Workgroup’s decision-making procedures found on page 3 of the agenda packet.

Approval of May 31, 2006 Facilitator’s Summary Report

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 12 - 0 in favor, to approve the May 31, 2006 Facilitator’s Summary Report as presented.

Overview of Workgroup’s Scope and Charge

Jeff Blair explained that the original scope and purpose of the Workgroup was to provide recommendations on how to provide building officials with needed information for conducting field inspections to ensure windows complies with the relevant wind pressure Code requirements. In addition, the workgroup was charged with considering issues related to window installation and water intrusion. Jeff explained that the Workgroup has developed consensus on a package of recommendations primarily related to the components and format for a supplemental label, to function as an inspection label, at the May 2006 meeting, and subsequent to the May meeting, window industry stakeholders requested an additional meeting and opportunity to reconsider the package of recommendations. The Chair agreed to reconvene the Workgroup and charge them with reviewing and deciding on the consensus recommendations.

It was explained that the Workgroup’s recommendations would be submitted to the Code Administration TAC at their December meeting, and the TAC’s comments along with the Workgroup’s recommendations, would be submitted to the Commission during the December 6, 2006 plenary session. It is anticipated that the Commission will vote on a package of recommendations related to Window Labeling, and Code amendments will be submitted for the 2007 Code Update cycle.

Jeff explained that Workgroup members are charged with representing their constituent interest groups, and should consider this in the context of the deliberations. Jeff explained that the format and process for the meeting was as follows:

For each option:

* Overview of proposed option

* General discussion with Workgroup and staff on the option

* Identification of any new option(s),

* Public comment on the option,

* Initial ranking of option,

* Identification of member’s reservations (if any),

* Second ranking if any member(s) wishes to change their ranking based on the discussion(s),

Recess—Wednesday, November 1, 2006

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 13 - 0 in favor, to recess at 4:55 PM.

General Public Comment

Prior to the Workgroup voting on the package of recommendations, Jeff Blair offered members of the public an additional opportunity to provide feedback to the Workgroup. Several members of the public provided comments to the Workgroup. (A summary of all comments is located in the options evaluation section of this report).

Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal

The Workgroup voted 10 – 2 in favor of the package of consensus recommendations to the Code Administration TAC, and to the Commission.

Note: those voting against the package felt that a supplemental label should be optional, and not required.

Next Steps

The Code Administration TAC will review Window Workgroup’s recommendations, and make recommendations to the Commission.

The Commission will decide on Workgroup’s recommendations at the December 2006 meeting.

All Code changes will be reviewed by TAC’s per the Commission’s adopted Code review process.

Adjournment—Thursday, November 2, 2006

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 12 – 0 in favor, to adjourn at 12:00 PM

CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS

(November 2006)

Consensus recommendations are defined as those options that achieved a 75% threshold of

4’s and 3’s in relation to 2’s and 1’s.

Require the Supplemental Label to be printed and applied by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s process for accurately applying supplemental labels shall be consistent with the certification program or quality assurance requirements. The supplemental label shall be consistent with any other labeling required by the appropriate Chapters (i.e., 17, R308, R613) of the Florida Building Code(s). All of the Commission approved product approval compliance options require supplemental labels.

There may be only one rating per reference standard per label for windows.

The Design Pressure (DP) (per 101/I.S.2 or TAS) is required on the supplemental label.

The DP must include positive and negative pressures on the supplemental label.

Provide a prescriptive section (by design pressure) in the Code, the manufacturer may chose to indicate on the supplemental label that there are manufacturer’s instructions that prevail, and that the prescriptive section does not apply. The Code’s prescriptive installation section will indicate that the prescriptive requirements are not required when the manufacturer indicates that their instructions prevail. Prescriptive requirements will prevail if manufacturer does not indicate on the supplemental label that detailed installation instructions are available.

The glazing thickness shall be required on the supplemental label.

If a window unit is impact rated, the impact rating shall be required on the supplemental label.

The product model/series number shall be provided on the permanent and supplemental labels.

The FL number or NOA shall be required on the supplemental label.

The maximum size shall be required on the supplemental label.

(See Attachment 3—Workgroup’s May 2006 Consensus Recommendations)
CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS RANKING RESULTS

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

There may be only one rating per reference standard per label for windows.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

The Design Pressure (DP) (per 101/I.S.2 or TAS) is required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

The DP must include positive and negative pressures on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/2/06

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/2/06

The glazing thickness shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/2/06

If a window unit is impact rated, the impact rating shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/2/06

The product model/series number shall be provided on the permanent and supplemental labels.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/2/06

The FL number or NOA shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/2/06

The maximum size shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

OPTIONS ACCEPTABILITY RANKING EXERCISE

During the meeting, members were asked to develop and rank options, and following

discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options as refined. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. A four-point ranking scale will be used, and in general, 4’s and 3’s indicate support and 2’s and 1’s indicate opposition to the option. A 75% threshold of 4’s and 3’s will be required for an affirmative recommendation to the Commission. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercise(s):

Acceptability

Ranking

Scale

4 = acceptable, I agree

3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations

2 = not acceptable, I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed

1 = not acceptable

Following are all of the Options that were evaluated by the Workgroup during the November 2006 meeting, along with member and public comments on each:

Prescriptive section in the code that would provide anchoring requirements with exceptions for non-standard installations. Manufacturer instructions would provide for override.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· How can you develop generic anchoring provisions? This is not practical.

· Mo, common anchoring is possible.

· Chuck, Table of design pressures, spacing, embedment, and by substrate types. This can be accomplished.

· Jaime, prescriptive anchor calculations, there is variability of frame materials, and it depends on detailed instructions for each condition (frame material and substrates).

· Will have to provide the most conservative provisions, and it will not be used.

· John, location of fasteners will affect the performance.

· Rick, similar argument in reverse, too complex results in poor compliance.

· Jaime, 1/3 stress increase had a major impact in HVHZ, this is an engineering issue.

· John, what level of detail?

· Sigi, engineer calculations, is this economically feasible?

· If prescriptive installation is provided, how will inspector know if the window should be installed per manufacturer’s instructions or the prescriptive provisions?

· Jim, we already have manufacturer’s instructions, this is not a problem.

· Chuck, two screws in each jamb were used, then a 3^rd screw was added. In Miami-Dade County, engineered calculations are not based on the load on windows, but screws and resistance provided for max. wind load, which resulted in 8 screws!

· Dwight, not getting engineered calculations in the field, do not have installation instructions in the field, contractors will fill every hole with a screw, we do have technical information in the field. Prescriptive may be over kill, but it does not require an engineer, and should be an option.

GENERAL DISCUSSION NOTES

Require a Supplemental Label printed by manufacturer, licensed/validated by certification program tied to permanent label, one rating per window, DP, anchor size and spacing, safety glazing detail, and energy rating.

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Chuck, do we have an option to not have the supplemental label? Answer: No, a supplemental label will be pursued irrespective of the Workgroup’s recommendations. However, to the extent that the Workgroup can achieve a consensus package of recommendations, that will provide the building officials with what they need without overburdening industry, the Commission will likely approve the recommendations that industry feels they cab live with and implement.

· Rick, standards for windows are there, addressing enforceability of requirements is needed.

· BO’s found buildings that did not meet the standards. How can we improve code enforcement?

· AAMA allows variation after tests of particular windows.

· Dwight, do you want 360 jurisdictions telling you what goes on the label?

· On average, wouldn’t industry prefer one set of reasonable requirements for supplemental labels to separate requirements for each local jurisdictions, with some requiring onerous labels.

· We should break this option into separate elements.

· We should, I prefer, to correct the problem with a permanent label; no supplemental label.

· Steve, supplemental and permanent label, what should be on the supplemental label? Difficult to have a Florida specific label.

· Need to define terms, consensus on what is in the code, what does it mean?

· John, This option is specific to the certification method of product approval, how about the other methods of compliance options, do they require a supplemental label as well?

· Answer: a supplemental label will be required for all compliance methods/options.

· Steve, who produces and certifies the supplemental label? What is the Mechanism to certify?

· Rick, Engineer seal’s the label or third party certifies the supplemental label.

Require the Supplemental Label to be printed by manufacturer, audited by a third party certification or quality assurance entities consistent with the permanent label. All product approval methods of compliance require supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· 1714.5.2.1 provides standards, glass strength (includes thickness).

· 1714.5.2.2 refers to the supplemental label, and has to be approved by the local building official.

· Same in R613.3 and R308.1.

· Permanent label (certification agency) stays on the window, supplemental label can be peeled off, it is designed for the building official and is an inspection label.

· Can’t read labels in the field, put supplemental “inspection” label where they can inspect.

· national level and implemented through the ICC process.

· Dave, the permanent label remains on the window but is hard to read.

· Current standard products work well.

· What were the results of challenge procedures?

· Inspecting glass thickness, send inspector to the plant, many variances in the elements.

· Certification agencies products are accepted to today’s standards.

· Rick, when do products installed on site comply with design standards for the building?

· Contractors and building officials, comply with the standards.

· Code requirement is simple, a performance standard.

· Would the requirement for a supplemental label be eased if every pane was not required to be labeled?

Public Comment One

· Glenn, where is the Florida specific need for a supplemental label? Discussion should be at the

· The supplemental label will not be available once it is removed, and then where will all of this information be accessible.

· Braddy, apply same criteria to other components that make up the building. Cannot discriminate against other products. What about roofing, CMU’s, etc.?

· Hebrank, what’s missing on the permanent label, that requires a supplemental label.

Member’s Discussion Two

· Need checks and balances, effective training program, purpose to make it simple for inspectors.

· Steve, where are all these glass failures?

· C.W., Palm Beach Count has not had a design event in his working experience/years.

· Rick, Builder will get red tagged, the purpose is to provide information to the inspectors, Hurricane Charley, pressure requirements not met under design criteria. 30% houses had at least 1 window damaged. < 5% had shingle damage (hip and ridge). Pressure breakage and not wind borne debris damage.

· In Broward County it would take 30 minutes to inspect a house just for the windows, it is complicated, and also too difficult to read labels.

· We developed the WINS program, the supplemental label is coming!

· Include: Standard, performance to the standard, anchoring requirements.

· Jim, do not always have the correct paperwork on the job site, an inspection label is needed.

· Dwight, details are reviewed at plans review, provide test and installation, 2 inches of paperwork is needed with 2 copies. We need to have the product approval number and verify that the information with supplemental label to identify where it came from. Also better training of inspectors. We need the supplemental label.

· Dave, builders are asking for the information on supplemental labels.

Public Comment 2

· Glenn, where is the criteria established in the Code? Identify the Florida specific need.

· Braddy, how is the concrete block performance,

· Hebrank, the inspection label being licensed by a third party increases the cost.

Member’s Discussion Two

· Robert, multitude of data to put into a database.

· Dave, Florida deals with the widest and highest wind speeds in the US.

· Sigi, large manufacturers are able to create labels, small manufactures will incur costs to produce labels.

· Chuck, windows are tested in wood frame and masonry construction in Florida, the supplemental label is a good way to provide information for inspection.

· Jim, programming cost, this would be a one time cost to set-up, versus the inspection costs for multiple inspections for not having what’s needed on site.

· Dwight, the inspector gets on roof to inspect, some have slipped off the roofs. Delays in projects to explore technical requirements of product(s), approved for application?

· John, what are the deficiencies on the label? Small manufactures, preprinted labels are an obstacle to comply, would it be put on by the manufacturer? Other products are not held to the same compliance requirements.

· Rick, the priority is on openings, starting with windows. An improved inspection capability is needed. We will be looking at roofing materials as well, since they exhibited poor performance in hurricanes. Masonry wall systems for water intrusion will also be reviewed, the whole system/assembly will be considered eventually. With mature technologies we are improving enforcement.

· Steve, Florida product approval requires anchoring detail.

· Jim, field inspection, time saving, takes time to search for info.

· C.W., can not inspect with the information provided on the BCIS, old or incomplete information is often provided.

· Jon, I am voting against the verified by third party aspect.

· Jaime, supplemental label? Required or not?

· Rick, there will be a supplemental label.

· Chuck, make it simple.

· Rick, the building official can ask for information any way they want to.

· This is a state initiative to improve the enforcement and effectiveness of the Code.

· Sigi, it is not necessary for temporary label to be approved by certification agency.

· C.W., do not care if the supplemental label is certified, should not be able to generate the label at the site. Is this a part of the product approval process? Requires manufacturer, performance characteristics (defined by industry), type and thickness of glass is needed, need to be able to find the information on the label.

· Rusty, is the sticker validated by a third party?

· Chuck, manufacturers using certification agencies are not the issue, rogue manufacturers need to be validated. Certification agency’s can police.

· Jon, this is a complicated business and needs oversight, labels won’t be reliable or accurate.

· John, need to explore non-certification methods regarding supplemental labels, manufacturer needs it to be simple, also needs to work for the inspectors.

· Dave, every manufacturer uses certification or a quality assurance agency. This validates the window label, the inspection label does not need to be certified.

Reservations:

· We are heading down the wrong path, the temporary label can be part of the manufacturer’s procedures, not part of certification agency’s procedure, audit by certification agency; unclear which entity it would come from. The standards and rating are already in the Code, not all certification programs have permanent and temporary labels; no reason to have the certification agency certify inspection labels, this adds significant cost to manufacturers; for the certification method, this is not needed.

· Dwight, licensed Q.C. programs, the third party verifies what is being done.

· Jaime, the supplemental label does not need to be certified by the certification agency, additional certification of supplemental label will add costs to the manufacturer, will be cumbersome to the manufacturer, and is not needed to be certified by the agency.

· Chuck, the cost of temporary label, the permanent NFRC label is already provided, and this would be adding a larger label, although with minimal costs.

· Jon, the certification agency verifies that an effective process is in place, not that every label is correct.

Require the Supplemental Label to be printed and applied by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s process for accurately applying supplemental labels shall be consistent with the certification program or quality assurance requirements. The supplemental label shall be consistent with any other labeling required by the appropriate chapters 17, R308, R613, of the FBC codes. All of the Commission approved product approval compliance options require supplemental labels.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· John, a permanent label is not required in the Code.

· How will the label be applied?

There may be only one rating per reference standard per label for windows.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Multiple standards, structural, impact, energy.

· All members support this in concept, devil is in the details.

· Pressure rating, impact ratings.

· Comparative analysis is a part of the WINS label.

· Chuck, put values for the specific window on the specific label.

· John, multiple ratings for doors, this could be a problem.

· If multiple product ratings are listed on a label, the manufacturer must clearly indicate how the rating is applied. If the explanation is not clear, the lowest rating on the label should apply.

· Chuck, two ratings for two sizes, glass strengths, how will this be determined in the field?

The Design Pressure (DP) (per 101/I.S.2 or TAS) is required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Steve, DP is industry standard, not E330 test, overall rating, assembly rating.

Public Comment

· Dennis, why duplicate information that is already on the permanent label?

The anchor size and spacing is required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Dave, this is not doable, for each product, there are differences with frame materials and substrates.

· John, anchor size and spacing varies by installation.

· Mo, cannot exceed anchor spacing in Residential Code, can’t vary from what was tested (R613).

· Jim, it is on the drawings, why not the label?

· John, Would require a label specific to every installation type.

· Chuck, it would only require what was tested.

· Dave, need more screws than what would be required in Miami-Dade County.

· Dwight, use WINS program? Use prescriptives in the code.

· Jim, if this is a deal breaker, have instructions on a label or prescriptively, there are prescriptive methods to build homes, why not to install windows.

· John, develop new section of Code to develop anchorage, have installation instructions available on the job site.

· Dwight, manufacturers have specialized windows, prescriptive may not enhance their product. Majority of windows put in are prescriptive, wood frame, concrete, masonry. Aluminum is a special case.

· Steve, prescriptive sections in the Code with anchoring details, installation package takes precedence (based on how the product was tested).

· Dwight, prescriptive is overkill.

· Jon, if we agree to a prescriptive section in the Code, if there were not manufacturer installation instructions, the label could state: “see prescriptive section in the Code”. Default is prescriptive section in the Code (if there are not instructions available).

· Jim, the label would say to refer to prescriptive section

· Jon, if different from prescriptive section, label says see installation instructions.

· Dave, this is a workable compromise, complex wood window assemblies are difficult to standardize, manufacturers instructions would supercede prescriptives in the Code.

Minor Reservations

· This should not be mandatory, too difficult to tell if going into wood, second floor, etc.

· This could all be covered in the installation instructions.
Provide a prescriptive section (by design pressure) in the Code, the manufacturer may chose to indicate on the supplemental label that there are manufacturer’s instructions that prevail, and that the prescriptive section does not apply. The Code’s prescriptive installation section will indicate that the prescriptive requirements are not required when the manufacturer indicates that their instructions prevail. Prescriptive requirements will prevail if manufacturer does not indicate on the supplemental label that detailed installation instructions are available.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Sigi, everything defaults to the manufacturer’s instructions, it is not required to use the prescriptive section, there is no reason to oppose this compromise option.

· Rusty, this does not fix anything, the problem is manufacturer’s specifications. We need a reasonable set of accurate specifications, on the job site.

· Dwight, manufacturer’s specs over rule in any case, how follow manufacturer’s specs? Where is it in the Code?

· Steve, each window is the largest size tested with manufacturer’s instructions.

· Rusty, how many options are allowed on an NOA?

· Jim, it is easy for manufacturer to simply state to install per our instructions. Need something more stringent.

· Dave, NOA and FL# are different things. Upload installation instructions to FL#.

· Jaime, prescriptive method, identify substrates, specify buck loads, concrete or block different types of anchors, each manufacturer has different types of anchoring, bending reduces capacity.

· Testing different from instruction details.

· Rick, prescriptive could handle the variations.

· Jaime, prescriptive is very complex, tied to impact rated products? This should not apply to impact rated windows.

· Rick, prescriptive is overkill for non-impact windows.

· Jaime, impact, cyclic, dynamic loads, not simple to calculate, what kind of bending exists?

· Chuck, 1” deep attachment does not work, change the way people install windows, should require 2” of penetration into substrate, or directly into the concrete.

· Mo, do we have the information available? Statistical analysis and come up with worst case? Prescriptive methods based on testing?

Public Comment

· Jerry, anchoring is taking a short cut, job sites have and need installation instructions.

· Dennis, this will apply to 67 counties, will need to take worst cases, consider exposure C, moment of bending? Frames vary from up to 2 inches, it is difficult to make this work, will be smaller, frames are different, will have 20-30 pages of instructions, who is this for? Homeowners? Installers, dealers, will abide by manufacturers instructions, too difficult to use prescriptive methods, how will the installer determine the correct conditions? Some sills are glued down, exclude from process? Have Jaime evaluate label to meet worst case scenario.

· Jim Rafter, impact path, regular path, inspector needs, manufacturers tested largest size, screw spacing will apply to smaller windows, FL certification, put on label just as tested, item specific label will be impossible. Would have a chart. Helps inspectors, fewer windows to check, see FL web site.

· Prescriptive is always available, if manufacturer builds higher than the prescriptive, put that on the label, substrates common 95 installations, odd substrates, engineering on substrate, different frame materials.

· Bill, can do on wood substrate, not able to on 1” buck strip or glue sill, would have a huge chart.

· Do it on a regional basis, material type, spacing, zone, etc.

Members and Staff Comments 2

· Rick, need to hone down to an enforceable level, we need better reliability for compliance, with the correct application, does the manufacturer check this? After approval, are they used properly? Put on the label to use installation instructions. Improve enforcement and compliance for the use of these products (windows).

· Dave, pre-punch every window, use a screw in every whole, otherwise the engineer will not be used with installation instructions.

· Jim, builders put in extra screws to avoid failing inspection. We don’t see windows jumping out of the walls.

· Dwight, prescriptive section will cover the majority of windows installed. Can be for different wind speeds, with footnotes in tables, why is if difficult to program and put the minimum size windows that were tested?

· C.W., everyone needs to listen, and vote on the concept, the minutia can be worked out later. The TAC will consider details when Code amendments are offered to implement these concepts. We need a 1 page document, the HVHZ would have its own prescriptive section, etc.

· John, in favor of the concept, there is significant engineering involved, we should consider impact separately from structural, installation instructions prevail.

· Steve, lab testing, different frame types take different anchoring configurations for different substrates, cannot have just one method that fits all, if manufacturers develop could incur liability.

· Robert, dealers and installers, would not use prescriptive section, but engineered to allow the use of fewer screws.

· Chuck, we do it per design pressure, stresses on windows where it contacts attachments, shear stress is linear with wind pressure, have factor(s) for different wind pressures, develop a chart before you evaluate it, there could be a chart or table for different substrates, and this would not mandatory, but an option for installing windows, let the market decide whether to use it or not.

· Jaime, design pressure, prescriptive, minimum design pressure rating, impact, substrates, punched not mulled, different frame types, wood, aluminum, steel, etc would need to be covered.

Major Reservation:

· It is impossible to get instruction instructions from the website (BCIS).

· Rick, the inspector will use prescriptive unless manufacturer’s installation instructions are provided on site.

Safety glazing details shall be on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Jaime, the Code already mandates that this be provided on the glass, don’t need again.

· Robert, put the information in one place, will have to find it, why have it on the supplemental label too?

· Dwight, its on the window already,

· Jim, provided an ability for the contractor to verify, it should read “if applicable”.

· Dave, cannot accept affidavit on tempered glass, the Code requires laminated glass but not in residential code. No, see R308.1 for exceptions.

· Chuck, glazing thickness, should put the glass type on label, the thickness is meaningless without indicating for example, it is tempered glass.

· Jaime, the Code addresses this on the permanent label. We are missing safety barrier, impact glass, fall greater than specified, can tie to performance of unit, guard rail barrier, test on frame system, address frame system as safety barrier, Chapter 24, railings, glass that meets the standard, ¼ inch glass barriers, left exposed when the glass is missing. Need to address these a well.

· John, do not lump these together, safety glazing is already part of the Code. This would be redundant on a supplement label.

· Dave, safety glazing label CFR, is not required in Residential Code.

The glazing thickness shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· John, this is redundant, how will be used? No evidence that the certification agency is following E1300.

· Rick, would it help if you could put this only put on a single supplemental label, and not every pane?

· Mo, the Code allows this already.

· Robert, the DO on the supplemental label should match the DP on the permanent label.

· Rick, the building official determines if the window complies with the Code. Certification programs do not evaluate every window. We could redefine how certification do there job, instead, if you prefer.

· Steve, how would you use glass thickness? What will you do with it?

· Rusty, should not be inspecting glass thickness.

· C.W., this does not mean anything, the Code already requires it. People cheat on glass thickness, they undersize glass thickness to lower their bids to get large projects. The product approval says must be thicker than x, some are installing undersized glazing.

· Mo, required by the Code, strength of glazing shall be verified.

· Steve, there is a misconception here, when you downsize it does not require ¼ inch thick glass, you use E1300 to determine the DP.

· John, the problem is in the field, need a way to challenge whether certifications are approved, that the products are appropriate for the DP approved.

The energy rating shall be on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Rick, this is not essential, the Energy Code does not require it to be tested, and the State can’t require one to use the/an NFRC label.

· Dave, Chapter 13 covers this.

· John, there are multiple ways to use it, when is it mandatory in the Code? Does NFRC cover the requirements on the label?

· Chuck, need to ability to put the data on the supplemental label, the same label will be used everywhere in the Country, and we already provide this. Don’t want to have separate Florida label from the national label. Make sure the format allows us to use our labels, as long as all of the information required is provided. We may have additional information as well.

· Rick, not precluded from this with the supplemental label.

· Chuck, if there is a standardize format, will need to be able to include NFRC information on the supplemental label, only want one.

· Steve, if not NFRC, where will it come from? That is the only recognized rating.

· Rick, Florida cannot require the NFRC rating/certification.

· Robert, this should be optional.

Public Comment:

· Dick Wilhelm, the energy rating on the label is optional.

· Freddy Cole, this is already on the window, should not have to be a supplemental label too.

· Dennis Braddy, can anything be added to the supplemental label? Don’t want too much information on label. Lot of products use NFRC, this should be worded as an option.

· For builders, the energy score and ratings are more important, want to catch problem(s) with windows during framings and early during construction.

· Rick, we can’t back door this, would require a parallel change in the Energy Code if its required here. The NFRC label could be on the same label, we (the State) cannot require that a proprietary label be required.

If a window unit is impact rated, the impact rating shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Dave, I support this, this is a confusing issue, you can’t tell by looking at the glass. Need this on the supplemental label.

· Robert, impact rating, indicate n/a if it is not applicable.

· Rick, ASTM tests, meets levels of tests.

· Mo, this is in the Code, have to meet the standard tested to, for the correct zone.

· Steve, assumes standardize format for label, include impact rating, standards tested to, if not impact rated than omit this.

· Sigi, AAMA rating, has supplemental label, this duplicates efforts.

· John, should add the wind zone, missile size, performance attributes, lowest design pressure, and impact cycling.

Public Comment:

· Dennis Braddy, the zone needs to be added, missile changes, small or large missile needs to be added.

Supplemental labels shall have a standardized template/format.

Standardized template, with specific information found in the same location on the label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Robert, as long as the manufacturer is providing the information, should be able to use their own format, otherwise we will be required to rewrite the label.

· Dave, manufacturers have their own supplemental labels.

· Jim, this would be nice, but we don’t not have to have a standard format, it does make things simpler though, need to keep the size down.

· Dwight, can be the full size of window, the tech. can move information around label, would like the same information to at least be in the same quadrant of the label.

· Rusty, can’t read labels, too small, minimum font size is necessary.

· C.W., the contractor wants inspections fast, standardize format will speed up inspections.

· Steve, 4x8 inches should have information readable, labeling formats not too different, we should not have a fixed template.

· John, approved certification agencies already have standard formats, identify minimum info, order of information, should not go for standardized format, list overall design pressure on product, develop format for outside certification, state who manufacturers, so is traceable,

· Chuck, use NFRC label, make the label larger, with a minimal cost, beneficial to manufacturers.

· Robert, the printing of labels can have a cost impact, changes of equipment, a one time cost.

· Dave, to require all manufacturers to have the same label, this would be difficult.

· Sigi, the label format should be at the discretion of the manufacturer.

· Chuck, NFRC already has a label format.

Public Comment:

· Freddie Cole, if manufacturer has a label, does he have to make a change?

· Phil, if the label provides the required information, a format is not needed.

· Dennis Braddy, the certification method should be exempt from a standard format, they have their own format already, need format for engineers and the other compliance methods.

· A set format implies a set size, this would be difficult to apply to a small window.

The product model/series number shall be provided on the permanent and supplemental labels.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· John, there are multiple ways of complying, need to define multiple series.

· Rick, certification files.

· Sigi, opposed, the information is readily available on the system, not necessary for inspections

· Rick, how will they find it, without this.

The FL number or NOA shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· John, this is redundant, if it is traceable to the certification agency through the system.

· Rick, what about when the product is not approved, but has a certification number, then hoe does your comment apply?

· John, good point.

Require the actual size of the window to be on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Chuck, the manufacturing system has labels, manufacturers with preprinted labels will not be able to print online, matching label to window difficult for pre-printed labels, small manufacturers will not be able to comply with this requirement.

· John, ratings should be tied to the worst case scenario, other sizes traceable to certification database. Downsize, limited traceability, use product approval data on the system, sum of worst case ratings, limited by smallest maximum size, this protects the customer.

· Steve, agrees with John, above.

· Rusty, would it be a problem to put the maximum size tested?

· Steve, that’s already there.

· Dave, this leaves it open for label switching.

· Dwight, will give up if too difficult for manufacturers.

· The size is on the permanent label, why put it on the supplemental label too.

· Do not need the size on the supplemental label.

The maximum size shall be required on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

No additional comments were provided.

The DP must include positive and negative pressures on the supplemental label.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Robert, prefers this to be optional, with only one number required.

Define “performance characteristics” in the code.

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Ranking

11/1/06

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· C.W., background separate, the Code says exterior windows should be x, every building department can decide what that means.

· Dave, building departments, define as positive pressure limited by water pressure, etc.

· Steve, performance characteristics are required by the standard(s).

· Rick, could link the language to the information required on the supplemental label.

· C.W., some manufacturers think this requirement does not apply to them.

· Dwight, the minimum could be as defined by what we agree should be on the supplemental label, add performance characteristics as how certified.

· John, what are the specifics, indicate the standard for impact rating, structural rating, need to define for the other methods of compliance.

· Chuck, if we tie to the requirements in the Code, I will support, but opposed if tied to too many sections.

Define performance characteristics in the Code as those components agreed to for the supplemental label, make the Code consistent with the label.

Note: there was discussion on this option, however, members’ decided there was no need to vote on this option.

Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2006):

· Mo, we will be replacing what is in the Code currently with what is approved for the supplemental label.

· Dwight, Chapter 17 will define performance characteristics as a minimum.

· Jim, performance characteristics should be tied to manufacturers testing, etc.

· Robert, not performance characteristic, this can affect the performance of the product.

· Sigi, this is already listed in the Code, we do not need to define this further.

· Dwight, the Code says performance characteristics, do we want to change the Code language?

· Mo, language will change when we add the list of items for the supplemental label to the Code, this automatically replaces the current list.

General Public Comment(s)

· Dick Wilhelm, need to work with smaller manufacturers to meet these requirements.

· We have head comments about manufactures cheating the system, need documentation and a process to address these allegations.

· Need to give manufacturers the option to use labels they already have.

· Bill Emlcy, putting maximum size on small windows is difficult, must preprint labels.

· Dennis Braddy, opposed to requiring a supplemental label, the Code does not require a permanent label, need the mark for manufacturer somewhere on the product for the homeowner’s benefit, for enforcement people, change Code to bring this forward.

Members General Comments

· Sigi, manufacturing members agreed to this in principle. Should consider the temporary label for inspection purposes and not for product approval. There will be no recourse to reproduce the label if it is missing, need to protect manufacturer from red tag if label is missing. The system does not allow for reproducible labels, to prevent fraud.

· Robert, want to make sure that the standardized format/template did not achieve consensus.

· Jeff Blair said the vote was 4 – 8 in favor, and did not achieve a favorable recommendation.

· Dave, the Facilitator’s report from the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee stated that this workgroup is charged with working on water intrusion for mulled window units. AAMA 450 standard.

· Dwight asked if some of the issues will be going to Structural TAC? The package will go to the Code Administration TAC, and actual Code amendments will go to the relevant TAC’s during the Code amendment process.

NOVEMBER 1 - 2, 2006

Tampa, Florida

NOVEMBER 1 - 2, 2006

Overview

Workgroup Membership

SUMMARY OF WORKGROUP’S KEY DECISIONS

Day One Opening and Meeting Attendance

Day Two Opening and Meeting Attendance

Meeting Facilitation

Project Webpage

Recess—Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Member’s Discussion Two

Member’s Discussion Two

Reservations:

Public Comment

Minor Reservations

Public Comment

Members and Staff Comments 2

General Public Comment(s)

Members General Comments

WINDOW WORKGROUP MEETING II

November 1 - 2, 2006—Tampa, Florida

ATTACHMENT 3

WORKGROUP’S MAY 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS