Proposal to Allow AAMA 507 as NFRC Alternative “Narrowly” Defeated; Commercial Industry Remains Optimistic

The commercial fenestration industry came closer to allowing  AAMA 507 as an alternative to NFRC 100 and 200 passed than it has been in previous attempts during International Code Council (ICC) code change hearings, which are taking place through Wednesday in Baltimore. While the proposal, which was supported by the American Architectural Manufacturers Association, Americas Glass Association, Aluminum Extruders Council, Glass Association of North America, Glazing Industry Code Committee, Insulating Glass Manufacturers Alliance and the National Glass Association, saw more support during this round of hearings than in previous ones, it was defeated with a 6-5 vote.

If passed, proposal EC172 would have allowed U-factors and solar heat gain coefficients for storefront and curtainwall in commercial buildings to be determined in accordance with AAMA 507 as an alternative to NFRC. While the proposal did not pass, those in favor of it are optimistic about future ICC hearings.

"Glass Association of North America (GANA) representatives at the recent ICC hearings noted that some committee members who traditionally opposed using AAMA 507 as an alternative to NFRC for curtainwall and storefront ratings voted in favor of AAMA 507,” says Bill Yanek, GANA executive vice president. “Code officials on the committee from Las Vegas and New York City commented about concern for the lack of competition for NFRC. Overall, voting on the AAMA 507 proposal, which was at one time not close, ended up as a narrow 6 to 5 defeat for AAMA 507.  This close vote bodes well for the future of the AAMA 507 effort."

Ken Brenden, technical service manager for the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA), adds, “During previous testimony, an NFRC-accredited laboratory, which has conducted thousands of thermal simulations and tests to the NFRC specifications since the early 1990s, analyzed actual data for nine different product types with 15 glazing configurations each and found that the maximum variation between results obtained from the AAMA 507 method and the NFRC 100 and 200 methods that are currently referenced by the IECC was +0.003/-0.006. That’s a variation that is statistically insignificant – less than 1%.”

He continues, “AAMA feels that AAMA 507 provides a valid, reliable alternative to re-testing and re-simulation, thus saving manufacturers time and money. Both of which are at a premium during these difficult economic times.”