1. CMAST I MPROVEMENT P ROJECT 2013-2014 Report to the CMAST Advisory Task Group August 13, 2013

2. B ALLOTED I TEMS Update Label Certificate - still targeted for completion September 13, 2013 pending today’s discussion User Interface Improvements - completed July 26, 2013 – implemented with next installer (September, 2013) Update Bid Report (analysis phase) – still targeted for completion October 11, 2013 Implement Batch Approval Process – still targeted for completion November 8, 2013 July 29, 2013 Updates

3. A PPLICATION I NFRASTRUCTURE S TABILITY Training server was reset and ACE and Simulator workshops happened in June. Staging server was patched and rebooted as a test for adding the Production server to backups. Production server will be updated this coming weekend. Update Server DB – Dbase software is being upgraded to use SQL Server 2012, which should assist with keeping the product (CMAST) technologically current July 29, 2013 Updates

4. M ODIFICATIONS / SCHEDULED TASKS An update to correct the search function for Label Certificates was implemented User Interface changes were made and tested. The initial detailed analysis for replacing the current Label Certificate was completed in preparation for LC changes scheduled for September. July 29, 2013 Updates

5. FYI The CMAST Advisory TG page on the community website was updated with the most current lists per the TG request. The FAQ page on the NFRC CMA Support & Information page was updated. July 29, 2013

6. L ABEL C ERTIFICATE CHANGES Need decisions for CMAST changes to continue

7. L OW - E ON LC, H OW TO DETERMINE IN CMAST Option 1: Simply have CMAST user make low-e declaration in client –May be difficult to program –Inspections/audits would confirm during reviews No industry definition of low-e by value

8. L OW - E ON LC, H OW TO DETERMINE USING CMAST Option 2: Let CMAST search based on IGDB emissivity, sides 1 and 2 Set a low-e threshold? –NFRC 100 section 4.2.4.2:  e < 0.5 –LBNL using e < 0.3 in Comfen

9. NFRC 100, SECTION 4.2.4.1

10. L OW - E ON LC Staff recommends user make declaration –Ensure only truly low-e products are marked as such –Audits/reviews would ensure accuracy Any threshold would be risky to include or exclude truly low-e products Suggestion: do we need to indicate low-e? –Counter to NFRC fundamental purpose –Does not help with code compliance –Prescriptive tables require maximum U-factor and SHGC

11. M ETAL C ATEGORY ON LC TG Choices indicate metal for metal clad products IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 do not agree

12. ASHRAE 90.1 D EFINITIONS

13. IECC

14. C URRENT M ETAL C ATEGORIES

15. M ETAL C ATEGORY Staff recommends non metal be assigned to metal clad frames to match code requirements TG preference?

16. P ROPOSED B ILLING C HANGES TG Feedback needed

17. P ROPOSED B ILLING C HANGES Discuss proposed billing changes –CMAST was programmed to only bill for approved components. This is not aligned with the NFRC 704 Fee Schedule. We have proposed to the BOD that we bill for all components, regardless of status. –Are there any exceptions that should not be billed, such as validation components? Discuss the list and exceptions with the CMAST Advisory TG.

18. T HANKS FOR Y OUR T IME Questions???