LEED Interpretation Rulings-When can they be followed?

As a product manufacturer, the ruling and updates have been a challenge as each one required additional clarifications. The 4/1/13 update did bring clarity to the ruling, as both melamine urea formaldehyde with urea added as a scavenger and melamine formaldehyde with urea added as a scavenger are now acceptable (in addition to the NAUF), as long as they meet the testing requirements of CARB NAF or CARB ULEF. While this did clarify what resins are acceptable, a major question still exists. When can this ruling be followed? If it is truly to be based on the registration date of the project, then which of the LI 10250 dates are to be followed; October 2012, January 2013 or April 2013? If not the registration date, what is used for the basis in deciding when this updated ruling is applicable? Clarity is needed from the USGBC. Distributors of products sign contractual agreements requiring them to furnish products per the specification unless the deviations are specifically signed off on as acceptable by the architect. Regardless of the updated ruling, NAUF may still be required for the project if noted in the specification. As a manufacturer of assemblies utilizing composite wood, we continue to manufacture NAUF products for this reason. The supply chain including vendors of components to the manufacturers, product distributors, end-users and architects may/may not be aware of the LI 10250 update. Not having the specifics on when the ruling can be followed is making things even more challenging. Across the composite wood industry, millions of dollars have been spent to comply with CARB and LEED requirements. This is not an easy balance, but it is good to have more resin options. The uncertainty that has existed for six months since this ruling first was issued, and that still exists now, has dramatically disrupted business, caused orders to be delayed or cancelled, and created uncertainty as to what will or will not qualify for the credit on any given project. How does this affect our business? On any given project it can stop it in its tracks.

I continue to look for something definitive as to when a LEED Interpretation Ruling can be followed. As noted in my previous comment, this is critical to manufacturers' of composite wood products. If it is truly to be based on the registration date of the project, then which of the LI 10250 dates are to be followed; October 2012, January 2013 or April 2013? If not the registration date, what is used for the basis in deciding when this updated ruling is applicable?