202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 + + + + + 

 PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR 

 CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS 

 + + + + + 

 MONDAY 

 MARCH 4, 2013 

 + + + + + 

 The public meeting convened in Room 8E089, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. at 

9:00 a.m. Doug Brookman, moderator, presiding. 

PRESENT 

DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions, Inc., 

 Moderator 

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG, Department of Energy 

JAMES BATTAGLIA, Navigant Consulting 

JENNIFER CLEARY, Association of Home 

 Appliance Manufacturers 

STEVE LEYBOURN, Association of Home 

 Appliance Manufacturers 

JOANNA MAUER, Appliance Standards Awareness 

 Project 

JUDITH REICH, Navigant Consulting 

TROY WATSON, Navigant Consulting 

PRESENT VIA WEBINAR 

BRIAN JAMES, Southern California Edison 

MICHAEL McGONAGLE, GE Appliances 

NATHAN MOUW 

CALLIE REIS, Navigant 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE 

Welcome, Opening Remarks, 

and Agenda Review 

Doug Brookman 3 

Regulatory History 6 

Covered Products 7 

Active Mode Test 

Procedure 12 

Standby and Off Mode 

Test Procedure 42 

Compliance with EPCA 

Requirements 44 

Other Issues and Comments, 

Closing Remarks 50 

Adjourn 51 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

2 (9:04 a.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, 

4 everyone, and welcome. This is the U.S. 

5 Department of Energy's Public Meeting on Test 

6 Procedures for Conventional Cooking Products. 

7 Today is Monday, March 4th, 2013, 

8 here in the Forrestal Building, Department of 

9 Energy. Glad you could make it this morning. 

10 My name is Doug Brookman from 

11 Public Solutions in Baltimore. Let's start 

12 with introductions. Let's start to my left. 

13 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with 

14 the Association of Home Appliance 

15 Manufacturers. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, 

18 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

19 MS. REICH: Judith Reich from 

20 Navigant. 

21 MR. BATTAGLIA: James Battaglia, 

22 Navigant. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, 

2 DOE. 

3 MR. WATSON: Troy Watson, Navigant. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Glad you all could 

5 make it here this morning. 

6 Immediately following this brief 

7 agenda review, there's an opportunity for 

8 brief summary remarks here at the outset, 

9 opening remarks that you wish to make for this 

10 meeting today. 

11 Following that, we're going to 

12 move directly to the regulatory history and 

13 then, from there, to covered products. From 

14 there, to active mode test procedure. 

15 Following that, standby off mode 

16 test procedure, compliance with EPCA 

17 requirements and then, at the end of the day 

18 or, I should say at the end of the morning, it 

19 appears, other issues and comments and then 

20 another opportunity for anyone that wishes to 

21 do so, to make closing remarks, cover any 

22 issues that haven't been covered sufficiently. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 We expect, as the agenda reflects, 

2 we will adjourn this morning around about 

3 11:15 or so. 

4 That's the agenda as written. 

5 Questions and comments on the agenda? 

6 I would ask for your 

7 consideration. Please speak one at a time. 

8 Please say your name for the record each time 

9 you speak. If you could keep the focus here, 

10 put your cell phones on silent mode and limit 

11 sidebar conversations. 

12 You've received a packet of 

13 information as you came in the door today. 

14 All of the materials in this packet will be 

15 the basis for presentation and comment. 

16 And, for those that are joining us 

17 via the telephone, the webinar we couldn't get 

18 working this morning, the audio portion of the 

19 webinar. Apologies for that. 

20 There will be a complete 

21 transcript of this meeting available about a 

22 week or so after this meeting is concluded, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 and so apologies to the webinar participants. 

2 You can listen in and you'll have to access 

3 the transcript. 

4 Welcoming remarks. Ashley 

5 Armstrong. 

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'd just like to 

7 greet you to the public meeting today. Feel 

8 free -- we're going to go through these 

9 pretty quickly. Feel free to chime in if you 

10 want more detail or have more questions about 

11 something. And, yes. Thanks for coming. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So then, let's -- 

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I can't get 

14 this thing working. 

15 All right. So, Doug just went 

16 over the agenda, but this is a brief agenda. 

17 Actually, I don't think we expected to take 

18 till 11:15, but we'll see how it goes. 

19 This is just an overview in our 

20 test procedure rulemaking process. One 

21 highlight would be that the comment period 

22 closes on April 15th, so we look forward to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 getting all comments and feedback on our 

2 proposal. 

3 This gives you a little bit of 

4 legislative background. The test procedure 

5 rulemaking that we're going to be talking 

6 about today covers Appendix I of the Consumer 

7 Products section in the CFR. 

8 This gives a little bit of 

9 background. And the only existing standards 

10 for conventional cooking products prohibit the 

11 use of a standing pilot right now, and do not 

12 actually have a test procedure. 

13 Troy. 

14 MR. WATSON: Okay. Troy Watson 

15 from Navigant. And, as Ashley mentioned, the 

16 purpose of this rulemaking is to consider 

17 amendments to the test procedures in Appendix 

18 I, and we're specifically considering 

19 amendments that would allow for testing 

20 cooking products that use induction heating. 

21 And what induction cooking is, 

22 it's when a product uses an oscillating 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 magnetic field to induce current in the 

2 cooking vessel. Should I just ignore that? 

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. That's fine. 

4 MR. WATSON: Okay. So, induction 

5 cooking uses an oscillating magnetic field to 

6 induce current in the cooking vessel, and that 

7 current in the cooking vessel creates heat as 

8 the current encounters the resistance in the 

9 cooking vessel, and that heat is then used to 

10 cook the food. 

11 One thing to note is that 

12 induction cooking only works with 

13 ferromagnetic materials, so this is certain 

14 types of steel or iron, but not materials such 

15 as aluminum. 

16 Okay. So, as the legislative 

17 history slide showed, the test procedures were 

18 established in a May 1978 final rule. In this 

19 final rule, DOE did consider induction cooking 

20 tops, but did not establish a test procedure 

21 for them at that time because they were 

22 relatively new products and they didn't make 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 up a significant portion of the market at that 

2 time. 

3 Recently, DOE surveyed the market 

4 and found that roughly ten percent of all 

5 cooking tops available in the market used 

6 induction heating. 

7 Additionally, the three 

8 manufacturers that make up more than 84 

9 percent of the market, they all offer products 

10 that use induction heating. 

11 So, given the increased 

12 availability of induction cooking products on 

13 the market, DOE believes they warrant 

14 including in the Appendix I test procedures, 

15 and this would also allow these products to be 

16 considered as part of any future energy 

17 conservation standards rulemaking for cooking 

18 products. 

19 And one thing to note here is 

20 that, in the survey, DOE only found that 

21 induction cooking was used in cooking tops and 

22 not in any ovens. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 So, the CFR contains a definition 

2 for a conventional cooking top, as shown up 

3 here. It specifies that the product must use 

4 gas flame or electric resistance heating. And 

5 so, clearly, that doesn't cover induction 

6 cooking based on the definition I just showed 

7 on the slide before. 

8 So, DOE is proposing to amend the 

9 definition of conventional cooking -- 

10 conventional cooking top just to add in 

11 electric inductive heating as a -- the heat 

12 source for the product. 

13 The CFR also contains a definition 

14 for conventional range and DOE is not 

15 proposing any amendments to that definition as 

16 part of this rulemaking, but we'd like to note 

17 that the proposed amendment to the cooking top 

18 definition would allow for the definition of 

19 conventional range to cover products that use 

20 an induction cooking top along with a 

21 conventional oven. 

22 So, similar to that definition of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 conventional cooking top in the CFR, Appendix 

2 I contains the definition of active mode that 

3 specifies the heat source as either gas flame, 

4 electric resistance heating or microwave 

5 energy. 

6 So, DOE is similarly proposing to 

7 amend the definition of active mode to account 

8 for products that use electric inductive 

9 heating. 

10 So these comment request boxes 

11 correspond to the issues DOE requested comment 

12 on in the NOPR document. This one here is 

13 requesting comment regarding the proposed 

14 amendments to the definitions of conventional 

15 cooking top and active mode and DOE again 

16 notes that the definition of conventional 

17 range would not be amended under this 

18 rulemaking. 

19 Any comments or concerns there? 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments here at 

21 the outset? 

22 (No response.) 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 MR. BROOKMAN: No. No comments. 

2 Okay. 

3 MR. WATSON: And feel free to jump 

4 in at any point because, like Ashley said, 

5 we're kind of going through pretty quickly. 

6 So now we'll jump into the active 

7 mode testing for cooking products. This slide 

8 describes the current test procedure found in 

9 Appendix I, so you pretty much select a test 

10 block for each surface unit on the cooking top 

11 based on that surface unit's diameter. 

12 You allow the test block and the 

13 cooking top to reach ambient temperature. You 

14 turn the surface unit to its maximum energy 

15 input setting. 

16 You allow the test block to 

17 increase in temperature by 144 degrees at 

18 which point you would reduce the surface unit 

19 setting to one-fourth of its maximum energy 

20 input rate, and you continue the test for 15 

21 minutes at that lower setting. 

22 The energy efficiency of the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 surface unit is determined by the ratio of the 

2 energy transferred to the block, divided by 

3 the energy consumed by the cooking top during 

4 the test. 

5 And the energy transferred to the 

6 test block is determined based on its total 

7 temperature increase over the test period. 

8 So, as I mentioned, there are 

9 different test block sizes that are used based 

10 on a surface unit's diameter, and that's only 

11 for electric surface units. All gas units use 

12 the larger of the two test blocks. 

13 So, you can see here that both of 

14 the test blocks are made of aluminum alloy, 

15 6061, and this is not a ferromagnetic material 

16 and, therefore, not compatible with induction 

17 cooking tops. 

18 And one thing to point out here is 

19 the test block diameters are nine inches for 

20 the large block and six and a quarter inches 

21 for the smaller test block. 

22 This slide just shows the test 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 blocks for anybody who might be unfamiliar 

2 with the test procedure. It's nothing too 

3 exciting, just a block of metal. These are 

4 the smaller test blocks, just for your 

5 information. 

6 So, in support of this rulemaking, 

7 DOE conducted investigative testing to 

8 determine an appropriate method for 

9 incorporating induction cooking tops in the 

10 Appendix I test procedures. 

11 DOE conducted the testing with 

12 potential substitute test blocks that could 

13 replace the aluminum, and the substitute test 

14 blocks would be ferromagnetic and compatible 

15 with induction technologies. 

16 So the testing followed the 

17 existing method in Appendix I. The only 

18 difference was the aluminum blocks were 

19 swapped out for the potential substitute test 

20 blocks. 

21 The goal of the testing was to 

22 determine what effects the substitute test 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 blocks would have on the test-to-test 

2 repeatability and any overall efficiency 

3 effects. 

4 The test sample included three 

5 conventional cooking tops, those were used to 

6 establish a baseline efficiency with the 

7 aluminum test blocks for comparison to the 

8 substitutes. 

9 The three conventional cooking 

10 tops included a smooth top, an electric coil 

11 top and a gas cooking top. And the test 

12 sample also included three induction cooking 

13 tops. 

14 During the testing, the DOE 

15 repeated each test five times for each test 

16 block type on each surface unit that was 

17 tested. 

18 One thing to note is that, for the 

19 gas surface unit, the tests were only repeated 

20 four times. 

21 So this slide just gives a general 

22 description of the potential substitute test 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 blocks that we investigated as part of this 

2 testing. 

3 The first potential block was the 

4 carbon steel test block. These were made of 

5 carbon steel alloy 1018, which is 

6 ferromagnetic and, similar to the existing 

7 aluminum blocks, it was just a solid test 

8 block, just one piece. 

9 After that, DOE tested hybrid test 

10 blocks. The first was made of a carbon steel 

11 1018 base. This is just a thin disk and, on 

12 top of that was an aluminum alloy body. 

13 The stainless steel test blocks -- 

14 or stainless steel hybrid test blocks, rather, 

15 were similar to that, just with a stainless 

16 steel 430 base, and stainless steel 430 is 

17 also ferromagnetic. 

18 So, for all of the candidate test 

19 blocks investigated during this testing, DOE 

20 maintained the six and a quarter and nine-inch 

21 outer diameters, and DOE also maintained the 

22 overall heat capacity of the current aluminum 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 test blocks, and DOE did this by varying the 

2 heights of the test blocks. 

3 And the reason that the diameters 

4 and heat capacities were maintained is because 

5 the May 1978 final rule established these 

6 parameters to reflect consumer cooking 

7 behaviors. And DOE is not aware of any 

8 information indicating that cooking behavior 

9 has changed, so we maintained these parameters 

10 during our testing. 

11 And, just to get this out there, 

12 up-front, we are proposing to amend the test 

13 procedure to use the stainless steel hybrid 

14 test blocks in place of the existing aluminum 

15 test blocks. And the following slides will 

16 give a summary of our testing and more 

17 justification for this proposal. 

18 So these are more photos of the 

19 substitute test blocks. On the left are the 

20 two carbon steel blocks. Those are the large 

21 diameter and small diameter. 

22 The photo on the right shows one 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 of the hybrid test blocks as a stainless steel 

2 hybrid block, and you can see on the bottom is 

3 a thin disk. That's the base made of 

4 stainless steel 430. 

5 And on the right is the aluminum 

6 test block, just for reference, and you can 

7 see the heights are slightly different, and 

8 that's to maintain the heat capacities, and 

9 you have to change that because of the 

10 different materials in the block. 

11 So the first set of tests were 

12 conducted on the current aluminum test blocks 

13 on the three conventional cooking tops in the 

14 sample. These established the baseline for 

15 the repeatability and efficiency, and it was 

16 used as a point of comparison for any of the 

17 candidate test blocks that were tested later 

18 on. 

19 And, as you can see, the -- for 

20 the test, the test repeatability, the aluminum 

21 test blocks produced standard deviations of 

22 less than three percent for each surface unit 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 tested over the set of five tests conducted on 

2 each surface unit. 

3 And from this testing, DOE -- the 

4 goal of the further testing was to find 

5 substitute test blocks that would result in 

6 similar tests, the test repeatability and, if 

7 possible, better. 

8 So, moving on to the carbon steel 

9 test blocks, this just provides the 

10 specifications for the test blocks. 

11 Previously, I had shown the 

12 aluminum test block specifications and those 

13 were almost three inches, or three inches, 

14 slightly less than that. And you can see the 

15 height of these carbon steel test blocks is 

16 much smaller, and that's to maintain the 

17 overall heat capacities. 

18 So, from the test results on the 

19 carbon steel test blocks we found that they 

20 resulted in similar efficiencies to the 

21 aluminum test blocks. The efficiencies were 

22 slightly lower, but not significantly so. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 We also found that the carbon 

2 steel test blocks produced test-to-test 

3 repeatability that was similar to the aluminum 

4 test blocks. 

5 So, they appear to be a reasonable 

6 substitute for the aluminum test blocks. 

7 However, DOE had concerns that they may not 

8 actually reflect how induction cooking tops 

9 operate in real-world situations, and this is 

10 because, typically, an induction cooking top 

11 induces current only in a thin layer of 

12 ferromagnetic material in the pot or pan 

13 that's being used to cook. 

14 And in this case, there would be a 

15 large block of ferromagnetic material on the 

16 cooking top, so that is not representative of 

17 how induction cooking tops are actually used 

18 in the real world. 

19 So, to address that concern, DOE 

20 moved on to testing hybrid test blocks which, 

21 as I described before, are a thin base of 

22 ferromagnetic material with an aluminum alloy 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 body. 

2 This first set of test blocks used 

3 a carbon steel 1018 base and, as I said 

4 before, that is a ferromagnetic material. 

5 DOE chose a base thickness of a 

6 quarter inch to represent a typical pot or pan 

7 thickness, and that also is thick enough to 

8 prevent any warping of a thin disk during the 

9 heating and cooling periods. 

10 Oh. One other thing to note with 

11 the quarter inch base is that one of the 

12 induction cooking tops in our test sample was 

13 shipped with an adaptor plate and that would 

14 be used with non-ferromagnetic cookware. And 

15 we noted that the thickness of that adaptor 

16 plate was roughly a quarter inch thick. 

17 So the carbon steel hybrid test 

18 blocks also produced efficiencies that were 

19 similar to the aluminum test blocks and the 

20 carbon steel test blocks. 

21 They were more similar to the 

22 carbon steel test blocks but, given the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 variation from test to test, we couldn't say 

2 it was significantly different from the 

3 aluminum test blocks. 

4 For five of the six induction 

5 surface units tested, the carbon steel hybrid 

6 test blocks resulted in efficiencies that were 

7 actually higher than the carbon steel test 

8 blocks, and this suggests that there may have 

9 been some inefficiencies related to the 

10 testing with the solid carbon steel test 

11 blocks. 

12 But while five of the six showed 

13 higher efficiencies, one of the six showed a 

14 fairly large drop in efficiency, so it's hard 

15 to say if -- if there is any difference moving 

16 from the solid carbon steel test block to the 

17 hybrid test blocks. 

18 In terms of repeatability, it was 

19 again similar to both the aluminum test blocks 

20 and the carbon steel test blocks, but DOE did 

21 have one concern regarding repeatability with 

22 these test blocks, and that's that we observed 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 rust forming on the carbon steel as testing 

2 went on, and this could lead to inconsistent 

3 heat transfer between the base and the test 

4 block body. 

5 We also observed this on the solid 

6 carbon steel test blocks, but it was less of a 

7 concern there as opposed to the hybrid steel 

8 test blocks because there's an additional heat 

9 transfer surface there between the base and 

10 the body. 

11 So, to address the rusting concern 

12 we moved on and tested a stainless steel 

13 hybrid test block, and that used stainless 

14 steel alloy 430 in the base, which is also 

15 ferromagnetic, but it's more resistant to rust 

16 than carbon steel 1018. 

17 And you can see here we maintained 

18 the quarter-inch base thickness and the 

19 aluminum bodies for this were actually the 

20 same as for the carbon steel hybrid test 

21 blocks. 

22 That's because carbon steel and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 stainless steel 430 have similar heat 

2 capacities. 

3 So, after testing the stainless 

4 steel hybrid test blocks we observed better 

5 repeatability than for either the aluminum, 

6 carbon steel, or carbon steel hybrid test 

7 blocks. 

8 But, with the better repeatability 

9 came a slight decrease in efficiency and, 

10 compared to the carbon steel hybrid test 

11 blocks, the stainless steel hybrid test blocks 

12 produced results that were about 2.5 

13 percentage points lower. 

14 This slide shows a summary of all 

15 of our testing results on the different types 

16 of products we tested. The aluminum is only 

17 included in the conventional sample set 

18 because it's not compatible with induction. 

19 And, as you can see, the stainless 

20 steel hybrid test blocks had the best 

21 repeatability in terms of the standard 

22 deviation and the tightness of the 95 percent 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 confidence interval around the mean 

2 efficiency. 

3 But, you can also see that the 

4 stainless steel hybrid test blocks had the 

5 lowest efficiency values, at more than four 

6 percent lower than the aluminum test blocks on 

7 the conventional sample and, as I said on the 

8 slide before, about two and a half percent 

9 lower than the carbon steel hybrid test blocks 

10 when looking at all of the cooking tops that 

11 we tested. 

12 So, because the stainless steel 

13 hybrid test blocks produced the most 

14 repeatable results, those are the blocks DOE 

15 is proposing to use in the amended Appendix I 

16 test procedure. 

17 And DOE had considered just 

18 establishing one set of test blocks for 

19 induction cooking and leaving the aluminum 

20 test blocks as-is for conventional cooking 

21 tops as they are currently defined but, 

22 because the stainless steel hybrid test blocks 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 showed a drop in efficiency, DOE is proposing 

2 to use those test blocks for all cooking tops, 

3 and that way, there's a consistent basis for 

4 comparing the efficiencies over all types of 

5 products out there. 

6 So here, DOE seeks comment on its 

7 proposal to use the stainless steel hybrid 

8 test blocks for testing all -- all cooking 

9 tops that would be covered by the proposed 

10 definition of conventional cooking tops. 

11 And DOE is also interested in 

12 receiving feedback on the potential burden 

13 associated with the requirement for this new 

14 test equipment. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer Cleary. 

16 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with 

17 AHAM. 

18 Did you guys do any testing on how 

19 the number of blocks would impact the test 

20 results? 

21 MR. WATSON: Do you mean moving 

22 the number of different block sizes? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 MS. CLEARY: No. Just having like 

2 different numbers on the cook top. 

3 MR. WATSON: No, we didn't look 

4 into that. Each test we did used one cook top 

5 or -- sorry, one test block on the surface 

6 unit at a time. We didn't test multiple 

7 surface units at the same time. 

8 MS. CLEARY: Okay. I'm sorry. I 

9 have a few questions. 

10 MR. WATSON: Yes. Sure. 

11 MS. CLEARY: Did you do any 

12 examination of the heat transfer between the 

13 stainless steel and the aluminum and the 

14 hybrid blocks or any study of if there would 

15 be warping between the two surfaces? 

16 MR. WATSON: In our investigative 

17 testing, we didn't see any warping. Prior to 

18 this testing, there was some investigative 

19 testing that used an even thinner base and we 

20 did observe warping in that, and that's why we 

21 went up to the quarter-inch base. 

22 In terms of investigating the heat 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 transfer between the two, the base and the 

2 body, we didn't do any investigation other 

3 than just running the tests. 

4 MS. CLEARY: Okay. 

5 MR. WATSON: Is there any type of 

6 investigation, in particular, you're thinking 

7 of there? 

8 MS. CLEARY: No. Just wondering -

9 - 

10 MR. WATSON: Okay. 

11 MS. CLEARY: -- I guess, a little 

12 more detail and -- 

13 MR. WATSON: Yes. 

14 MS. CLEARY: Okay. And my last 

15 question is, I know you talked a little bit 

16 about the determination of the thickness of 

17 the stainless steel portion of the block, and 

18 I see in the NOPR there's a statement about, 

19 for the hybrid test blocks, DOE set the 

20 thickness of the steel bases at a quarter of 

21 an inch, to be thin enough to represent the 

22 thickness of a typical pot or pan while still 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 being thick enough to prevent warping. 

2 So I was just wondering, did you 

3 guys have data or information -- where were 

4 you finding out what the typical thickness of 

5 a pot or a pan would be? 

6 MR. WATSON: I guess we didn't -- 

7 we didn't conduct any studies. If you have 

8 any information on that, we'd appreciate it. 

9 MS. CLEARY: Okay. Thank you. 

10 MR. WATSON: One thing to note 

11 regarding that, later on in the test procedure 

12 -- or in the presentation, I'll talk about 

13 water heating tests that we did, and that used 

14 IEC test equipment, and we noted that the base 

15 in that equipment was .24 inches thick, 

16 converting from metric to inches. But so, 

17 that's pretty consistent with the thickness 

18 that we chose. 

19 MS. CLEARY: Okay. Great. Thank 

20 you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 

22 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I'm 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 just curious. My -- my understanding was that 

2 induction cook tops are typically more 

3 efficient than electric resistance. 

4 I don't know if that's the case or 

5 not, but I was just curious about whether the 

6 results, kind of comparing the electric 

7 resistance cook tops in the test and the 

8 induction, whether kind of the relative 

9 efficiencies reflect what we would expect. 

10 MR. WATSON: Oh, yes. So I should 

11 have pointed out, at the end of the 

12 presentation is an appendix that has more 

13 detailed results. It should be in the packet 

14 so if you want to refer to that, it should 

15 break it down by type of cook top that we 

16 tested. 

17 MS. MAUER: So I haven't studied 

18 them carefully, but from what I have looked 

19 at, it doesn't look like the -- I guess, in 

20 some cases, some of the induction cook tops 

21 were more efficient than electric resistance 

22 and other cases not. Is that -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 MR. WATSON: Yes. 

2 MS. MAUER: -- what we would 

3 expect, or -- 

4 MR. WATSON: I'm -- I can't really 

5 comment on what we'd expect because there 

6 hadn't been a test procedure in place for 

7 induction cooking tops. I'm only familiar 

8 with the results that we came up with and it 

9 looked to be on a unit-by-unit basis. 

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- this is 

11 Ashley. So if I look at slide 54, right, and 

12 I'm guessing it's the same, more or less, 

13 table that's in the Federal Register notice or 

14 multiple tables. 

15 I mean, in general, the trend 

16 seems to be showing that induction is 

17 generally more efficient, but not always. So, 

18 you do see, you know, kind of a trend that 

19 induction looks to be, from our limited 

20 sample, showing a higher mean efficiency 

21 results on a per model basis, but that's not 

22 an across-the-board, always the case. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 There's a couple of units that we 

2 tested with a coil that have a pretty high 

3 mean efficiency as well as an induction one 

4 that's pretty low. So -- okay. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional 

6 questions or comments? 

7 (No response.) 

8 MR. WATSON: Okay. So, like I 

9 mentioned on that slide, we also conducted a 

10 few investigative water heating tests, and the 

11 reason we did this is because water may 

12 provide a heating medium that's more 

13 representative of how consumers actually use 

14 their cooking tops. 

15 I know -- I haven't really seen 

16 anybody heat up a block of metal on their 

17 cooking top at home, but by switching from the 

18 blocks to water heating, that may introduce 

19 additional sources of variability that you 

20 avoid when using the metal test blocks. 

21 And so, for this investigative 

22 testing, DOE relied on a draft amendment to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 the IEC Standard 60350-2, Edition 1.0, and 

2 that's household electric cooking appliances, 

3 Part 2: Hobs, method for measuring 

4 performance. 

5 DOE didn't rely on it word-for6 word, but it was used as the basis for our 

7 investigative testing. 

8 So, in the IEC draft amendment, it 

9 specifies the quantity of water to be tested 

10 in a standardized cooking vessel, based on the 

11 surface unit diameter. 

12 And so, for the investigative 

13 testing, DOE chose the cooking vessels and 

14 water quantities that most closely match the 

15 existing DOE test block diameters, and the 

16 specification for these -- for the cookware 

17 and water is included in this table. 

18 You can see that the small -- it's 

19 actually a pot, had about a six-inch diameter, 

20 and the large one was a little bit over nine 

21 inches in outer diameter. 

22 So this shows the custom IEC 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 cookingware, and the base and walls of the pot 

2 are made of stainless steel, and the lid is 

3 made of aluminum. 

4 And you can see there's a small 

5 hole in the center of the lid and that's to 

6 support the thermocouple that measures the 

7 temperature of the water in the pot. 

8 So the method, itself, there's, 

9 again, a heat-up period. The water starts at 

10 a low temperature and then is heated to 194 

11 degrees Fahrenheit, and this is done at the 

12 maximum energy input rate, similar to the 

13 current DOE test procedure. 

14 After the water heats up to 194 

15 degrees Fahrenheit, it's maintained above that 

16 temperature but as close to that temperature 

17 as possible, and then there's a simmering 

18 period at that higher temperature for 20 

19 minutes. 

20 And the purpose of heating it to 

21 that point is to get it close to boiling, but 

22 then you don't want to go too much higher and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 have a lot of water boil off. 

2 The final metric from the IEC 

3 draft amendment is -- it describes the energy 

4 required over the total -- entire test period 

5 per 1000 grams of water, so that accounts for 

6 the heat-up time, and then the 20-minute 

7 simmering period. 

8 So, DOE observed a number of 

9 issues with this testing. The main concern is 

10 that the water approached boiling -- even at 

11 194 degrees Fahrenheit it would begin bubbling 

12 and you could see vapor coming off of it. 

13 And throughout the entire test, 

14 which was longer than 20 minutes because you 

15 have the heat-up period, a significant amount 

16 of water would boil off or evaporate off 

17 during that test. 

18 DOE also observed that it was 

19 difficult to find the proper setting to 

20 maintain the 194 degree simmering temperature. 

21 Even when testing with the same 

22 amount of water on the same surface unit at 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 the same setting there would be some wide 

2 variations in temperature from test-to-test, 

3 and that would lead to either heavy boiling or 

4 no boiling, so you'd get differences from 

5 test-to-test there. 

6 So, to try to account for these 

7 variations from test-to-test, DOE developed an 

8 efficiency calculation and this would take 

9 into account the total temperature rise of the 

10 water and cooking vessel, and it would also 

11 account for any water that was evaporated or 

12 boiled off during the test. 

13 And that resulted in an efficiency 

14 metric that described the total heat 

15 transferred to the cooking vessel and water 

16 divided by the total amount of energy used by 

17 the cooking top, and that's similar to the 

18 current metric in the test procedure, so it 

19 allowed for a more direct comparison to the 

20 test block results. 

21 So this is the same summary slide 

22 with the water heating tests added in. As you 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 can see, the efficiency results were higher 

2 than for the test blocks, but that's not 

3 really a direct comparison because there's 

4 different test equipment and a different total 

5 test period between the tests. 

6

 But the key thing to look at is the 

7 repeatability. You could see there was a lot 

8 more variation in the water heating test, 

9 compared to the test blocks, and especially 

10 the stainless steel hybrid test blocks, which 

11 had the best repeatability. 

12 So DOE thinks the variability in 

13 the water heating test could be limited with 

14 some more stringent tolerances on the ambient 

15 test conditions, and these would be tolerances 

16 on air pressure, temperature, humidity, 

17 basically anything that could affect water 

18 boiling off during the test. 

19 At this time DOE is not proposing 

20 a water heating test procedure because it 

21 didn't show any improvement in repeatability, 

22 compared to the block heating test, and the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 additional ambient temperature condition 

2 controls that would be needed to improve the 

3 repeatability could place a burden on 

4 manufacturers and third-party test labs. 

5 So here, DOE requests comment on 

6 the water heating test. Again, it's not 

7 proposing at this time to use a water heating 

8 test, but DOE is interested, if it should 

9 consider water heating tests, what the 

10 appropriate test method would be, along with 

11 the appropriate test conditions and any burden 

12 that would be tied to the water heating tests. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 

14 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a 

15 question. Did you find that efficiency, as 

16 measured by the stainless steel hybrid test as 

17 a good predictor of efficiency as measured by 

18 the water heating test, at least in terms of 

19 kind of relative ranking of units? 

20 MR. WATSON: Off the top of my 

21 head, I don't -- I don't know. I'd have to 

22 look at those tables. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional 

2 comments? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. WATSON: Anything, Ashley? 

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm trying to do 

6 it -- 

7 MR. WATSON: Yes. 

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley 

9 from DOE. A quick look at slides 54 and 55. 

10 I'm going to say it's close, but it's not the 

11 exact same, model-by-model number. So, the 

12 relative trends are similar, but the exact 

13 differentials are kind of different, so -- 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

15 MR. WATSON: And just to add to 

16 that, the -- I believe the -- the mean 

17 efficiencies that we got for each surface 

18 unit, they were in the same range so, with the 

19 increased variability of the water heating 

20 tests, it might be difficult to rely on those 

21 to rank the units. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 MR. WATSON: So, in addition to 

2 the active mode testing, we're aware of one 

3 additional limitation in the test procedure. 

4 As I described previously, the 

5 proper test block size is determined based on 

6 the electric surface unit's diameter, which 

7 assumes that the electric surface unit is a 

8 circle. 

9 So, the current test procedure 

10 doesn't specify what the proper test block 

11 size is for noncircular electric surface 

12 units. 

13 So, in the NOPR, DOE is proposing 

14 that the electric surface unit's smallest 

15 dimension be used to determine the appropriate 

16 test block size, and this is consistent with 

17 the draft amendment to IEC Standard 60350 that 

18 we used for the water heating test. 

19 DOE notes that it's not proposing 

20 to change the requirement that the larger test 

21 block be used for all gas surface units. 

22 So here, DOE is inviting comment 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 on whether using the smallest dimension of an 

2 electric surface unit is appropriate for 

3 determining test block size. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 

5 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. I just 

6 have a few questions. 

7 MR. WATSON: Sure. 

8 MS. CLEARY: Did you guys do any 

9 testing on the noncircular type of units? 

10 MR. WATSON: No. None of the 

11 units in our test sample had noncircular 

12 surface units, so this proposal is pretty much 

13 based on the proposal in the IEC amendment. 

14 MS. CLEARY: Okay. And with 

15 regard to the gas test block, so I know the 

16 current test procedure, and you just 

17 mentioned, says to use the large, but it looks 

18 like from some of the tables in the NOPR that 

19 the small was used. Is there an error or -- 

20 MR. WATSON: If it says that, it's 

21 an error, because the large size block was 

22 used for all of the gas testing. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 MS. MAUER: And my final question 

2 is whether or not did you -- did DOE consider 

3 different sizes of hybrid test blocks, you 

4 know, maybe an intermediate size or something 

5 larger or were there -- was there any testing 

6 done on how the size of the test block being 

7 used would impact the results of the test? 

8 MR. WATSON: No. For this testing 

9 we just used the current test diameters and, 

10 as I said, on one of the earlier slides, that 

11 was to maintain the proposal -- or maintain 

12 the test blocks that were established in the 

13 1978 final rule that were supposed to reflect 

14 consumer cooking behavior. 

15 MS. MAUER: Okay. Thank you. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional 

17 comments. 

18 MR. WATSON: Okay. So we are 

19 moving along pretty quick. We will go into 

20 standby and off mode test procedure. 

21 So, as we said earlier on, DOE 

22 recently conducted a separate rulemaking that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 addressed standby and off mode, standby and 

2 off mode test procedures and certain active 

3 mode provisions for conventional cooking 

4 products, as well as dishwashers and 

5 dehumidifiers. 

6 For conventional cooking products, 

7 the October 2012 final rule addressed standby 

8 mode and off mode energy consumption, and fan 

9 only mode operation, but I believe that was 

10 just for ovens, not related to cooking tops. 

11 So the amendments in the October 

12 2012 final rule applied to conventional 

13 cooking products and, as discussed earlier, 

14 DOE is proposing to amend the definition of 

15 conventional cooking top to include induction 

16 cooking -- induction heating technology. 

17 So, under the proposed definition 

18 of conventional cooking top, induction cooking 

19 products would also be covered by the test 

20 procedure amendments in the October 2012 final 

21 rule. 

22 DOE notes that it didn't observe 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 any standby or off mode features that appeared 

2 to be unique to induction cooking tops and, 

3 therefore, the inclusion of induction cooking 

4 products wouldn't warrant changes to the 

5 amendments that were established in the 

6 October 2012 final rule. 

7 So here DOE invites comment on 

8 whether induction -- induction cooking 

9 products would require any separate 

10 consideration for standby and off mode 

11 testing. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments. 

13 MR. WATSON: Okay. And our last 

14 section, Compliance with EPCA requirements. 

15 DOE is tentatively concluding that 

16 the proposed test procedures wouldn't be 

17 unduly burdensome to conduct. 

18 As you can see, DOE estimates that 

19 the additional cost for the new test blocks 

20 would be roughly a thousand dollars. That 

21 would be both for the -- a thousand dollars 

22 for the set, small and large. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 No instrumentation would be 

2 required compared to the existing test 

3 procedure. It's because all of the 

4 measurements are the same. It's just swapping 

5 out the aluminum test blocks for the stainless 

6 steel hybrid test blocks. 

7 The only additional time in the 

8 test procedure is for measuring the weights of 

9 two pieces for the test block as opposed to 

10 just one aluminum block and I would estimate 

11 that on the order of a minute. 

12 One potential burden is that 

13 manufacturers would be required to test the 

14 newly covered induction products and DOE 

15 estimates that this would cost manufacturers 

16 roughly $6,000. 

17 DOE doesn't expect that these 

18 costs or time requirements would represent a 

19 significant burden, even for small businesses. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 

21 MS. CLEARY: I have some 

22 questions. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 MR. WATSON: Sure. 

2 MS. CLEARY: Can you elaborate a 

3 little bit on the source of like some of these 

4 cost numbers, including the cost for the 

5 additional testing that would be required for 

6 induction, as well as do these costs assume 

7 that each manufacturer would only be requiring 

8 one set of test blocks? 

9 MR. WATSON: Yes. So the thousand 

10 dollars for one set of test blocks, so I guess 

11 if a manufacturer or a test lab is buying 

12 multiple sets, it would just be a thousand 

13 times however many sets. 

14 But still that -- I can't imagine 

15 anybody buying a whole lot of test blocks. 

16 So, the order of magnitude there would still 

17 be in the thousands of dollars, not -- I 

18 wouldn't expect it to go anywhere above 

19 $10,000. 

20 And that's based on the estimates 

21 we received when we purchased these test 

22 blocks for our internal testing. The 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 stainless steel hybrid test blocks, I think 

2 they were on the same order of magnitude cost 

3 as all the other potential test blocks we 

4 investigated, so there's not really any cost 

5 advantage to one over the other. 

6 The $6,000 is a rough estimate 

7 based on a manufacturer having three induction 

8 cooking tops and I believe it was with four 

9 surface units that would have to be tested a 

10 number of times, and the estimate assumes a 

11 certain amount of labor for each of those 

12 tests. 

13 Off the top of my head, I'm -- I 

14 don't have the exact estimates, but I think 

15 the NOPR breaks it down even further. 

16 MS. CLEARY: Yes. I saw that 

17 description in the NOPR. This is Jennifer. I 

18 just was wondering like how you got the basis 

19 for those numbers. 

20 MR. WATSON: Sure. 

21 MS. CLEARY: So, not -- so like 

22 assuming the number of induction models that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 each manufacturer would have, as well as the 

2 costs that would be associated with that 

3 testing, in terms of labor, like what was the 

4 source for those numbers. 

5 MR. WATSON: Yes. So for the 

6 labor costs, that was just based on our 

7 internal testing based on how long each test 

8 took us, pretty much. 

9 There's -- the test has certain 

10 time periods, so there's really no way to 

11 optimize it to decrease the cost, so it was 

12 pretty clear how long each one would take. 

13 And, as far as the labor cost, I 

14 don't know off the top of my head where that 

15 estimate was. I think it was just a ball park 

16 estimate of a lab technician rate. 

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. This is 

18 Ashley. I was just going to say, typically, 

19 when we do that, we'll do an estimate of a 

20 survey of all the products out there, whittle 

21 it down to a number of basic models that would 

22 have to be tested and rated, the number of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 times you would have to run a test on a given 

2 basic model, then we would, based on our 

3 testing, estimate the length of time, as Troy 

4 said, and then we'll apply some type of labor 

5 estimate for -- it's usually a weighted 

6 average between a tech and a supervisory 

7 engineer that would review those results. 

8 I don't know what the dollars per 

9 hour is, but that's roughly -- we just 

10 multiply it out that way. 

11 MS. CLEARY: Yes. I thank you. 

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 

13 MR. WATSON: Okay. And then the 

14 other requirement is that any amendments to 

15 the test procedure do not affect the 

16 compliance with existing standards. 

17 And, as Ashley pointed out earlier 

18 on, the only existing standard for 

19 conventional cooking products prohibits the 

20 use of a standing pilot light. 

21 So, swapping out the aluminum test 

22 blocks for stainless steel hybrid test blocks 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 wouldn't have any effect on a product's 

2 ability to be compliant with the existing 

3 standard. 

4 So, I think that takes us to the 

5 end. Any additional comments? 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional 

7 comments here as we move towards closure? 

8 Back to Ashley Armstrong. 

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley. 

10 This is just how to submit written comments. 

11 A summary -- a reminder that the time period 

12 closes on April 15th and, if you have any 

13 questions in the meantime, feel free to submit 

14 them and let us know. 

15 There are the small details of the 

16 actual individual tests in the appendix as 

17 well as in the notice so, as you are going 

18 through those, since we didn't go through them 

19 today, if you have questions, just let us 

20 know. 

21 Thank you for coming. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 (Whereupon, the meeting was 

2 concluded at 9:51 a.m.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

A

ability 50:2

access 6:2

account 11:7 36:6,9

36:11

accounts 35:5

across-the-board

31:22

active 2:7 4:14 11:2

11:7,15 12:6 40:2

43:2

actual 50:16

adaptor 21:13,15

add 10:10 39:15

added 36:22

addition 40:1

additional 23:8

32:5,19 38:1 39:1

40:3 42:16 44:19

45:7 46:5 50:5,6

Additionally 9:7

address 20:19

23:11

addressed 43:1,7

adjourn 2:13 5:2

advantage 47:5

affect 37:17 49:15

agenda 2:2,3 4:7

5:1,4,5 6:16,16

AHAM 26:17

air 37:16

allow 7:19 9:15

10:18 12:12,16

allowed 36:19

alloy 13:14 16:5,12

20:22 23:14

aluminum 8:15

13:14 14:13,18

15:7 16:7,12,22

17:14 18:5,12,20

19:12,21 20:3,6

20:22 21:19 22:3

22:19 23:19 24:5

24:16 25:6,19

27:13 34:3 45:5

45:10 49:21

ambient 12:13

37:14 38:1

amend 10:8 11:7

17:12 43:14

amended 11:17

25:15

amendment 10:17

32:22 33:8 35:3

40:17 41:13

amendments 7:17

7:19 10:15 11:14

43:11,20 44:5

49:14

amount 35:15,22

36:16 47:11

anybody 14:1

32:16 46:15

apologies 5:19 6:1

appear 20:5

appeared 44:1

appears 4:19

appendix 7:6,17

9:14 11:1 12:9

14:10,17 25:15

30:12 50:16

Appliance 1:14,15

1:15 3:14,18

appliances 1:19

33:2

applied 43:12

apply 49:4

appreciate 29:8

approached 35:10

appropriate 14:8

38:10,11 40:15

41:2

April 6:22 50:12

Armstrong 1:12

4:1,1 6:5,6,13 8:3

31:10 39:5,8

48:17 49:12 50:8

50:9

Ashley 1:12 4:1 6:4

7:15 12:4 31:11

39:4,8 48:18

49:17 50:8,9

associated 26:13

48:2

Association 1:13

1:14 3:14

assume 46:6

assumes 40:7 47:10

assuming 47:22

as-is 25:20

audio 5:18

availability 9:12

available 5:21 9:5

Avenue 1:9

average 49:6

avoid 32:20

aware 17:7 40:2

Awareness 1:15

3:18

a.m 1:9 3:2 51:2

B

Back 50:8

background 7:4,9

ball 48:15

Baltimore 3:11

base 16:11,16 18:3

20:21 21:3,5,11

23:3,9,14,18

27:19,21 28:1

29:14 34:1

based 10:6 12:11

13:6,9 33:10 40:5

41:13 46:20 47:7

48:6,7 49:2

baseline 15:6 18:14

bases 28:20

basic 48:21 49:2

basically 37:17

basis 5:15 26:3

31:9,21 33:6

47:18

Battaglia 1:13 3:21

3:21

behavior 17:8

42:14

behaviors 17:7

believe 39:16 43:9

47:8

believes 9:13

best 24:20 37:11

better 19:7 24:4,8

bit 7:3,8 28:15

33:20 46:3

block 12:10,12,16

13:2,6,9,19,20,21

14:3 15:16 16:3,4

16:8 18:2,6,10

19:12 20:15 22:16

23:4,13 26:22

27:5 28:17 32:16

33:15 36:20 37:22

40:5,10,16,21

41:3,15,21 42:6

45:9,10

blocks 13:12,14

14:1,4,12,14,18

14:20 15:1,7 16:1

16:7,10,13,14,19

17:1,2,14,15,19

17:20 18:1,12,17

18:21 19:5,9,10

19:15,19,21 20:2

20:4,6,20 21:2,18

21:19,20,22 22:3

22:6,8,11,17,19

22:20,22 23:6,8

23:21 24:4,7,11

24:11,20 25:4,6,9

25:13,14,18,20,22

26:2,8,19 27:14

28:19 32:18,20

37:2,9,10 42:3,12

44:19 45:5,6 46:8

46:10,15,22 47:1

47:3 49:22,22

bodies 23:19

body 16:12 21:1

23:4,10 28:2

boil 35:1,16

boiled 36:12

boiling 34:21 35:10

36:3,4 37:18

bottom 18:2

boxes 11:10

break 30:15

breaks 47:15

BRIAN 1:19

brief 4:6,8 6:16

Brookman 1:9,11

2:4 3:3,10,16 4:4

6:12 11:20 12:1

26:15 29:21 32:5

38:13 39:1,14,22

41:4 42:16 44:12

45:20 50:6,22

bubbling 35:11

Building 3:8

burden 26:12 38:3

38:11 45:12,19

burdensome 44:17

businesses 45:19

buying 46:11,15

C

C 3:1

calculation 36:8

California 1:19

CALLIE 1:20

candidate 16:18

18:17

capacities 17:4

18:8 19:17 24:2

capacity 16:22

carbon 16:4,5,10

17:20 19:8,15,19

20:1 21:3,17,20

21:22 22:5,7,10

22:16,20 23:1,6

23:16,20,22 24:6

24:6,10 25:9

carefully 30:18

case 20:14 30:4

31:22

cases 30:20,22

cell 5:10

center 34:5

certain 8:13 43:2

47:11 48:9

CFR 7:7 10:1,13

11:1

change 18:9 40:20

changed 17:9

changes 44:4

chime 6:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

chose 21:5 29:18

33:13

circle 40:8

clear 48:12

clearly 10:5

Cleary 1:13 3:13

3:13 26:15,16,16

27:1,8,11 28:4,8

28:11,14 29:9,19

41:5,5,8,14 45:21

46:2 47:16,21

49:11

close 34:16,21

39:10

closely 33:14

closes 6:22 50:12

closing 2:12 4:21

closure 50:7

coil 15:10 32:2

coming 6:11 35:12

50:21

comment 5:15 6:21

11:10,11,13 26:6

31:5 38:5 40:22

44:7

comments 2:11

4:19 5:5 7:1

11:19,20 12:1

32:6 39:2 42:17

44:12 50:5,7,10

compared 24:10

37:9,22 45:2

comparing 26:4

30:6

comparison 15:7

18:16 36:19 37:3

compatible 13:16

14:14 24:18

complete 5:20

compliance 2:10

4:16 44:14 49:16

compliant 50:2

concern 20:19

22:21 23:7,11

35:9

concerns 11:19

20:7

concluded 5:22

51:2

concluding 44:15

condition 38:1

conditions 37:15

38:11

conduct 29:7 44:17

conducted 14:7,11

18:12 19:1 32:9

42:22

confidence 25:1

conservation 9:17

consider 7:16 8:19

38:9 42:2

consideration 5:7

44:10

considered 9:16

25:17

considering 7:18

consistent 26:3

29:17 40:16

Consulting 1:13,16

1:17

consumed 13:3

consumer 7:6 17:6

42:14

consumers 32:13

consumption 43:8

contains 10:1,13

11:2

CONTENTS 2:1

continue 12:20

controls 38:2

convened 1:8

conventional 1:3

3:6 7:10 10:2,9,10

10:14,19,21 11:1

11:14,16 15:5,9

18:13 24:17 25:7

25:20 26:10 43:3

43:6,12,15,18

49:19

conversations 5:11

converting 29:16

cook 8:10 20:13

27:2,4 30:2,7,15

30:20

cooking 1:3 3:6

7:10,20,21 8:2,5,6

8:7,9,12,19 9:5,12

9:17,21,21 10:2,6

10:9,10,17,20

11:1,15 12:7,10

12:13 13:3,17

14:9 15:5,9,11,12

17:6,8 18:13 20:8

20:10,16,17 21:12

25:10,19,20 26:2

26:8,10 31:7

32:14,17 33:2,10

33:13 36:10,15,17

42:14 43:3,6,10

43:13,15,16,18,18

44:2,3,8 47:8

49:19

cookingware 34:1

cookware 21:14

33:16

cooling 21:9

correspond 11:11

cost 44:19 45:15

46:4,4 47:2,4

48:11,13

costs 45:18 46:6

48:2,6

couple 32:1

cover 4:21 10:5,19

covered 2:6 4:13,22

26:9 43:19 45:14

covers 7:6

creates 8:7

curious 30:1,5

current 8:1,6,7,8

12:8 16:22 18:12

20:11 34:13 36:18

40:9 41:16 42:9

currently 25:21

custom 33:22

D

D 3:1

data 29:3

day 4:17

decrease 24:9

48:11

defined 25:21

definition 10:1,6,9

10:13,15,18,18,22

11:2,7,16 26:10

43:14,17

definitions 11:14

degree 35:20

degrees 12:17

34:11,15 35:11

dehumidifiers 43:5

Department 1:1,8

1:12 3:5,8

described 20:21

36:14 40:4

describes 12:8 35:3

description 15:22

47:17

detail 6:10 28:12

detailed 30:13

details 50:15

determination

28:16

determine 14:8,22

40:15

determined 13:1,6

40:5

determining 41:3

developed 36:7

deviation 24:22

deviations 18:21

diameter 12:11

13:10 17:21,21

33:11,19,21 40:6

diameters 13:19

16:21 17:3 33:15

42:9

difference 14:18

22:15

differences 36:4

different 13:9 18:7

18:10 22:2 24:15

26:22 27:2 37:4,4

39:13 42:3

differentials 39:13

difficult 35:19

39:20

dimension 40:15

41:1

direct 36:19 37:3

directly 4:12

discussed 43:13

dishwashers 43:4

disk 16:11 18:3

21:8

divided 13:2 36:16

document 11:12

DOE 4:2 8:19 9:3

9:13,20 10:8,14

11:6,11,15 14:7

14:11 15:14 16:9

16:19,21 17:1,7

19:3 20:7,19 21:5

22:20 25:14,17

26:1,6,11 28:19

32:22 33:5,13,15

34:13 35:8,18

36:7 37:12,19

38:5,8 39:9 40:13

40:19,22 42:2,21

43:14,22 44:7,15

44:18 45:14,17

dollars 44:20,21

46:10,17 49:8

door 5:13

Doug 1:9,11 2:4

3:10 6:15

draft 32:22 33:8

35:3 40:17

drop 22:14 26:1

D.C 1:9

E

E 3:1,1

earlier 42:10,21

43:13 49:17

Edison 1:19

Edition 33:1

effect 50:1

effects 14:22 15:3

efficiencies 19:20

19:21 21:18 22:6

22:13 26:4 30:9

39:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

efficiency 12:22

15:2,6 18:15

22:14 24:9 25:2,5

26:1 31:20 32:3

36:8,13 37:1

38:15,17

efficient 30:3,21

31:17

either 11:3 24:5

36:3

elaborate 46:2

electric 10:4,11

11:4,8 13:11

15:10 30:3,6,21

33:2 40:6,7,11,14

41:2

encounters 8:8

energy 1:1,8,12 3:9

9:16 11:5 12:14

12:19,22 13:2,3,5

34:12 35:3 36:16

43:8

Energy's 3:5

engineer 49:7

entire 35:4,13

EPCA 2:10 4:16

44:14

equipment 26:14

29:14,15 37:4

error 41:19,21

especially 37:9

establish 8:20 15:6

established 8:18

17:5 18:14 42:12

44:5

establishing 25:18

estimate 45:10 47:6

47:10 48:15,16,19

49:3,5

estimates 44:18

45:15 46:20 47:14

evaporate 35:16

evaporated 36:11

exact 39:11,12

47:14

examination 27:12

exciting 14:3

existing 7:9 14:17

16:6 17:14 33:15

45:2 49:16,18

50:2

expect 5:1 30:9

31:3,5 45:17

46:18

expected 6:17

F

Fahrenheit 34:11

34:15 35:11

fairly 22:14

familiar 31:7

fan 43:8

far 48:13

features 44:1

Federal 31:13

feedback 7:1 26:12

feel 6:7,9 12:3

50:13

ferromagnetic 8:13

13:15 14:14 16:6

16:17 20:12,15,22

21:4 23:15

field 8:1,5

final 8:18,19 17:5

35:2 42:1,13 43:7

43:12,20 44:6

find 19:4 35:19

38:15

finding 29:4

fine 8:3

first 16:3,10 18:11

21:2

five 15:15 19:1 22:4

22:12

flame 10:4 11:3

focus 5:9

followed 14:16

following 4:6,11,15

17:15

food 8:10

forming 23:1

Forrestal 3:8

forward 6:22

found 9:4,20 12:8

19:19 20:1

four 15:20 25:5

47:8

free 6:8,9 12:3

50:13

further 19:4 47:15

future 9:16

G

G 3:1

gas 10:4 11:3 13:11

15:11,19 40:21

41:15,22

GE 1:19

general 15:21

31:15

generally 31:17

getting 7:1

give 17:16

given 9:11 21:22

49:1

gives 7:3,8 15:21

Glad 3:9 4:4

go 6:8 34:22 42:19

46:18 50:18

goal 14:21 19:4

goes 6:18

going 4:11 6:8 7:5

12:5 39:10 48:18

50:17

good 3:3 38:17

grams 35:5

Great 29:19

greet 6:7

guess 28:11 29:6

30:19 46:10

guessing 31:12

guys 26:18 29:3

41:8

H

half 25:8

hard 22:14

head 38:21 47:13

48:14

heat 8:7,9 10:11

11:3 16:22 17:4

18:8 19:17 23:3,8

24:1 27:12,22

32:16 36:14

heated 34:10

heating 7:20 9:6,10

10:4,11 11:4,9

21:9 29:13 32:10

32:12,18 34:20

36:22 37:8,13,20

37:22 38:6,7,9,12

38:18 39:19 40:18

43:16

heats 34:14

heat-up 34:9 35:6

35:15

heavy 36:3

height 19:15

heights 17:2 18:7

high 32:2

higher 22:7,13

31:20 34:18,22

37:1

highlight 6:21

history 2:5 4:12

8:17

Hobs 33:3

hole 34:5

home 1:13,14 3:14

32:17

hour 49:9

household 33:2

humidity 37:16

hybrid 16:9,14

17:13 18:1,2

20:20 21:17 22:5

22:17 23:7,13,20

24:4,6,10,11,20

25:4,9,13,22 26:7

27:14 28:19 37:10

38:16 42:3 45:6

47:1 49:22

I

IEC 29:14 33:1,8

33:22 35:2 40:17

41:13

ignore 8:2

imagine 46:14

Immediately 4:6

impact 26:19 42:7

improve 38:2

improvement

37:21

inch 21:6,11,16

28:21

inches 13:19,20

19:13,13 29:15,16

33:21

include 43:15

included 15:4,10

15:12 24:17 33:17

including 9:14 46:4

inclusion 44:3

inconsistent 23:2

incorporating 14:9

increase 12:17 13:7

increased 9:11

39:19

Independence 1:9

indicating 17:8

individual 50:16

induce 8:1,6

induces 20:11

induction 7:20,21

8:4,12,19 9:6,10

9:12,21 10:5,20

13:16 14:9,15

15:12 20:8,10,17

21:12 22:4 24:18

25:19 30:2,8,20

31:7,16,19 32:3

43:15,16,18 44:2

44:3,8,8 45:14

46:6 47:7,22

inductive 10:11

11:8

inefficiencies 22:9

information 5:13

14:5 17:8 29:3,8

input 12:15,20

34:12

instrumentation

45:1

interested 26:11

38:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

intermediate 42:4

internal 46:22 48:7

interval 25:1

introduce 32:18

introductions 3:12

investigated 16:1

16:19 47:4

investigating 27:22

investigation 28:2

28:6

investigative 14:7

27:16,18 32:10,21

33:7,12

invites 44:7

inviting 40:22

iron 8:14

issues 2:11 4:19,22

11:11 35:9

ITEM 2:2

J

James 1:13,19 3:21

Jen 41:5

Jennifer 1:13 3:13

26:15,16 41:4

45:20 47:17

Joanna 1:15 3:17

29:21,22 38:13,14

joining 5:16

Judith 1:16 3:19

jump 12:3,6

justification 17:17

K

keep 5:9

key 37:6

kind 12:5 30:6,8

31:18 38:19 39:13

know 28:15 30:4

31:18 32:15 38:21

41:15 42:4 48:14

49:8 50:14,20

L

lab 46:11 48:16

labor 47:11 48:3,6

48:13 49:4

labs 38:4

large 13:20 17:20

20:15 22:14 33:20

41:17,21 44:22

larger 13:12 40:20

42:5

layer 20:11

lead 23:2 36:3

leaving 25:19

left 3:12 17:19

legislative 7:4 8:16

length 49:3

let's 3:11,12 6:12

LEYBOURN 1:14

lid 34:2,5

light 49:20

limit 5:10

limitation 40:3

limited 31:19 37:13

listen 6:2

little 7:3,8 28:11,15

33:20 46:3

long 48:7,12

longer 35:14

look 6:22 27:3

30:19 31:11 37:6

38:22 39:9

looked 30:18 31:9

looking 25:10

looks 31:19 41:17

lot 35:1 37:7 46:15

low 32:4 34:10

lower 12:21 19:22

24:13 25:6,9

lowest 25:5

M

magnetic 8:1,5

magnitude 46:16

47:2

main 35:9

maintain 18:8

19:16 35:20 42:11

42:11

maintained 16:20

16:21 17:4,9

23:17 34:15

manufacturer 46:7

46:11 47:7 48:1

manufacturers

1:14,15 3:15 9:8

38:4 45:13,15

March 1:6 3:7

market 9:1,3,5,9,13

match 33:14

material 13:15

20:12,15,22 21:4

materials 5:14 8:13

8:14 18:10

Mauer 1:15 3:17

3:17 29:22,22

30:17 31:2 38:14

38:14 42:1,15

maximum 12:14,19

34:12

McGONAGLE

1:19

mean 25:1 26:21

31:15,20 32:3

39:16

measured 38:16,17

measurements

45:4

measures 34:6

measuring 33:3

45:8

medium 32:12

meeting 1:3,8 3:5

4:10 5:21,22 6:7

51:1

mentioned 7:15

13:8 32:9 41:17

metal 14:3 32:16

32:20

method 14:8,17

33:3 34:8 38:10

metric 29:16 35:2

36:14,18

MICHAEL 1:19

microwave 11:4

minute 45:11

minutes 12:21

34:19 35:14

mode 2:7,8 4:14,15

5:10 11:2,7,15

12:7 40:2 42:20

43:1,2,3,8,8,9

44:1,10

model 31:21 49:2

models 47:22 48:21

model-by-model

39:11

moderator 1:9,12

Monday 1:5 3:7

morning 3:3,9 4:5

4:18 5:2,18

MOUW 1:20

move 4:12 50:7

moved 20:20 23:12

moving 19:8 22:15

26:21 42:19

multiple 27:6 31:14

46:12

multiply 49:10

N

N 3:1

name 3:10 5:8

NATHAN 1:20

Navigant 1:13,16

1:17,20 3:20,22

4:3 7:15

needed 38:2

new 8:22 26:13

44:19

newly 45:14

nine 13:19 33:20

nine-inch 16:20

noncircular 40:11

41:9,11

non-ferromagnetic

21:14

NOPR 11:12 28:18

40:13 41:18 47:15

47:17

note 8:11 9:19

10:16 15:18 21:10

29:10

noted 21:15 29:14

notes 11:16 40:19

43:22

notice 31:13 50:17

number 26:19,22

35:8 39:11 47:10

47:22 48:21,22

numbers 27:2 46:4

47:19 48:4

O

O 3:1

observe 27:20

43:22

observed 22:22

23:5 24:4 35:8,18

October 43:7,11,20

44:6

offer 9:9

Oh 21:10 30:10

okay 7:14 8:4,16

12:2 27:8 28:4,10

28:14 29:9,19

32:4,8 39:14,22

41:14 42:15,18

44:13 49:13

one-fourth 12:19

opening 2:3 4:9

operate 20:9

operation 43:9

opportunity 4:7,20

opposed 23:7 45:9

optimize 48:11

order 45:11 46:16

47:2

oscillating 7:22 8:5

outer 16:21 33:21

outset 4:8 11:21

oven 10:21

ovens 9:22 43:10

overall 15:2 16:22

19:17

overview 6:19

P

P 3:1

packet 5:12,14

30:13

PAGE 2:2

pan 20:12 21:6

28:22 29:5

parameters 17:6,9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

park 48:15

part 9:16 10:16

16:1 33:3

participants 6:1

particular 28:6

percent 9:4,9 18:22

24:22 25:6,8

percentage 24:13

performance 33:4

period 6:21 13:7

34:9,18 35:4,7,15

37:5 50:11

periods 21:9 48:10

phones 5:10

photo 17:22

photos 17:18

piece 16:8

pieces 45:9

pilot 7:11 49:20

place 17:14 31:6

38:3

plate 21:13,16

Please 5:7,8

point 12:4,18 13:18

18:16 34:21

pointed 30:11

49:17

points 24:13

portion 5:18 9:1

28:17

possible 19:7 34:17

pot 20:12 21:6

28:22 29:5 33:19

34:1,7

potential 14:12,19

15:22 16:3 26:12

45:12 47:3

predictor 38:17

PRESENT 1:10,18

presentation 5:15

29:12 30:12

presiding 1:9

pressure 37:16

pretty 6:9 12:5,9

29:17 32:2,4

41:12 42:19 48:8

48:12

prevent 21:8 29:1

previously 19:11

40:4

Prior 27:17

procedure 2:7,9

4:14,16 6:20 7:4

7:12 8:20 12:8

14:2 17:13 25:16

29:11 31:6 34:13

36:18 37:20 40:3

40:9 41:16 42:20

43:20 45:3,8

49:15

procedures 1:3 3:6

7:17 8:17 9:14

14:10 43:2 44:16

process 6:20

produced 18:21

20:2 21:18 24:12

25:13

product 7:22 10:3

10:12

products 1:3 2:6

3:6 4:13 7:7,10,20

8:22 9:9,12,15,18

10:19 11:8 12:7

24:16 26:5 43:4,6

43:13,19 44:4,9

45:14 48:20 49:19

product's 50:1

prohibit 7:10

prohibits 49:19

Project 1:16 3:18

proper 35:19 40:5

40:10

proposal 7:2 17:17

26:7 41:12,13

42:11

proposed 10:17

11:13 26:9 43:17

44:16

proposing 10:8,15

11:6 17:12 25:15

26:1 37:19 38:7

40:13,19 43:14

provide 32:12

provides 19:9

provisions 43:3

public 1:3,8,11 3:5

3:11 6:7

purchased 46:21

purpose 7:16 34:20

put 5:10

Q

quantities 33:14

quantity 33:9

quarter 13:20

16:20 21:6,11,16

28:20

quarter-inch 23:18

27:21

question 28:15

38:15 42:1

questions 5:5 6:10

27:9 32:6 41:6

45:22 50:13,19

quick 39:9 42:19

quickly 6:9 12:5

R

R 3:1

range 10:14,19

11:17 39:18

rank 39:21

ranking 38:19

rate 12:20 34:12

48:16

rated 48:22

ratio 13:1

reach 12:13

real 20:18

really 31:4 32:15

37:3 47:4 48:10

real-world 20:9

reason 17:3 32:11

reasonable 20:5

received 5:12 46:21

receiving 26:12

record 5:8

reduce 12:18

refer 30:14

reference 18:6

reflect 17:6 20:8

30:9 42:13

reflects 5:1

regard 41:15

regarding 11:13

22:21 29:11

Register 31:13

regulatory 2:5 4:12

Reich 1:16 3:19,19

REIS 1:20

related 22:9 43:10

relative 30:8 38:19

39:12

relatively 8:22

relied 32:22

rely 33:5 39:20

remarks 2:3,12 4:8

4:9,21 6:4

reminder 50:11

repeatability 15:2

18:15,20 19:6

20:3 22:18,21

24:5,8,21 37:7,11

37:21 38:3

repeatable 25:14

repeated 15:15,19

replace 14:13

represent 21:6

28:21 45:18

representative

20:16 32:13

request 11:10

requested 11:11

requesting 11:13

requests 38:5

require 44:9

required 35:4 45:2

45:13 46:5

requirement 26:13

40:20 49:14

requirements 2:10

4:17 44:14 45:18

requiring 46:7

resistance 8:8 10:4

11:4 30:3,7,21

resistant 23:15

response 11:22

32:7 39:3

result 19:5

resulted 19:20 22:6

36:13

results 19:18 24:12

24:15 25:14 26:20

30:6,13 31:8,21

36:20 37:1 42:7

49:7

review 2:3 4:7 49:7

right 6:15 7:11

17:22 18:5 31:11

rise 36:9

Room 1:8

rough 47:6

roughly 9:4 21:16

44:20 45:16 49:9

rule 8:18,19 17:5

42:13 43:7,12,21

44:6

rulemaking 6:20

7:5,16 9:17 10:16

11:18 14:6 42:22

run 49:1

running 28:3

rust 23:1,15

rusting 23:11

S

S 3:1

sample 15:4,12

18:14 21:12 24:17

25:7 31:20 41:11

saw 47:16

says 41:17,20

section 7:7 44:14

see 6:18 13:13 18:2

18:7,19 19:14

23:17 24:19 25:3

27:17 28:18 31:18

33:18 34:4 35:12

37:1,7 44:18

seeks 26:6

seen 32:15

select 12:9

separate 42:22

44:9

set 18:11 19:1 21:2

24:17 25:18 28:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

44:22 46:8,10

sets 46:12,13

setting 12:15,19,21

35:19 36:1

shipped 21:13

show 37:21

showed 8:17 10:6

22:12,13 26:1

showing 31:16,20

shown 10:2 19:11

shows 13:22 17:22

24:14 33:22

sidebar 5:11

significant 9:1

35:15 45:19

significantly 19:22

22:2

silent 5:10

similar 10:22 16:6

16:15 19:6,20

20:3 21:19,21

22:19 24:1 34:12

36:17 39:12

similarly 11:6

simmering 34:17

35:7,20

situations 20:9

six 13:20 16:20

22:4,12,13

six-inch 33:19

size 40:5,11,16 41:3

41:21 42:4,6

sizes 13:9 26:22

42:3

slide 8:17 10:7 12:7

13:22 15:21 24:14

25:8 31:11 32:9

36:21

slides 17:15 39:9

42:10

slight 24:9

slightly 18:7 19:14

19:22

small 17:21 33:18

34:4 41:19 44:22

45:19 50:15

smaller 13:21 14:4

19:16

smallest 40:14 41:1

smooth 15:10

solid 16:7 22:10,16

23:5

Solutions 1:11 3:11

sorry 27:5,8

source 10:12 11:3

46:3 48:4

sources 32:19

Southern 1:19

speak 5:7,9

specifically 7:18

specification 33:16

specifications

19:10,12

specifies 10:3 11:3

33:9

specify 40:10

stainless 16:13,14

16:15,16 17:13

18:1,4 23:12,13

24:1,3,11,19 25:4

25:12,22 26:7

27:13 28:17 34:2

37:10 38:16 45:5

47:1 49:22

standard 18:21

24:21 33:1 40:17

49:18 50:3

standardized 33:10

standards 1:15

3:18 7:9 9:17

49:16

standby 2:8 4:15

42:20 43:1,1,7

44:1,10

standing 7:11

49:20

start 3:11,12

starts 34:9

statement 28:18

steel 8:14 16:4,5,10

16:13,14,16,16

17:13,20 18:1,4

19:8,15,19 20:2

21:3,17,20,22

22:5,7,10,16,20

23:1,6,7,12,14,16

23:20,22 24:1,4,6

24:6,10,11,20

25:4,9,12,22 26:7

27:13 28:17,20

34:2 37:10 38:16

45:6 47:1 49:22

STEVE 1:14

stringent 37:14

studied 30:17

studies 29:7

study 27:14

submit 50:10,13

substitute 14:12,13

14:19,22 15:22

17:19 19:5 20:6

substitutes 15:8

sufficiently 4:22

suggests 22:8

summary 4:8 17:16

24:14 36:21 50:11

supervisory 49:6

support 14:6 34:6

supposed 42:13

Sure 27:10 41:7

46:1 47:20

surface 12:10,11,14

12:18 13:1,10,11

15:16,19 18:22

19:2 22:5 23:9

27:5,7 33:11

35:22 39:17 40:6

40:7,11,14,21

41:2,12 47:9

surfaces 27:15

survey 9:20 48:20

surveyed 9:3

swapped 14:19

swapping 45:4

49:21

switching 32:17

S.W 1:9

T

table 2:1 31:13

33:17

tables 31:14 38:22

41:18

take 6:17 36:8

48:12

takes 50:4

talk 29:12

talked 28:15

talking 7:5

tech 49:6

technician 48:16

technologies 14:15

technology 43:16

telephone 5:17

temperature 12:13

12:17 13:7 34:7

34:10,16,16,18

35:20 36:2,9

37:16 38:1

ten 9:4

tentatively 44:15

terms 22:18 24:21

27:22 38:18 48:3

test 1:3 2:7,9 3:5

4:14,16 6:20 7:4

7:12,17 8:17,20

9:14 12:8,9,12,16

12:20 13:4,6,7,9

13:12,14,19,21,22

14:2,4,10,12,13

14:19,22 15:4,7

15:11,15,15,22

16:4,7,9,13,14,18

17:1,2,12,14,15

17:19 18:1,6,12

18:17,20,20,21

19:5,6,9,10,12,15

19:18,19,21 20:2

20:4,6,20 21:2,12

21:17,19,20,22

22:1,1,3,6,7,10,16

22:17,19,20,22

23:3,6,8,13,20

24:4,6,10,11,20

25:4,6,9,13,16,18

25:20,22 26:2,8

26:14,19 27:4,5,6

28:19 29:11,14

30:7 31:6 32:20

33:15 34:13 35:4

35:13,17 36:12,18

36:20 37:2,4,5,8,9

37:10,13,15,18,20

37:22 38:4,6,8,10

38:11,16,18 40:3

40:5,9,10,16,18

40:20 41:3,11,15

41:16 42:3,6,7,9

42:12,20 43:2,19

44:16,19 45:2,5,6

45:8,9,13 46:8,10

46:11,15,21 47:1

47:3 48:7,9 49:1

49:15,21,22

tested 15:17 16:9

18:17 19:1 22:5

23:12 24:16 25:11

30:16 32:2 33:9

47:9 48:22

testing 7:19 12:7

14:7,11,16,21

15:14 16:2,19

17:10,16 19:3,4

20:20 22:10 23:1

24:3,15 26:8,18

27:17,18,19 32:22

33:7,13 35:9,21

40:2 41:9,22 42:5

42:8 44:11 46:5

46:22 48:3,7 49:3

tests 15:19 18:11

19:1,6 28:3 29:13

32:10 36:22 37:5

38:9,12 39:20

47:12 50:16

test-to-test 15:1

20:2 36:2,5,7

thank 3:16 29:9,19

39:14 42:15 49:11

50:21,22

Thanks 6:11

thermocouple 34:6

thick 21:7,16 29:1

29:15

thickness 21:5,7,15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

23:18 28:16,20,22

29:4,17

thin 16:11 18:3

20:11,21 21:8

28:21

thing 6:14 8:11

9:19 13:18 15:18

21:10 29:10 37:6

think 6:17 47:1,14

48:15 50:4

thinking 28:6

thinks 37:12

thinner 27:19

third-party 38:4

thousand 44:20,21

46:9,12

thousands 46:17

three 9:7 15:4,9,12

18:13,22 19:13,13

47:7

tied 38:12

tightness 24:22

till 6:18

time 5:7,8 8:21 9:2

27:6,7 35:6 37:19

38:7 45:7,18

48:10 49:3 50:11

times 15:15,20

46:13 47:10 49:1

today 3:7 4:10 5:13

6:7 7:6 50:19

tolerances 37:14,15

top 10:2,10,17,20

11:1,15 12:10,13

13:3 15:10,11,11

16:12 20:10,16

27:2,4 30:15

32:17 36:17 38:20

43:15,18 47:13

48:14

tops 8:20 9:5,21

13:17 14:9 15:5

15:10,13 18:13

20:8,17 21:12

25:10,21 26:2,9

26:10 30:2,7,20

31:7 32:14 43:10

44:2 47:8

total 13:6 35:4 36:9

36:14,16 37:4

transcript 5:21 6:3

transfer 23:3,9

27:12 28:1

transferred 13:2,5

36:15

trend 31:15,18

trends 39:12

Troy 1:17 4:3 7:13

7:14 49:3

try 36:6

trying 39:5

turn 12:14

two 13:12 17:20

25:8 27:15 28:1

45:9

type 15:16 28:5

30:15 41:9 49:4

types 8:14 24:15

26:4

typical 21:6 28:22

29:4

typically 20:10

30:2 48:18

U

understanding

30:1

unduly 44:17

unfamiliar 14:1

unique 44:2

unit 12:10,14,18

13:1 15:16,19

18:22 19:2 27:6

33:11 35:22 39:18

40:7 41:2

units 13:11,11 22:5

27:7 32:1 38:19

39:21 40:12,21

41:9,11,12 47:9

unit's 12:11 13:10

40:6,14

unit-by-unit 31:9

up-front 17:12

use 7:11,20 9:10

10:3,19 11:8

13:11 17:13 25:15

26:2,7 32:13 38:7

41:17 49:20

uses 7:22 8:5

usually 49:5

U.S 1:1,8 3:4

V

values 25:5

vapor 35:12

variability 32:19

37:12 39:19

variation 22:1 37:8

variations 36:2,7

varying 17:1

vessel 8:2,6,7,9

33:10 36:10,15

vessels 33:13

W

walls 34:1

want 6:10 30:14

34:22

warping 21:8 27:15

27:17,20 29:1

warrant 9:13 44:4

Washington 1:9

water 29:13 32:10

32:11,18 33:9,14

33:17 34:7,9,14

35:1,5,10,16,22

36:10,11,15,22

37:8,13,17,20

38:6,7,9,12,18

39:19 40:18

Watson 1:17 4:3,3

7:14,14 8:4 12:3

26:21 27:3,10,16

28:5,10,13 29:6

29:10 30:10 31:1

31:4 32:8 38:20

39:4,7,15 40:1

41:7,10,20 42:8

42:18 44:13 46:1

46:9 47:20 48:5

49:13

way 26:3 48:10

49:10

webinar 1:18 5:17

5:19 6:1

week 5:22

weighted 49:5

weights 45:8

welcome 2:3 3:4

Welcoming 6:4

went 6:15 23:2

27:21

we'll 6:18 12:6

48:19 49:4

we're 4:11 6:8 7:5

7:18 12:5 40:2

whittle 48:20

wide 36:1

wish 4:9

wishes 4:20

wondering 28:8

29:2 47:18

word 33:6

word-for 33:5

working 5:18 6:14

works 8:12

world 20:18

wouldn't 44:4,16

46:18 50:1

written 5:4 50:10

$

$10,000 46:19

$6,000 45:16 47:6

0

089 1:8

1

1.0 33:1

1000 1:8 35:5

1018 16:5,11 21:3

23:16

11:15 5:3 6:18

12 2:7

144 12:17

15 12:20

15th 6:22 50:12

194 34:10,14 35:11

35:20

1978 8:18 17:5

42:13

2

2 33:3

2.5 24:12

20 34:18 35:14

20-minute 35:6

2012 43:7,12,20

44:6

2013 1:6 3:7

24 29:15

3

3 2:4

4

4 1:6

4th 3:7

42 2:9

430 16:16,16 18:4

23:14 24:1

44 2:10

5

50 2:12

51 2:13

54 31:11 39:9

55 39:9

6

6 2:5

60350 40:17

60350-2 33:1

6061 13:15

7

7 2:6

8

8E 1:8

84 9:8

9

9:00 1:9

9:04 3:2

9:51 51:2

95 24:22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

59

Conventional Cooking Products

US DOE

03-04-13

Washington, DC