December 12, 2013 

Building Technologies Program 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Test Procedure Waiver 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Mailstop EE-2J 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

RE: Petition/or Waiver of Test Procedures in use currently (10 CFR §430, subpart B, 

appendix Al) and proposed/or September 15, 2014 (10 CFR §430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A) pursuant to 10 CFR. § 430.27(a)(l)/or Summit brand appliances as 

follows: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, SBC5900S, and SBC635M) 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers (Models ALBF44, ALBF68) 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 and HTL3) 

INTRODUCTION 

The Department of Energy ("DOE") provides a waiver process for refrigeration products 

when "the prescribed [10 CFR §430, Subpart B, Appendix Al currently and the proposed 10 

CFR §430, Subpart B, Appendix A] test procedures may evaluate [a product] .. . in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics . . . as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data." 10 C.F.R. §430.27. This petition seeks such a waiver for the 

above-referenced products. 

Felix Storch, Inc. ("FSI") is a small business engaged in importing, manufacturing, and 

distributing appliances to niche markets in the household, commercial, hospitality, institutional, 

and medical community, as well as distributing household co king and laundry appli ance . 

Located in the South Bronx, New York, FSI employs approximately 150 individuals engaged in 

manufacturing, material handling, trucking, engineering, marketing, sales, shipping I ri cal 

services, and customer service. FSI, under the Summit brand name imports refrige rati n 

products from a number of factories in Europe, Mexico and Asia, as well as manufactures a 

number of products in New York. A significant part of FSI' s business is value-added 

manufacturing conducted by FSI in its Bronx facility. Value-added manufacturing is the process 

of adding or modifying components or finishes of existing products in order to adapt these 

appliances for sale to special markets where few or no suitable products exist. The abovereferenced models are all either built or modified in our Bronx facility. 

DOE's test procedures are not appropriate for the above-referenced models because they 

fail to accurately reflect the actual energy consumption of the products during normal use. DOE 

II Page 
test procedures for residential refrig ration (both the procedures in effect currently and the 

proposed procedures for 2014) require testing products at an ambient temperature of 90°F. DOE 

selected that temperature (as opposed to a more normal 70°F ambient) to simulate the effects of 

door openings and closings; such actions are not performed during the testing. See 10 CFR 

§430.23(a)(l0) (The regulation explains, "[t]he intent of the energy test procedure is to simulate 

typical ro m conditions (approximately 70°F (21°C)) with door openings, by testing at 90°F 

(32.2°C) without door openings."). 1 However, the above-listed FSI products will be sold for 

uses where door openings and closings are highly infrequent.2 All these products will consume 

far less energy during actual use than is measured by the existing and proposed testing 

procedures. 

FSI seeks a waiver for the above-references products because: 

l) Test procedures do not provide a fai r and accurate representation of actual energy use; 

2) The market size for each of these products is quite small; 

3) The economic burden of complying with DOE standards in effect today, and the 

proposed standards for 2014, would place an undue economic burden on FSI; 

4) There is an easily substituted alternate test procedure for these models; 

5) Withdrawing these products from the marketplace would greatly limit consumer choice, 

adverse.ly impact small business and in some cases, result in compelling customers to 

tum to larger or less energy efficient products that increase overall energy consumption. 

For these reasons, FSI respectfully requests a waiver, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §430.27, of 

the test procedures for residential refrigerators provided in 10 CFR §430, Subpart B, Appendix 

A. 

1. Models for which a waiver is requested. 

This waiver request applies to the following models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, SBC5900S, and SBC635M) 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers (Models ALBF44, ALBF68) 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 and HTL3) 

All of these models are intended for uses distinct from the typical household use whereby 

the doors on these products are seldom opened and closed. 

1 See 10 CFR 10 CFR §430.23(a)(10) (identifying 70°F as being representative of typical room 

temperature). 

2 It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of compact appliances old today fall in Lo 

the categories of dormitory type or office type refrigerator-freezers. FSI could not find statistics 

on door openings for these products, but since these type of units would be shar d by multi1 le 

users, it is logical to assume their use would be similar to conventional refrigerat r as opposed 

to the special use models in this waiver petition. 

21Pagc 
2. Manufacturers of other basic models marketed in the United States are known by 

FSI to incorporate similar design characteristics. 

Manufacturers of other basic models marketed in the United States and known to FSI that 

incorporate similar design characteristics are included in Attachment A. 

3. Alternate test procedures are known to FSI to evaluate accurately evaluate energy 

consumption of the listed basic models. 

FSI has extensive data that demonstrates that a single change to the test procedure will 

result in measuring energy consumption in a manner far more representative of actual use. 

Testing the basic models listed in this petition at an ambient temperature of 70°F or 72°F, 

rather than 90°F will measure energy consumption in a manner significantly more representative 

of actual use than using the DOE prescribed test procedures, both under current standards and 

those proposed for implementation on September 15, 2014. 

BACKGROUND 

DOE acknowledges in 10 CFR §430.23(a)(l0) that "(t]he intent of the energy test 

procedure is to simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70°F (21°C)) with door 

openings, by testing at 90°F (32.2°C) without door openings." 

DOE uses 90°F as a surrogate for running tests at typical ambient temperature to simulate 

the impact of opening and closing refrigerator and freezer doors. This standard is incorporated 

into the AHAM test procedures used by DOE in both the current standards and the upcoming 

2014 standards. This temperature selection is at least 30 years old and is referenced in ANSIAHAM HRF-1 (1979). 3 

Several studies have attempted to validate this information. For example, one study 

showed that household refrigerators-freezers had a median of 48 fresh-food d or openings and 

10 freezer door openings per 24 hours. 4 A study based on lhis number of door openings 

concluded that 90°F overstated energy consumption by 8.3% to 15.9%.5 Sever,tJ other studie 

corroborate these results.6 For example, a study by the Florida Solar nergy enter measured 

3 American National Standard on Household Refrigerators and Household Freezers, 

ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-1979 at 51-52, available at: 

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/001/aham.HRF-1.1979.pdf. 

4 See Danny S. Parker & Ted C. Stedman, Measured Electricity Savings of Refrigerator 

Replacement: Ca ·e Study and Analysis Florida Solar Energy Center FSEC-PF-239-92 (1992) 

(citing Chang, Y.L., and R.A. Grot. 1979. Field performance of residential refrigerators and 

combination refi·igerator-jl·eezers. NB IR 79-1781). 

5 James Y. Kao & George E. Kelly, Factors Affecting the Energy Consumption of Two 

Refrigerator-Freezers, SA-96-7-1 at 9 available at: 

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/PD F /b96070. pdf. 6 See e.g., NIST Study (citing Alan Meier and Richard Jansky, Field Performance of Residential 

Refrigerators: A Comparison with the Laboratory Test, LBL-31795 UC 150 (May 1991) 

3ll'Ggc 
door openings and closings in two person households and found an average of 42 openings per 

day. 7 

A National Institute of Standards ("NIST") study, commissioned by DOE, also 

demonstrated that when testing is performed at 90°F, as little as a 2 degree difference in ambient 

temperature can result in a dramatic difference in measured energy consumption. 8 Alan Meier, 

an associate American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

("ASHRAE") member, conducted a more exhaustive study of this correlation and found that for 

two groups of refrigerators extensively monitored, actual energy use averaged 13% and 15% less 

than the results from the yellow Energy Guide (which is based on AHAM procedures).9 Mr. 

Meier reported that families typically open and close the doors of their refrigerators an average 

of 50 times daily. The study observed, "[r]elatively modest ambient temperature variations led 

to 50% changes in energy use." 

Another study by P.K. Bansal, also an ASHRAE member, states that, 

Elevated ambient temperatures used in most test procedures crudely simulate the heat 

loads from door openings .... This process fails to produce satisfactory results that 

could be representative of an in-situ real world refrigerator performance IO 

Even a 2010 study by the Energy Analysis Department of the Lawrence Berkeley 

Laboratory, CA, supported by DOE, stated, "[i]n many cases the test procedures do not reflect 

field usage[.]" II 

These studies provide olear evidence tbal when refrigerator doors are opened infrequently, 

t11e AHAM procedures using 90°F as the ambient temperature will v rstate energy c n umption. 

available at: http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6142295; Meier, A., et al. 1993; The New 

York refrigerator monitoring project: final report. Report No. LBL-33708. Berkeley, California: 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; KEMA-XENERGY, Inc., Final report measurement and 

evaluation study of 2002 statewide residential appliance recycling program, 8-1 - 8- 8 (2004 ); 

Wong, M.T., W.R. Jones, B.T. Howell, and D.L. Long. 1995. Energy consumption testing of 

innovative refrigerator-freezer. ASHRAE Transactions 101(2).) 

7 Danny S. Parker & Ted C. Stedman, Measured Electricity Savings of Refrigerator 

Replacement: Case Study and Analysis, Florida Solar Energy Center FSEC-PF-239-92 (1992). 

8 David A. Yashar, Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for Compact 

Refrigerators, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration National Institute of 

Standards and Technology at 7-8, 14 (September 2002), available at: 

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/buildOO/PD F /b0005 5. pdf. 

9 Alan K. Meier, Field performance of residential refrigerators, ASHRAE Journal 36-40 

(August 1999). 

10 P.K. Bansal, Studies on algorithm development for energy performance testing: study 2 -

study of algorithms for domestic refrigeration appliances, APEC#201-RE-Ol.1 l at 19 (2001). 

11 Jim Lutz, et al. How to make appliance standards work: improving the energy and water 

efficiency test procedures, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technology, State 

and Community Programs, of the U.S. Department of Energy, LBNL#4961 Eat 1 (2010). 

41 p ;1 g (' 
Most of these studies were done on typical household refrigerator-freezers. FSI found no 

comparable data for compact refrigerators or, more specifically, on any of the type of products 

for which a waiver is sought in this petition. Indeed, DOE's own Technical Support Document, 

acknowledged that: 

"DOE found no data on the typical field energy consumption of compact 

refrigeration products. It therefore assumed that the average field energy use of 

compact refrigerators and freezers of a given size the same as the maximum 

energy use allowed by the DOE standard as measured in the DOE test procedure. 

In effect, DOE assumed that variation in the field energy use of compact 

appliances is a function solely of volume." 12 

The approximation ignores the significantly important variable of the number of door 

openings and closings which greatly differs between a full size refrigerator used by a family and 

a specialty compact refrigerator used in a secondary application. 

FSI performed tests on four representative models of refrigerators and beer dispensers., 

running tests at average 72°F (room) temperature and at 90°F. For one set of tests FSI opened 

and closed the doors of each unit six times per test, which exceeds the frequency of typical door 

openings and closings for these models. The second set of tests was conducted with doors 

remaining closed throughout the test. These tests consistently showed that all units at average 

72°F (room temperature) used over 40% less energy than when run at 90°F. The tests with doors 

closed had a weighted average of 48% lower energy consumption than at 90°F, and tests with 

door openings had a weighted average of 46% lower energy consumption. Door openings 

consistent with actual use, or tests without door openings, did not change the overall results or 

the conclusions. 

12 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program 

for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers at 7-38 (Nov. 2009), 

available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance _ standards/residential/pdfs/ref _ frz _prenopr _pre 

lim_tsd.pdf. 

5IPage 
A summary of this data is presented in the following tables. 

Table 1 

Tests with appropriate door openings and closings 

Type No. tests Energy use at Energy use at ambient Percent 

90°F With doors decrease 

opened/ closed 

Beer Dispenser 2 1.16 kWh/day 0.68 kWh/day 41% 

Hotel Refrigerator 4 1.04 kWh/day 0.59 kWh/day 43% 

Assisted Living Unit 1 3 0.91 kWh/day 0.51 kWh/day 44% 

Assisted Living Unit 2 6 1.10 kWh/day 0.55 kWh/day 50% 

Table 2 

Tests with doors closed 

Type No. Energy use at 90°F Energy use at ambient Percent 

tests kWh/day (no door openings) decrease 

Beer Dispenser 6 1.16 kWh/day 0.65 kWh/day 44% 

Hotel Refrigerator 5 1.04 kWh/day 0.55 kWh/day 47% 

Assisted Living Unit 1 6 0.91 kWh/day 0.49 kWh/day 46% 

Assisted Living Unit 2 8 1.10 kWh/day 0.52 kWh/day 53% 

DISCUSSION OF DOOR OPENINGS AND CLOSINGS FOR THE MODELS IN THIS 

WAIVER PETITION 

The units in this waiver application do not conform to the same usage as typical 

household full-size refrigerators: the doors on all of these basic units are opened and closed 

significantly less frequently than typical household refrigeration equipment. The units in this 

waiver petition also differ from the majority of compact refrigerator-freezers sold for dormitory 

or office use, which are typically shared by a number of users. 

1. Keg Beer Coolers [Models SBC590, SBC5900S, and SBC635M] 

Beer coolers, by their nature, have their doors opened and closed only when a keg needs 

to be changed. Depending on usage, this may be once weekly, once monthly, or even less 

frequently. Beer in kegs is always provided in a chilled state, so in essence the beer cooler is not 

working to bring contents to the design temperature, but is only maintaining steady state 

conditions. The products in this waiver petition do not have shelves and are designed to store 

beer kegs only. Furthermore, use and care guides normally advise to turn off the electricity to the 

beer cooler while changing the keg, for both safety and energy conservation. 

61Puge 
2. Assisted Living Refrigerators [Models ALBF44, ALBF68] 

Refrigerators whose primary market is assisted living centers generally do not serve as a 

primary refrigerator. 13 These centers typically provide residents with three full meals a day, 

along with snacks during morning, afternoon, and evening activities. As such, these units serve 

as secondary storage that is opened and closed less frequently than primary household 

refrigerators. A limited survey of residents in two of these facilities done by FSI employees 

showed that fresh food doors were opened an average of 4 times daily, and freezer doors less 

than once. The refrigerators sold by FSI that are used in these assisted living studio apartments 

also differ from typical household or dormitory type refrigerators in design. They are usually 

frost free or partial automatic defrost for the convenience of an elderly population (compared to 

typical "dormitory" refrigerators that are usually manual defrost). Moreover, they are usually 

only 4 to 6 cubic feet compared to the 15 to 25 cubic feet typically found in homes or apartments. 

3. Ultra-Compact Hotel Refrigerators [Models HTL2 and HTL3] 

FSI's proprietary ultra-compact refrigerators (with compressors) for hotel rooms are 

planned for introduction in early 2014 and are designed for guest convenience. 14 These 

refrigerators are priced at a premium, very compact, and normally would be marketed only to 

upscale hotels. FSI estimates that guests will open and close the door to these units infrequently, 

if at all, since hotel rooms are generally occupied primarily during sleeping hours and meals are 

ordinarily eaten outside the room, or delivered by room service. 15 In addition, these units will not 

be in use when the hotel rooms are vacant. 

As demonstrated above, testing the basic models in this waiver petition under the cmT nt and 

proposed test procedures would produce results that are ' unrepresentaLiv of its true energy 

consumption characteristics . .. as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data." 10 C.F.R. 

§430.27. 

13 Assisted living facilities generally include meals as a standard feature. See e.g. Sunrise Senior 

Living, Assisted Living available at: http://www.sunriseseniorliving.com/care-andservices/assisted-living.aspx ("While services and amenities may very by location, Sunrise 

assisted senior living communities generally provide ... [t]hree delicious, well-balanced meals 

served daily[.]"); Friendship Assisted Living, Amenities available at: 

http://friendship.us/assisted-living/amenities-2/ ("Restaurant-style dining is available for three 

meals everyday[.]"); HelpGuide.org, Assisted Living Facilities, available at: 

http://www.helpguide.org/elder/assisted living facilities.htm (showing that assisted living 

facilities typically provide three meals a day). 14 Full size refrigerators used in hotel suites with kitchenettes or extended stay hotels are not part 

of the waiver application. 15 See American Hotel & Lodging Association, Eco-Friendly Case Studies, available at: 

http://www.ahla.com/Green.aspx?id=21756 (The Radisson Hotel Cleveland decided to unplug 

hotel room mini-refrigerators because "a majority of hotel guests did not use them during their 

stay."). 

71Pagc: 
Based on the information presented, FSI proposes the following modifications be made to 

the DOE test procedures for the models named in this petition: 

1. Beer dispensers (Models SBC590, SBC5900S and SBC635M); be tested at an ambient 

temperature of 70°F (per DOE's estimate of approximately 70° F as typical roomtemperature) with the doors closed; 

2. Hotel and assisting living refrigerators (Models ALBF44, ALBF68, ALBF68, 1 ITL2 and 

HTL3) be tested at 72°F to account for the very small number of daily door openings 

(where 2°F is 10% of the difference between 70°F and 90°F and door openings of these 

products groups are no more than 10% of the typical household refrigerators); 

3. The units be tested for 24 continuous hours after stabilization to account for any timers 

used in the assisted living and hotel refrigerators; and 

4. All other test procedures are conducted in accordance with AHAM and DOE test 

procedures for residential refrigerators. 

ADDITIONAL REASONS IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING THIS WAIVER 

FSI targets niche markets with many models, including those referenced herein, where 

the overall sales volume is too limited to appeal to manufacturers driven by mass production and 

economies of scale. In some cases, not allowing products that address certain size or use needs to 

market will have the unintended consequences of substantially reducing consumer choice and 

driving energy consumption up through a switch to larger models. 

For example, in the case of the assisted living markets, withdrawing specialty products 

from this small, niche market may force facilities to purchase larger refrigerators than necessary, 

increasing overall energy usage. The convenience and accessibility of these compact products is 

often more appropriate for assisted living residents. If suitably sized products are not available, 

facilities might be forced to remodel a kitchenette when a refrigerator needs replacing. 

In the case of the hotel industry, hotels (excluding extended stay hotels or suite type 

hotels) often use refrigerators that are driven by an absorption cooling system or by a 

thermoelectric cooling system (also called heat pipe systems). These cooling systems use 

significantly more energy than compTessor systems, but are chosen by hotels for their low noise 

levels. It is important to note that these basic units may not be covered products for DOE 

because their design does not always allow them to reach the 39°F threshold and, therefore, may 

not be considered a refrigerator per the statutory definition. [See 10 C.F. . §430.2 (defining an 

electric refrigera or as "a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of food designed to be 

capable of achieving storage temperatures above 32°F (0°C) and below 39°F (3 .9° ) and having 

a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only.")]. 

Consequently, by excluding FSI compressor models from competing in this market, hotels will 

use models with absorption or thermoelectric systems which use substantially more energy than 

the excluded products. 

8ll'age 
ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESS IN 

GENERAL AND FSI IN PARTICULAR 

Failure to grant these basic models waivers from test procedures would have severe 

economic consequences for FSI. 

Very large, multi-national corporations dominate the appliance market, led by Whirlpool 

and General Electric, whose sales are in the billions of dollars. Foreign companies with appliance 

sales in the billions of dollars and with a large U.S. presence include Electrolux (Frigidaire), LG, 

Samsung, Daiwoo, Bosch, Liebherr, Miele, AGA-Marvel, Bertazoni, Smeg, Haier, and Midea. 

FSI cannot compete with these companies' mass markets, with huge economies of scale on 

production, and distribution and insignificant compliance testing costs. FSI predominantly 

markets specialty appliances that respond to niche market demands and customer choice. 

In response to DOE 2014 test procedures, FSI is working very hard to modify the vast 

majority of its residential refrigerat0r and freezer product line to comply with the new 

procedures. But in a number of niche markets with very small sales, the feasibility and costs of 

compliance are highly disproportionate for FSI to make a business case and will not result in 

energy savings. This results in an undue burden on FSI, for which these niche products form the 

nucleus of FSI's manufacturing operations and are the driver of job creation in disadvantaged 

economic development areas. Unlike the large companies mentioned above who can spread the 

cost of meeting current DOE and upcoming DOE 2014 standards and, in particular, test 

procedures over a base of millions, hundreds of thousands, or tens of thousands of units, a small 

business like FSI does not have this option. 

DOE has acknowledged the difficulties faced by both small manufacturers and the 

compact refrigeration industry dealing with standards. FSI falls into both categories and 90% of 

FSI's refrigeration business is restricted to compact classes. DOE reports that compact 

appliances only account for 2.5% of total energy consumed by all refrigeration products. 16 FSI's 

assumption is that at least 75% of that small number is consumed by college dormitory/office 

type products, meaning that less than 1 % of total refrigeration energy use is consumed by 

"specialty" compact appliances, such as those listed in this petition. FSI's market share even in 

these small niche markets is quite limited. The appliances in this waiver application are a 

negligible part of that tiny subset and any energy consumption impacts from this waiver are 

highly de minimis at most. DOE recognizes the limited options available to compact appliance 

manufacturers, "[b ]ecause of small froduction volumes, the impact of new standards on these 

manufacturers is relatively severe."1 This is especially true ahead of DOE 2014 requirements, 

which mandate a 20% reduction of usage and few affordable alternatives for reducing energy 

consumption in niche appliances that meet consumer demand. 

16 See Federal Register Vol. 62 No. 81, Page 23111, April 28, 1997. 

17 Id 

91Pagc 
CONCLUSIONS 

The waiver process clearly is intended for situations where test procedures do not provide an 

accurate representation of actual energy consumption. FSI has demonstrated that the test 

procedures specified by DOE do not provide representative measure of the basic models in this 

waiver application, whose doors are opened and closed significantly less than typical household 

use. 

FSI has demonstrated that: 

• The use of 90°F is designed to simulate an average of 40 to 50 door openings per day and, 

even at that level, may overstate energy usage; 

• The models listed in this waiver application have their doors opened and closed 

infrequently, and certainly significantly less than the simulation average; 

• An alternate test procedure is readily available consisting of testing the products at 70°F 

or 72°F, over a 24 hour period, and holding all other test procedures in accordance with 

AHAM Procedures and 10 CFR §430, Subpart B, Appendix A and Appendix Al. 

• Failure to grant this waiver will cause severe economic hardship to FSI, a small business, 

and likely will cause switch to higher energy consuming replacement products. 

FSI respectfully requests DOE waive the test procedures for the products listed in the petition as 

these "test procedures may evaluate [these product] ... in a manner so unrepresentative of [their] 

true energy consumption characteristics ... as to provide materially inaccurate comparative 

data." 10 C.F.R. §430.27. All of these basic units have materially different uses than the 

average products subject to the test procedures. The proposed alternative procedures will 

provide an accurate representation of actual energy use. For these reasons, FSI respectfully 

requests that DOE substitute our proposed test procedures and waive the test procedures at 10 

CFR §430, Subpart B, Appendix A for FSI's beer coolers, assisted living refrigerator-freezers 

and hotel refrigerators. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/'JA 

Paul Storch, President 

Summit Appliance Div. Felix Storch, Inc. 

770 Garrison Ave. Bronx, NY 10474 USA 

PH. 718-893-3900 

FAX: 718-842-3093 

IOI Page 
ATTACHMENT A 

Companies with Products Similar to FSI 

Automatic defrost or frost free beer Refrigerators designed 4 to 6 c.f. frost-free 

coolers (excluding beer coolers that specifically for hotels refrigerators 

convert into refrigerators) 

Nostalgia Products Group LLC Minibar North America Avanti Products 

1471 Partnership Dr 7340 Westmore Road 10880 NW 30th Street 

Green Bay, WI 54304-5685 Rockville, MD 20850 Miami, FL 33172 

Sears Dometic Corporation Absocold Corporation. 

5333 Beverly Road 13128 State Rt 226 1122 NW T Street 

Hoffman Estates, IL 60192 Big Prairie, OH 44611 Richmond, IN 47374 

A van ti Products 

10880 NW 30th Street 

Miami, FL 3 3172 

Fisher & Paykel Appliance USA 

Holdings Inc. 

5900 Skylab Rd 

Huntington Beach, CA, 9264 7 USA 

I I I I' ;1 i2 c