Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 1

APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Department of Energy Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:02 a.m.

R eported by: Natalia Thomas Capital Reporting CompanyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 FA CILITATOR 3 Ne il Eisner 4 5 PA RTICIPANTS 6 Ka rim Amrane, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 7 In stitute 8 Ti mothy Ballo, Earthjustice 9 La ura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy 10 Je ff Bauman, National Refrigeration & Air-Conditioning 11 Al ex Boesenberg, National Electrical Manufacturers 12 As sociation 13 Br ice Bowley, GE Appliances 14 Ma ry Dane, Traulsen 15 Pa ul Doppel, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc 16 Ma rk Fly, AAON Inc. 17 Ge offrey Halley, SJI Consultants, Inc. 18 Pa ntelis Hatzikazakis, Lennox International, Inc. 19 Ch arles Hon, True Manufacturing 20 Ji ll Hootman, Trane 21 Ma rshall Hunt, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 22 To m Johnson, Daikin McQuayCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONT'D) 2 Mi chael Kojak, Underwriters Laboratories LLC 3 Pa ul Lin, Regal-Beloit Corporation 4 Jo hn Mandyck, UTC Climate, Controls & Security 5 Ka ren Meyers, Rheem Manufacturing Co. 6 Pe ter Molvie, Cleaver-Brooks Product Development 7 Ke nt Peterson, P2S Engineering, Inc. 8 Ne il Rolph, Lochinvar, LLC 9 Jo hn Sabelli, Consulting Engineer 10 Ha rvey Sachs, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 11 Ec onomy 12 Ro nald Shebik, Hussmann Corporation 13 Ju dd Smith, CSA Group 14 Lo uis Starr, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 15 Ph illip Stephens, HTP, Inc. 16 Ru ssell Tharp, Goodman Manufacturing 17 Er ic Truskoski, Bradford White Corp. 18 Co llin Weber, Navigant Consulting, Inc. 19 Jo hn Cymbalsky, ASRAC 20 As hley Armstrong, Department of Energy 21 Mi ke Rivest, Navigant Consulting 22 Da n Cohen, Department of EnergyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 4 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONT'D) 2 Ro bert Whitewall, UTC TSNS 3 Fr ank Myers, PVI Industries 4 Ma rk Klein, Ion 5 Ma rk Menser, Intertect 6 Bi ll Dean, Boss Thermal Technology 7 Ha rris Merantan, Navigant Consulting 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm John Cymbalsky, the DFO 3 fo r ASRAC. So, I want to welcome you all. We're going 4 to wait a couple more minutes. I think we're waiting 5 on a few more members to show. 6 MALE SPEAKER: What's a DFO? 7 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I'm the guy who gets all 8 th e, you know, I'm the downhill guy, right. No. 9 De signated Federal Officer. 10 MALE SPEAKER: Thank you. 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, nobody told me what that 12 ac tually means legally, but that's what I am. But 13 an yway, a few more minutes. Just a couple of things. 14 If everyone could just switch their microphones so that 15 th e green light isn't showing and get used to turning 16 th em on and off when you speak. Hit it once, the green 17 li ght will come on. When you're done speaking, the 18 gr een light will go off. It helps with the feedback 19 fo r the webinar. 20 Okay, so I think we have critical mass now 21 fr om our group and so once again, welcome to the 22 wo rking group for certifying commercial, certain typesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 6 1 of commercial equipment. Hopefully, this will -- this 2 pr ocess will prove to be very productive for all of us, 3 an d again, the Department's goal here is to get to a 4 co nclusion that we could all be somewhat comfortable 5 wi th, if not happy. 6 I'm just going to go over a few ground rules 7 in the room and in the building, and then after I 8 sp eak, we're going to turn it over to John Mandyck, 9 wh o's on the phone, who's going to give a brief welcome 10 fr om the main ASRAC committee. 11 So anyway, most of you are probably familiar 12 wi th the building, but we have outside restrooms on all 13 fo ur corners of this building, so it's just a big 14 sq uare. You have one on either end here, but if you 15 wa lk down those other corridors, you could find two 16 mo re restrooms on each side. When we take a break for 17 lu nch or we take a coffee break, elevators outside to 18 th e right go down to the ground floor; there's a Dunkin 19 Do nuts to your left and the bigger cafeteria for lunch, 20 lo nger walk to the right and up an escalator or two. 21 We prefer you not to leave the building just because of 22 th e security process here; it's sometimes a little moreCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 7 1 st renuous then we would like when we're on a tight 2 sc hedule, so we could all walk as a group down to the 3 ca feteria at that point. 4 Ground rules for when you speak. Again, we 5 we nt over the microphone, but each time you speak, 6 pl ease give your name and affiliation so that the court 7 re porter knows who said what. We are taking a 8 tr anscript of this meeting and it will be made public a 9 we ek or two after. Let's see, any other issues? We'll 10 go around and introductions in a little bit, but for 11 no w, let me pass it over to John Mandyck and he can 12 gi ve you a brief welcome. John. 13 MR. MANDYCK: Good morning. 14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Are you on the space shuttle? 15 MR. MANDYCK: No, I'm on a regular phone. 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: We're getting some bad 17 fe edback. Are you on a speaker phone? 18 MR. MANDYCK: I'm hearing feedback as well. 19 MR. SACHS: What happens if you turn off your 20 mi ke? 21 MR. CYMBALSKY: I've got it all the way down. 22 MR. MANDYCK: Are you still there?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 8 1 MR. CYMBALSKY: I don't even know how to turn 2 th is one off. Yeah, there's nothing I can do. Can you 3 tr y again, John? 4 MR. MANDYCK: How's that? Is that better? 5 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's much better. Thank 6 yo u. 7 Okay, well, good morning. Thank you, John, 8 an d good morning to everybody. I apologize that I 9 ca n't be there, but I wanted to welcome the group on 10 be half of the large ASRAC committee and on behalf of 11 my self and Kent Peterson. We are the two ASRAC members 12 de signated for this working group. We're very pleased 13 th at this group has assembled. We have tremendous 14 ex pertise in the field at hand and the issues that we 15 ha ve to resolve, and we hope that everybody comes with 16 a constructive hat on, with an eye towards problem 17 so lving, and examining all the issues that we have to 18 fa ce, and there are several. 19 This is the very first working group of the 20 AS RAC, and I think that speaks to the importance of the 21 is sue at hand, and the critical nature of the issues 22 th at we have to revolve in a very short period of time.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 9 1 So , we look forward to everybody's constructive 2 pa rticipation. I can come back later and describe how 3 th e ASRAC has approach the issue of quorum and 4 co nsensus when that times appropriate on the agenda, 5 bu t for now, I'll just turn it back over to John and 6 ag ain say thank you for your participation. 7 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, thank you, John, and at 8 th is time, we're going to have a bit of an ethics 9 di scussion from a representative from general counsel. 10 MS. HYMER: Good morning. My name's Tina 11 Hy mer. I'm with the general counsel's office and I was 12 as ked to give you all an ethics briefing and just talk 13 ab out some of the highlights of the Federal Advisory 14 Co mmittee Act and how it's going to apply to you and 15 th e subcommittee. 16 First off, I want to let you all know that 17 no ne of you here are actually special government 18 em ployees, which, and I'll tell you what the 19 si gnificance of that is, and you're all probably going 20 to breathe a sigh of relief when I tell you this, but 21 sp ecial government employees are appointed to some 22 fe deral advisory committees to provide their expertCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 10 1 un biased opinion and as a result, we apply the federal 2 co nflict of interest rules to them in carrying out 3 th eir duties as a committee member. The ethics 4 re strictions are criminal, and they are in regulation, 5 so they are fairly strict about what they can and can't 6 do , and they have to fill out financial disclosure 7 re ports. None of you have to do that. 8 But I'm here because the federal -- what 9 fe deral advisory committees do is open to -- it is -- 10 we are very open. We let the public in. We let them 11 se e drafts. We let them see what time committees are 12 do ing and in some cases, the subcommittees, and what 13 we 're trying to do is basically protect the integrity 14 of the committee's work, and the work that you all are 15 do ing for us quite frankly, for free, and so with that 16 we do have some policies that we apply to other members 17 wh o are serving on federal advisory committees who are 18 no t special government employees, and that's what I'm 19 he re to share with you today. I probably won't take the 20 fu ll 15 minutes, but I would welcome any questions. 21 Pl ease feel free just to chime in while I'm going 22 al ong.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 11 1 So, one of the things that we ask all of our 2 co mmittee members to refrain from doing is 3 pa rticipating in any particular matter that is going to 4 ha ve an effect on that specifically involves your 5 co mpany that you work for, so you are all here 6 re presenting viewpoints of companies, similar 7 vi ewpoints of companies of where your employers might 8 be engaged in. 9 For example, maybe appliance companies, but 10 yo u're not here to specifically represent your 11 co mpany's interest and nor do we want you to. 12 Ac tually, if there's anything -- and this is probably 13 so far down the weeds that it might not even come up, 14 bu t if there's something specifically involving your 15 co mpany that is put before you, we don't want you to 16 pa rticipate in that. So, if something like that should 17 co me up, please contact John and John will be in touch 18 wi th either Dan or somebody in our office and we'll 19 wo rk out how you can go forward in participating, but 20 th at's not to that if just because your employer might 21 ha ve an interest in obviously what's going on here, or 22 el se we wouldn't have you here at the table, that youCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 12 1 ca n't participate. We just don't want you to 2 pa rticipate in something very specific where your 3 em ployer is actually a party. It might be a contract 4 or a grant, and I think that's going to be probably so 5 fa r down in the weeds that that's not going to happen 6 he re, but if it does, I just want to make sure that I 7 me ntion that. 8 Also too, you are going to have access to 9 ve ry high level officials here at the Department. I 10 un derstand some of you might have other business that 11 is going to be done with these employees at DOE. We 12 as k that you use your time here to conduct committee 13 bu siness. If you have something else with the 14 De partment, please schedule some time aside from the 15 co mmittee's meetings to carry out that business, and 16 no t use the committee's time because quite frankly, we 17 ju st don't have you here long enough and we want to 18 ma ke sure that we get all the good information that you 19 ha ve to provide during that time. 20 The other thing that I want to mention, too, 21 is that this is subcommittee to a much larger 22 co mmittee, and so the work that you are going to doCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 13 1 he re is to, is ultimately going to go through the full 2 co mmittee. I want to make sure that this wasn't an 3 op en -- is going to go through the full committee, and 4 so with that, your advice, while you're providing it, 5 sh ould not just go directly to DOE. There are 6 ob viously DOE people in this room that are providing 7 st aff support; they are going to be providing 8 in formation for you and briefings. However, when your 9

-- when you draft a report and it's going to be in 10 dr aft format, because the full committee has to vote on 11 th at before it comes to the Department, what we don't 12 wa nt is we don't want you to be taking that draft 13 re port and giving it directly to DOE, so basically, a 14 pr eview of the advice that's going to come out at this 15 su bcommittee. 16 We will be here, like I said; there's going 17 to be staff here. They're going to know what's going 18 on , but we just don't want whatever ultimately your 19 dr aft report is going to say should not come to the 20 De partment. It has to go through the full committee, so 21 th at is just something to keep in mind as part of -- 22 an d that's part of the federal advisory committee.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 14 1 Th at's part of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 2 th at's what allows you all to after you leave today to 3 ac tually have discussions that, you know, either via 4 te leconference or video conference, without having to 5 an nounce in the public because ultimately everything is 6 go ing to be deliberated at an open and full public 7 me eting. 8 Is there -- does anybody have any questions 9 at this time about just our ethics policies, the 10 Fe deral Advisory Committee Act? No? Okay. Well, 11 th at's all I have for you all. If you have any 12 qu estions though, I would suggest that you touch base 13 wi th John and he will get in touch with our office, or 14 Da n, and we're happy to help and provide whatever 15 as sistance that you all need. Thanks so much. 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, looks like we have a 17 ve ry ethical group here. Nobody had a question, so 18 th ey know the ground rules. So at this time, we're 19 go ing to go around and give introductions. Just to let 20 yo u know, we have 43 participants on the webinar, so 21 pr etty big group today. 22 So, as I said before, I'm John Cymbalsky.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 15 1 I' m the DFO for ASRAC, but on my day job, I also manage 2 th e appliance standards and building codes programs 3 he re at DOE, and I'll turn it over to Neil to introduce 4 hi mself, and we'll go around the table first and then 5 I' d ask everyone to speak clearly and into the 6 mi crophone. Please give your name, your company 7 af filiation and maybe a brief couple of words about 8 wh at products, if you're a manufacturer, what product 9 li nes and that kind of thing as we go along. 10 Neil? 11 MR. EISNER: Thank you, John. My name is 12 Ne il Eisner. I'm going to be the facilitator for these 13 di scussions. My job is to make sure all of you agree 14 by helping you. I'm going to go into more detail later 15 on on what that's going to involve, and Dan will give 16 yo u a little more background about me when he 17 in troduces me for that purpose. 18 MR. BAUMAN: Hi. Jeff Bauman, from National 19 Re frigeration & Air-Conditioning. We're a small-to20 me dium size manufacturer of commercial refrigeration 21 an d HVAC equipment, located in Pennsylvania. 22 MS. MEYERS: Good morning. Karen Meyers,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 16 1 Rh eem Manufacturing Company. We manufacture 2 re sidential and commercial HVAC products, water heating 3 pr oducts, boilers, and pool heaters. 4 MR. MOLVIE: Good morning. I'm Pete Molvie 5 wi th Cleaver-Brooks. We're a boiler manufacturer, 6 ma nufacturing boilers ten horsepower to 500 horsepower 7 wh ich would be comparable to these standards. 8 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. I'm an attorney with 9 Ea rthjustice, and the only thing I manufacture is 10 do cuments. 11 MR. AMRANE: I'm Karim Amrane. I'm with the 12 Ai r-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, 13 HO I Trade Association representing manufacturers of air 14 co nditioners, heating products, as well as 15 re frigeration products. 16 MR. SMITH: Hello. Judd Smith from CSA Group 17 in Cleveland, Ohio. We are a test lab. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Hello, I'm Jill Hootman from 19 Tr ane, Russel Ran. We're a manufacturer of commercial 20 an d residential HVAC products. 21 MR. HON: I'm Charlie Hon with True 22 Ma nufacturing. We manufacture commercialCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 17 1 re frigeration, usually self-contained. 2 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: My name is Pantelis 3 Ha tzikazakis from Lennox. I'm the director of 4 en gineering for commercial equipment from 2 tons to 50 5 to ns. 6 MR. SHEBIK: Hi, Ron Shebik with Hussmann 7 Co rporation. We manufacturer commercial refrigeration 8 pr oducts. 9 MR. KOJAK: Michael Kojack with Underwriters 10 La boratories located in Plano, Texas, where we're a 11 th ird-party test lab for HVAC and refrigeration 12 pr oducts. 13 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi 14 El ectric and we manufacture ductless split systems and 15 al so variable refrigerant flow work VRF commercial 16 sy stems. 17 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman 18 Ma nufacturing. We're a small player in the commercial 19 he ating and air conditioning market. 20 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, I'm with Traulsen out 21 of Fort Worth, and we make commercial refrigeration 22 eq uipment.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 18 1 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American Council 2 fo r an Energy-Efficient Economy. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Laura Barhydt. I'm the DOE rep 4 on the working group and I also am Assistant General 5 Co unsel for Enforcement. 6 MR. FOLPH: Neil Rolph with Lochinvar. 7 Lo chinvar is a wholly owned subsidiary of AL Smith 8 ma nufacturing residential, commercial water heaters, 9 bo ilers, swimming pool heaters, storage tanks. 10 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, Mass Process 11 En gineering HTP. We participate in commercial and 12 re sidential boilers. Commercial and residential water 13 he aters, solar thermal systems. 14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Dan? No. No. We'll just go 15 ar ound the rest of the room. Did we get everyone? 16 Pl ease, everybody in the room. 17 MR. JOHNSON: Hi, I don't think this is 18 wo rking. 19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yep, it's on. 20 MR. JOHNSON: Hi, my name is Tom Johnson. 21 I' m with Daikin McQuay. McQuay is heavily vested into 22 th e larger applied commercial business in the HVACCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 19 1 in dustry. 2 MR. MYERS: Frank Myers, PVI Industries. 3 We 're manufacturers of very large one off custom built 4 wa ter heaters and boilers, storage tanks. 5 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. 6 MR. KLEIN: Mark Klein with Ion, we sell 7 co mmercial HVAC package. 8 MR. MENSER: Mark Menser, Intertect. We do 9 pe rformance and safety testing on this equipment of 10 in terest. 11 MR. SABELLI: John Sabelli, formally of 12 In tertect, now Sabelli Engineering Consultants. 13 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, Electrical 14 Ma nufacturers Association. 15 MR. LIN: Paul Lin of Regal-Beloit 16 Co rporation, manufacturer of electric motors. 17 MR. DEAN: Bill Dean, director of engineering 18 fo r Boss Thermal Technology. Rusty, it's been 20 19 ye ars, buddy. 20 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 21 Co nsulting. 22 MR. MERANTAN: Harris Merantan, NavigantCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 20 1 Co nsulting. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, DOE. 3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, I'm just going to 4 in troduce those on the phone who are part of the 5 co mmittee who could not be here in person, but are 6 vo ting members of this working group. So, we have Kent 7 Pe terson, who is also on the parent ASRAC committee. 8 He 's with P2S Engineering Incorporated. We have Eric 9 Tr uskoski from Bradford White Corporation. Louis Starr 10 fr om the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Brice 11 Bo wley from GE. Geoffrey Halley from SJI Consultants. 12 Jo hn Mandyck, who has already spoken this morning, from 13 UT C, and Marshall Hunt from Pacific Gas and Electric 14 Co mpany, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to 15 Da n for a few more words. 16 MR. COHEN: I'm Dan Cohen of the general 17 co unsel's office here at DOE. So, I want to introduce 18 Ne il Eisner, who is the facilitator for this session of 19 tr ying to negotiate this issue but I want to talk first 20 ab out what the facilitator does and who he is and then 21 ta lk about Neil in particular. 22 So, the facilitator's job basically is toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 21 1 ke ep the conversation moving, right, to make sure that 2 no one is talking over each other, and just have 3 ge neral decorum; that way the conversation functions. 4 An d that's pretty straight forward in any public 5 me eting that you've all been to here; right? We have 6 so meone just kind of running the process. But the 7 ot her thing the facilitator does in a negotiated 8 ru lemaking, which is just more subtle and in many ways 9 mo re important, is to try to facilitate consensus. And 10 th at's what we're ultimately about here, is trying to 11 ge t to an agreement. But the facilitator is someone 12 wh o has no role in the process other than trying to 13 re ach consensus. He has no background in the issues at 14 al l. 15 In fact, when I talk about Neil and introduce 16 hi s background, you'll see he has not the slightest 17 kn owledge of anything having to do with HVAC or 18 co mmercial refrigeration equipment and that's in fact 19 im portant, right, because he comes in with no 20 pr econceived notions, no thoughts about who's right or 21 wh o's wrong or anything, but he can listen. He can 22 he ar. He's a smart guy, and he can try to help makeCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 22 1 su ggestions about, you know, maybe what about this, 2 wh at about that, without having a stake in what the 3 ou tcome is and that's the key part of that job, right, 4 is to try to make people sort of think through issues 5 in ways that maybe they hadn't, or so see issues 6 wi thout any end, other than the process. 7 So, that leads to Neil. Neil just 8 un fortunately for the rest of us in the federal 9 go vernment, Neil just retired after, I don't want to 10 sa y how many years, but a lot of years in the federal 11 go vernment. He was the Assistant General Counsel for 12 Re gulation and Enforcement at the Transportation 13 De partment, so he was responsible for planes and trains 14 an d automobiles. Obviously not appliances; right? 15 So -- and but -- that's understating Neil's 16 ro le. Neil was in many ways sort of the dean of 17 ad ministrative lawyers in the federal government; 18 ri ght. Every one of us who does administrative law in 19 th e government went to Neil with questions about 20 ad ministrative law, and he really did sort of lead the 21 th ought process of administrative lawyers in the 22 go vernment. So almost all of us have had someCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 23 1 re lationship with Neil over time, and Neil in part has 2 he lped with processes like this at other agencies and 3 in the Transportation Department. How many negotiative 4 ru lemakings have you worked on as the DOT person? 5 MR. EISNER: Ten or fifteen. 6 MR. COHEN: So, ten or fifteen negotiative 7 ru lemaking, where he was actually DOT representative, 8 no t as the facilitator. 9 MR. EISNER: Not as the representative. I 10 wa s involved in one way or the other. 11 MR. COHEN: But not as a facilitator. This 12 is the first time he's doing this as the facilitator, 13 bu t he has a lot of experience, obviously, in this 14 pr ocess, which does lead to one issue that I just want 15 to raise so that people are aware of: the DOE rep on 16 th is committee is Laura Barhydt, as you know. Laura 17 ha s been at the Department of Energy for four years 18 no w, but prior to the Department of Energy, Laura 19 ac tually worked at the Transportation Department as an 20 at torney in one of the operating modes, the pipeline 21 an d hazardous safety materials administration. 22 Neil worked in the general counsel's officeCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 24 1 fo r the Department of Transportation, but they both 2 wo rked as lawyers at the Transportation Department so, 3 ju st so you know, they did during the course of their 4 ti me, have interactions as lawyers at the 5 Tr ansportation Department, but since then have had no 6 pr ofessional interaction whatsoever on any DOE issue, 7 bu t just to make that clear. Anyway, with that, I'd 8 li ke Neil to talk about the role of -- or how 9 ne gotiating rulemaking works. 10 Neil. 11 MR. EISNER: Thank you, Dan. 12 I know many of you but not all of you have 13 no t had experience in negotiated rulemaking, so don't 14 he sitate to stop me while I'm talking if you want me to 15 ex pand on any point or explain it a little more 16 cl early. I wanted to talk about the what, the why, the 17 wh ere of regulatory negotiations so you have a good 18 un derstanding of how a process like this should work, 19 an d if it's set up well, it should work that way. 20 First of all, what is it? It is a bringing 21 to gether by the agency of representatives including 22 re presentatives of the agency, who are affected by theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 25 1 ru le that is under consideration, or at least the 2 pr oblem that is under consideration that could lead to 3 a rulemaking. You're supposed to sit down around a 4 ta ble like this and negotiate a solution to that 5 pr oblem. It may not lead to rulemaking. You may all 6 ag ree that rulemaking is not necessary. You may think 7 gu idance is necessary. You may not think guidance is 8 ne cessary, that's up to you to decide but, you try to 9 do this by consensus. No one party can control the 10 pr ocess because it requires consensus of the people 11 si tting around the table. You decide, and I'll get 12 ba ck to that in a few minutes, exactly what consensus 13 is in this group. 14 Why would you use this process? Why not use 15 th e normal rulemaking processes or come in and ask for 16 th e usual guidance you might ask for from an agency? 17 We ll, because we have found over the years -- over 60 18 ye ars now with the Administrative Procedure Act -- the 19 st atute that governs rulemaking generally in the 20 fe deral government, we find that it can be adversarial. 21 Th e agency, no matter what efforts it may make, ends up 22 pu tting out its proposed solution to a problem and it'sCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 26 1 so mething that a lot of people feel they need to attack 2 or find fault with. 3 So the concept was, let's start with the 4 pr oblem. For example, on a case like mine, it might be 5 to o many people are dying in frontal collisions and 6 ac cidents. Instead of the agency saying, "What do you 7 th ink about requiring air bags in all cars," the agency 8 co uld go out and convene a group like this and say, 9 "H ow do we fix this problem? How do we address the 10 fa ct that 12,000 people a year are dying in frontal 11 co llisions in automobile accidents?" So you're focused 12 on a problem. 13 It's a better opportunity for everybody to be 14 he ard. It's one thing to sit down and write your 15 co mments in a proposed rule, it's another issue to come 16 in and sit down around a table and say we have a 17 pr oblem. We have a problem in the way you're applying 18 so mething or the way you're thinking about fixing 19 so mething. We want to sit down and talk about how to 20 fi x the problem that you want to address. You have an 21 op portunity to be heard in a back and forth discussion. 22 As a lawyer for many, many years in the government, ICapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 27 1 al ways wish I had more opportunities to sit down with 2 th e people who are affected by the rulemaking decisions 3 we are going to make and find out what they thought. 4 One thing; it was very, very hard, very 5 di fficult to come to this conclusion, but you do learn 6 wh en you're in the government -- at least most people 7 le arn -- you don't have all the answers. You don't 8 ha ve all the information. You don't have the only 9 so lutions to the problem. If you don't think that way, 10 if DOE didn't think that way, they wouldn't have 11 co nvened a group like this. 12 It's also an opportunity to get a better 13 ru le. Going back and forth like this can allow us to 14 co me up with better rules. Dan talked about one of my 15 jo bs is to listen to one side talk, another side talk, 16 a third side to talk, and without knowing the 17 su bstance, say what I'm hearing is, is this little bit 18 of difference. 19 "What if we said the following in the 20 do cument or what it we took such and such out of the 21 do cument that we're drafting, would that help? Why 22 wo uldn't it help? How could you fix this problem thatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 28 1 yo u see in this language that's on the piece of paper 2 ri ght now that we're all trying to negotiate?" It's a 3 be tter opportunity than you submit your comments, the 4 ag ency goes out with a supplemental notice of 5 ru lemaking and says, "All right, we've modified our 6 pr oposal, what do you think of this?" It's more of an 7 in terchange. It's more of a better understanding of 8 wh at the problem is all about. It can lead to the 9 fa ster solution of a problem. 10 My department was involved in the first 11 re gulatory negotiation of over 30 years ago. The 12 ag ency issued 2 NPRMs to try and address the problem 13 ov er a period of three or four years and got nowhere. 14 Th ey had to withdrawal the NPRM, start over, withdrawal 15 th e second MPRM and figure out, had to figure out what 16 to do. So, they said, "Let's bring the party in around 17 th e table and sit down and see if we can negotiate a 18 so lution to this problem," and they did. They were 19 su ccessful. Were they faster? Well, they couldn't get 20 an ywhere with the Administrative Procedure Act process. 21 Most importantly, it doesn't matter what I 22 pu t in a rule; if I'm not going to get good compliance,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29 1 I' m going to have problems achieving my objective. The 2 pr oblem I want to fix, if I'm the government agency. 3 So most important is, if you all sit around the table 4 an d help develop the solution to the problem, you'll 5 ha ve had the opportunity of participating. You'll feel 6 go od that you've been heard, and as some people said to 7 us during some of the earlier negotiations we had, they 8 sa id, "I now have a better understanding of why you 9 ca n't do exactly what I would like. I've heard the 10 vi ews of everybody else around the table and I now see 11 so me of the difficulties in doing just what I want, so 12 I have to give in a little bit." 13 In the end, however, I should get a rule that 14 I can more easily comply with and I understand all the 15 ot her issues you have here. One of the things you 16 al ways have to think about in negotiations is, what's 17 th e alternative to the agency rule? If I can't work it 18 ou t around this table with the agency rep at the table 19 wh o just has one vote around the table, if I can't work 20 it out then, what am I going to end up with? We all 21 wo uld like something written exactly for us, but we 22 ca n't all get that. If everybody has a slightlyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 30 1 di fferent problem, a slightly different concern, a 2 sl ightly different issue, the whole thing, this whole 3 pr ocess, is based on getting consensus, but one of the 4 th ings we found out in government agencies over the 5 ye ars, and the people I've talked to and other agencies 6 be sides DOT agree on this is, even if we can't get the 7 co nsensus, the fact that we came to the table in good 8 fa ith, the fact that we all talked in good faith, the 9 fa ct that we brought out information describing why we 10 ha ve a particular problem with one solution and 11 so mebody else has a particular problem with another 12 so lution, even if we can't get consensus, the agency 13 an d the public generally agrees that the agency is 14 be tter able to write an effective rule. They've 15 le arned a lot just sitting around the table hearing the 16 go od faith discussions. 17 We had one party or one major party and they 18 br ought other major parties with them, walk out of 19 ne gotiations on the DOT with a very important 20 ru lemaking, so we wrote the best rule we could with the 21 in formation we had gathered and the negotiations and 22 wi th the other information we had, and a couple yearsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 31 1 la ter, I got a call from a staffer on a committee in 2 Co ngress saying, "We want to have negotiated rulemaking 3 us ed in a particular problem, and we want you to bring 4 in the following kinds of organizations to help you 5 so lve the problem." And I said, "Well, those 6 or ganizations include some who walked out on an earlier 7 ne gotiation. They walked out of the process." They 8 sa id, "Yes, but they felt it was a good process. They 9 fe lt it worked. They just knew they couldn't get what 10 th ey wanted in a particular area and they didn't want 11 to negotiate anymore. They still were happy with the 12 pr ocess and want to try it again." 13 All kinds of subtle messages you get out of 14 wh at works, what doesn't work. Why wouldn't you use 15 re gulatory negotiation in all rulemakings, well, we 16 ca n't take our time to come to the table in every rule 17 ma king issue. Many of them are relatively routine 18 ma tters. Many of them you're not going to have any new 19 in formation to give to us. It can be costly. It can 20 be very time consuming. It has to be used in the 21 ap propriate cases. 22 Well, what are the appropriate cases? Let meCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 32 1 gi ve you a rough idea of some of the things that you 2 lo ok at when you're trying to decide whether to do 3 ne gotiated rulemaking. Are the issues right for 4 re solution? If we need two years of research before we 5 ca n gather enough information to solve the problem 6 we 're here to address, we can't use regulatory 7 ne gotiation. We have a deadline that we've got to 8 me et. We have a rule that's going into affect. At the 9 sa me time, if you point out a very serious problem 10 th at will require more research and does get the 11 co nsensus of everybody around the table, the agency 12 wi ll hear that and they'll know whether or not maybe 13 th ey need to postpone the effective date of the rule if 14 mo re work is needed. 15 You don't want to have any fundamental 16 in terests, and even this can vary if you go through 17 ti me and people find out about the process. We started 18 ou t with the idea that you cannot negotiate issue 19 in volving access to transportation systems for people 20 wi th disabilities because they thought access to 21 tr ansportation systems was a constitutional right that 22 th ey had. They came to us years later, representativesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 33 1 of the community of the disabled and said to us, we 2 wa nt to negotiate. We believe we can get a better rule 3 if we sit down around a table and negotiate with you. 4 But another example that I would put on the 5 ta ble now is, I wouldn't want to be at the Department 6 of Health and Human Services and suggest negotiating a 7 ru le about abortion. People are not going to 8 co mpromise on that. People are not going to give in on 9 th eir interest in an issue like that. You want to make 10 su re that people sit around a reasonably good-sized 11 ta ble and can be heard often enough so that their voice 12 wi ll be made, will be heard at the table, so you want 13 ab out 25 people. 14 In fact, the expert who wrote the paper that 15 fi rst came up with the 25 said he wasn't sure what the 16 nu mber should be. He was in a law firm conference room 17 wh en he counted the chairs around the table and they 18 ca me to? I want to make sure you're paying attention. 19 Th ey came to 25. You want to have diverse issues. You 20 wa nt to be able to trade something off. You want to be 21 ab le to say you know, I can live with a little less 22 th an perfect for me on this if I can get what I wantCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 34 1 ov er here. So, there's only one issue on the table, 2 yo u can't have tradeoffs, so people will do that. 3 We've also surprisingly learned how much they 4 we re willing to trade off, and when they did say I 5 do n't like where we came out on this issue, but I know 6 I' m going to get what I want on this other issue, and 7 in balance, that's better for all of us. Got to have a 8 de adline because otherwise some people, even after they 9 sa y they would come to the table in good faith, may 10 wa nt to delay because if they can delay every day, they 11 ma y be saving money or they may be preventing something 12 fr om happening. So, you want to have an effective 13 de adline, whether it's statutorily created or created 14 by some other means. 15 There are other factors, but this is just to 16 gi ve you the rough idea the kinds of things that 17 ag encies look at when they're making a decision about 18 wh ether to have a negotiated rulemaking and whether it 19 ca n be effective. How does it work? Well, Dan told 20 yo u a little bit about the process, and you've been 21 in volved in the first stages of the process. 22 The agency identifies a neutral convener whoCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35 1 ca n go out and talk to all of the affected interests, 2 an d incidentally, learn from the affected interests 3 wh ether there are others that the agency didn't 4 id entify initially and then they'll go in and talk to 5 mo re people. One of the reasons for picking a neutral 6 he re is because the government official, the Assistant 7 Se cretary for X, may think, "I know five or six of the 8 ke y people, I'll go talk to them and see if they're 9 wi lling to come to the table and negotiate in good 10 fa ith." They're not going to tell that government 11 of ficial if they don't think it's a good idea. If they 12 se nse that the government official wants them to come 13 to the table in good faith, many of them are going to 14 sa y, "I better come." 15 So, you send a neutral, and I've seen the 16 ne utral conveners' reports before. I've also gotten 17 br iefings for things they didn't want to specifically 18 pu t in a package because they didn't want to name 19 na mes, where they said they don't think -- certain 20 pa rty doesn't think they can come in good faith 21 be cause, and they give their reason, and then the 22 ag ency looks at that and they say, "I've got a weigh inCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36 1 th ere. I need that party at the table and they've got 2 a good justifiable reason for not coming, so we can't 3 us e negotiated rulemaking." If the convener submits a 4 re port that justifies convening the group, people will 5 co me in good faith. People understand what they're 6 go ing to be talking about at the table. They think 7 th ey can work out a solution as you all said when you 8 ta lked to the convener, then the agency will convene an 9 ad visory committee. They want to do it through an 10 ad visory committee under the statute Federal Advisory 11 Co mmittee Act. 12 We can't, in a government agency, get advice 13 fr om the public unless it comes through an advisory 14 co mmittee that is chartered and follows all the other 15 re quirements of the statute. If they establish a 16 co mmittee, they usually pick someone like a facilitator 17 or a mediator to help the parties get to consensus. A 18 me diator would be someone who is more skilled than a 19 ge neral facilitator like me, in trying to get people to 20 wo rk on an agreement. The facilitator's purpose, as 21 Da n said -- and I'm going to go into a little more 22 de tail -- is to help you, not to make any decisions,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 37 1 bu t to try and help you get there. 2 Why would we do all this if we still in 3 ac cordance with the APA have to then publish what you 4 re commend to the agency, publish it for comment under 5 th e APA? Well, because we found that if we do this, we 6 wi ll get fewer, less adverse comments as part of the 7 no tice of proposed rulemaking process. If we do our 8 jo b well, we'll get fewer, and they'll be less adverse 9 co mments. Timewise, it may sound like you're adding on 10 ad ditional steps, but you can go with the shorter 11 co mment period. It may take less time to resolve the 12 co mments that you do get in and you'll get to the final 13 ru le more quickly. 14 The other thing is that we may reconvene the 15 co mmittee. If you want to be reconvened, the end of 16 th e process, you can say, "I want a summary of the 17 co mments. I want to see what they said as a committee 18 an d we want to recommend were there any changes were 19 wa rranted as a committee." You don't have to. Some 20 ag encies think it's an important part of the process, 21 so me agencies don't think that it's necessary to 22 re convene.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 38 1 We have found -- DOT, I keep saying "we," I 2 ha ve to get out of that mode -- but when I was at DOT, 3 we found that if the process worked well, because we 4 go t so few comments since they will so, there was so 5 li ttle adverse in them that it paid to bring the 6 co mmittee back to review a summary of the comments and 7 de cide whether more was warranted. It didn't require a 8 lo t of work, and in fact, sometimes it was done through 9 e- mail contacts where they e-mail out the summaries and 10 th en people would vote through e-mail and say, "I don't 11 th ink it's necessary" or "I think it is necessary to 12 re convene." 13 So again, we can talk about that as we start 14 ta lking about some of the rules that we're going to 15 ha ve the committee governed by. The procedures are 16 re latively simple. We're going to go on to that this 17 af ternoon. You decide what they should be. If you want 18 to , you can decide when we break for lunch. You can 19 de cide whether we should meet here or we should meet 20 el sewhere. You're going to decide all of that. The 21 wh ole idea is to set up a bunch of procedures that you 22 al l feel confined with that will better help us come toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 39 1 a consensus on what we want to do. 2 Let me talk a couple seconds, a minute or so, 3 ab out the authority to do all this. The administrative 4 pr ocedure act which governs the rulemaking process does 5 no t preclude the use of negotiated rulemaking. DOT, 6 EP A and other agencies felt we had the legal authority 7 un der existing requirement such as the Federal Advisory 8 Co mmittee Act to do this. Some agencies said no, I 9 ne ed specific authority to do a regulatory negotiation. 10 So , to alleviate their concerns, Congress passed the 11 ne gotiated rulemaking act which establishes a framework 12 fo r negotiations like this. It talks about the 13 co nvening process I've described. It talks about use 14 of facilitators or mediators. What it makes very 15 cl ear, however, is that it, in quotes, "Does not limit 16 in novation and experimentation." Basically, it says 17 he re's a good way to do it. Here's what's suggested. 18 He re's what's been used by others, but in your 19 pa rticular case, if you want to try a slightly 20 di fferent approach to solving the problem, you're 21 en titled to talk about that, get the consensus of 22 ev erybody around the table.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 40 1 Three key points I want to make. First -- 2 ac tually, before I forget, the agency, by the way, 3 ca nnot legally delegate its authority to anybody else 4 to make the decisions it is responsible for under 5 st atutes, but there's a representative of the agency at 6 th e table and that agency representative is part of the 7 co nvening process, it is decided that she will be able 8 to directly access the senior officials who do make the 9 de cision on behalf of the agency. She has to represent 10 th em. She has to have every day access to them. She 11 ha s to be able to say the committee is going in this 12 di rection, are you comfortable with my taking a 13 po sition in support of going in this direction? If 14 ne cessary, she has to talk to the Office of Management 15 an d Budget or go through Dan Cohen to talk to the 16 Of fice of Management and Budget, but the agency in the 17 en d makes the decision. 18 I am not aware of any case where an agency 19 re presentative sitting at the table with everybody else 20 ag reed to something that the agency decided it could 21 no t follow. That doesn't mean I'm aware of every one 22 of them. A number of agencies have used this quiteCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 41 1 fr equently, but I am not aware of it ever not working. 2 It 's a legal requirement that the secretary not 3 de legate this authority, but it has never been an 4 ob stacle to an effective decision. 5 Now, my key three points. You're here in 6 go od faith to participate effectively to try to resolve 7 th e problem that you all face. I read the convening 8 re port. I read that everybody felt it is worth coming 9 to the table to try and negotiate a solution. That is 10 ex tremely important. I have been involved in 11 ne gotiated rulemakings where some people did not come 12 in good faith. It complicated matters. It made things 13 di fficult, but it can, even under those circumstances 14 wo rk, but you want to all be here with the idea that 15 yo u're going to do something positive. 16 The focus -- this is very important -- 17 es pecially if you've not spent considerable time in 18 ne gotiating anything, contracts, whatever -- the focus 19 sh ould be on the problem. Don't think about your 20 in terest. Don't think about the agency's interest. 21 Don't think about where you think the agency 22 is coming from or where somebody else around the tableCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 42 1 is coming from. Think about the problem: 12,000 people 2 ar e dying every year in frontal collisions. How do we 3 so lve this problem? That way, you get people not 4 di gging in their heels and saying, "This is my idea, 5 I' m not going to give in on it. This is my interest." 6 How do you do this? How do you focus on the 7 pr oblem best? Well, obviously, you don't want to 8 at tack. You don't want to attack people, but you don't 9 wa nt to attack others suggested solutions. You want to 10 fe el free around this table to throw ideas out. You 11 wa nt to say what about without having had the 12 op portunity to think about what you're about to 13 su ggest. It just came to you. You heard John say 14 so mething and you heard Bill's response to it and you 15 th ink about what if we do X. Feel free to throw that 16 ou t. 17 Don't attack the people around the table for 18 do ing that kind of a thing. Ask questions. Don't make 19 st atements; that's a bad idea. Say why do you think 20 th at will work here? Where did you get that 21 in formation from? Why do you think in this particular 22 si tuation there won't be a problem with why? PeopleCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 43 1 wh en asked questions will respond more positively then 2 wh en challenged. They then start to dig in their heels 3 ag ain, so think about these things when you're working 4 ar ound the table. Think about wording your statements 5 or turning your words from a statement into a question 6 if you were about to do that. Think about other 7 po ssible alternatives. Alternatives to achieve your 8 ob jectives without defeating the objectives of somebody 9 el se around the table. So, you're interested in 10 ef ficiency, somebody else is interested in the cost of 11 th e efficient way you want to do it. Is there a way 12 fo r you to solve that problem by making what you want 13 to achieve in terms of efficiency more palatable to the 14 pe rson that's worried about the cost? So, try to think 15 ab out alternatives. 16 In fact, before the next meeting, start 17 th inking about the alternatives you want to put on the 18 ta ble if your initial alternative meets some objections 19 th at you can't overcome. Think about the various ways 20 yo u can achieve the objective that you want out of 21 th ese discussions. That will also help the other 22 pe ople get to where they want to be. My third pointCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 44 1 is that if this is done right, if it is done well, it 2 sh ould lead to a better understanding, more 3 in formation, and a better rule, as I said earlier, even 4 if there is no consensus, or better guidance or 5 so mething along those lines. 6 What's my job? My job again is not to make 7 de cisions. My job is not to push for a particular 8 de cision. That's why Dan said it's good that I don't 9 un derstand this stuff. I read the convening report and 10 al l I could say was huh. I mean, I couldn't quite 11 fi gure out how all this equipment worked. Couldn't 12 fi gure the technicalities of it, and then of course, 13 th ere were the formulas that I had to look at. I 14 re member one person once was trying to express a simple 15 an d plain way to describe something he had just 16 di scussed in three paragraphs, and he had one page to 17 su mmarize it. It was all a formula. The classic, 18 "i t's Greek to me," so that can be very good. 19 I may have to ask you to explain things to me 20 a little bit better so I can try to suggest something 21 th at can help solve it, but I don't have any particular 22 in centive here. I don't have any particular thing thatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 45 1 I want to do other than to help you all reach 2 co nsensus. I'm going to probably spend a lot of time 3 li stening to what you say. I'm going to probably tell 4 yo u -- I'm going to tell you if I think you're not 5 li stening well. I'm not going to tell you in front of 6 ev erybody else, but I may go up on a break or I may go 7 ar ound the table and say I don't think you're listening 8 cl early to what that person is saying or I may say to 9 yo u, if I have to, and I don't want to ever get to that 10 po int, "I don't think you're negotiating in good faith. 11 I think you should be putting other alternatives on the 12 ta ble." 13 I shouldn't have to get to that point, but I 14 ma y hear it from others around the room. I keep saying 15 th ings and Bill isn't listening. I keep saying things 16 an d Jane comes back with nothing that has to do with 17 so mething that I am saying, so I may have to talk to 18 ev erybody involved in separate breakout sessions and 19 th at's an important thing to remember. I was very 20 su rprised in the first negotiations that I attended for 21 th e one on FAA for flight and duty time limitations. I 22 wa s very surprised at how much happened outside theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 46 1 ro om. You may want to raise your hand and say, "I 2 su ggest we take a break now because Jill wants to go 3 ta lk to John, John wants to talk to Jane. Maybe they 4 sh ould talk together." 5 This doesn't just mean talking to the person 6 wh o you're disagreeing with. It may mean talking to 7 th e persons you're representing. You represent an 8 in terest, not your company. Somebody from the room is 9 in volved in your interest, is affected the same way 10 yo u are on this particular subject matter. You may 11 wa nt to take a break to say, "Is it okay if I agree to 12 do the following?" All of these discussions you may 13 wa nt to bring me into. I shouldn't have to force my 14 wa y in. I don't want to force my way in. If you think 15 I can help you in break-out sessions outside the room, 16 fi ne, call on me. 17 We'll be having meetings, I think, between 18 th e regular meetings of this full group when you ask a 19 su bgroup to go work on a particular problem. If you 20 wa nt me to attend those, if you think I can help, fine, 21 br ing me in. Talk to me about it. So, again, I'm here 22 to help facilitate the discussions. I'm here to, youCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 47 1 kn ow, for you to talk to during breaks when you don't 2 un derstand how things are working and when you want to 3 kn ow a better approach, you know, do you think it would 4 be better if I did the following here? I'd be glad to 5 gi ve you my thoughts. I'd be glad to give you my 6 id eas. 7 Remember, I'm not the expert on this 8 su bstance. I'm not the one who is going to come up with 9 th e solution. You are going to come up with the 10 so lution. 11 Any questions for me? I teach classes, 50 12 pe rcent of the final grade is based on the quality and 13 th e quantity of the questions you ask. You can't 14 po ssibly understand everything I just talked about, so 15 yo u should have some questions for me. 16 Yes? 17 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. To what extent is 18 th eir flexibility about the scope of the issues we're 19 de aling with? This came up a fair number of times in 20 so me of the initial conversations. 21 MR. EISNER: We're going to, as you know, 22 ta lk about scope this afternoon. It is on the agendaCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 48 1 an d I think we have -- 2 MR. SACHS: I can't wait. 3 MR. EISNER: I didn't think you would want to 4 wa it. I think that's a very good question. I 5 un derstand there are disagreements over the scope. If 6 th is group can't reach consensus on what they're going 7 to negotiate, then we're not going to reach consensus 8 on the issues themselves, so we're going to have to 9 ta lk this afternoon and see what we can do and what we 10 ca n suggest. 11 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. You've 12 me ntioned the word "consensus" several times, and you 13 sa id that you would be speaking more to that point 14 ab out how we will define "consensus." Could you 15 el aborate on that a little bit? 16 MR. EISNER: Sure. That's a good point. 17 Pa rt of the ground rules that we're going to discuss 18 af ter the break are going to be the rules by which we 19 ma ke decisions in this group. There are various kinds 20 of consensus. Everybody around the table, every one of 21 th e 25 -- I think it is exactly 25 representatives -- 22 ha s to say yes or we don't have consensus. That's oneCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 49 1 fo rm of consensus. 2 Other times people will say, "Well, on this 3 pa rticular issue, the five of us represent one 4 in terest. The four of them represent another interest," 5 et cetera. Each interest should have to say yes. So, 6 yo u vote as a group in the bloc. You can define 7 co nsensus any way you want. If you are only 8 co mfortable with everyone at the table having to say 9 ye s, then that's what you have to decide. 10 Let me point out, however, how some of the 11 th ings have worked in the past in my experience. We 12 ha ve had situations where a union representative came 13 up and said, "I'm not happy with where we're going on 14 th is, but I now have a better understanding from 15 li stening to the discussion why I have to accept this, 16 bu t because my members will be upset that we agreed to 17 th is, I can't vote yes for this. But if you vote 18 ag ainst me on that issue I'm willing to accept that or 19 I' m willing to abstain on that issue and let you all 20 vo te yes." 21 Abstentions done, you can say it in the draft 22 gr ound rules that were circulated to you to consider toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 50 1 re ad to get an idea of what the prior group DOE had 2 us ed, you can say, "Consensus is no one raising their 3 ha nd and saying 'no.'" So, we'll go through a 4 di scussion. I'll say, "Does anybody else have any 5 ot her views? It appears we've reached consensus. Does 6 an yone disagree?" If no one raises their hand, that 7 co uld be consensus. Other questions? I got two people 8 wi th passing grades so far. All right. I think it's -- 9 an ybody on the -- somebody on the phone have a 10 qu estion? 11 MR. COHEN: The one translation point is -- 12 th is took me a while to get used to it too when I first 13 ca me to the DOE. Sorry. The one translation point -- 14 th is is Dan Cohen from DOE GC. The one translation 15 po int I would mention is Neil in his very comprehensive 16 di scussion talked up about an NPRM. You all know that 17 as an NOPR. The whole rest of the government calls 18 th em NPRMs, Notice of Proposal Making, but DOE has, in 19 ty pical DOE fashion, come up with our own acronym, so 20 wh en Neil refers to an NPRM, we would call it a NOPR. 21 MR. EISNER: Give me some slack on that. I'm 22 st ill not used to it. I can't call it a NOPR. Okay,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 51 1 if no one has any other questions, why don't we take a 2 15 minute break? 3 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 4 MR. EISNER: We asked everybody to bring with 5 th em the draft of the ground rules that were used by a 6 pr ior DOE negotiating committee, just to give them an 7 id ea of what went in that document, what kind of 8 la nguage they worked out, but also because when I read 9 th em, I thought that they had crafted it fairly 10 ca refully, and fairly well, so it might be something 11 wh ere you want to consider using some of the same 12 la nguage and part if not, you don't obviously want to 13 us e them on all parts because if nothing else, you've 14 go t to change the name of the group, so I thought that 15 mi ght be a good start off point. But before we get 16 in to the details, any questions? Any comments? Any 17 co ncerns about ground rules? Anything anyone wants to 18 ta lk about? 19 Okay, we have them on the screen behind me. 20 If there's any confusion about parts that we're talking 21 ab out, we can always point up there but I think you'll 22 ha ve an easier time reading them on your hard copy.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 52 1 Ob viously, we want to change the name of the group in 2 th e heading and then get into the first ground rule. 3 Th e first one they have is the goal of the committee. 4 An y discussions on what the goal could be? Do we want 5 to talk about the goal? Does anybody think we should 6 fo llow a different format or should we go through this 7 on e by one and see if we want to match it or change it 8 in a different way? 9 MR. COHEN: We are quickly going to put this 10 up in a Word document so that if there are edits we can 11 ju st make them in real time. 12 MR. EISNER: Good idea. Let me draw your 13 at tention to the first thing, the goal of the 14 co mmittee. Obviously, the goal of the committee name 15 wo uld change, but the two line summary, how would you 16 su ggest we word it? 17 Yes? 18 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I'm not sure how 19 we can reach consensus on the goal until we have a 20 fu ller understanding of the scope. That's a place 21 wh ere this differs from the Transformers. 22 MR. EISNER: First question I would ask isCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 53 1 th ere a general way that we could describe it that 2 wo uld leave open the discussion on the goal or the 3 gr oup can just decide that it wants to leave this off 4 un til this afternoon. 5 MR. SACHS: I don't know of a generalization. 6 I' ve been trying to think of one and wonder if we want 7 to defer that until we've had a R-R chance to explore 8 so me of the interactions around the set of issues. 9 MR. EISNER: Okay. Other thoughts? Other 10 co ncerns? 11 MR. SACHS: I may regret this. 12 MR. EISNER: Okay, Charlie. 13 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 14 Th ere's also a difference here because the one that's 15 pu t up there is basically a single product, two 16 se parate subgroups of a single product. In this group, 17 we have four basically different product natures, so 18 it 's going to be much more difficult to define then a 19 si ngle product group. 20 MR. EISNER: Now, you're saying we need more 21 ti me during the day to work that out or are you saying 22 yo u think we may not be able to put a goal on a pieceCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 54 1 of paper? 2 MR. HON: I think it's going to be much 3 br oader because it's a broader scope. As Harvey 4 me ntioned, there's multiple facets. This one, the one 5 be fore us is a single item. It is transformers. Only 6 pa rtial scope with a total transformer market as well, 7 wh ile this group has commercial refrigeration in it. 8 It has HVAC in it. It has boilers in it. It has 9 el ectrical componentry in it, all of which have 10 di fferent problems built into what we're going to try 11 an d solve here. 12 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? 13 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp. We could 14 sa y something to the fact that if you want to address 15 it now, we can say we just want to reach consensus on 16 th e issues identified in the scope in regards to 17 co mmercial certification. 18 MR. EISNER: Reactions to that. 19 MR. MOLVIE: Pete Molvie with Cleaver-Brooks. 20 I guess I have a question as to what the initial scope 21 wa s. The announcement in the Federal Register that 22 ga ve notice of this working group had specific issuesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 55 1 th at were identified. Is that the limited scope of 2 th is group or is it open to expansion to other issues 3 as well? And those issues, if you don't have that in 4 fr ont of you were strategies for grouping models for 5 pu rposes of certification; identification of non6 ef ficiency attributes which not impact measured 7 co nsumption; the information that is certified to the 8 De partment; the timing of when the certification should 9 be made relative to distribution and commerce; and 10 al terations to basic model that would impact the 11 ce rtification. Are we limited to that scope or is 12 th ere more to it that we can add? 13 MR. EISNER: What I heard earlier in the day 14 wa s that we want to talk about the scope specifically 15 th is afternoon. Let me ask whether there is a way -- 16 lo oking at the model here, the goal of the committee is 17 to reach consensus on a recommended, and then I'm not 18 ex actly sure how I would word this, but something along 19 th e lines of an effective measurement for energy 20 ef ficiency of the products covered by this rulemaking. 21 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. I'd 22 su ggest a recommended set of compliance obligationsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 56 1 re lated to energy efficiency standards for the products 2 at issue because certification itself is kind of a term 3 th at reflects the scope of the rulemaking as being only 4 co nfined to certification and not other aspects of what 5 co mpliance obligations could improve. 6 MR. EISNER: Any other thoughts on this? 7 Sh ould we put some of these phrases maybe on the 8 ca ption behind my back. Should we put some of these 9 ph rases up on the screen so that we can talk about 10 th at? 11 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 12 Ye ah, some of the things that impact this or 13 id entifying what models need to be tested, the testing 14 of those models and then determination of the metric 15 fo r the -- either the compliance with the certification 16 or not so it's more than just determining a metric of 17 th e energy efficiency. It's the whole process involved 18 wi th it, and then compliance certification also is part 19 of that, compliance verification. 20 MR. EISNER: Others? Do you want a goal that 21 is very general and broad? We want to achieve an 22 ef fective measurement for something, or do you want aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 57 1 li st specifically for each type of equipment, a 2 pa rticular goal? 3 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. You mind if 4 I share a microphone with you? 5 MR. EISNER: You can share my microphone. 6 MR. STEPHENS: I think what we're looking for 7 is big picture the same, the same scope for each of the 8 di fferent product classes, but at a 40,000 foot level, 9 th e details become much different for each group. 10 MR. EISNER: You're going to be working on 11 th ose details. 12 Here what we're talking about are ground 13 ru les for getting to those details, so that's why I'm 14 qu estioning whether you would feel comfortable with a 15 ge neral description such as we mentioned over here, or 16 wh ether you want to go into the details. I suggest you 17 re peat your phrase to be captured on the screen up here 18 so meplace; we can at least have a phrase that we're 19 lo oking at and see if that would work for some people. 20 Yo u actually have the computer. I have the computer. 21 So , I have to type and talk at the same time? Can we 22 ha ve someone else? I have enough trouble typing whenCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 58 1 I' m not talking, and I'm hoping you remember what it 2 wa s. 3 Ready for us? Okay. 4 MR. STANONIK: Excuse me a minute while we've 5 go t dead time here. I'm Frank Stanonik with AHRI and 6 I' m just confused because the Federal Register Notice 7 sa id the purpose of this working group is to undertake 8 a negotiated rulemaking to discuss, and if possible, 9 re ach consensus on proposed certification requirements 10 fo r commercial HVAC, water heating, and refrigeration 11 eq uipment. To me that, sounds like a goal. What am I 12 mi ssing? 13 MR. EISNER: Others around the room? 14 MR. ROLPH: This is Neil Rolph. I agree with 15 th at. I just wrote the same thing right out of the 16 do cument. I mean, that's what we're trying to do here, 17 is reach consensus on the certification requirements. 18 Th at's what we've been talking about for several years 19 no w, and specific to the HVAC water heating and 20 re frigeration. 21 MS. BARHYDT: This is Laura Barhydt. Hi, I 22 ag ree, and I think that that broadly stated as a goalCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 59 1 do esn't limit us in our scope discussions later this 2 af ternoon as to what all that may encompass. 3 MR. EISNER: I think that's an important 4 po int, Laura. We can go back to this later after the 5 fu ller discussions and decide if we want to change the 6 go al one way or the other. Does anybody disagree? 7 So mebody wants to speak in the back? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from DOE. I 9 ju st want to clarify one thing. What you're reading 10 fr om the Federal Register Notice about the initial 11 sc ope is what ASRAC handed down to this committee, so 12 wh en the larger group at ASRAC met, those were the 13 in itial issues that we identified that the committee 14 ma y want to tackle. That doesn't preclude you from 15 ad ding, changing, editing, removing this afternoon, 16 br oadening, tightening. Those are for discussion and 17 fo r you guys to deal with, but those are the initial 18 se t that ASRAC was like, "Hey, can you guys think about 19 th ese?" Just to clarify. 20 MR. EISNER: That's very helpful. 21 All right, is there anybody who disagrees 22 wi th taking the language from the notice and making itCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 60 1 th e goal under number 1? 2 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen Meyers from Rheem. 3 So is it just to reach a consensus on certification or 4 sh ould we also put in certification and compliance 5 re quirement because to me those could be slightly 6 di fferent? 7 MR. SHEBIK: This Ron Shebik with Hussmann. 8 I agree with Karen. I was going to add, we're loosely 9 us ing the term "certification," but should be also be 10 lo oking at other things like compliance verification 11 en forcement, or can we say "certification" covers all 12 th ose areas? 13 MR. EISNER: People more comfortable with 14 ad ding language there or fine with just "certification" 15 as it was in the Notice? John Mandyck wants to talk. 16 Jo hn, it is John, isn't it? John, did you have 17 so mething you wanted to add on the phone? All right. 18 MS. BARHYDT: John, we can't hear you. 19 MR. EISNER: Let's go back to that 20 di scussion. Would people like more words or are they 21 co mfortable with certification? 22 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. ICapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 61 1 gu ess if we all just agree that to us "certification" 2 me ans more than maybe just, you know, the initial test 3 to re use of the AEDM that you do before you introduce a 4 pr oduct then we can use "certification," I guess. 5 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. I 6 gu ess I'm interested in, you know, how DOE would define 7 ce rtification with that, so if, you know, does 8 "c ertification" cover compliance and verification, or 9 to me, as a manufacturer, they're a little bit 10 di fferent, so I just want to make sure that if we agree 11 th at moving forward, you know, we agree -- 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: So when we say 13 "c ertification," we're referring to a certification of 14 co mpliance, but I would agree that if you want to deal 15 ex plicitly with how a determination of compliance is 16 ma de, or from the manufacturer perspective or for 17 en forcement, then those are slightly different concepts 18 an d I do think it's a good idea to include those 19 ex plicitly. 20 MR. EISNER: Anybody object? 21 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: I agree to include it, 22 be cause we have nothing to lose if it's included. ItCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 62 1 do esn't take away anything from the first statement, so 2 by including it, we'll make sure later we cover for 3 su re both of the items. 4 MR. EISNER: Anybody object to that? All 5 ri ght, I believe we have consensus, but we haven't 6 de fined consensus yet. I believe we have consensus on 7 th is particular point that we will add the word 8 co mpliance, certification and compliance. 9 MR. BAUMAN: I can type it if you can tell me 10 ex actly what you want to say. 11 MR. EISNER: All right, she's typed in 12 pr oposed. That doesn't preclude, as I said, the idea 13 if you want to come back at the final rule stage, which 14 we 'll get to later, we can take the "proposed" out. 15 MR. BAUMAN: Would we want to use 16 "r ecommended" instead of "proposed"? Isn't the 17 ul timate goal to recommend to DOE? 18 MR. EISNER: We could put "recommended" in 19 th ere. Anybody disagree with changing "proposed" to 20 "r ecommended"? Nobody disagrees. Okay, while she 21 ty pes in the rest of the title, I think we can get to 22 th e second category, which is participants.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 63 1 MR. MOLVIE: Can I just add one more comment, 2 an d I think it would be beneficial to insert the word 3 "e fficiency" before "certification" so we know what 4 ty pe of certification we're talking about. 5 MR. BAUMAN: Energy efficiency? 6 MR. EISNER: Energy efficiency. Any 7 ob jections? 8 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: When we do the testing, we 9 in clude the total performance of the unit. You have 10 ca pacity and EER. So, if it's one word, it would be 11 to tal performance of the unit, not just efficiency, or 12 we have to list capacity, EER, and airflow. 13 MR. MOLVIE: I can accept "performance" 14 in stead of "efficiency." 15 MR. EISNER: Is there a consensus? 16 MR. SACHS: I think the term we're looking 17 fo r might be closer to "DOE-regulated performance 18 cr iteria," because we're not dealing with the 19 el ectrical safety and variety of other things. 20 MR. EISNER: The recommended DOE? 21 MR. SACHS: "Recommended DOE-regulated 22 pe rformance parameters."Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 64 1 MR. EISNER: Any objection to that add? 2 Ok ay? 3 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm going to speak on behalf 4 of John Mandyck because we can't get the communications 5 wo rking, but John would like to add some notion that 6 th is goal should include quote, unquote, "The avoidance 7 of market disruption." 8 MR. EISNER: Comments? 9 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: In thinking about it, yes, 10 we should include it, if everybody agrees. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Is that one of the goals or is 12 th at one of the criteria that people are going to be 13 co nsidering in reaching consensus? 14 MR. EISNER: Would "effective" be acceptable 15 to everybody? "Effective efficiency"? "Effective of 16 pe rformance certification"? Does "effective" bring in 17 ma rketplace issues? 18 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. I 19 do n't know that we need to put "effective" in there. I 20 me an, we're not going to agree to something that's not 21 go ing to be effective, I would assume, so... 22 MR. EISNER: Very important point. This isCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 65 1 ju st your goal. This is not what has to be in the 2 do cument. Do you need an adjective there? 3 MR. BAUMAN: I don't think we need 4 "e ffective" in this. It reads better without it. 5 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Yeah, we don't need it. 6 MR. EISNER: Again, we can come back to this 7 af ter we've had more discussion during the day. I also 8 ho pefully want to leave open an opportunity for John to 9 ge t back by some communication to see if he's okay with 10 it , so if everybody agrees for no, let's go on to 11 nu mber 2. Right, number 2 is talking about the 12 pa rticipants. 13 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. 14 Di d we understand what John said, though? Didn't he 15 me ntion something about disrupting the market? So, I 16 do n't think taking away "effective" or whatever the 17 wo rd we just did is what he's talking about. I'm 18 ta lking for him by the way. I'm trying to understand 19 wh at he meant to say or to request. 20 MR. EISNER: Maybe I misunderstood. I 21 th ought we were agreeing we didn't need anything in 22 th ere right now.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 66 1 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: But I don't think that was 2 wh at he was interested in. I'm trying to -- can we get 3 cl arification of what he was really after? Am I the 4 on ly one who -- 5 MR. ROLPH: Wouldn't that come into one of 6 th e scope items. I mean, do we really have to force it 7 in to the goal here? To me, that's a scope item. 8 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: I'm not arguing the point 9 wh ere it belongs. What I'm saying is, if John believes 10 th at that statement needs to be somewhere on the 11 do cument, we better make sure that we all know about it 12 an d we place it where it belongs. So I think we're 13 tr ying to get his explanation. 14 MS. BARHYDT: I think we're going to have to 15 co me back to it. 16 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Okay. Let's keep it in 17 mi nd. 18 MR. CYMBALSKY: I understand what you're 19 sa ying, but the question is do you want that in the 20 go al or is that an obvious part of the process? 21 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I 22 th ink that probably where he's coming from is the factCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 67 1 th at we've gone a little bit of time here on the AEDM 2 wa iting on that, and that we've had those delays here 3 be cause of concerns of the impact of the certain 4 ru lemaking would have had on the industry, so I think 5 he 's wanting to make that as part of the goal that 6 wh atever outcome there is would not disrupt the 7 ma rketplace. So, I would be in favor of including that 8 in the goal. 9 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. It's 10 ki nd of like two goals. We want to come up with an 11 ef fective process, but we also want to make sure that 12 it is -- does not result in market disruptions so, we 13 di d, you know, and we're under a time crunch here as 14 we ll, so it is an important goal I think of this group. 15 Wh ether it goes into the overarching goal, I think 16 ma ybe bears just a little bit more discussion, but it 17 is a very important goal I think that this working 18 gr oup was tasked to address in their recommendations. 19 MR. MANDYCK: This is John Mandyck. Can you 20 he ar me now? 21 MR. EISNER: Yes, John? 22 MR. MANDYCK: Okay, maybe we've resolvedCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 68 1 th is. So, back on the other point related to market 2 di sruption; the only reason why I bring that up is that 3 if this committee doesn't achieve its goal, we have a 4 pe nding deadline of a certification rule that will take 5 ef fect at the end of this year that many of the 6 in dustries can't comply with, so the -- if we don't 7 su cceed, there is the chance that there will be market 8 di sruptions, so I just think we should keep that in the 9 fr ont. 10 MR. EISNER: Okay. Is there agreement then 11 th at we should leave that phrase in -- put that phrase 12 in there? 13 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Yep. 14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. I 15 gu ess to the extent we're leaving "effective out," the 16 go al is sort of neutral. We're not saying our goal is 17 to have stringent strong performance certification 18 re quirements or that they will be the least burdensome 19 pe rformance certification requirements, so we're just 20 go ing to agree on a set of recommendations and 21 ob viously, you all are not go going to agree to 22 so mething that's going to disrupt the market, and I'mCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 69 1 no t going to agree to something that is totally 2 in effective, so I don't think the goal needs to go into 3 th at much detail. 4 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman for National 5 Re frigeration. I think what I'm kind of hearing -- 6 wh at John was saying was almost like an addition to the 7 en d of what we stated as the goal. At the end of the 8 st atement we made there, "commercial HVAC, water 9 he ating, and refrigeration," quote, "without disruption 10 to the market place," which might not be so bad, but I 11 gu ess and appreciate John bringing up the point about 12 th e deadline at the end of this year. 13 I think one of the things that I'm curious 14 ab out, and maybe out of my own ignorance, does this 15 po tentially, part of the work of this group, also go 16 ba ck to DOE and say, "We believe you should delay 17 im plementation for another year or 18 months" or 18 wh atever? I would hope that's going to be because 19 wh atever we come up with is going to be, assuming we do 20 ac hieve the deadlines that are in front of us, 21 co mplying by the end of the year for manufacturers is 22 go ing to be a challenge, so would that be part of thisCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 70 1 al so? 2 MS. BARHYDT: So, the goal is to reach a 3 co nsensus, and this is going back to the market 4 di sruption issue, and I think what I was hearing Tim 5 sa y is that he's not pushing for it to say that it's 6 go ing to be a tough stringent one, and that's sort of 7 hi s -- where he's coming from in the negotiation, and I 8 th ink what John Mandyck is saying is that where he's 9 co ming from is he want to achieve a rule that is not 10 go ing to have market disruptions, and so those are 11 di fferent viewpoints that are going to go into reaching 12 th e consensus, but that's built into the word 13 "c onsensus," that we don't have to itemize every single 14 in dividual viewpoint and what each individual goal is 15 in the overarching goal statement. 16 The goal statement is just stating we want to 17 re ach a consensus on a way forward, and that is going 18 to involve taking a lot of different perspectives into 19 co nsideration. I think that if we start itemizing all 20 th e individual viewpoints where we're going to end up 21 tr apping ourselves in a box with our goal statement 22 be fore we've even started a negotiation.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 71 1 MR. EISNER: Your goal is to achieve 2 co nsensus on something. If it has to be consensus, do 3 yo u need to define it in detail in your goal? 4 MR. MOLVIE: Pete Molvie, Cleaver-Brooks. 5 I' m pretty sure we're not going to reach consensus on 6 so mething that would impact the marketplace, so why 7 do es it need to be in the statement? 8 MR. EISNER: And I assume we won't achieve 9 co nsensus on something that doesn't achieve the 10 ne cessary energy efficiency. 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 12 MR. EISNER: That would be difficult to 13 en force. So what I'm hearing is some suggestion that 14 we don't need more adjectives in the goal, but I'm 15 he aring some people still concerned they want to be a 16 li ttle more specific in the goal. 17 MR. AMRANE: Would there be an opportunity to 18 re vise the goal later on during the day? 19 MR. EISNER: Yes. 20 MR. AMRANE: So let's move on. 21 MR. EISNER: This document is not a binding 22 do cument. You as a group can always decide even duringCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 72 1 th e negotiations you want to change it in some way. 2 Do es everybody agree that we should leave it as is and 3 go on and we can always revisit it if necessary? 4 John, are you still on the phone? John will 5 ge t another chance if he wants to go into this. So, go 6 on to number 2. 7 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Excuse me. If you go all 8 th e way to the end of this document, it does make the 9 st atement about future amendments any way so, we will, 10 if we're going to have the opportunity to revisit, we 11 ca n do that. It's part of the document already. 12 MR. EISNER: Okay. We can always go back 13 wh en we get John on the phone. 14 Let's try to get to number 2. Participants, 15 yo u can see this covers a broad range of issues about 16 th e people who are participating in the committee, 17 at tendance at meetings, things like that. Why don't we 18 st art off again, just in order if it's okay with 19 ev erybody with interest represented. Any reason to 20 ch ange that? Okay, anybody disagree? B has to do with 21 pa rties in the negotiation. It seems to be rather 22 st raightforward. Any suggestions about changes? AllCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 73 1 ri ght, paragraph C, subparagraph C has to do with 2 co mmittee members. Again, I think this is just stating 3 a fact, you've been appointed by the Secretary, et 4 ce tera. Anybody have any suggested changes? 5 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Are the committee members 6 ap pointed by the Secretary or by the ASRAC committee? 7 MR. EISNER: They're appointed by the 8 co mmittee under Federal Advisory Committee Act. 9 Ap pointed by the Secretary to the committee under the 10 Fe deral Advisory Committee Act. Anything about 11 al ternates for committee members that's different here? 12 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: No. 13 MR. EISNER: Any reason to word this 14 di fferently? Okay, paragraph E gets to additional 15 in terests. We can allow others, according to the way 16 th is one is written, to join with the concurrence of 17 th e members on the committee. Anybody have any 18 co ncerns about this? Any questions in the audience? 19 MR. STANONIK: I don't mean to bog this down. 20 Fr ank Stanonik, but this is a working group and yet you 21 ke ep calling them committee members and I think it 22 wo uld be a lot clearer for everyone if we just saidCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 74 1 "w orking group." 2 MR. EISNER: I agree with that. I had a note 3 my self to talk about this because I was not sure why it 4 wa s called a committee when the official title is 5 "w orking group," but you'll see later on we get to a 6 wo rking group title and we're going to probably have 7 th e call that a subgroup, so our official editors over 8 th ere will hopefully pick up on all of that. 9 MR. SACHS: I'm Harvey Sachs. I'm half 10 fa cetious, but is "concurrence" different from 11 "c onsensus"? 12 MR. EISNER: You know, again, I don't know 13 wh at they intended here. Do you want to change that 14 wo rd? 15 MR. SACHS: I don't know if I want to or not 16 be cause I don't know what it means. It could mean a 17 ma jority vote. It could mean a consensus, and I don't 18 ev en know if it's important, so I'm asking for guidance 19 on that first. 20 MR. EISNER: Again, I don't know, Dan, if you 21 ha ve any idea what they meant in the first committee. 22 MR. COHEN: In that prior situation, it was aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 75 1 di fferent word deliberately, but it never came up, so 2 it never actually got tested. 3 MR. EISNER: Anybody want to change it? Hope 4 it doesn't come up? 5 MS. BARHYDT: Where was it? 6 MR. SACHS: Second line. District members. 7 MR. CYMBALSKY: There are only 25 members of 8 th is committee? 9 MR. EISNER: So we couldn't add more? 10 MR. CYMBALSKY: We couldn't add any more 11 an yway. 12 MR. EISNER: Does this committee not have 24? 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: You know what, it only had 14 22 . 15 MR. EISNER: Okay. So we probably should 16 ta ke that out. 17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, unless somebody 18 re signs. 19 MR. STEPHENS: I think Harvey has an 20 ex cellent point. I think take out -- Phillip Stephens. 21 I think Harvey has an excellent point. I think we 22 sh ould leave that in there in case something happens,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 76 1 an d someone did have to resign, it would leave us the 2 op portunity to appoint another member. 3 MR. EISNER: So maybe just precede that 4 se ntence with a phrase "if a committee member resigns, 5 co mmittee -- the working group can add one," is that 6 ok ay with you? 7 MR. ROLPH: This is Neil Rolph. I mean, but 8 th e other statement says the Secretary appoints members 9 to this working group. So can this working group 10 ap point more members? That's a bit of a circle there. 11 MR. EISNER: I think we're talking about a 12 di rect link in that paragraph. 13 MS. BARHYDT: He says "additional interests," 14 so if it were somebody replacing somebody else, it 15 wo uldn't be an additional interest, it would be an 16 al ternate for the working group, so it seems to me that 17 D already covers that. 18 MR. EISNER: Any objections? 19 MS. BARHYDT: So E would still be deleted? 20 MR. EISNER: Yes. 21 MR. STANONIK: I'm not sure that I would 22 ag ree with that characterization because I'm notCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 77 1 ce rtain yet that all interests are covered today. I'm 2 su re that the secretary or ASRAC made every effort to 3 co ver all interest groups, but I'm not certain that 4 th at actually occurred, so it would seem to make sense 5 th at if there was someone that was a party to an 6 in terest group dropped out, that that might give an 7 op portunity for an unrepresented or under represented 8 gr oup to join the committee. 9 MR. EISNER: Any thoughts under FACA? 10 MR. MYERS: So there are always going to be 11 pe ople, you know, interests that are not technically 12 re presented at the table but they're -- your job as 13 re presentatives of interests, not your individual 14 co mpany, is to represent all of those interests. If 15 yo u looked at the convening report, I believe that 16 re port has the wedge of interests diagram, and it shows 17 ho w there are a variety of sort of groups and 18 in dividuals behind leading down to the person at the 19 ta ble who is actually the negotiator for that interest, 20 ev en though they may -- so they're representing other 21 pe ople, not everybody at the table, so it's not going 22 to be that every interest is represented personally.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78 1 MR. SACHS: I understand that, but I believe 2 th at report also missed a major interest group with 3 nu merous manufacturers with tremendous impact on those 4 in terest groups that are not adequately represented 5 he re, so it was not covered in that report, so 6 th erefore it's not covered in this committee. 7 MR. HON: What is the group? 8 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Could you share it with 9 us ? 10 MR. MYERS: Certainly. I think those 11 ma nufacturers that make custom equipment designed to 12 or der, design-built type equipment is under 13 re presented here, particularly when those are either 14 no t members of one of the major trade organizations 15 he re or if they're not a ready participant in the 16 pr ograms that those trade organizations have for 17 pe rformance reporting so, particularly those that make 18 la rge custom equipment. 19 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I'd like to see E 20 le ft in and I'm going to give a specific example that 21 we 've recently come through a regulatory preceding 22 wh ich long ago after it closed a group of utilitiesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 79 1 de cided whoops we have a real interest in this. They 2 ar e literally an additional organizational interest, 3 an d if we drop E, we really have no vehicle if such a 4 th ing as Frank is suggesting also were to occur; they 5 wo uld not be able to gain a seat at the table, but what 6 we have -- appreciate that, Ashley, but in point of 7 fa ct, we've seen in the particular what I'm 8 re ferencing, that utilities don't speak with one voice, 9 th at they have a number of different organizational 10 vo ices with quite different interests. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's fair. I just think -- 12 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman for National 13 Re frigeration. This also doesn't preclude anybody of 14 gr oups that may not be represented. I mean, look 15 ar ound the table, submitting their comments or getting 16 th eir comments or getting their points across to the 17 gr oup here and expecting and hoping the people of this 18 gr oup would then bring those forward and discuss those. 19 I think the point that we're already at our maximum for 20 th e barking group, you know, chances of somebody 21 dr opping off and then somebody completely different 22 fr om another interest coming into replace that, ICapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 80 1 wo uldn't expect that, so I think the point that that, 2 yo u know, would more roll into D if someone was to drop 3 ou t rather than into E is valid and I also think, 4 ag ain, I don't think that precludes other groups from 5 pr esenting their interests. 6 MR. EISNER: Again, keep in mind the fact 7 th at if DOE appointed someone to represent interests 8 th at feel they're not being affectively represented 9 he re, they're not being heard in caucus or whatever, 10 ch anges can be made to representation at the table. 11 Yo u represent more than your organization or your 12 co mpany. You represent an interest. If there's 13 co nfusion, that can be addressed separately, but if 14 pe ople are not comfortable with taking D out, then 15 le t's talk about how it can be worded so it can be 16 ac ceptable to people. Does anybody still believe that 17 we should leave E in? Okay. We're not asking you to 18 do that yet. 19 Charles, Charlie. 20 MR. HON: We have another topic coming a 21 li ttle bit further down on this page, which is 22 su bgroups, working subgroups. In those specialCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 81 1 in terests may be involved in those working subgroups on 2 th at actually technically, and if we chose to define it 3 th at way. 4 MR. EISNER: Let me ask if anybody objects to 5 E being in the way it's written, where especially to 6 ma ke it more comfortable only with the concurrence of 7 th e committee, only if it was with the consensus of 8 th is working group, would anybody object to leaving it 9 in ? Everybody would have to agree to add this new 10 pa rty. 11 MS. BARHYDT: My only concern is if we are 12 ba rred by statute from adding people, I don't want to 13 cr eate an appearance that we can. 14 MR. EISNER: What statute would bar you from 15 ad ding people? 16 MS. BARHYDT: Dan said that we were limited 17 to 18 25 . 19 MR. EISNER: That's under the Federal 20 Ad visory Committee Act. That's not binding; I don't 21 be lieve that's a binding requirement. You believe you 22 ne ed 26, you can have 26, I believe. But again, itCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 82 1 re quires the consensus of the committee. 2 MS. BARHYDT: As long as that's okay, I have 3 no problem with it. 4 MR. EISNER: I understand the Negotiated 5 Ru lemaking Act is a framework; it allows you to try 6 ot her things, but we can talk about that. If everybody 7 is comfortable with us leaving this in, changing 8 co ncurrence to consensus to make it a little clearer 9 th at everybody at the table has to agree, than we can 10 le ave it in. Does anybody object to that? Okay, and 11 we can again leave that open for further discussions 12 am ong the lawyers as to what they're comfortable with 13 at DOE. That gets us to F, attendance and participation 14 at meetings. Any thoughts on this one, whether any 15 ch anges are necessary? 16 Okay, there doesn't seem to be any objection 17 th ere. There's a 1 on attendance. What about 2 on 18 pa rticipation? Note here, because we haven't been 19 en forcing it, this only allows committee members to 20 sp eak on issues but the committee I think later on in 21 th is document can approve others speaking at particular 22 ti mes. We can handle that any way you want. If you'reCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 83 1 co mfortable with letting the audience participates 2 wh enever they raise their hand, we can do it that way, 3 or we can limit it to particular times during the 4 me eting. 5 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. Just to back up very 6 qu ickly, I don't think the language in E has been 7 ch anged yet in the official version from concurrence to 8 co nsensus. 9 MR. EISNER: Okay. Yes. 10 MR. MENSER: Mark Menser from Intertect. Is 11 th ere some assurance in the rules that observers will 12 co ntinue to be invited and meetings will be published 13 so that they can attend? 14 MR. EISNER: You want to speak to that about 15 wh at the procedures are? I'm looking at the FACA 16 pe ople. 17 MR. STANONIK: Yes, these meetings are 18 pu blic. Yes, Jonathan Stanonik, DOE. The meetings will 19 be published and are open to the public. 20 MR. EISNER: John, that applies to this H. 21 Wh at about subgroups that this group might create, 22 Jo hn?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 84 1 MR. CYMBALSKY: The subgroups -- what we did 2 in Transformers, this working group splintered off into 3 sm aller working groups to do their work onsite and so 4 wh ile it was still public, people kind of caucused into 5 li ttle working groups, but the details of what they 6 ta lked about were brought up then to the larger working 7 gr oup, and that part of it was made public, but when 8 th ey met as little working groups -- 9 MR. EISNER: Subgroups. 10 MR. STANONIK: It was not at a public forum. 11 MR. EISNER: And that is, as I understand, 12 th ey are not making any recommendations, John? 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Correct; it still all has to 14 go through the subcommittee, or the working group. I'm 15 so rry for the words here. 16 MR. EISNER: Does that address your question? 17 MR. MENSER: Yes, thank you. 18 MR. STARR: Louis Starr on the webinar as a 19 co mmittee member recommended changing concurrence to 20 ag reement in E. If we can go back to E. You want to 21 ta lk about that? 22 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp. I think we're fineCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 85 1 wi th consensus. 2 MR. EISNER: Sounds like everybody is 3 co mfortable with consensus. If we could ask Louis why 4 he wanted it to be changed to agreement, because 5 co nsensus may require a unanimous vote. We'll get to 6 th at later on. Let's assume for now it will not be 7 ch anged. Okay, so that brings us to 2 again, 8 pa rticipation of people who are essentially not 9 co mmittee members. It talks about the committee 10 me mbers can call on another individual to elaborate 11 th ings like that, but how do you want to handle 12 me mbers, or the non-members of this committee, this 13 su bgroup? Excuse me, this working group? 14 MR. MOLVIE: Pete Molvie. My opinion is that 15 if these are truly public, open to the public, the 16 pu blic should be able to make comments when they're 17 he re if they go through the trouble of being in 18 at tendance. 19 MR. EISNER: That's a good point. The 20 qu estion is, could they talk at any time that they 21 wa nt? Are we going to set aside a specific time for 22 th em to talk or some third alternative?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 86 1 MR. MOLVIE: It seems reasonable that the 2 fa cilitator could recognize anybody in the audience who 3 ha s his hand up. 4 MR. EISNER: Okay. Other thoughts? 5 MR. SACHS: There are among the observers 6 to day a number of people who have already made 7 si gnificant contributions, and unless we get into a 8 re al serious time crunch, I would recommend just to 9 le ading item C, and letting the flow of the discussion 10 di ctate how we recognize people. I'm very much 11 su pporting B. 12 MR. EISNER: Okay, are you suggesting 13 el iminating C. Everybody agree with that? 14 Charlie. 15 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I think we can do 16 th at very well, because this is still a vibrant 17 do cument. If it comes to where we're being dragged 18 do wn by someone outside the committee, I think it 19 be comes limited at that point, but until we get it 20 dr agged down, I don't ever want to limit free speech 21 he re. 22 MR. EISNER: And there is an understanding,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 87 1 an d you can put it in the document, you want that I 2 ha ve to recognize the person, so that makes it a little 3 mo re organized. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. If we 5 ta ke out the "if time permits" and leave C in there, I 6 th ink that would be okay, too. 7 MR. EISNER: Everybody fine with that change? 8 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: Fine. 9 MR. EISNER: You got all that? Take out "if 10 ti me permits." All right, constituent's interests in 11 G. This is something we've talked about a few times. 12 An ybody have a problem with leaving that in as written? 13 Okay. We appear to have consensus on 2, so 14 we 'll go on to 3. Decision making. This is the 15 im portant paragraph. Paragraph A on consensus. The 16 ob servations, questions? 17 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I 18 su ggest that we take something along the lines of what 19 th e ASRAC committee generated for consensus as at least 20 as a starting point for what we deal with. 21 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure if I understand 22 wh at you mean by the ASRAC committee. You mean thisCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 88 1 la nguage here? 2 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's different from what the 3 AS RAC committee came up with. It's something along the 4 li nes of they're looking for unanimous vote, however 5 yo u'd accept, what is it, 75 percent if we couldn't 6 ac hieve unanimous decision. 7 MR. EISNER: Comments on that. 8 MR. CYMBALSKY: This John Cymbalsky, DOE. I 9 ju st want to point out that this -- the consensus 10 la nguage that's up there is what the Transformers 11 wo rking group worked under. The full ASRAC committee, 12 as Rusty pointed out, has a different definition of 13 co nsensus, and it's not this one, but this was thrown 14 up there as one that people seemed to like in this 15 wo rking group situation where I think it's a little bit 16 di fferent than the full ASRAC committee, and how 17 th ey're going to do their business so, this is the 18 st rawman to which to work from. And as Neil said, this 19 is the most important part here so if you don't like 20 th is, let's tear it up and redefine it. 21 MR. EISNER: If you want, maybe we can cut 22 an d paste the consensus language from the full ASRACCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 89 1 an d come back to that after you've got it pasted in 2 he re. We can look at both sets of language. 3 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem, and I 4 re ally think it's important since we're working on a 5 sp ecific issue, even though they're large in scope, 6 th at I don't want one person to have the ability to 7 de rail what the other 24 want to do, but I do think 8 it 's important that we have more than 75 percent, so I 9 do n't know what that number is. But you know, ASRAC, I 10 th ink their issues are a little bit broader, but since 11 yo u're a working group and you're working on something 12 ve ry important, I would just hope that we would go with 13 so mething a little bit larger than 75 percent, but then 14 ag ain, you know, I don't think one person need to be 15 ab le to, you know, to derail what the 24 other people 16 ha ve agreed to, so that's just some input. I don't 17 kn ow how the others feel. 18 MR. EISNER: And I would note again, you have 19 th e ability to modify language to or put in a 20 re commendation to the Department of Energy at the end 21 if it's not consensus. For example, if we have ten 22 pa ragraphs in the recommendation and eight of them haveCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 90 1 fu ll consensus of everybody, and two had consensus from 2 80 percent, you could note that in the recommendation. 3 "W e only had 80 percent consensus on this 4 re commendation." You could specifically note who 5 di dn't agree if you wanted to, and you got the 6 fl exibility to develop the kind of report you want. 7 If you think there's an advantage to giving 8 th e Secretary a recommendation, even though it doesn't 9 ha ve 100 percent consensus, then I think it's worth 10 th inking about whether you want something less than 11 th at, but remember, some people are afraid to negotiate 12 if they think they can't stop something they think is 13 go ing to hurt them. There's that incentive to get them 14 to sit there and think, "All right, what can I give up 15 th at won't hurt me that much that will help them get 16 wh at they want," whereas if you always have the 17 op portunity to say "I'm just going to tell them I vote 18 on this -- I vote no on this," that may hurt the 19 ov erall document so you have got to balance those types 20 of things when you're thinking about what it is you 21 wa nt to come out of this group at the end. 22 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 91 1 One of the reasons that I like the idea of 2 ma intaining unanimity is the standard for this working 3 gr oup is that as a sort of as a practical matter, it is 4 th e case that anybody who's really unhappy with the 5 ou tcome here, that viewpoint could be used to overturn 6 th e work of the working group through litigation. I 7 me an, anybody who's been involved in getting burned by 8 th e furnace standards knows that there was a set of 9 st andards for furnaces that were negotiated; everybody 10 re ally was happy with the outcome, except for one 11 gr oup, and as a result, we're back to DOE again likely 12 fo r another round of looking at furnaces, so I totally 13 he ar the idea that we wouldn't want to let one member 14 of the working group stop us from reaching a 15 re commendation, but I sort of think that if we can't 16 ge t unanimity in this working group, that there's no 17 re al guarantee that whatever we recommend will actually 18 be implemented any way. 19 MR. EISNER: Point to remember here: this 20 ju st to elaborate on what was just said, is that later 21 on in the document you have part of the package that, 22 th e first group used was things like "we will not sue,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 92 1 we will not challenge" kind of language. When you lose 2 10 0 percent consensus, you may lose some of that also, 3 so again, think about all the effects this has on the 4 ab ility to get a document that everybody would support. 5 If there's a door open, think about the fact that you 6 ca n spend a lot of hours where you end up with nothing 7 to report to the Secretary when you may have tremendous 8 am ount of support for tremendous amount for 9 tr emendously improved document. 10 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. One other point on 11 th at is that, at least for it was the case for 12 Tr ansformers that all the proceedings, or at least 13 al most all the proceedings, made their way into the 14 re cord for the rulemaking and were evaluated by the 15 De partment, so I think as a practical matter, if 24 16 pe ople think something's a good idea, the Department is 17 go ing to look at that and, you know, obviously they're 18 go ing to take the concerns of the one party that's not 19 in agreement into account, but I think this will -- the 20 wo rk of the working group will influence the outcome of 21 th e rulemaking. It's just a question of whether that 22 ac tually goes in directly into a proposed rule.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 93 1 MR. EISNER: Okay. 2 Yes? 3 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. I'm 4 no t sure if you intended, but I think I just heard a 5 go od argument that it shouldn't be unanimity because I 6 un derstand the process, you're a working group that's 7 go ing to make a recommendation to ASRAC, which will 8 th en answer consider that, which will then get to DOE, 9 an d then if I understand this correctly, at some point 10 DO E would then still publish this as a rule, or a rule 11 fo r review prior; right? So if you're relying on 12 un animity, potentially one percent could stop the 13 pr ocess, and there is no recommendation. There is no 14 re commendation from the working group at all. It might 15 be 24 people that thought it was a great idea, but 16 th ere's no recommendation at all, so there's no 17 re commendation from the working group to ASRAC. ASRAC 18 is back on its own and it seems to me there's a huge 19 ri sk that the process becomes an exercise in futility. 20 If , on the other hand, you have some sub, you know, 21 so me level of consensus that's not unanimity, the 22 pa rties that weren't necessarily in agreement will haveCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 94 1 at least one additional bite at the apple at the review 2 pr ocess, if it gets to the point where DOE puts it into 3 a Federal Register Notice. 4 MR. EISNER: Any reaction? 5 MS. BARHYDT: John, correct me if I'm wrong, 6 bu t I believe that in the Distribution Transformers 7 Ne gotiated Rulemaking, there were certainly areas where 8 th ey couldn't achieve the unanimity, but the Department 9 st ill knew, because the whole -- all of the 10 di scussions, the whole process is public, all of that 11 wa s still in the record for the Department to consider 12 fo r the proposed rule that went forward, so even though 13 th e group didn't come to consensus and it wasn't 14 un animous on a certain way to go forward, it's not all 15 fo r naught. I mean, the Department still has a lot 16 mo re information going forward than before the process. 17 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE. That's 18 co rrect. So I think everyone is making good points and 19 I think, you know, at the end of the day the whole, if 20 yo u read that paragraph, someone has to actually vote 21 no . So you can abstain. That might show your 22 di spleasure with the outcome without actually saying noCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 95 1 so , just keep that in mind. I mean, that was an 2 im portant point of what we did in the Transformers. 3 MS. HOOTMAN: But if you abstain, you don't 4 th en, when we go on to -- this is Jill Hootman at 5 Tr ane, sorry. If you abstain, if you go on to then 6 se ction 4 in agreement, than you're not necessarily 7 al lowed to come back and have any kind of litigation 8 ab ility? 9 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's correct. Again, if 10 th e numbers are -- I think it's been beaten to death, 11 bu t I'll beat it one more time. So, if the numbers end 12 up being 24 to 1 as Tim Ballo mentioned, you know, 13 th at's a pretty strong in favor of in this makeup of 14 th is group, and so when this goes into a proposal, 15 ob viously everything that was talked about and all the 16 in terests that were mentioned here in these proceedings 17 wi ll be in the proposal by the Department, and so at 18 th e end of the day, we're going to have a proposal one 19 wa y or another, so... 20 MR. EISNER: Let me read a comment that we 21 go t from Marshall Hunt, a committee member who is on 22 th e webinar. He said 100 percent is not necessary.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 96 1 Pe rsons not involved in the process can also sue or 2 bl ock the negotiated agreement, thus set the level at 3 75 percent in alignment with ASRAC. Yes? 4 MR. MENSER: If I understood what you just 5 sa id, I concur with that. The downside of not putting 6 so me number like 75 percent in here is that one person 7 co uld hold it up, and then the result was this 8 ne gotiating group could not come to an agreement, and 9 th at message gets out. I really think that this should 10 be every effort made towards having consensus 100 11 pe rcent agreement, but in the end, all of those 12 di sagreements will also go forward and there should be 13 a number that at the end of the day. This group is 14 al lowed to put a report out if they have 75 percent 15 ag reement, and Karen, if it's not 75, if it's 80, 16 th at's not important. I picked 75 because that's the 17 nu mber that ASRAC has, but I personally think that 18 th ere should be some number that would enable this 19 au gust body to put out a report and not say that 20 ne gotiations had failed, and then somebody else has to 21 do something. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Go ahead, Harvey.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 97 1 MR. SACHS: What we're doing now is arguing 2 ab out the price, and that gets tied directly to what's 3 th e size of the smallest recognized interest group, and 4 fo r example, loosely speaking, we could talk about the 5 co mmercial refrigeration manufacturers, commercial HVAC 6 ma nufacturers, and when we get down to discussing the 7 pr ice of ham and eggs, as a pig, I think about the size 8 of my group, and at most that's four, so anything that 9 al lows four to be overridden, which should be 80 10 pe rcent, or actually 83 percent, would be of concern to 11 me . So, if we can't -- if we must have a number, for 12 me , as an environmental advocate, it's 85 percent's the 13 mi nimum, because that says you can't veto the unlikely 14 po ssibility that Marshall Hunt and Harvey Sachs agree. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay. 16 John Mandyck on the phone. You want to talk? 17 MR. MANDYCK: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted 18 a weigh in. I think unanimity is not realistic nor do 19 I think it's fair, so I think some number whether it's 20 75 , 80, 85 percent, something has to be thought of here 21 so that there's a chance that some report can come out. 22 No w, there is the requirement that has been mentionedCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 98 1 th at the report that will go to the full ASRAC 2 co mmittee will represent full views and minority views, 3 so all the views will be transmitted, but I don't think 4 it 's fair that we allow one body to block a full report 5 do ne by the good work of all the people on this working 6 gr oup. 7 MR. EISNER: Other comments, thoughts? 8 MS. BARHYDT: Maybe I'm coming into this too 9 id ealistic after listening to all of this, but my hope 10 is that we can actually achieve an agreement that while 11 ev erybody doesn't like every last little bit of it, 12 th at as a whole, everyone can support, and so I'm 13 co ming from the perspective of I really hope that we 14 ca n, and setting a lower bar going into it just worries 15 me a little bit that, is everyone really committed to 16 ma king the hard decisions and making the decisions that 17 ye ah, I don't really like this that much but I can live 18 wi th that if I get this other thing, and the trade 19 of fs, and just as a whole picture, can we really all 20 si t down and come to an agreement that there is a 21 so lution out there that everybody can live with? 22 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. I agree with that. ICapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 99 1 th ink we're maybe getting a little bit ahead of 2 ou rselves in trying to rule out unanimity before we 3 re ally get a sense of just how close together we are, 4 be cause I think we may be coming into this process with 5 so me assumptions about what other groups might be 6 as king for, which I think may be -- are actually a 7 li ttle bit sort of assuming the worst about some of our 8 fe llow committee members or working group members, so I 9 do think that a consensus is possible. We could always 10 at least try moving forward with consensus for now, and 11 as someone who's pushing for consensus, I'd be happy to 12 re open the discussion at some point in the future if we 13 wa nt to at that point back away from consensus. 14 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp with Goodman. 15 I guess one of the reasons I made this suggestion to 16 fo llow ASRAC to begin with is because we are in a time 17 cr unch, and the one reason I would like to see 18 so mething besides unanimity, I'll just say "unanimous 19 de cision," is because I think with the limited amount 20 of time that we have that would be probably the best 21 wa y in order to get there in a restricted amount of 22 ti me. If we had a year or so to do a lot of this work,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 100 1 I would be more in tune to agree with the suggestion 2 fo r a unanimous decision. However, having four months 3 to accomplish everything, I think that we should 4 co nsider something less than unanimous, and I would say 5 ev en 90 percent, 95 percent, something less where would 6 gi ve us an opportunity to move forward a little bit 7 fa ster. 8 MR. EISNER: Let me ask you to focus again on 9 th at first sentence which we kept very simple in the 10 do cument, your goal. Your goal is to get this document 11 ou t. Some of you were saying you want to get it out 12 qu ickly, you have to get it out quickly, not that you 13 ne cessarily want to, in order to meet time constraints, 14 th erefore you should accept something less than 15 un animity. But if you accept something less than 16 un animity, will you achieve your goal? Will you have a 17 gr eat document that the Secretary of Energy will then 18 ta ke and say, "This is a good NPRM, I will publish it 19 fo r comment," or will he see they didn't have unanimity 20 on four of the ten key points, or they only got 85 21 pe rcent of the people, but the 15 percent are people 22 wh o'll probably sue us, we'll be tied up in court.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 101 1 You don't know those subtle things. Will it 2 st ill get you to your goal if you accept something less 3 th an unanimity? You're almost guaranteed that the 4 Se cretary can't say no if everyone, including his 5 re presentative, says yes. But if you don't think 6 yo u're going to get to something that you can even 7 pr esent to the Secretary, then you have to consider 8 ot her options than unanimity. Go ahead. 9 MS. MEYERS: This Karen with Rheem. I think 10 ev eryone is committed to trying to get unanimity on 11 th is issue, but you know, I don't think that needs to 12 be how we define consensus. I think everyone's 13 th inking that if we don't define consensus as 14 un animity, then we're not going to try to get 15 un animity, and maybe I'm just speaking, you know for 16 my self, but that's still I think the goal of the group. 17 I mean, that's what we put as our goal, is to reach 18 co nsensus, so then maybe we should change the goal to 19 ge t to be -- to try and achieve 100 percent consensus, 20 bu t maybe I'm getting my words mixed up here because 21 I' m kind of talking over myself, but I think, you know, 22 I just I think it's unrealistic to, and I think it's aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 102 1 li ttle bit unfair in the short time that we have to not 2 be able to try, and I don't want the perfect to get in 3 th e way of the good, and I'm afraid that if we define 4 co nsensus as 100 percent, that could happen. 5 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, and I agree with 6 Ka ren. I don't believe even in the previous negotiated 7 ru lemaking the DOE was able to reach unanimity within 8 th e Transformer group, so I think we need to put some 9 so rt of a percentage, whether it's 75 percent, whether 10 it 's 80 percent, but I believe that's the way to move 11 fo rward, otherwise I'm afraid that we're not going to 12 be able to provide for recommendation to the ASRAC and 13 ev entually to DOE. So -- and again, any rulemaking 14 th at DOE has done that I'm aware of, never, never was 15 do ne with full consensus, so I think we need to put 16 so me sort of percentage. 17 MR. EISNER: Okay, let me read two comments 18 we got from people online. From Bryce Bowley, "I think 19 75 percent is too low. I understand that we may not 20 ge t all members to agree; however, I think a number 21 cl oser to 90 percent would be more reasonable. We want 22 br oad agreement, not majority." And a comment fromCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 103 1 Br uce Helft, "Does 'present'" in quotes "mean 2 ph ysically present" -- oh, present -- "does present 3 me an physically present? Can a working group member 4 vo te by proxy?" 5 Again, that's for the group to decide on how 6 th ey can vote. We'll have to go back to that in a few 7 se conds. So let's focus on how we can write this so we 8 ca n get agreement around the table on how to proceed 9 be cause I'm hearing objections to anything less than 10 un animity. I'm hearing objections to unanimity. We 11 ca n't really proceed if we can't get agreement on that 12 po int because if we can't agree on how we're going to 13 vo te, there's no way to go ahead. 14 So is there language that we can write that 15 wo uld satisfy everybody around the table? Laura? Oh - 16 - 17 MR. BAUMAN: Thanks, Laura. This is Jeff 18 Ba uman from National Refrigeration. I guess in 19 co mbining that and thinking the same way Neil is, you 20 kn ow, could we raise a statement that the working group 21 ca n be defined consensus or the goal of consensus for 22 th e working group would be to achieve 100 percent. InCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 104 1 th e event that -- and I don't know if it's fair, but to 2 sa y the facilitator finds that the group can achieve 3 th at, that an 85 percent or somewhere in the number 4 wo uld be sufficient if they find they cannot receive -- 5 ca nnot achieve a unanimous. 6 MR. EISNER: And as I understand what you're 7 su ggesting, Jeff -- maybe I'm thinking too far ahead -- 8 if we don't get 100 percent, then we lose other parts 9 of the agreement such as "I won't sue, I won't object" 10 ki nd of language. 11 So I think what you're suggesting is we write 12 th e agreement that we will get unanimous consensus. If 13 I find that we can't get unanimous consensus, then the 14 ru les of the game change and we get the best we can and 15 su bmit that report to the Secretary. But the rules of 16 th e game would have to change, I think, for things like 17 "I will not sue." 18 Could people live with that as a consensus? 19 An d do we want to decide -- do we need to decide 20 pe rcentage or do I just make a decision that we're not 21 ma king progress? And we can always go back to an issue 22 af ter we get to the end of all the issues and decideCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 105 1 yo u know what, I now got -- I now have what I want here 2 so therefore I can go back and withdraw my objection to 3 an earlier decision and say, "I agree with that now." 4 But if we don't get consensus but we want to 5 su bmit a report to the Secretary, we can go ahead and 6 do that. We just realize the rules of the game may 7 ch ange. 8 MR. ROLPH: This is Neil Rolph. I would 9 su pport this idea that we can't get 100 percent 10 co nsensus, but we desire it. And we have to set a 11 le vel. I mean, I don't like the idea of just leaving 12 it open to whenever a topic comes up we can't get 13 co nsensus on that then we figure out what that is. 14 I think we need to do it right now and settle 15 th at law and I agree with the comment Harvey made about 16 th ere's so many different interest groups and the 17 pe rcentages of those I think has to be some level -- 18 ma ybe it's above 85 percent or 90. I would definitely 19 su pport that. 20 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I 21 un derstood you. You would support -- 22 MR. ROLPH: I support that we desire 100Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 106 1 pe rcent consensus, but we have to have a level that is 2 so mewhat below that to move forward and maybe that's 85 3 or 90 level that's a fixed number. 4 MR. EISNER: But are you agreeing with the 5 th eory that we say our goal is to achieve consensus, 6 he re are the rules of the road for achieving consensus. 7 If we do not achieve consensus, we can decide to submit 8 a report showing what support we did have, but the rest 9 of the rules of the game change? 10 MR. ROLPH: Not exactly. I'm saying 11 co nsensus is whatever level that we're establishing 12 he re. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. 14 MR. ROLPH: The statement is we desire 100 15 pe rcent, but the vote will be taken based on a level 16 th at we have to achieve. 17 MR. EISNER: And are there objections to 18 th at? Because I understand there are, so we won't have 19 co nsensus on that. Around the table, would you agree 20 to setting a level? Would everybody agree to setting a 21 le vel of some percentage that is the consensus 22 ne cessary? Everybody would agree? Okay.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 107 1 So then we have to start talking about what 2 th e percentage ought to be. John Mandyck submitted a 3 no te that said, "We should decide this now. We can't 4 re visit later once negotiations actually start." 5 MR. MYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. To 6 st art the conversation, I'll say 85 percent. 7 MR. EISNER: Yes? 8 MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman. Tim 9 wa nted to say something, I could tell. 10 MR. BALLO: I'm okay with moving away from 11 co nsensus as long as we also recognize we're moving 12 aw ay from the "I will not sue if I'm the one person 13 wh o's holding things up." 14 So I mean, if that's the path we want to go 15 do wn, as long as we change that language in the 16 ag reement also. And one other thing on the 17 Tr ansformers rulemaking, we did actually reach 18 co nsensus on one of the three types of Transformers 19 th at were under discussion for that. 20 MR. EISNER: Yes. 21 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik, Hussmann. I agree 22 wi th the 85 percent, but the one thing I'm a littleCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 108 1 co nfused on is the language "I will not sue." I mean, 2 is that a loose term that we're throwing out there or 3 th ere actually language because again, we hear, we 4 sp eak -- you know, we can't guarantee that our 5 co mpetitors or other similar manufacturers do outside 6 of this group. So we have no -- 7 MR. EISNER: To the extent you are speaking 8 fo r affected interests, you're representing not just 9 yo ur company but affected interests, they are 10 es sentially agreeing. It's not something where they've 11 si gned a document saying they won't, but it's kind of 12 pa rt of the -- I think it's considered part of the good 13 fa ith concept. We all sat down, we all agreed, we were 14 al l -- everybody can't be at the table. We're 15 re presenting these interests and on behalf of those 16 in terests, we agree we will not sue. We agree we will 17 no t challenge, whatever it is you want to put in the 18 do cument. 19 MR. SHEBIK: Okay, thank you. 20 MR. EISNER: Yes, Harvey? 21 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, just a little bit 22 of clarification: full consensus endorsement implies 25Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 109 1 pe ople or 100 percent, 24 is 96, 23 is 92, so if we 2 wa nt a threshold that says you have to have four people 3 ob jecting to derail, that says that I was wrong, it 4 ca n't be 85 percent. It has to be 90 percent because 5 fo ur people objecting would mean 88 percent agreeing. 6 MR. BAUMAN: Twenty-one -- 7 MR. SACHS: Twenty-two -- 8 MR. BAUMAN: You're off by one. 9 MR. SACHS: -- I'm still off. Let me just 10 re wind the tape and go back into my cave. 11 We want -- 22 people, yes, would be 88 12 pe rcent yes. Since it's four percent per person with 13 25 people. That much, I think I'm right on. Yes. 14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. It might be easier 15 be cause we're also putting in the provision to allow 16 fo r additional members to come in. It might be easier 17 ju st to say that no more than two negative votes, 18 ra ther than putting in a percentage. 19 MR. SACHS: Yes. 20 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from NR. 21 Bu t then you get abstentions versus negative votes. I 22 th ink you still have to do it as a percentage of --Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 110 1 be cause an abstention would not be counted in the 2 pe rcentage at all. 3 MR. EISNER: But again, you can force people 4 to vote yes or no if you want. That's your decision as 5 a group. Other thoughts? Laura? 6 MS. BARHYDT: So is the proposal 85 or 88 7 pe rcent, but the people who might vote no agree not -- 8 st ill agree not to sue? Or is it that we take 9 so mething under 100 percent and the "I won't take any 10 ad verse action" still stand? Are people still agreeing 11 to that even if they may not agree to the final 12 de cision -- recommendation of the body? 13 MR. EISNER: And to be a little bit more 14 sp ecific, if we have 10 points -- again, just to make 15 up a number -- and you non-concur on number eight is 16 th at the only one you can sue over, that issue? Could 17 yo u sue over something you voted yes for? 18 MS. BARHYDT: That's what I wanted 19 cl arification, yeah. 20 MR. EISNER: Yeah. Other thoughts? You want 21 to allow abstentions even with a percentage on it? So 22 do you want to say 90 percent of those voting? Yes?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 111 1 MS. HOOTMAN: I think we still need to -- 2 Ji ll Hootman from Trane. I think we still need 3 ab stentions because there is obvious groups here and 4 yo u know, whereas my company might not have any 5 in terest in something in water heating, I would abstain 6 fr om water heating. You know? I mean, it's not -- I 7 ca n be a party to and agree to, but I don't want to 8 st ick them with something that, you know, they can't 9 li ve with. 10 So I mean, I think we have to leave 11 ab stention for things that we are not necessarily a 12 pa rty or an interested party to. 13 MR. EISNER: So any thoughts on the 14 pe rcentage, with that in mind? Or again, that makes it 15 a little harder to say can't have more than two 16 ne gative votes, you can't have -- remember when you say 17 tw o percentage -- a certain percentage, abstentions are 18 go ing to affect how many negative votes can stop 19 so mething. 20 At what percentage do we want to go with? 21 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. I still don't really 22 se e the distinction or why we need to go with aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 112 1 pe rcentage rather than just having no more than two 2 pe ople object, you know? If some people abstain, well, 3 th at's their business. But the purpose should be to 4 re ach consensus or as close as we can to, among the 5 pe ople with an interest in that issue, whether there's 6 tw o people that disagree out of 25 or two people out 7 of , you know, 15, that are only interested in this 8 pa rticular issue, then it's still just, you know, two. 9 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. I 10 th ink if we can get -- go with a number of no more than 11

-- it should be no more than three rather than two 12 sh ould object. 13 MR. EISNER: Let me ask you why you want two 14 an d why you want three? You start. 15 MR. BALLO: Well, two is one-half of me, 16 Ha rvey, Marshall, and Louis. I'll be honest. 17 MR. EISNER: And three? 18 MR. DOPPEL: Just looking at the percentages, 19 th ree is essentially like a 90 percent level if the 20 wh ole group is participating -- 88. 21 MR. EISNER: Now again, I don't know all the 22 re presentation around the table and how the variousCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 113 1 in terests will differ depending on the issue that's on 2 th e -- how the various affected interests will vary 3 de pending on the issue on the table. But when you pick 4 a number, are you picking a number that's going to 5 bl ock one interest from ever being able to stop 6 an ything? And is that going to help you achieve 7 co nsensus, but give you a document that is not really 8 an effective document because one interest was 9 co nstantly blocked out? I don't know the numbers and I 10 do n't know how it works out. You would know that 11 be tter than I. 12 And I think that's partly where Tim was 13 co ming from, but -- from the different -- a different 14 si de of it. Yes? 15 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHI, to 16 th at very point, if you accept Harvey's premise and 17 Ti m's that there are four representations of let's call 18 th e conservation advocates with three, requiring three 19 no votes, that is clearly a significant -- let's call 20 it a bloc, if you will, a significant indication that 21 bl oc doesn't -- possibly doesn't agree. 22 With two, it's an indication that that blocCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 114 1 is uncertain. So on the one hand, you would have an 2 in terest being able to disagree with whatever 3 re commendation if in fact that interest was majority 4 op posed to it. On the other hand, if it's only two, 5 yo u have a possibility the interest could vote against 6 so mething even though the interest is uncertain of 7 th eir position collectively. 8 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. I guess I view the 9 de viation from consensus a little differently in that I 10 th ought we were getting away from consensus to protect 11 ag ainst the possibility that there's -- one of us is a 12 nu t case, and I think just by going to two, you know, I 13 ma y be crazy, but I'd have to convince Harvey also to 14 be crazy and I think that two adequately protects the 15 ov erall goals of the committee to keep it moving 16 fo rward. 17 MR. EISNER: Let me also raise another 18 qu estion for you to consider. If it's more than one, 19 wh ich is obviously the difference between unanimity and 20 no n-unanimity, you don't -- you may not have the 21 su pport of the agency. Is that something you'd still 22 wa nt to go ahead and make a recommendation on? SoCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 115 1 wh ere should the number be set? 2 Yes? 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman from Trane. Yes, 4 I think we would still want to go forward with the 5 re commendation even if the Department was not behind it 6 an d be part of the public record. 7 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry, I got handed a note 8 ju st as I was -- 9 MS. HOOTMAN: I said, yes, I think we would 10 st ill want to go ahead with the recommendation even if 11 th e Department was the dissenting vote than be part of 12 th e public record. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. Numbers? 14 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman again from 15 Na tional -- I guess two quick things that occurred to 16 me is that Tim, when you were talking about, you know, 17 ag ain part of our goal in reaching consensus is also 18 ta lking to each other, not just putting up fences 19 ac ross from -- oh, that's that group, that's this 20 gr oup. 21 I would hope, Tim, that if you could convince 22 Ha rvey to be crazy, you can convince one of us to beCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 116 1 cr azy too if it's something that's valid that we can -- 2 it 's not just a certain group, but in the discussions, 3 yo u know, we're going to have open minds on both sides 4 bu t to be able to build that consensus, not just have a 5 we ll, that's where they're coming from so that's, you 6 kn ow, just trying to think along those lines. 7 The other thing, too, I think a little bit 8 ab out a percentage if you talk about -- and somebody 9 me ntioned if you have the item that for some reason a 10 bu nch of people didn't vote on, if it's only 15 people, 11 if you say two people have to vote out of that, you 12 kn ow, not using a percentage, then you're actually much 13 hi gher as far as a percentage that you're asking for. 14 So it seems to me, you know, just sitting here thinking 15 ab out the percentages may have some advantages to going 16 th at way. 17 MR. EISNER: John Mandyck says that at full 18 AS RAC, abstentions do not count as a vote and are aside 19 fr om the 75 percent consensus threshold. Yes? 20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I did 21 th e math. Just to let everybody know, whether we have 22 90 percent or two negative votes, it works out as longCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 117 1 as you have fewer than six abstentions. So it comes 2 ou t to be the same whether we go percentage or the 3 nu mber of negative votes for two. It's a moot point at 4 th at point. So I would recommend the 90 percent level. 5 Be cause that gives us up to five abstentions and we can 6 st ill have the votes. 7 MR. EISNER: Others on 90 percent, any 8 sp ecific thoughts? 9 MR. SACHS: Neil, I'm hearing consensus 10 th at's close enough; it's got an error margin around 11 it . We ought to be able to go ahead and if something 12 ac tually gets hung up, as Jeff says, it's cause to 13 re visit and I think I'd be comfortable with that, not 14 wo rrying too much about whether it's two of those 15 vo ting or 90 percent of the whole committee or -- if 16 yo u get close to that, it's a sign that you really have 17 to do some rethinking about that issue. 18 MR. EISNER: So I'm sorry, but are you saying 19 90 percent would be okay with you? 20 MR. SACHS: I'm saying that either one of 21 th em, I don't see a substantive difference. Both of 22 th em are flag posts that we have a problem to continueCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 118 1 wo rking on. 2 MR. EISNER: Others? If I were to call for a 3 vo te on 90 percent would everybody be ready? 4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, if you could talk 5 yo ur numbers again because I don't think 90 percent is 6 th e same as five. Five abstentions. 7 MR. EISNER: Yes? 8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. So if 9 we have five abstentions, that means we have 20 votes. 10 So two negative votes would give us 90 percent even. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay, so you're saying two? 12 MR. STEPHENS: Yes. Two negative votes with 13

- 14 - 15 MR. EISNER: Okay, with abstentions, okay, I 16 go t it. 17 MR. STEPHENS: -- five abstentions still gets 18 us 90 percent. And by the way, three negative votes 19 wo uld give us 85 percent. 20 MR. EISNER: Thoughts on 90 percent? If I 21 we re to call for a vote, is everybody ready to vote or 22 th ey want to discuss more?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 119 1 MR. SACHS: 90 percent of those voting. 2 MR. EISNER: How do we -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley. I just had a 4 qu estion: what do you do for people who don't show up, 5 vo ting members that aren't here? 6 MR. SACHS: There are others -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, do they -- are they 8 au tomatically an abstention? Do they just not count? I 9 me an, this is something we did have to adjust for 10 AS RAC. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, 11 bu t just -- 12 MR. EISNER: It could be 90 percent counting 13 ab stentions -- considering abstentions. 14 MR. SACHS: It's lunch hour. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sorry, didn't mean to delay 16 lu nch further, sorry Harvey, but - 17 MR. SACHS: She's blushing. 18 MR. EISNER: What -- can I ask what the 19 re cord has been in terms of people not voting in the 20 pr ior advisory committee? Is it frequent that you 21 do n't have 25? 22 JOHN CYMBALSKY: Transformers, everybody isCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 120 1 al ways there. 2 John Cymblasky, Dewey, for Transformers, 3 no body ever missed a vote. And I think this group 4 mi ght even have more interest in this issue and I would 5 ex pect them not to miss a vote as well. 6 MS. MEYERS: Can we make that one of our 7 ru les; if you're on here for a vote, then you count as 8 an abstention? Can we define that? 9 MR. EISNER: I draw everybody's attention to 10 2F ; "everybody makes a good faith effort to attend 11 ev ery meeting and voting may be by telephone or other 12 el ectronic means." Good faith to -- "alternate makes a 13 go od faith effort to attend all committee meetings and 14 re present the interest." Let's make that stronger if 15 so mebody wants to. But that's what we earlier agreed 16 to . 17 So 90 percent, which would allow two people 18 to stop something as long as there were no more than 19 fi ve abstentions and/or absences from voting. 20 MR. SACHS: More than two people. 21 MR. EISNER: More than two people. Well, it 22 de pends on how you word this threshold; 90 percent orCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 121 1 ab ove or less than 90 percent. 2 So if we were to say you had to have 90 3 pe rcent or above support based on the votes of those 4 vo ting or abstaining, being others being included in 5 th e number, determine the 90 percent. Or based on an 6 as sumption that there were 25 votes cast, you'd have to 7 ha ve 90 percent of the 25 members to get something to 8 pa ss. I think I'm wording that -- 9 Anybody object to that? 10 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp with Goodman, 11 90 percent of 25 is 22-1/2 so I would suggest that we 12 do a rounding or truncating or something to -- since 13 th ere's not any half people here. 14 So I would suggest we say 90 percent, rounded 15 do wn. So for 25 or rounded up -- one way or the other 16 so there's not any arguments later. Round it up so 17 th at there's 90 percent rounded up. 18 MR. BAUMAN: If you just say "you must 19 ac hieve a 90 percent or better," you're right, 22-1/2 20 is n't a person, but then you have to have 23 to make -- 21 th at kind of becomes your threshold; you have to have 22 23 people to achieve.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 122 1 MR. THARP: That covers that, okay, 90 2 pe rcent or better. 3 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure what we have. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: The key is that we get the 5 sa me numbers. 6 MR. DOPPEL: Well, essentially -- this is 7 Pa ul Doppel with Mitsubishi -- essentially what that 8 ge ts us to is it's the two number; two abstentions -- 9 tw o negative votes and then that would be further 10 re duced down to one negative vote. Everybody just 11 ne eds to be clear of that. I think if we go three, I 12 th ink three is -- I feel more comfortable with that 13 nu mber, so that would be like an 88 percent. So if 14 ev eryone's voting, then you have to have at least 88 15 pe rcent. 16 MR. EISNER: Do you want to go with a number? 17 MR. DOPPEL: Well, if we go 88 percent and 18 th en -- but then as you go down, then it quickly drops 19 ba ck to two percent or two negative votes. 20 MR. EISNER: Do you want to then go with a 21 nu mber so it's not affected by who's voting and who's 22 no t voting? To simply say three negative votes, weCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 123 1 do n't have consensus. 2 MR. DOPPEL: Go ahead, Karen. 3 MR. MYERS: Well, I'm going to disagree with 4 yo u a little bit, Paul. At 90 percent, you would still 5 ha ve to have three to keep something from going forward 6 be cause 90 percent -- 7 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 8 MR. MYERS: -- I mean, so you still have to 9 ha ve three people disagree. Two people disagreeing 10 wo uld not stop it from going forward. It would still 11 go forward because you would achieve your 90 percent. 12 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 13 MR. MYERS: Right? 14 MR. EISNER: Depends on how you word the 90 15 pe rcent. You have to have support of 90 percent or you 16 ha ve to have 10 percent object? Because it works -- 17 de pending on the numbers -- Louis Starr wants to speak? 18 Lo uis? 19 MR. STARR: Yeah. Can you hear me, first of 20 al l? 21 MR. EISNER: Yes. 22 MR. STARR: Oh, okay, great. I just need aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 124 1 li ttle bit of help. I'm trying to -- I'm thinking 2 th ere are issues we're going to run across where 3 th ere's enough products out there that of the 25 4 me mbers, ORPA, five people are going to produce a 5 pr oduct and you know, most of the people are going to 6 ab stain. 7 And so I'm trying to figure out if we're at a 8 90 percent level and we've got, you know, five people 9 vo ting, it seems problematic if you're using a number. 10 So the idea of using a percentage when you're at a 11 lo wer number makes sense. But when you're at a higher 12 nu mber, selecting a number of people like two or three 13 or whatever that number is, but once you got below a 14 ce rtain number of people that are interested in the 15 is sue, it seems like you need to maybe -- I'm not sure 16 wh at the metrics are, but I know that there needs to be 17 a different metric when you have 25 people voting or 18 wh en you have five people voting. 19 So I guess you're talking about that, but I 20 ki nd of want to think through what the implications of 21 th at are. Thanks. 22 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? Do we want toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 125 1 go with a number? Do we want it to be three or two to 2 st op consensus? Do we want to go with a percentage 3 wh ich is going to change depending on how many people 4 ar e voting? 5 Yes, Charlie? 6 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. I 7 wo uld say just put the number two there for a couple 8 re asons. Number one is that it eliminates the single 9 pe rson driving his heels in against one product. If we 10 go with percentages, a lot of us who have no real 11 in terest in a product -- certain activity within the 12 co mmittee who should be voting abstention because it 13 ha s no relevance to us whatsoever will probably want to 14 vo te in favor of things that we're really not sure of 15 wh at that we're voting for because we want to keep the 16 pe rcentages realistic. 17 If we have two people negative about a 18 pr oduct, some problem they see, we probably have a loss 19 of consensus. So rather than fight all this back and 20 fo rth, percentages and all, we just draw a line and 21 dr ive the stake in and be done with it. 22 MR. SACHS: Will that get us lunch?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 126 1 MR. EISNER: We're a long way from lunch. 2 Two, any objections to two? Two negative 3 vo tes, you don't have consensus? 4 MS. MEYERS: Is this just for the full 5 wo rking group committee or would this also apply to 6 su bgroups? 7 MR. EISNER: The full group is the group that 8 ma kes the decisions. Subgroup can present -- unless 9 yo u want to vote on subgroup rules, they're going to 10 ge nerally be gathering information from you, doing 11 re search; you could let them vote, they could decide 12 th eir own voting, you could tell them how to vote. But 13 yo u make the decisions on what to recommend to 14 ASRAC. You can ask them questions, for 15 ex ample, when they come back in: "Did you guys agree 16 un animously on this? That sort of thing." 17 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. One 18 mo re thought. If it's less than -- 15 or less, it 19 ta kes two; greater than that takes three negative 20 vo tes. Doesn't stop a ballot measure. 21 MR. EISNER: So you want to put that in the 22 gr ound rules; if there are more than 15 people voting,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127 1 if there are less than 15 people voting -- fewer? 2 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. Right, that gives some 3 ba lance. The percentage, you don't know the number of 4 pe ople. You know, so essentially if you have 15 or 5 le ss, two is a reasonable number and then greater than 6 th at, it should take three. 7 MR. EISNER: Any people want to speak about 8 th at? 9 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. I guess my concern 10 ab out that is similar to the point Charlie raised that 11 yo u then have an incentive for people that care very 12 st rongly about an issue to try to get others who may 13 no t have much of an interest in that issue to cast a 14 vo te when they otherwise would have abstained just for 15 th e purposes of crossing the threshold over 15. 16 MR. EISNER: Let me go back to two. Anybody 17 ob ject? [2:31:02] 18 If we're willing to live with two for now at least? 19 Ok ay, that takes care of the first sentence. 20 "The committee will operate by consensus," 21 wh ich for these purposes means no more than two 22 ne gative votes on a particular issue. We don't needCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 128 1 an y of the present in voting the way we've done it. 2 Second sentence, "Concurrence will be assumed 3 ab sent over dissent, evidence by a negative vote." That 4 ca n be deleted. Does everybody agree? 5 Third sentence, "Abstention will not be 6 co nstrued as a negative vote." I think that's fine to 7 le ave in. 8 "All agreement reached during the 9 ne gotiations are tentative and may be made by the 10 me mbers present at the meeting and their alternates who 11 at tend the meeting in their stead until the committee 12 re aches an agreement that is binding on the parties." 13 I don't know if we want to leave the language 14 on binding on the parties if we have negative votes now 15 be ing allowed. So do we want to leave that last 16 se ntence in, take it out completely, or just simply say 17 un til the committee reaches an agreement, period? Three 18 al ternatives; I'm willing to listen to more. Always 19 wi lling to listen to more. 20 MS. BARHYDT: I think we should leave it in 21 fo r now until we actually talk about what would or 22 wo uldn't be binding and then we can revisit that,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 129 1 be cause I think that it's going to be important on what 2 th e -- what everybody agrees is binding on the parties 3 in the first place before we really know whether or not 4 pe ople are willing to agree to that term. 5 MR. EISNER: Anybody have any objections to 6 th at? Can I assume that hearing none, we can go ahead 7 th en? Congratulations, we've finished paragraph A. 8 B, this issue came up -- actually let me go 9 ba ck to this note here. Does "present" mean physically 10 pr esent? Can a working group member vote by proxy? I 11 th ink we're allowing vote electronically, so I assume 12 th at's the equivalency of a proxy; isn't it? Is that 13 th e way you -- 14 MR. HON: It's not voting -- there's more 15 re commendations in there that's called for. 16 MR. EISNER: Okay, so if -- 17 MR. COHEN: Could not vote by proxy, that -- 18 yo u have to vote -- I'm sorry, this is Dan Cohen. 19 El ectronic voting was meant to be you could -- you 20 di dn't have to physically be here, but you could be on 21 th e phone, on a webinar or something. Not vote by 22 pr oxy, not have --Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 130 1 MR. EISNER: Wait, wait, wait, let's -- it 2 wa s a two-part question. 3 MS. BARHYDT: It has to be here. 4 MR. EISNER: Does "present" mean physically 5 pr esent? 6 MR. COHEN: No. 7 MS. BARHYDT: No. 8 MR. EISNER: So the answer to that is no, it 9 do esn't mean physically present. So then that I think 10 me ans -- the second question is irrelevant, can a 11 wo rking group member vote by proxy. They don't have to 12 vo te by proxy. They can -- they don't have to be 13 pr esent. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: But they can't send somebody 15 in their place. That's the difference. 16 MR. EISNER: They can't give a right to a 17 th ird person to vote on each issue. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly. 19 MR. EISNER: Okay, does everybody understand 20 th at? Nobody has a problem with that? Do we need to 21 ad d anything? Does anybody remember what paragraph 22 th is was in? This is F1?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 131 1 MS. DANE: F1 under attendance. 2 MS. MEYERS: So this is Karen with Rheem. So 3 yo u can't vote by proxy but you can send an alternate 4 wh o can vote for you; is that correct? 5 MR. EISNER: Yes, yes. That's how I 6 un derstand it and you can also attend the meeting by 7 te lephone or by the web. 8 MS. MEYERS: But if you can't do any of those 9 an d you send an alternate to represent you -- 10 MR. EISNER: No, you can send an -- you have 11 an alternate and the alternate can come, but as I 12 un derstand it, if the alternate can't come, you can't 13 ha ve -- you can't give your vote to someone else on the 14 co mmittee. 15 MS. MEYERS: Okay, but your alternate can 16 vo te? 17 MR. EISNER: Is that understood by you guys 18 fr om the last meeting? The alternate can vote if the 19 re gular member can't attend. 20 MR. COHEN: What defines an alternate? They 21 ca n have an alternate at the meeting, but not - 22 COURT REPORTER: Can you say into the mic,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 132 1 pl ease? 2 MR. COHEN: So this is just how it worked 3 un der these ground rules in the last -- this is Dan 4 Co hen of DOE AGC. In the prior negotiated rulemaking 5 fo r distribution of transformers, an alternate could be 6 pr esent and represent interests in discussions and 7 pa rticipate in the meetings, but not vote. 8 MR. EISNER: Oh, the alternate cannot vote? 9 MR. COHEN: Correct; only the member could 10 vo te. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. 12 MR. COHEN: Do you want to read that part? 13 MR. EISNER: It says "and to represent the 14 in terest." But it doesn't say anything about voting. 15 MR. COHEN: Right. 16 MR. EISNER: Do we want to focus on that and 17 to say to represent the interest, but not vote? 18 MR. AMRANE: That's what it says in 2D right 19 th ere. D, look at D. 2D. 20 MR. EISNER: Okay, only committee members may 21 vo te. 22 MR. AMRANE: But think you can --Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 133 1 MR. EISNER: And any alternate -- the 2 al ternate casting a vote shall do so on behalf of the 3 co mmittee member, not as a representative -- okay. So 4 th e alternate can vote? 5 MR. AMRANE: Yeah. 6 MR. COHEN: That's the way we did it last 7 ti me. 8 MR. EISNER: All right, let me put it this 9 wa y: do we have agreement that that is the way we want 10 to do it at this meeting, the alternate can vote? 11 MR. AMRANE: Yes, I think so. 12 MR. EISNER: Anybody disagree? 13 MR. HON: What's the OE's opinion of that as 14 - - since they appointed the committee? 15 MR. EISNER: Yeah, I mean, under Federal 16 Co mmittee Advisory Act no problem? Okay. 17 MR. HON: I would think so. Yeah. 18 MR. EISNER: Okay. All right. That brings 19 us up to B, work groups. 20 MR. MYERS: Could you go back to the A? I 21 th ink there was an error in the first sentence of the 22 la st item we were working on before we digressed.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 134 1 MR. EISNER: 3A consensus, the first sentence 2 yo u think has got something wrong? As retyped or -- 3 MR. MYERS: No, this is where we were before 4 we stepped back to this. On consensus, it appears to 5 me that it says the working group will operate by 6 co nsensus, which for the purposes means the unanimous 7 co ncurrence of all parties to the negotiations. That's 8 pr etty clear that's 100 percent have to agree. 9 MR. EISNER: Yeah, that's not a -- 10 MR. MYERS: By putting a "but" after that 11 do esn't change the first part of the sentence. 12 MR. EISNER: No, I agree; that was not what 13 we agreed to in my understanding. 14 MR. MYERS: Okay, thanks. 15 MR. EISNER: The working group will operate 16 by consensus for which -- which for these purposes 17 me ans no more than two negative votes. Or two negative 18 vo tes I think we agreed would stop it, would not be 19 un animous. Means no more than one negative vote I 20 th ink is what we agreed to. Am I wrong? 21 No, it means two negative votes stop it. 22 MR. MYERS: Right.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 135 1 MR. EISNER: No more than -- no more than 2 wo uld mean three would stop it. Two would not stop it. 3 MR. MYERS: No, can't -- 4 MR. EISNER: Two negative votes stop it. 5 MR. MYERS: Correct. 6 MR. EISNER: Is that what everybody agreed? 7 MR. MYERS: Yeah, correct. 8 MR. EISNER: Okay, no more than two negative 9 vo tes. Anybody disagree? Okay. 10 Thanks for pointing that out. Work groups, 11 su bparagraph one, any issues, concerns? It says in the 12 se cond sentence "consist of no more than 15 people," 13 bu t it says "each party may designate a member of the 14 wo rk group." How did you resolve it if more than 15 15 pe ople wanted to designate a member? 16 MR. COHEN: We usually didn't have 17 ov erwhelming at the meeting. 18 MR. MYERS: Shouldn't this be sub working 19 gr oups? 20 MR. EISNER: It should, yeah; that's part of 21 th e whole context. This has to be a sub work group so 22 as not to confuse everybody. Is everybody comfortableCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 136 1 wi th leaving the language as it is in the second 2 se ntence? 3 MR. MYERS: Seems like that would be 4 co nfusing to not say subgroup or something since this 5 is a working group. 6 COURT REPORTER: I can't hear who's speaking. 7 Us e the mic, please. 8 MR. EISNER: They're asking you to repeat for 9 th e mic. 10 COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 11 MR. MYERS: I believe it would be confusing 12 to leave this as work groups as this main group is a 13 wo rking group so we wouldn't know for sure which one 14 we 're talking about. I think sub working group or 15 su bgroup would be better. 16 MR. EISNER: Yeah, I think we've -- I agree, 17 I think we've all agreed that when we have time, they 18 ca n make all these edits because these terms are used 19 th roughout; we want to make sure we pick them all up. 20 Th ese are sub working groups we're talking about now. 21 MS. BARHYDT: That one stays the same. 22 JILL HOOTMAN: This is Jill Hootman fromCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137 1 Tr ane. If we had all commercial HVAC, are we going to 2 be up to 15 people or not? I mean, I imagine that 3 co mmercial HVAC might be one of the subgroups and so I 4 wa s just trying to add up how many we have. 5 MR. EISNER: I think part of what we're 6 ge tting at here is this is a sub working group. Do we 7 wa nt to make sure that everybody can be representated, 8 an d then if everybody at the table wants to go, then we 9 do n't have a sub working group anymore. So can we 10 ag ree that it should be limited to 15 people or are 11 so me people concerned that that won't be enough? Has 12 to be some limit because otherwise everybody at the 13 ta ble will just go to the same meeting. All right, 15; 14 is everybody okay with 15 being the limit? 15 MR. MOLVIE: This is Pete Molvie. I have to 16 th ink that if the subject matter is important enough 17 th at you need more than 15 -- that more than 15 people 18 wa nt to be on it, it needs to be handled by this group, 19 no t a subgroup. 20 MR. EISNER: That's another way of putting 21 it ; yes, I agree. Do we need the each party may 22 de signate a member of the work group? Should we justCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 138 1 sa y the membership will be decided by the working group 2 up to a maximum of 15 people? Anybody disagree with 3 th at? Anything else anybody wants to change? 4 MR. SACHS: Neil, I'm not terribly 5 ex perienced with this, but it seems to me that if an 6 is sue is important to member of the working group, they 7 ou ght to go, and if we run into a problem that there 8 ar e 20 people, we'll find out about it and I'm not sure 9 we need to set the arbitrary restriction this early 10 be fore we can think about -- Pete's pretty sharp from 11 AR C there. I'm not sure we need this language. 12 MR. EISNER: Okay, anybody disagree with 13 th at? So we can just leave the first sentence in? Take 14 ou t the "although" sentence? 15 And do we need anything else in that 16 pa ragraph? Want to leave the last sentence in? 17 MS. BARHYDT: I think we should leave the 18 ot her sentences there because they address the issue of 19 ot her interests or sub interests that are not otherwise 20 re presented on the working group and it makes explicit 21 th at they can be on those working groups, sub work 22 gr oups.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 139 1 MR. EISNER: So just take out the limit on 2 th e membership. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Mm-hm. 4 MR. EISNER: Okay, does everybody got that? 5 An ybody disagree? Anybody have a problem with the 6 De partment of Energy providing appropriate support? 7 Ok ay. 8 Three, "Work groups are not authorized to 9 ma ke decisions for the committee." We've talked about 10 th at. Anybody have any problems with that? It says 11 co mmittee will be -- forwarding a report will be made 12 by the -- with the concurrence of the work group. Do 13 we want to define that a little bit more clearly? 14 So mebody had problems with the concurrence, what it 15 me ant? DO we want it to be a majority? Do we want it 16 to be a majority and a minority report if necessary? Go 17 ah ead. 18 MR. MYERS: It's Frank Myers, PVI. I would 19 su ggest you not put a number on that when you're 20 ta lking about a sub working group. They do what they 21 ca n do; they negotiate what they can negotiate. They 22 ha ve those discussions, they bring that informationCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 140 1 ba ck to the full negotiating working group. 2 If they don't have consensus, then that's 3 wh at they report back. If they have consensus -- so I 4 do n't think there needs to be a number for that group 5 as to what kind of vote or how many agree. It's just 6 th at that information is reported back to the full 7 gr oup. 8 MR. EISNER: Do you think they don't need 9 gu idance on when they're ready to report back? In 10 ot her words, if they have 15 members and 8 vote one way 11 an d 7 vote another way, do we need to tell them report 12 ba ck whatever you finally conclude? Or do we want 13 so mething more than 8 versus 7? Do we want to tell 14 th em to work harder? 15 MR. MYERS: I believe they report back and if 16 th e full group wants to reassign the task or give a 17 di fferent direction then they do that. 18 MR. EISNER: Everybody comfortable with that? 19 So decisions to forward a report of a work group to a 20 ne gotiating committee shall be made when the work group 21 ha s reached a decision or is ready to report its 22 re sults?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 141 1 Harvey? 2 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, just alternate 3 wo rdsmithing, "workshops are not -- work -- sub work 4 gr oups are not authorized to make decisions for the 5 co mmittee as a whole, but shall report their findings 6 to the sub group." That is to the committee as a 7 wh ole, to this group. 8 MR. EISNER: Everybody okay with that? Did 9 we get that typed? Do you want that language read 10 ba ck? 11 MS. BARHYDT: No, that should stay "working 12 gr oup." Could you say it again, Harvey? 13 MR. SACHS: You are the working group, right 14 he re. 15 MR. EISNER: Right. 16 MR. SACHS: As a whole, take out everything 17 st arting with "decisions." Take out "decisions," take 18 ou t the period after "whole" and put in a comma. 19 I'm getting seasick. 20 Comma, "but shall report their findings to 21 th e working group." "To the full working group" is 22 pr obably appropriate at this point until we clarify theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 142 1 la nguage. 2 MR. EISNER: Okay, everybody comfortable with 3 th at? 4 MR. SACHS: "But shall." 5 MS. BARHYDT: "But shall." Not "that shall." 6 An d under number two, I was asked to remove the 7 ec onomist from the list of examples of the support. 8 MR. EISNER: Everybody okay with that? 9 MR. SACHS: Good. 10 MR. EISNER: Okay, if everybody is 11 co mfortable with that, it brings us up to number four 12 wh en the group meetings are -- subgroup meetings are 13 he ld. Where they're held and that others would be 14 no tified - - other members would be notified of all the 15 wo rkgroup meetings so that you can attend if you want. 16 Ev erybody okay with that language? 17 MR. SACHS: This leaves out the question of 18 wh ether -- what we've been calling observers would be 19 no tified of these subgroup meetings. 20 MR. EISNER: I think you spoke to that. 21 MR. SACHS: Yeah, I did. 22 MR. CYMBALSKY: DOE, John Cymbalsky. In theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 143 1 Tr ansformers sub working groups, there were -- I wasn't 2 on any of them, but my recollection was that there were 3 no observers. They met off to the side. Tim, I know 4 wa s on a number of them. Maybe he can speak to what 5 ha ppened. 6 MR. BALLO: My recollection -- Tim Ballo -- 7 my recollection was that actually there may have been 8 on e non-committee member who was involved, a small 9 ma nufacturer who got involved in one of the subgroups 10 an d -- but the thing is, you know, that person is going 11 to be at a working group meeting if they're interested 12 pa rties. So they can be appointed to the working group 13 at that point or to the sub working group at that 14 po int. And I think -- I imagine that's how it would 15 pl ay out here as well. Someone who wants to be 16 in volved in a sub workgroup would already be coming to 17 th e meetings and express an interest. 18 MR. BALLO: All right, there's a delay here. 19 So I guess the way to make this public is to form these 20 su b working groups at these full working group meetings 21 an d that's how people will maybe be able to 22 pa rticipate? I don't foresee us announcing in theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 144 1 fe deral register that there are sub working group 2 me etings to go into some small detail of what we're 3 tr ying to negotiate here, so -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Some are by phone. 5 MR. BALLO: Yeah, I think a lot of them 6 ha ppen by phone if my recollection is correct. 7 MR. EISNER: Everybody comfortable with that? 8 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp. Can the sub working 9 gr oup teleconferences be published on the -- the notice 10 of them be published on the DOE Web site? 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: I guess we can publish 12 an ything on her Web site but -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know if that's 14 pr actical. I mean, you may just want to have an ad hoc 15 ph one call an hour after the meeting or the next 16 mo rning or something to follow up on some idea. I 17 gu ess if you want us to just send us an e-mail and we 18 ca n announce one if we need to. But I would think that 19 yo u'd want a little flexibility there such that they 20 di dn't have to be. 21 MR. CYMBALSKY: I mean, I think one option 22 he re is to create an e-mail blast list or share pointCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 145 1 si te is what we had for Transformers where everybody 2 wh o wanted to be on that e-mail list or share point 3 si te would be e-mailed of these phone calls and such 4 th at were happening in real time. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think, given the 6 ti me crunch that we have here at the end of the year, I 7 do n't think we want to get too formal and federal 8 re gister notices and such. I think let's try to use 9 th e quicker means of communication to get things done 10 he re. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if you want to have 12 li ke an e-mail blast, we can do that and we can support 13 th at sort of thing. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like that. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay, anybody object? 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, we'll put that as a 17 gr ound rule for these sub working group meetings. 18 MR. EISNER: Okay. Heaven forbid we have to 19 di scontinue for unproductivity, but that's what E 20 co vers; "committee can discontinue negotiations at any 21 ti me if they do not appear productive." Now I assume 22 th at's by the consensus approach, but if people startCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146 1 wa lking off the committee, the fact that you want to 2 ha ve with a consensus vote and if you lose key members 3 it 's going to be unproductive and to continue. 4 Does anybody object to leaving that language 5 in ? Okay, then the deadline for the negotiations. The 6 tw o dates here, the second date is August 30th, 2013 7 wh en the term sheet is due, I believe. The question is 8 wh en the committee should terminate if it should be 9 be fore that or just on 8-30-13. Or technically could 10 go after. The due date if August 30th for 2013 for the 11 re port, then you may want to just use that in both 12 ca ses. 13 Is that okay with everybody? All right, now 14 th e most important decision of the morning, supposed to 15 br eak for lunch now? Do you want to break for lunch or 16 wo uld you like to see if we can finish this up before 17 we go to lunch? Anybody object to staying and seeing 18 if we can finish it up? 19 MR. AMRANE: Can I ask a question, if I may? 20 Ka rim Amrane, HRI, and assume for a minute by your 21 Au gust 31st, this working group submit a recommendation 22 to ASRAC and ASRAC is not satisfied or wants thisCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 147 1 wo rking group to go back and we find some of the 2 re commendations, so I think -- I'm not sure why we want 3 to disband this working group by the 31st of August. I 4 th ink we can be a little bit more flexible just in case 5 th ere is a need to reconvene. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think it says "unless." 7 MR. AMRANE: Does it say "unless"? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: "Unless the group decides to 9 ex tend the deadline." So you guys can decide or ASRAC 10 ca n ask you to then. 11 MR. EISNER: Or we could simply change the 12 da te. I don't think there's any legal reason you 13 co uldn't extend the date of the committee to, for 14 ex ample, September 30th, 2013. So if the Secretary -- 15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, 16 ac tually -- John Cymbalsky, Dewey, that date is there 17 fo r a very good reason. That's 90 days before the end. 18 So everybody knows what 90 days means in this room, I 19 th ink so. 20 MR. EISNER: I think what I'm hearing a 21 li ttle bit of John is -- okay, suppose we get the 22 re port out by September -- by August 30th. And theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 148 1 Se cretary reviews it and says, "I know we're up to the 2 de adline," for example, "let's extend the deadline, I 3 wa nt to ask the committee to reconsider X issue or Y 4 is sue." Isn't it easier to keep the committee in 5 ex istence and then extend it than have to recreate it? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 7 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, that -- yeah. 8 MR. EISNER: So September 30th enough time to 9 do that? Everybody? 10 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, that's fine. 11 MR. COHEN: If the report gets there by 12 Au gust 30th. 13 MR. EISNER: August 30th, right. 14 MR. SACHS: I'm missing something. In the D, 15 it says "deadline for negotiations." It does not say 16 th at this working group is disbanded as a result of the 17 en d. 18 MR. EISNER: You're right. No, well, it says 19 "n egotiations will terminate," you're right. So 20 ne gotiations -- see, what I don't understand there in 21 pr ior report, how the negotiations could extend beyond 22 th e date the report was submitted.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is Ashley. I think 2 th e idea here is that ASRAC has asked for a report in 3 ea rly September, so the committee would have to submit 4 it s recommendations, its status, its something to ASRAC 5 by August 30th, or at least that's what we envision. 6 Now, that being said, you could absolutely 7 sa y, "These are items still on the table." Or ASRAC 8 co uld come back and say, you know, "We have questions; 9 ca n you guys continue?" But I think the key here is 10 th at at least initially a report has to go to ASRAC by 11 Au gust 30th. Obviously, we don't want to disband the 12 co mmittee and start all over. 13 So whatever language needs to be there that 14 yo u guys are comfortable with I think is what we're 15 go ing for there. Yeah, there's an interim like report 16 da te, too. 17 MR. SACHS: What happens if we simply delete 18 th e first sentence of D? 19 MR. EISNER: I was going to suggest that, 20 to o. That must be a good idea. 21 MR. SACHS: I have no problem with that. So 22 we delete the first sentence. Okay. The agreement,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 150 1 th is is what we've got to provide as a part of the 2 Au gust 30th report, a term sheet, statement of the 3 ba sis for the NOPR. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I go back one real 5 qu ick? And Laura, you might want to have said 6 so mething, but I think that's fine. Except for ASRAC, 7 li ke John and Kent are going to be asked by ASRAC to 8 re port back on August 30th, regardless of whether -- so 9 it says "a reasonable effort shall be made to conclude 10 an d report," consensus -- I mean, they're going to be 11 as ked to report the status on August 30th or shortly 12 th ereafter, regardless. 13 MR. DOPPEL: So you're saying it should be 14 be fore then? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, no. I mean, this is 16 fi ne for a date, but what I'm saying is that report is 17 go ing to go regardless. So even if you guys, you know, 18 ev en if you guys don't conclude negotiations or you 19 ca n't or whatever, they need -- they are going to 20 re port back to ASRAC the status, the two ASRAC members 21 on the committee, yeah. Because that's what's been 22 as ked of them.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 151 1 MR. MYERS: One could separate those two 2 it ems that every reasonable effort will be made to 3 co nclude negotiations by August 30th, 2013 and a report 4 wi ll be issued. 5 MS. BARHYDT: That's okay. 6 MR. MYERS: And it would separate the two 7 ou t. 8 MR. EISNER: Is that okay with everybody? 9 MR. SACHS: I think it's going to be a little 10 di fferent; "negotiations would need to conclude 11 ne gotiations by August 30th, 2013" semicolon, "a report 12 sh all be submitted by that date to ASRAC on the status 13 an d any agreed-to term sheet." 14 MR. EISNER: Okay. Should be "report shall 15 be submitted to ASRAC on the status of the negotiations 16 an d include any agreed-to term sheet." 17 MR. SACHS: The report should be submitted to 18 AS RAC on that date regarding the status? 19 MR. EISNER: Yeah, on that date on the 20 st atus. 21 Want to delete the "a" before term sheet. 22 Ok ay, comfortable with that? All right, the firstCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 152 1 pa ragraph under 4A is what would be included in the 2 te rms sheeting in the supporting analysis. Recommended 3 st andards for some or all covered products. Will that 4 wo rk here? 5 MS. BARHYDT: No. 6 MR. EISNER: What language would you like to 7 se e? 8 MR. BALLO: Maybe recommended regulations? 9 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 10 MR. EISNER: For some or all covered 11 pr oducts? IS that what we're talking about? 12 MS. BARHYDT: Go all the way back to the end 13 of that line where it says "recommended" and just take 14 ou t the "standards" all the way to "regulations." There 15 yo u go. And "recommended." No, leave "recommended." 16 Ok ay. Oh, that's not right either. 17 MR. EISNER: Now, in this sentence, "take the 18 fo rm of a written statement that will be signed by all 19 pa rties to the negotiations," how do you want to handle 20 th e lack of unanimity? 21 MR. BALLO: You could say -- this is Tim 22 Ba llo -- "that will be signed by all supporting partiesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 153 1 to gether with a statement of the dissenting views." 2 MR. EISNER: Okay with people? 3 MS. BARHYDT: You could put a statement that 4 sa ys that -- just a single statement that says that 24 5 pe ople agreed, one person dissented and then everyone 6 ca n sign. Or you could -- I mean, you could word a 7 si ngle statement in a way that would reflect the fact 8 th at it was or was not unanimous. 9 MR. EISNER: Well, I think -- is there an 10 is sue that you might have ten issues, some of which 11 so me people cast negative votes on, others other people 12 ca st negative votes; do you want to just leave this as 13 a general with a description of any dissenting votes? 14 MR. ROLPH: Neil Rolph. You could just leave 15 it the way it is and add that the report will include 16 vo ting results. I mean, because this is just saying 17 ev erybody is going to sign it and then you can also say 18 th at the results are going to be included of votes 19 ta ken, or something to that effect. 20 MR. EISNER: Is that okay with everybody? 21 All right. While she is working on that, the 22 se ntence gets -- the term standard, what the termCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 154 1 "s tandard or rules" should be deemed to include. Is 2 th at satisfactory? 3 MR. SACHS: I have a concern about the 4 pa ragraph, and I'd like to just raise it now. This is 5 Ha rvey Sachs. Given the diversity of products under 6 co nsideration here and the fact that we haven't started 7 di scussing the scope, it might well be that this comes 8 ou t with perhaps the cover over several separate 9 re ports for separate -- for the different product 10 cl asses. And it seems that this language under 4A 11 sh ould reflect that possibility. It may well be that 12 th e working group decides that the approach that works 13 be st for commercial refrigeration needs to be changed 14 in some details for boilers or -- 15 MR. EISNER: But is there anything in here 16 th at precludes that from happening now? 17 MR. SACHS: It is written in the singular as 18 "a report," and it seems to me that there is the 19 po ssibility that we may actually have a set of parallel 20 re ports, depending on how the scope comes out. And 21 th at of course raises the question of do all of us vote 22 on each of the reports?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 155 1 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I see 2 ho w that would preclude it though because it does say - 3 - 4 MR. COHEN: Oh, it says "any agreement." 5 MR. EISNER: "Any agreement reached," 6 "r ecommended regulations," as in the plural. 7 MR. SACHS: Okay. I'm sorry. I will put my 8 gl asses back on. 9 MR. EISNER: Okay. Anybody have any problems 10 wi th that? So everybody is okay with A? 11 MR. ROLPH: No. I mean, the rest of the 12 se ntences need to be modified. I mean, it's talking 13 ab out a standard or rule and that's not really -- 14 MR. EISNER: We can probably take standard 15 ou t because we've got regulations already in the first 16 pa ragraph. Does that take care of that concern? 17 MS. BARHYDT: I think the other change you 18 wo uld make if you take out "or" and then if you go down 19 on e line down, far left, and change "standard" to 20 "r egulation." 21 MR. ROLPH: "Rule" is not used. I mean, the 22 wo rd "rule" is in here still; it's the term "rule," butCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 156 1 we are not using the term "rule." 2 MR. EISNER: Well, "rule" and "regulation" 3 ar e interchangeable terms. 4 MR. ROLPH: I mean, we're using the term 5 "r egulations" here. 6 MR. EISNER: We can change them all to 7 "r egulation." Any other concerns? 8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. To 9 Ne il's previous point, do we specifically say or should 10 we specifically say that dissenting votes should 11 pr ovide rationale for their negative vote? 12 MR. EISNER: In this one or -- I'm looking at 13 th e B, whether we want to put it there outlining the 14 si gnificant terms of the rule and analysis needed to 15 ex plain it. Let's look at B; if you could scroll up a 16 li ttle bit. 17 I mean, someplace in here, we should talk 18 ab out there has got to be a rationale for the package 19 th at's forwarded with the recommendation that is going 20 to say that there were negative votes on this issue, 21 th at issue; there should be some explanation countering 22 th e basis for the recommendation that's made with theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 157 1 su pport of something less than unanimous consent. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Should it be in the consensus 3 se ction? 4 MR. EISNER: It probably should be under Sub 5 A and B here. I think it should go right in perhaps 6 he re: "supporting analysis is needed to explain and 7 ju stify the agreed terms." If we add a semi-colon or 8 so mething there, "dissenting members may provide their 9 co ncerns or the basis for their negative vote." That 10 po int. 11 So a term sheet outlining the significant 12 te rms of the proposed rule and B, supporting analysis 13 as needed to explain and justify the agreed terms from 14 th e legal engineering and economic prospective, and 15 se mi-colon at the end of that where the period is 16 sa ying something along the lines of: "members 17 di ssenting on particular issues should provide the 18 ba sis for their negative vote or dissent." Does that 19 sa tisfy everybody? I would say "should," only because 20 if they don't want to, they don't have to. But if they 21 wa nt to, it has to be included in the report. 22 Everybody okay with that? All right. I amCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 158 1 as suming consensus. 2 MR. SACHS: I'm not sure how it's going to -- 3 th e no negative comments in C will play with the 4 di ssenting. 5 MR. EISNER: Well, that's where the problems 6 co me in with allowing negative votes. 7 Let's take care of B. First, "DOE agrees to 8 us e the written statement or any recommended 9 re gulations as the basis of the notice for proposed 10 re gulation to the maximum extent possible and 11 co nsistent with the agency's legal obligations." This, 12 to o, raises the issue: if there are dissenting votes, 13 wh at does the agency want to say there? 14 MS. BARHYDT: I know when we discussed 15 ea rlier, there was a view that if the Department did 16 no t agree with the recommendation that the group wanted 17 to go forward with making the recommendation, and 18 ob viously if DOE did not agree to the recommendation 19 go ing to the ASRAC, I don't think that the Department 20 is going to agree to issue a Notice of Proposed 21 Ru lemaking in accordance with that wholesale. 22 MR. EISNER: I don't want to put you on tooCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 159 1 mu ch of a spot, but if it's one sub-issue and in the 2 sc heme of things, it's relatively non-significant, even 3 th ough you do not concur, are you saying the Secretary 4 mi ght not balance the whole thing? 5 MS. BARHYDT: I'm not saying we would go one 6 wa y or the other. I'm saying that I don't think that 7 we would make a commitment to issue a regulation on a 8 wh olesale basis on the basis of using that 9 re commendation where the Department had already taken a 10 vi ew that we didn't support a particular aspect. Now 11 ul timately, we may decide to go forward with and take 12 th e recommendation as given. But I don't want to 13 co mmit us to that up front. 14 MR. EISNER: Would you be willing, speaking 15 on behalf of the Department, to agree to consider -- 16 st rongly consider or something along those lines the 17 wr itten statement and any recommended -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: We could do that. 19 MR. EISNER: Would that satisfy everybody 20 el se? 21 MR. SACHS: Laura, I'm not sure I fully 22 un derstood, but you're saying you all as gracious hostsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 160 1 ar e inviting us to spend four months working our butts 2 of f and reserve the right to disregard anything we say, 3 wh ether or not it's consistent with the legal 4 ob ligations for any reason at all is what I just heard 5 yo u say. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, then I don't think what 7 yo u -- I didn't say it right, if that's what you heard. 8 MR. SACHS: It sure is what I heard. You 9 kn ow, I'm getting old. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So one of the things that we 11 di scussed earlier on voting was that the Department 12 co uld -- and I'll take worst case scenario here -- say 13 th at wholesale everything that everybody at this table 14 ha s sat down and agreed to, the Department has said, 15 "W e absolutely cannot agree to this. This does not 16 me et our goals." And if that were the situation and 17 th is body went ahead and said, "This is our 18 re commendation to the ASRAC," I don't want to have 19 al ready signed up the Department to say that, "We're 20 go ing to propose this as our proposed rule." 21 MR. SACHS: Okay. I hear you real good and 22 cl ear now, ma'am, and if you do that, we're going toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 161 1 Co ngress together. 2 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: And when are we -- excuse 3 me , this is Pantelis -- when are we going to hear then 4 fr om DOE what are your goals? You are saying 5 ev entually we may end up not giving you what your goals 6 ar e. So what are those goals? 7 MS. BARHYDT: So the goal, as we discussed at 8 th e very beginning, is to come out with a framework for 9 a rulemaking that will actually provide -- can we go 10 ba ck to the original statement? 11 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: But if we give you that, 12 be cause it is now our goal -- 13 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 14 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: If we give you that, why 15 wo uld you have any reason to say no? 16 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm not saying -- 17 MR. EISNER: Let me, if I could -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: Thank you. 19 MR. EISNER: Let me try to -- you have got to 20 lo ok at the paragraph together. You have got to look 21 at this: no negative comments, and the one about not 22 su ing, things like that. If you cast one vote onCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 162 1 be half of your interest, that is completely 2 un acceptable to you, are you willing to waive your 3 ri ght to challenge the rule in court? So I think what 4 yo u're hearing from the Department is what we talked 5 ab out at the beginning. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 7 MR. EISNER: When everybody has a right to 8 sa y, "I don't agree," and it doesn't happen, that's one 9 th ing. It is not just the Department that can say no. 10 It can be one of the interest groups that's looking for 11 a higher efficiency standards. It could be a 12 ma nufacturer. It could be the testing group. We can't 13 li ve with that. She is speaking for the Secretary. The 14 Se cretary has said, "I don't like this, I can't live 15 wi th it. Cast a negative vote." She casts a negative 16 vo te. There is a difference between saying "the 17 Se cretary agrees that he will publish this" and saying 18 "t he Secretary will strongly consider or will consider 19 pu blishing it." It is hard to say, "We will give you 20 ou r support and publish it, even if we tell you we 21 do n't like it and it can't work for us." 22 And don't think of it just in terms of theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 163 1 De partment of Energy. Think about it in terms of any 2 in terest. I'm sorry. So think of it in terms of all 3 of your interests. Are you willing here today to waive 4 yo ur right to sue or to challenge or to provide 5 ne gative comments or anything and live with the rule as 6 wr itten and comply with it if you voted no on a 7 cr itical part? That's what you have got to think about 8 a little bit today when you go with less than unanimous 9 co nsensus. 10 Understand, from my experience, you can still 11 ge t very good rules. The Department of Energy is not 12 sa ying, "We won't publish anything." They are not 13 sa ying, "We won't consider publishing everything." But 14 th ey're saying to you, "We might have to modify that 15 pa rticular part of the rule so we can live with it." 16 Would you be happy with everything else being 17 in the rule after all the time you spent, or as Harvey 18 sa id, would you be angry that you spent four months 19 ne gotiating to find out that the part they voted no on, 20 th ey can't accept. I'm trying to be objective here 21 be cause I think we're focusing on just what Department 22 of Energy might do. Think about what all of you areCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 164 1 go ing to say when we come to the binding commitments. 2 MR. SACHS: But the -- this is Harvey -- and 3 I am confused, which is happening too often. I agree 4 no t to file negative comments on the proposed rule, 5 ya da yada, to the extent that it has the same substance 6 in effect as the term sheet. Okay? Now, let's assume 7 th is case: that Laura has decided, "This isn't good for 8 th e Secretary, I recommend that the Secretary not sign 9 on ." So now there's a rule coming out proposed that is 10 no t substantively what was in the term sheet. I 11 ce rtainly, under C, have reserved the right to beat you 12 up . 13 MS. BARHYDT: I agree. 14 MR. SACHS: And that focuses back on the 15 qu estion you've raised, Neil, what if I was a 16 di ssenting vote and it comes out against me from DOE. 17 An d I haven't figured that out yet. So this time I 18 wa sn't confused. 19 MR. EISNER: Because all of you could be 20 di ssenters on any one issue. You could be in a 21 mi nority, a small minority, but it is very critical to 22 yo u. And you have to focus on what it is you may stillCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 165 1 ge t out of this rule, even if you've lost on that key 2 po int. I think the Secretary would look at it the same 3 wa y. 4 Remember, when the issue comes up in context, 5 th e first thing that bothered us on the first page 6 he re, by the time you get to the end of the document 7 yo u might say to yourselves, "You know, we've got a 8 pr etty good deal here, even though I didn't like the 9 wa y they decided on Item Number 2." The Secretary 10 an d/or the people, the groups you are representing, 11 co uld say the same thing. 12 When I talked earlier, after Dan introduced 13 me , I talked about thinking about what is the 14 al ternative to a negotiated agreement; right? If we 15 ca n't reach agreement around this table, they still 16 ha ve a statutory responsibility to enforce a rule. Now, 17 yo u think about all right, what can I get that would be 18 be tter than taking a chance as to what DOE would issue 19 wi thout us all working around the table. As you take a 20 st ep back from unanimous agreement, you start taking a 21 st ep further and further away from getting something 22 th at may work as effectively. It may work beautifullyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 166 1 ev en with dissenting votes. Everybody may in the end 2 fi nd out they can live with what they've got. It is a 3 li ttle risky. 4 So are you comfortable with "DOE agrees to 5 co nsider or strongly consider," I don't think -- I 6 th ink Laura said she would accept that. "Strongly 7 co nsider" what you submitted. They're trying to send 8 yo u a message that if they vote no on one issue, that 9 do esn't mean we are not going to follow up with a rule 10 th at's either 100% of what the committee by a majority 11 vo te passed or very, very close to what they passed. 12 An other example -- and again, this is true for anybody 13 ar ound the table, it's just that they have to write the 14 ru le, issue it over the Secretary's signature. 15 They might have said, "We can't live with the 16 nu mber nine; it's got to be the number eight." You all 17 ma y have said, "No, we want it to be number nine; we're 18 ov erriding your vote here, we are passing this." Then 19 th ey may get to the point where it's time to write the 20 ru le and they look at it and say, "All right, we can 21 li ve with nine. Or you know, what we could live with 22 ei ght and a half; we wanted eight, but we could liveCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 167 1 wi th eight and a half because that is the only thing 2 th at is missing." So it's important. 3 That's why I am stressing it right now 4 be cause otherwise the negotiations will break down 5 ev ery time we get to this issue. Oh, wait, if DOE 6 do esn't support this or if Tim doesn't support that, 7 wh at does that mean? Does that mean they're going to 8 su e over the rule and we're going to have all sorts of 9 co nfusion and things like that? That's what you give 10 up when you don't get unanimity. Unanimity is, as some 11 of you recognize by your votes, sometimes impossible to 12 ac hieve on issues like the ones we may be confronting. 13 Yo u have got to balance it in your mind. So if you 14 ca n't live with it with "strongly consider," is there 15 so mething else you want to justify what Harvey said is 16 al l the hard work you guys put into this document? 17 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 18 Na tional Refrigeration. I guess, Laura, the question 19 th at relates to this when this started the statement 20 wa s "DOE agrees to use the written statement," 21 ba sically saying that if we went back and said we were 22 go ing to use unanimous, then DOE would be obligated toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 168 1 us e. So do we want to separate that out here to say 2 "D OE agrees to use the written statement in any 3 un animously agreed to standards as the basis and 4 st rongly consider using any that were achieved by a 5 vo te." You know, kind of separate it there because I 6 th ink to protect the work here, if we do all agree on 7 so mething, then I think we feel that yeah, DOE should 8 th en be obligated to use that. 9 MR. EISNER: I think that's a good point. 10 MS. MEYER: And I have another question on 11 th e no negative comments. If during the negotiation, 12 if DOE did not raise an objection, then do they have to 13 us e the recommendation of the working group? So if we 14 ar e discussing a point and DOE doesn't object, then -- 15 MR. EISNER: That's -- 16 MS. MEYER: -- when they are writing the NOPR 17 do they have to use -- 18 MR. EISNER: That's not a negative vote and I 19 th ink the way the document is written, a negative vote 20

-- only a negative vote counts as a non-unanimous 21 co nsent. 22 MS. MEYER: Well, what if the negative voteCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 169 1 wa s for instance by Rheem, not by DOE? So does DOE -- 2 ca n they then not use -- 3 MR. EISNER: Well, again, think of yourself; 4 an ybody around the table in the position that you're in 5 wh en you have got something less than unanimous consent 6 an d you know the other party now may sue if there is 7 so mething else -- 8 MS. MEYER: But I am not writing the NOPR. 9 MR. EISNER: They're writing the NOPR. So if 10 a major player or multiple major players have said no, 11 do you want them not to consider that when they decide 12 wh ether or not they want to issue the rule? It wasn't 13 un animous. A major player voted against it. Both 14 gr oups representing energy efficiencies standards -- 15 mo re energy efficient standards in a mutual way, do 16 th ey need to consider that before they can agree with 17 it ? 18 When everybody agrees, including Laura, 19 th at's a very, very different decision for the 20 Se cretary as opposed to, "These two major players over 21 he re don't agree and we're going to have trouble 22 en forcing this rule against them. Do I want to issueCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 170 1 th e rule knowing that because everybody else around the 2 ta ble supported it?" Do you want to take that 3 di scretion away from the Secretary? Again, I want to 4 st ress that's an advantage of unanimous consent; the 5 di sadvantage of unanimous consent is you may have very, 6 ve ry good ideas to give to the Secretary, the Secretary 7 ma y like it despite the negative votes, and you wanted 8 to be able to give that to the Secretary. 9 So is this language okay? 10 MR. AMRANE: Should we add language as Jeff 11 su ggested? 12 MR. EISNER: Yes, no, I think -- does anybody 13 op pose that? I didn't think so. If you want to have 14 th e original language -- 15 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's why one vote can make 16 a difference. 17 MR. EISNER: I am sorry, what? 18 MR. CYMBALSKY: That is why unanimous was 19 go od at the beginning, because that one vote -- 20 MR. ROLPH: Right. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So Harvey pointed out that I've 22 go t a few questions pending for me. And I actuallyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 171 1 ne ed to get some clarification myself as to some of the 2 pr ocedural requirements. So I am going to propose that 3 we break for lunch while I get advice of my counsel, 4 an d I can hopefully answer some of the questions you 5 al l have posed for me. 6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Even our lawyers have 7 la wyers. 8 MR. SACHS: Do we want to use "consensus 9 vo te" here or do we want to just keep it the language 10 we have been using, "non-unanimous"? "Consensus" is 11 de fined as "something that is less than unanimous in 12 th e document." 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is what we want for the 14 se cond part. We're trying to make a distinction 15 be tween -- 16 MR. COHEN: We have got about three 17 po ssibilities here; right? One is -- 18 MR. EISNER: In case of a consensus vote -- 19 MR. AMSTRONG: You got a consensus vote which 20 is less than two negative. 21 MR. EISNER: But you could have -- consensus 22 vo te also includes unanimity.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 172 1 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, I think -- 2 MR. EISNER: So I think it's got to be a non3 un animous vote. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 5 MR. BAUMAN: Right, because if DOE objects 6 th en it goes out the window again. That's only one 7 vo te. 8 MR. COHEN: Well, that's a different 9 sc enario. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I think that's also -- 11 MR. BAUMAN: But that -- this is Jeff Bauman 12 fr om National -- I guess I have to back up a little 13 bi t. I mean, we were -- kind of where we got to this 14 is if DOE is that one dissenting vote, then DOE is not 15 go ing to commit to -- we're not going to be able to 16 fo rce them or they're not going to be able to commit to 17 pu blishing it in the NOPR. So any single vote would be 18

-- then they would be able to consider -- whether it is 19 La ura or somebody else, anything that is not a 20 un animous, they would still consider, but they wouldn't 21 be obligated to publish it in the NOPR. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Well, the way that's drafted itCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 173 1 ac tually, if it's not unanimous, regardless of who the 2 di ssenting vote is, it changes the framework for the 3 De partment's consideration so that instead of just 4 we 're agreeing to go with the recommendation, we are 5 ag reeing to consider it, so that we actually get to 6 co nsider both sides. 7 MR. EISNER: So everybody happy with this as 8 it is written, then? 9 MR. ROLPH: Should it be "non-unanimous 10 co nsensus vote"? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's a lot of words. 12 MR. EISNER: It could be "non-unanimous" comma 13 "c onsensus vote." Is that okay? 14 MR. COHEN: Well, why don't we call it what 15 it is? If a non-unanimous consensus vote means that 16 DO E is the dissenting party; right? 17 MR. BARHYDT: No, that is not what they are 18 ta lking about. They're talking about where there are 19 an y dissenting views, the Department would have the 20 fr eedom to go back and look at the dissenting views and 21 de cide how to go forward from there. 22 MR. COHEN: Right. But if there is oneCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 174 1 di ssenting review, there's still consensus? 2 MR. BAUMAN: Correct. And that's something - 3 - yeah, I think we are saying again whether it is DOE 4 or Rheem or National whatever, somebody then -- DOE 5 wo uldn't be obligated to put that in, but they would be 6 ob ligated to strongly consider putting it in, even if 7 th ey weren't the ones that -- 8 MR. COHEN: So consensus is back to 9 un animity. 10 MR. BAUMAN: In this case, yes. 11 MR. COHEN: No, I think generally we're back 12 to unanimity. 13 MR. BAUMAN: No. 14 MR. COHEN: But effectively, you are. 15 MR. BAUMAN: No, we're trying to get there. 16 MR. EISNER: The only thing that happens as a 17 re sult of not having unanimity is that DOE does not 18 ag ree to essentially publish the document as presented 19 to them. If it were unanimous, they're saying, "We 20 wi ll publish it." 21 MR. COHEN: Right. But that goes back to a 22 co nsensus and then basically, you really -- otherwiseCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175 1 yo u could have consensus under the way we have defined 2 co nsensus, but we don't have to do it because you have 3 on e dissenting vote. 4 MR. BOWLEY: Well, you have to strongly 5 co nsider it. 6 MR. SACHS: "Strongly consider," so the 7 pr esumption is that it would wind up being published as 8 th e rule, but Laura could still say no. 9 MR. COHEN: I understand. We all understand 10 th e issue, but -- 11 MS. MEYER: But it still doesn't work because 12 no w we've defined "consensus" as having to have more 13 th an two negative votes unless it's DOE that dissents; 14 th en it's only one vote. 15 MR. EISNER: Well, no, I think we have to 16 fo cus on a vote to present a recommendation to the 17 De partment of Energy versus a vote to publish something 18 in the Federal Register. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Isn't that the whole purpose? 20 MR. EISNER: It is a vote to present 21 so mething. I -- yes, go ahead. 22 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. Just aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 176 1 qu ick question. I am wondering how we verify that the 2 DO E strongly considers something versus considers 3 so mething. 4 MR. EISNER: That is a very good question. 5 Ho w do we know that DOE strongly considered it? And 6 th e only answer I could give as a facilitator is 7 ev erybody is at the table in good faith. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, can DOE talk for a 9 mi nute -- we'll go to lunch for a second and then 10 re visit this when we get back. 11 MR. DOPPEL: Can I ask one question on this? 12 Pa ul Doppel with Mitsubishi. Since this is not 13 ac tually going directly to DOE, but going to the ASRAC 14 co mmittee, then is this kind of meaningless because we 15 do n't know what happens after it goes from here. So 16 sh ould instead of saying "DOE," should that say "the 17 co mmittee should strongly consider" that? 18 MR. EISNER: I think we need to make it more 19 co mplicated. Let's go to lunch. 20 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) 21 MR. EISNER: Okay. We can get started. When 22 we took a break for lunch, I went to try and facilitateCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 177 1 th e discussions among the DOE lawyers by suggesting 2 so me potential alternatives that may address their 3 co ncerns. And I think they've come up with something 4 th at is worth our consideration now. Laura, do you 5 wa nt to walk them through the particulars? 6 MS. BARHYDT: So the language up there 7 re flects several different possibilities, and the idea 8 is that maybe with some words in front of us, it will 9 ma ke the discussion a little more concrete. 10 "In the case of a unanimous vote, DOE agrees 11 to use the written statement in any recommended 12 re gulations as the basis for the Notice of Proposed 13 Ru lemaking to the maximum extent possible, consistent 14 wi th the agency's legal obligations. In the case of a 15 no n-unanimous vote, where DOE is not a dissenting vote, 16 DO E agrees to use the written statement in any 17 re commended regulation." 18 So basically, that way it gives everybody the 19 ce rtainty that all of the negotiations will be put 20 fo rward, straightforward, into the proposed rule. "And 21 th en, in the case of a non-unanimous vote where DOE is 22 th e dissenting vote, DOE agrees to strongly considerCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 178 1 th e written statement in any unanimous recommended" -- 2 we forgot to delete the "unanimous" part there. "DOE 3 ag rees to strongly consider the written statement and 4 re commended regulation as the basis for a Notice of 5 Pr oposed Rulemaking to the maximum extent possible. 6 "In both cases, where there is a non7 un animous vote, DOE will publish the dissenting views 8 an d consider publishing an alternative proposal to 9 re flect the dissenting viewpoints in the Notice of 10 Pr oposed Rulemaking." 11 So the idea is that it goes one step forward 12 wh ere if there are dissenting votes, we may -- we will 13 pu blish any dissenting views that are provided as part 14 of the discussions in the Notice of Proposed 15 Ru lemaking, but we could also go one step further to 16 ac tually propose alternative regulatory text to reflect 17 th ose dissenting views, so that, if anything, it would 18 gi ve not greater weight, but make more concrete the 19 di fferent possibilities that were on the table coming 20 ou t of the working group. 21 MR. EISNER: Any comments? Thoughts? 22 MS. MEYERS: Yes. So this is Karen withCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 179 1 Rh eem. So does this change consensus? 2 MR. EISNER: No. What it's saying in the 3 fi rst sentence is if everybody agrees, there's no 4 qu estion. It is going to be just what it was. 5 MS. MEYERS: What if -- okay. So -- 6 MR. EISNER: If it's a unanimous vote -- 7 MS. MEYERS: What if it's a consensus vote? 8 MR. EISNER: Well, then, you go to the second 9 se ntence. If it's not unanimous, DOE is not a 10 di ssenting vote, they'll still publish the written 11 st atement and any recommended regulations as the basis 12 fo r the rulemaking. And, again, it's the same maximum 13 ex tent possible. So if they haven't dissented, they 14 wi ll just simply publish the report as the Notice of 15 Pr oposed Rulemaking. 16 In the case of a non-unanimous vote where DOE 17 is the dissenting vote, the third situation, they'll 18 st rongly consider the written statement and any 19 re commended regulation as the basis of the Notice of 20 Pr oposed Rulemaking to the maximum extent possible, 21 co nsistent with the agency's legal obligations. 22 In both cases, where there's a non-unanimousCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 180 1 vo te, they will publish the dissenting views, so 2 ev erybody can see them. 3 MS. BARHYDT: The idea for all of this is 4 th at there has already been a consensus recommendation 5 th at has gone to the ASRAC. So none of this is being 6 pr esented in the context of there not being some kind 7 of vote that met the consensus definition that we 8 al ready discussed. 9 MR. EISNER: And part of this here, where 10 th ere is a non-unanimous vote, publishing the 11 di ssenting views helps with this no negative comments. 12 Yo ur comments are already reflected in the rulemaking 13 do cument by presenting the dissenting view. 14 Any thoughts? Any problems? Any questions? 15 Ev erybody agree with this? 16 (No response.) 17 Ag ain, I want you to think about whether changing a 18 wo rd here or there will help you better feel that you 19 ar e spending your time working toward an agreement that 20 wi ll be good for all. 21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 22 If you vote negatively on a particular item, you haveCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 181 1 no legal right then to make negative comments on that 2 on ce published in the Register. But legal actions 3 in volved in that -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: If you vote negatively, you 5 ca n make negative comments; right? If you -- 6 MR. EISNER: That's not what that says. 7 MS. BARHYDT: You agree not to file negative 8 co mments. 9 MR. EISNER: Well, we haven't gotten to this 10 ye t to negotiate. But if this stays -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's from the unanimous. 12 Th ere was no such thing, right, before? 13 MR. EISNER: No. That's not what that says. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: I get that. That's the 15 la nguage from when it -- we had a unanimous consensus. 16 MR. HON: That's why I'm asking these 17 qu estions right now, because right now it's on the 18 bo ard. 19 MR. EISNER: So, I mean, repeat -- would you 20 re peat your question about this? 21 MR. HON: I am assuming, therefore, we 22 ca nnot, no matter what would happen, and if we were aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 182 1 ne gative vote, we could -- it would show in the Federal 2 Re gister, and that is as far as we could go with it. 3 Th at would be the end of our ability to contest. 4 MR. EISNER: Contest through the comment 5 pr ocess, or contest in litigation? 6 MR. HON: Litigation is my next step. 7 MR. EISNER: Yeah. That's a separate issue. 8 MR. HON: Yes. 9 MR. EISNER: Right now, we are talking about 10 wh at DOE is agreeing to do with the report that they 11 ge t, depending on lack of unanimity. 12 MR. HON: Right. 13 MR. EISNER: One of the things you may agree 14 to is, well, they have reflected my views in the 15 pr eamble, and maybe even in alternative language, so, 16 th erefore, I don't have to file negative comments. 17 MR. HON: Right. 18 MR. EISNER: But that doesn't mean we have -- 19 yo u know, we can agree differently down here. But that 20 do es partly address this. 21 MR. HON: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? Yes, I'm sorry.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 183 1 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill from Trane. Oh, 2 I' m sorry. 3 MR. COHEN: No. Go right ahead. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: So this is all about Notice of 5 Pu blic Rulemaking. What if we made a recommendation to 6 go to direct final rule? Is that outside the bounds or 7

-- 8 MR. COHEN: Actually, that's pretty simple. 9 So our direct final -- Dan Cohen, DOE, GC. So the 10 di rect final rulemaking authority that we have in the 11 st atute is for standards. We are not talking about 12 st andards here; right? That would be a different 13 qu estion if we were negotiating a standard. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. 15 MR. EISNER: A question at the mic? 16 MR. MYERS: If you could scroll back up to B, 17 wh ich I think is what we were initially talking about. 18 Th e first clause and the second clause, or the first 19 ca se and the second case, are identical except for 20 DO E's dissenting vote. You might be able to simply 21 th at some by saying something like, "In the case of a 22 un animous vote, or a vote where DOE is not theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 184 1 di ssenting vote," and then continue on, because the 2 la nguage after that in both of those clauses is word3 fo r-word identical. 4 MR. EISNER: Is that acceptable, Laura? 5 MS. BARHYDT: That's up to everyone here. We 6 la id them out separately so that it would be easier to 7 di scuss them as separate elements. 8 MR. EISNER: Any other thoughts? Concerns? 9 Ph illip? 10 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 11 th ink before the break, someone asked the question 12 ab out how this relates to ASRAC, because it's going to 13 go through the ASRAC Committee before it goes to the 14 DO E. 15 MR. EISNER: This is talking about in the 16 ca se of a unanimous vote, DOT agrees to use the written 17 st atement. I guess that gets indirectly at ASRAC, 18 be cause ASRAC votes under different consensus 19 st andards. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: They want to know how this 21 wo uld work under ASRAC, because ASRAC is a different 22 co nsensus process.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 185 1 MR. EISNER: ASRAC is the one that's actually 2 ma king the recommendation on which the Secretary is 3 go ing to act. I think that's a legitimate concern that 4 pr obably has to be addressed, and it's probably -- it's 5 a wording issue I think rather than a substantive 6 is sue. 7 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. This is Paul Doppel. I 8 ma de that recommendation, and my concern was that, you 9 kn ow, we're having the anticipation here that what we 10 se nd goes straight through, and that may not be the 11 ca se. 12 MR. EISNER: Well, I mean, at a minimum -- 13 an d I don't know the exact workings of ASRAC -- it 14 co uld say, "In the event of a recommendation from ASRAC 15 th at is based on a unanimous vote, the following would 16 ha ppen." And if you assume it is going to go right 17 th rough, that takes care of it. 18 If they have a different voting technique, it 19 is still based on the fact that this Committee, which I 20 th ink is what you're concerned with -- but, again, you 21 ca n talk about that -- this Committee is what everybody 22 is concerned about. What is a unanimous vote or a non-Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 186 1 un animous vote going to mean in this Committee? 2 And when you talk about presumption of what 3 wi ll happen in ASRAC, are you assuming that whatever 4 re port comes out of ASRAC is going to contain the 5 di ssenting views and all, or just what goes into ASRAC? 6 An d I don't know the answer to that. 7 MR. CYMBALSKY: We should keep in mind that 8 th ere is two members of ASRAC that are on this working 9 gr oup. So it is our thought that they are actually -- 10 yo u know, they have been delegated by ASRAC to be kind 11 of their voice and ears. So hopefully as we go forward 12 wi th something to the full ASRAC, you have had two 13 me mbers of this working group that have kept that in 14 mi nd to help it go through ASRAC. 15 MR. EISNER: Yes. 16 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 17 Bu t the problem is is no matter what we do, this is 18 st ill a Subcommittee for ASRAC. They are the true 19 re commenders. So if they read the dissenting vote, 20 di ssenting comments, and end up with agreeing -- there 21 ar e people in that group agree with the dissenting 22 vo tes, they can vote us right off. And that's just theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 187 1 fa cts of -- that's just the nature of what we have. 2 We can say that DOE shall and the DOE shall, 3 bu t the DOE is not the connection here. It is still 4 th e ASRAC group to DOE. 5 MR. EISNER: And all of you still have a vote 6 on ASRAC; right? 7 MR. HON: No, no, no. They'll -- 8 MR. EISNER: No. I don't mean you 9 pa rticularly, but your interests. For example, you may 10 no t represent DOE on the ASRAC, but there is going to 11 be a DOE representative. Is there going to be a DOE 12 re presentative from the other interest groups there? 13 An d the reason I'm asking is because I don't know how 14 it operates, and it may not make any difference. 15 As long as whatever comes through ASRAC to 16 yo u is not changed -- the vote may be different, but as 17 lo ng as it's not changed, DOE will reflect in the 18 pr eamble what was sent to them except to the extent 19 th at they will also add to the preamble the dissenting 20 op inions, and maybe propose alternative language for 21 co nsideration. 22 And that's I think another important point.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 188 1 Th ey will not take out the recommended language. They 2 wi ll add to it another alternative. 3 MR. HON: How do we know that? 4 MR. EISNER: Know what? 5 MR. HON: That ASRAC will do that. 6 MR. EISNER: I don't. I don't know much 7 ab out how this group interacts with ASRAC. 8 MS. MEYERS: So what if ASRAC is one of -- 9 wh at if one of the ASRAC members on the working group 10 is one of the dissenting votes? They have the 11 op portunity to influence the full Committee much more 12 th an the rest of us working group members do. Should 13 th e ASRAC -- and this is just an idea -- should the 14 AS RAC folks be allowed a vote on the working group 15 re commendation? 16 MR. EISNER: Do you mean should it just go 17 th rough ASRAC right to the Secretary? 18 MS. MEYERS: Well, for -- 19 MR. EISNER: See, I don't think that legally 20 th ey can do under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 21 I don't know how ASRAC normally works, so I don't know 22 wh ether there's an issue.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 189 1 MS. MEYERS: Yeah. 2 MR. EISNER: So -- 3 MR. CYMBALSKY: You know, the voting rules 4 fo r ASRAC are a lot less stringent than what you have 5 he re, and I think that has been brought up, that their 6 co nsensus is 75 percent. So it would be -- well, I 7 do n't -- we can talk afterward, but I think -- I don't 8 kn ow. You have two members of the full ASRAC on this 9 wo rking group. And in my opinion, based on how 10 Tr ansformers worked, those two members should be 11 ke eping the ASRAC how we're going to vote in the back 12 of their mind and looking out for those interests as 13 we ll. 14 MS. MEYERS: Can you put up the negative 15 co mments thing again? And does that apply to -- okay. 16 Ne ver mind. 17 MR. EISNER: Do you mean this sentence here, 18 "D OT will publish the dissenting views"? 19 MS. MEYERS: Okay. So here is my question. 20 So the working group has unanimity. We make the 21 re commendation, so it says we can't put any negative 22 co mments. But what if that is not what ASRACCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 190 1 re commends? Or maybe they change part of what we -- 2 pa rt of our recommendation. So how does that then 3 ap ply to us? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Wouldn't that change the 5 su bstance and effect of the term sheet? I mean, 6 wo uldn't that void that statement, if the substance and 7 ef fects of the term sheet is not intact? 8 MR. EISNER: I think that's a very good 9 po int. We're trying to satisfy everybody around this 10 ta ble that your time spent will be well spent. Even if 11 th ere are dissenting views, those dissenting votes will 12 be heard, for example. 13 If ASRAC decides to change that, all we have 14 is an agreement among everybody else as to what would 15 be done with this report. If they send through 16 so mething other than what is in the report, and there 17 ar e so many different things we can do -- they can do, 18 I don't know how we can handle it. 19 We're setting up ground rules for this group, 20 no t for ASRAC. And if they want to modify one thing by 21 ta king one word out, it's kind of hard now to get 22 ev erybody to commit to it based on -- something on whatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191 1 th ey do. So maybe you want to consider whether to get 2 th e good faith effort here working and working well. 3 We will agree to what we can agree to, what we have 4 co ntrol over, which is what this reflects. 5 To the extent we were going to modify the 6 in troductory sentences, if you could scroll down a 7 li ttle bit, and pan up at the beginning through -- or 8 it 's in here now. "In the event of a recommendation 9 th rough ASRAC, in the case of a unanimous vote," and we 10 ca n say -- well, I guess we have to be very careful 11 fr om a FACA point of view as to how we word that. 12 We can't say, "A vote by the subgroup or the 13 wo rking group is binding," because it's only the ASRAC 14 th at is binding. But in the event of a recommendation 15 th rough ASRAC that is based on a unanimous vote by the 16 wo rking group, we will do the following. 17 And we all agree we won't file comments if 18 DO E provides a written statement as to what you said. 19 An d if you're a dissenting view, you'll probably have a 20 ro le in writing that language. Harvey? 21 MR. SACHS: One of the things I'm picking up 22 on is that the whole ASRAC process is still pretty muchCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 192 1 a toddler. We are all trying to learn and develop. As 2 I think about things that come up in the last 10 3 mi nutes, including Karen's remarks, one of the issues 4 is just an awful lot of ambiguity and nebulosity about 5 th e relationship between the working group and ASRAC 6 it self. 7 And we have heard from John that there is an 8 as sumption that the ASRAC members who are on this 9 wo rking group will be making sure that there is 10 co ntinual communications. If that's the case, what I 11 wo nder is whether it's worthwhile asking for an 12 un derstanding, written, that basically says, "ASRAC is 13 in volved. ASRAC, on receiving the term sheet," or 14 wh atever, other work product, "may either pass it on or 15 se nd it back for revision, but may not modify the work 16 of the workgroup." That should be perfectly comfortable 17 fo r them if they have been involved. 18 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure from the Federal 19 Ad visory Committee Act that that would work. We can't 20 te ll them if they don't like what we propose; they have 21 to send it back to us, and when they finally accept it, 22 it has to be what we propose.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 193 1 MR. SACHS: They have -- they can offer that 2 to us, though. 3 MR. EISNER: They can offer that to us. 4 MR. SACHS: So we can ask them to offer it. 5 MR. EISNER: You could add a sentence here, 6 "I n the event that ASRAC wants to change any of the 7 re commendations" -- 8 MR. SACHS: They should send it back to us. 9 MR. EISNER: -- "we respectfully request that 10 th ey return it to the working group for its additional 11 co mments on the matter." 12 MR. SACHS: That's fine with me, if the 13 wo rding is a little bit less subtle and says, "We are 14 re questing now at the beginning that they agree to send 15 it back rather than modify it." 16 MR. EISNER: Yeah. I defer to the experts. 17 MR. COHEN: I don't think the subgroup can 18 te ll the -- so I think, just as a pure legal matter 19 un der the FACA, I don't think the subgroup can bind and 20 di rect the parent committee. 21 MR. SACHS: Point well taken. Dan, point 22 we ll taken. This is Harvey again. But could not theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 194 1 pa rent make that offer to the working group? 2 MR. COHEN: Yeah. Absolutely. The parent 3 ca n -- they can choose to do what they want. 4 MR. SACHS: Well, I'm happy to -- 5 MR. COHEN: The child just can't -- like in 6 yo ur house, I'm sure the child just can't direct the 7 pa rent. 8 MR. SACHS: Yeah. But in my case, the 9 gr andparents can. 10 The grandchildren can. So I'm happy to wait 11 fo r that offer to come from the Committee. 12 MR. COHEN: And that would be fine. As a 13 le gal matter, that's fine. It's just -- 14 MR. EISNER: I mean, I don't even know if our 15 AS RAC members are still online, if we can communicate 16 wi th them now, or can we have communications with them 17 af ter the meeting? 18 MR. HON: It's Kent and John -- are either 19 on e of them -- 20 MS. BARHYDT: John's not. 21 MR. HON: Kent Peterson? 22 MS. BARHYDT: No.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 195 1 MR. HON: No. Okay. 2 MR. EISNER: My suggestion -- oh, I'm sorry. 3 Go ahead, Charlie. 4 MR. HON: The timeline is now all screwed up. 5 If we -- if they send back to us with an August 30th 6 de adline, we would have to drop the timeline on our 7 Au gust 30th deadline to early August to make this work 8 at all. 9 MR. SACHS: Don't tell them that. 10 MR. HON: Sorry, Harvey. 11 MR. EISNER: And if you sent it to them on 12 Au gust 30th, maybe it's too late for them to make any 13 ch anges. I think we should proceed as if what we 14 re commend in this group goes up to ASRAC. They will 15 li ke the work that has been done. Especially the 16 cl oser we get to unanimous consent, they will like what 17 we have done, and they will send it forward. 18 I think that is normally the way these kinds 19 of groups work. They get advised and they get the 20 in formation in the report, they get the recommendations 21 in the report. I think the chances are pretty good 22 th at they would support it if we do a good job on it.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 196 1 MR. HON: I would just like to have DOE's 2 un derstanding that if by chance our recommendation is 3 ch anged, then we are no longer bound by the no 4 ob jections. 5 MR. EISNER: I think they have already 6 ac knowledged that this is based on what happens down 7 he re. 8 MR. HON: Okay. That's fine by me, because 9 wi th them stating that as acceptable -- 10 MR. EISNER: Yeah. No. I think the 11 ag reement, as written, reflects that. And that is 12 th eir understanding. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So just to follow on one 14 th ing as an aside, so I'm the DOE rep on ASRAC. I'm 15 on e of the 11 voting members on ASRAC. I think what 16 yo u just described is exactly how we have at least 17 di scussed the intent of ASRAC. I can't promise, I 18 ca n't speak for all of the other members, but I think 19 th e idea of these working groups was that you guys will 20 do the hard work and you guys will come up with your 21 be st recommendation, and that we don't have an 22 in tention of changing that recommendation unless thereCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 197 1 is something -- we may come back and ask clarifying 2 qu estions, we may come back and ask you to do more work 3 in a certain area, but the intent wasn't that ASRAC 4 wo uld then completely change your -- all of your hard 5 wo rk that you have done. At least that has been our 6 di scussions to date. 7 MR. EISNER: And what you saw at lunchtime 8 wh en they all met to talk, they said the lawyers were 9 go ing to talk to their lawyers. And when I went to 10 ta lk to them about it -- and that's the same thing 11 yo u're doing with your interest groups that you're 12 re presenting or your bosses and your different 13 co mpanies, when you are here representing your company 14 as part of one big interest group. You are all doing 15 th at. 16 This was rare, to have it happen during a 17 me eting, but it's not, you know, unlikely to happen 18 ev ery once in a while. I can't proceed further and 19 vo te on this until I can check with other people, 20 be cause this is something I did not contemplate would 21 co me up. Those kinds of things go on all the time, and 22 th at's a sign that the process is working.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 198 1 Laura is not here speaking for Laura. Laura 2 is here speaking for not even just the Department of 3 En ergy. If she has to, directly or indirectly, she may 4 ha ve to talk to OMB. She may have to talk to the Small 5 Bu siness Administration. 6 And that is what this process is all about, 7 an d that's why it is hard for somebody, then, to get in 8 th ere and reverse what you've done because if you've 9 do ne your work well, and you represent your interests 10 we ll, then they are not going to come up with different 11 op inions. 12 All right. Let's go on. I think we've got 13 co nsensus on this. Let's go on to the very next one 14 an d see if we agree on that, and that's the no negative 15 co mments. Are you comfortable with that now, based on 16 wh at you've heard, Harvey? 17 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey from ACEEE. I got 18 a comment back from somebody who is trying to 19 pa rticipate on the web with respect to 2D. And I don't 20 kn ow if you want to revisit it, but his comment was 21 th at he felt that the use of alternates did not work 22 we ll in the Transformer process, and that he wouldCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 199 1 re commend that this group not allow alternates, or 2 ce rtainly not allow alternates to vote, feeling that 3 th ey probably would not be fully briefed. 4 MR. EISNER: Has anybody else had any 5 ex perience they want to talk about with alternates by 6 ou r reg negs? Thoughts or comments on this? I mean, 7 Da n, are you aware of any down sides to not allowing 8 th em to vote? 9 MR. COHEN: I just wanted to ask Harvey, what 10 wa s the negative experience? I'm just not sure -- 11 MR. SACHS: Hi, Harvey. It is very hard to 12 pa rticipate in webinar. I would suggest not allowing 13 al ternates and certainly not allowing them to vote. 14 Th is was a problem on the Transformer regulation. This 15 wa s Louis Starr. That's -- 16 MR. COHEN: No explanation, really. 17 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. Dan, I'd 18 re commend that we leave the possibility of revisiting 19 th at, if he fills this out, but continue with our 20 di rection now, since I don't have any further 21 in formation. 22 MR. EISNER: Okay. Everybody agree that'sCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 200 1 re asonable? And I would also note that if in the first 2 me eting or the second meeting you have a problem with 3 an alternate voting who wasn't involved in this 4 me eting, or subsequent meetings, you can change the 5 ru les. In fact, you -- after this, it will be even 6 ea sier. We are trying to get unanimous consent here 7 to day. 8 All right. Let's go on. I think we are up 9 to paragraph 4C, no negative comments. Consider this 10 ph rase now -- this was in a different kind of an 11 ag reement. Do you still want this kind of an agreement 12 co nsidering the fact that DOE is committed to 13 pu blishing those negative comments? Any negative voter 14 wo uld have the option of working with the Department 15 an d preparing the language. 16 I think we anticipated in here that it would 17 be included in the report to the full ASRAC, so it 18 co uld be just lifted right out of there. Any problems? 19 (No response.) 20 Ok ay. I assume we have consensus on that. 21 Next one is response to public comments. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Sorry. So the language thereCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 201 1 ta lks about instances of unanimity. And so the way you 2 fr amed the question, Neil, was where there is not 3 un animity, what do people think about negative 4 co mments? And so the language doesn't reflect anything 5 ot her than cases of unanimity. 6 MR. EISNER: Thoughts? Did you want to 7 sp eak? 8 MR. ROLPH: Neil Rolph. Is there somewhere 9 th at it dictates this subject? Some legal setting that 10 se t up the negotiated rulemaking process that forces 11 th is language in here? Where does this come from? 12 MR. EISNER: All right. My recollection, as 13 so mebody who was involved in this process from the very 14 be ginning, but that was a lot of years ago, is that 15 ag encies simply initially committed to publishing the 16 re sults. They would work with consensus -- they would 17 wo rk to achieve consensus, however that was defined, 18 an d then they would agree, to the extent that it was 19 no t legally impermissible, they would publish the 20 re sults. 21 And that agency started saying, "Wait. We've 22 go t to get a little bit more." We got everybody'sCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202 1 co nsent around the table, and then you file negative 2 co mments. Or we get everybody's agreement and we 3 pu blish a final rule, and you sue us over something 4 th at you agreed to. So we want you to agree not to 5 su e. We want you to agree not to come out with a 6 ne gative comment after you voted in favor of something. 7 They wanted some kind of commitment, just 8 li ke the agency made the commitment, and the groups 9 we re willing to do that. Again, I can't speak for 10 ev ery group, but this is my understanding of how it got 11 st arted and the fact that it pops up now more and more, 12 if not all, of these agreements that I'm aware of. And 13 th ere are many that I'm not aware of. Everything I 14 se e, this is what people are starting as a standard to 15 as k for. 16 MS. MEYERS: What if you abstain from a vote? 17 So there is unanimity but you abstain from the vote, 18 ca n you make a comment on it? 19 MR. EISNER: Can you give me an example of a 20 si tuation where somebody would abstain but have strong 21 en ough feelings to want to provide a negative comment? 22 MS. MEYERS: No.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 203 1 MR. EISNER: Can anybody else think of one? 2 Be cause it -- I'm not sure if it is an issue worth our 3 ad dressing. If you don't -- the example that you were 4

-- others were giving earlier were it doesn't affect my 5 li ne of business. I don't have any -- I'm not affected 6 at all by what you do with this type of equipment. So 7 in that situation, I can't see why the person would 8 fi le a negative comment. But there might be situations 9 I' m not aware of. 10 MR. MOLVIE: Instances I have seen on ASME 11 co mmittees where people abstain, it happens very 12 fr equently that they haven't done their homework and 13 th ey aren't sure about what position they want to take, 14 so they abstain to reserve the right to vote negative 15 la ter. I think that's a real possibility where someone 16 wo uld want to make a negative comment after they have 17 co nsidered it further, because they don't have the 18 in formation in front of them or whatever. 19 MR. EISNER: What do people think of that? 20 Is that a basis for giving -- allowing them to file 21 la ter? And another question, purely objectively raised, 22 mi ght it encourage people to abstain rather than getCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 204 1 pr epared and make a decision? Charlie? 2 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. You are also -- if we 3 wo uld leave the wording as it is today, you are going 4 to encourage people to vote no, so that they have some 5 pu blished negative comment in the registry, because the 6 wa y it reads right now, if you abstain, you have no 7 ri ght to -- if the rest of -- no one else votes against 8 it , and you abstain, you have no right to come back 9 wi th any comment period -- in the comment period. 10 MS. MEYERS: You know, I just think the 11 un derlying issue in all of this is the timeframe. This 12 is a big thing to get done in four months, so -- or by 13 Au gust 30th. So I think that's, at least from my point 14 of view, I mean, we are going to be tackling a lot of 15 st uff quickly. And, you know, hopefully we will have 16 co nsidered everything that we need to consider. But 17 it 's a big deal, and something could slip through. 18 Th at's my concern about this is we are really rushing 19 th is. 20 MR. EISNER: That is -- 21 MS. MEYERS: It's a very complex issue. 22 MR. EISNER: -- a legitimate concern.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205 1 MS. MEYERS: And we're rushing it. 2 MR. EISNER: Harvey? 3 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I'm not guilty of 4 ev en thinking I understand law. But as a layman, when 5 I read C in its entirety, I get the sense -- and this 6 is really a question for the lawyers -- that this is 7 pa blum that has no standing that lawyers could have a 8 fu ll employment act -- argument about whether a comment 9 ha d the same substance and effect as the term sheet for 10 ye ars and years. I don't see how there is anything 11 en forceable or meaningful in C. Please help me 12 un derstand that I'm wrong. 13 MR. EISNER: I think, again, based on my 14 ex perience, not particular to any agency, that it is 15 no t a matter of we're going to go in court and sue you, 16 be cause you couldn't file a comment. The agency 17 do esn't have the legal authority to keep it out of the 18 do cket, in my opinion. It is more a matter of good 19 fa ith. 20 We came and we sat and we negotiated for 21 th ree or four hard months. And then you submitted 22 co mments contrary to what you said in the meetings.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 206 1 Ye s, I think this is a very valid point. We all feel 2 li ke we are being a little bit rushed here, and we 3 do n't know everything that we might learn later on. 4 But part of it is -- and it would be a 5 ba lance on the part of the agencies based on what I've 6 he ard in the past. They said they were coming there to 7 ne gotiate. They felt that they could do it. They were 8 aw are of the deadlines. So, again, you are balancing 9 th ings. It doesn't affect the outcome of these 10 ne gotiations. It doesn't affect what the agency can or 11 ca nnot do legally necessarily. But it does affect a 12 fe eling of we thought we were all working together to 13 de velop a solution. 14 MR. SACHS: So it seems to me -- this is 15 Ha rvey again -- that this could be framed in a way that 16 do esn't feel quite so much in terms legal, because, 17 af ter all, any one of the parties could get a colleague 18 in the same industry in another firm to file comments. 19 I mean, there are just so many workarounds that it just 20 do esn't seem to have any meaning except to say we are 21 us ing good faith and we'll do our best to stick with 22 th e commitments we've made.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 207 1 MR. EISNER: Yeah. And, again, on the 2 in terest group concept, you don't even know who 3 ev erybody is that's a member of an interest group. But 4 yo u do know that, hey, you were representing that 5 in terest group and somebody in that interest group 6 fi led negative comments. It is -- 7 MR. SACHS: I'm doing my best to represent 8 th eir interests. 9 MR. EISNER: Yeah. But that's a problem 10 so metimes within the industry in terms of working 11 th ings out. Again, it's a subtle thing, just like so 12 mu ch of this is. It's very, very subtle. It's 13 fe elings that are hurt, things like that, that cause 14 pe ople to say, "I don't want to negotiate anymore with 15 th is interest group." 16 Let me give a chance for Louis Starr to 17 sp eak. He said -- he passed a note that he wanted to 18 sp eak. You're on the phone? Louis? 19 MR. STARR: Okay. Are you there? 20 MR. EISNER: Yes. We can hear you. 21 MR. STARR: I just wanted to address the 22 is sue of the alternates. The problem with theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 208 1 al ternates is is that the people that are on the 2 Co mmittee have been vetted and have a certain 3 kn owledge. And I think some of the problems that arose 4 pr eviously is that they were sending people that were 5 ma ybe not aware of the issues and the negotiations that 6 we re going on, and so you'd have a number of people 7 th at spent a lot of time, and then a replacement would 8 co me up that really knew nothing about the issues. So 9 th at was one of the other items. 10 The people on the Committee I assume were 11 se lected on the Committee, and so you're not really 12 ge tting a seat at the table. You're being selected at 13 th e Committee to provide information or expertise. And 14 so I think I wanted that -- 15 MR. EISNER: Would you be satisfied -- 16 MR. STARR: -- maybe the alternates possibly 17 co uld be okay, but the part about -- or what? 18 MR. EISNER: Louis, would you be okay with 19 ad ding something to 2D along the lines of "In order for 20 an alternate to be able to vote" -- 21 MR. STARR: Oh. Yeah. No alternates and no 22 vo ting privileges.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209 1 MR. EISNER: Well, no. But because some 2 al ternates might be very well briefed, might come to 3 al l of the meetings, would you want to make some -- 4 wo uld you be willing to live with some language that 5 mi ght allow them to vote on the agreement of the member 6 th at he is insured? 7 MR. STARR: Yeah. I guess that would be -- 8 MR. EISNER: Go ahead. 9 MR. STARR: Yeah. That would be fine. What 10 I would like to say, too, is that we also not have a 11 ro tating list of alternates. I mean, I don't know, 12 ma ybe -- I mean, are we going to, you know, amend -- 13 so meone could have like 15 different products. Does 14 th at mean we are going to have an alternate each time 15 th ere is a different product? I mean, maybe that's 16 ok ay, but there's just, you know, a general position of 17 a given group that is consistent across all of them. 18 An d so it seems like it would make it a little bit 19 tr icky. 20 But anyway, that is just my concern. I know 21 yo u all will figure out what the -- what would make 22 se nse.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 210 1 MR. EISNER: Why don't we go back to the 2 is sue we were on, and then we can refocus on this 3 is sue. Any other thoughts on how to handle the adverse 4 co mments? Do we want to take it out completely? Do we 5 wa nt to modify it? 6 MR. SACHS: Did he ask who plans to have 7 al ternates? 8 MR. EISNER: No. I want to go back to 9 al ternates. I didn't know his question was going to be 10 on -- I should have assumed that, but I didn't know it 11 wa s going to be on the alternates. So I want to finish 12 th is before we forget where we were. 13 MS. BARHYDT: From the rulemaking 14 pe rspective, if we come to an agreement -- and let's 15 sa y best case scenario we have unanimous consensus vote 16 th at everybody can live with, and that goes up to the 17 AS RAC and then it ends up at DOE, and we publish a 18 No tice of Proposed Rulemaking. That is exactly what 19 ev erybody sitting at this table agreed to, and we get 20 ad verse comments from every single person sitting at 21 th e table. 22 Then, we are in a really bad position on --Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211 1 we thought everybody had agreed to this, and we have a 2 st ack of comments that we have to respond to. And it 3 pu ts us in a very difficult position on going forward, 4 an d so I think that's the idea is that if we take the 5 vo te and we meet the definition of "consensus," then 6 ou r expectation is that everybody can live with what 7 wa s sent forward. 8 And so our expectation is that we understand 9 th at individual people may not have liked this 10 pa rticular aspect or that particular aspect, but they 11 ha ve already voted and said, "I can live with that." 12 An d if we get a lot of adverse comments, then we have 13 to actually address all of those individually, like a 14 no rmal rulemaking, and it is going to slow down that 15 pr ocess that we are trying to get this rule out and 16 ac tually end up with a better rule at the end. 17 MR. EISNER: Reactions? Comments? 18 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. What will 19 ha ppen if you don't have unanimity? I mean, so anybody 20 is free to file comments or only those who voted no? I 21 me an -- 22 MR. EISNER: Well, even those who voted no ICapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 212 1 th ink by this language would be precluded, because 2 th eir comments are already reflected in the 3 ju stification for voting no, which DOE has said they 4 wi ll publish in the preamble. So I voted no, because I 5 th ought this was too costly, and that's the comment 6 th ey want to submit. Well, that comment is already in 7 th e record in the preamble. 8 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think the language that 9 is there right now says that. I think that that would 10 be one possible way of going forward for this workgroup 11 is to say that because DOE has committed to publishing 12 al l of the dissenting views in the rulemaking, and 13 po ssibly even providing alternatives in the proposed 14 ru lemaking, that the members of the workgroup agree not 15 to file negative comments, because their views have 16 al ready been reflected within the context of that 17 ru lemaking. 18 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo with 19 Ea rthjustice. I have a concern about that from an 20 ex haustion standpoint as to whether a court, if we did 21 en d up litigating over the outcome of the final rule, 22 wo uld regard the publishing of our statement ofCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 213 1 op position to the term sheet as sufficiently exhausting 2 th e raising of the issue during the rulemaking. 3 So I wouldn't agree to say that that 4 pu blishing of our statement of dissent would eliminate 5 th e right to comment. 6 MR. EISNER: I don't think anybody is talking 7 ab out the right to comment. You always have a right to 8 co mment. The agency can't take it away from you. And 9 re member, again, we can't focus on the agency. If you 10 fi le, you vote for something, somebody else around the 11 ta ble, not DOE, makes a negative comment on it, and the 12 co nsensus is let's recommend it, we've got enough votes 13 to recommend it, that person's negative view is 14 re flected in the preamble. Is that sufficient? Or is 15 it okay to let them file more negative comments? 16 It's not -- don't focus just on DOE. 17 So mebody else can vote negative. No, it -- we have 18 ag reed consensus won't be unanimous. That's the old 19 la nguage I think. It should be consensus. They only - 20 - the only changes were made to B. I don't think C has 21 be en changed at all. 22 MS. MEYERS: In the event of a consensusCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 214 1 re commendation to the ASRAC -- actually, I was going to 2 us e that clause to replace that sentence. People can 3 re ad that and see what they think. 4 MR. BALLO: This is Tim. That's the same 5 co ncern I was just addressing. If I had an objection 6 an d voted against something, I would want to renew 7 th ose objections on the proposed rule, just for the -- 8 yo u know, for the certainty. 9 MR. MYERS: Could you repeat that, please? I 10 co uldn't understand that. 11 MR. BALLO: So there is a requirement in 12 ad ministrative law that if a party is going to 13 ch allenge a final rule that it had to raise the 14 ob jections to the final rule during the rulemaking. It 15 is not -- I haven't researched this, but it is not 16 cl ear to me that just having the reproduced dissenting 17 vi ews in the proposed rule and not filing additional 18 co mments to renew those objections would satisfy that. 19 MR. EISNER: Charlie? 20 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. My concern would be 21 th at I would vote against something, and I would 22 de velop more information to justify my position andCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 215 1 ma ke it much clearer for my objection. And I could 2 su bmit it in writing with a lot more factual reasoning 3 be hind it than just voting no and a couple of comments 4 fr om a Committee member. 5 I think you could clarify it in a much more 6 co ncise and accurate way in writing if you had voted 7 ag ainst it in the first place. 8 MR. EISNER: Okay. It doesn't appear we are 9 ge tting anywhere near consensus on this, so I would 10 su ggest we consider whether we want to take this -- 11 th ese two lines out of here, three lines. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Another possibility would be to 13 sa y that each party agrees not to file negative 14 co mments except to the extent that they have already 15 ra ised an objection, so that people don't raise new 16 ob jections and file new comments that were not 17 di scussed and negotiated as part of the workgroup. 18 MR. EISNER: Thoughts? Okay. 19 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussmann 20 Co rporation. C, D, and E, I'm looking at these items, 21 an d, you know, several people here have expressed the 22 fa ct that we only have 120 days to come up with someCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 216 1 ki nd of solution here. Do we need C, D, and E, even to 2 be in this? 3 I mean, we are all working our good faith to 4 co me up with a solution to resolve the problems that we 5 ha ve, and we're spending a lot of time talking about 6 th ese items. I mean, I'm not trying to be a negative 7 pe rson here, but, I mean, we've spent a lot of time 8 he re. I mean, we're all working in good faith to come 9 up towards a solution, and we are not getting anywhere 10 on this. 11 I mean, do we -- is this -- so I guess my 12 qu estion is, is this absolutely necessary, to have this 13 in there? 14 MR. EISNER: Nothing is absolutely necessary. 15 Yo u can have more rules, you can have fewer rules. 16 Wh at will lead to better decisionmaking, faster 17 de cisionmaking, when you've got ground rules? The very 18 fa ct that you're objecting to some of them indicates 19 th at they do have an effect on how you negotiate. 20 So, but we -- you know, we can agree to take 21 of f -- I would assume you would want to take out the no 22 ch allenge also.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 217 1 MR. SHEBIK: Uh-huh. That would be my 2 su ggestion for that. 3 MR. EISNER: If that's what the consensus -- 4 MR. SHEBIK: One hundred twenty days is not a 5 lo t of time to get things done, and we're going to 6 sp end a lot of time debating what if we don't like what 7 we said back in June, so we want to change what we say 8 in July. 9 MR. EISNER: But what you put in now will 10 af fect the way people will negotiate. 11 MR. SHEBIK: I understand. 12 MR. EISNER: So that may make it harder to 13 ge t consensus in the short period of time. Those are 14 th e things you have to weigh and balance. 15 We also are taking another hour on this. 16 We 've got scope, which we may not be able to finish 17 to day, and we've got to set a schedule for future 18 me etings. So we may want to put the rest of these 19 di scussions off on the ground rules, start talking 20 ab out scope, and then agree to have either a phone 21 co nference call or some other means of communicating 22 wi th each other on the rest of the ground rules.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 218 1 I understand and hear all of your concerns 2 ab out time, and I think they are serious. And the good 3 fa ith arguments. But you have to understand that 4 pe ople are affected by the different ground rules, and 5 wh at they're giving up and what they're getting, and 6 no t just -- not giving up in a legal sense, but giving 7 up in a good faith sense. "I won't do this if you'll 8 do that" kind of a thing, and it will affect the way 9 pe ople negotiate. 10 MR. MYERS: I concur with the thought of 11 po stponing this, but I might recommend that all of the 12 me mbers take a look at the balance of the items and 13 wr ite out suggestions, so that they can be brought up 14 at the next conference call or the next meeting, so 15 th at perhaps we will have some solutions in hand as 16 op posed to trying to craft solutions during the 17 me eting. 18 MR. EISNER: And if we can handle scope in 25 19 mi nutes, we can come back to this, then. 20 So, all right, let's go to scope. Let me ask 21 La ura to start off. 22 MR. DOPPEL: Before we go to that, there isCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 219 1 It em Number 5, I think we need to address. 2 MR. EISNER: Item Number 5 on? 3 MR. DOPPEL: Facilitator. 4 MR. EISNER: Well, there's more than -- there 5 is five. I guess you have to approve my being a 6 fa cilitator, essentially. 7 MR. DOPPEL: That's my -- 8 MR. EISNER: But there's also meetings. I 9 wa sn't talking about going over the -- we can go over 10 th ese last sections if you want and just come back to 11 Se ction 4, if we think we can get it done quickly. But 12 we do have -- we also have to set a schedule for the 13 me etings that are just -- six is just talking about the 14 re quirements for meeting summaries and things. So it 15 mi ght be easy, and let's try to do that. 16 Five is facilitator. The very fact that I am 17 he re, if you don't have to have a facilitator, you can 18 de cide that. But the facilitator will work with the 19 pa rties to ensure the process runs smoothly, serve at 20 th e will of the Committee. So you guys can fire me. 21 MR. DOPPEL: I just want to acknowledge I 22 ap preciate the job you're doing so far.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 220 1 MR. EISNER: Thank you. 2 MR. SACHS: I wouldn't go that far, but I 3 wo uld -- 4 MR. EISNER: I'll remember that. 5 MR. CYMBALSKY: You can't even get consensus 6 on that. 7 You're doing fine, but I really wanted to ask 8

-- 9 MR. EISNER: I see the smile on his face; you 10 do n't. 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: They never see anything but 12 my back. The question is just whether "the Committee" 13 me ans ASRAC or this working group? 14 MR. EISNER: We changed the wording there. 15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Ah, okay. Thank you. Carry 16 on , sir. Thank you. 17 MR. EISNER: Okay. Number 6, the meetings. 18 Th e one thing that I -- Dan told me has to be changed, 19 in A, there was a mistake. There is no DOE policy, 20 ri ght? So it would be just the Federal Advisory 21 Co mmittee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act would 22 be discussed there. Anybody have a problem with that?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 221 1 Okay. B is open meetings. We have already 2 ta lked a little bit about this. They are announced in 3 th e Federal Register prior to the meeting and will be 4 op en to the public. We've about subgroups, which are 5 no t subject to a requirement that they be announced in 6 th e Federal Register but DOE is going to look into ways 7 to get notice out on that. Is everybody happy with -- 8 ok ay with B? 9 All right. And then the last thing is -- 10 un der Meetings is meeting summaries. It's a 11 re quirement to produce a record of what we've agreed 12 to . There's a Court Reporter who will come out with a 13 ty pewritten summary. The agency is required, under 14 Fe deral Advisory Committee Act requirements, to do a 15 su mmary of each meeting. It is also helpful I think to 16 th e participants in the meeting. 17 Anybody have any objections to that? 18 Ch arlie? 19 MR. HON: Can I ask the DOE to send out the 20 do cument there on the screen in advance, so we have 21 th at available to us to work on our comments? 22 MR. EISNER: You're talking about the workingCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 222 1 gr oup -- 2 MR. HON: Yes. 3 MR. EISNER: -- procedures? Yes. 4 MR. HON: Yes. 5 MR. EISNER: I don't think that's a problem. 6 And then, finally, one other one we talked 7 ab out earlier was the Committee members may propose 8 mo difications at any time during any of the meetings if 9 th ey want. 10 MR. BALLO: I actually had something on 11 C. This is Tim Ballo. In the Transformers reg neg, we 12 ha d an issue with the availability of transcripts, and 13 th e whole process I think concluded before we got to 14 se e a lot of the transcripts. And it would have been 15 he lpful to have those to refer back to, and even later 16 du ring the comments on the proposed rule that came out 17 So I'm wondering if we need to put something in here 18 th at the transcripts and other materials generated 19 du ring the working group sessions will be either made 20 av ailable to the working group members or posted in the 21 do cket for the rulemaking. But, you know, there was a 22 lo t of material that was generated in the TransformersCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 223 1 ne gotiations that just disappeared kind of. I never 2 sa w it again. 3 MR. EISNER: Do you want to address that, 4 La ura, or Dan? 5 MR. COHEN: I'm sorry. We were doing a 6 te chnical fix, so I didn't hear the question. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: He said that there is stuff 8 th at was missing from the docket, or the transcripts 9 we ren't put up in a timely manner, so if this is going 10 to move at a fast pace, we will need to provide all of 11 th e materials in advance of the next meeting. 12 MR. COHEN: We will do our best to do what we 13 ca n. It takes the court reporter some period of time 14 to put together the transcript, and then errors and 15 om issions have to be worked through. 16 MR. BALLO: I guess my concern is that they - 17 - the material will eventually find its way into the 18 do cket, because that wasn't -- that didn't happen with 19 Tr ansformers. There were some, you know, scattered 20 mi nutes and transcripts, but we didn't have everything 21 fr om every meeting. Unless some transcripts just 22 we ren't ever prepared. That I don't know.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 224 1 MR. COHEN: So I thought we went through -- 2 we went through that SharePoint site item by item by 3 it em and -- 4 MR. BALLO: Yes. The SharePoint stuff all 5 go t on, but not everything got into SharePoint. 6 MR. COHEN: Well, I'd be curious what that 7 wa s, actually. I'd be happy to -- we'd be happy to 8 su pplement that docket, if you can point out -- I'm not 9 su re there is any document that exists that is not in 10 th at docket. 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: I know the webinar 12 tr anscripts were a little more difficult, but I think 13 ev entually we got everything. It took time. It took 14 so me time. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay. 16 MS. MEYERS: Well, so these meeting 17 su mmaries, which are I think a little bit different 18 th an the transcripts, can we get an agreement from the 19 fa cilitator who is to produce these that, you know, we 20 ha ve these within, you know, five or 10 business days 21 af ter the end of the meeting? I mean -- 22 MR. EISNER: Yeah. I think there is some setCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 225 1 da te which I'm supposed to get them done. I have to 2 ge t -- but I have to get something from the Court 3 Re porter probably to go through, or somebody goes 4 th rough. Yeah. We'll make every effort to get them out 5 as quickly as we can. If we don't get them out quick 6 en ough this time, we'll set a standard for doing that. 7 Okay. Everybody all right with everything 8 ex cept parts of six? 9 All right. And we can get out a corrected 10 ve rsion of this document, except for everything that 11 wa s in 6C through F. And if we have time at the end of 12 th is meeting, we'll go back. Ever the optimist. 13 MR. SACHS: Neil, this is Harvey. And I just 14

-- I'm looking for a little clarification. Line 1, the 15 pr oceedings will not be electronically recorded, but 16 su mmaries will be prepared. And yet we're having 17 di scussions about the transcripts. 18 MR. EISNER: Yeah. And I don't know if the 19 tr anscripts are in a form, the way they're kept. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So typically the way this 21 wo rks is that we have a transcript within about a week 22 of the meeting. So if you guys plan to meet on aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 226 1 we ekly basis, it is probably not reasonable to think 2 th at DOE is going to have a transcript ready for you 3 pr ior to the meeting every single time. If you guys 4 pl an to meet on a biweekly basis, then I think it is 5 fa ir to say we will do our best to have the transcript 6 an d a summary available to you to help you with your 7 ne xt meeting. 8 So a lot of this depends on the meeting 9 sc hedule or the frequency in which you have calls or 10 in - person meetings or that kind of stuff in terms of 11 wh at you need. But I think the Department will commit 12 to turning things around as quickly as possible. Even 13 if we can post the transcript, you know, Neil might 14 ne ed a couple days subsequent to that to pull together 15 hi s summary and everything else. But we post them as 16 so on as they are available. 17 MR. EISNER: I think Harvey was asking also 18 ab out the electronic record. 19 MR. SACHS: So I am to read Line 1 as saying, 20 "T he proceedings will be electronically recorded, and 21 su mmaries of Committee meetings will be prepared." 22 MR. COHEN: No, that's not -- what we wereCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 227 1 tr ying to get at there is we are not going to have an 2 au dio recording of the meetings. 3 MR. EISEN: I think she is taking the 4 eq uivalent of a transcriber's notes. 5 MR. COHEN: Yes, she is taking -- right. She 6 is transcribing everything that is being said, and we 7 ar e going to have what is effectively a written record. 8 MR. SACHS: Thank you, Dan. 9 MR. EISNER: All right. That takes us to a 10 di scussion of the rulemaking objective, the scope of 11 th e negotiations. We do want to leave time also for 12 th e schedule, for at least the next meeting, how we're 13 go ing to do that. 14 But let me ask Laura to open up the scope by 15 te lling us what she thinks the scope was intended to 16 be , also what is your objective, what you would like to 17 se e come out of this in terms of scope. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So I think everyone knows that 19 th e impetus for this was that the Department adopted 20 ce rtification regulations in 2011 for these products, 21 an d at the time our intent was to refer the current 22 pr actice of industry. Our expectation was that it wasCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 228 1 no t going to create an undue burden. It was not going 2 to dramatically affect current processes. 3 We heard overwhelmingly after we issued the 4 fi nal rule that that was not the case, that in fact it 5 ha d a dramatic effect on industry, and so our goal is 6 to come up with a regulatory framework that will allow 7 us to ensure that products are being tested, or through 8 an alternative efficiency determination method have the 9 ef ficiency determined. 10 And I know that there is an open AEDM rule 11 ri ght now, to take those values, have the manufacturers 12 ce rtify to the Department that their products are 13 co mpliant, and to have that information provided to the 14 De partment in a way that we can tie it back to specific 15 pr oducts and be able to verify that the representations 16 ar e accurate. 17 So, in short, that is really all we are 18 lo oking for, and we are open to discussions on just 19 ab out any aspect of how to actually achieve that goal. 20 MR. EISNER: Comments? Concerns? Questions? 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman, Trane. One thing 22 yo u didn't say in there was enforcement. I believe itCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 229 1 is included in the regulation, so I would encourage 2 th at we need to also look in the scope around 3 en forcement, especially a process. 4 MR. EISNER: Could you elaborate on what you 5 me an by "enforcement"? 6 MS. HOOTMAN: The Department testing our 7 un its, us having no presence at that testing, plus 8 ha ving no record of what -- how that process will even 9 ha ppen, what will happen in that process. There is 10 no thing in the law that says that. 11 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm not entirely sure what 12 yo u mean. We do have procedural regulations that lay 13 ou t the enforcement process. It lays out the standards 14 by which the Department will test units. Obviously, 15 th ey are tested in accordance with the test procedures, 16 an d there are statistical formulas in the regulations 17 as to the number of units we have to test, how we 18 de termine compliance. 19 The regulations lay out the process for us to 20 se lect units. It lays out a process for us to have 21 di scussions with the manufacturer. It lays out the 22 pr ocess for when we do make a determination of non-Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 230 1 co mpliance, and it lays out a process for civil penalty 2 ac tion. 3 So I'm not sure which part of the problem you 4 fe el like is not adequately covered by the existing 5 re gulations. I don't think that our understanding up 6 to this point has been that there was an issue with 7 th ose regulations. Our understanding was that it was 8 pr imarily on the testing, the groupings of models for 9 wh at has to be tested, and then for the actual 10 ce rtification of compliance and the data that had to be 11 pr ovided. This is the first I've heard that there is a 12 co ncern with what the process is for enforcement. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill again from Trane. 14 Sp ecifically, one of the areas we cannot witness, we 15 ca nnot be there to witness that piece of equipment 16 be ing tested, so that we do not know that it in fact 17 wa s tested correctly, and that the unit was functioning 18 co rrectly. 19 There are some very sophisticated controls in 20 th ese units, and when we go through certification 21 th roughout obviously in other -- our industry program, 22 we know for a fact that there are many times they areCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 231 1 no t tested correctly. 2 MR. EISNER: Is there a reason why they can't 3 wi tness the testing? 4 MS. BARHYDT: The largest issue is that the 5 De partment cannot travel sufficiently for us to always 6 pr ovide a DOE Representative, and we're not comfortable 7 ha ving the manufacturer there without a DOE 8 Re presentative at the test lab. We do have a great 9 de al of confidence in our test lab's ability to conduct 10 th e testing, in accordance with the DOE test procedure, 11 an d we're not comfortable with having the manufacturer 12 th ere if DOE is not there, as well. 13 MR. EISNER: Is there a way for you to find a 14 wa y for this issue to be addressed? 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Acceptance of a voluntary 16 In dustry Certification program, such as AHRI. 17 MS. BARHYDT: For enforcement purposes? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. It's possible. 19 MR. EISNER: You know, I think, as I 20 un derstand these issues, we're getting to the point 21 wh ere maybe we're going to work out the rule before we 22 wo rk out the issues.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 232 1 MS. BARHYDT: Right. Right. 2 MR. EISNER: Is there a way that you can 3 ex press the objective, the scope, that will capture her 4 co ncern? Jill's concern? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, I'm trying to run a 6 li st of what I hear on (inaudible). 7 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 8 Na tional. I guess the question just within the scope, 9 is talking about enforcement testing, how it's going to 10 be . Is that something it can be within the scope, or 11 is that already settled, as the DOE goes, a settled 12 is sue? Is that something we can talk about, later? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I just ask a question? 14 La ura can chime in on. Is that something you want to 15 fo cus on, if you have 120 days, to get to a deadline, 16 fo r your certification issue? 17 MR. AMRANE: Well, if you don't have enough 18 fo ot time, then we should make the time. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm not saying that it's off 20 th e table, Karim. I'm not saying that that's not a 21 se condary issue, or could be considered as part of the 22 Co mmittee Meeting. That's totally up to you. But I'mCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 233 1 sa ying, should that be your primary focus, for the 120 2 da ys, when your December 31st deadline really gets too 3

-- 4 MR. EISNER: Does that issue -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: It doesn't mean it shouldn't 6 be in scope, about -- 7 MR. EISNER: In order for the rules to go 8 in to effect, they're supposed to go into effect, does 9 th at issue have to be resolved now? Or can the 10 Co mmittee put something in with, what they agreed to, 11 th at would force this issue to be resolved, before it 12 be comes a problem? Everybody understand what I'm 13 sa ying? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not really. 15 MR. SACHS: I think -- if I could. I think 16 As hley has started something really good, that we ought 17 to list all the significant issues, before we start 18 wo rrying about which ones are primary and which ones 19 ar e secondary. I'd make that recommendation, if I 20 co uld. I'm seeing Ashley, at least, nod "yes." 21 Ev erybody else nod "yes"? 22 MS. BARHYDT: So my other question is areCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 234 1 th ere other aspects of enforcement testing, besides 2 be ing able to witness the tests? 3 MR. AMRANE: Yes. Sampling. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sampling. Yeah. Sample size 5 fo r just enforcement, or sample size for -- 6 MR. AMRANE: For both. For both. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: For both certifications. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. I just want to make 9 su re I capture. Go ahead. 10 MR. MOLVIE: This is Peter Molvie with 11 Cl eaver-Brooks. We have an issue, I guess it would be 12 re lative to both certification and enforcement, with 13 th e test procedures that are specified for testing 14 bo ilers. That being BTS2000. The boilers that we 15 ma nufacturer, they're a steam boiler, are designed for 16 he ating purposes, to operate at 10psi. The BTS2000 17 ma ndates that the test be performed at between 0-2psi. 18 We cannot physical perform a steam boiler test, and 19 ac hieve full capacity under those conditions. So 20 th at's an issue for us. 21 The same thing is true for hot water boilers, 22 wi th a specified return temperature of 85 degreesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 235 1 Fa hrenheit. It was tested in our lab. Our cooling 2 to wer doesn't have the capacity to enable us to perform 3 th e test under those conditions. 4 MR. EISNER: You're talking about testing 5 co nditions? 6 MR. MOLVIE: Yes. The actual test 7 co nditions, under which the tests are performed. 8 Th at's an issue for us. 9 MS. BARHYDT: I do have a request on that 10 fr ont. The actual test procedures, I don't think are 11 go ing to be within the scope of this. To the extent 12 th at you can separate those two issues, and think to 13 yo urself, "If I had a test procedure that would work 14 fo r my products, how would I want this to work?" And 15 if we can do this rulemaking in that context. And then 16 as a separate matter, the Department will look at the 17 te st procedures. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: We are looking at the test 19 pr ocedures for those right now. So that's not going to 20

-- the actual modification to the test procedures will 21 no t be within the scope of this. 22 MS. MEYERS: Ashley, I'd add AEDM up there.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 236 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. What aspects of it, 2 sp ecifically? 3 MR. EISNER: Substantiation. 4 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: May I ask a question: 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 6 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: We don't talk about any 7 it ems here, about cost. But I don't know the answer to 8 th is one. When you select units, one of the many items 9 th ere, who pays for them? Do we pays or -- 10 MS. BARHYDT: So under current DOE 11 re gulations, and under the authorizing statute, the way 12 it 's set up is the Department must have reason to 13 be lieve that a model is, the effacing model is 14 no ncompliant. So there has to be some initial 15 in formation for the Department to make that 16 de termination. Once we have that determined that -- 17 we ll, not determined. But once we have reason to 18 be lieve that a product is noncompliant, it is required 19 by law that the manufacturer provide the units to the 20 De partment, at the manufacturer's expense. The 21 De partment pays for the testing. So that's the split. 22 Is the manufacturer provides the units for testing, andCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 237 1 th e Department pays for the actual tests. 2 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: And the suspicion of not 3 me eting the rating comes from? 4 MS. BARHYDT: It can come from a variety of 5 so urces. To date, most of it has come from 6 De partmental testing, where we have actually bought a 7 un it. And then we send it off to the test lab, and we 8 ha ve it tested, ourselves. 9 MR. HATZIKAZAKIS: So in other words, in 10 ge neral, even above this meeting, all the OEMs for -- 11 I' m talking commercial air conditioners -- we spend a 12 lo t of money doing our own testing because of 13 (i naudible). And the other one is that you spend 14 mo ney, DOE does, and maybe we have to spend additional 15 mo ney. I think I described it well? Or accurately? 16 Ev erybody's laughing, that's good. Okay. 17 My point is, I like the items being on there, 18 be cause -- the bottom line to me is -- and you started 19 yo ur conversation that way. There is a lot of testing 20 ha ppening, and we know it happens, because my budget is 21 hi t, every year with it. So that's number one. 22 And then the other one is, we cannot -- someCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 238 1 of these items are already happening in another 2 te rritory, let's say. So we do share experience. My 3 qu estion would be, how can be harmonize the two, 4 fi nding solutions for the items here, by knowing what's 5 ha ppening already on our testing? And I'm not 6 pr oposing anything. It's just logic. As an engineer, 7 I' m saying, what is it, on the table today, happening 8 as experience, and how can we use that experience to 9 so lve what we put on the table? Okay? Thank you. 10 MR. EISNER: Geoffrey Halley is on the phone 11 an d wants to speak. Geoffrey? 12 MR. HALLEY: Yes, although I'm an independent 13 co nsultant, I actually am representing the American 14 Bo iler Manufacturers Association, in this group. I'd 15 li ke to sort of echo Pete Molvie's comments. There are 16 ba sically two groupings, I see, within the boiler 17 in dustry. Those are the ones that are represented by 18 HR I, which are the small end, if you like of the 19 sp ectrum. The ABMA membership is sort of a larger type 20 of unit, typically. I echo him, in that probably no 21 bo iler manufacturer has got the capability of testing 22 th e larger boilers in their facility. The company ICapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 239 1 us ed to work for had that capability, at one time. 2 The testing labs that are available, I'm 3 pr etty certain, don't have the capability, either, of 4 te sting some of the larger units. It would seem to me 5 th at the only method of testing some of these units is 6 ac tually in the field after an order's been taken. 7 Th at's got its own potential pitfalls. That's a big 8 pr oblem, in my opinion. It's a big problem between the 9 sm aller group and the larger manufacturers. You know, 10 we 're talking some commercial units that could be 11 25 ,000,000BTU input, for as far as ABMA is concerned, 12 an d very few people have that capability. 13 Pete mentioned the AHRI test grid, which, 14 fr om an ABMA point of view, particularly with FI2 point 15 bo ilers, and yet you're using a very low return 16 te mperature on hot water boilers, which is not 17 co nducive to longevity with FI2 boiler. You don't have 18 th e pressure capability, or the full capability for 19 ei ther fuels or working fluids. So I see some -- 20 th at's the big problem I see, in the boiler area. I 21 do n't know whether Pete wants to follow on, on that or 22 no t.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 240 1 The other problem with ABMA membership is 2 th at they have a line, so they total boiler line that's 3 ad vertised. Maybe as many as 96 boilers, when you look 4 at working pressures, working fluids and size. It's 5 mo re of a custom-built segment of the market then the 6 sm aller group -- the smaller size group, I should say. 7 Yo u're got a group, where there's a range of sizes or 8 ca pacities. They may never build a certain size within 9 th at group. You know, until it's order. They tend to 10 ha ve a standard product line offered, but then that 11 li ne is customized. Whereas, it's not as standardized 12 as the AHRI group, I don't think. Obviously, we're 13 pr obably more sensitive to the missions requirements, 14 de pendent on whether you want more knots, or low knots, 15 an d that sort of thing. That can impact on 16 ef ficiencies. 17 MR. EISNER: Peter? 18 MR. HALLEY: I'd just like to throw that one 19 ou t as a bit of a ringer, if you like. 20 MR. MOLVIE: Yeah. I pretty much agree with 21 ev erything that Geoffrey is saying. Maybe it gets back 22 to some of the initial points that are in the FederalCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 241 1 Re gisters, as far as how we're going to be grouping 2 mo dels for purposes of certification. When we're 3 ta lking about some of the larger commercial boilers, I 4 me an, if you want to test every single size that might 5 be in a basic product model line, you're talking 6 mi llions and millions of dollars to produce those 7 bo ilers, to be able to test them. 8 Certainly, for my company, Cleaver-Brooks, we 9 ha ve existing test data. When we develop these 10 bo ilers, we do a complete efficiency testing of the 11 wh ole line, and have data to back that up. It's not 12 st rictly -- it's certainly not in accordance with the 13 BT S2000 and there maybe some other slight 14 mo difications, even if you're talking about a Power 15 Te st Code Efficiency Test. Instead of, for example, 16 ma king a grid temperature measurement of the flow gas, 17 we would typically make a single-point measurement. So 18 th ere's some differences there, in the procedures, that 19

-- I just can't imagine that there's any value, 20 pa rticularly for certification. For demonstration, if 21 yo u're actually checking to see if the certified 22 ef ficiency is correct, you may necessarily have to do aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 242 1 si ngle test. But to redo a whole history of efficiency 2 te sting that was done during the product development, 3 fo r certification purposes, seems to me to be a bit of 4 an overkill. I really think there seems to be some 5 so rt of words in the statutes or any rules that we 6 pr opose that would allow, for certification purposes, a 7 ma nufacturer to use their historical product 8 de velopment efficiency testing data for the purposes of 9 ce rtification. 10 MR. EISNER: Getting back to scope, are we 11 ta lking substance, a little bit? Are we talking scope 12 a little bit too much. We're getting a bunch of issues 13 up here. 14 MS. BARHYDT: One issue that the gentlemen on 15 th e phone mentioned, and I know we've heard from other 16 pe ople. Ashley has up there, "Certification. What 17 ge ts submitted? How often? By whom?" And I know one 18 of the other issues we've heard about is "When?" 19 Me aning is it when the product is being developed? Is 20 it before it's sold? Is it before it's advertised? So 21 th e timing issue, in terms of when the certification is 22 re quired, I know is another issue we've heard about.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 243 1 MR. EISNER: Are there more issues that 2 sh ould be on the table? Yes? 3 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I would 4 li ke to add the role of furniture industry 5 ce rtification programs. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I got it. I'll get 7 th ere. 8 MS. MEYERS: I'd also like to add, in 9 ad dition to ADM substantiation, AM definition? And I 10 wo uld also like to add, as part of the scope, the 11 ef fective date of the commercial certification rules, 12 wh ich are the end of this year. 13 MR. EISNER: I'll suggest we throw in Product 14 Cl ass Definition. 15 MS. MEYERS: I thought she had that, but 16 ma ybe not. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: What do you mean by that? 18 MR. AMRANE: For us? The term "product 19 cl ass" is used several times in regulations. And I 20 wo uld just like to specifically know what's meant by 21 "p roduct class"? Because in the -- for example, on 22 Ta bles 10 C.F.R. 431, it says there's a level for eachCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 244 1 pr oduct class. And in the discussion of AEDM, it says 2 th at you have to choose certain models from certain 3 pr oduct classes. 4 MS. BARHYDT: So is that an issue only within 5 th e context of the proposed ADM Rule? Or is that an 6 is sue more broadly? I just want to make sure that -- I 7 kn ow that that issue came up in the context of the ADM 8 Ru le, and I'm not sure whether that issue was triggered 9 by the proposed language in the ADM Rule, or if that is 10 an issue that is more broadly -- 11 MR. EISNER: I think "product class" is used 12 el sewhere, besides the AEDM, but I can't think of where 13 ri ght now. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from DOE. I 15 wa s told I can't be heard, so hopefully I can be heard 16 th is time. I think the issue of product cost, in terms 17 of AEDM substantiation, what you have to test, from 18 wh at groups you have to test, that kind of stuff. It 19 is well within the scope of this. In terms of product 20 cl asses and what standards apply -- because that's how 21 we link them? That's to terminate the Standards Rule, 22 an d we don't want to go there. Right? I've grouped itCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 245 1 in here with AEDM, just for my list in terms of what 2 ge ts tested. That's kind of how. But that's 3 de finitely in the realm, kind of thing. We define them 4 in the Standard Rules, which I think that part would be 5 of f the table. 6 MR. EISNER: Let me give a chance for Robert 7 Wh itewell, on the line, to speak? 8 MR. WHITEWELL: Yes. Thank you. This is 9 Ro bert Whitewell from UTC TSNS. 10 A couple other items that I think we need to 11 in clude. One is treatment of energy-saving features, 12 no t included in the current energy metrics. For 13 ex ample, for economizers, energy recovery ventilators 14 an d such. Also, there was already some discussion 15 ab out the data submission and when it should be 16 su bmitted. But in addition to that, we have an issue 17 wh ere we have products that are available, that 18 cu stomers can order, but there would be -- the majority 19 of those never get ordered. The question is, do we 20 ne ed to submit millions of possible basic models 21 up front, or do we just submit basic models that 22 ac tually get ordered? I think, somehow, we need to getCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 246 1 th at on the table. 2 Then a third item is related to rating 3 ca lculations. In the event that ratings are not 4 es tablished via the AEDM, there's a minimum of 2 units 5 re quired for test; and then there's a statistical 6 ca lculation that's run on those. 7 For commercial HVAC equipment, the DOE is 8 re quiring a 95% confidence limit for commercial 9 pr oducts. Whereas, for residential HVAC, it's 90%. And 10 th e difference between why commercial is 95 versus 90 11 ha s never been justified, and it can have a significant 12 im pact on samples and the cost of rating commercial 13 pr oducts. 14 MR. EISNER: Yes? 15 MS. MEYERS: Yes. I'd like you to add "and 16 to lerance" next to "enforcement sample size." 17 MR. BALLO: Two other issues. One -- this is 18 Ti m Ballo with Earthjustice. One that's sort of 19 re lated to the suggestion about Voluntary Industry 20 Ce rtification Programs is the issue of verification, 21 mo re broadly, and the role it should play in the 22 co mpliance regime.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 247 1 The other issue, I think we'll have to 2 ad dress, is disclosure. What information gets released 3 to DOE? What information gets released to the public. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: What was the second one? I'm 5 so rry. 6 MR. EISNER: Disclosure. Are you talking 7 ab out disclosure from forward perspective, or from a 8 vo luntary respective on the part of the agency and the 9 co mpany? 10 MR. BALLO: Both. Right? I mean, for the 11 pu blic to have confidence that products are meeting the 12 st andard, they're going to need to see -- do we have a 13 ce rtification database, where it collects all the 14 in formation. To the extent that the people around the 15 ta ble would like for a Voluntary Industry Certification 16 Pr ogram, just to substitute for some of the 17 ce rtification burden they'd otherwise face, I think 18 th ere needs to be some disclosure to DOE and the public 19 of the results of the testing from that Voluntary 20 Ce rtification Program. 21 MR. EISNER: Is there a large amount of 22 co nfidential business information?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 248 1 MR. BALLO: That's a question for others 2 ar ound the table, but I imagine that would be claimed. 3 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. This is Paul Doppel. 4 Th ere's a second part of that disclosure. And that's 5 if DOE does a test, what is disclosed from that test? 6 Be cause there have been concerns raised in the past 7 th at too much propriety information can be released by 8 re leasing the entire test results. 9 MR. EISNER: This is a suggestion or an 10 ad dition? 11 MR. DOPPEL: So the suggestion on that would 12 be to try to come up with data points that would be 13 ac ceptable for release. 14 MS. BARHYDT: So in terms of information 15 di sclosures, the agency can't have a rulemaking that 16 wo uld limit the information released, if it's required 17 to be released under the Freedom of Information Act. 18 Th at's an area where we could run into legal limits on 19 wh at the agency could agree to. Because if the Freedom 20 of Information Act actually requires disclosure, we 21 ca n't by regulation say, "We're just not going to 22 re lease that."Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 249 1 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel. But I've seen 2 th ings released under the Freedom of Information that 3 ha ve been so redacted, that you don't even know what it 4 is . I think manufacturers would request something like 5 th at, that would -- you know, a redacted report, to 6 pr otect company information. 7 MS. BARHYDT: I'm not saying one way or the 8 ot her. I'm just saying we would have to be very 9 ca reful in terms of regulation, as to what the bounds 10 of that were. 11 MR. EISNER: Is that a comment for a 12 su ggestion? We've got an online? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have a comment from Bruce, 14 on line, who said -- his comment is, "Reliable 15 fo recasting that attempts to predict energy reduction, 16 or reductions in energy use gained from the new energy 17 ef ficiency standard must be based upon tested -- I'm 18 no t quite -- tested produced equipment, not historical 19 de velopment data." I'm not quite sure how that fits. 20 Bu t -- maybe it's part of how you come up with ratings, 21 wh ich I think we've got in every single which way 22 po ssible on here.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 250 1 Yeah. I mean, AEDM substantiation is on 2 he re. Then certification, testing and intolerances is 3 on here. Model groupings. I mean, this pretty much 4 co vers beginning to end, for the most part. 5 MR. EISNER: Ashley, Phillip at HTP. 6 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip at HTP. I think I'd 7 li ke to see further clarification under model 8 gr oupings. We have a lot of discussion as to the 9 de finition of the basic model versus basic model group, 10 ve rsus the product class. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I was trying not to use any 12 co mmon terms. It's a new day. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. Others? 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman, Trane. I know, 15 As hley and the Department, you're saying that standards 16 ar e not necessarily under this. But the only 17 co nsideration, I think, we need to say about standards 18 is that the Department needs to catch up. For 19 in stance, AHRI 340360, you have 2007. We're now on 20 20 10, and we're in the process of revising as we speak. 21 So if our unit is tested to something, it needs to be 22 th e most current standard, not an old standard.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 251 1 MS. BARHYDT: So when you say "standard," 2 yo u're referring to a test procedure and not a -- 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. Yes. 4 MS. BARHYDT: -- efficiency standard? 5 MS. HOOTMAN: You're right. Not an 6 ef ficiency standard. Correct. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: We did adopt that one. 8 Ri ght? I think that comes in the summer. I think we 9 di d it when we did the Asher (ph) Rule. I'm not sure 10 wh en the compliance is, but I do think we did that one. 11 It would be great if we had the newer version -- 12 MS. HOOTMAN: But 2010 -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: -- and it's now 2013. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Your point is well taken. 16 I' m just saying. Three years is better than seven. 17 We 're getting there. A work in progress here. 18 MR. EISNER: Anything else? Have we covered 19 ev erything? Go ahead. 20 MR. STEPHENS: One more thing. On the 21 eq uipment classifications? There's new products out 22 th at we can't currently fit under the existingCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 252 1 eq uipment classifications. So is there a way of 2 es tablishing new ones? Or do we just try to fit it 3 be st under an existing one? Sometimes it doesn't make 4 se nse. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I guess my question to you is 6 is there a way to write guidelines for that, or is it 7 re ally a product model-specific question? 8 MR. STEPHENS: Well, I'll give you an 9 ex ample. We make Commercial Refrigeration equipment. 10 Cu rrently, for OEM cases that have doors, you have 11 ho rizontal and you have vertical. But we have a semi12 ve rtical option. Obviously, there's no current 13 eq uipment classification for that, and the existing one 14 to use, there's no way it would ever pass. Or you have 15 so much flexibility in it that it's very easy to pass. 16 So is that -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Like I said, I think that's 18 on e of the ones that would be a SCRE Rule, or comes to 19 th e table and talk about SCRE working group, or 20 so mething like that. I don't know if you want to cover 21 th at and certification and forcemeat compliance type 22 av enue. It's up to all of you.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 253 1 MR. STEPHENS: Well, I threw it out there 2 be cause I thought it would fall somewhat under AEDM 3 de finition. You're trying to group your -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Really, what the AEDM is 5 go ing to try to do is provide some type of methodology. 6 We have an open Rule right now. That's the first 7 is sue. I know that's coming. In order to include it in 8 th e scope here, that gets a little difficult, because 9 we have an open Rule. Anything coming out of this, we 10 ha ve to work with that Rule. I don't think it would be 11 se parate from that Rule, and we'd have to (inaudible) 12 se parately from this process. So I don't know if this 13 is the fastest way to get that Rule completed, although 14 so me may argue at the table. That's up to you, guys. 15 We do have an open Rule and we have to deal with that 16 is sue, from a legal standpoint. 17 The second issue, in terms of -- the AEDM is 18 ju st going to reflect the DOE test procedure, or if you 19 ha ve DOE Waiver, and how you come up with the rating, 20 in terms of how you're allowed to rate, instead of 21 te sting. It's not going to change our equipment class. 22 It 's not going to change what standard applies. So I'mCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 254 1 no t sure that that would help you too much, there. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 3 MS. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with the UL. 4 I was wondering if we can add in the scope here for a 5 go od definition of settings of high efficiency HVAC 6 eq uipment for the test labs? For instance, the higher 7 ef ficiency units, to the test standards, that you have 8 to set. If it's a variable speed, you have to force it 9 to low volume, or force it into high. And you have to 10 be able to manipulate the test unit properly in order 11 to do this testing. And if there's not proper 12 do cumentation from a manufacturer on how to manipulate 13 th eir unit to perform the tests, the test labs that are 14 be ing asked to test this equipment, without their 15 kn owledge, struggles because we don't have the 16 in formation to properly test their high efficiency 17 un its. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley. I'm going to 19 gr oup it in in terms of what gets submitted to the 20 De partment -- or at least for consideration. So that 21 th at way, the proper documentation or whatever you may 22 ne ed to test the equipment can be part of thatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 255 1 co nversation. 2 MR. KOJAK: Yeah. Like when they initially 3 se nd in their ratings, if they can give all that kind 4 of information, at that time. And then have some kind 5 of database, so that when you do the enforcement 6 te sting, the test labs have the ability to look up that 7 ki nd of information. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 9 MS. HOOTMAN: I was being a little facetious. 10 I said, not publicly. In other words, that goes back 11 to reverse engineering and what I have a little problem 12 wi th. In the fact, that complete test data could be 13 pu blic information. 14 Obviously, companies can reverse engineer and 15 co py. I also agree with you. That's why I was saying 16 ab out the current test standard. Because we are under 17 co nsideration in AHRI, about rewriting the test 18 st andards around very new technology that is coming 19 ou t; around variable speed and things like that. If 20 th ey're taking three years to adopt it, it's a little 21 ha rd for you guys to come back and test it to a 22 st andard that is out there, but obviously, they haven'tCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 256 1 ad opted it. That is exactly my point. 2 MR. EISNER: Yes, Harvey? 3 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Ashley, I guess 4 tw o things stand out for me right now. One of them is 5 th e nomenclature controversy of basic models, model 6 gr oups, and all the permutations thereof. The other is 7 AE DMs. As I think about this, we've got a legacy here, 8 of rating methods that were developed in the '70s, when 9 pe ople walked into the cold room with a gauge, and 10 we 're in an environment that's very different now. Both 11 in terms of how we do testing, or how the manufacturers 12 an d the labs do testing. But also in terms of the 13 ab ilities to simulate, which we reflect is AEDMs here. 14 I think we need to include some thinking 15 ab out the ongoing role of simulation and certification 16 of products for DOE. There's a lot of wording I could 17 pu t around it, but it's -- "role of simulation" 18 pr obably summarizes it. One of the things that I've 19 be en thinking about is whether DOE should have 20 re sponsibility for simulation models, which when 21 pr operly exercised by manufacture, are evidence that 22 th e product meets the standards. Because once we getCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 257 1 th ose simulation models, they're then subject to 2 ex tension for features that may or may not be part of 3 th e standard. They may be a part of the performance 4 ev aluation for beyond standard equipment. 5 So I think there's some work to be done in 6 th e context of this process, of thinking about where 7 we 're trying to get to over five years, not just what 8 we 're trying to do to meet the immediate deadline of 9 Au gust 30th. So if you would make sure that we're 10 re flecting that bundle of how AEDMs simulations, in 11 ge neral, and our basic model conundrum are tied 12 to gether across equipment types, I would be much 13 gr atified. You figure out how to. 14 MS. BARHYDT: While Ashley figures that out - 15 - Karen, I think you asked to have AEDM definition 16 ad ded? What exactly are you referring to? 17 MS. MEYERS: Well, you know, I guess it may 18 be captured, in some of the other stuff, that we have 19 li sted there, as far as -- you know, what's the basic 20 mo del? How are we going to group things? And such 21 li ke that. Unless you know what the AEDM is -- maybe 22 it 's more of this unknown rule, that's hanging outCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 258 1 th ere. It's going to be hard to come up with a 2 ce rtification for, at least the manufacturer, to agree 3 to a certification process, if we don't know what the 4 AE DM is. You know? How can you agree to something 5 th at you don't know what you're agreeing to? That's 6 ki nd of why I listed it separately. It's more to do 7 wi th this AEDM Rule and what it's going to say, and how 8 th at -- I don't know how we're going to do this. I'm 9 ce rtainly going to give it a try. How are we going to 10 mo ve forward on coming up with an agreement on 11 ce rtification when we don't know what the AEDM is going 12 to say? I guess, why I listed it separate. 13 PETE MOLVIE: If I could comment -- this is 14 Pe te Molvie. My understanding of what would constitute 15 an AEDM -- did I get that right? Yeah. Would be any 16 si mulation or calculation method that can be 17 de monstrated with a certain amount of testing. That 18 ca n be conventional heat transfer calculations that are 19 do ne in an Excel spreadsheet, or a sophisticated 20 de velopment analysis. It really could be anything as 21 lo ng as you can demonstrate that your AEDM does 22 re present your efficiencies. Is that correct?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 259 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 2 MS. MEYERS: That's part of it. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Generally speaking, yes. 4 MR. AMRANE: To emphasize what Karen just 5 sa id, I think it's very important for us, when we have 6 th is discussion and we have those meetings, to know 7 wh at's an AEDM Final Rule. Yeah. We would like to 8 kn ow what the AEDM says. Well, we don't know the final 9 ru le. Yes? We've seen the proposed rule. We don't 10 kn ow what's in the final rule. 11 MR. MOLVIE: That is a question. But that 12 do esn't ask, "What are the elements of an AEDM?" 13 MR. RIVEST: Give us some details. We need 14 to know what's in there. I mean, there is a proposed 15 ru le. We know what's in the proposed rule, but we 16 do n't know what DOE is going to do with the final rule. 17 So there are tolerance issues in the AEDM, for example, 18 th e rate. 19 MR. MOLVIE: What's an AEDM tolerance? 20 MR. RIVEST: Yeah. So the issues like that, 21 wi thout knowing the details, it's going to be very hard 22 fo r us to come up with a consensus, unless we know.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 260 1 MR. EISNER: Okay. Are there any other AEDM 2 sp ecific issues, like tolerances? 3 MR. MOLVIE: That's kind of the point. We 4 ha ven't seen one yet. 5 MR. EISNER: But you've seen the previous one 6 an d you've commented on it. 7 MR. MOLVIE: Right. 8 MR. EISNER: Right. 9 MR. MOLVIE: So we're waiting on the -- 10 MS. HOOTMAN: What constitutes what models 11 ar e certified? Do you have any wording in there for 12 hi gh selling, tested volume combinations? If they make 13 on e of these every three months, that's a little hard 14 to figure out. 15 MR. EISNER: All right. 16 MR. MANDYCK: This is John Mandyck. One of 17 th e big difficulties we have on an ongoing basis is 18 un derstanding the uncertainty in the test method, 19 it self. Because on top of that, we have the 20 un certainty from conducting the test and the normal 21 va riation in manufacturing. When you add up all these 22 to lerances, they could very easily be more than whatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 261 1 we 're allowed to have to meet our VSEP requirements. 2 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Did you get that, Ashley? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. It's so -- the 5 to lerances. Right? I don't know. I think, for the 6 mo st part, I tried to rearrange these by larger 7 su bsections and still keep the details of the ideas to 8 ju st kind of help group things a little bit, about that 9 wa y, when you start to discuss what's the most 10 im portant, in terms of priorities. Maybe this will 11 he lp you. I think I still have everyone's on there. 12 Yo u know, tolerances go both ways. Whether there's too 13 ma ny tolerances versus not enough. They're in there. 14 In terms of AEDM, what I'm hearing is that 15 yo u guys want some finality to the process. Bringing 16 it into this will extend it, potentially. Paul's 17 lo oking at me like, "I don't believe you, that that's 18 ev en possible." I guess that's the question. Is that 19 re ally what you want, as a whole, or are we ready to 20 mo ve forward? 21 MR. EISNER: Can you resolve the issues 22 yo u're concerned about with respect to the rule thatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 262 1 we 're talking about, without AEDM Rule? 2 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel. The AEDM 3 is kind of crucial to a lot of this stuff, and not 4 kn owing when we're going to see what it is, that's 5 im portant. That's the important part. 6 MS. MEYERS: So the AEDM is what you certify 7

- 8 - 9 MR. EISNER: The testing procedures. 10 MS. MEYERS: Well, it's the efficiency -- 11 MR. EISNER: Not tested. 12 MS. MEYERS: Yeah. It's the efficiency -- 13 it 's the model used to come up with the efficiency of 14 yo ur unit. This is your certification to that 15 ef ficiency, or the DOE-regulated issue. So if we don't 16 kn ow what that model is, how can we agree to how we're 17 go ing to certify to this unknown thing? 18 MR. EISNER: It's not even a matter of 19 ag reeing. How do you begin doing the testing before 20 th e deadline? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, they would have to do 22 th e testing. You would use a AEDM.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 263 1 MR. EISNER: Only in certain circumstances, 2 or what? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: You do one or the other. 4 Ri ght. So you would either test, or you would use a 5 AE DM. 6 MR. EISNER: But does the current rule state 7 th at they will have the option to choose the 8 al ternative? Or does it only say if one is available 9 at the time -- only if AEDM is available on time? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. The deadline's set. 11 Ri ght? We have AEDM Regs now; whether or not they're 12 he lpful or not is a different issue. We are revising 13 th em because of concerns that people have -- 14 MR. EISNER: So AEDM -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and obviously, the 16 De partment has committed to finished that. 17 MR. EISNER: AEDM is a revision of what is 18 al ready on the books. They don't know what you're 19 go ing to revise. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's in the proposal. That's 21 it . We haven't finished it yet. 22 MR. EISNER: We can't rely on the proposal.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 264 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. That's where we 2 ar e. 3 MR. EISNER: So how do you answer their 4 qu estion, that we can't sit down and agree what should 5 be in a Rule, without seeing what's going to be in the 6 al ternative means of testing compliance changes? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So I guess the 8 qu estion is, do they want it brought within the scope? 9 Or do they want it -- 10 MR. EISNER: Well, I'm having a little bit of 11 tr ouble beyond scope. I'm having trouble with -- even 12 if it's not within the scope, do you believe they can 13 ef fectively negotiate? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: You would have to assume you 15 wi ll have a valid AEDM. 16 MR. EISNER: By what time are we talking 17 ab out? 18 MR. COHEN: The issue would be whether the 19 AE DM Rule would be done before the testing rule, which 20 ap plies starting January 1st is -- 21 MR. EISNER: But are there issues that we 22 ne ed to negotiate now, that can't be effectivelyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 265 1 ne gotiated now, without the AEDM Rule? Or do you 2 be lieve they can be? 3 MR. COHEN: Well, in some ways, I hear Karen 4 an d others saying they don't believe it can be. Right? 5 So that sort of effects whether we could have a 6 ne gotiation about it. 7 MS. MEYERS: And if I agree to something, on 8 a certification program, and then that AEDM comes out? 9 MR. COHEN: Right. 10 MS. MEYERS: You know, I can't negligibly 11 co mment, because I agreed to something, but it's a 12 ga me-changer. The AEDM can be a game-changer. And 13 un less you know what that is, it's kind of hard to move 14 fo rward. 15 MR. COHEN: So that suggests bringing the 16 AE DM Rule within this process. 17 MS. MEYERS: It -- 18 MR. COHEN: Which is fine, but the 19 co nsequence -- for lack of a better term -- that is, it 20 wi ll extend the time that the AEDM Rule is in play. 21 Be cause whatever would come up through this process 22 wo uld have to go out in a supplemental proposed rule,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 266 1 pr obably. And if it's different from what -- if it's 2 no t within the scope of what we've already proposed, 3 yo u could decide that what we've already proposed is 4 fi ne. Then all is well. But if you come up with an 5 en tirely different proposal, we should have to go out 6 fo r another round of notice and comment on that. 7 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel. One of the 8 th ings that the members of the industry recommended was 9 th at the January 1st deadline be tied in -- the 10 co mpliance deadline -- be tied in with the publication 11 of the AEDM. Because there's a certain amount of time 12 th at takes to get things accomplished. One of the 13 co ncerns we had was not getting it soon enough. That's 14 ki nd of fulfilling itself right now, because we're 15 ge tting closer and closer. You know, a recommendation 16 wo uld be to put out the implementation of the January 17 1s t deadline, and maybe join it in with this process, 18 on e year from the end of this process. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's on here. It's right 20 he re. 21 MR. DOPPEL: But that's the significance of 22 th e AEDM.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 267 1 MR. EISNER: For me to get a better handle on 2 th e scope of what we're talking about could be effected 3 by AEDM, based on the MPRM that you saw, the Proposed 4 Ru le, would a lot of these issues come off the table if 5 th e final rule included those? Would you still have 6 al l these issues on there? 7 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. 8 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I think that about 9 ha lf of it would come off the table, because we would 10 kn ow what we were doing. We would know the exact 11 re quirements for the validation of our programs. 12 Be cause an AEDM is basically -- it takes the known test 13 da ta. Then you say, "Okay, let's apply some other 14 co mponents into the system and come up with a 15 ca lculated method for determining what the unit 16 ef ficiency would be without actually testing that 17 un it," just because there's millions of variations we 18 co uld run across. 19 But the problem is that we don't know the 20 va lidity of the test data yet because you still have to 21 va lidate your test. But you don't know the level of 22 va lidation required. You really have some seriousCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 268 1 qu estions, as far as information basis coming from 2 ma nufacturers, when you decide to change a fan. Is it 3 a valid number that they're giving you? Is it 4 ac curate? Then you have to certificate that component, 5 to build it into your test. And every time you source 6 a new component, you're adding to your specifications 7 an d your overview and then you may be -- 8 MR. DOPPEL: That's a basic model. 9 MR. HON: -- invalidating your whole AEDM, 10 be cause that component may have a big enough variable 11 to throw your numbers out. So it's a very, very 12 vi cious circle you get into with an AEDM. There's no 13 wa y around it with certain systems that it would cover 14 un der the standard. 15 MR. EISNER: Other comments? Yes? 16 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. Frank Stanonik, AHRI. 17 It 's almost like you're asking -- DOE is asking the 18 wo rking group to assume that they're going to have an 19 ac ceptable, practical, workable AEDM and make their 20 re commendations, and then at some point, apparently 21 wi thin the working group's time frame, we're all going 22 to see the final AEDM. If their assumption proves toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 269 1 be incorrect, it's almost like there doesn't seem to be 2 an opportunity to fix a critical part of the 3 ne gotiation. And yet, Ashley, you're saying if we 4 br ing it into the working group, it's going to delay 5 th at process. It just seems to me there's got to be 6 so me way to give the working group the tools it needs 7 to really figure out the answer, without necessarily 8 bu ilding in more delay. There's got to be a way. 9 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. Go ahead. 10 So rry. 11 MR. EISNER: I was just going to ask, well, 12 La ura, how do you respond to that? 13 MS. BARHYDT: Which part? 14 MR. EISNER: Asking them to assume something 15 th at may not end up in the final rule. Will they have 16 wa sted time on these negotiations? 17 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think so. Obviously, 18 I' m hoping to be educated through this process. 19 First of all, our goal with the AEDM rule is 20 to come up with a rule that is -- it does reflect the 21 re alities of the manufacturing process. It does 22 re flect the tolerances that are inherent in the testingCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 270 1 pr ocess. Our goal is to come up with something that is 2 no t going to cause problems for the overall 3 ce rtification process. So given that that is what 4 we 're hoping to achieve with the AEDM Rule, that's sort 5 of the assumption that the Department is working from. 6 Bu t in addition to that, our expectation is that you 7 wi ll see something while we are still meeting. So 8 be fore we get to a point where we're voting, you will 9 se e something. So if we have miscalculated, everyone 10 wi ll know before we vote. 11 MR. EISNER: Is there a way to -- 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sorry, Neil. Can I actually 13 ma ke one suggestion? There's two options. Right? You 14 ca n say DOE -- and the Committee needs to decide. You 15 ca n say, "DOE, we'd like you to finish this, or do the 16 ne xt step, as soon as possible and we want to see it, 17 to be able to inform." Or, "We'll just bring it in, at 18 th is point." The Committee wants to take control of 19 th at AEDM Rule. But you're going to have to think 20 ab out that when you do your ordering of your -- what's 21 th e most important? What do you want to tackle first. 22 Be cause that would have to go through the stagesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 271 1 ea rlier than the August 30th deadline. So that's kind 2 of what you're waiting here. At this point, you might 3 as well just say, "Bring it in, or not." That's really 4 up to you, guys. 5 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman, from 6 Na tional. I think, as you've seen already, there's a 7 lo t of concern and even -- I understand the AEDM may be 8 se parate, at this point. I guess part of the question 9 be ing, "Is that appropriate to bring it in?" Because a 10 lo t of the things we're talking about, substantial, or 11 pr oducts, or classes and things are tied to all sorts 12 of the AEDM requirements for substantiation, your 13 hi ghest volume by your product classes. So they're 14 ob viously tied together and in ways, as we resolve one, 15 th ey help us with related issues. 16 I also would think that getting -- I don't 17 kn ow how close DOE is, as far as the finalized AEDM 18 Ru le, but that, to me, is as much passion and concern 19 wi th the people around this table, as the other issues 20 we 're dealing with. With that ultimately being another 21 th ing that DOE would have to negotiate separate, at a 22 la ter time. This may actually shorten the time to getCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 272 1 to a final AEDM, in my mind. You're asking the 2 qu estion, Ashley, should we put it out? I think I 3 wo uld vote to bring it in as part of this, because I 4 th ink it's a critical part of a lot of issues that are 5 he re. I think, actually this group could help DOE 6 pr ovided a better AEDM Rule, ultimately. 7 MR. EISNER: Assuming this was the entire 8 li st of issues, to be covered in the scope; and 9 as suming that you were willing to accept them all 10 wi thin the scope, could they be organized in such a way 11 th at we could start off with non-AEDM issues? In the 12 ho pes that you will then meet your goal, of getting the 13 fi nal rule out on AEDM fairly shortly? 14 MS. BARHYDT: I think we could organize them 15 th at way. But I'm also hearing that a lot of the 16 pe ople at the table believe that they are so 17 in tertwined that they don't really see that. 18 MR. EISNER: Well, let me ask. Are there 19 is sues that the rest of you see, that we could start 20 di scussing? That could be fruitful regardless of what 21 co mes out in the AEDM Rule? Charlie? 22 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There's two thingsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 273 1 go ing on here. First, there's a lot of units that are 2 ju st -- a lot of things that we make are just tested, 3 pe riod. Because it's too easy to do. Some of the more 4 co mplicated or innate products are much more difficult 5 th an that. The problem comes in a timeline. If we 6 wo uld have an AEDM program completed today, the testing 7 ne cessary to validate would not be completed by the end 8 of the year. So no matter what happens, AEDM cannot be 9 re lied upon to get all the necessary information to the 10 DO E by the end of this year. 11 MS. BARHYDT: So I have to take a step back 12 fr om that and say without knowing what's going to be on 13 th e final AEDM Rule, you can't say that there's no way 14 th e testing could be completed. 15 MR. HON: Any rule requires exercising. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So is there no test data? If 17 th ere is test data -- let's say DOE just came up with a 18 re markable AEDM provision that said, "You had to test 19 tw o models of your entire offering of products, across 20 al l product classes." I'm not saying that's what we 21 wo uld actually do. Let's say you had to have two 22 te sts. Presumably, everybody in this room has testedCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 274 1 tw o things under the DOE test procedure, at some point 2 in time. There has to be some window in there, in 3 wh ich you would have the test data to support an AEDM. 4 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 5 Na tional. I think to Charlie's point, practically 6 sp eaking, from what we've seen and what has been 7 pr oposed so far, we would certainly not expect DOE -- 8 we would be happy -- you know, as long as we'd be happy 9 if they came up with a rule. I think our clear 10 ex pectations, based on what has been proposed so far, 11 wo uld be that there -- as Charlie said, they would not 12 be able to meet it by the end of the year. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 14 MR. DOPPEL: It's not just one. It's six 15 mo dels, I believe. Six different models, and then you 16 ha ve to do some verification of that afterwards. So 17 it 's quite a lot of testing that has to be done. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: And they're very specific. Not 19 ex actly ones that we -- sorry. This is Jill from 20 Tr ane. Not exactly ones we would have picked in 21 de velopment testing to develop our units. That was 22 al so part of our comments on the AEDM, was that --Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 275 1 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So we've gone back to 2 th at very general -- 3 MS. HOOTMAN: -- you know, so all of these 4 co mments. 5 MS. BARHYDT: I agree. I agree if we were in 6 th is very general, too, world. Yeah. Sure, we'll have 7 th ose, probably. But there would have been the 8 de finition of what we thought we needed to test, not 9 wh at your definition. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. So the comment that you 11 wo uld have to do additional testing is based on the 12 as sumption that we adopt what we proposed, as written 13 in the proposal. What about the test data from AHRI, 14 fo r those of you who are AHRI participants? Is there 15 no t a large volume of test data from participation in 16 th at program, for a wide range of models? Sure? 17 MS. BARHYDT: But it's a -- 18 MS. HOOTMAN: For those of you who are -- 19 MS. MEYERS: Can you share when this may be 20 ou t? If it's going to be out in two weeks, it's kind 21 of a moot point, of us having this long discussion. Btu 22 yo u know, if we're still months away, I think -- youCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 276 1 kn ow, and I know you guys don't always know that. But 2 if we could have something, it might change the 3 co nversation. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think from my perspective, 5 no t on the Committee, but as the person writing the 6 AE DM, I think you should just bring it up this way. 7 Th ere are enough comments, opinions about what test 8 da ta you may have, that may be valid. What's missing 9 fr om it, what's not there, how important it is to this 10 pr oceeding. We don't want to impede the negotiations 11 mo ving forward. If you bring it in, at this point -- 12 if you tackle it first, let us move forward with that 13 is sue. It will help give you some assurance that you 14 ca n negotiate in good faith, with the Department, 15 be cause that issue will be put aside. 16 Even if I put something out in a week or two 17 we eks, you still might have issues with it, in which 18 ca se, you may ask to reopen it as part of these 19 ne gotiations anyway. So with that point, I would ask 20 th e Committee to think about that. Ultimately, you 21 gu ys get to vote and it's totally up to you. And I 22 wi ll go work on it tonight. If you decide you want meCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 277 1 to . 2 But at the same time, I think it would help 3 gi ve you some assurance that both the Department and 4 ev eryone here is coming in good faith and help you 5 ma ybe move past this issue. Because there's a lot of 6 is sues in there. All of which we want to see positive. 7 MR. SACHS: What was the meeting in two 8 we eks? Just talk about AEDM-related issues? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. Go for it. I'm not on 10 th e Committee. 11 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I just asked 12 As hley to propose that we meet again in two weeks, and 13 th at the discussion be around AEDMs and she said, "You 14 as k." So I'm making that a suggestion, that we 15 ch allenge Ashley in that way and begin our 16 co nversations with coming to a fuller understanding of 17 th e issues surrounding AEDMs is -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: That would bring the AEDM 19 ru lemaking within the scope of this Committee, and that 20 wo uld effectively end. Is that the right way of putting 21 it ? The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was put 22 ou t, previously. No?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 278 1 MR. COHEN: What option is there, the 2 pr oposal we put up -- if you decide? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: You could vote for additional 4 pr oposals, and in which case we'd have to ask them 5 fi rst. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 7 MR. EISNER: Well, from my perspective -- let 8 me make sure I understand what we're talking about. 9 Yo u've already got comments on the rulemaking. I 10 as sume the comment period is closed. We're waiting for 11 a final rule, a discussion in two weeks. Two days' 12 wo rth of discussions? Whatever we need for it? How is 13 th at going to affect the ability to get the AEDM Rule 14 ou t? Will you have to open it up for further public 15 co mments, for example, as a result of this meeting? 16 Ev en if the meeting is a public meeting. 17 MR. COHEN: So we had a brief conversation 18 ab out this. 19 COURT REPORTER: Microphone, please. 20 MR. COHEN: Oh, I'm sorry. So we had a brief 21 co nversation about this. Obviously, it would depend o, 22 ag ain, if they just decided at the -- so first of all,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 279 1 th is is a public meeting. Right? Every discussion we 2 ha ve would be a public meeting. Anybody in the public 3 wo uld obviously have an opportunity to attend. It's 4 no t an ex parte conversation because of that fact. 5 MR. EISNER: You would, in your notice, say 6 th at they were meeting on this day. They would talk 7 ab out AEDM. 8 MR. COHEN: AEDM. 9 MR. EISNER: As the subject of a proposed 10 ru le? 11 MR. COHEN: Correct. 12 So anybody theoretically could show up. We 13 ha ve a webinar, whatever. I think we would have to put 14 ou t some amount of -- even if they were going to it -- 15 we ll, let me think about this one a second. 16 If the Committee decided that the AEDM Rule, 17 th at we proposed was perfect in all respects and we 18 sh ould just finalize as-is, I'm not sure we would need 19 an other opportunity for public comment, in addition to 20 wh at was happening through the FACA Committee. 21 Ob viously, if they came up with something different, or 22 th ey came up with a different proposal.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 280 1 MR. EISNER: More importantly, from what I'm 2 he aring around the room, they don't need to know what 3 st aff says, "This sounds good. We think we can do all 4 th is in the Final Rule." You still have people in the 5 De partment, people in other parts of the government, 6 wh o have to say, "Okay." So I don't see this group as 7 ge tting any kind of assurance that, "Don't worry. It 8 wo n't be a problem," which is what they seem to be 9 lo oking for. That will never be the case. 10 MR. COHEN: That's the case, of course, even 11 wi th the proposal. Right? For any proposal that comes 12 ou t of the Committee through the ASRAC, we still would 13 ha ve to get the approval and all that. 14 MR. EISNER: No. I'm talking about -- maybe 15 I' m confused, Dan. 16 We're going to discuss -- a rule that is out 17 no w, is a proposal. The AEDM Rule. You're going to 18 li sten to everything they're going to say and you're 19 go ing to talk to them, and you may agree and we'll go 20 ba ck and make these changes. So that it would like A, 21 B, and C, if you could say that much -- and I doubt 22 th at you could even say that much. But A, B, and C mayCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 281 1 no t get all the way through the process of the 2 go vernment to come out as a Final Rule. They seem to 3 ne ed the assurance, "This is the Final Rule. It will 4 re quire A, B, D, and F." 5 MR. COHEN: I guess we have to do some sort 6 of conditional -- well, I don't know. The interesting 7 qu estion, too, and I don't know how this would work, 8 wh ether they could vote on the AEDM, if that could be 9 on e output of the Committee, just on an AEDM proposal. 10 Th at would then go up through ASRAC and ASRAC could 11 th en forward that to the Department as a recommendation 12 an d the ground rules would apply to that as one 13 re commendation. Then go back and negotiate the other 14 is sues, about certification and enforcement, and 15 ve rification and make another recommendation to ASRAC 16 an d to the Department and the ground rules that would 17 ap ply to that. 18 MR. EISNER: I'm still questioning whether 19 th e group will have the certainty that it seems to 20 wa nt. 21 Charlie? 22 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I have one simpleCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 282 1 qu estion. Is the next publication going to be a final 2 ru le, or a proposed rule? 3 MR. COHEN: Come back to this. So if you're 4 go ing to bring it into this process, and you're going 5 to negotiate something here, and that proposal -- 6 wh atever you come up with -- is different from what we 7 pr oposed, in a way that it could not have been foreseen 8 in the original proposal, we have a legal obligation to 9 re -propose. If you decide what we came up with in the 10 pr oposal rule is perfectly fine and we should adopt the 11 pr oposal rule, without change, we could do a Final 12 Ru le. If you don't bring it into this procedure, our 13 ne xt publication would be a final rule. 14 MR. HON: That's the key, right there. Your 15 ne xt publication, if untouched, would be a final rule. 16 MR. EISNER: Not if untouched. What Dan is 17 sa ying is, if you ask for changes that were not within 18 th e scope of the proposed rule, he has to go through 19 an other round of comment. 20 MR. HON: Right. 21 MR. EISNER: But if all you are seeking are 22 ch anges that are within the scope, not proposed, butCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 283 1 wi thin the scope. So if I said the part should be five 2 in ches, and no larger and no shorter, and you wanted it 3 to change to six, now he's got to ask for comment. But 4 if he said, "We want to make it five, but it could be 5 la rger or smaller. We'd like comment on it," it 6 pr obably would be in the scope. 7 MR. HON: But if we try to meet our deadline, 8 th e simple question is, would it be a final, if we 9 le ave it untouched, coming out of DOE? And he said, 10 "y es." And therefore, if we leave it untouched, we 11 wo uld have something to work with. We will have that 12 st ake driven into the ground, hard, because we will 13 ha ve a final rule. 14 MR. EISNER: But you don't know -- again, I - 15

- 16 MR. HON: We don't know what it says. 17 MR. EISNER: -- but even if you did know what 18 it says, right now, you wouldn't know when it's coming 19 ou t. 20 MR. HON: That's true. 21 MR. EISNER: None of the people in this room 22 ha ve control over that.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 284 1 MR. HON: That's true. 2 MR. EISNER: It may be after our deadline to 3 do anything. That's the best case scenario. The worst 4 ca se scenario is we enter into the loop and extend it 5 fu rther, which extends the whole process more and goes 6 th rough another proposal, and tries to manipulate all 7 of our work into it. We could be looking at another 8 ye ar. 9 MR. COHEN: Can I throw another wrinkle into 10 th is? Which is -- based on the comments we received -- 11 ma ybe I answered your question actually in retrospect a 12 li ttle too quickly. Based on the comments we received 13 on the proposed rule, another potential option is that 14 we may realize that there were additional issues that 15 we didn't address completely in the original proposed 16 ru le, and we may, on our own, decide we need to do a 17 su pplemental proposal. 18 MR. HON: That's why I asked the original 19 qu estion. Because if you weren't considering the 20 ad ditional proposal, we would have had some stake in 21 th e ground. But you're not even to that point yet. 22 MR. COHEN: Well, I don't know. We'reCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 285 1 re viewing the comments. A decision will need to be 2 ma de. Typically, after you do a proposal, you do a 3 fi nal one. You know, based on what we receive as 4 co mment, we could. The whole point of comment is to 5 po int out to us where we miss things. To the extent we 6 re view the comments and things, I think that we missed 7 su bstantial issues, we might well do another proposed 8 ru le. 9 MR. EISNER: Yes? 10 MR. AMRANE: (Inaudible). I think it's 11 th rough the best interests of everybody to get it 12 ri ght. So I would be in the favor of bringing that 13 ru le here, this working group, making sure that it's 14 ri ght. Otherwise, I think we're going to have problems 15 in the future. 16 MR. EISNER: Does everyone concur? And has 17 ev erybody considered whether they can live with a rule 18 go ing into effect on December 30th? 19 MR. DOPPEL: It's Paul Doppel -- 20 MR. EISNER: But you're agreeing to one 21 wi thout saying what your position would be on the 22 co mpliance date, for the existing rule.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 286 1 MR. DOPPEL: It's Paul Doppel with 2 Mi tsubishi. I mean, this is like you're trying to play 3 so me sort of a game, like golf, with your eyes 4 bl indfolded. Because we need -- we need this 5 in formation in order to work through all these other 6 is sues that we've identified, and without having the 7 in formation on the AEDM. It's a critical item. 8 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman, from 9 Na tional, again. I heard the term before "the worst 10 ca se scenario." The worst case scenario, rather than 11 be ing backed up against the deadline is getting a rule 12 th at doesn't work the best. I mean, on our last 13 co mments -- I recall, from the last, we've been working 14 ve ry hard on the AEDMs, but there was still lot of 15 co ncern from manufacturers and other groups, as far as 16 ge tting that right and getting that where manufacturers 17 co uld certify properly using an AEDM. I think the 18 cr itical part is getting that right. I think we've 19 al ready said, we are backing up ourselves -- we've got 20 to keep a sense of urgency here, but also that means we 21 wo uld recommend extending the deadline to the AEDM and 22 th e certification for six months or a year after theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 287 1 gr oup's finished work. I think that's a better option 2 th an not taking the time to get the rule right. But 3 un derstanding, too, that we have to keep that sense of 4 ur gency about us. It's not an indefinite deadline. 5 We 've got to keep something, but let's get it right. 6 MR. EISNER: What about DOE? 7 MS. BARHYDT: Given the experience with the 8 Ce rtification Rule, I am all in favor of getting a rule 9 th at everybody can live with. 10 MR. EISNER: What about -- 11 MR. SACHS: It's very rare that I agree with 12 Ka rim. 13 MS. BARHYDT: I won't tell, Mr. -- 14 MR. SACHS: The stakes here, in terms of the 15 fu ture of certification, the future of enforcement, are 16 re ally tied up with getting the AEDM right. I just see 17 th at as an essential building block. And at the same 18 ti me, I don't think it's fair for me, as an advocate, 19 wh o's worried about lost national energy savings from 20 th e present system. But that shouldn't -- that has to 21 be balanced against the needs for the manufacturers to 22 im plement whatever rule is coming out. So if this isCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 288 1 go ing to require additional time, there has to be 2 pr oportional additional time given for the effective 3 da te, and that's not something that makes me happy. Tim 4 is probably going to shoot me after the meeting. But I 5 th ink it's the only fair way to go. 6 MR. EISNER: Tim? 7 MR. BALLO: I've actually been comfortable 8 wi th the initial certification deadline being within 9 th e scope. I completely agree, if we need to push that 10 ba ck six months or a year to get this right, it's 11 to tally worth it. 12 MR. EISNER: DOE on pushing it back? 13 MR. BALLO: Too much -- 14 MS. BARHYDT: It's within the scope. I mean, 15 I completely agree it's within the scope. 16 MR. EISNER: Okay, but I more fairness to the 17 DO E, is you need more time to go back and talk to 18 se nior officials about what the group is saying, then 19 it 's appropriate for you to say that. You don't have 20 to -- 21 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 22 MR. EISNER: -- these are the kinds of issuesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 289 1 yo u want to talk to the top people about. 2 MS. BARHYDT: No. I can say that it's within 3 th e scope. Now as to -- 4 MR. EISNER: I'm not talking about within the 5 sc ope. I'm talking about whether extending the 6 de adline is what people seem to be saying is part and 7 pa rcel of the decision to proceed by including this 8 AE DM -- AD -- whatever. Within the scope of these 9 di scussions. If we do that, does DOE agree it will get 10 th e deadline extended? That is what I think I'm 11 he aring in the room. Am I correct? 12 MR. SACHS: Yeah. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: So what I would say is that we 14 ne ed to come up with a new frame work with a new 15 de adline or frame work or timeline for the new 16 re gulations, that we can have on the books by December 17 31 st to replace the current deadline. 18 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure I followed all 19 th at. Did everybody else follow it? 20 MR. SACHS: Yes. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Framework. A framework that 22 co uld say it is then extending it.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 290 1 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 2 MR. EISNER: Extending the December 31st 3 de adline? 4 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 5 MR. EISNER: And reopen -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: It would be the proposal. It 7 wo uldn't just be extend the deadline. 8 MR. EISNER: Good. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 10 MR. EISNER: Right. And everybody's ready to 11 co mmit, that that's what we ought to do? 12 MR. SACHS: Yeah. 13 MR. EISNER: Including DOE, that we ought to 14 ge t it extended? 15 MR. SACHS: Yeah. That we ought to start 16 do ing things right. 17 MR. AMRANE: You were doing good, Harvey. 18 MR. SACHS: It's nice to have friends. 19 MR. EISNER: If I've done anything today, 20 I' ve made friends out of people who weren't friends 21 be fore. Right? You're not agreeing with that? 22 MR. SACHS: The dirty little secret is we'reCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 291 1 al l friends. 2 MR. EISNER: We need to have Ashley add this 3 to the list. 4 All right. We have to be out of this room in 5 an hour and 15 minutes so the cleanup crew can come in. 6 So far, we haven't created much of a mess. But we've 7 go t to decide what we're going to do next. To meet in 8 tw o weeks? 9 MR. SACHS: Meet in two weeks. 10 COURT REPORTER: Here's the mic, please. Use 11 th e mic. 12 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs. I've put 13 th e question on the table that we resolve to meet again 14 in two weeks, to discuss issues around AEDMs. 15 MR. EISNER: Right. And is it your 16 un derstanding that that means to talk about the 17 pr oposed rule, that the agency put out, and give them 18 th e consensus of this group, about the proposed rule? 19 Or something different? Some free-flowing discussion 20 ab out different issues? 21 MR. SACHS: I had, intentionally, not tried 22 to constrain what I suggested, thinking that there areCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 292 1 a lot of different people here who've got a little bit 2 di fferent perspectives on this, and we ought to hear 3 th em. 4 MR. EISNER: Okay. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So could I make a proposal 6 fo r the Committee to consider? In response to 7 Ha rvey's suggestion of meeting in two weeks about 8 AE DMs. The Department would like to bring a straw man 9 fo r you guys to consider, or at least start the 10 di scussions. That we have some ideas that we're 11 fl oating in response to comments and a lot of other 12 co ncerns that we've heard. For you then to consider and 13 th ink about, massage, whatever, in two weeks. So we 14 wo uld come to the table presenting a straw man. 15 MR. EISNER: The straw man being a modified 16 pr oposal, based on the comments? Would it be something 17 th at, in your opinion -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 19 MR. EISNER: -- within the scope of the 20 no tice? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think it would help with 22 th e discussions. Let's put it that way.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 293 1 MR. AMRANE: I would like to make a comment. 2 If you do that, please give us something -- sorry. If 3 yo u want to share this document with us, please do it 4 be fore the meetings so that we have time to digest it 5 an d to come up prepared. Otherwise, we're going to be 6 wa sting a day. 7 MR. EISNER: Okay. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: My lawyer will think how we 9 do that. 10 MR. EISNER: Yeah. Sometimes you have to 11 ma ke it available to the whole world at the time it's 12 ma de available to this group. Doing it in a public 13 me eting makes it available. 14 All right, so -- Charlie? 15 MR. HON: A couple questions. Number one, 16 ho w much time does DOE need for public notification? 17 Be cause this is a trigger on an active rulemaking. 18 Is n't it? How long do you need? That's one question. 19 Nu mber two, how much time do we need, as a Committee, 20 to work on this project? Is it one day? Is it two 21 da ys? 22 MR. EISNER: Well, you guys have worked onCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 294 1 th e first draft. Do you think you could -- 2 MR. HON: That's right. 3 MR. EISNER: Do you think, based on what was 4 in the first draft -- based on the time it took you to 5 ab sorb the first draft -- there's some learning 6 ex perience in this -- how much time would you expect? 7 MR. HON: I would think it's a two-day 8 pr oject. 9 MR. EISNER: Do you think it could be done in 10 tw o days? Or do you think we could at least get a 11 go od start? 12 MR. HON: If we see the document 2-3 days in 13 ad vance, I think we can get it done in two days. 14 MR. EISNER: The straw man, I assume, will 15 no t necessarily be a preamble, but just the rule text? 16 MR. COHEN: Maybe more options. 17 MR. EISNER: More options, but rule text 18 op tions? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: We would translate, wherever 20 we need to, and the rulemaking -- 21 MR. EISNER: But there wouldn't be a response 22 to all the comments? There wouldn't be aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 295 1 ju stification, anything like that? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 3 MR. EISNER: Everybody comfortable with that? 4 Th e date may not be certain, but it will be some time 5 in the next couple of weeks; maybe a couple days by the 6 da te you can get the notice out? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Preferably before the first 8 we ek in June. 9 MR. EISNER: Oh, no. A different deadline. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm just saying. 11 MR. EISNER: I think you need the flexibility 12 to go back and figure out when you can do this. When 13 yo u can get the room. When you can get the document 14 do ne, all that. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, the rule is on your 16 sc reen. 17 MR. SACHS: Is there a particular reason we'd 18 ha ve to meet at DOE? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 20 MR. EISNER: The ground rules you agreed to 21 to day, says you'll meet here. But it doesn't have to 22 be . You can change that.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 296 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. I was going to make a 2 po int about those rules. 3 MR. EISNER: You can break them already. 4 MR. COHEN: Well, we developed those ground 5 ru les for the Transformer proceeding. We did that on 6 th e notion that if we met here, it was effectively a 7 ne utral site. We weren't sure that we would be able to 8 ac cept what is essentially a gift of meeting space, if 9 we went off-site. We subsequently were able to work 10 th at out with the folks who worry about those issues 11 he re. And we did, in fact, do that in the Transformer 12 pr oceeding. So we did use alternative sites, when 13 da tes were available within those places. Actually the 14 ru les were more comfortable, and nicer and all that. 15 MR. EISNER: I would put out on this, there 16 ar e only two days together, if that's important to 17 pe ople, in terms of travel. May 13th, May 14th. That 18 al so gives the agency a little over two weeks to make 19 al l the other arrangements. 20 MR. CYMBALSKY: If we use this space. 21 MR. EISNER: If we use this space. If we use 22 so mething else, it would be different.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 297 1 MR. CYMBALSKY: -- because of what happened 2 wi th -- we can't go to Las Vegas or any other place 3 be cause of -- keep it in town. 4 MR. EISNER: Do we want to give the agency 5 th en the discretion to go back and email as quickly as 6 th ey can with possible dates, possible locations? Or 7 do you want to meet here on the 13th and 14th? 8 MS. MEYERS: I can't do the 13th. I can do 9 th e 14th and 15th. 10 MR. EISNER: Maybe we should give the agency 11 th e flexibility to arrange a meeting as quickly as 12 po ssible, that works with everybody else. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. That will be great. 14 MR. COHEN: To the extent, that others have 15 sp aces that they can make available, if you could let 16 us know -- the size and accommodating other members of 17 th e public and let us know what your availability is 18 fo r spaces. That would be helpful. 19 MR. EISNER: And webinar telephone. 20 MR. COHEN: Telephone and all that. Yeah. 21 MR. SHEBIK: That's my question. In the 22 ev ent you can't make the date, will a webinar or a liveCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 298 1 me eting be set up? 2 MR. EISNER: That's what Dan is saying is a 3 re quirement. 4 MR. SHEBIK: Okay. That was my question. 5 Th ank you. 6 MR. EISNER: If it's here, they can do it. 7 An y place else, we have to make sure they can do it. 8 Al l right. Is everybody on? They'll do it as quickly 9 as they can. They'll get notice out to everybody, 10 ma king sure those dates work. They'll give you some 11 al ternatives, if that's possible and the location. All 12 ri ght. There was something -- you had a message from 13 on e of our ASRAC members, that you wanted to read, that 14 yo u got, because his phone was off? When I come from 15 th e Department of Transportation, no one is allowed to 16 pa rticipate over the phone, while driving a car. No 17 ce ll phones in cars. 18 MR. MYERS: That anyone would admit to. 19 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry. What? 20 MR. MYERS: Are you proposing a two-day 21 me eting? 22 MR. EISNER: That is what the consensus seemsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 299 1 to be. We would need at least two days, just to talk 2 ab out this issue. 3 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. I'm reading 4 an email from John Mandyck, ASRAC. "I'm in a car in 5 Ma nhattan and I'm listening to the call by phone. The 6 ph one is permanently muted, so I can't speak." And in 7 Ma nhattan, it's undoubtedly stopped anyhow. "I agree 8 wi th your suggestion that ASRAC give the working group 9 a chance to any ASRAC questions or suggested changes. 10 Fe el free to share with your group. I'll be on the 11 ca ll until four." Of course, he's permanently mute. 12 MR. EISNER: All right. Our goal is to set 13 up another meeting. One of the things, if we're going 14 to extend it to this additional category, we're going 15 to have to extend some of the things in the ground 16 ru les. I would suggest we give DOE the flexibility to 17 re draft the ground rules. I can talk with them over 18 th at, to make sure we're encompassing the broader scope 19 an d some of the changes and wording that would have to 20 be made to the document. So we start off with only a 21 fe w things to resolve. 22 Do we want to go beyond the mid-May and startCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 300 1 ta lking about future meetings? Assuming everything 2 wo rks out, so people can start putting them on their 3 sc hedules. It's probably a good idea to do that. All 4 ri ght. You all brought your calendars? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- their frequency meeting, 6 an d we can do the whole, to cover the whole -- because 7 I know we've got the two ASRAC covers on here. 8 MR. EISNER: Typically, in meetings like 9 th is, again, the group decides how often they want to 10 me , for what duration they want to meet. Two days 11 se ems to be somewhat of a normal. It is not a 12 re quirement, of course. Some agency reg. negs, they've 13 me t every two weeks. A lot of it depends on how much 14 ti me you need, between meetings, to prepare for the 15 ne xt set of issues that are going to come up in the 16 su bsequent meetings. You also want to leave time in 17 be tween meetings for subgroups that you might want to 18 fo rm to work on particular issues. You might want to 19 st art thinking about that early on, so if you want 20 mu ltiple subgroups for multiple issues, you can form 21 th em now and they can start working regularly. So 22 yo u've got to figure all that in. You have moreCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 301 1 kn owledge than I would have of how much time they're 2 go ing to need, how technical the issues are going to 3 be , what kinds of things you might want them to talk 4 ab out. So if we want to schedule, we can schedule all 5 th e way through August and try and see how many 6 me etings we can get in and get as much done as we can. 7 Bu t we can also just schedule out for the next month or 8 so , two months if we want, to see what we can get done, 9 se e how the schedule is working. 10 So in terms of the frequency of the meetings 11

-- let me put it this way first. Let's start with the 12 nu mber of days. Do you want to try a schedule of every 13 tw o days, whenever we meet? So it's easier for people 14 wh o are coming in from out of town. Do you want to go 15 lo nger? Or is too much time to put in at any given 16 ti me, especially if you're going to agree to something 17 li ke every two weeks? To meet for three days and one 18 we ek. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill Hootman from 20 Tr ane. I suggest maybe like, for those of us that are 21 tr aveling, not encompassing maybe a third or a fourth 22 da y. So you know, if it's maybe starting at 10 am, andCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 302 1 on the second day, finishing by 3:00, I think most of 2 us could catch flights that can kind of work with that, 3 an d not encompass maybe a third or a fourth day. Having 4 to just switch flights. 5 MR. EISNER: Do you want to limit it to two 6 da ys? 7 MS. HOOTMAN: I want to limit it to two days, 8 ma ybe to start and the stop time on those two days. The 9 fi rst day, maybe not starting till 10. Conceivably, I 10 ca n actually get a flight in and be here by 10:00. You 11 kn ow, on the second day, maybe not going as late as 12 5: 00. There are quite a few flights right at 5:00. So 13 li ke stopping at 3:00, would mean you could probably 14 li ke get to a flight by 5:00. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay. So that would give you 16 th e neighborhood of about 12 hours in a two-day period? 17 MR. HON: Just a question. How early could 18 we use this room? 19 MR. EISNER: How early in the day? 20 MR. SACHS: Yes. Could we start at 8:00 in 21 th e morning? 22 MR. EISNER: On the second day.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 303 1 MS. HOOTMAN: On the second day. 2 MR. HON: In the morning, to gain two hours. 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Good point. 4 MR. SACHS: Could we start at 7:00? I'm just 5 as king a question here. The earlier we start on the 6 se cond day, the more we get done. The less travel 7 ex pense, the less time out of the office. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 9 MR. COHEN: They're going to check on what 10 ti me is the room going to be open. 11 MR. EISNER: 8:00 a.m.? 8:00 a.m. is the 12 ea rliest we can get in the room. Is everybody 13 co mfortable with those hours? 10-6, the first day, I 14 th ink you said. And then 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on the 15 se cond day? All right. Let's start talking about 16 da ys. Assuming that we can get the other meeting, that 17 we 've been talking about, set up sometime around mid18 Ma y. Do you want to meet every two weeks? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Every three. 20 MR. EISNER: Every three weeks? Okay. Others 21 sa y two weeks? 22 MR. THARP: It's a fairly important issue.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 304 1 I' ll put in as much time as needed to get it addressed. 2 MR. EISNER: Okay. Anybody got a third 3 al ternative? How many people? A meeting every two 4 we eks. The other one would be meeting every three 5 we eks. Remember, we're going to talk about running 6 in to a July 4th weekend or something. So it's not 7 go ing to be a perfect two-week schedule, or a three8 we ek schedule. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Is there a possibility of doing 10 in -person say every three weeks and then some interim 11 me etings, that aren't in person? I'm just thinking. 12 Th ere's a lot of material on that list for us to be 13 co vering. 14 MR. EISNER: Laura's proposing that we meet 15 by phone, or a combination of phone and web. You have 16 to think about looking at documents; looking at 17 dr awings, whatever it is you might be looking at. Will 18 it be too hard for you? Yes? 19 MR. SHEBIK: What if we do it every two 20 we eks? Once a month in-person and then the next two 21 we eks, a webinar? Would that be possible? 22 MR. EISNER: I think anything's possible.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 305 1 It 's whether you're comfortable with it for the kinds 2 of negotiations we're going to be having. 3 MS. HOOTMAN: The only thing that I -- I 4 me an, we've obviously seen people today, who really 5 ha ven't been able to communicate very well. I wonder 6 if we're having two days of dead space on a phone, 7 be cause we can't really -- we're having issues, or 8 ec hoes or whatever. 9 MR. EISNER: There's a variation this week. 10 We could schedule meetings every two weeks, and not 11 ha ve them if they're not necessary, or if we can talk 12 ab out issues on the phone for a couple hours, during 13 wh at was the scheduled time, to get some things off the 14 ta ble. We might be able to do that. I think the 15 im portant thing is to get the dates set on the 16 ca lendar, so facilities are better and the equipment is 17 av ailable, you're available. Then if we don't have to 18 ha ve them, we cancel. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. 20 MR. EISNER: Do we want to try for them? No 21 le ss than once every month, but schedule meetings every 22 tw o weeks? All right. Do we want to go through theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 306 1 ca lendars now and put two weeks down? Do we want to 2 st art on a Tuesday and go to a Wednesday? Is that 3 ea sier for people, than starting on a Monday, if you 4 mi ght have to fly in the night before? 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 6 MR. EISNER: So we start in on a Tuesday. 7 Th at would mean the 28th or 29th? Or we could do the 8 29 th and the 30th of May? I have a problem on the 9 28 th, because I teach a class uptown, at 6:00. I've 10 go t to be up at AU. 11 MR. DOPPEL: Where are we talking the first 12 me eting being, the 13th and the 14th? 13 MR. EISNER: Well, we're trying to set up the 14 me eting that we said we would do in a couple of weeks, 15 th e AEDM stuff. 16 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. Okay. So that's the -- 17 MR. EISNER: That way we're leaving them some 18 fl exibility to get a facility. Because it's a short 19 ti me to get a facility and get an announcement out. I 20 th ink it'll be around the 14th, 15th, 16th, if things 21 go well. 22 MR. DOPPEL: I would think that the first twoCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 307 1 me etings might need to be in-person, rather than trying 2 to -- 3 MR. EISNER: Okay. The first two meetings, 4 in cluding the one in the middle of May? 5 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 6 MR. EISNER: Okay. So we're talking 7 ap proximately the 14th, 16th, sometimes in that range? 8 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 9 MR. EISNER: So we're saying the second 10 me eting could be sometime for a two-day period between 11 th e 29th and the 30th. 12 MR. DOPPEL: Memorial Day is the 27th. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 14 MR. DOPPEL: Memorial Day's the 27th. 15 MR. EISNER: And then sometime in the 28th, 16 29 th, 30th time frame. But, as I said, I have a 17 pr oblem with Tuesday, having to be up at American 18 Un iversity by 6:00. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. So I've the 14th, 15th, 20 th e 29th and 30th. 21 MR. EISNER: Can everybody do the 29th and 22 30 th?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 308 1 MR. DOPPEL: Ah-hum. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 3 MR. EISNER: So the 14th, 15th is? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we're going to have 5 (i naudible) for that one. It will be that week. Two 6 da ys during that week. 7 MR. EISNER: All right. That would bring us 8 up to June 11th, 12th, 13th? So do we want to stick 9 wi th the Wednesday, Thursday, 12th and 13th? All 10 ri ght. 11, 12? 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Can't do it. 12 MR. AMRANE: No. Not the 12th. 13 MR. EISNER: Do we want to go with the 13th 14 an d 14th, because we'd be getting out early on Friday? 15 Do we want to go with the 13th and 14th, with the idea 16 th at you get out early on Friday? Is that -- 17 MR. SACHS: Another possibility might be to 18 do it the next week, since the last week of June, a lot 19 of people will be ASRAC. 20 MR. AMRANE: That's a good point. Yeah. 21 MR. SACHS: Just have one in June. At three 22 we eks.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 309 1 MR. HON: Well, there's also some meetings up 2 he re. Atmosphere meetings, as far as flammable or 3 re frigerant meetings, the 18th and 19th. So I would 4 lo ve if you -- 5 MR. SACHS: -- do it the 20th and 21st? 6 MR. EISNER: I would love it. 7 MR. SACHS: It would be perfect. 8 MR. HOOTMAN: I would not be in-person. I 9 co uld do it on the phone. 10 MR. SACHS: The 21st is ASRAC. It goes right 11 in to ASRAC. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: It goes right in there. 13 MR. SACHS: So I'd just literally fly to 14 De nver from here. 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 16 MR. EISNER: The week of the 10th is out? 17 Ar e we saying the week of the 17th is out? 18 MR. AMRANE: If it was the first part of the 19 we ek, it would be okay. 17th, 18th. 20 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. 21 MR. AMRANE: If it was the first part of the 22 we ek.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 310 1 MR. EISNER: Which week? The 10th and the 2 11 th? 3 MR. AMRANE: The 17th and 18th. 4 MR. EISNER: Yeah. I would have trouble with 5 Mo nday. 6 MR. AMRANE: Okay. 7 MR. SACHS: Well, you just skip out at 5:00 8 an d you can take the Metro up there. 9 MR. EISNER: It doesn't go up to where I go. 10 It 's a long walk. 11 MR. SACHS: I'll loan you bike. 12 MR. MYERS: What happened to the week of the 13 10 th? Okay. There were quite a few days you were 14 ca lling out on that. 15 MR. EISNER: What happened to what? 16 MS. HOOTMAN: The week of the 10th. 17 MR. EISNER: The week of the 10th, let's 18 st art with -- 19 MR. SACHS: The 11th would be fine for me. 20 Th e next week is a disaster. 21 MR. EISNER: Would the 10th and 11th work for 22 ot hers?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 311 1 MS. HOOTMAN: I could do it. 2 MR. EISNER: Someone had a problem with one 3 of those days, on the 11th and 12th. Is it still a 4 pr oblem? 5 MS. HOOTMAN: The 12th. He said 12th. 6 MR. AMRANE: The 12th. 7 MR. EISNER: The 12th is a problem? Is it 8 al l day or -- 9 MR. AMRANE: Yeah. I can do Monday the 10th 10 an d 11th. 11 MR. EISNER: Somebody couldn't do the 10th 12 th ough. Right? You can't do the 10th? All day, or 13 co uld we start later? If we did the 10th and 11th, 14 st arting at 2:00, instead of at 10:00, would that be 15 al l right? 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Me, good. 17 MR. EISNER: Okay, the 10th and 11th. All 18 ri ght. Now the progress report is due on the 28th. I'm 19 as suming that's going to have to be reconsidered in 20 te rms of the agreements we're reaching here? Unless we 21 st ill feel we should get a progress report in by then? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley. I think,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 312 1 fr om ASRAC's perspective, it would be important to (A) 2 if you come up with something the week of May 13th and 3 17 th, on AEDM's, to get that back to them ASAP. We are 4 pl anning to meet in July, but we can schedule a meeting 5 pr ior to that. I do think at least some type of 6 pr ogress. Maybe from the meetings on May 29th and 7 Ju ne, you've tackled another issue since then. So I do 8 th ink a progress report would be helpful. I would 9 co nsider doing one earlier, at the end of May, if you 10 do reach some type of consensus on AEDM's. Just to 11 mo ve that process along as fast as possible. 12 MR. EISNER: All right. So the report may 13 st ill be due the 26th, but that doesn't mean we can't 14 me et that week. We can talk about the 24th and 25th. We 15 ca n talk about the 26th and the 27th. Or we can talk 16 ab out a combination of the 27th and 28th. Any 17 co mbination of days that work there? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Are you back to May or June? 19 MR. EISNER: Pardon me? 20 MS. HOOTMAN: Are you back to May or June? 21 MR. EISNER: I'm in June. I'm sorry. I hope 22 I' m in June.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 313 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley. I'm guessing 2 th e majority of you are not going to be here. 3 MR. SACHS: Is it possible to hold a meeting 4 at ASRAC? 5 MR. EISNER: The problem with skipping that 6 we ek is the next week is July 4th, which is on a 7 Th ursday. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 9 MR. EISNER: Do we want to schedule a first 10 an d a second meeting? Does that work for everybody? 11 MS. HOOTMAN: I guess. 12 MR. EISNER: Somebody who can't do it all 13 we ek? 14 MS. MEYERS: During the summer, there's going 15 to be at least one person gone every week. 16 MR. EISNER: So we have to have two negative 17 vo tes in to -- 18 MR. SACHS: Breaking the rules again. 19 MR. EISNER: Are you comfortable having 20 so mebody here to cover for you? Okay. 1st and 2nd? 21 Th at would take us to the 15th and 16th, 17th, 18th, 22 19 th, any of those days. Shall we say Monday the 15thCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 314 1 an d Tuesday the 16th? 2 MR. MYERS: How about 16, 17? 3 MR. EISNER: Did you say the 16th and 17th, 4 or the 17th and 18th? 5 MR. MYERS: Yeah. Just so we're not 6 tr aveling on a Sunday. 7 MR. EISNER: Okay. 17th and 18th? Leave 8 ea rly on Thursday. That takes us down to the end of 9 Ju ly. I want to do the 31st and the 1st? Is that 10 ok ay? We can go back over these, just to be clear. 11 31 st and the 1st. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: I may have to send somebody for 13 th at one. He was in room till just a second ago. 14 MR. EISNER: All right. Do we want to go 15 be yond July? I'm talking three full months. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Get it on the books. 17 MR. DOPPEL: Did we have a second date in 18 Ju ne? 19 MR. EISNER: I'll go back over all the dates. 20 MR. DOPPEL: No. Just one set because of 21 AS RAC and holidays. 22 MR. MYERS: Do you want to go ahead and pickCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 315 1 on e day in August, just so we have one? 2 MR. EISNER: Just one day? 3 MR. MYERS: No. I mean one meeting. 4 MR. EISNER: One meeting? I start to run 5 in to problems doing it in the middle of the month, 6 wh ich is where we'd be next. I could do it -- do you 7 wa nt to go toward the end of the month? Or do you want 8 to go very early in the month and just have a week 9 be tween meetings? I'm fairly confident I could do the 10 we ek of the 5th, and I'm not positive on the 12th and 11 th e 19th. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Let's do the week of the 5th. 13 We 're going to end up getting up against the end of the 14 mo ney. We need to be resolving things. 15 MR. EISNER: Yeah. That's why I didn't 16 sc hedule anything. I didn't worry about scheduling in 17 th at month. 8th and 9th. 18 MS. MEYERS: Of August? 19 MR. EISNER: Of August. 20 MS. MEYERS: How about 7th and 8th? 21 MR. EISNER: 7th and 8th? Okay. Let me, 22 qu ickly, go over what I ended up with and see if we allCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 316 1 ag ree. I have us meeting -- we're going to meet 2 so metime in the middle of the month. Did Ashley say we 3 ha d a date set for that? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's going to be the week of 5 Ma y 13th through 17th, for two days. 6 MR. EISNER: That's what we're assuming? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 8 MR. EISNER: So I have us down as May 29th 9 an d 30th. Then I have us down meeting -- we're in June 10 no w, on the 10th and the 11th. Then on July 1st and 11 2n d. 12 MS. MEYERS: Am I the only one that can't 13 ma ke July 1st and the 2nd? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you sure? 15 MS. MEYERS: That's 4th of July week. Am I 16 th e only one that's affected? I guess so. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Don't worry. We'll get to 18 an other date that I'm affected. So it's okay. 19 MR. EISNER: We have no life. Then in July, 20 we have the 17th and 18th; the 31st and the 1st of 21 Au gust; and then the 7th and 8th of August. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: There's three in July.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 317 1 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. There's three in July. 2 MR. EISNER: It just happens to work out that 3 wa y. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Can you go over those again? 5 MS. HOOTMAN: I know. And the very last 6 on e. 7 MR. EISNER: All right. Sometime in the 8 mi ddle of May, the week of the 13th, we're going to 9 ha ve our first full meeting. Then the end of the 10 mo nth, the 28th -- I mean, the 29th and the 30th, we're 11 go ing to meet. Then in June, we're going to meet on 12 th e 10th and the 11th. We're starting at 2 p.m. on the 13 10 th. Then we're going to meet on July 1st and 2nd. 14 MR. DOPPEL: On the 10th, Karen, you don't 15 mi nd if we start without -- really? 16 MS. MEYERS: Yeah. I mean -- I gave an 17 an swer. I didn't realize your question. 18 MR. DOPPEL: Because start at 2, like 19 no thing's going to get done. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll be here till 10. 21 MR. DOPPEL: We'll get thrown out of here 22 ti llCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 318 1 10 :00. 2 Karen, you're only going to miss like two 3 ho urs of the meeting. They're going to break for 4 lu nch. 5 MR. EISNER: Yeah. 6 MR. DOPPEL: You can listen on the web, while 7 yo u're on the plane. 8 MR. EISNER: All right. Then I've got us down 9 fo r July 1st and 2nd; July 17th and 18th; July 31st and 10 Au gust 1st; and August 7th and August 8th. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Given that we have to have the 12 re port, I think it would be a good idea to schedule 13 so me additional time in August. 14 MR. EISNER: The problem is we're not going 15 to make August 30th, if we cover AEDM. That's what I'm 16 un derstanding we're hearing. 17 MS. BARHYDT: So we're not going to try to 18 me et? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: We still have to report to 20 AS RAC. 21 MS. BARHYDT: ASRAC one way or another. 22 MR. EISNER: No. I understand that.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 319 1 MS. BARHYDT: Do you want to schedule another 2 da y now? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ah-hum. 4 MS. BARHYDT: I'd just as soon get it on the 5 bo oks. You can always cancel it. 6 MR. EISNER: No. The week of the 26th? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's the week before. 8 Wh en's our report day? The 30th? 9 MR. EISNER: The 30th. 10 MR. DOPPEL: 21st and 22nd? 11 MR. EISNER: I just don't know if I'm going 12 to be around. I was making the assumption that the 13 re port's due the 30th. There are not going to be any 14 me etings at the end of the month. I don't know how 15 yo u're going to get a report done, agreed to by 16 ev erybody, if you're still having meetings. That's the 17 pr oblem. 18 MS. BARHYDT: I guess I was thinking more 19 li ke hashing out any details that were left to -- like 20 if the basic frame work's there, but people still want 21 to discuss. Just having a meeting there, so that 22 th ere's some placeholder for people to discuss anyCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 320 1 li ngering issues. 2 MR. EISNER: We can do that on the last week 3 th en, if the reports are already out in draft. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Can I ask a question? Who 5 ac tually is going to prepare all this, the reports and 6 al l that information? 7 MR. HON: I vote for Paul. 8 MR. EISNER: All those in favor of Paul? 9 MR. LIN: It's a consensus. 10 MR. EISNER: Okay. There's no negatives. 11 It 's unanimous. 12 MR. DOPPEL: It's not 100% consensus. 13 MR. EISNER: Dan, you want to see how it was 14 do ne in the last Committee? What they did with the 15 re port and everything? 16 MR. COHEN: Sure. The deal, we put together 17 mo st of the paperwork. Actually, the facilitator, I'm 18 su re they did the report. 19 MR. COHEN: I'll take it with me. Yeah. 20 We 'll get done in July. 21 MR. EISNER: We'll get done in July. 22 MR. COHEN: I think if anything in terms of aCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 321 1 me eting and then a follow-up result from that meeting, 2 an d then circulating it for people to look at. I don't 3 th ink you can work the last couple of weeks. I'm still 4 di scussing things but I think you can draft a report, 5 ge t it around to everybody, and then sit down and talk 6 ab out it, or talk over the phone about, "I want this 7 wo rd changed; or that sentence deleted" kind of a 8 th ing. But you can't write a major report like this, 9 es pecially as complex as this. Especially with 10 so mebody like me, not understanding all the details and 11 ne eding input from others. You can't write this in the 12 la st week or so. 13 MR. DOPPEL: Well, do we need a couple of 14 da ys' meetings to review what's been done in person? 15 MR. EISNER: Well, you know, we scheduled -- 16 we 've already scheduled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 -- we will 17 ha ve scheduled 8 meetings. Based on experience in the 18 pa st, I was told to estimate 4-6 meetings, two days 19 ea ch. So we're way beyond what had happened in the 20 la st negotiated rulemaking. 21 So the question is, if we're going to need a 22 lo t of meetings, more than normal, are we going to beCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 322 1 ab le to get it done by the end of August? I think 2 La ura was right. We've got to make every effort to do 3 th at. I've already scheduled a lot of meetings. Now 4 we 're taking a couple of hours out of each end. We 5 co uld add another day in. 6 MS. BARHYDT: We could always cancel. I 7 th ink it's just reserving the time. 8 MR. EISNER: That's what I'm saying. Do we 9 wa nt to schedule one for the 26th and 27th? 10 MS. MEYERS: We're not doing the 22nd or -- 11 MR. EISNER: I have to check and see if I 12 ma de plans for that. I did check to look at the 13 sc hedule. I talked to DOE about what they would expect 14 ha ppening, and we agreed that I could go ahead and 15 pl ans. Because we're trying to figure out when, during 16 th e summer, to do it, and that was the best time. 17 MS. BARHYDT: I think the 26th, 27th. 18 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure if I can do those 19 da tes in there. I may be away for 7, 8 days. 20 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, if we did 26, 27 for 21 fi nal read-through review, of any lingering wording 22 is sues.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 323 1 MS. BARHYDT: And I can go back and find out 2 wh at we're doing, in terms of exact time. I we can do 3 it earlier, we can try to do it earlier. 4 MR. STOTNIK: Or if the meeting is like 5 yo u're describing, we may be able to do in the day. If 6 we 're optimistic -- if the working group's optimistic 7 an d, in fact, they are successful, that last meeting -- 8 I don't know. Look over an important mailing a day, 9 be cause everybody is high enough who's there, kind of 10 th ing. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. 12 MR. AMRANE: If we plan for two, we can 13 al ways kill one day. It's hard going the other way. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Then the other thing is that 15 it 's probably a good idea to put something on the 16 sc hedule in September, after ASRAC has met, in case 17 th ey have any questions. So that we already have some 18 ti me set aside to deal with any issues that come up, as 19 a result of ASRAC. When is the ASRAC meeting. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: It hasn't been schedule 21 of ficially yet, but we were targeting mid-September. If 22 yo u pick the end of the month, beginning of October,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 324 1 yo u're probably good. 2 MS. BARHYDT: So I can tell you that I am 3 le aving town the 28th of September and I will be gone 4 th e first week of October. 5 MS. MEYERS: The 26th would work well for a 6 lo t for a lot of things. 7 MR. EISNER: Yeah. I didn't even bring a 8 ca lendar out that far. 9 MS. MEYERS: The 26th is a Thursday. 10 MR. EISNER: When you going to be gone? 11 MS. BARHYDT: I think I leave on the 27th or 12 28 th. So I'll be here on the 26th. 13 MR. EISNER: So just one day? September 14 26 th? Okay. Everybody have fun today? 15 MR. SACHS: No. 16 MS. BARHYDT: And then are we going to "meet" 17 th e email, to resolve the remaining issues, or were we 18 go ing to deal with those at the first meeting in May? 19 MR. EISNER: There's 17 minutes left. 20 MS. BARHYDT: We're going to do them now. 21 Ok ay. 22 MR. EISNER: We can do them now. DoesCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 325 1 ev erybody want to try to resolve the remaining issues, 2 ba sed on where we are in scope and everything like 3 th at? Recognizing that the ground rules are going to 4 ha ve to be modified. 5 MS. BARHYDT: We haven't actually voted on 6 th e scope. We did our brainstorming list, but we never 7 ac tually discussed and voted on that. 8 MR. EISNER: I think the outstanding question 9 to you was assuming that you accepted all of these 10 is sues, what could we do about such and such? Are you 11 wi lling now, based on the agreement to add the AEDM 12 ru lemaking to this? To accept those all within the 13 sc ope? Do you want to modify them in any way? 14 Some of them are written very broadly, and I 15 do n't know exactly what all would be entailed. Like 16 "b uilt to order equipment." I know some of the 17 ce rtification and testing issues for "built to order 18 eq uipment," but that's a very broad bullet point. Down 19 at the very bottom. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think that would be 21 sp ecific -- 22 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. The testing procedures,Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 326 1 in our view, would not be within the scope. We would 2 no rmally deal with those three specific rulemakings for 3 te st procedures. 4 MR. EISNER: You sent out this list, so we 5 ca n get it better, and perhaps help you with it? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. I'll do that. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can vote on it at the next 8 me eting. People can think about it. Look at it. 9 MR. EISNER: Maybe what you can do it edit 10 it . Get it. Edit it. 11 MS. BARHYDT: And send it around. 12 MR. EISNER: -- where your question were and 13 pe ople can send it back to you with further 14 ex planations. 15 MS. BARHYDT: Additional details? 16 MR. EISNER: May resolve the difference. If 17 DO E can accept this list, with answers from the people 18 wh o suggested them, that satisfy them, that they're 19 ok ay. If DOE can accept it, would anybody else have an 20 ob jection to it, as being a part of the scope?" All 21 ri ght. So why don't you try to get satisfactory 22 an swers and then notify the group, based on what you'veCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 327 1 le arned, with modifications as necessary, that are 2 ac ceptable to the suggester. Here's the list. Now, 3 wi th that good mood, go back to your ground rules. Take 4 a look at 4e, d, e and f. Valorous options. They 5 co uld all come out. They could all stay in. They could 6 be modified. 7 MR. SACHS: Just to start -- this is Harvey. 8 An d just to start things, I would move that we delete 9 C, D, and E. 10 MR. EISNER: And can I ask you why you'd 11 le ave F in? You're going to leave -- 12 MR. SACHS: Just a sense that there may be 13 mo re people who have concern about F, than C, D, and E, 14 an d this might be a good place to get the log rolling. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay. Comments? 16 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PBI. I 17 co ncur. In fact, I would include F, but not just 18 de lete them all. I think there ought to be something a 19 li ttle like the second half of E, and that is a 20 St atement of General Support, that it is the intent of 21 th e Committee -- not necessarily the individuals of the 22 Co mmittee -- of the Committee, the 90% or 100% -- toCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 328 1 su pport, to actively support what we're proposing. So 2 th at if we're challenged, we'll help DOE; we'll talk to 3 ou r politicians. What we need to do, to support 4 wh atever we come out with, as a Committee. So I would 5 pr opose removing all of those, on the screen, and 6 re placing it with a much more simple statement. That 7 th e Committee will support any action that we take. Any 8 co nsensus action that we take. 9 MR. SACHS: Neil, in sort of quasi-Roberts, 10 se nse I happen to agree with Frank, but I still think 11 we might be better off doing it stepwise, and taking -- 12 MR. EISNER: Looking at the first three? 13 MR. SACHS: Take the first three, and then 14 pi ck up where Frank was. 15 MR. EISNER: Does anybody object to -- 16 MR. MYERS: -- why you wanted to keep it. 17 Th at's fine. 18 MR. EISNER: Does anybody object to removing 19 C, D, and E? Laura does. 20 MR. SACHS: We outvoted her. 21 MS. BARHYDT: I guess I don't understand the 22 ea rlier comments about the -- the statements are notCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 329 1 le gally binding and they're really more statements of 2 in tent. But at the same time, they are a reflection of 3 a commitment to the process and to support the process 4 an d to support the consensus decisions that are made 5 th rough all of these meetings. And so I guess I just 6 wo nder is deleting them an indication that people are 7 sa ying, "Well, I am going to participate in this 8 pr ocess and I'm going to negotiate in good faith and 9 we 're going to reach a consensus. But I still want to 10 ho ld that in my back pocket. At the end of the day, I 11 mi ght just change my mind and file adverse comments, or 12 su e." It makes me wonder why people wouldn't want to 13 ha ve those in there. Why wouldn't you want all of the 14 ot her people sitting around the table, to say, "I'm not 15 go ing to undermine your work, sitting at this table"? 16 Wh y wouldn't you want everybody sitting here to make 17 th e same commitment to stand up for the rule, at the 18 en d of the day? 19 MR. EISNER: Yes? 20 MR. MYERS: The reason that I was wording 21 th at the way that I did, that the Committee will 22 su pport any consensus, based on our vote," that's notCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 330 1 ha ving more than two negative votes. We will actively 2 su pport that, so we are agreeing, what that does is it 3 ge ts all the, "Yeah, but what about somebody who voted 4 'n o'?" So were saying, "Yes, we are going to support 5 ou r consensus work, but if somebody voted 'no,' we 6 we ren't able to come up with a way -- Based on our 7 ea rlier conversation, if it's put in the preamble, or 8 th e introduction to the document, it's not the same as 9 ma king a response during the rulemaking. They were 10 "n o" in this Committee, so they were not a satisfied 11 pa rty. They still have their rights. But even with 12 th at, the other 90%, or 100% if we have unanimity, are 13 sa ying, "We'll support it." So I think it will be very 14 di fficult for us to workout the details of exactly how 15 a negative voter is going to retain their rights. 16 MR. EISNER: Would it help you if the goal, 17 in the first paragraph, number 1, had a second sentence 18 to the effect that -- first it's an objective to 19 de velop the standard in a way that would be supported 20 by the members of the group? Something along the -- 21 ei ther a first sentence add-on or a second sentence. 22 "T he objective or the goal is to develop something thatCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 331 1 co uld be supported by the group -- fully supported by 2 th e group," or something along those lines. Without 3 ge tting into whether that restricts them from filing 4 ne gative comments, no adverse action. It's their goal, 5 th eir objective, to get a rule that they could fully 6 su pport. 7 MS. BARHYDT: It's not quite the same thing. 8 I guess I would ask Harvey why do you want to delete 9 th em? 10 MR. SACHS: Harvey recommended the deletion 11 be cause of a general sense that it was causing a fair 12 am ount of heartburn around the table, and that it 13 di dn't really add to the commitments people were making 14 in their time, effort, corporate costs and everything 15 el se. So my sense for listening was that it was 16 ge tting in the way. I certainly understand your 17 ob jectives. I liked Neil's thought of making that 18 su pportable consensus part of the goal. And I think 19 th at's a much stronger statement in this. I'm all 20 on board with what Frank and Neil have said. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: I mean, I think you could take 22 th ose words, up there, now we're off that paragraph.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 332 1 Bu t you could almost put "Good faith." "We come in 2 go od faith." 3 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: You know, but I think that we 5 ca n't take away the right of somebody who is a negative 6 co nsenter, and their right to become -- to have 7 co nsenting comments. 8 MS. BARHYDT: So given the other idea, which 9 wa s floated, which was to flip it on its head and to 10 sa y that the members of the working group will support 11 th e consensus recommendation, is that going to have a 12 ca veat then, that says that, "except to the extent that 13 th ey dissented"? 14 MR. EISNER: I think that's a simple 15 st atement. That's your objective. They achieved 16 co nsensus but they can argue that they didn't reach 17 th eir goal of getting something they could fully 18 su pport. And again, I want to point out, we all are 19 lo oking at Laura, to see if she agrees with this. We're 20 pi cking on Laura, today. We'll be picking on Laura all 21 su mmer, I think. Remember there are two sides to all 22 of this, in terms of good faith. So DOE says, "Okay.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 333 1 I didn't like this, and I didn't like this, and I 2 di dn't like this. But I'm issuing it as a final rule 3 be cause it was the consensus of the group." Then 4 so mebody on this group sues DOE and DOE goes into court 5 an d settles with the other side by agreeing to withdraw 6 th at final rule, terminate that final rule and issue a 7 ne w one. Would you be upset with DOE for not supporting 8 th e consensus agreement? Somebody else on this group 9 su es and challenges it, and they go -- these are the 10 ki nds of things. 11 Again, I don't want to overstress it. The 12 su btle little things. The subtle little effects. 13 So mebody on the group sued us, and the whole group 14 ag reed that they had the right to sue us and we think, 15 "Y ou know what? They pointed out some good problems." 16 Th e Justice Department comes back to the DOE and says, 17 "Y ou know, we might lose this." Would that be the 18 di fference between DOE saying, "We have to defend it. 19 We were part of a consensus agreement?" Versus, "Okay. 20 So mebody in the group sued us. The group didn't have 21 an y problem with that happening. Therefore, we have to 22 gi ve up our defense of this lawsuit, because theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 334 1 Ju stice Department advised us they had a good argument. 2 Th ose are subtle things. I'm not trying to argue one 3 si de or the other. I just want to make sure you're 4 ba lancing them in the way that you look at all of this. 5 MR. SACHS: Harvey. We're all sitting here, 6 at the same time, recognizing there are major players 7 wh o are a part of groups, but re not at this table. 8 Pe ople who sell a whole bunch of units every year. 9 Ka ren's not responsible for what they did. So this is 10 AB C, or Motherhood and apple pie. They're in no sense 11 as this statement here. 12 MR. EISNER: I think that's a good 13 co mpromise, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it, 14 ob viously. Again, here's, in some respects, no 15 di fference between the situation you're talking about, 16 wh ere she represents somebody who she can't control. 17 Sh e can't control the Justice Department. How hard 18 do es she fight back. A good fight. Good terms. 19 MR. SACHS: Yeah. But did somebody else not 20 ex ercise good faith, because she didn't twist 21 so mebody's arm to get them to not sue. 22 MR. EISNER: No one can resist Karen's arm.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 335 1 MR. SACHS: She's probably going to miss the 2 ke y meeting now. What happened? 3 MS. MEYERS: I'm the only one where we blew 4 by all the objectives. I just want you to know that. 5 If anybody else has an objective, we adjust it. Not 6 me . 7 MR. EISNER: Considering your best -- 8 MS. MEYERS: It's noted, for the record. 9 MR. EISNER: Considering your best 10 al ternative, right now, you're okay with it? Is 11 ev erybody okay with that language? 12 MR. BAUM: Can I just throw in there too? 13 MR. EISNER: Oh, no. No. 14 MR. BAUMAN: Any easy way to strengthen this 15 fo r Laura. A real simple is objective is to build a 16 re commendation that will be fully supported by the 17 en tire working group. I think that's stronger wording 18 to your point. 19 MR. EISNER: Acceptable everybody? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 21 MR. EISNER: It's a goal. You can't control 22 ev erybody in your interest group. Okay. So we takeCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 336 1 ou t C, D, and E. How about F? No challenge and we can 2 go home. What do we do with F? 3 MR. HATZIKAZAKIZ: I have a question about d. 4 MR. SACHS: Too late. Too late. 5 MR. HATZIKAZAKIZ: It's up to you how fast 6 it 's going to be. Why do you want d out? 7 MR. SACHS: It's just part of the package. 8 MR. STATONIK: Frank Statonik. I came up and 9 I sat down because you agreed. D has to do that, 10 re gardless of whatever happens here or anyplace else. 11 It is their obligation, in any rulemaking, to consider 12 al l relevant comments. That's motherhood. And from 13 th e perspective of C and E, it puts constraints on what 14 pe ople can do. I'll be a little crude here. All D is 15 of fering, in fact, is what they have to do anyhow. 16 MR. SACHS: So it was just redundant and it 17 wa s just inelegant to have redundancy. 18 MR. EISNER: Yes, and no. I had raised it, 19 ea rlier and I don't think we've addressed it. It's 20 be en a long day for all of us. But I'd raised the 21 po ssibility that this group would decide if it wants to 22 be reconvened to consider the comments. Not to readCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 337 1 th em all, but have the agency prepare the normal 2 su mmary they would prepare. You read them and you say, 3 on e of a number of things. "I don't believe they 4 wa rrant any changes" or "they do warrant changes, and 5 th ey should be made," or some other thing, that I'll 6 le ave up to you. 7 Do you want to be able to see what would have 8 re sulted from d before the agency does what it's 9 re quired to do with those comments? And again, it can 10 be very informal. My experience is it's done by email. 11 "H ere's what we got. Here's the summary. We'll have a 12 te lephone conversation, three days from now, to decide 13 wh at to do." Do you want something like that added? 14 Ye s? 15 MR. STATONIK: That's quite a clarification. 16 Th is is a working group of ASRAC. All the working group 17 ha s asked -- I'm sorry. All ASRAC has asked the 18 wo rking group is to come up with a recommendation. The 19 id ea that the working group would then become a second 20 ch eck of how d responses to an over-comment. It seems 21 to me that's got to go through ASRAC. 22 MR. EISNER: Was ASRAC's language worded soCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 338 1 th at it precluded this? Or did it just say, "We want 2 yo ur recommendation? It ought to be in a rule?" 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: It asked for a 4 re commendation. 5 MR. EISNER: Say that again? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: It asked for a 7 re commendation. 8 MR. EISNER: It should be in a rule. It 9 di dn't say a proposed rule, or a final rule, as I 10 re call. But I'm not positive. 11 MR. SHEBIK: We have sent them some other 12 pr oposals. I don't think it's a severity. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. So we could put that in 14 th ere and double-check with ASRAC as to what they want. 15 It 's up to you whether you want to be involved, because 16 DO E has to make decisions sometimes. They raised a 17 go od point. "They said 1 plus 1 equaled 3. It doesn't 18 eq ual 3. We've got to make a change. Do you want the 19 op portunity to come back and say you can prove it 20 eq uals 3?" You don't care? You do care? All those 21 wh o would like to have an opportunity to review the 22 fi nal rule before it goes out?Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 339 1 MR. SHEBIK: One second. A point of 2 cl arification. There was two different things you said 3 th ere. One was the final rule. The previous was the 4 co mments. 5 MR. EISNER: I was just about to clarify 6 th at. Is you're going to have an opportunity to review 7 th e comments and decide whether changes are warranted. 8 Th e agency may way, "We recommend making these changes. 9 Do you agree?" Or something along those lines. A 10 ve ry informal process. The question is, number one, "Do 11 yo u want to see that?" And number two, do you want to 12 se e the final rule changes, if any are made. If no 13 ch anges -- and that's usually the way it goes -- in my 14 ex perience, there's no need for you to see the final 15 ru le. It's essentially going to be the same text, as 16 th e proposed rule. 17 MR. SACHS: I don't quite understand. Is the 18 qu estion whether the group wants to see the final rule. 19 Be cause it's going to be posted and we'll all see it. 20 MR. EISNER: I'm talking about Dan's office 21 re views the comments. They summarize them. Before 22 th ey go to draft to final rule, they reach certainCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 340 1 co nclusions. They then come to you and say, "Here are 2 th e comments we received. Several good points were 3 ma de. Do you think they warrant changing the proposed 4 ru le, as it was written?" Everybody says, "No. No 5 ch anges are warranted." The Department of Energy 6 ag rees with that, they go out with the same rule text. 7 MR. THARP: Basically, it's the Committee 8 co mmenting on the comments. 9 MR. EISNER: Yes. Because it may warrant a 10 si gnificant exchange. Do you want to be involved in 11 th at significant change? Dan did you want to add 12 an ything, besides the fact that you won't be drafting 13 th e final rule? 14 MR. COHEN: No actually, it was just a point 15 of clarification. It will be Ashley who will actually 16 be responding to the comments. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Yes? No? You want to 18 ad d something to the ground rules in it? Or do you 19 ju st want to look at the proposed rule? It seemed like 20 mo st of the people in the room wanted to look at the 21 su mmary of the comments, and make a recommendation of 22 wh at ought to be done. It would have to go through theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 341 1 wh ole ASRAC. 2 MR. SACHS: Why don't we try that and see how 3 it goes. 4 MR. EISNER: Okay. That's fair enough. 5 Ok ay. 6 MR. SACHS: On f, it's a matter of policy. 7 Th e organization I work for does not litigate, so I 8 re ally have no dog in that fight. That's one reason I 9 le ft it out of the original motion. 10 MR. EISNER: Harvey, that was f, you were 11 ta lking about? 12 MR. MYERS: In looking at f again, I can see 13 so me real benefit to a number of parties for having 14 so mething in there. If we're going to negotiate that 15 we don't immediately start looking for something 16 di fferent, the day after we finish this meeting, or the 17 da y after it's adopted. So I think having (f) in there 18 pr obably does have merit. However, based on the 19 co nversation we've had, I would probably suggest 20 ch anging each part agrees to say, "Each party, except 21 ne gative commenters are all -- "All parties voting yes 22 ag ree," so that we're not taking rights away from thoseCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 342 1 wh o disagree with us. 2 MR. EISNER: Thoughts? Comments? 3 MR. MYERS: Perhaps putting that in the pause 4 an d say, "Each party voting 'yes'" -- 5 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Here we go with it. 6 I think that up above, we went "Only those with 7 ne gative votes would be up there," so why wouldn't we 8 st ick with that? 9 MR. EISNER: Keep the same language? 10 MR. HON: That's my opinion, yes. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Just a wording issue. Where it 12 sa ys, "Take a position materially, in consistent with 13 th e standard or determination, it should be 14 in consistent with the proposed regulation or the 15 re commendation" something along those lines. 16 MR. BALLO: And the next line down, it says 17 th e same thing. 18 MS. BARHYDT: On that second one, take out 19 th e "proposed." 20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Given the five-minute 21 wa rning. They've given us 10 minutes to clear the room. 22 MR. EISNER: Okay. Deadlines help theCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 343 1 co nsensus. 2 MR. CYMBALSKY: As many as five minutes. 3 MR. EISNER: Is everybody okay with this? 4 MR. BALLO: There was one other place in 5 he re, and I forget where exactly. But Laura had 6 me ntioned it earlier we should postpone talking about 7 it until we decided this issue of the F paragraph. I 8 do n't remember where it was. It was further up. 9 MR. EISNER: Do you remember where it was, 10 La ura? 11 MS. BERHYDT: No. I don't. 12 MR. THARP: We'll receive a copy of this and 13 th en take it to the next meeting. 14 MR. EISNER: We can do that. 15 MR. COHEN: You could also vote on this, and 16 th en if there's some other issue that comes up, some 17 te chnical thing, subject to a vote to the Committee on 18 st yle, cleaning up. The Committee on style is going to 19 ha ve to look at this closely, anyway. 20 MR. EISNER: Yeah. 21 MR. COHEN: Things like working group and 22 su bgroup.Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 344 1 MR. BAUM: Look at the schedule. This is 2 Je ff Baum, from National. If we end up needing an 3 al ternative, now that we've looked at the schedule and 4 ge t back and look at our calendars. If we need to have 5 an alternate, do we need to notify DOE ahead of time? 6 Or how do we go about that? 7 MR. EISNER: I suggest we vote in agreement 8 wi th what we've amended. We will look at it, as Dan 9 sa id, Committee on style. You'll obviously have a 10 ch ance to say, "Hey, we missed something," and we'll 11 ta lk about it. But let's hope that what we send out 12 wi ll be okay with everybody. 13 MS. BARHYDT: (Inaudible). 14 MR. EISNER: I can't remember, if that after 15 or before the final rule goes out? 16 MR. COHEN: You just want to know if it's 17 af ter or before you get paid? 18 MR. EISNER: I do want to say that I don't 19 ha ve any problems with any of you calling me or 20 em ailing me. If you have any suggestions, whether I'm 21 do ing it right or wrong, or how I can help you in 22 di fferent ways. Remember, if you've got discussionsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 345 1 yo u want to have with your members of your affected 2 in terest group, I'd be glad to help, if there's any way 3 ca n do that. Thank you. I think this was a very good 4 me eting. 5 (Whereupon, the committee meeting was 6 concluded at 5:18 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 1



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 0 0-2psi 234:17 1 1 60:1 82:17 95:12 225:14 226:19 321:16 330:17 338:17 10 110:14 123:16 192:2 224:20 243:22 301:22 302:9 317:20 342:21 10:00 302:10 311:14 318:1 100 90:9 92:2 95:22 96:10 101:19 102:4 103:22 104:8 105:9,22 106:14 109:1 110:9 134:8 100% 166:10 320:12 327:22 330:12 1000 1:11 10-6 303:13 10psi 234:16 10th 309:16 310:1,13,16,17,2 1 311:9,11,12,13,1 7 316:10 317:12,13,14 11 196:15 308:10 11th 308:8 310:2,19,21 311:3,10,13,17 316:10 317:12 12 302:16 308:10 12,000 26:10 42:1 120 215:22 232:15 233:1 12th 308:8,9,12 311:3,5,6,7 315:10 13th 296:17 297:7,8 306:12 308:8,9,13,15 312:2 316:5 317:8 14th 296:17 297:7,9 306:12,20 307:7,19 308:3,14,15 15 10:20 51:2 100:21 112:7 116:10 126:18,22 127:1,4,15 135:12,14 137:2,10,13,14,1 7 138:2 140:10 209:13 291:5 15th 297:9 306:20 307:19 308:3 313:21,22 16 314:2 16th 306:20 307:7 313:21 314:1,3 17 314:2 324:19 17th 309:17,19 310:3 312:3 313:21 314:3,4,7 316:5,20 318:9 18 69:17 18th 309:3,19 310:3 313:21 314:4,7 316:20 318:9 19th 309:3 313:22

315:11 1st 264:20 266:9,17 313:20 314:9,11 316:10,13,20 317:13 318:9,10 2 2 17:4 28:12 65:11 72:6,14 82:17 85:7 87:13 165:9 246:4 317:12,18 321:16 2:00 311:14 2:31:02 127:17 20 19:18 118:9 138:8 2007 250:19 2010 250:20 251:12 2011 227:20 2013 1:14 146:6,10 147:14 151:3,11 251:14 20585 1:12 20th 309:5 21st 309:5,10 319:10 22 75:14 109:11 22-1/2 121:11,19 22nd 319:10 322:10 23 109:1 121:20,22 2-3 294:12 24 75:12 89:7,15 92:15 93:15 95:12 109:1 153:4 24th 312:14

25 33:13,15,19 48:21 75:7 81:18 108:22 109:13 112:6 119:21 121:6,7,11,15 124:3,17 218:18 25,000,000BTU 239:11 25th 312:14 26 81:22 322:20 26th 312:13,15 319:6 322:9,17 324:5,9,12,14 27 322:20 27th 307:12,14 312:15,16 322:9,17 324:11 28th 306:7,9 307:15 311:18 312:16 317:10 324:3,12 29th 306:7,8 307:11,16,20,21 312:6 316:8 317:10 2D 132:18,19 198:19 208:19 2F 120:10 2nd 313:20 316:11,13 317:13 318:9 3 3 87:14 303:14 321:16 338:17,18,20 3:00 302:1,13 30 1:14 28:11 30th 146:6,10Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 2



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 147:14,22 148:8,12,13 149:5,11 150:2,8,11 151:3,11 195:5,7,12 204:13 257:9 271:1 285:18 306:8 307:11,16,20,22 316:9 317:10 318:15 319:8,9,13 31st 146:21 147:3 233:2 289:17 290:2 314:9,11 316:20 318:9 340360 250:19 3A 134:1 4 4 95:6 219:11 321:16 40,000 57:8 43 14:20 431 243:22 4-6 321:18 4A 152:1 154:10 4C 200:9 4e 327:4 4th 304:6 313:6 316:15 5 5 219:1,2 321:16 5:00 302:12,14 310:7 5:18 345:6 50 17:4 47:11 500 16:6 5th 315:10,12 6 6 220:17 321:16 6:00 306:9 307:18 60 25:17 6C 225:11 7 7 140:11,13 321:16 322:19 7:00 303:4 70s 256:8 75 88:5 89:8,13 96:3,6,14,15,16 97:20 102:9,19 116:19 189:6 7th 315:20,21 316:21 318:10 8 8 140:10,13 303:14 321:17 322:19 8:00 302:20 303:11 80 90:2,3 96:15 97:9,20 102:10 83 97:10 8-30-13 146:9 85 97:12,20 100:20 104:3 105:18 106:2 107:6,22 109:4 110:6 118:19 234:22 88 109:5,11 110:6 112:20 122:13,14,17 8th 315:17,20,21 316:21 318:10 9 9:02 1:15 90 100:5 102:21 105:18 106:3 109:4 110:22 112:19 116:22 117:4,7,15,19 118:3,5,10,18,20 119:1,12 120:17,22 121:1,2,5,7,11,1 4,17,19 122:1 123:4,6,11,14,15 124:8 147:17,18 246:10 90% 246:9 327:22 330:12 92 109:1 95 100:5 246:10 95% 246:8 96 109:1 240:3 9th 315:17 A a.m 1:15 303:11,14 AAON 2:16 ABC 334:10 abilities 256:13 ability 89:6,19 92:4 95:8 182:3 231:9 255:6 278:13 able 30:14 33:20,21 40:7,11 53:22 79:5 85:16 89:15 102:2,7,12 113:5 114:2 116:4 117:11 143:21 170:8

172:15,16,18 183:20 208:20 217:16 228:15 234:2 241:7 254:10 270:17 274:12 296:7,9 305:5,14 322:1 323:5 330:6 337:7 ABMA 238:19 239:11,14 240:1 abortion 33:7 absences 120:19 absent 128:3 absolutely 149:6 160:15 194:2 216:12,14 absorb 294:5 abstain 49:19 94:21 95:3,5 111:5 112:2 124:6 202:16,17,20 203:11,14,22 204:6,8 abstained 127:14 abstaining 121:4 abstention 110:1 111:11 119:8 120:8 125:12 128:5 abstentions 49:21 109:21 110:21 111:3,17 116:18 117:1,5 118:6,9,15,17 119:13 120:19 122:8 accept 49:15,18 63:13 88:5Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 3



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 100:14,15 101:2 113:16 163:20 166:6 192:21 272:9 296:8 325:12 326:17,19 acceptable 64:14 80:16 184:4 196:9 248:13 268:19 327:2 335:19 Acceptance 231:15 accepted 325:9 access 12:8 32:19,20 40:8,10 accidents 26:6,11 accommodating 297:16 accomplish 100:3 accomplished 266:12 accordance 37:3 158:21 229:15 231:10 241:12 according 73:15 account 92:19 accurate 215:6 228:16 268:4 346:7 accurately

237:15 ACEEE 198:17 299:3 achieve 43:7,13,20 56:21 68:3 69:20 70:9 71:1,8,9 88:6 94:8 98:10 100:16 101:19 103:22 104:2,5 106:5,7,16 113:6 121:19,22 123:11 167:12 201:17 228:19 234:19 270:4 achieved 168:4 332:15 achieving 29:1 106:6 acknowledge 219:21 acknowledged 196:6 acronym 50:19 across 79:16 115:19 124:2 209:17 257:12 267:18 273:19 act 9:14 14:1,10 25:18 28:20 36:11 39:4,8,11 73:8,10 81:20 82:5 133:16 185:3 188:20 192:19 205:8 220:21 221:14 248:17,20 action 110:10 230:2 328:7,8 331:4 actions 181:2 active 293:17 actively 328:1 330:1 activity 125:11 actual 230:9 235:6,10,20 237:1 actually 5:12 9:17 11:12 12:3 14:3 23:7,19 40:2 57:20 75:2 77:4,19 81:2

91:17 92:22 94:20,22 97:10 98:10 99:6 107:4,17 108:3 116:12 117:12 128:21 129:8 143:7 147:16 154:19 161:9 170:22 173:1,5 176:13 178:16 183:8 185:1 186:9 211:13,16 214:1 222:10 224:7 228:19 237:6 238:13 239:6 241:21 245:22 248:20 267:16 270:12 271:22 272:5 273:21 284:11 288:7 296:13 302:10 320:5,17 325:5,7 340:14,15 ad 144:14 289:8 add 55:12 60:8,17 62:7 63:1 64:1,5 75:9,10 76:5 81:9 130:21 137:4 153:15 157:7 170:10 187:19 188:2 193:5 235:22 243:4,8,10 246:15 254:4 260:21 291:2 322:5 325:11 331:13 340:11,18 added 257:16 337:13 adding 37:9 59:15 60:14 81:12,15 208:19 268:6

addition 69:6 243:9 245:16 248:10 270:6 279:19 additional 37:10 73:14 76:13,15 79:2 94:1 109:16 193:10 214:17 237:14 275:11 278:3 284:14,20 288:1,2 299:14 318:13 326:15 add-on 330:21 address 26:9,20 28:12 32:6 54:14 67:18 84:16 138:18 177:2 182:20 207:21 211:13 219:1 223:3 247:2 284:15 addressed 80:13 185:4 231:14 304:1 336:19 addressing 203:3 214:5 adequately 78:4 114:14 230:4 adjective 65:2 adjectives 71:14 adjust 119:9 335:5 ADM 243:9 244:5,7,9 administration 23:21 198:5 administrative 22:17,18,20,21 25:18 28:20 39:3 214:12Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 4



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 admit 298:18 adopt 251:7 255:20 275:12 282:10 adopted 227:19 256:1 341:17 advance 221:20 223:11 294:13 advantage 90:7 170:4 advantages 116:15 adversarial25:20 adverse 37:6,8 38:5 110:10 210:3,20 211:12 329:11 331:4 advertised 240:3 242:20 advice 13:4,14 36:12 171:3 advised 195:19 334:1 advisory 1:7 9:13,22 10:9,17 13:22 14:1,10 36:9,10,13 39:7 73:8,10 81:20 119:20 133:16 188:20 192:19 220:20 221:14 advocate 97:12 287:18 advocates 113:18 AEDM 61:3 67:1 228:10 235:22 244:1,12,17 245:1 246:4 250:1 253:2,4,17 257:15,21 258:4,7,11,15,21 259:7,8,12,17,19 260:1 261:14 262:1,2,6,22 263:5,9,11,14,17 264:15,19 265:1,8,12,16,20 266:11,22 267:3,12 268:9,12,19,22 269:19 270:4,19 271:7,12,17 272:1,6,13,21 273:6,8,13,18 274:3,22 276:6 277:18 278:13 279:7,8,16 280:17 281:8,9 286:7,17,21 287:16 289:8 306:15 318:15 325:11 AEDM-related 277:8 AEDMs 256:7,13 257:10 277:13,17 286:14 291:14 292:8 AEDM's 312:3,10 affect 32:8 111:18 203:4 206:9,10,11 217:10 218:8 228:2 278:13 affected 24:22 27:2 35:1,2 46:9 108:8,9 113:2 122:21 203:5 218:4 316:16,18 345:1 affectively 80:8 affiliation 7:6 15:7 afraid 90:11 102:3,11

afternoon 38:17 47:22 48:9 53:4 55:15 59:2,15 afterward 189:7 afterwards 274:16 against 49:18 114:5,11 125:9 164:16 169:13,22 204:7 214:6,21 215:7 286:11 287:21 315:13 AGC 132:4 agencies 23:2 30:4,5 34:17 37:20,21 39:6,8 40:22 201:15 206:5 agency24:21,22 25:16,21 26:6,7 28:4,12 29:2,17,18 30:12,13 32:11 34:22 35:3,22 36:8,12 37:4 40:2,5,6,9,16,18, 20 41:21 114:21 158:13 201:21 202:8 205:14,16 206:10 213:8,9 221:13 247:8 248:15,19 291:17 296:18 297:4,10 300:12 337:1,8 339:8 agency's 41:20 158:11 177:14 179:21 agenda 9:4 47:22 ago 28:11 78:22 201:14 314:13 agreed 40:20

49:16 89:16 108:13 120:15 134:13,18,20 135:6 136:17 153:5 157:7,13 160:14 168:3 202:4 210:19 211:1 213:18 221:11 233:10 265:11 295:20 319:15 322:14 333:14 336:9 agreed-to 151:13,16 agreeing 65:21 106:4 108:10 109:5 110:10 173:4,5 182:10 186:20 258:5 262:19 285:20 290:21 330:2 333:5 agreement 21:11 36:20 68:10 84:20 85:4 92:19 93:22 95:6 96:2,8,11,15 98:10,20 102:22 103:8,11 104:9,12 107:16 128:8,12,17 133:9 149:22 155:4,5 165:14,15,20 180:19 190:14 196:11 200:11 202:2 209:5 210:14 224:18 258:10 325:11 333:8,19 344:7 agreements 202:12 311:20Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 5



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 Ah 220:15 ahead 96:22 99:1 101:8 103:13 104:7 105:5 114:22 115:10 117:11 123:2 129:6 139:17 160:17 175:21 183:3 195:3 209:8 234:9 251:19 269:9 314:22 322:14 344:5 Ah-hum 308:1 319:3 AHI 113:15 AHRI 19:5 58:5 93:3 211:18 231:16 239:13 240:12 243:3 250:19 255:17 268:16 275:13,14 air 16:13 17:19 26:7 237:11 Air-Conditioning 2:6,10 15:19 16:12 airflow 63:12 AL 18:7 Aldridge 348:2,13 Alex 2:11 19:13 alignment

96:3 alleviate 39:10 Alliance 3:14 20:10 allow 27:13 73:15 98:4 109:15 110:21 120:17 199:1,2 209:5 228:6 242:6

allowed 95:7 96:14 128:15 188:14 253:20 261:1 298:15 allowing 129:11 158:6 199:7,12,13 203:20 allows 14:2 82:5,19 97:9 already 20:12 72:11 76:17 79:19 86:6 143:16 155:15 159:9 160:19 180:4,8,12 196:5 211:11 212:2,6,16 215:14 221:1 232:11 238:1,5 245:14 263:18 266:2,3 271:6 278:9 286:19 296:3 320:3 321:16 322:3 323:17 alterations 55:10 alternate 76:16 120:12 131:3,9,11,12,15 ,18,20,21 132:5,8 133:1,2,4,10 141:2 200:3 208:20 209:14 344:5 alternates 73:11 128:10 198:21 199:1,2,5,13 207:22 208:1,16,21 209:2,11 210:7,9,11

alternative 29:17 43:18 85:22 165:14 178:8,16 182:15 187:20 188:2 228:8 263:8 264:6 296:12 304:3 335:10 344:3 alternatives 43:7,15,17 45:11 128:18 177:2 212:13 298:11 am 5:12 18:4 29:20 40:18 41:1 45:17 58:11 66:3 134:20 157:22 164:3 167:3 169:8 170:17 171:2 176:1 181:21 219:16 226:19 238:13 243:9 287:8 289:11 301:22 316:12,15 324:2 329:7 346:7 347:2 348:2 349:2 350:2 351:2 ambiguity

192:4 amend 209:12 amended 344:8 amendments 72:9 American 3:10 18:1 238:13 307:17 among 82:12 86:5 112:4 177:1 190:14 amount 92:8 99:19,21 247:21 258:17 266:11 279:14 331:12

Amrane 2:6 16:11 71:17,20 102:5 132:18,22 133:5,11 146:19,20 147:7 170:10 211:18 232:17 234:3,6 243:3,18 259:4 285:10 290:17 293:1 308:12,20 309:18,21 310:3,6 311:6,9 323:12 AMSTRONG 171:19 analysis 152:2 156:14 157:6,12 258:20 and/or 120:19 165:10 ANDERSON 175:19 angry 163:18 announce 14:5 144:18 announced 221:2,5 announcement 54:21 306:19 announcing 143:22 answer 93:8 130:8 171:4 176:6 186:6 236:7 264:3 269:7 317:17 answered 284:11 answers 27:7 326:17,22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 6



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 anticipated 200:16 anticipation 185:9 anybody 14:8 40:3 50:4,9 52:5 59:6,21 61:20 62:4,19 72:20 73:4,17 75:3 79:13 80:16 81:4,8 82:10 86:2 87:12 91:4,7 121:9 127:16 129:5 130:21 133:12 135:9 138:2,3,12 139:5,10 145:15 146:4,17 155:9 166:12 169:4 170:12 199:4 203:1 211:19 213:6 220:22 221:17 279:2,12 304:2 326:19 328:15,18 335:5 anyhow 299:7 336:15 anymore31:11 137:9 207:14 anyone 50:6 51:17 298:18 anyplace 336:10 anything 11:12 21:17,21 41:18 51:17 62:1 65:21 73:10 97:8 103:9 113:6 130:21 132:14 138:3,15 144:12 154:15 160:2 163:5,12 172:19 178:17 201:4 205:10 220:11 238:6 251:18 253:9 258:20 284:3 290:19 295:1 315:16 320:22 340:12 anything's 304:22 anyway 5:13 6:11 24:7 75:11 209:20 276:19 343:19 anywhere 28:20 215:9 216:9 APA 37:3,5 apologize 8:8 apparently 268:20 appear 87:13 145:21 215:8 appearance 81:13 appears 50:5 134:4 apple 94:1 334:10 appliance 1:6 11:9 15:2 appliances 2:13 22:14 applied 18:22 applies 83:20 253:22 264:20 apply 9:14 10:1,16 126:5 189:15 190:3 244:20 267:13 281:12,17 applying 26:17 appoint 76:2,10 appointed 9:21 73:3,6,7,9 80:7 133:14 143:12 appoints 76:8 appreciate 69:11 79:6 219:22 approach 9:3

39:20 47:3 145:22 154:12 appropriate 9:4 31:21,22 139:6 141:22 271:9 288:19 approval 280:13 approve 82:21 219:5 approximately 307:7 April 1:14 arbitrary 138:9 ARC 138:11 area 31:10 197:3 239:20 248:18 areas 60:12 94:7 230:14 aren't 119:5 203:13 304:11 argue 253:14 332:16 334:2 arguing 66:8 97:1 argument 93:5 205:8 334:1 arguments 121:16 218:3 arm 334:21,22 Armstrong 3:20 20:2 59:8 61:12 79:11 119:3,7,15 122:4 130:14,18 144:4,13 147:6,8 149:1 150:4,15 171:13 172:4,10 173:11 176:8 181:4,11,14 184:20 190:4 196:13 223:7 225:20

232:5,13,19 233:5,14 234:4,8 235:18 236:1,5 243:6,17 244:14 247:4 249:13 250:11 251:7,13,15 252:5,17 253:4 254:18 255:8 259:1 261:4 262:21 263:3,10,15,20 264:1,7,14 266:19 270:12 276:4 277:9 278:3 292:5,18,21 293:8 294:19 295:2,7,10,15,19 300:5 308:4 311:22 313:1 316:4,7,14 317:20 318:19 319:3,7 323:20 325:20 326:7 338:3,6 340:17 arose 208:3 arrange 297:11 arrangements 296:19 ASAP 312:3 Asher 251:9 Ashley 3:20 20:2 59:8 79:6 119:3 149:1 233:16,20 235:22 242:16 244:14 250:5,15 254:18 256:3 257:14 261:3 269:3 272:2 277:12,15 291:2 311:22 313:1Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 7



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 316:2 340:15 aside 12:14 85:21 116:18 196:14 276:15 323:18 as-is 279:18 ASME 203:10 aspect159:10 211:10 228:19 aspects 56:4 234:1 236:1 ASRAC 3:19 5:3 6:10 8:10,11,20 9:3 15:1 20:7 59:11,12,18 73:6 77:2 87:19,22 88:3,11,16,22 89:9 93:7,17 96:3,17 98:1 99:16 102:12 116:18 119:10 126:14 146:22 147:9 149:2,4,7,10 150:6,7,20 151:12,15,18 158:19 160:18 176:13 180:5 184:12,13,17,18, 21 185:1,13,14 186:3,4,5,8,10,1 2,14,18 187:4,6,10,15 188:5,7,8,9,13,1 4,17,21 189:4,8,11,22 190:13,20 191:9,13,15,22 192:5,8,12,13 193:6 194:15 195:14 196:14,15,17 197:3 200:17 210:17 214:1 220:13 280:12 281:10,15 298:13 299:4,8,9 300:7 308:19 309:10,11 313:4 314:21 318:20,21 323:16,19 337:16,17,21 338:14 341:1 ASRAC's 312:1 337:22 assembled 8:13 assistance 14:15 Assistant 18:4 22:11 35:6 Association 2:12 16:13 19:14 238:14 assume 64:21 71:8 85:6 129:6,11 145:21 146:20 164:6 185:16 200:20 208:10 216:21 264:14 268:18 269:14 278:10 294:14 assumed 128:2 210:10 assuming 69:19 99:7 158:1 181:21 186:3 272:7,9 300:1 303:16 311:19 316:6 325:9 assumption 121:6 192:8 268:22 270:5 275:12 319:12 assumptions 99:5 assurance 83:11 276:13 277:3 280:7 281:3

Atmosphere 309:2 attack 26:1 42:8,9,17 attempts 249:15 attend 46:20 83:13 120:10,13 128:11 131:6,19 142:15 279:3 attendance 72:17 82:13,17 85:18 131:1 attended 45:20 attention 33:18 52:13 120:9 attorney 16:8 23:20 attributes 55:6 AU 306:10 audience 73:18 83:1 86:2 audio 227:2 august 96:19 146:6,10,21 147:3,22 148:12,13 149:5,11 150:2,8,11 151:3,11 195:5,7,12 204:13 257:9 271:1 301:5 315:1,18,19 316:21 318:10,13,15 322:1 authority 39:3,6,9 40:3 41:3 183:10 205:17 authorized 139:8 141:4

authorizing 236:11 automatically 119:8 automobile 26:11 automobiles 22:14 availability 222:12 297:17 available 221:21 222:20 226:6,16 239:2 245:17 263:8,9 293:11,12,13 296:13 297:15 305:17 avenue 1:11 252:22 avoidance 64:6 aware 23:15 40:18,21 41:1 102:14 199:7 202:12,13 203:9 206:8 208:5 away 62:1 65:16 99:13 107:10,12 114:10 165:21 170:3 213:8 275:22 322:19 332:5 341:22 awful 192:4 B backed 286:11 background 15:16 21:13,16 backing 286:19 bad 7:16 42:19 69:10 210:22 bags 26:7Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 8



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 balance 34:7 90:19 127:3 159:4 167:13 206:5 217:14 218:12 balanced 287:21 balancing 206:8 334:4 Ballo 2:8 16:8 55:21 60:22 64:18 68:14 83:5 90:22 92:10 95:12 98:22 107:10 109:14 111:21 112:15 114:8 127:9 143:6,18 144:5 152:8,21,22 212:18 214:4,11 222:10,11 223:16 224:4 246:17,18 247:10 248:1 288:7,13 342:16 343:4 ballot 126:20 bar 81:14 98:14 Barhydt 2:9 18:3 23:16 58:21 60:18 64:11 66:14 70:2 75:5 76:13,19 81:11,16 82:2 94:5 96:22 98:8 110:6,18 128:20 130:3,7 136:21 138:17 139:3 141:11 142:5 148:6,10 151:5 152:5,9,12 153:3 155:17 158:14 159:5,18 160:6,10 161:7,13,16,18 162:6 164:13 170:21 172:22 173:17 177:6 180:3 181:7 184:5 194:20,22 200:22 210:13 212:8 215:12 227:18 229:11 231:4,17 232:1 233:22 235:9 236:10 237:4 242:14 244:4 248:14 249:7 251:1,4 257:14 259:3 261:3 269:13,17 272:14 273:11,16 274:13 275:1,5,17 277:18 278:6 287:7,13 288:14,21 289:2 290:1,4,6,9 303:19 304:9 315:12 318:11,17,21 319:1,4,18 322:6,17,20 323:1,14 324:2,11,16,20 325:5,22 326:6,11,15 328:21 331:7 332:3,8 335:20 342:11,18 344:13 barking 79:20 barred 81:12 base 14:12 based 30:3 47:12 106:15 121:3,5 185:15,19 189:9 190:22 191:15 196:6 198:15

205:13 206:5 249:17 267:3 274:10 275:11 284:10,12 285:3 292:16 294:3,4 321:17 325:2,11 326:22 329:22 330:6 341:18 basic 55:10 241:5 245:20,21 250:9 256:5 257:11,19 268:8 319:20 basically 10:13 13:13 20:22 39:16 53:15,17 167:21 174:22 177:18 192:12 238:16 267:12 340:7 basis 150:3 156:22 157:9,18 158:9 159:8 168:3 177:12 178:4 179:11,19 203:20 226:1,4 260:17 268:1 Baum 335:12 344:1,2 Bauman 2:10 15:18 62:9,15 63:5 65:3 69:4 79:12 103:17,18 109:6,8,20 115:14 121:18 167:17 172:1,5,11 174:2,10,13,15 232:7 269:9 271:5 274:4 286:8 335:14 bears 67:16 beat 95:11 164:11 beaten 95:10

beautifully 165:22 become 57:9 332:6 337:19 becomes 86:19 93:19 121:21 233:12 begin 99:16 262:19 277:15 beginning 161:8 162:5 170:19 191:7 193:14 201:14 250:4 323:22 behalf 8:10 40:9 64:3 108:15 133:2 159:15 162:1 behind 51:19 56:8 77:18 115:5 215:3 believe 33:2 62:5,6 69:16 77:15 78:1 80:16 81:21,22 94:6 102:6,10 136:11 140:15 146:7 228:22 236:13,18 261:17 264:12 265:2,4 272:16 274:15 337:3 believes 66:9 belongs 66:9,12 beneficial 63:2 benefit 341:13 BERHYDT 343:11 besides 30:6 99:18 234:1 244:12 340:12Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 9



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 best 30:20 42:7 99:20 104:14 154:13 196:21 206:21 207:7 210:15 223:12 226:5 252:3 284:3 285:11 286:12 322:16 335:7,9 better 8:4,5 26:13 27:12,14 28:3,7 29:8 30:14 33:2 34:7 35:14 38:22 44:2,3,4,20 47:3,4 49:14 65:4 66:11 113:11 121:19 122:2 136:15 165:18 180:18 211:16 216:16 251:16 265:19 267:1 272:6 287:1 305:16 326:5 328:11 beyond 148:21 257:4 264:11 299:22 314:15 321:19 bigger 6:19 bike 310:11 Bill 4:6 19:17 45:15 Bill's 42:14 bind 193:19 binding 71:21 81:20,21 128:12,14,22 129:2 164:1 191:13,14 329:1 bit 7:10 9:8 27:17 29:12 34:20 44:20 48:15 61:9 67:1,16 76:10 80:21 88:15 89:10,13 98:11,15 99:1,7 100:6 102:1 108:21 110:13 116:7 123:4 124:1 139:13 147:4,21 156:16 163:8 172:13 191:7 193:13 201:22 206:2 209:18 221:2 224:17 240:19 242:3,11,12 261:8 264:10 292:1 bite 94:1 biweekly 226:4 blast 144:22 145:12 blew 335:3 blindfolded 286:4 bloc 49:6 113:20,21,22 block 96:2 98:4 113:5 287:17 blocked 113:9 blushing 119:17 board 181:18 body 96:19 98:4 110:12 160:17 Boesenberg 2:11 19:13 bog 73:19 boiler 16:5 234:15,18 238:14,16,21 239:17,20 240:2 boilers 16:3,6 18:9,12 19:4 54:8 154:14 234:14,21 238:22 239:15,16 240:3 241:3,7,10 books 263:18 289:16 314:16 319:5 Boss 4:6 19:18 bosses 197:12 bothered 165:5 bottom 237:18 325:19 bought 237:6 bound 196:3 bounds 183:6 249:9 Bowley 2:13 20:11 102:18 175:4 box 70:21 Bradford 3:17 20:9 brainstorming 325:6 break 6:16,17 38:18 45:6 46:2,11 48:18 51:2 146:15 167:4 171:3 176:22 184:11 296:3 318:3 Breaking 313:18 breakout 45:18 break-out 46:15 breaks 47:1 breathe 9:20 Brice 2:13 20:10 brief 6:9 7:12 15:7 278:17,20

briefed 199:3 209:2 briefing 9:12 briefings 13:8 35:17 bring 28:16 31:3 38:5 46:13,21 51:4 64:16 68:2 79:18 139:22 269:4 270:17 271:3,9 272:3 276:6,11 277:18 282:4,12 292:8 308:7 324:7 bringing 24:20 69:11 261:15 265:15 285:12 brings 85:7 133:18 142:11 broad 56:21 72:15 102:22 325:18 broadening 59:16 broader 54:3 89:10 299:18 broadly 58:22 244:6,10 246:21 325:14 brought 30:9,18 84:6 189:5 218:13 264:8 300:4 Bruce 103:1 249:13 Bryce 102:18 BTS2000 234:14,16 241:13 Btu 275:21 buddy 19:19Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 10



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 budget 40:15,16 237:20 build 116:4 240:8 268:5 335:15 building 1:10 6:7,12,13,21 15:2 269:8 287:17 built 19:3 54:10 70:12 325:16,17 bullet 325:18 bunch 38:21 116:10 242:12 334:8 bundle 257:10 burden 228:1 247:17 burdensome 68:18 burned 91:7 business 12:10,13,15 18:22 88:17 112:3 198:5 203:5 224:20 247:22 butts 160:1 C C.F.R 243:22 cafeteria 6:19 7:3 calculated 267:15 calculation 246:6 258:16 calculations 246:3 258:18 calendar 305:16 324:8 calendars 300:4 306:1 344:4 cancel 305:18 319:5 322:6 capability 238:21 239:1,3,12,18 capacities 240:8 capacity 63:10,12 234:19 235:2 Capital 1:22 caption 56:8 capture 232:3 234:9 captured 57:17 257:18 car 298:16 299:4 care 127:11,19 155:16 158:7 185:17 338:20 careful 191:10 249:9 carefully 51:10 Carol 351:2,13 carry 12:15 220:15 carrying 10:2 cars 26:7 298:17 case 26:4 39:19 40:18 75:22 91:4 92:11 114:12 147:4 160:12 164:7 171:18 174:10 177:10,14,21 179:16 183:19,21 184:16 185:11 191:9 192:10 194:8 210:15 228:4 276:18 278:4 280:9,10 284:3,4 286:10 323:16

cases 10:12 31:21,22 146:12 178:6 179:22 201:5 252:10 cast 121:6 127:13 153:11,12 161:22 162:15 casting 133:2 casts 162:15 catch 250:18 302:2 category 62:22 299:14 caucus 80:9 caucused 84:4 cause 117:12 207:13 270:2 causing 331:11 cave 109:10 caveat 332:12 cell 298:17 certain 5:22 35:19 67:3 77:1,3 94:14 111:17 116:2 124:14 125:11 197:3 208:2 239:3 240:8 244:2 258:17 263:1 266:11 268:13 295:4 339:22 certainly 78:10 94:7 164:11 199:2,13 241:8,12 258:9 274:7 331:16 certainty 177:19 214:8 281:19 certificate 268:4 346:1 347:1 348:1 349:1

350:1 351:1 certification 54:17 55:5,8,11 56:2,4,15,18 58:9,17 60:3,4,9,11,14,2 1 61:1,4,7,8,13 62:8 63:3,4 64:16 68:4,17,19 227:20 230:10,20 231:16 232:16 234:12 241:2,20 242:3,6,9,16,21 243:5,11 246:20 247:13,15,17,20 250:2 252:21 256:15 258:2,3,11 262:14 265:8 270:3 281:14 286:22 287:8,15 288:8 325:17 certifications 234:7 certified 55:7 241:21 260:11 certify228:12 262:6,17 286:17 346:3 347:2 348:2 349:2 350:2 351:2 certifying 5:22 cetera 49:5 73:4 chairs 33:17 challenge 69:22 92:1 108:17 162:3 163:4 214:13 216:22 277:15 336:1 challenged 43:2Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 11



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 328:2 challenges 333:9 chance 53:7 68:7 72:5 97:21 165:18 196:2 207:16 245:6 299:9 344:10 chances 79:20 195:21 change 51:14 52:1,7,15 59:5 72:1,20 74:13 75:3 87:7 101:18 104:14,16 105:7 106:9 107:15 125:3 134:11 138:3 147:11 155:17,19 156:6 179:1 190:1,4,13 193:6 197:4 200:4 217:7 253:21,22 268:2 276:2 282:11 283:3 295:22 329:11 338:18 340:11 changed 83:7 85:4,7 154:13 187:16,17 196:3 213:21 220:14,18 321:7 changes 37:18 72:22 73:4 80:10 82:15 173:2 195:13 213:20 264:6 280:20 282:17,22 299:9,19 337:4 339:7,8,12,13 340:5 changing 59:15 62:19 82:7 84:19 180:17 196:22 340:3 341:20

characterization 76:22 Charles 2:19 80:19 Charlie 16:21 53:12,13 80:19 86:14,15 125:5,6 127:10 180:21 186:16 195:3 204:1,2 214:19,20 221:18 267:8 272:21,22 274:11 281:21,22 293:14 342:5 Charlie's 274:5 chartered 36:14 check 197:19 303:9 322:11,12 337:20 checking 241:21 Cheryl 347:2,13 child 194:5,6 chime 10:21 232:14 choose 194:3 244:2 263:7 chose 81:2 Christine 350:2,13 circle 76:10 268:12 circulated 49:22 circulating 321:2 circumstances 41:13 263:1 civil 230:1 claimed 248:2 clarification 66:3 108:22 110:19 171:1 225:14 250:7 337:15 339:2 340:15 clarify 59:9,19 141:22 215:5 339:5 clarifying 197:1 class 243:14,19,21 244:1,11 250:10 253:21 306:9 classes 47:11 57:8 154:10 244:3,20 271:11,13 273:20 classic 44:17 classification 252:13 classifications 251:21 252:1 clause 183:18 214:2 clauses 184:2 cleaning 343:18 cleanup 291:5 clear 24:7 39:15 122:11 134:8 160:22 214:16 274:9 314:10 342:21 clearer 73:22 82:8 215:1 clearly15:5 24:16 45:8 113:19 139:13 Cleaver-Brooks 3:6 16:5 54:19 71:4 234:11 241:8 Cleveland 16:17

Climate3:4 close 99:3 112:4 117:10,16 166:11 271:17 closed 78:22 278:10 closely 343:19 closer 63:17 102:21 195:16 266:15 Co 3:5 Code 241:15 codes 15:2 coffee 6:17 Cohen 3:22 20:16 23:6,11 40:15 50:11,14 52:9 74:22 129:17,18 130:6 131:20 132:2,4,9,12,15 133:6 135:16 148:11 155:4 171:16 172:8 173:14,22 174:8,11,14,21 175:9 183:3,8,9 193:17 194:2,5,12 199:9,16 223:5,12 224:1,6 226:22 227:5 264:18 265:3,9,15,18 278:1,17,20 279:8,11 280:10 281:5 282:3 284:9,22 294:16 296:4 297:14,20 303:9 320:16,19,22 340:14Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 12



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 343:15,21 344:16 cold 256:9 colleague 206:17 collectively

114:7 collects 247:13 Collin 3:18 collisions 26:5,11 42:2 combination 304:15 312:16,17 combinations 260:12 combining 103:19 comes 8:15 13:11 21:19 36:13 45:16 86:17 105:12 117:1 154:7,20 164:16 165:4 186:4 187:15 237:3 251:8 252:18 265:8 272:21 273:5 280:11 333:16 343:16 comfortable 6:4 40:12 49:8 57:14 60:13,21 80:14 81:6 82:7,12 83:1 85:3 117:13 122:12 135:22 140:18 142:2,11 144:7 149:14 151:22 166:4 192:16 198:15 231:6,11 288:7 295:3 296:14 303:13 305:1 313:19 coming 36:2 41:8,22 42:1 66:22 70:7,9 79:22 80:20 98:8,13 99:4 113:13 116:5 143:16 164:9 178:19 206:6 253:7,9 255:18 258:10 268:1 277:4,16 283:9,18 287:22 301:14 comma 141:18,20 173:12 comment 37:4,11 63:1 95:20 100:19 102:22 105:15 182:4 198:18,20 202:6,18,21 203:8,16 204:5,9 205:8,16 212:5,6 213:5,7,8,11 249:11,13,14 258:13 265:11 266:6 275:10 278:10 279:19 282:19 283:3,5 285:4 293:1 commented 260:6 commenters 341:21 commenting 340:8 comments 26:15 28:3 37:6,9,12,17 38:4,6 51:16 64:8 79:15,16 85:16 88:7 98:7 102:17 158:3 161:21 163:5 164:4 168:11 178:21 180:11,12

181:1,5,8 182:16 186:20 189:15,22 191:17 193:11 198:15 199:6 200:9,13,21 201:4 202:2 205:22 206:18 207:6 210:4,20 211:2,12,17,20 212:2,15 213:15 214:18 215:3,14,16 221:21 222:16 228:20 238:15 268:15 274:22 275:4 276:7 278:9,15 284:10,12 285:1,6 286:13 292:11,16 294:22 327:15 328:22 329:11 331:4 332:7 336:12,22 337:9 339:4,7,21 340:2,8,16,21 342:2 commerce 55:9 commercial 5:22 6:1 15:20 16:2,19,22 17:4,7,15,18,21 18:8,11,12,22 19:7 21:18 54:7,17 58:10 69:8 97:5 137:1,3 154:13 237:11 239:10 241:3 243:11 246:7,8,10,12 252:9 commit 159:13 172:15,16 190:22 226:11

290:11 commitment 159:7 202:7,8 329:3,17 commitments 164:1 206:22 331:13 committed 98:15 101:10 200:12 201:15 212:11 263:16 committee 1:7 6:10 8:10 9:14 10:3 11:2 12:12,22 13:2,3,10,20,22 14:1,10 20:5,7 23:16 31:1 36:9,10,11,14,16 37:15,17,19 38:6,15 39:8 40:11 51:6 52:3,14 55:16 59:11,13 68:3 72:16 73:2,5,6,8,9,10,1 1,17,21 74:4,21 75:8,12 76:4,5 77:8 78:6 81:7,20 82:1,19,20 84:19 85:9,12 86:18 87:19,22 88:3,11,16 95:21 98:2 99:8 114:15 117:15 119:20 120:13 125:12 126:5 127:20 128:11,17 131:14 132:20 133:3,14,16 139:9,11 140:20 141:5,6 145:20Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 13



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146:1,8 147:13 148:3,4 149:3,12 150:21 166:10 176:14,17 184:13 185:19,21 186:1 188:11,20 192:19 193:20 194:11 208:2,10,11,13 215:4 219:20 220:12,21 221:14 222:7 226:21 232:22 233:10 270:14,18 276:5,20 277:10,19 279:16,20 280:12 281:9 292:6 293:19 320:14 327:21,22 328:4,7 329:21 330:10 340:7 343:17,18 344:9 345:5 committees 9:22 10:9,11,17 203:11 committee's 10:14 12:15,16 common 250:12 communicate 194:15 305:5 communicating 217:21 communication 65:9 145:9 communications 64:4 192:10 194:16 community 33:1 companies 11:6,7,9 197:13 255:14 company 1:22 2:21 11:5,15 15:6 16:1 20:14 46:8 77:14 80:12 108:9 111:4 197:13 238:22 241:8 247:9 249:6 company's 11:11 comparable 16:7 competitors 108:5 complete 241:10 255:12 347:7 348:7 349:7 350:7 351:7 completed 253:13 273:6,7,14 completely 79:21 128:16 162:1 197:4 210:4 284:15 288:9,15 complex 204:21 321:9 compliance 28:22 55:22 56:5,15,18,19 60:4,10 61:8,14,15 62:8 229:18 230:1,10 246:22 251:10 252:21 264:6 266:10 285:22 compliant 228:13 complicated 41:12 176:19 273:4 comply 29:14 68:6 163:6 complying 69:21

component 268:4,6,10 componentry 54:9 components 267:14 comprehensive 50:15 compromise 33:8 334:13 computer 57:20 Conanan 350:2,13 Conceivably 302:9 concept 26:3 108:13 207:2 concepts 61:17 concern 30:1 81:11 97:10 127:9 154:3 155:16 185:3,8 204:18,22 209:20 212:19 214:5,20 223:16 230:12 232:4 271:7,18 286:15 327:13 concerned 71:15 137:11 185:20,22 239:11 261:22 concerns 39:10 51:17 53:10 67:3 73:18 92:18 135:11 156:7 157:9 177:3 184:8 218:1 228:20 248:6 263:13 266:13 292:12 concise 215:6 conclude 140:12 150:9,18 151:3,10 concluded 222:13 345:6 conclusion 6:4 27:5 conclusions 340:1 concrete 177:9 178:18 concur 96:5 159:3 218:10 285:16 327:17 concurrence 73:16 74:10 81:6 82:8 83:7 84:19 128:2 134:7 139:12,14 conditional 281:6 conditioners 16:14 237:11 conditioning 17:19 conditions 234:19 235:3,5,7 conducive 239:17 conduct 12:12 231:9 conducting 260:20 conference 14:4 33:16 217:21 218:14 confidence 231:9 246:8 247:11 confident 315:9 confidential 247:22 confined 38:22 56:4Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 14



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 conflict 10:2 confronting 167:12 confuse 135:22 confused 58:6 108:1 164:3,18 280:15 confusing 136:4,11 confusion 51:20 80:13 167:9 Congratulations 129:7 Congress 31:2 39:10 161:1 connection 187:3 consensus 9:4 21:9,13 25:9,10,12 30:3,7,12 32:11 36:17 39:1,21 44:4 45:2 48:6,7,12,14,20, 22 49:1,7 50:2,5,7 52:19 54:15 55:17 58:9,17 60:3 62:5,6 63:15 64:13 70:3,12,13,17 71:2,5,9 74:11,17 81:7 82:1,8 83:8 85:1,3,5 87:13,15,19 88:9,13,22 89:21 90:1,3,9 92:2 93:21 94:13 96:10 99:9,10,11,13 101:12,13,18,19 102:4,15 103:21 104:12,13,18 105:4,10,13 106:1,5,6,7,11,1 9,21 107:11,18 108:22 112:4 113:7 114:9,10 115:17 116:4,19 117:9 123:1 125:2,19 126:3 127:20 134:1,4,6,16 140:2,3 145:22 146:2 150:10 157:2 158:1 163:9 171:8,10,18,19,2 1 173:10,13,15 174:1,8,22 175:1,2,12 179:1,7 180:4,7 181:15 184:18,22 189:6 198:13 200:20 201:16,17 210:15 211:5 213:12,18,19,22 215:9 217:3,13 220:5 259:22 291:18 298:22 312:10 320:9,12 328:8 329:4,9,22 330:5 331:18 332:11,16 333:3,8,19 343:1 consent 157:1 168:21 169:5 170:4,5 195:16 200:6 202:1 consenter

332:6 consenting 332:7 consequence 265:19 conservation 113:18

consider 49:22 51:11 93:8 94:11 100:4 101:7 114:18 159:15,16 162:18 163:13 166:5,7 167:14 168:4 169:11,16 172:18,20 173:5,6 174:6 175:5,6 176:17 177:22 178:3,8 179:18 191:1 200:9 204:16 215:10 292:6,9,12 312:9 336:11,22 considerable 41:17 consideration 25:1,2 70:19 154:6 173:3 177:4 187:21 250:17 254:20 255:17 considered 108:12 176:5 203:17 204:16 232:21 285:17 considering 64:13 119:13 200:12 284:19 335:7,9 considers 176:2 consist 135:12 consistent 158:11 160:3 177:13 179:21 209:17 342:12 constantly 113:9 constituent's 87:10 constitute 258:14

constitutes 260:10 constitutional 32:21 constrain 291:22 constraints 100:13 336:13 constructive 8:16 9:1 construed 128:6 consultant 238:13 Consultants 2:17 19:12 20:11 Consulting 3:9,18,21 4:7 19:21 20:1 consuming 31:20 consumption 55:7 contact 11:17 contacts 38:9 contain 186:4 CONT'D 3:1 4:1 contemplate 197:20 contest 182:3,4,5 context 135:21 165:4 180:6 212:16 235:15 244:5,7 257:6 continual 192:10 continue 83:12 117:22 146:3 149:9 184:1 199:19 contract 12:3 contracts 41:18 contrary 205:22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 15



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 contributions 86:7 control25:9 191:4 270:18 283:22 334:16,17 335:21 controls 3:4 230:19 controversy 256:5 conundrum 257:11 convene 26:8 36:8 convened 27:11 convener 34:22 36:3,8 conveners 35:16 convening 36:4 39:13 40:7 41:7 44:9 77:15 conventional 258:18 conversation 21:1,3 107:6 237:19 255:1 276:3 278:17,21 279:4 330:7 337:12 341:19 conversations 47:20 277:16 convince 114:13 115:21,22 cooling 235:1 copy 51:22 255:15 343:12 corners 6:13 Corp 3:17 corporate 331:14 Corporation 3:3,12 17:7 19:16 20:9 215:20

correct 84:13 94:5,18 95:9 131:4 132:9 135:5,7 144:6 174:2 241:22 251:6 258:22 264:1 279:11 289:11 347:7 348:7 349:7 350:7 351:7 corrected 225:9 correctly 93:9 230:17,18 231:1 corridors 6:15 cost 43:10,14 236:7 244:16 246:12 costly 31:19 212:5 costs 331:14 Council 3:10 18:1 counsel 9:9 18:5 22:11 171:3 counsel's 9:11 20:17 23:22 count 116:18 119:8 120:7 counted 33:17 110:1 countering 156:21 counting 119:12 counts 168:20 couple 5:4,13 15:7 30:22 39:2 125:7 215:3 226:14 245:10 293:15 295:5 305:12 306:14 321:3,13 322:4 course 24:3 44:12 154:21 280:10 299:11 300:12 court7:6 100:22 131:22 136:6,10 162:3 205:15 212:20 221:12 223:13 225:2 278:19 291:10 333:4 346:1,2,14 347:3,5 348:3,5 349:3,5 350:3,5 351:3,5 cover61:8 62:2 77:3 154:8 252:20 268:13 300:6 313:20 318:15 covered 55:20 77:1 78:5,6 152:3,10 230:4 251:18 272:8 covering 304:13 covers 60:11 72:15 76:17 122:1 145:20 250:4 300:7 craft 218:16 crafted 51:9 crazy 114:13,14 115:22 116:1 create 81:13 83:21 144:22 228:1 created 34:13 291:6 crew 291:5 criminal 10:4 criteria 63:18 64:12 critical5:20 8:21 163:7 164:21 269:2 272:4 286:7,18

crossing 127:15 crucial 262:3 crude 336:14 crunch 67:13 86:8 99:17 145:6 CSA 3:13 16:16 curious 69:13 224:6 current 227:21 228:2 236:10 245:12 250:22 252:12 255:16 263:6 289:17 currently 251:22 252:10 custom 19:3 78:11,18 custom-built 240:5 customers 245:18 customized 240:11 cut 88:21 Cymbalsky 3:19 5:2,7,11 7:14,16,21 8:1,5 9:7 14:16,22 18:14,19 20:3 64:3 66:18 71:11 75:7,10,13,17 84:1,13 88:2,8 94:17 95:9 119:22 142:22 144:11,21 145:16 147:15,16 148:7 170:15,18 171:6 186:7 189:3 220:5,11,15 224:11 296:20 297:1 342:20Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 16



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 343:2 Cymblasky 120:2 D Daikin 2:22 18:21 Dan 3:22 11:18 14:14 15:15 18:14 20:15,16 24:11 27:14 34:19 36:21 40:15 44:8 50:14 74:20 81:16 129:18 132:3 165:12 183:9 193:21 199:7,17 220:18 223:4 227:8 280:15 282:16 298:2 320:13 340:11 344:8 Dane 2:14 17:20 131:1 Dan's 339:20 data 230:10 241:9,11 242:8 245:15 248:12 249:19 255:12 267:13,20 273:16,17 274:3 275:13,15 276:8 database 247:13 255:5 date 32:13 146:6,10 147:12,13,16 148:22 149:16 150:16 151:12,18,19 197:6 225:1 237:5 243:11 285:22 288:3 295:4,6 297:22 314:17 316:3,18 347:13 348:13 349:13 350:13 351:13 dates 146:6 296:13 297:6 298:10 305:15 314:19 322:19 day 15:1 34:10 40:10 53:21 55:13 65:7 71:18 94:19 95:18 96:13 250:12 279:6 293:6,20 301:22 302:1,3,9,11,19, 22 303:1,6,13,15 307:12 311:8,12 315:1,2 319:2,8 322:5 323:5,8,13 324:13 329:10,18 336:20 341:16,17 days 147:17,18 215:22 217:4 224:20 226:14 232:15 233:2 278:11 293:21 294:10,12,13 295:5 296:16 299:1 300:10 301:12,13,17 302:6,7,8 303:16 305:6 308:6 310:13 311:3 312:17 313:22 316:5 321:14,18 322:19 337:12 Day's 307:14 DC 1:12 dead 58:5 305:6 deadline 32:7 34:8,13 68:4 69:12 146:5 147:9 148:2,15 195:6,7 232:15 233:2 257:8 262:20 266:9,10,17 271:1 283:7 284:2 286:11,21 287:4 288:8 289:6,10,15,17 290:3,7 295:9 deadlines 69:20 206:8 deadline's 263:10 Deadlines 342:22 deal 59:17 61:14 87:20 165:8 204:17 231:9 253:15 320:16 323:18 324:18 326:2 dealing 47:19 63:18 271:20 dean 4:6 19:17 22:16 death 95:10 debating 217:6 December 233:2 285:18 289:16 290:2 decide 25:8,11 32:2 38:7,17,18,19,20 49:9 53:3 59:5 71:22 103:5 104:19,22 106:7 107:3 126:11 147:9 159:11 169:11 173:21 219:18 266:3 268:2 270:14 276:22 278:2 282:9 284:16

291:7 336:21 337:12 339:7 decided 40:7,20 79:1 138:1 164:7 165:9 278:22 279:16 343:7 decides 147:8 154:12 190:13 300:9 decision 34:17 40:9,17 41:4 44:8 87:14 88:6 99:19 100:2 104:20 105:3 110:4,12 140:21 146:14 169:19 204:1 285:1 289:7 decisionmaking 216:16,17 decisions 27:2 36:22 40:4 44:7 48:19 98:16 126:8,13 139:9 140:19 141:4,17 329:4 338:16 decorum 21:3 deemed 154:1 defeating 43:8 defend 333:18 defense 333:22 defer 53:7 193:16 define 48:14 49:6 53:18 61:6 71:3 81:2 101:12,13 102:3 120:8 139:13 245:3 defined 62:6 103:21 171:11 175:1,12 201:17Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 17



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 defines 131:20 definitely 105:18 245:3 definition 88:12 180:7 211:5 243:9,14 250:9 253:3 254:5 257:15 275:8,9 degrees 234:22 delay 34:10 69:16 119:15 143:18 269:4,8 delays 67:2 delegate 40:3 41:3 delegated 186:10 delete 149:17,22 151:21 178:2 327:8,18 331:8 deleted 76:19 128:4 321:7 deleting 329:6 deletion 331:10 deliberated 14:6 deliberately75:1 demonstrate 258:21 demonstrated 258:17 demonstration 241:20 Denver309:14 department 1:9 2:9 3:20,22 12:9,14 13:11,20 22:13 23:3,17,18,19 24:1,2,5 28:10 33:5 55:8 89:20 92:15,16 94:8,11,15 95:17 115:5,11 139:6 158:15,19 159:9,15 160:11,14,19 162:4,9 163:1,11,21 173:19 175:17 198:2 200:14 226:11 227:19 228:12,14 229:6,14 231:5 235:16 236:12,15,20,21 237:1 250:15,18 254:20 263:16 270:5 276:14 277:3 280:5 281:11,16 292:8 298:15 333:16 334:1,17 340:5 Departmental 237:6 Department's 6:3 173:3 depend 278:21 dependent 240:14 depending 113:1,3 123:17 125:3 154:20 182:11 depends 120:22 123:14 226:8 300:13 derail 89:7,15 109:3 describe 9:2 44:15 53:1 described 39:13 196:16 237:15 describing 30:9 323:5 description 57:15 153:13

designate 135:13,15 137:22 designated 5:9 8:12 design-built 78:12 designed 78:11 234:15 desire 105:10,22 106:14 despite 170:7 detail 15:14 36:22 69:3 71:3 144:2 details 51:16 57:9,11,13,16 84:5 154:14 259:13,21 261:7 319:19 321:10 326:15 330:14 determination 56:14 61:15 228:8 229:22 236:16 342:13 determine 121:5 229:18 determined 228:9 236:16,17 determining 56:16 267:15 develop 29:4 90:6 192:1 206:13 214:22 241:9 274:21 330:19,22 developed 242:19 256:8 296:4 development 3:6 242:2,8 249:19 258:20 274:21 deviation 114:9

Dewey 120:2 147:16 DFO 5:2,6 15:1 diagram 77:16 dictate 86:10 dictates 201:9 differ 113:1 difference 27:18 53:14 114:19 117:21 130:15 162:16 170:16 187:14 246:10 326:16 333:18 334:15 differences 241:18 different 30:1,2 39:20 52:6,8 53:17 54:10 57:8,9 60:6 61:10,17 70:11,18 73:11 74:10 75:1 79:9,10,21 88:2,12,16 105:16 113:13 124:17 140:17 151:10 154:9 169:19 172:8 177:7 178:19 183:12 184:18,21 185:18 187:16 190:17 197:12 198:10 200:10 209:13,15 218:4 224:17 256:10 263:12 266:1,5 274:15 279:21,22 282:6 291:19,20 292:1,2 295:9Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 18



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 296:22 339:2 341:16 344:22 differently 73:14 114:9 182:19 differs 52:21 difficult 27:5 41:13 53:18 71:12 211:3 224:12 253:8 273:4 330:14 difficulties 29:11 260:17 dig 43:2 digest 293:4 digging 42:4 Digital 346:14 digressed 133:22 direct76:12 183:6,9,10 193:20 194:6 direction 40:12,13 140:17 199:20 346:6 directly13:5,13 40:8 92:22 97:2 176:13 198:3 director 17:3 19:17 dirty 290:22 disabilities 32:20 disabled 33:1 disadvantage 170:5 disagree 50:6 59:6 62:19 72:20 112:6 114:2 123:3,9 133:12 135:9 138:2,12 139:5 342:1 disagreeing 46:6 123:9 disagreements 48:5 96:12 disagrees 59:21 62:20 disappeared 223:1 disaster 310:20 disband 147:3 149:11 disbanded 148:16 disclosed 248:5 disclosure 10:6 247:2,6,7,18 248:4,20 disclosures 248:15 discontinue 145:19,20 discretion 170:3 297:5 discuss 48:17 58:8 79:18 118:22 184:7 261:9 280:16 291:14 319:21,22 discussed 44:16 158:14 160:11 161:7 180:8 196:17 215:17 220:22 325:7 discussing 97:6 154:7 168:14 272:20 321:4 discussion 9:9 26:21 49:15 50:4,16 53:2 59:16 60:20 65:7 67:16 86:9 99:12 107:19 177:9 227:10 244:1 245:14 250:8

259:6 275:21 277:13 278:11 279:1 291:19 discussions 14:3 15:13 30:16 43:21 46:12,22 52:4 59:1,5 82:11 94:10 116:2 132:6 139:22 177:1 178:14 197:6 217:19 225:17 228:18 229:21 278:12 289:9 292:10,22 344:22 displeasure 94:22 disregard 160:2 disrupt 67:6 68:22 disrupting 65:15 disruption 64:7 68:2 69:9 70:4 disruptions 67:12 68:8 70:10 dissent 128:3 157:18 213:4 dissented 153:5 179:13 332:13 dissenters 164:20 dissenting 115:11 153:1,13 156:10 157:8,17 158:4,12 164:16 166:1 172:14 173:2,16,19,20 174:1 175:3 177:15,22 178:7,9,12,13,17 179:10,17 180:1,11,13 183:20 184:1 186:5,19,20,21

187:19 188:10 189:18 190:11 191:19 212:12 214:16 dissents 175:13 distinction 111:22 171:14 distribution 55:9 94:6 132:5 District 75:6 diverse 33:19 diversity 154:5 docket 205:18 222:21 223:8,18 224:8,10 document 27:20,21 51:7 52:10 58:16 65:2 66:11 71:21,22 72:8,11 82:21 86:17 87:1 90:19 91:21 92:4,9 100:10,17 108:11,18 113:7,8 165:6 167:16 168:19 171:12 174:18 180:13 221:20 224:9 225:10 293:3 294:12 295:13 299:20 330:8 documentation 254:12,21 documents 16:10 304:16 DOE 12:11 13:5,6,13 15:3 18:3 20:2,17 23:15 24:6 27:10 50:1,13,14,18,19Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 19



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 51:6 59:8 61:6 62:17 63:20 69:16 80:7 82:13 83:18 88:8 91:11 93:8,10 94:2,17 102:7,13,14 132:4 142:22 144:10 158:7,18 161:4 164:16 165:18 166:4 167:5,20,22 168:2,7,12,14 169:1 172:5,14 173:16 174:3,4,17 175:13 176:2,5,8,13,16 177:1,10,15,16,2 1,22 178:2,7 179:9,16 182:10 183:9,22 184:14 187:2,3,4,10,11, 17 191:18 196:14 200:12 210:17 212:3,11 213:11,16 220:19 221:6,19 226:2 231:6,7,10,12 232:11 236:10 237:14 244:14 246:7 247:3,18 248:5 253:18,19 256:16,19 259:16 268:17 270:14,15 271:17,21 272:5 273:10,17 274:1,7 283:9 287:6 288:12,17 289:9 290:13 293:16 295:18 299:16 322:13 326:17,19 328:2 332:22 333:4,7,16,18 338:16 344:5

DOE-regulated 63:17,21 262:15 DOE's 183:20 196:1 dog 341:8 dollars 241:6 done 5:17 12:11 38:8 44:1 49:21 98:5 102:14,15 125:21 128:1 145:9 190:15 195:15,17 197:5 198:8,9 203:12 204:12 217:5 219:11 225:1 242:2 257:5 258:19 264:19 274:17 290:19 294:9,13 295:14 301:6,8 303:6 317:19 319:15 320:14,20,21 321:14 322:1 337:10 340:22 Donuts 6:19 door 92:5 doors 252:10 Doppel 2:15 17:13 56:11 66:21 87:4 112:9,18 118:4 122:6,7,17 123:2,7,12 126:17 127:2 150:13 176:11,12 185:7 218:22 219:3,7,21 248:3,11 249:1 262:2 266:7,21 267:7 268:8 274:14 285:19 286:1

306:11,16,22 307:5,8,12,14 308:1 314:17,20 317:1,4,14,18,21 318:6 319:10 320:4,12 321:13 DOT 23:4,7 30:6,19 38:1,2 39:5 184:16 189:18 double-check 338:14 doubt 280:21 downhill 5:8 downside 96:5 draft 13:9,10,12,19 49:21 51:5 294:1,4,5 320:3 321:4 339:22 drafted 172:22 drafting 27:21 340:12 drafts 10:11 dragged 86:17,20 dramatic 228:5 dramatically 228:2 draw 52:12 120:9 125:20 drawings 304:17 drive 125:21 driven 283:12 driving 125:9 298:16 drop 79:3 80:2 195:6 dropped 77:6 dropping 79:21

drops 122:18 ductless 17:14 due 146:7,10 311:18 312:13 319:13 Dunkin 6:18 duration 300:10 during 12:19 24:3 29:7 47:1 53:21 65:7 71:18,22 83:3 128:8 168:11 197:16 213:2 214:14 218:16 222:8,16,19 242:2 305:12 308:6 313:14 322:15 330:9 duties 10:3 duty 45:21 dying 26:5,10 42:2 E earlier 29:7 31:6 44:3 55:13 105:3 120:15 158:15 160:11 165:12 203:4 222:7 271:1 303:5 312:9 323:3 328:22 330:7 336:19 343:6 earliest 303:12 early 138:9 149:3 195:7 300:19 302:17,19 308:14,16 314:8 315:8 ears 186:11 Earthjustice 2:8Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 20



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 16:9 55:21 60:22 64:18 68:14 90:22 212:19 246:18 easier 51:22 109:14,16 148:4 184:6 200:6 301:13 306:3 easily 29:14 260:22 easy 219:15 252:15 273:3 335:14 echo 238:15,20 echoes 305:8 economic 157:14 economist 142:7 economizers 245:13 Economy 3:11 18:2 edit 326:9,10 editing 59:15 editors 74:7 edits 52:10 136:18 educated 269:18 EER 63:10,12 effacing 236:13 effect 11:4 68:5 153:19 164:6 190:5 205:9 216:19 228:5 233:8 285:18 330:18 effected 267:2 effective 30:14 32:13 34:12,19 41:4 55:19 56:22 64:14,15,16,19,2 1 65:4,16 67:11 68:15 113:8 243:11 288:2 effectively 41:6 165:22 174:14 227:7 264:13,22 277:20 296:6 effects 92:3 190:7 265:5 333:12 efficiencies 169:14 240:16 258:22 efficiency 3:14 20:10 43:10,13 55:6,20 56:1,17 63:3,5,6,11,14 64:15 71:10 162:11 228:8,9 241:10,15,22 242:1,8 249:17 251:4,6 254:5,7,16 262:10,12,13,15 267:16 efficient 43:11 169:15 effort 77:2 96:10 120:10,13 150:9 151:2 191:2 225:4 322:2 331:14 efforts 25:21 eggs 97:7 eight 89:22 110:15 166:16,22 167:1 EISEN 227:3 Eisner 2:3 15:11,12 20:18 23:5,9 24:11 47:21 48:3,16 50:21 51:4 52:12,22 53:9,12,20 54:12,18 55:13

56:6,20 57:5,10 58:13 59:3,20 60:13,19 61:20 62:4,11,18 63:6,15,20 64:1,8,14,22 65:6,20 67:21 68:10 71:1,8,12,19,21 72:12 73:7,13 74:2,12,20 75:3,9,12,15 76:3,11,18,20 77:9 80:6 81:4,14,19 82:4 83:9,14,20 84:9,11,16 85:2,19 86:4,12,22 87:7,9,21 88:7,21 89:18 91:19 93:1 94:4 95:20 97:15 98:7 100:8 102:17 104:6 105:20 106:4,13,17 107:7,20 108:7,20 110:3,13,20 111:13 112:13,17,21 114:17 115:7,13 116:17 117:7,18 118:2,7,11,15,20 119:2,12,18 120:9,21 122:3,16,20 123:14,21 124:22 126:1,7,21 127:7,16 129:5,16 130:1,4,8,16,19 131:5,10,17 132:8,11,13,16,2 0

133:1,8,12,15,18 134:1,9,12,15 135:1,4,6,8,20 136:8,16 137:5,20 138:12 139:1,4 140:8,18 141:8,15 142:2,8,10,20 144:7 145:15,18 147:11,20 148:8,13,18 149:19 151:8,14,19 152:6,10,17 153:2,9,20 154:15 155:1,5,9,14 156:2,6,12 157:4 158:5,22 159:14,19 161:17,19 162:7 164:19 168:9,15,18 169:3,9 170:12,17 171:18,21 172:2 173:7,12 174:16 175:15,20 176:4,18,21 178:21 179:2,6,8 180:9 181:6,9,13,19 182:4,7,9,13,18, 22 183:15 184:4,8,15 185:1,12 186:15 187:5,8 188:4,6,16,19 189:2,17 190:8 192:18 193:3,5,9,16 194:14 195:2,11 196:5,10 197:7 199:4,22 201:6,12 202:19Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 21



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 203:1,19 204:20,22 205:2,13 207:1,9,20 208:15,18 209:1,8 210:1,8 211:17,22 213:6 214:19 215:8,18 216:14 217:3,9,12 218:18 219:2,4,8 220:1,4,9,14,17 221:22 222:3,5 223:3 224:15,22 225:18 226:17 227:9 228:20 229:4 231:2,13,19 232:2 233:4,7 235:4 236:3 238:10 240:17 242:10 243:1,13 244:11 245:6 246:14 247:6,21 248:9 249:11 250:5,13 251:18 256:2 260:1,5,8,15 261:2,21 262:9,11,18 263:1,6,14,17,22 264:3,10,16,21 267:1 268:15 269:11,14 270:11 272:7,18 278:7 279:5,9 280:1,14 281:18 282:16,21 283:14,17,21 284:2 285:9,16,20 287:6,10 288:6,12,16,22 289:4,18 290:2,5,8,10,13, 19 291:2,15 292:4,15,19 293:7,10,22 294:3,9,14,17,21 295:3,9,11,20 296:3,15,21 297:4,10,19 298:2,6,19,22 299:12 300:8 302:5,15,19,22 303:11,20 304:2,14,22 305:9,20 306:6,13,17 307:3,6,9,15,21 308:3,7,13 309:6,16,20 310:1,4,9,15,17, 21 311:2,7,11,17 312:12,19,21 313:5,9,12,16,19 314:3,7,14,19 315:2,4,15,19,21 316:6,8,19 317:2,7 318:5,8,14,22 319:6,9,11 320:2,8,10,13,21 321:15 322:8,11,18 323:11 324:7,10,13,19,2 2 325:8 326:4,9,12,16 327:10,15 328:12,15,18 329:19 330:16 332:14 334:12,22 335:7,9,13,19,21 336:18 337:22 338:5,8,13 339:5,20 340:9 341:4,10 342:2,9,22 343:3,9,14,20 344:7,14,18

either 6:14 11:18 14:3 56:15 78:13 117:20 152:16 166:10 192:14 194:18 217:20 222:19 239:3,19 263:4 330:21 elaborate 48:15 85:10 91:20 229:4 electric 2:15,21 17:14 19:16 20:13 electrical 2:11 19:13 54:9 63:19 electronic 120:12 129:19 226:18 electronically 129:11 225:15 226:20 elements 184:7 259:12 elevators 6:17 eliminate 213:4 eliminates 125:8 eliminating 86:13 else 11:22 12:13 29:10 30:11 40:3,19 41:22 43:9,10 45:6 50:4 51:13 57:22 76:14 96:20 131:13 138:3,15 159:20 163:16 167:15 169:7 170:1 172:19 190:14 199:4 203:1 204:7 213:10,17 226:15 233:21 251:18 289:19

296:22 297:12 298:7 326:19 331:15 333:8 334:19 335:5 336:10 elsewhere 38:20 244:12 email 297:5 299:4 324:17 337:10 e-mail 38:9,10 144:17,22 145:2,12 e-mailed 145:3 emailing 344:20 emphasize 259:4 employed 346:8 employees 9:18,21 10:18 12:11 employer 11:20 12:3 employers 11:7 employment 205:8 enable 96:18 235:2 encompass 59:2 302:3 encompassing 299:18 301:21 encourage 203:22 204:4 229:1 endorsement 108:22 energy 1:9 2:9 3:14,20,22 20:10 23:17,18 55:19 56:1,17 63:5,6 71:10 89:20 100:17 139:6 163:1,11,22 169:14,15Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 22



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175:17 198:3 245:12,13 249:15,16 287:19 340:5 Energy-Efficient 3:10 18:2 energy-saving 245:11 enforce 71:13 165:16 enforceable 205:11 enforcement 18:5 22:12 60:11 61:17 228:22 229:3,5,13 230:12 231:17 232:9 234:1,5,12 246:16 255:5 281:14 287:15 enforcing 82:19 169:22 engaged 11:8 engineer 3:9 238:6 255:14 engineering 3:7 17:4 18:11 19:12,17 20:8 157:14 255:11 ensure 219:19 228:7 entailed 325:15 enter 284:4 entire 248:8 272:7 273:19 335:17 entirely229:11 266:5 entirety 205:5 entitled 39:21 environment 256:10 environmental 97:12 envision 149:5 EPA 39:6 equal 338:18 equaled 338:17 equals 338:20 equipment

6:1 15:21 17:4,22 19:9 21:18 44:11 57:1 58:11 78:11,12,18 203:6 230:15 246:7 249:18 251:21 252:1,9,13 253:21 254:6,14,22 257:4,12 305:16 325:16,18 equivalency 129:12 equivalent 227:4 Eric 3:17 20:8 error 117:10 133:21 errors 223:14 escalator 6:20 especially 41:17 81:5 195:15 229:3 301:16 321:9 essential 287:17 essentially 85:8 108:10 112:19 122:6,7 127:4 174:18 219:6 296:8 339:15 establish 36:15

established 246:4 establishes 39:11 establishing 106:11 252:2 estimate 321:18 et 49:5 73:3 ethical 14:17 ethics 9:8,12 10:3 14:9 evaluated 92:14 evaluation 257:4 event104:1 185:14 191:8,14 193:6 213:22 246:3 297:22 eventually 102:13 161:5 223:17 224:13 everybody

8:8,15 18:16 26:13 29:10,22 32:11 39:22 40:19 41:8 45:6,18 48:20 51:4 64:10,15 65:10 72:2,19 77:21 81:9 82:6,9 85:2 86:13 87:7 90:1 91:9 92:4 98:11,21 103:15 106:20,22 108:14 116:21 118:3,21 119:22 120:10 122:10 128:4 129:2 130:19 135:6,22 137:7,8,12,14 139:4 140:18 141:8 142:2,8,10,16 144:7 145:1

146:13 147:18 148:9 151:8 153:17,20 155:10 157:19,22 159:19 160:13 162:7 166:1 169:18 170:1 173:7 176:7 177:18 179:3 180:2,15 185:21 190:9,14,22 199:22 207:3 210:16,19 211:1,6 221:7 225:7 233:12,21 273:22 285:11,17 287:9 289:19 295:3 297:12 298:8,9 303:12 307:21 313:10 319:16 321:5 323:9 324:14 325:1 329:16 335:11,19,22 340:4 343:3 344:12 everybody's 9:1 120:9 201:22 202:2 237:16 290:10 everyone 5:14 15:5 18:15 49:8 73:22 94:18 98:12,15 101:4,10 153:5 184:5 227:18 270:9 277:4 285:16 everyone's 101:12 122:14 261:11 everything 14:5Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 23



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 47:14 95:15 100:3 141:16 160:13 163:13,16 202:13 204:16 206:3 223:20 224:5,13 225:7,10 226:15 227:6 240:21 251:19 280:18 300:1 320:15 325:2 331:14 evidence 128:3 256:21 ex 279:4 exact 185:13 267:10 323:2 exactly 25:12 29:9,21 48:21 55:18 62:10 106:10 130:18 196:16 210:18 256:1 257:16 274:19,20 325:15 330:14 343:5 examining 8:17 example 11:9 26:4 33:4 78:20 89:21 97:4 126:15 147:14 148:2 166:12 187:9 190:12 202:19 203:3 241:15 243:21 245:13 252:9 259:17 278:15 examples 142:7 Excel 258:19 excellent 75:20,21 except 91:10 150:6 183:19 187:18 206:20 215:14 225:8,10 332:12 341:20 exchange 340:10 excuse 58:4 65:13 72:7 85:13 161:2 exercise 93:19 334:20 exercised 256:21 exercising 273:15 exhausting 213:1 exhaustion 212:20 existence 148:5 existing 39:7 230:4 241:9 251:22 252:3,13 285:22 exists 224:9 expand 24:15 expansion 55:2 expect 80:1 120:5 274:7 294:6 322:13 expectation 211:6,8 227:22 270:6 expectations 274:10 expecting 79:17 expense 236:20 303:7 experience 23:13 24:13 49:11 163:10 199:5,10 205:14 238:2,8 287:7 294:6 321:17 337:10 339:14 experienced 138:5 experimentation 39:16

expert 9:22 33:14 47:7 expertise 8:14 208:13 experts 193:16 explain 24:15 44:19 156:15 157:6,13 explanation 66:13 156:21 199:16 explanations 326:14 explicit 138:20 explicitly 61:15,19 explore 53:7 express 44:14 143:17 232:3 expressed 215:21 extend 147:9,13 148:2,5,21 261:16 265:20 284:4 290:7 299:14,15 extended 289:10 290:14 extending 286:21 289:5,22 290:2 extends 284:5 extension 257:2 extent 47:17 68:15 108:7 158:10 164:5 177:13 178:5 179:13,20 187:18 191:5 201:18 215:14 235:11 247:14 285:5 297:14 332:12 extremely 41:10

eye 8:16 eyes 286:3 F F1 130:22 131:1 FAA 45:21 FACA 77:9 83:15 191:11 193:19 279:20 face 8:18 41:7 220:9 247:17 facetious 74:10 255:9 facets 54:4 facilitate 21:9 46:22 176:22 facilitator 2:2 15:12 20:18,20 21:7,11 23:8,11,12 36:16,19 86:2 104:2 176:6 219:3,6,16,17,18 224:19 320:17 facilitators 39:14 facilitator's 20:22 36:20 facilities 305:16 facility 238:22 306:18,19 fact 21:15,18 26:10 30:7,8,9 33:14 38:8 43:16 54:14 66:22 73:3 79:7 80:6 92:5 114:3 146:1 153:7 154:6 185:19 200:5,12 202:11 215:22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 24



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 216:18 219:16 228:4 230:16,22 255:12 279:4 296:11 323:7 327:17 336:15 340:12 factors 34:15 facts 187:1 factual 215:2 Fahrenheit

235:1 failed 96:20 fair 47:19 79:11 97:19 98:4 104:1 226:5 287:18 288:5 331:11 341:4 fairly 10:5 51:9,10 272:13 303:22 315:9 fairness 288:16 faith 30:8,16 34:9 35:10,13,20 36:5 41:6,12 45:10 108:13 120:10,12,13 176:7 191:2 205:19 206:21 216:3,8 218:3,7 276:14 277:4 329:8 332:1,2,22 334:20 fall 253:2 familiar 6:11 fan 268:2 fashion 50:19 fast 223:10 312:11 336:5 faster 28:9,19 100:7 216:16 fastest 253:13 fault 26:2 favor 67:7 95:13 125:14 202:6 285:12 287:8 320:8 features 245:11 257:2 federal 1:7 5:9 9:13,22 10:1,8,9,17 13:22 14:1,10 22:8,10,17 25:20 36:10 39:7 54:21 58:6 59:10 73:8,10 81:19 94:3 133:15 144:1 145:7 175:18 182:1 188:20 192:18 220:20 221:3,6,14 240:22 feedback 5:18 7:17,18 feel 10:21 26:1 29:5 38:22 42:10,15 57:14 80:8 89:17 122:12 168:7 180:18 206:1,16 230:4 299:10 311:21 feeling 199:2 206:12 feelings 202:21 207:13 fellow 99:8 felt 31:8,9 39:6 41:8 198:21 206:7 fences 115:18 fewer 37:6,8 117:1 127:1 216:15

FI2 239:14,17 field 8:14 239:6 fifteen 23:5,6 fight 125:19 334:18 341:8 figure 28:15 44:11,12 105:13 124:7 209:21 257:13 260:14 269:7 295:12 300:22 322:15 figured 164:17 figures 257:14 file 164:4 181:7 182:16 191:17 202:1 203:8,20 205:16 206:18 211:20 212:15 213:10,15 215:13,16 329:11 filed 207:6 filing 214:17 331:3 fill 10:6 fills 199:19 final 37:12 47:12 62:13 110:11 183:6,9,10 202:3 212:21 214:13,14 228:4 259:7,8,10,16 267:5 268:22 269:15 272:1,13 273:13 278:11 280:4 281:2,3 282:1,11,13,15 283:8,13 285:3 322:21 333:2,6 338:9,22 339:3,12,14,18,2 2 340:13 344:15

finality 261:15 finalize 279:18 finalized 271:17 finally 140:12 192:21 222:6 financial 10:6 346:9 finding 238:4 findings 141:5,20 finds 104:2 fine 46:16,20 60:14 84:22 87:7,8 128:6 148:10 150:6,16 193:12 194:12,13 196:8 209:9 220:7 265:18 266:4 282:10 310:19 328:17 finish 146:16,18 210:11 217:16 270:15 341:16 finished 129:7 263:16,21 287:1 finishing 302:1 fire 219:20 firm 33:16 206:18 first 8:19 9:16 15:4 20:19 23:12 24:20 28:10 33:15 34:21 40:1 45:20 50:12 52:2,3,13,22 62:1 74:19,21 91:22 100:9 123:19 127:19 129:3 133:21 134:1,11 138:13Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 25



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149:18,22 151:22 155:15 158:7 165:5 179:3 183:18 200:1 215:7 230:11 253:6 269:19 270:21 273:1 276:12 278:5,22 294:1,4,5 295:7 301:11 302:9 303:13 306:11,22 307:3 309:18,21 313:9 317:9 324:4,18 328:12,13 330:17,18,21 fit 251:22 252:2 fits 249:19 five 35:7 49:3 117:5 118:6,9,17 120:19 124:4,8,18 219:5,16 224:20 257:7 283:1,4 343:2 five-minute 342:20 fix 26:9,20 27:22 29:2 223:6 269:2 fixed 106:3 fixing 26:18 flag 117:22 flammable 309:2 flexibility 47:18 90:6 144:19 252:15 295:11 297:11 299:16 306:18 flexible 147:4 flight 45:21 302:10,14 flights 302:2,4,12 flip 332:9 floated 332:9 floating 292:11 floor 6:18 flow 17:15 86:9 241:16 fluids 239:19 240:4 fly 2:16 306:4 309:13 focus 41:16,18 42:6 100:8 103:7 132:16 164:22 175:16 213:9,16 232:15 233:1 focused 26:11 focuses 164:14 focusing 163:21 folks 188:14 296:10 follow-up 321:1 FOLPH18:6 foot 57:8 232:18 forbid 145:18 force 46:13,14 66:6 110:3 172:16 233:11 254:8,9 forcemeat 252:21 forces 201:10 forecasting 249:15 foregoing 346:3 foregoing/ attached 347:6 348:6 349:6 350:6 351:6

foresee 143:22 foreseen 282:7 forget 40:2 210:12 343:5 forgot 178:2 form 49:1 143:19 152:18 225:19 300:18,20 formal 145:7 formally 19:11 format 13:10 52:6 formula 44:17 formulas 44:13 229:16 Forrestal 1:10 Fort 17:21 forth 26:21 27:13 125:20 forum 84:10 forward 9:1 11:19 21:4 61:11 70:17 79:18 94:12,14,16 96:12 99:10 100:6 102:11 106:2 114:16 115:4 123:5,10,11 140:19 158:17 159:11 173:21 177:20 178:11 186:11 195:17 211:3,7 212:10 247:7 258:10 261:20 265:14 276:11,12 281:11 forwarded 156:19 forwarding 139:11

for-word 184:3 fourth 301:21 302:3 frame 268:21 289:14,15 307:16 319:20 framed 201:2 206:15 framework

39:11 82:5 161:8 173:2 228:6 289:21 Frank 4:3 19:2,5 58:5 73:20 79:4 93:3 113:15 139:18 268:16 327:16 328:10,14 331:20 336:8 frankly 10:15 12:16 free 10:15,21 42:10,15 86:20 211:20 299:10 freedom 173:20 248:17,19 249:2 free-flowing 291:19 frequency 226:9 300:5 301:10 frequent 119:20 frequently 41:1 203:12 Friday 308:14,16 friends 290:18,20 291:1 front 45:5 55:4 68:9 69:20 159:13 177:8 203:18 235:10Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 26



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 frontal 26:5,10 42:2 fruitful 272:20 fuels 239:19 fulfilling 266:14 full 10:20 13:1,3,10,20 14:6 46:18 88:11,16,22 90:1 98:1,2,4 102:15 108:22 116:17 126:4,7 140:1,6,16 141:21 143:20 186:12 188:11 189:8 200:17 205:8 234:19 239:18 314:15 317:9 fuller 52:20 59:5 277:16 fully 159:21 199:3 331:1,5 332:17 335:16 fun 324:14 functioning 230:17 functions 21:3 fundamental 32:15 furnace 91:8 furnaces 91:9,12 furniture 243:4 futility 93:19 future 72:9 99:12 217:17 285:15 287:15 300:1 G gain 79:5 303:2 gained 249:16 game 104:14,16 105:6 106:9 286:3 game-changer 265:12 gas 2:21 20:13 241:16 gather 32:5 gathered 30:21 gathering 126:10 gauge 256:9 GC 50:14 183:9 GE 2:13 20:11 general9:9,11 18:4 20:16 21:3 22:11 23:22 36:19 53:1 56:21 57:15 153:13 209:16 237:10 257:11 275:2,6 327:20 331:11 generalization 53:5 generally 25:19 30:13 126:10 174:11 259:3 generated 87:19 222:18,22 gentlemen 242:14 Geoffrey 2:17 20:11 238:10,11 240:21 gets 5:7 73:14 82:13 94:2 96:9 97:2 117:12 118:17 122:8 148:11 153:22 184:17 233:2 240:21 242:17 245:2 247:2,3

253:8 254:19 330:3 getting 7:16 30:3 57:13 79:15,16 91:7 99:1 101:20 114:10 137:6 141:19 160:9 165:21 208:12 215:9 216:9 218:5 231:20 242:10,12 251:17 266:13,15 271:16 272:12 280:7 286:11,16,18 287:8,16 308:14 315:13 331:3,16 332:17 gift 296:8 given 145:5 154:5 159:12 209:17 270:3 287:7 288:2 301:15 318:11 332:8 342:20,21 gives 117:5 127:2 177:18 296:18 giving 13:13 90:7 161:5 203:4,20 218:5,6 268:3 glad 47:4,5 345:2 glasses 155:8 goal 6:3 52:3,4,5,13,14,1 9 53:2,22 55:16 56:20 57:2 58:11,22 59:6 60:1 62:17 64:6 65:1 66:7,20 67:5,8,14,15,17 68:3,16 69:2,7 70:2,14,15,16,21

71:1,3,14,16,18 100:10,16 101:2,16,17,18 103:21 106:5 115:17 161:7,12 228:5,19 269:19 270:1 272:12 299:12 330:16,22 331:4,18 332:17 335:21 goals 64:11 67:10 114:15 160:16 161:4,5,6 golf 286:3 gone 67:1 180:5 275:1 313:15 324:3,10 Goodman 3:16 17:17 87:17 99:14 107:8 121:10 good-sized 33:10 gotten 35:16 181:9 governed 38:15 government 9:17,21 10:18 22:9,11,17,19,22 25:20 26:22 27:6 29:2 30:4 35:6,10,12 36:12 50:17 280:5 281:2 governs 25:19 39:4 gracious 159:22 grade 47:12 grades 50:8 grandchildren 194:10Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 27



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 grandparents 194:9 grant 12:4 gratified 257:13 great 93:15 100:17 123:22 231:8 251:11 297:13 greater 126:19 127:5 178:18 Greek 44:18 green 5:15,16,18 grid 239:13 241:16 ground 6:6,18 7:4 14:18 48:17 49:22 51:5,17 52:2 57:12 126:22 132:3 145:17 190:19 216:17 217:19,22 218:4 281:12,16 283:12 284:21 295:20 296:4 299:15,17 325:3 327:3 340:18 group 3:13 5:21,22 7:2 8:9,12,13,19 14:17,21 16:16 18:4 20:6 25:13 26:8 27:11 36:4 46:18 48:6,19 49:6 50:1 51:14 52:1 53:3,16,19 54:7,22 55:2 57:9 58:7 59:12 67:14,18 69:15 71:22 73:20 74:1,5,6 76:5,9,16 77:6,8 78:2,7,22 79:17,18,20 81:8 83:21 84:2,7,14 85:13 88:11,15 89:11 90:21 91:3,6,11,14,16, 22 92:20 93:6,14,17 94:13 95:14 96:8,13 97:3,8 98:6 99:8 101:16 102:8 103:3,5,20,22 104:2 108:6 110:5 112:20 115:19,20 116:2 120:3 126:5,7 129:10 130:11 134:5,15 135:14,21 136:5,12,13,14 137:6,9,18,22 138:1,6,20 139:12,20 140:1,4,7,16,19, 20 141:6,7,12,13,21 142:12 143:11,12,13,20 144:1,9 145:17 146:21 147:1,3,8 148:16 154:12 158:16 162:12 168:13 178:20 186:9,13,21 187:4 188:7,9,12,14 189:9,20 190:19 191:13,16 192:5,9 193:10 194:1 195:14 197:14 199:1 202:10 207:2,3,5,15 209:17 220:13 222:1,19,20 238:14 239:9 240:6,7,9,12 250:9 252:19 253:3 254:19

257:20 261:8 268:18 269:4,6 272:5 280:6 281:19 285:13 288:18 291:18 293:12 299:8,10 300:9 326:22 330:20 331:1,2 332:10 333:3,4,8,13,20 335:17,22 336:21 337:16,18,19 339:18 343:21 345:2 grouped 244:22 grouping 55:4 241:1 groupings 230:8 238:16 250:3,8 groups 77:3,17 78:4 79:14 80:4 84:3,5,8 99:5 105:16 111:3 133:19 135:10,19 136:12,20 138:21,22 139:8 141:4 143:1,20 162:10 165:10 169:14 187:12 195:19 196:19 197:11 202:8 244:18 256:6 286:15 334:7 group's 268:21 287:1 323:6 guarantee 91:17 108:4 guaranteed 101:3 guess 54:20 61:1,4,6 68:15 69:11 99:15 103:18 114:8 115:15 124:19 127:9 143:19 144:11,17 167:18 172:12 184:17 191:10 209:7 216:11 219:5 223:16 232:8 234:11 252:5 256:3 257:17 258:12 261:18 264:7 271:8 281:5 313:11 316:16 319:18 328:21 329:5 331:8 guessing 313:1 guidance 25:7,16 44:4 74:18 140:9 guidelines 252:6 guilty 205:3 guy 5:7,8 21:22 guys 59:17,18 126:15 131:17 147:9 149:9,14 150:17,18 167:16 196:19,20 219:20 225:22 226:3 253:14 255:21 261:15 271:4 276:1,21 292:9 293:22 H half 74:9 121:13 166:22 167:1 267:9 327:19 Halley 2:17 20:11 238:10,12 240:18Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 28



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 ham 97:7 hand 8:14,21 46:1 50:3,6 83:2 86:3 93:20 114:1,4 218:15 handed 59:11 115:7 handle 82:22 85:11 152:19 190:18 210:3 218:18 267:1 handled 137:18 hanging 257:22 happen 12:5 102:4 144:6 162:8 181:22 185:16 186:3 197:16,17 211:19 223:18 229:9 328:10 happened 45:22 143:5 297:1 310:12,15 321:19 335:2 happens 7:19 75:22 149:17 174:16 176:15 196:6 203:11 237:20 273:8 317:2 336:10 happy 6:5 14:14 31:11 49:13 91:10 99:11 163:16 173:7 194:4,10 221:7 224:7 274:8 288:3 hard 27:4 51:22 98:16 162:19 167:16 190:21 196:20 197:4 198:7 199:11 205:21 255:21 258:1 259:21 260:13 265:13 283:12 286:14 304:18 323:13 334:17 harder 111:15 140:14 217:12 harmonize 238:3 Harris 4:7 19:22 Harvey 3:10 18:1 47:17 52:18 54:3 74:9 75:19,21 78:19 96:22 97:14 105:15 108:20,21 112:16 114:13 115:22 119:16 141:1,2,12 154:5 163:17 164:2 167:15 170:21 191:20 193:22 195:10 198:16,17 199:9,11,17 205:2,3 206:15 225:13 226:17 256:2,3 277:11 290:17 291:12 299:3 327:7 331:8,10 334:5 341:10 Harvey's 113:16 292:7 hashing 319:19 hat 8:16 Hatzikazakis 2:18 17:2,3 61:21 63:8 64:9 65:5,13 66:1,8,16 68:13 72:7 73:5,12 78:8 87:8 161:2,11,14 236:4,6 237:2,9

HATZIKAZAKI Z 336:3,5 haven't 62:5 82:18 154:6 164:17 179:13 181:9 203:12 214:15 255:22 260:4 263:21 291:6 305:5 325:5 having 14:4 21:17 22:2 42:11 46:17 49:8 96:10 100:2 112:1 174:17 175:12 185:9 214:16 225:16 229:7,8 231:7,11 264:10,11 275:21 286:6 302:3 305:2,6,7 307:17 313:19 319:16,21 330:1 341:13,17 hazardous 23:21 head 332:9 heading 52:2 Health 33:6 hear 21:22 32:12 45:14 60:18 67:20 91:13 108:3 123:19 136:6 160:21 161:3 207:20 218:1 223:6 232:6 265:3 292:2 309:20 heard 26:14,21 29:6,9 33:11,12 42:13,14 55:13 80:9 93:4 160:4,7,8 190:12 192:7 198:16 206:6 228:3

230:11 242:15,18,22 244:15 286:9 292:12 hearing 7:18 27:17 30:15 69:5 70:4 71:13,15 103:9,10 117:9 129:6 147:20 162:4 261:14 272:15 280:2 289:11 318:16 heartburn 331:12 heat 258:18 heaters 16:3 18:8,9,13 19:4 heating 2:6 16:2,12,14 17:19 58:10,19 69:9 111:5,6 234:16 Heaven 145:18 heavily 18:21 heels 42:4 43:2 125:9 held 142:13 Helft 103:1 Hello 16:16,18 help 14:14 21:22 27:21,22 29:4 31:4 36:17,22 37:1 38:22 43:21 44:21 45:1 46:15,20,22 90:15 113:6 124:1 180:18 186:14 205:11 226:6 254:1 261:8,11 271:15 272:5 276:13 277:2,4 292:21Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 29



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 326:5 328:2 330:16 342:22 344:21 345:2 helped 23:2 helpful 59:20 221:15 222:15 263:12 297:18 312:8 helping 15:14 helps 5:18 180:11 hereby 346:3 347:2 348:2 349:2 350:2 351:2 here's 39:17,18 291:10 327:2 334:14 337:11 he's 20:8 21:22 23:12 65:9,17 66:22 67:5 70:5,7,8 283:3 299:11 hesitate 24:14 hey 59:18 207:4 344:10 Hi 15:18 17:6 18:17,20 58:21 199:11 high 12:9 254:5,9,16 260:12 323:9 higher 116:13 124:11 162:11 254:6 highest 271:13 highlights 9:13 historical 242:7 249:18 history 242:1 hit 5:16 237:21 hoc 144:14 HOI 16:13 hold 96:7 313:3 329:10 holding 107:13 holidays 314:21 home 336:2 homework

203:12 Hon 2:19 16:21 53:13 54:2 78:7 80:20 86:15 125:6 129:14 133:13,17 180:21 181:16,21 182:6,8,12,17,21 186:16 187:7 188:3,5 194:18,21 195:1,4,10 196:1,8 204:2 214:20 221:19 222:2,4 267:8 268:9 272:22 273:15 281:22 282:14,20 283:7,16,20 284:1,18 293:15 294:2,7,12 302:17 303:2 309:1 320:7 342:5,10 honest 112:16 Hootman 2:20 16:18 95:3,4 111:1,2 115:3,9 136:22 183:1,4,14 228:21 229:6 230:13 231:15,18 234:7 250:14

251:3,5,12,14 255:9 260:10 274:18 275:3,10,18 289:13,21 296:1 297:13 301:19 302:7 303:1,3,8 305:3,19 306:5 307:13,19 308:2,11 309:8,12,15 310:16 311:1,5,16 312:18,20 313:8,11 314:12,16 316:17,22 317:5 331:21 332:4 hope 8:15 69:18 75:3 89:12 98:9,13 115:21 312:21 344:11 hopefully 6:1 65:8 74:8 171:4 186:11 204:15 244:15 hopes 272:12 hoping 58:1 79:17 269:18 270:4 horizontal 252:11 horsepower 16:6 hosts 159:22 hot 234:21 239:16 hour 119:14 144:15 217:15 291:5 hours 92:6 302:16 303:2,13 305:12 318:3 322:4 house 194:6 How's 8:4

HRI 146:20 238:18 HTP 3:15 18:11 48:11 116:20 118:8 156:8 184:10 250:5,6 huge 93:18 huh 44:10 Human 33:6 hundred 217:4 hung 117:12 Hunt 2:21 20:13 95:21 97:14 hurt 90:13,15,18 207:13 Hussmann 3:12 17:6 60:7 107:21 215:19 HVAC 15:21 16:2,20 17:11 18:22 19:7 21:17 54:8 58:10,19 69:8 97:5 137:1,3 246:7,9 254:5 Hymer 9:10,11 I I'd 15:5 24:7 47:4,5 55:21 78:19 99:11 114:13 117:13 154:4 199:17 224:6,7 233:19 235:22 238:14 240:18 243:8 246:15 250:6 309:13 319:4 336:20 345:2 idea 32:1,18 34:16Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 30



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35:11 38:21 41:14 42:4,19 50:1 51:7 52:12 61:18 62:12 74:21 91:1,13 92:16 93:15 105:9,11 124:10 144:16 149:2,20 177:7 178:11 180:3 188:13 196:19 211:4 300:3 308:15 318:12 323:15 332:8 337:19 idealistic 98:9 ideas 42:10 47:6 170:6 261:7 292:10 identical 183:19 184:3 identification 55:5 identified 54:16 55:1 59:13 286:6 identifies 34:22 identify 35:4 identifying 56:13 ignorance 69:14 I'll 9:5,18 15:3 25:11 35:8 50:4 95:11 99:18 107:6 112:16 160:12 220:4 243:6,13 252:8 299:10 304:1 310:11 314:19 320:19 324:12 326:6 336:14 337:5 I'm 5:2,7,8 6:6 7:15,18 9:11 10:8,18,21 14:22 15:1,12,14 16:4,8,11,18,21 17:3,20 18:3,21 20:3,14,16 24:14 27:17 28:22 29:1,2 34:6 36:21 40:21 42:5 45:2,3,4,5 46:21,22 47:7,8 49:13,18,19 50:21 52:18 55:17 57:13 58:1,5,6 61:6 64:3 65:17,18 66:2,8,9 68:22 69:5,13 71:5,13,14 74:9,18 76:21,22 77:1,3 78:20 79:7 83:15 84:14 86:10 87:21 90:17 93:3 94:5 98:8,12 101:15,20,21 102:3,11,14 103:9,10 104:7 105:20 106:10 107:10,12,22 109:9,13 115:7 117:9,18,20 121:8 122:3 123:3 124:1,7,15 128:18 129:18 138:4,8,11 141:19 147:2,15,20 148:14 150:16 155:1,7 156:12 158:2 159:5,6,21 160:9 161:16 163:2,20 181:16 182:22 183:2 187:13 191:21 192:18 194:4,6,10 195:2 196:14 199:10 202:12,13 203:2,5,9

205:3,12 207:7 215:20 216:6 222:17 223:5 224:8 225:1,14 229:11 230:3 232:5,19,20,22 233:12,20 237:11 238:5,7,12 239:2 244:8 247:4 249:7,8,17,19 251:9,16 253:22 254:18 258:8 261:2,14 264:10,11 269:18 272:15 273:20 277:9,14 278:20 279:18 280:1,14,15 281:18 289:4,5,10,18 295:10 298:19 299:3,4,5 303:4 304:11 309:20 311:18 312:21,22 313:1 314:15 315:9,10 316:18 318:15 319:11 320:17 321:3 322:8,18 329:8,14 331:19 333:2 334:2 335:3 337:17 338:10 339:20 344:20 imagine 137:2 143:14 241:19 248:2 immediate 257:8 immediately 341:15 impact 55:6,10 56:12 67:3 71:6 78:3 240:15

246:12 impede 276:10 impermissible 201:19 impetus 227:19 implement 287:22 implementation 69:17 266:16 implemented 91:18 implications 124:20 implies 108:22 importance 8:20 important

21:9,19 29:3 30:19 37:20 41:10,16 45:19 59:3 64:22 67:14,17 74:18 87:15 88:19 89:4,8,12 95:2 96:16 129:1 137:16 138:6 146:14 167:2 187:22 259:5 261:10 262:5 270:21 276:9 296:16 303:22 305:15 312:1 323:8 importantly 28:21 280:1 impossible 167:11 improve 56:5 improved 92:9 inaudible 232:6 237:13 253:11 285:10 308:5 344:13Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 31



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 Inc 2:15,16,17,18 3:7,15,18 incentive 44:22 90:13 127:11 inches 283:2 incidentally 35:2 include 31:6 61:18,21 63:9 64:6,10 151:16 153:15 154:1 245:11 253:7 256:14 327:17 included 61:22 121:4 152:1 153:18 157:21 200:17 229:1 245:12 267:5 includes 171:22 including 24:21 62:2 67:7 101:4 169:18 192:3 289:7 290:13 307:4 inconsistent 342:14 Incorporated 20:8 incorrect 269:1 indefinite 287:4 Independence 1:11 independent 238:12 indicates 216:18 indication 113:20,22 329:6 indirectly 184:17 198:3 individual 70:14,20 77:13 85:10 211:9

individually 211:13 individuals 77:18 327:21 industries 4:3 19:2 68:6 industry 19:1 67:4 206:18 207:10 227:22 228:5 230:21 231:16 238:17 243:4 246:19 247:15 266:8 ineffective 69:2 inelegant 336:17 influence 92:20 188:11 inform 270:17 informal 337:10 339:10 information 12:18 13:8 27:8 30:9,21,22 31:19 32:5 42:21 44:3 55:7 94:16 126:10 139:22 140:6 195:20 199:21 203:18 208:13 214:22 228:13 236:15 247:2,3,14,22 248:7,14,16,17,2 0 249:2,6 254:16 255:4,7,13 268:1 273:9 286:5,7 320:6 inherent 269:22 initial 43:18 47:20 54:20 59:10,13,17 61:2 236:14 240:22

288:8 initially 35:4 149:10 183:17 201:15 255:2 innate 273:4 innovation 39:16 in-person 304:10,20 307:1 309:8 input 89:16 239:11 321:11 insert 63:2 instance 169:1 250:19 254:6 instances 201:1 203:10 instead 26:6 62:16 63:14 173:3 176:16 241:15 253:20 311:14 Institute 2:7 16:12 insured 209:6 intact 190:7 integrity 10:13 intended 74:13 93:4 227:15 intent 196:17 197:3 227:21 327:20 329:2 intention 196:22 intentionally 291:21 interaction 24:6 interactions 24:4 53:8 interacts 188:7 interchange 28:7 interchangeable 156:3 interest 10:2 11:11,21 19:10 33:9 41:20 42:5 46:8,9 49:4,5 72:19 76:15 77:3,6,19,22 78:2,4 79:1,2,22 80:12 97:3 105:16 111:5 112:5 113:5,8 114:2,3,5,6 120:4,14 125:11 127:13 132:14,17 143:17 162:1,10 163:2 187:12 197:11,14 207:2,3,5,15 335:22 345:2 346:10 interested 43:9,10 61:6 66:2 111:12 112:7 124:14 143:11 interesting 281:6 interests 32:16 35:1,2 73:15 76:13 77:1,11,13,14,16 79:10 80:5,7 81:1 87:10 95:16 108:8,9,15,16 113:1,2 132:6 138:19 163:3 187:9 189:12 198:9 207:8 285:11 interim 149:15 304:10 International 2:18 Intertect 4:5Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 32



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 19:8,12 83:10 intertwined 272:17 intolerances 250:2 introduce 15:3 20:4,17 21:15 61:3 introduced 165:12 introduces 15:17 introduction 330:8 introductions 7:10 14:19 introductory 191:6 invalidating 268:9 invited 83:12 inviting 160:1 involve 15:15 70:18 involved 23:10 28:10 34:21 41:10 45:18 46:9 56:17 81:1 91:7 96:1 143:8,9,16 181:3 192:13,17 200:3 201:13 338:15 340:10 involves 11:4 involving 11:14 32:19 Ion 4:4 19:6 irrelevant

130:10 isn't 5:15 45:15 60:16 62:16 121:20 129:12 148:4 164:7 175:19 293:18 issue 8:21 9:3 20:19 23:14 24:6 26:15 30:2 31:17 32:18 33:9 34:1,5,6 49:3,18,19 56:2 70:4 89:5 101:11 104:21 110:16 112:5,8 113:1,3 117:17 120:4 124:15 127:12,13,22 129:8 130:17 138:6,18 148:3,4 153:10 156:20,21 158:12,20 159:7 164:20 165:4,18 166:8,14 167:5 169:12,22 175:10 182:7 185:5,6 188:22 203:2 204:11,21 207:22 210:2,3 213:2 222:12 230:6 231:4,14 232:12,16,21 233:4,9,11 234:11,20 235:8 242:14,21,22 244:4,6,7,8,10,1 6 245:16 246:20 247:1 253:7,16,17 262:15 263:12 264:18 276:13,15 277:5 299:2 303:22 312:7 333:6 342:11 343:7,16 issued 28:12 151:4 228:3 issues 7:9 8:14,17,21 21:13 22:4,5 29:15 32:3 33:19 47:18 48:8 53:8

54:16,22 55:2,3 59:13 64:17 72:15 82:20 89:10 104:22 124:2 135:11 153:10 157:17 167:12 192:3 208:5,8 231:20,22 233:17 235:12 242:12,18 243:1 246:17 259:17,20 260:2 261:21 264:21 267:4,6 271:15,19 272:4,8,11,19 276:17 277:6,8,17 281:14 284:14 285:7 286:6 288:22 291:14,20 296:10 300:15,18,20 301:2 305:7,12 320:1 322:22 323:18 324:17 325:1,10,17 issuing 333:2 item 54:5 66:7 86:9 116:9 133:22 165:9 180:22 219:1,2 224:2,3 246:2 286:7 itemize 70:13 itemizing 70:19 items 62:3 66:6 149:7 151:2 208:9 215:20 216:6 218:12 236:7,8 237:17 238:1,4 245:10

it'll 306:20 it's 6:13,22 9:14 13:9 18:19 19:18 24:19 25:22 26:13,14,15 27:12 28:2,6,7 34:13 35:11 37:20,21 38:11 41:2 44:8,18 50:8 53:18 54:2,3 56:16,17 61:18,22 63:10 67:9 70:5 72:11,18 74:18 77:21 78:6 81:5 88:2,3,13,15 89:4,8,21 90:9 92:21 94:14 95:10 96:15 97:12,19 98:4 101:22 102:9,10 104:1 105:18 108:10,11,12 109:12 111:6 112:8 113:22 114:4,18 116:1,2,10 117:3,10,12,14,1 6 119:14 122:8,21 126:18 129:1,14 139:18 140:5 146:3 151:9 155:12,22 158:2 159:1,2 160:3 166:13,16,19 167:2 172:2 173:1 175:13,14 179:2,6,7,9,12 181:17 184:12 185:4 187:17 190:21 191:8,13 192:11 194:13,18Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 33



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 195:12 197:17 204:17,21 207:11,12 213:16 221:10 231:18 232:9,19 236:12 238:6 239:8 240:4,9,11 241:11,12 242:20 246:9 248:16 249:20 250:12 251:14 252:15,22 253:21,22 254:8 255:20 256:17 257:22 258:1,6,7 259:5,21 261:4 262:10,12,13,18 263:20 264:12 265:11,13 266:1,19 268:11,17 269:1,4 272:4 273:3 274:14,17 275:17,20 276:21 279:3 283:18 285:10,13,19 286:1,7 287:4,11,18 288:5,10,14,15,1 9 289:2 290:18 293:11 294:7 298:6 299:7 300:3 301:13,22 303:22 304:6 305:1 306:18 310:10 316:4,18 320:9,11,12 322:7 323:13,15 330:7,8,18 331:4,7 335:8,21 336:5,6,7,19 337:8,10 338:12,15 339:15,19 340:7 341:6,17 344:16

I've 7:21 29:9 30:5 35:15,16,22 39:13 53:6 170:21 206:5 230:11 244:22 249:1 256:18 288:7 290:19,20 291:12 306:9 307:19 318:8 322:3 J Jane 45:16 46:3 January 264:20 266:9,16 Jeff 2:10 15:18 69:4 79:12 103:17 104:7 109:20 115:14 117:12 167:17 170:10 172:11 232:7 269:9 271:5 274:4 286:8 344:2 Jill 2:20 16:18 46:2 95:4 111:2 115:3 136:22 183:1 228:21 230:13 250:14 274:19 301:19 Jill's 232:4 job 15:1,13 20:22 22:3 37:8 44:6,7 77:12 195:22 219:22 jobs 27:15 John 3:4,9,19 5:2 6:8 7:11,12 8:3,7 9:5,7 11:17 14:13,22 15:11 19:11 20:12 42:13 46:3

60:15,16,18 64:4,5 65:8,14 66:9 67:19,21 69:6,11 70:8 72:4,13 83:20,22 84:12 88:8 94:5,17 97:16 107:2 116:17 119:22 120:2 142:22 147:16,21 150:7 192:7 194:18 260:16 299:4 John's 194:20 Johnson 2:22 18:17,20 join 73:16 77:8 266:17 Jonathan 83:18 Judd 3:13 16:16 July 217:8 304:6 312:4 313:6 314:9,15 316:10,13,15,19, 22 317:1,13 318:9 320:20,21 June 217:7 295:8 308:8,18,21 312:7,18,20,21,2 2 314:18 316:9 317:11 Justice 333:16 334:1,17 justifiable 36:2 justification 212:3 295:1 justified 246:11 justifies 36:4 justify 157:7,13 167:15 214:22 K

Karen 3:5 15:22 60:2,8 61:5 67:9 89:3 96:15 101:9 102:6 107:5 123:2 131:2 178:22 257:15 259:4 265:3 317:14 318:2 Karen's 192:3 334:9,22 Karim2:6 16:11 102:5 146:20 211:18 232:20 243:3 287:12 Kent 3:7 8:11 20:6 150:7 194:18,21 key 22:3 35:8 40:1 41:5 100:20 122:4 146:2 149:9 165:1 282:14 335:2 kill 323:13 kinds 31:4,13 34:16 48:19 195:18 197:21 288:22 301:3 305:1 333:10 Klein 4:4 19:6 knew 31:9 94:9 208:8 knots 240:14 knowledge 21:17 208:3 254:15 301:1 known 267:12 Kojack 17:9 Kojak 3:2 17:9 254:3 255:2Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 34



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 L lab 16:17 17:11 231:8 235:1 237:7 Laboratories 3:2 17:10 labs 239:2 254:6,13 255:6 256:12 lab's 231:9 lack 152:20 182:11 265:19 laid 184:6 language 28:1 51:8,12 59:22 60:14 83:6 88:1,10,22 89:2,19 92:1 103:14 104:10 107:15 108:1,3 128:13 136:1 138:11 141:9 142:1,16 146:4 149:13 152:6 154:10 170:9,10,14 171:9 177:6 181:15 182:15 184:2 187:20 188:1 191:20 200:15,22 201:4,11 209:4 212:1,8 213:19 244:9 335:11 337:22 342:9 large 8:10 19:3 78:18 89:5 247:21 275:15 larger 12:21 18:22 59:12 84:6 89:13 238:19,22 239:4,9 241:3 261:6 283:2,5

largest 231:4 Las 297:2 LaSelle 347:2,13 last 98:11 128:15 131:18 132:3 133:6,22 138:16 192:2 219:10 221:9 286:12,13 308:18 317:5 320:2,14 321:3,12,20 323:7 late 195:12 302:11 336:4 later 9:2 15:14 31:1 32:22 59:1,4 62:2,14 71:18 74:5 82:20 85:6 91:20 107:4 121:16 203:15,21 206:3 222:15 232:12 271:22 311:13 laughing 237:16 Laura 2:9 18:3 23:16,18 58:21 59:4 103:15,17 110:5 150:5 159:21 164:7 166:6 167:18 169:18 172:19 175:8 177:4 184:4 198:1 218:21 223:4 227:14 232:14 269:12 322:2 328:19 332:19,20 335:15 343:5,10 Laura's 304:14 law 22:18,20 33:16 105:15 205:4 214:12 229:10 236:19 lawsuit 333:22 lawyer 26:22 293:8 lawyers 22:17,21 24:2,4 82:12 171:6,7 177:1 197:8,9 205:6,7 lay 229:12,19 layman 205:4 lays 229:13,20,21 230:1 lead 22:20 23:14 25:2,5 28:8 44:2 216:16 leading 77:18 86:9 leads 22:7 learn 27:5,7 35:2 192:1 206:3 learned 30:15 34:3 327:1 learning 294:5 least 25:1 27:6 57:18 68:18 87:19 92:11,12 94:1 99:10 122:14 127:18 149:5,10 196:16 197:5 204:13 227:12 233:20 254:20 258:2 292:9 294:10 299:1 312:5 313:15 leave 6:21 14:2 53:2,3 65:8 68:11 72:2 75:22 76:1 80:17 82:10,11 87:5 111:10 128:7,13,15,20 136:12 138:13,16,17 152:15 153:12,14 199:18 204:3 227:11 283:9,10 300:16 314:7 324:11 327:11 337:6 leaves 142:17 leaving 68:15 81:8 82:7 87:12 105:11 136:1 146:4 306:17 324:3 legacy256:7 legal 39:6 41:2 147:12 157:14 158:11 160:3 177:14 179:21 181:1,2 193:18 194:13 201:9 205:17 206:16 218:6 248:18 253:16 282:8 legally 5:12 40:3 188:19 201:19 206:11 329:1 legitimate 185:3 204:22 Lennox 2:18 17:3 less 33:21 37:6,8,11 90:10 100:4,5,14,15 101:2 103:9 121:1 126:18 127:1,5 157:1 163:8 169:5 171:11,20 189:4 193:13 303:6,7Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 35



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 305:21 let's 7:9 26:3 28:16 60:19 65:10 66:16 71:20 72:14 80:15 85:6 88:20 103:7 113:17,19 120:14 130:1 145:8 148:2 156:15 158:7 164:6 176:19 198:12,13 200:8 210:14 213:12 218:20 219:15 238:2 267:13 273:17,21 287:5 292:22 301:11 303:15 310:17 315:12 344:11 letting 83:1 86:9 level 12:9 57:8 93:21 96:2 105:11,17 106:1,3,11,15,20 ,21 112:19 117:4 124:8 243:22 267:21 life 316:19 lifted 200:18 light 5:15,17,18 likely 91:11 limit 39:15 59:1 83:3 86:20 137:12,14 139:1 246:8 248:16 302:5,7 limitations 45:21 limited 55:1,11 81:16 86:19 99:19 137:10 limits 248:18 Lin 3:3 19:15 320:9 line 52:15 75:6 125:20 152:13 155:19 203:5 225:14 226:19 237:18 240:2,10,11 241:5,11 245:7 342:16 lines 15:9 44:5 55:19 87:18 88:4 116:6 157:16 159:16 208:19 215:11 331:2 339:9 342:15 lingering 320:1 322:21 link 76:12 244:21 Lisa 349:2,13 list 57:1 63:12 142:7 144:22 145:2 209:11 232:6 233:17 245:1 272:8 291:3 304:12 325:6 326:4,17 327:2 listed 257:19 258:6,12 listen 21:21 27:15 128:18,19 280:18 318:6 listening 45:3,5,7,15 49:15 98:9 299:5 331:15 literally 79:2 309:13 litigate 341:7 litigating 212:21 litigation 91:6 95:7 182:5,6 little 6:22 7:10 15:16 24:15 27:17 29:12 33:21 34:20 36:21 38:5 44:20 48:15 61:9 67:1,16 71:16 80:21 82:8 84:5,8 87:2 88:15 89:10,13 98:11,15 99:1,7 100:6 102:1 107:22 108:21 110:13 111:15 114:9 116:7 123:4 124:1 139:13 144:19 147:4,21 151:9 156:16 163:8 166:3 172:12 177:9 191:7 193:13 201:22 206:2 209:18 221:2 224:12,17 225:14 242:11,12 253:8 255:9,11,20 260:13 261:8 264:10 284:12 290:22 292:1 296:18 327:19 333:12 336:14 live 33:21 98:17,21 104:18 111:9 127:18 162:13,14 163:5,15 166:2,15,21,22 167:14 209:4 210:16 211:6,11 285:17 287:9 297:22 LLC 3:2,8

loan 310:11 located 15:21 17:10 location 298:11 locations 297:6 Lochinvar 3:8 18:6,7 log 327:14 logic 238:6 long 12:17 78:22 82:2 107:11,15 116:22 120:18 126:1 187:15,17 258:21 274:8 275:21 293:18 310:10 336:20 longer 6:20 196:3 301:15 longevity 239:17 loop 284:4 loose 108:2 loosely 60:8 97:4 lose 61:22 92:1,2 104:8 146:2 333:17 loss 125:18 lost 165:1 287:19 lot 22:10 23:13 26:1 30:15 38:8 45:2 70:18 73:22 92:6 94:15 99:22 125:10 144:5 173:11 189:4 192:4 201:14 204:14 208:7 211:12 215:2 216:5,7 217:5,6 222:14,22 226:8 237:12,19 250:8Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 36



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 256:16 262:3 267:4 271:7,10 272:4,15 273:1,2 274:17 277:5 286:14 292:1,11 300:13 304:12 308:18 321:22 322:3 324:6 Louis 3:14 20:9 84:18 85:3 112:16 123:17,18 199:15 207:16,18 208:18 love 309:4,6 low 102:19 239:15 240:14 254:9 lower 98:14 124:11 lunch 6:17,19 38:18 119:14,16 125:22 126:1 146:15,17 171:3 176:9,19,20,22 318:4 lunchtime 197:7 M ma'am 160:22 mailing 323:8 main 6:10 136:12 maintaining 91:2 major 30:17,18 78:2,14 169:10,13,20 321:8 334:6 majority 74:17 102:22 114:3 139:15,16 166:10 245:18 313:2

makeup 95:13 MALE 5:6,10 145:5,11,14 man 292:8,14,15 294:14 manage 15:1 Management 40:14,16 mandates 234:17 Mandyck

3:4 6:8 7:11,13,15,18,22 8:4 20:12 60:15 64:4 67:19,22 70:8 97:16,17 107:2 116:17 260:16 299:4 Manhattan 299:5,7 manipulate 254:10,12 284:6 manner 223:9 manufacture 16:1,9,22 17:14 256:21 manufacturer 15:8,20 16:5,19 17:7 19:16 61:9,16 143:9 162:12 229:21 231:7,11 234:15 236:19,22 238:21 242:7 254:12 258:2 manufacturers 16:13 19:3 69:21 78:3,11 97:5,6 108:5 228:11 239:9 249:4 256:11 268:2 286:15,16 287:21

manufacturer's 236:20 Manufacturers 2:11 19:14 238:14 manufacturing 2:19 3:5,16 16:1,6,22 17:18 18:8 53:13 125:6 180:21 186:16 260:21 269:21 Marcy 348:2,13 margin 117:10 Mark 2:16 4:4,5 19:6,8 83:10 market 17:19 54:6 64:7 65:15 67:12 68:1,7,22 69:10 70:3,10 240:5 marketplace 64:17 67:7 71:6 Marshall 2:21 20:13 95:21 97:14 112:16 Mary 2:14 17:20 mass 5:20 18:10 massage 292:13 match 52:7 material 222:22 223:17 304:12 materially 342:12 materials 23:21 222:18 223:11 math 116:21 matter 11:3 25:21 28:21 46:10 91:3 92:15 137:16 181:22 186:17 193:11,18

194:13 205:15,18 235:16 262:18 273:8 341:6 matters 31:18 41:12 maximum 79:19 138:2 158:10 177:13 178:5 179:12,20 may 25:5,6,7,21 34:9,11 35:7 37:9,11,14 44:19 45:6,8,14,17 46:1,6,10,12 53:11,22 59:2,14 77:20 79:14 81:1 85:5 90:18 92:2,7 99:4,6 102:19 105:6 110:11 114:13,20 116:15 120:11 127:12 128:9 132:20 135:13 137:21 143:7 144:14 146:11,19 154:11,19 157:8 159:11 161:5 164:22 165:22 166:1,17,19 167:12 169:6 170:5,7 177:2 178:12 182:13 185:10 187:9,14,16 192:14,15 197:1,2 198:3,4 211:9 217:12,16,18 222:7 236:4 240:8 241:22 253:14 254:21Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 37



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 257:2,3,17 268:7,10 269:15 271:7,22 275:19 276:8,18 280:19,22 284:2,14,16 295:4 296:17 303:18 306:8 307:4 312:2,6,9,12,18, 20 314:12 316:5,8 317:8 322:19 323:5 324:18 326:16 327:12 339:8 340:9 maybe 11:9 15:7 22:1,5 32:12 46:3 56:7 61:2 65:20 67:16,22 69:14 76:3 88:21 98:8 99:1 101:15,18,20 104:7 105:18 106:2 124:15 143:4,21 152:8 177:8 182:15 187:20 190:1 191:1 195:12 208:5,16 209:12,15 231:21 237:14 240:3,21 241:13 243:16 249:20 257:21 261:10 266:17 277:5 280:14 284:11 294:16 295:5 297:10 301:20,21,22 302:3,8,9,11 312:6 326:9 McQuay 2:22 18:21 mean 40:21 44:10 46:5,6 58:16 64:20 66:6 73:19 74:16,17 76:7 79:14 87:22 91:7 94:15 95:1 101:17 103:1,3 105:11 107:14 108:1 109:5 111:6,10 119:7,9,15 123:8 129:9 130:4,9 133:15 135:2 137:2 144:14,21 150:10,15 153:6,16 155:11,12,21 156:4,17 166:9 167:7 172:13 181:19 182:18 185:12 186:1 187:8 188:16 189:17 190:5 194:14 199:6 204:14 206:19 209:11,12,14,15 211:19,21 216:3,6,7,8,11 224:21 229:5,12 233:5 241:4 243:17 247:10 250:1,3 259:14 286:2,12 288:14 302:13 305:4 306:7 312:13 315:3 317:10,16 322:20 331:21 meaning 206:20 242:19 meaningful 205:11 meaningless 176:14 means 5:12 34:14 61:2 74:16 118:9 120:12 127:21 130:10 134:6,17,19,21 145:9 147:18 173:15 217:21 220:13 264:6 286:20 291:16 meant 65:19 74:21 129:19 139:15 243:20 measure 126:20 measured 55:6 measurement 55:19 56:22 241:16,17 mediator 36:17,18 mediators 39:14 medium15:20 meet 32:8 38:19 100:13 160:16 211:5 225:22 226:4 257:8 261:1 272:12 274:12 277:12 283:7 291:7,9,13 295:18,21 297:7 300:10 301:13,17 303:18 304:14 312:4,14 316:1 317:11,13 318:18 324:16 meeting 1:7 7:8 14:7 21:5 43:16 83:4 120:11 128:10,11 131:6,18,21 133:10 135:17 137:13 143:11 144:15 194:17 197:17 200:2,4 218:14,17 219:14

221:3,10,15,16 223:11,21 224:16,21 225:12,22 226:3,7,8 227:12 232:22 237:3,10 247:11 270:7 277:7 278:15,16 279:1,2,6 288:4 292:7 293:13 296:8 297:11 298:1,21 299:13 300:5 303:16 304:3,4 306:12,14 307:10 312:4 313:3,10 315:3,4 316:1,9 317:9 318:3 319:21 321:1 323:4,7,19 324:18 326:8 335:2 341:16 343:13 345:4,5 meetings 12:15 46:17,18 72:17 82:14 83:12,17,18 120:13 132:7 142:12,15,19 143:17,20 144:2 145:17 200:4 205:22 209:3 217:18 219:8,13 220:17 221:1,10 222:8 226:10,21 227:2 259:6 293:4 300:1,8,14,16,17 301:6,10 304:11 305:10,21 307:1,3 309:1,2,3 312:6 315:9 319:14,16 321:14,17,18,22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 38



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 322:3 329:5 meets 43:18 256:22 member 10:3 76:2,4 84:19 91:13 95:21 103:3 129:10 130:11 131:19 132:9 133:3 135:13,15 137:22 138:6 143:8 207:3 209:5 215:4 members 5:5 8:11 10:16 11:2 20:6 49:16 73:2,5,11,17,21 75:6,7 76:8,10 78:14 82:19 85:9,10,12 99:8 102:20 109:16 119:5 121:7 124:4 128:10 132:20 140:10 142:14 146:2 150:20 157:8,16 186:8,13 188:9,12 189:8,10 192:8 194:15 196:15,18 212:14 218:12 222:7,20 266:8 297:16 298:13 330:20 332:10 345:1 membership 138:1 139:2 238:19 240:1 Memorial 307:12,14 Menser4:5 19:8 83:10 84:17 96:4 mention 12:7,20 50:15 65:15 mentioned 48:12 54:4 57:15 95:12,16 97:22 116:9 239:13 242:15 343:6 Merantan 4:7 19:22 merit 341:18 mess 291:6 message 96:9 166:8 298:12 messages 31:13 met 59:12 84:8 143:3 180:7 197:8 296:6 300:13 323:16 method 228:8 239:5 258:16 260:18 267:15 methodology 253:5 methods 256:8 metric 56:14,16 124:17 metrics 124:16 245:12 Metro 310:8 MEYER 168:10,16,22 169:8 175:11 Meyers 3:5 15:22 60:2 61:5 67:9 89:3 101:9 120:6 126:4 131:2,8,15 178:22 179:5,7 188:8,18 189:1,14,19 202:16,22 204:10,21 205:1

213:22 224:16 235:22 243:8,15 246:15 257:17 259:2 262:6,10,12 265:7,10,17 275:19 297:8 313:14 315:18,20 316:12,15 317:16 322:10 324:5,9 335:3,8 mic 131:22 136:7,9 183:15 291:10,11 Michael 3:2 17:9 microphone 7:5 15:6 57:4,5 278:19 microphones 5:14 mid 303:17 middle 307:4 315:5 316:2 317:8 mid-May 299:22 mid-September 323:21 mike 3:21 7:20 19:20 254:3 millions 241:6 245:20 267:17 mind 13:21 57:3 66:17 80:6 95:1 111:14 167:13 186:7,14 189:12,16 272:1 317:15 329:11 minds 116:3 mine 26:4 minimum 97:13 185:12 246:4

minority 98:2 139:16 164:21 minute 39:2 51:2 58:4 146:20 176:9 minutes 5:4,13 10:20 25:12 192:3 218:19 223:20 291:5 324:19 342:21 343:2 miscalculated 270:9 miss 120:5 285:5 318:2 335:1 missed 78:2 120:3 285:6 344:10 missing 58:12 148:14 167:2 223:8 276:8 missions 240:13 mistake 220:19 misunderstood 65:20 Mitsubishi 2:15 17:13 56:11 66:21 87:4 112:9 122:7 126:17 176:12 286:2 mixed 101:20 Mm-hm 139:3 mode 38:2 model 55:10,16 236:13 241:5 250:3,7,9 256:5 257:11,20 262:13,16 268:8 models 55:4 56:13,14 230:8Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 39



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 241:2 244:2 245:20,21 256:5,20 257:1 260:10 273:19 274:15 275:16 model-specific 252:7 modes 23:20 modification 235:20 modifications 222:8 241:14 327:1 modified 28:5 155:12 292:15 325:4 327:6 modify 89:19 163:14 190:20 191:5 192:15 193:15 210:5 325:13 Molvie 3:6 16:4 54:19 63:1,13 71:4 85:14 86:1 137:15 203:10 234:10 235:6 240:20 258:13,14 259:11,19 260:3,7,9 Molvie's 238:15 Monday 306:3 310:5 311:9 313:22 money 34:11 237:12,14,15 315:14 month 301:7 304:20 305:21 315:5,7,8,17 316:2 317:10 319:14 323:22

months 69:17 100:2 160:1 163:18 204:12 205:21 260:13 275:22 286:22 288:10 301:8 314:15 mood 327:3 moot 117:3 275:21 morning 7:13 8:7,8 9:10 15:22 16:4 20:12 144:16 146:14 302:21 303:2 motherhood 334:10 336:12 motion 341:9 motors 19:16 move 71:20 100:6 102:10 106:2 223:10 258:10 261:20 265:13 276:12 277:5 312:11 327:8 moving 21:1 61:11 99:10 107:10,11 114:15 276:11 MPRM 28:15 267:3 multiple 54:4 169:10 300:20 mute 299:11 muted 299:6 mutual 169:15 Myers 4:3 19:2 77:10 78:10 107:5 123:3,8,13 133:20 134:3,10,14,22 135:3,5,7,18

136:3,11 139:18 140:15 151:1,6 183:16 214:9 218:10 298:18,20 310:12 314:2,5,22 315:3 327:16 328:16 329:20 341:12 342:3 myself 8:11 74:3 101:16,21 171:1 N name's 9:10 Natalia 1:21 346:2,13 national 2:10,11 15:18 69:4 79:12 103:18 115:15 167:18 172:12 174:4 232:8 271:6 274:5 286:9 287:19 344:2 nature 8:21 187:1 natures 53:17 naught 94:15 Navigant 3:18,21 4:7 19:20,22 nebulosity 192:4 necessarily

93:22 95:6 100:13 111:11 206:11 241:22 250:16 269:7 294:15 327:21 necessary

25:6,7,8 37:21 38:11 40:14 71:10 72:3 82:15 95:22 106:22 139:16

216:12,14 273:7,9 305:11 327:1 neg 222:11 negative 109:17,21 111:16,18 116:22 117:3 118:10,12,18 122:9,10,19,22 125:17 126:2,19 127:22 128:3,6,14 134:17,19,21 135:4,8 153:11,12 156:11,20 157:9,18 158:3,6 161:21 162:15 163:5 164:4 168:11,18,19,20, 22 170:7 171:20 175:13 180:11 181:1,5,7 182:1,16 189:14,21 198:14 199:10 200:9,13 201:3 202:1,6,21 203:8,14,16 204:5 207:6 212:15 213:11,13,15,17 215:13 216:6 313:16 330:1,15 331:4 332:5 341:21 342:7 negatively180:22 181:4 negatives 320:10 negligibly 265:10 negotiate 20:19 25:4 28:2,17Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 40



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 31:11 32:18 33:2,3 35:9 41:9 48:7 90:11 139:21 144:3 181:10 206:7 207:14 216:19 217:10 218:9 264:13,22 271:21 276:14 281:13 282:5 329:8 341:14 negotiated 21:7 24:13 31:2 32:3 34:18 36:3 39:5,11 41:11 58:8 82:4 91:9 94:7 96:2 102:6 132:4 165:14 201:10 205:20 215:17 220:21 265:1 321:20 negotiating 24:9 33:6 41:18 45:10 51:6 96:8 140:1,20 163:19 183:13 negotiation 28:11 31:7,15 32:7 39:9 70:7,22 72:21 168:11 265:6 269:3 negotiations 24:17 29:7,16 30:19,21 39:12 45:20 72:1 96:20 107:4 128:9 134:7 145:20 146:5 148:15,19,20,21 150:18 151:3,10,11,15 152:19 167:4 177:19 206:10 208:5 223:1 227:11 269:16 276:10,19 305:2

negotiative 23:3,6 negotiator77:19 negs 199:6 300:12 neighborhood 302:16 Neil 2:3 3:8 15:3,10,12 18:6 20:18,21 21:15 22:7,9,16,19 23:1,22 24:8,10 50:15,20 58:14 76:7 88:18 103:19 105:8 117:9 138:4 153:14 164:15 201:2,8 225:13 226:13 270:12 328:9 331:20 Neil's 22:15 156:9 331:17 neither 346:7 neutral 34:22 35:5,15,16 68:16 296:7 newer 251:11 nice 290:18 nicer 296:14 night 306:4 nine 166:16,17,21 nobody 5:11 14:17 62:20 120:3 130:20 nod 233:20,21 nomenclature 256:5 non 55:5 172:2 178:6 185:22 229:22 non-AEDM

272:11 non-committee 143:8 noncompliant 236:14,18 non-concur 110:15 none 9:17 10:7 129:6 180:5 283:21 non-members 85:12 non-significant 159:2 non-unanimity 114:20 non-unanimous 168:20 171:10 173:9,12,15 177:15,21 179:16,22 180:10 NOPR 50:17,20,22 150:3 168:16 169:8,9 172:17,21 nor 11:11 97:18 346:8 normal 25:15 211:14 260:20 300:11 321:22 337:1 normally 188:21 195:18 326:2 Northwest3:14 20:10 note 74:2 82:18 89:18 90:2,4 107:3 115:7 129:9 200:1 207:17

noted 335:8 notes 227:4 347:5 348:5 349:5 350:5 351:5 nothing 8:2 45:16 51:13 61:22 92:6 208:8 216:14 229:10 nothing's 317:19 notice 28:4 37:7 50:18 54:22 58:6 59:10,22 60:15 94:3 144:9 158:9,20 177:12 178:4,9,14 179:14,19 183:4 210:18 221:7 266:6 277:21 279:5 292:20 295:6 298:9 notices 145:8 notification 293:16 notified 142:14,19 notify 326:22 344:5 notion 64:5 296:6 notions 21:20 nowhere 28:13 NPRM 28:14 50:16,20 100:18 NPRMs 28:12 50:18 NR 109:20 numerous 78:3 nut 114:12 OCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 41



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 object 61:20 62:4 81:8 82:10 104:9 112:2,12 121:9 123:16 127:17 145:15 146:4,17 168:14 328:15,18 objecting 109:3,5 216:18 objection 64:1 82:16 105:2 168:12 214:5 215:1,15 326:20 objections 43:18 63:7 76:18 103:9,10 106:17 126:2 129:5 196:4 214:7,14,18 215:16 221:17 objective 29:1 43:20 163:20 227:10,16 232:3 330:18,22 331:5 332:15 335:5,15 objectively

203:21 objectives 43:8 331:17 335:4 objects 81:4 172:5 obligated 167:22 168:8 172:21 174:5,6 obligation 282:8 336:11 obligations 55:22 56:5 158:11 160:4 177:14 179:21 observations 87:16 obstacle 41:4 obvious 66:20 111:3 obviously 11:21 13:6 22:14 23:13 42:7 51:12 52:1,14 68:21 92:17 95:15 114:19 149:11 158:18 229:14 230:21 240:12 252:12 255:14,22 263:15 269:17 271:14 278:21 279:3,21 305:4 334:14 344:9 occur 79:4 occurred 77:4 115:15 October 323:22 324:4 OEM 252:10 OEMs 237:10 OE's 133:13 offer 193:1,3,4 194:1,11 offered 240:10 offering 273:19 336:15 office 9:11 11:18 14:13 20:17 23:22 40:14,16 303:7 339:20 Officer 5:9 official 35:6,11,12 74:4,7 83:7 officially 323:21 officials 12:9 40:8 288:18 offs 98:19 off-site 296:9

oh 103:2,15 115:19 123:22 132:8 152:16 155:4 167:5 183:1 195:2 208:21 278:20 295:9 335:13 Ohio 16:17 okay 5:20 8:7 9:7 14:10,16 20:3 46:11 50:22 51:19 53:9,12 58:3 62:20 64:2 65:9 66:16 67:22 68:10 72:12,18,20 73:14 75:15 76:6 80:17 82:2,10,16 83:9 85:7 86:4,12 87:6,13 93:1 97:15 102:17 106:13,22 107:10 108:19 115:13 117:19 118:11,15 122:1 123:22 127:19 129:16 130:19 131:15 132:11,20 133:3,16,18 134:14 135:8,9 137:14 138:12 139:4,7 141:8 142:2,8,10,16 145:15,16,18 146:5,13 147:21 149:22 151:5,8,14,22 152:16 153:2,20 155:7,9,10 157:22 160:6,21 164:6 170:9 172:4 173:13

176:21 179:5 182:21 183:14 189:15,19 195:1 196:8 199:22 200:20 207:19 208:17,18 209:16 213:15 215:8,18 220:15,17 221:1,8 224:15 225:7 234:8 236:1 237:16 238:9 250:13 254:2 255:8 260:1 264:7 267:13 274:13 278:6 280:6 288:16 292:4 293:7 298:4 302:15 303:20 304:2 306:16 307:3,6,19 309:19 310:6,13 311:17 313:20 314:7,10 315:21 316:18 320:10 323:11 324:14,21 326:19 327:15 332:22 333:19 335:10,11,22 338:13 340:17 341:4,5 342:22 343:3 344:12 old 160:9 213:18 250:22 OMB 198:4 omissions 223:15 onboard 331:20 one-half 112:15 ones 167:12 174:7 233:18 238:17Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 42



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 252:2,18 274:19,20 ongoing 256:15 260:17 online 102:18 194:15 249:12,14 onsite 84:3 open 10:9,10 13:3 14:6 53:2 55:2 65:8 82:11 83:19 85:15 92:5 105:12 116:3 221:1,4 227:14 228:10,18 253:6,9,15 278:14 303:10 operate 127:20 134:5,15 234:16 operates 187:14 operating 23:20 opinion 10:1 85:14 119:10 133:13 189:9 205:18 239:8 292:17 342:10 opinions 187:20 198:11 276:7 opportunities 27:1 opportunity 26:13,21 27:12 28:3 29:5 42:12 65:8 71:17 72:10 76:2 77:7 90:17 100:6 188:11 269:2 279:3,19 338:19,21 339:6 oppose 170:13 opposed 114:4 169:20 218:16 opposition 213:1

optimist 225:12 optimistic 323:6 option 144:21 200:14 252:12 263:7 278:1 284:13 287:1 options 101:8 270:13 294:16,17,18 327:4 order 72:18 78:12 99:21 100:13 208:19 233:7 240:9 245:18 253:7 254:10 286:5 325:16,17 ordered 245:19,22 ordering 270:20 order's 239:6 organization 80:11 341:7 organizational 79:2,9 organizations 31:4,6 78:14,16 organize 272:14 organized 87:3 272:10 original 161:10 170:14 282:8 284:15,18 341:9 ORPA 124:4 others 35:3 39:18 42:9 45:14 56:20 58:13 73:15 82:21 89:17 117:7 118:2 119:6 121:4 127:12 142:13 153:11 203:4

248:1 250:13 265:4 297:14 303:20 310:22 321:11 otherwise 34:8 102:11 127:14 137:12 138:19 167:4 174:22 247:17 285:14 293:5 334:13 ought 107:2 117:11 138:7 233:16 290:11,13,15 292:2 327:18 338:2 340:22 ourselves 70:21 99:2 237:8 286:19 outcome 22:3 67:6 91:5,10 92:20 94:22 206:9 212:21 outlining 156:13 157:11 output 281:9 outside 6:12,17 45:22 46:15 86:18 108:5 183:6 outstanding 325:8 outvoted 328:20 overall 90:19 114:15 270:2 overarching 67:15 70:15 overcome 43:19 over-comment 337:20 overkill 242:4

overridden 97:9 overriding 166:18 overstress 333:11 overturn 91:5 overview 268:7 overwhelming 135:17 overwhelmingly 228:3 owned 18:7 P p.m 303:14 317:12 345:6 P2S 3:7 20:8 pablum 205:7 pace 223:10 Pacific 2:21 20:13 package 19:7 35:18 91:21 156:18 336:7 page 44:16 80:21 165:5 paid 38:5 344:17 palatable 43:13 pan 191:7 Pantelis 2:18 17:2 161:3 paper 28:1 33:14 54:1 paperwork

320:17 paragraph 73:1,14 76:12 87:15 94:20 129:7 130:21 138:16 152:1 154:4 155:16 161:20Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 43



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 200:9 330:17 331:22 343:7 paragraphs 44:16 89:22 parallel 154:19 parameters 63:22 parcel 289:7 Pardon 312:19 parent 20:7 193:20 194:1,2,7 parte 279:4 partial 54:6 participant 78:15 participants 2:5 14:20 62:22 65:12 72:14 221:16 275:14 participate 11:16 12:1,2 18:11 41:6 132:7 143:22 198:19 199:12 298:16 329:7 participates 83:1 participating 11:3,19 29:5 72:16 112:20 participation 9:2,6 82:13,18 85:8 275:15 particular 11:3 20:21 30:10,11 31:3,10 39:19 42:21 44:7,21,22 46:10,19 49:3 57:2 62:7 79:7 82:21 83:3 112:8 127:22 157:17 159:10 163:15 180:22 205:14 211:10 295:17 300:18 particularly 78:13,17 187:9 239:14 241:20 particulars 177:5 parties 30:18 36:17 72:21 93:22 128:12,14 129:2 134:7 143:12 152:19,22 206:17 219:19 341:13,21 346:8 partly 113:12 182:20 party 12:3 25:9 28:16 30:17 35:20 36:1 77:5 81:10 92:18 111:7,12 135:13 137:21 169:6 173:16 214:12 215:13 330:11 341:20 342:4 pass 7:11 121:8 192:14 252:14,15 passed 39:10 166:11 207:17 passing 50:8 166:18 passion 271:18 past 49:11 206:6 248:6 277:5 321:18 paste 88:22 pasted 89:1 path 107:14 Paul 2:15 3:3 17:13 19:15 56:11 66:21 87:4

112:9 118:4 122:7 123:4 126:17 176:12 185:7 248:3 249:1 262:2 266:7 285:19 286:1 320:7,8 Paul's 261:16 pause 342:3 paying 33:18 pays 236:9,21 237:1 PBI 327:16 penalty 230:1 pending 68:4 170:22 Pennsylvania 15:21 people 13:6 22:4 23:15 25:10 26:1,5,10 27:2,6 29:6 30:5 32:17,19 33:7,8,10,13 34:2,8 35:5,8 36:4,5,19 38:10 41:11 42:1,3,8,17,22 43:22 49:2 50:7 57:19 60:13,20 64:12 71:15 72:16 77:11,21 79:17 80:14,16 81:12,15 83:16 84:4 85:8 86:6,10 88:14 89:15 90:11 92:16 93:15 98:5 100:21 102:18 104:18 109:1,2,5,11,13 110:3,7,10

112:2,5,6 116:10,11 119:4,19 120:17,20,21 121:13,22 123:9 124:4,5,8,12,14, 17,18 125:3,17 126:22 127:1,4,7,11 129:4 135:12,15 137:2,10,11,17 138:2,8 143:21 145:22 153:2,5,11 165:10 186:21 197:19 201:3 202:14 203:11,19,22 204:4 207:14 208:1,4,6,10 211:9 214:2 215:15,21 217:10 218:4,9 239:12 242:16 247:14 256:9 263:13 271:19 272:16 280:4,5 283:21 289:1,6 290:20 292:1 296:17 300:2 301:13 304:3 305:4 306:3 308:19 319:20,22 321:2 326:8,13,17 327:13 329:6,12,14 331:13 334:8 336:14 340:20 per 109:12 percent 47:12 88:5 89:8,13 90:2,3,9 92:2 93:12 95:22 96:3,6,11,14Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 44



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 97:10,20 100:5,21 101:19 102:4,9,10,19,21 103:22 104:3,8 105:9,18 106:1,15 107:6,22 109:1,4,5,12 110:7,9,22 112:19 116:19,22 117:4,7,15,19 118:3,5,10,18,19 ,20 119:1,12 120:17,22 121:1,3,5,7,11,1 4,17,19 122:2,13,15,17,1 9 123:4,6,11,15,16 124:8 134:8 189:6 percentage 102:9,16 104:20 106:21 107:2 109:18,22 110:2,21 111:14,17,20 112:1 116:8,12,13 117:2 124:10 125:2 127:3 percentages 105:17 112:18 116:15 125:10,16,20 percent's 97:12 perfect33:22 102:2 279:17 304:7 309:7 perfectly192:16 282:10 perform 234:18 235:2 254:13 performance 19:9 63:9,11,13,17,22 64:16 68:17,19 78:17 257:3 performed 234:17 235:7 perhaps 154:8 157:5 218:15 326:5 342:3 period 8:22 28:13 37:11 128:17 141:18 157:15 204:9 217:13 223:13 273:3 278:10 302:16 307:10 permanently 299:6,11 permits 87:5,10 permutations 256:6 person 20:5 23:4 43:14 44:14 45:8 46:5 77:18 87:2 89:6,14 96:6 107:12 109:12 121:20 125:9 130:17 143:10 153:5 203:7 210:20 216:7 226:10 276:5 304:11 313:15 321:14 personally 77:22 96:17 persons 46:7 person's 213:13 Persons 96:1 perspective 61:16 98:13 210:14 247:7 276:4

278:7 312:1 336:13 perspectives 70:18 292:2 Pete16:4 54:19 71:4 85:14 137:15 238:15 239:13,21 258:13,14 Peter 3:6 234:10 240:17 Peterson 3:7 8:11 20:7 194:21 Pete's 138:10 ph 251:9 Phillip 3:15 18:10 48:11 57:3 75:20 116:20 118:8 156:8 175:22 184:9,10 250:5,6 phone 6:9 7:15,17 20:4 50:9 60:17 72:4,13 97:16 129:21 144:4,6,15 145:3 207:18 217:20 238:10 242:15 298:14,16 299:5,6 304:15 305:6,12 309:9 321:6 phones 298:17 phrase 57:17,18 68:11 76:4 200:10 phrases 56:7,9 physical 234:18 physically 103:2,3 129:9,20 130:4,9 pick 36:16 74:8 113:3 136:19

314:22 323:22 328:14 picked 96:16 274:20 picking 35:5 113:4 191:21 332:20 picture 57:7 98:19 pie 334:10 piece 28:1 53:22 230:15 pig 97:7 pipeline 23:20 pitfalls 239:7 placeholder 319:22 places 296:13 plain 44:15 plan 225:22 226:4 323:12 plane 318:7 planes 22:13 planning 312:4 Plano 17:10 plans 210:6 322:12,15 play 143:15 158:3 246:21 265:20 286:2 player 17:18 169:10,13 players 169:10,20 334:6 please 7:6 10:21 11:17 12:14 15:6 18:16 132:1 136:7 205:11 214:9 278:19Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 45



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 291:10 293:2,3 pleased 8:12 plural 155:6 plus 229:7 338:17 pocket 329:10 point 7:3 24:15 32:9 43:22 45:10,13 48:13,16 49:10 50:11,13,15 51:15,21 59:4 62:7 64:22 66:8 68:1 69:11 75:20,21 79:6,19 80:1 85:19 86:19 87:20 88:9 91:19 92:10 93:9 94:2 95:2 99:12,13 103:12 113:16 117:3,4 127:10 141:22 143:13,14 144:22 145:2 156:9 157:10 165:2 166:19 168:9,14 187:22 190:9 191:11 193:21 204:13 206:1 224:8 230:6 231:20 237:17 239:14 251:15 256:1 260:3 268:20 270:8,18 271:2,8 274:1,5 275:21 276:11,19 284:21 285:4,5 296:2 303:3 308:20 325:18 332:18 335:18 338:17 339:1 340:14 pointed 88:12 170:21 333:15 pointing 135:10 points 40:1 41:5 79:16 94:18 100:20 110:14 240:22 248:12 340:2 policies 10:16 14:9 policy 220:19 341:6 politicians 328:3 pool 16:3 18:9 pops 202:11 posed 171:5 position 40:13 114:7 169:4 203:13 209:16 210:22 211:3 214:22 285:21 342:12 positive 41:15 277:6 315:10 338:10 positively 43:1 possibilities 171:17 177:7 178:19 possibility 97:14 114:5,11 154:11,19 199:18 203:15 215:12 304:9 308:17 336:21 possible 43:7 58:8 99:9 158:10 177:13 178:5 179:13,20 212:10 226:12 231:18 245:20 249:22 261:18 270:16 297:6,12 298:11

304:21,22 312:11 313:3 possibly 47:14 113:21 208:16 212:13 post 226:13,15 posted 222:20 339:19 postpone 32:13 343:6 postponing 218:11 posts 117:22 potential 177:2 239:7 284:13 potentially 69:15 93:12 261:16 Power241:14 practical 91:3 92:15 144:14 268:19 practically274:5 practice 227:22 preamble 182:15 187:18,19 212:4,7 213:14 294:15 330:7 precede 76:3 preceding 78:21 preclude 39:5 59:14 62:12 79:13 155:2 precluded 212:1 338:1 precludes 80:4 154:16 preconceived 21:20 predict 249:15 prefer 6:21

Preferably 295:7 premise 113:16 prepare 300:14 320:5 337:1,2 prepared 204:1 223:22 225:16 226:21 293:5 preparing 200:15 presence 229:7 present101:7 103:1,2,3 126:8 128:1,10 129:9,10 130:4,5,9,13 132:6 175:16,20 287:20 presented 174:18 180:6 presenting 80:5 180:13 292:14 pressure 239:18 pressures 240:4 Presumably 273:22 presumption 175:7 186:2 pretty 14:21 21:4 71:5 95:13 134:8 138:10 165:8 183:8 191:22 195:21 239:3 240:20 250:3 preventing 34:11 preview 13:14 previous 102:6 156:9 260:5 339:3 previously 208:4Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 46



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 277:22 price 97:2,7 primarily

230:8 primary 233:1,18 prior 23:18 50:1 51:6 74:22 93:11 119:20 132:4 148:21 221:3 226:3 312:5 priorities 261:10 privileges 208:22 probably 6:11 9:19 10:19 11:12 12:4 45:2,3 66:22 74:6 75:15 99:20 100:22 125:13,18 141:22 155:14 157:4 185:4 191:19 199:3 225:3 226:1 238:20 240:13 256:18 266:1 275:7 283:6 288:4 300:3 302:13 323:15 324:1 335:1 341:18,19 problem 8:16 25:2,5,22 26:4,9,12,17,20 27:9,22 28:8,9,12,18 29:2,4 30:1,10,11 31:3,5 32:5,9 39:20 41:7,19 42:1,3,7,22 43:12 46:19 82:3 87:12 117:22 125:18 130:20 133:16 138:7 139:5 149:21 186:17 199:14 200:2 207:9,22 220:22 222:5 230:3 233:12 239:8,20 240:1 255:11 267:19 273:5 280:8 306:8 307:17 311:2,4,7 313:5 318:14 319:17 333:21 problematic 124:9 problems 29:1 54:10 139:10,14 155:9 158:5 180:14 200:18 208:3 216:4 270:2 285:14 315:5 333:15 344:19 procedural 171:2 229:12 procedure 25:18 28:20 39:4 231:10 235:13 251:2 253:18 274:1 282:12 procedures 38:15,21 83:15 222:3 229:15 234:13 235:10,17,19,20 241:18 262:9 325:22 326:3 proceed 103:8,11 195:13 197:18 289:7 proceeding 276:10 296:5,12 346:3,4,5,7,9,10 347:3,5 348:3,5 349:3,5 350:3,5 351:3,5 proceedings

92:12,13 95:16 225:15 226:20 347:8 348:8 349:8 350:8 351:8 process 6:2,22 18:10 21:6,12 22:6,21 23:14 24:18 25:10,14 28:20 30:3 31:7,8,12 32:17 34:20,21 37:7,16,20 38:3 39:4,13 40:7 56:17 66:20 67:11 93:6,13,19 94:2,10,16 96:1 99:4 182:5 184:22 191:22 197:22 198:6,22 201:10,13 211:15 219:19 222:13 229:3,8,9,13,19, 20,22 230:1,12 250:20 253:12 257:6 258:3 261:15 265:16,21 266:17,18 269:5,18,21 270:1,3 281:1 282:4 284:5 312:11 329:3,8 339:10 processes 23:2 25:15 228:2 produce 124:4 221:11 224:19 241:6 produced 249:18 product 3:6 15:8 53:15,16,17,19 57:8 61:4 124:5 125:9,11,18 154:9 192:14 209:15 236:18 240:10 241:5 242:2,7,19 243:13,18,21 244:1,3,11,16,19 250:10 252:7 256:22 271:13 273:20 productive 6:2 145:21 products 15:8 16:2,3,14,15,20 17:8,12 55:20 56:1 124:3 152:3,11 154:5 209:13 227:20 228:7,12,15 235:14 245:17 246:9,13 247:11 251:21 256:16 271:11 273:4,19 professional 24:6 program 230:21 231:16 247:16,20 265:8 273:6 275:16 programs 15:2 78:16 243:5 246:20 267:11 progress 104:21 251:17 311:18,21 312:6,8 project 293:20 294:8 promise 196:17 proper 254:11,21 properly 254:10,16Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 47



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 256:21 286:17 proportional 288:2 proposal 28:6 50:18 95:14,17,18 110:6 178:8 263:20,22 266:5 275:13 278:2 279:22 280:11,17 281:9 282:5,8,10,11 284:6,17,20 285:2 290:6 292:5,16 proposals 278:4 338:12 propose 160:20 171:2 178:16 187:20 192:20,22 222:7 242:6 277:12 328:5 proposed 25:22 26:15 37:7 58:9 62:12,14,16,19 92:22 94:12 157:12 158:9,20 160:20 164:4,9 177:12,20 178:5,10,14 179:15,20 210:18 212:13 214:7,17 222:16 244:5,9 259:9,14,15 265:22 266:2,3 267:3 274:7,10 275:12 277:21 279:9,17 282:2,7,18,22 284:13,15 285:7 291:17,18 338:9 339:16 340:3,19 342:14,19

proposing 238:6 298:20 304:14 328:1 propriety

248:7 prospective 157:14 protect 10:13 114:10 168:6 249:6 protects 114:14 prove 6:2 338:19 proves 268:22 provide 9:22 12:19 14:14 102:12 150:1 156:11 157:8,17 161:9 163:4 202:21 208:13 223:10 231:6 236:19 253:5 provided 178:13 228:13 230:11 272:6 provides 191:18 236:22 providing 13:4,6,7 139:6 212:13 provision 109:15 273:18 proxy 103:4 129:10,12,17,22 130:11,12 131:3 public 7:8 10:10 14:5,6 21:4 30:13 36:13 83:18,19 84:4,7,10 85:15,16 94:10 115:6,12 143:19 183:5 200:21 221:4

247:3,11,18 255:13 278:14,16 279:1,2,19 293:12,16 297:17 publication 266:10 282:1,13,15 publicly 255:10 publish 37:3,4 93:10 100:18 144:11 162:17,20 163:12 172:21 174:18,20 175:17 178:7,13 179:10,14 180:1 189:18 201:19 202:3 210:17 212:4 published 83:12,19 144:9,10 175:7 181:2 204:5 publishing 162:19 163:13 172:17 178:8 180:10 200:13 201:15 212:11,22 213:4 pull 226:14 pure 193:18 purely 203:21 purpose 15:17 36:20 58:7 112:3 175:19 purposes 55:5 127:15,21 134:6,16 231:17 234:16 241:2 242:3,6,8 push 44:7 288:9

pushing 70:5 99:11 288:12 puts 94:2 211:3 336:13 putting 25:22 45:11 96:5 109:15,18 115:18 134:10 137:20 174:6 277:20 300:2 342:3 PVI 4:3 19:2 139:18 Q quality 47:12 quantity 47:13 quasi-Roberts 328:9 question 14:17 43:5 48:4 50:10 52:22 54:20 66:19 84:16 85:20 92:21 114:18 119:4 130:2,10 142:17 146:7,19 154:21 164:15 167:18 168:10 176:1,4,11 179:4 181:20 183:13,15 184:11 189:19 201:2 203:21 205:6 210:9 216:12 220:12 223:6 232:8,13 233:22 236:4 238:3 245:19 248:1 252:5,7 259:11 261:18 264:4,8 271:8Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 48



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 272:2 281:7 282:1 283:8 284:11,19 291:13 293:18 297:21 298:4 302:17 303:5 317:17 320:4 321:21 325:8 326:12 336:3 339:10,18 questioning 57:14 281:18 questions 10:20 14:8,12 22:19 42:18 43:1 47:11,13,15 50:7 51:1,16 73:18 87:16 126:14 149:8 170:22 171:4 180:14 181:17 197:2 228:20 268:1 293:15 299:9 323:17 quick 115:15 150:5 176:1 225:5 quicker 145:9 quickly 37:13 52:9 83:6 100:12 122:18 204:15 219:11 225:5 226:12 284:12 297:5,11 298:8 315:22 quite 10:15 12:16 40:22 44:10 79:10 206:16 249:18,19 274:17 302:12 310:13 331:7 337:15 339:17 quorum 9:3 quote 64:6 69:9 quotes 39:15 103:1 R raise 23:15 46:1 83:2 103:20 114:17 154:4 168:12 214:13 215:15 raised 127:10 164:15 203:21 215:15 248:6 336:18,20 338:16 raises 50:6 154:21 158:12 raising 50:2 213:2 Ran 16:19 range 72:15 240:7 275:16 307:7 rare 197:16 287:11 rate 253:20 259:18 rather72:21 80:3 109:18 112:1,11 125:19 185:5 193:15 203:22 286:10 307:1 rating 237:3 246:2,12 253:19 256:8 ratings 246:3 249:20 255:3 rationale 156:11,18 re 334:7 reach 21:13 45:1 48:6,7 52:19 54:15 55:17 58:9,17 60:3 70:2,17 71:5 101:17 102:7 107:17 112:4 165:15 312:10 329:9 332:16 339:22 reached 50:5 128:8 140:21 155:5 reaches 128:12,17 reaching 64:13 70:11 91:14 115:17 311:20 reaction 94:4 Reactions 54:18 211:17 reading 51:22 59:9 299:3 reads 65:4 204:6 read-through 322:21 ready 58:3 78:15 118:3,21 140:9,21 226:2 261:19 290:10 real 52:11 79:1 86:8 91:17 125:10 145:4 150:4 160:21 203:15 335:15 341:13 realistic 97:18 125:16 realities 269:21 realize 105:6 284:14 317:17 really 22:20 66:3,6 79:3 89:4 91:4,10 96:9 98:13,15,17,19 99:3 103:11 111:21 113:7 117:16 125:14 129:3 155:13 174:22 199:16 204:18 205:6 208:8,11 210:22 220:7 228:17 233:2,14,16 242:4 252:7 253:4 258:20 261:19 267:22 269:7 271:3 272:17 287:16 305:4,7 317:15 329:1 331:13 341:8 realm 245:3 rearrange 261:6 reason 35:21 36:2 68:2 72:19 73:13 99:17 116:9 147:12,17 160:4 161:15 187:13 231:2 236:12,17 295:17 329:20 341:8 reasonable 86:1 102:21 127:5 150:9 151:2 200:1 226:1 reasonably 33:10 reasoning 215:2 reasons 35:5 91:1 99:15 125:8 reassign 140:16 recall286:13 338:10 receive 104:4 285:3 343:12 received 284:10,12 340:2Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 49



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 receiving 192:13 recently 78:21 recess 51:3 176:20 recognize 86:2,10 87:2 107:11 167:11 recognized 97:3 recognizing 325:3 334:6 recollection 143:2,6,7 144:6 201:12 recommend 37:4,18 62:17 86:8 91:17 117:4 126:13 164:8 195:14 199:1,18 213:12,13 218:11 286:21 339:8 recommendation 89:20,22 90:2,4,8 91:15 93:7,13,14,16,17 102:12 110:12 114:3,22 115:5,10 146:21 156:19,22 158:16,17,18 159:9,12 160:18 168:13 173:4 175:16 180:4 183:5 185:2,8,14 188:15 189:21 190:2 191:8,14 196:2,21,22 214:1 233:19 266:15 281:11,13,15 332:11 335:16 337:18 338:2,4,7 340:21 342:15 recommendations 67:18 68:20 84:12 129:15 147:2 149:4 193:7 195:20 268:20 recommended 55:17,22 62:16,18,20 63:20,21 84:19 152:2,8,13,15 155:6 158:8 159:17 177:11,17 178:1,4 179:11,19 188:1 266:8 331:10 recommenders 186:19 recommends 190:1 reconsider 148:3 reconsidered 311:19 reconvene 37:14,22 38:12 147:5 reconvened 37:15 336:22 record 92:14 94:11 115:6,12 119:19 212:7 221:11 226:18 227:7 229:8 335:8 346:7 recorded 225:15 226:20 346:4 recording 227:2 recordings 347:6 348:6 349:6 350:6 351:6 recovery 245:13

recreate 148:5 redacted 249:3,5 redefine 88:20 redo 242:1 redraft 299:17 reduced 122:10 346:5 reduction 249:15 reductions 249:16 redundancy 336:17 redundant 336:16 refer 222:15 227:21 referencing 79:8 referring 61:13 251:2 257:16 refers 50:20 reflect 153:7 154:11 178:9,16 187:17 201:4 253:18 256:13 269:20,22 reflected 180:12 182:14 212:2,16 213:14 reflecting 257:10 reflection 329:2 reflects 56:3 177:7 191:4 196:11 refocus 210:2 refrain 11:2 refrigerant

17:15 309:3 refrigeration 2:6,10 15:19,20 16:12,15 17:1,7,11,21 21:18 54:7 58:10,20 69:5,9 79:13 97:5 103:18 154:13 167:18 252:9 reg 199:6 222:11 300:12 Regal-Beloit

3:3 19:15 regard 212:22 regarding 151:18 regardless 150:8,12,17 173:1 272:20 336:10 regards 54:16 regime 246:22 register 54:21 58:6 59:10 94:3 144:1 145:8 175:18 181:2 182:2 221:3,6 Registers 241:1 registry 204:5 regret 53:11 Regs 263:11 regular 7:15 46:18 131:19 regularly 300:21 regulation 10:4 22:12 155:20 156:2,7 158:10 159:7 177:17 178:4 179:19 199:14 229:1 248:21 249:9 342:14 regulationsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 50



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 152:8,14 155:6,15 156:5 158:9 177:12 179:11 227:20 229:12,16,19 230:5,7 236:11 243:19 289:16 regulatory

24:17 28:11 31:15 32:6 39:9 78:21 178:16 228:6 related 56:1 68:1 246:2,19 271:15 346:8 relates 167:19 184:12 relationship 23:1 192:5 relative 55:9 234:12 relatively 31:17 38:16 159:2 release 248:13,22 released 247:2,3 248:7,16,17 249:2 releasing 248:8 relevance 125:13 relevant 336:12 Reliable 249:14 relied 273:9 relief 9:20 rely 263:22 relying 93:11 remaining 324:17 325:1 remarkable 273:18 remarks 192:3 remember 44:14 45:19 47:7 58:1 90:11 91:19 111:16 130:21 165:4 213:9 220:4 304:5 332:21 343:8,9 344:14,22 remove 142:6 removing 59:15 328:5,18 renew 214:6,18 reopen 99:12 276:18 290:5 rep 18:3 23:15 29:18 196:14 repeat 57:17 136:8 181:19,20 214:9 replace 79:22 214:2 289:17 replacement 208:7 replacing 76:14 328:6 report 13:9,13,19 36:4 41:8 44:9 77:15,16 78:2,5 90:6 92:7 96:14,19 97:21 98:1,4 104:15 105:5 106:8 139:11,16 140:3,9,11,15,19 ,21 141:5,20 146:11 147:22 148:11,21,22 149:2,10,15 150:2,8,10,11,16 ,20 151:3,11,14,17 153:15 154:18 157:21 179:14 182:10 186:4 190:15,16

195:20,21 200:17 249:5 311:18,21 312:8,12 318:12,19 319:8,15 320:15,18 321:4,8 reported 1:21 140:6 347:3 348:3 349:3 350:3 351:3 reporter 7:7 131:22 136:6,10 221:12 223:13 225:3 278:19 291:10 346:1,2,14 347:3 348:3 349:3 350:3 351:3 Reporter's 347:5 348:5 349:5 350:5 351:5 reporting 1:22 78:17 reports 10:7 35:16 154:9,20,22 320:3,5 report's 319:13 represent 11:10 40:9 46:7 49:3,4 77:14 80:7,11,12 98:2 120:14 131:9 132:6,13,17 187:10 198:9 207:7 258:22 representated 137:7 representation 80:10 112:22 representations 113:17 228:15 representative 9:9 23:7,9 40:5,6,19 49:12 101:5 133:3 187:11,12 231:6,8 representatives 24:21,22 32:22 48:21 77:13 represented 72:19 77:7,12,22 78:4,13 79:14 80:8 138:20 238:17 representing 11:6 16:13 46:7 77:20 108:8,15 165:10 169:14 197:12,13 207:4 238:13 represents 334:16 reproduced 214:16 re-propose 282:9 request65:19 193:9 235:9 249:4 requesting 193:14 require 32:10 38:7 85:5 281:4 288:1 required 221:13 236:18 242:22 246:5 248:16 267:22 337:9 requirement 39:7 41:2 60:5 81:21 97:22 214:11 221:5,11 298:3 300:12 requirementsCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 51



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36:15 58:9,17 68:18,19 171:2 219:14 221:14 240:13 261:1 267:11 271:12 requires 25:10 82:1 248:20 273:15 requiring 26:7 113:18 246:8 research 32:4,10 126:11 researched 214:15 reserve 160:2 203:14 reserved 164:11 reserving 322:7 residential 16:2,20 18:8,12 246:9 resign 76:1 resigns 75:18 76:4 resist 334:22 resolution 32:4 resolve 8:15 37:11 41:6 135:14 216:4 261:21 271:14 291:13 299:21 324:17 325:1 326:16 resolved 67:22 233:9,11 resolving 315:14 respect 198:19 261:22 respectfully 193:9 respective 247:8 respects 279:17 334:14 respond 43:1 211:2 269:12 responding 340:16 response 42:14 180:16 200:19,21 292:6,11 294:21 330:9 responses 337:20 responsibility 165:16 256:20 responsible 22:13 40:4 334:9 rest 18:15 22:8 50:17 62:21 106:8 155:11 188:12 204:7 217:18,22 272:19 restricted 99:21 restriction 138:9 restrictions 10:4 restricts 331:3 restrooms 6:12,16 result 10:1 67:12 91:11 96:7 148:16 174:17 278:15 321:1 323:19 resulted 337:8 results 140:22 153:16,18 201:16,20 247:19 248:8 retain 330:15 rethinking 117:17 retired 22:9 retrospect 284:11 return 193:10 234:22 239:15 retyped 134:2

reverse 198:8 255:11,14 review 38:6 93:11 94:1 174:1 285:6 321:14 322:21 338:21 339:6 reviewing 285:1 reviews 148:1 339:21 revise 71:18 263:19 revising 250:20 263:12 revision 192:15 263:17 revisit 72:3,10 107:4 117:13 128:22 176:10 198:20 revisiting 199:18 revolve 8:22 rewind 109:10 rewriting 255:17 Rheem 3:5 16:1 60:2 61:5 67:9 89:3 101:9 107:5 131:2 169:1 174:4 179:1 rights 330:11,15 341:22 ringer 240:19 risk 93:19 risky 166:3 Rivest3:21 19:20 259:13,20 road 106:6 Robert 4:2 245:6,9 Roberts 351:2,13

role 21:12 22:16 24:8 191:20 243:4 246:21 256:15,17 roll 80:2 rolling 327:14 Rolph 3:8 18:6 58:14 66:5 76:7 105:8,22 106:10,14 153:14 155:11,21 156:4 170:20 173:9 201:8 Ron 17:6 60:7 107:21 215:19 Ronald 3:12 room 6:7 13:6 18:15,16 33:16 45:14 46:1,8,15 58:13 147:18 256:9 273:22 280:2 283:21 289:11 291:4 295:13 302:18 303:10,12 314:13 340:20 342:21 rotating 209:11 rough 32:1 34:16 round 91:12 121:16 266:6 282:19 rounded 121:14,15,17 rounding 121:12 routine 31:17 R-R 53:7 rule 25:1 26:15Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 52



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 27:13 28:22 29:13,17 30:14,20 31:16 32:8,13 33:2,7 37:13 44:3 52:2 62:13 68:4 70:9 92:22 93:10 94:12 99:2 145:17 155:13,21,22 156:1,2,14 157:12 160:20 162:3 163:5,15,17 164:4,9 165:1,16 166:9,14,20 167:8 169:12,22 170:1 175:8 177:20 183:6 202:3 211:15,16 212:21 214:7,13,14,17 222:16 228:4,10 231:21 244:5,8,9,21 251:9 252:18 253:6,9,10,11,13 ,15 257:22 258:7 259:7,9,10,15,16 261:22 262:1 263:6 264:5,19 265:1,16,20,22 267:4,5 269:15,19,20 270:4,19 271:18 272:6,13,21 273:13,15 274:9 278:11,13 279:10,16 280:4,16,17 281:2,3 282:2,10,11,12,1 3,15,18 283:13 284:13,16 285:8,13,17,22 286:11 287:2,8,22 291:17,18 294:15,17 295:15 329:17 331:5 333:2,6 338:2,8,9,22 339:3,12,15,16,1 8,22 340:4,6,13,19 344:15 rulemaking 1:6 21:8 23:7 24:9,13 25:3,5,6,15,19 27:2 28:5 30:20 31:2 32:3 34:18 36:3 37:7 39:4,5,11 55:20 56:3 58:8 67:4 82:5 92:14,21 94:7 102:7,13 107:17 132:4 158:21 161:9 177:13 178:5,10,15 179:12,15,20 180:12 183:5,10 201:10 210:13,18 211:14 212:12,14,17 213:2 214:14 220:21 222:21 227:10 235:15 248:15 277:19,21 278:9 293:17 294:20 321:20 325:12 330:9 336:11 rulemakings 23:4 31:15 41:11 326:2 rules 6:6 7:4 10:2 14:18 27:14 38:14 48:17,18 49:22 51:5,17

57:13 83:11 104:14,15 105:6 106:6,9 120:7 126:9,22 132:3 154:1 163:11 189:3 190:19 200:5 216:15,17 217:19,22 218:4 233:7 242:5 243:11 245:4 281:12,16 295:20 296:2,5,14 299:16,17 313:18 325:3 327:3 340:18 run 124:2 138:7 232:5 246:6 248:18 267:18 315:4 running 21:6 304:5 runs 219:19 rushed 206:2 rushing 204:18 205:1 Russel 16:19 Russell 3:16 Rusty 17:17 19:18 54:13 84:22 87:17 88:12 99:14 107:8 121:10 144:8 S Sabelli 3:9 19:11,12 Sachs 3:10 7:19 18:1 47:17 48:2 52:18 53:5,11 63:16,21 74:9,15 75:6 78:1,19

86:5 97:1,14 108:21 109:7,9,19 117:9,20 119:1,6,14,17 120:20 125:22 138:4 141:2,13,16 142:4,9,17,21 148:14 149:17,21 151:9,17 154:3,5,17 155:7 158:2 159:21 160:8,21 164:2,14 171:8 175:6 191:21 193:1,4,8,12,21 194:4,8 195:9 198:17 199:11,17 205:3 206:14 207:7 210:6 220:2 225:13 226:19 227:8 233:15 256:3 277:7,11 287:11,14 289:12,20 290:12,15,18,22 291:9,12,21 295:17 299:3 302:20 303:4 308:17,21 309:5,7,10,13 310:7,11,19 313:3,18 324:15 327:7,12 328:9,13,20 331:10 334:5,19 335:1 336:4,7,16 339:17 341:2,6 safety 19:9 23:21 63:19 sample 234:4,5Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 53



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 246:16 samples 246:12 Sampling 234:3,4 sat 108:13 160:14 205:20 336:9 satisfactory

154:2 326:21 satisfied 146:22 208:15 330:10 satisfy 103:15 157:19 159:19 190:9 214:18 326:18 saving 34:11 savings 287:19 saw 197:7 223:2 267:3 scattered 223:19 scenario 160:12 172:9 210:15 284:3,4 286:10 schedule 7:2 12:14 217:17 219:12 226:9 227:12 301:4,7,9,12 304:7,8 305:10,21 312:4 313:9 315:16 318:12 319:1 322:9,13 323:16,20 344:1,3 scheduled 305:13 321:15,16,17 322:3 schedules 300:3 scheduling 315:16 scheme 159:2 scope 47:18,22 48:5 52:20 54:3,6,16,20 55:1,11,14 56:3 57:7 59:1,11 66:6,7 89:5 154:7,20 217:16,20 218:18,20 227:10,14,15,17 229:2 232:3,8,10 233:6 235:11,21 242:10,11 243:10 244:19 253:8 254:4 264:8,11,12 266:2 267:2 272:8,10 277:19 282:18,22 283:1,6 288:9,14,15 289:3,5,8 292:19 299:18 325:2,6,13 326:1,20 SCRE 252:18,19 screen 51:19 56:9 57:17 221:20 295:16 328:5 screwed 195:4 scroll 156:15 183:16 191:6 seasick 141:19 seat 79:5 208:12 second 28:15 62:22 75:6 128:2 130:10 135:12 136:1 146:6 171:14 176:9 179:8 183:18,19 200:2 247:4 248:4 253:17 279:15 302:1,11,22 303:1,6,15 307:9 313:10

314:13,17 327:19 330:17,21 337:19 339:1 342:18 secondary232:21 233:19 seconds 39:2 103:7 secret 290:22 secretary 35:7 41:2 73:3,6,9 76:8 77:2 90:8 92:7 100:17 101:4,7 104:15 105:5 147:14 148:1 159:3 162:13,14,17,18 164:8 165:2,9 169:20 170:3,6,8 185:2 188:17 Secretary's 166:14 section 95:6 157:3 219:11 sections 219:10 security 3:4 6:22 seeing 146:17 233:20 264:5 seeking 282:21 seem 77:4 82:16 206:20 239:4 269:1 280:8 281:2 289:6 seemed 88:14 340:19 seems 72:21 76:16 86:1 93:18 116:14 124:9,15 136:3 138:5 154:10,18 206:14 209:18 242:3,4 269:5

281:19 298:22 300:11 337:20 seen 35:15 79:7 203:10 249:1 259:9 260:4,5 271:6 274:6 305:4 segment 240:5 select 229:20 236:8 selected 208:11,12 selecting 124:12 self-contained 17:1 sell 19:6 334:8 selling 260:12 semi 252:11 semicolon 151:11 semi-colon 157:7,15 send 35:15 130:14 131:3,9,10 144:17 166:7 185:10 190:15 192:15,21 193:8,14 195:5,17 221:19 237:7 255:3 314:12 326:11,13 344:11 sending 208:4 senior 40:8 288:18 sense 35:12 77:4 99:3 124:11 205:5 209:22 218:6,7 252:4 286:20 287:3 327:12 328:10Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 54



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 331:11,15 334:10 sensitive 240:13 sent 187:18 195:11 211:7 326:4 338:11 sentence 76:4 100:9 127:19 128:2,5,16 133:21 134:1,11 135:12 136:2 138:13,14,16 149:18,22 152:17 153:22 179:3,9 189:17 193:5 214:2 321:7 330:17,21 sentences 138:18 155:12 191:6 separate 45:18 53:16 151:1,6 154:8,9 168:1,5 182:7 184:7 235:12,16 253:11 258:12 271:8,21 separately

80:13 184:6 253:12 258:6 September 147:14,22 148:8 149:3 323:16 324:3,13 serious 32:9 86:8 218:2 267:22 serve 219:19 Services 33:6 serving 10:17 session 20:18 sessions 45:18 46:15 222:19 sets 89:2

setting 98:14 106:20 190:19 201:9 settings 254:5 settle 105:14 settled 232:11 settles 333:5 seven 251:16 several 8:18 48:12 58:18 154:8 177:7 215:21 243:19 340:2 severity 338:12 share 10:19 57:4,5 78:8 144:22 145:2 238:2 275:19 293:3 299:10 SharePoint 224:2,4,5 sharp 138:10 Shebik3:12 17:6 60:7 107:21 108:19 215:19 217:1,4,11 297:21 298:4 304:19 338:11 339:1 sheet 146:7 150:2 151:13,16,21 157:11 164:6,10 190:5,7 192:13 205:9 213:1 sheeting 152:2 she's 62:11 119:17 335:1 shoot 288:4 short 8:22 102:1 217:13 228:17 306:18

shorten 271:22 shorter37:10 283:2 shortly 150:11 272:13 showing 5:15 106:8 shows 77:16 shuttle 7:14 sides 116:3 173:6 199:7 332:21 sigh 9:20 sign 117:16 153:6,17 164:8 197:22 signature 166:14 signed 108:11 152:18,22 160:19 significance 9:19 266:21 significant 86:7 113:19,20 156:14 157:11 233:17 246:11 340:10,11 Sikes 349:2,13 similar 11:6 108:5 127:10 simple 38:16 44:14 100:9 183:8 281:22 283:8 328:6 332:14 335:15 simply122:22 128:16 147:11 149:17 179:14 183:20 201:15 simulate 256:13

simulation 256:15,17,20 257:1 258:16 simulations 257:10 single 53:15,16,19 54:5 70:13 125:8 153:4,7 172:17 210:20 226:3 241:4 242:1 249:21 single-point 241:17 singular 154:17 sir 220:16 sit 25:3 26:14,16,19 27:1 28:17 29:3 33:3,10 90:14 98:20 264:4 321:5 site 144:10,12 145:1,3 224:2 296:7 sites 296:12 sitting 25:11 30:15 40:19 116:14 210:19,20 329:14,15,16 334:5 situation 42:22 74:22 88:15 160:16 179:17 202:20 203:7 334:15 situations 49:12 203:8 six 35:7 117:1 219:13 225:8 274:14,15 283:3Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 55



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 286:22 288:10 size 15:20 97:3,7 234:4,5 240:4,6,8 241:4 246:16 297:16 sizes 240:7 SJI 2:17 20:11 skilled 36:18 skip 310:7 skipping 313:5 slack 50:21 slight 241:13 slightest 21:16 slightly 29:22 30:1,2 39:19 60:5 61:17 slip 204:17 slow 211:14 small 17:18 143:8 144:2 164:21 198:4 238:18 smaller 84:3 239:9 240:6 283:5 smallest 97:3 small-to 15:19 smart 21:22 smile 220:9 Smith 3:13 16:16 18:7 smoothly 219:19 solar 18:13 sold 242:20 solution 25:4,22 28:9,18 29:4 30:10,12 36:7 41:9 47:9,10 98:21 206:13 216:1,4,9

solutions 27:9 42:9 218:15,16 238:4 solve 31:5 32:5 42:3 43:12 44:21 54:11 238:9 solving 8:17 39:20 somebody 11:18 30:11 41:22 43:8,10 46:8 50:9 59:7 75:17 76:14 79:20,21 96:20 116:8 120:15 130:14 139:14 172:19 174:4 198:7,18 201:13 202:20 207:5 213:10,17 225:3 311:11 313:12,20 314:12 321:10 330:3,5 332:5 333:4,8,13,20 334:16,19 somebody's 334:21 somehow 245:22 someone 21:6,11 36:16,18 57:22 76:1 77:5 80:2,7 86:18 94:20 99:11 131:13 143:15 184:11 203:15 209:13 311:2 someplace 57:18 156:17 something's 92:16 sometime 303:17 307:10,15 316:2 317:7 somewhat 6:4 106:2 253:2 300:11 somewhere 66:10 104:3 201:8 sophisticated 230:19 258:19 sorry 50:13 84:15 95:5 105:20 115:7 117:18 119:15,16 129:18 147:15 155:1,7 163:2 170:17 182:22 183:2 195:2,10 200:22 223:5 247:5 261:2 269:10 270:12 274:19 278:20 293:2 298:19 309:20 312:21 337:17 sort 22:4,16,20 68:16 70:6 77:17 91:3,15 99:7 102:9,16 126:16 145:13 238:15,19 240:15 242:5 246:18 265:5 270:4 281:5 286:3 328:9 sorts 167:8 271:11 sound 37:9 sounds 58:11 85:2 280:3 source 268:5 sources 237:5 space 7:14 296:8,20,21 305:6 spaces 297:15,18 speak 5:16 6:8 7:4,5 15:5 59:7 64:3 79:8 82:20 83:14 108:4 123:17 127:7 143:4 196:18 201:7 202:9 207:17,18 238:11 245:7 250:20 299:6 speaker 5:6,10 7:17 speaking 5:17 48:13 82:21 97:4 101:15 108:7 136:6 159:14 162:13 198:1,2 259:3 274:6 speaks 8:20 special 9:17,21 10:18 80:22 specific 12:2 39:9 54:22 58:19 71:16 78:20 85:21 89:5 110:14 117:8 228:14 260:2 274:18 325:21 326:2 specifically 11:4,10,14 35:17 55:14 57:1 90:4 156:9,10 230:14 236:2 243:20 specifications 268:6 specified 234:13,22 spectrum 238:19 speech 86:20 speed 254:8Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 56



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 255:19 spend 45:2 92:6 160:1 217:6 237:11,13,14 spending 180:19 216:5 spent 41:17 163:17,18 190:10 208:7 216:7 splintered 84:2 split 17:14 236:21 spoke 142:20 spoken 20:12 spot 159:1 spreadsheet 258:19 square 6:14 stack 211:2 staff 13:7,17 280:3 staffer 31:1 stage 62:13 stages 34:21 270:22 stake 22:2 125:21 283:12 284:20 stakes 287:14 stand 110:10 256:4 329:17 standard 91:2 153:22 154:1 155:13,14,19 183:13 202:14 225:6 240:10 245:4 247:12 249:17 250:22 251:1,4,6 253:22 255:16,22 257:3,4 268:14 330:19 342:13

standardized 240:11 standards 1:6 15:2 16:7 56:1 91:8,9 152:3,14 162:11 168:3 169:14,15 183:11,12 184:19 229:13 244:20,21 250:15,17 254:7 255:18 256:22 standing 205:7 standpoint 212:20 253:16 Stanonik 19:5 58:4,5 73:19,20 76:21 83:17,18 84:10 93:3 113:15 268:16 Starr 3:14 20:9 84:18 123:17,19,22 199:15 207:16,19,21 208:16,21 209:7,9 start 26:3 28:14 38:13 43:2,16 51:15 70:19 72:18 107:1,4,6 112:14 145:22 149:12 165:20 217:19 218:21 233:17 261:9 272:11,19 290:15 292:9 294:11 299:20,22 300:2,19,21 301:11 302:8,20 303:4,5,15 306:2,6 310:18 311:13 315:4

317:15,18 327:7,8 341:15 started 32:17 70:22 154:6 167:19 176:21 201:21 202:11 233:16 237:18 starting 87:20 141:17 202:14 264:20 301:22 302:9 306:3 311:14 317:12 state 263:6 stated 58:22 69:7 statement 43:5 62:1 66:10 69:8 70:15,16,21 71:7 72:9 76:8 103:20 106:14 150:2 152:18 153:1,3,4,7 158:8 159:17 161:10 167:19,20 168:2 177:11,16 178:1,3 179:11,18 184:17 190:6 191:18 212:22 213:4 327:20 328:6 331:19 332:15 334:11 statements 42:19 43:4 328:22 329:1 stating 70:16 73:2 196:9 statistical

229:16 246:5 Statonik 336:8 337:15 status 149:4 150:11,20 151:12,15,18,20 statute 25:19 36:10,15 81:12,14 183:11 236:11 statutes 40:5 242:5 statutorily

34:13 statutory 165:16 stay 141:11 327:5 staying 146:17 stays 136:21 181:10 stead 128:11 steam 234:15,18 step 165:20,21 178:11,15 182:6 270:16 273:11 Stephens 3:15 18:10 48:11 57:3,6 75:19,20 116:20 118:8,12,17 156:8 157:2 175:22 184:10 250:6 251:20 252:8 253:1 254:2 stepped 134:4 steps 37:10 stepwise 328:11 stick 111:8 206:21 308:8 342:8 stop 24:14 90:12 91:14 93:12 111:18 113:5 120:18 123:10 125:2 126:20 134:18,21Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 57



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 135:2,4 302:8 stopped 299:7 stopping 302:13 storage 18:9 19:4 STOTNIK

323:4 straight 21:4 185:10 straightforward 72:22 177:20 strategies 55:4 straw 292:8,14,15 294:14 strawman 88:18 strengthen 335:14 strenuous 7:1 stress 170:4 stressing 167:3 strict 10:5 strictly 241:12 stringent 68:17 70:6 189:4 strong 68:17 95:13 202:20 stronger 120:14 331:19 335:17 strongly 127:12 159:16 162:18 166:5,6 167:14 168:4 174:6 175:4,6 176:2,5,17 177:22 178:3 179:18 struggles 254:15 stuff 44:9 204:15 223:7 224:4 226:10 244:18 257:18 262:3 306:15

style 343:18 344:9 sub 93:20 135:18,21 136:14,20 137:6,9 138:19,21 139:20 141:3,6 143:1,13,16,20 144:1,8 145:17 157:4 subcommittee 9:15 12:21 13:15 84:14 186:18 subcommittees 10:12 subgroup 46:19 74:7 85:13 126:8,9 136:4,15 137:19 142:12,19 191:12 193:17,19 343:22 subgroups 53:16 80:22 81:1 83:21 84:1,9 126:6 137:3 143:9 221:4 300:17,20 sub-issue 159:1 subject46:10 137:16 201:9 221:5 257:1 279:9 343:17 submission 245:15 submit28:3 104:15 105:5 106:7 146:21 149:3 212:6 215:2 245:20,21 submits 36:3 submitted 107:2 148:22 151:12,15,17 166:7 205:21 242:17 245:16 254:19 submitting 79:15 subparagraph 73:1 135:11 subsections 261:7 subsequent 200:4 226:14 300:16 subsequently 296:9 subsidiary 18:7 substance 27:17 47:8 164:5 190:5,6 205:9 242:11 substantial 271:10 285:7 substantiation 236:3 243:9 244:17 250:1 271:12 substantive 117:21 185:5 substantively 164:10 substitute 247:16 subtle 21:8 31:13 101:1 193:13 207:11,12 333:12 334:2 succeed 68:7 successful 28:19 323:7 sue 91:22 96:1 100:22 104:9,17 107:12 108:1,16 110:8,16,17

163:4 167:8 169:6 202:3,5 205:15 329:12 333:14 334:21 sued 333:13,20 sues 333:4,9 sufficient 104:4 213:14 sufficiently 213:1 231:5 suggest 14:12 33:6 42:13 44:20 46:2 48:10 52:16 55:22 57:16 87:18 121:11,14 139:19 149:19 199:12 215:10 243:13 299:16 301:20 341:19 344:7 suggested 39:17 42:9 73:4 170:11 291:22 299:9 326:18 334:13 suggester327:2 suggesting 79:4 86:12 104:7,11 177:1 suggestion 71:13 99:15 100:1 195:2 217:2 246:19 248:9,11 249:12 270:13 277:14 292:7 299:8 suggestions 22:1 72:22 218:13 344:20 suggests 265:15 suing 161:22Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 58



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 summaries 38:9 219:14 221:10 224:17 225:16 226:21 summarize 44:17 339:21 summarizes 256:18 summary 37:16 38:6 52:15 221:13,15 226:6,15 337:2,11 340:21 summer 251:8 313:14 322:16 332:21 Sunday 314:6 supplement

224:8 supplemental

28:4 265:22 284:17 support 13:7 40:13 92:4,8 98:12 105:9,19,21,22 106:8 114:21 121:3 123:15 139:6 142:7 145:12 157:1 159:10 162:20 167:6 195:22 274:3 327:20 328:1,3,7 329:3,4,22 330:2,4,13 331:6 332:10,18 supportable 331:18 supported 170:2 330:19 331:1 335:16 supporting 86:11 152:2,22 157:6,12 333:7

suppose 147:21 supposed 25:3 146:14 225:1 233:8 sure 12:6,18 13:2 15:13 21:1 33:10,15,18 48:16 52:18 55:18 61:10 62:2,3 66:11 67:11 71:5 74:3 76:21 77:2 87:21 93:4 105:20 122:3 124:15 125:14 136:13,19 137:7 138:8,11 147:2 155:1 158:2 159:21 160:8 192:9,18 194:6 199:10 203:2,13 224:9 229:11 230:3 234:9 236:5 244:6,8 249:19 251:9 254:1 257:9 275:6,16 277:9 278:8 279:18 285:13 289:18 296:7 298:7,10 299:18 316:14 320:16,18 322:18 334:3 surprised 45:20,22 surprisingly 34:3 surrounding 277:17 suspicion 237:2 SW 1:11 swimming 18:9 switch 5:14 302:4 system 267:14 287:20 systems 17:14,16 18:13 32:19,21 268:13 T table 11:22 15:4 25:4,11 26:16 28:17 29:3,10,18,19 30:7,15 31:16 32:11 33:3,5,11,12,17 34:1,9 35:9,13 36:1,6 39:22 40:6,19 41:9,22 42:10,17 43:4,9,18 45:7,12 48:20 49:8 77:12,19,21 79:5,15 80:10 82:9 103:8,15 106:19 108:14 112:22 113:3 137:8,13 149:7 160:13 165:15,19 166:13 169:4 170:2 176:7 178:19 190:10 202:1 208:12 210:19,21 213:11 232:20 238:7,9 243:2 245:5 246:1 247:15 248:2 252:19 253:14 267:4,9 271:19 272:16 291:13 292:14 305:14 329:14,15 331:12 334:7 Tables 243:22 tackle 59:14 270:21 276:12 tackled 312:7 tackling 204:14 taking 7:7 13:12 40:12 59:22 65:16 70:18 80:14 165:18,20 190:21 217:15 227:3,5 255:20 287:2 322:4 328:11 341:22 talk 9:12 20:19,21 21:15 24:8,16 26:19 27:15,16 35:1,4,8 38:13 39:2,21 40:14,15 45:17 46:3,4,21 47:1,22 48:9 51:18 52:5 55:14 56:9 57:21 60:15 74:3 80:15 82:6 84:21 85:20,22 97:4,16 116:8 118:4 128:21 156:17 176:8 185:21 186:2 189:7 197:8,9,10 198:4 199:5 232:12 236:6 252:19 277:8 279:6 280:19 288:17 289:1 291:16 299:1,17 301:3 304:5 305:11 312:14,15 321:5,6 328:2 344:11 talked 27:14 30:5,8 36:8 47:14 50:16 84:6 87:11 95:15 139:9 162:4Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 59



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 165:12,13 221:2 222:6 322:13 talking 21:2 24:14 36:6 38:14 46:5,6 51:20 57:12 58:1,18 63:4 65:11,17,18 76:11 101:21 107:1 115:16,18 124:19 136:14,20 139:20 152:11 155:12 173:18 182:9 183:11,17 184:15 213:6 216:5 217:19 219:9,13 221:22 232:9 235:4 237:11 239:10 241:3,5,14 242:11 247:6 262:1 264:16 267:2 271:10 278:8 280:14 289:4,5 300:1 303:15,17 306:11 307:6 314:15 334:15 339:20 341:11 343:6 talks 39:12,13 85:9 201:1 tanks 18:9 19:4 tape 109:10 targeting 323:21 task 140:16 tasked 67:18 teach 47:11 306:9 tear 88:20 technical 223:6 301:2 343:17 technicalities 44:12 technically 77:11 81:2 146:9 technique 185:18 technology 4:6 19:18 255:18 teleconference 14:4 teleconferences 144:9 telephone 120:11 131:7 297:19,20 337:12 temperature 234:22 239:16 241:16 ten 16:6 23:5,6 89:21 100:20 153:10 tend 240:9 tentative 128:9 term 56:2 60:9 63:16 108:2 129:4 146:7 150:2 151:13,16,21 153:22 155:22 156:1,4 157:11 164:6,10 190:5,7 192:13 205:9 213:1 243:18 265:19 286:9 terminate 146:8 148:19 244:21 333:6 terms 43:13 119:19 136:18 152:2 156:3,14 157:7,12,13 162:22 163:1,2 206:16 207:10 226:10 227:17

242:21 244:16,19 245:1 248:14 249:9 250:12 253:17,20 254:19 256:11,12 261:10,14 287:14 296:17 301:10 311:20 320:22 323:2 332:22 334:18 terribly138:4 territory 238:2 test 16:17 17:11 61:2 229:14,15,17 231:8,9,10 234:13,17,18 235:3,6,10,13,17 ,18,20 237:7 239:13 241:4,7,9,15 242:1 244:17,18 246:5 248:5,8 251:2 253:18 254:6,7,10,13,14 ,16,22 255:6,12,16,17,2 1 260:18,20 263:4 267:12,20,21 268:5 273:16,17,18 274:1,3 275:8,13,15 276:7 326:3 tested 56:13 75:2 228:7 229:15 230:9,16,17 231:1 235:1 237:8 245:2 249:17,18 250:21 260:12

262:11 273:2,22 testing 19:9 56:13 63:8 162:12 229:6,7 230:8 231:3,10 232:9 234:1,13 235:4 236:21,22 237:6,12,19 238:5,21 239:2,4,5 241:10 242:2,8 247:19 250:2 253:21 254:11 255:6 256:11,12 258:17 262:9,19,22 264:6,19 267:16 269:22 273:6,14 274:17,21 275:11 325:17,22 tests 234:2 235:7 237:1 254:13 273:22 Texas 17:10 text 178:16 294:15,17 339:15 340:6 thank 5:10 8:5,7 9:6,7 15:11 24:11 84:17 97:17 108:19 136:10 161:18 182:21 220:1,15,16 227:8 238:9 245:8 298:5 345:3 thanks 14:15 103:17 124:21 134:14 135:10 Tharp 3:16 17:17Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 60



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 54:13 84:22 87:17 99:14 107:8 121:10 122:1 144:8 303:22 340:7 343:12 that's 5:12 8:5 10:18 11:20 12:4,5 13:14,22 14:1,2,11 15:15 21:4,10,18 22:3,15 25:8 28:1 32:8 34:7 42:19 43:14 44:8 45:19 48:4,16,22 49:9 52:20 53:14 57:13 58:16,18 59:3,20 64:20 66:7 68:22 69:18 70:6,12 73:11 76:10 79:11 81:19,20,21 82:2 85:19 88:10 89:16 92:18 93:6,21 94:17 95:9,13 96:16 97:8 101:16,17 102:10 103:5 106:2,3 107:14 110:4,18 112:3 113:1,4,12 115:19 116:1,5 117:10 120:15 128:6 129:12,15 130:15 131:5 132:18 133:6 134:7,8,9 135:20 137:20 140:2 143:14,21 144:13 145:19,22 147:17 148:10 149:5 150:6,21 151:5 152:16 155:13 156:19,22 158:5 160:7 162:8,10 163:7 166:10 167:3,9 168:9,15,18 169:19 170:4,15 172:6,8,10,22 173:11 174:2 181:6,11,13,14,1 6 182:7 183:8 184:5 185:1,3 186:22 187:1,22 190:8 192:10 193:12 194:13 196:8 197:10,22 198:7,14 199:15,22 203:15 204:13,18 207:3,9 209:15 211:4 212:5 213:18 214:4 217:3 219:7 222:5 226:22 232:20,22 234:20 235:8,19 236:21 237:16,21 239:7,20 240:2 244:20,21 245:2 246:6,18 248:1,4,18 252:17 253:6,7,14 255:15 256:10 257:22 258:5 259:2 260:3,13 261:17,18 262:4,5 263:20 264:1 266:13,21 268:8 270:4 271:1,3 273:20 280:10 282:14 283:20 284:1,3,18 287:1 288:3 290:11 293:18 294:2

296:16 297:21 298:2,11 306:16 308:20 311:19 315:15 316:6,15,16 318:15 319:7,16 322:8 325:18 328:17 329:22 331:19 332:14,15 334:12 335:17 336:12 337:15,21 339:13 341:4,8 342:10 themselves 48:8 theoretically 279:12 theory 106:5 thereafter

150:12 346:5 therefore 78:6 100:14 105:2 181:21 182:16 283:10 333:21 thereof 256:6 there's 6:18 8:2 11:12,14 13:16 34:1 40:5 51:20 53:14 54:4 80:12 82:17 90:7,13 91:16 92:5 93:16,18 97:21 103:13 105:16 112:5 114:11 121:13,16,17 124:3 129:14 143:18 147:12 149:15 164:9 174:1 179:3,22 188:22 209:16 219:4,8 221:12 240:7 241:18,19

243:22 246:4,5 248:4 251:21 252:12,14 254:11 256:16 257:5 261:12 266:11 267:17 268:12 269:5,8 270:13 271:6 272:22 273:1,13 277:5 294:5 304:12 305:9 309:1 313:14 316:22 317:1 319:22 320:10 324:19 339:14 343:16 345:2 thermal 4:6 18:13 19:18 they'd 247:17 they'll 32:12 35:4 37:8 179:10,17 187:7 298:8,9,10 they're 13:17 34:17 35:8,10 36:5 48:6 61:9 73:7 77:12,20 78:15 80:8,9 82:12 85:16 88:4,17 89:5 92:17 116:5 126:9 136:8 140:9 142:13 143:11 150:10 163:14 166:7 167:7 169:9 172:16 173:18 174:19 218:5 225:19 233:8 234:15 247:12 255:20 257:1 261:13 263:11 268:3,18 271:13 274:18 280:18Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 61



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 301:1 303:9 305:11 318:3 326:18 329:1 334:10 they've 30:14 36:1 108:10 166:2 177:3 300:12 342:21 third 27:16 43:22 85:22 128:5 130:17 179:17 246:2 301:21 302:3 304:2 third-party

17:11 Thomas 1:21 346:2,13 thoughts 21:20 47:5 53:9 54:12 56:6 77:9 82:14 86:4 98:7 110:5,20 111:13 117:8 118:20 124:22 178:21 180:14 182:22 184:8 199:6 201:6 210:3 215:18 342:2 threshold 109:2 116:19 120:22 121:21 127:15 threw 253:1 throughout 136:19 230:21 throw 42:10,15 240:18 243:13 268:11 284:9 335:12 throwing 108:2 thrown 88:13 317:21 Thursday 308:9 313:7 314:8 324:9 thus 96:2 tie 228:14 tied 97:2 100:22 257:11 266:9,10 271:11,14 287:16 tight 7:1 tightening 59:16 till 302:9 314:13 317:20,22 Tim 16:8 55:21 60:22 64:18 68:14 70:4 83:5 90:22 92:10 95:12 98:22 107:8 109:14 111:21 113:12 114:8 115:16,21 127:9 143:3,6 152:21 167:6 212:18 214:4 222:11 246:18 288:3,6 timeframe 204:11 timeline 195:4,6 273:5 289:15 timely 223:9 Timewise 37:9 Timothy 2:8 Tim's 113:17 Tina 9:10 title 62:21 74:4,6 today 10:19 14:2,21 77:1 86:6 163:3,8 200:7 204:3 217:17 238:7 273:6 290:19 295:21 305:4

324:14 332:20 toddler 192:1 tolerance 246:16 259:17,19 tolerances 260:2,22 261:5,12,13 269:22 Tom 2:22 18:20 tonight 276:22 tons 17:4,5 tools 269:6 top 260:19 289:1 topic 80:20 105:12 tore 61:3 total 54:6 63:9,11 240:2 totally 69:1 91:12 232:22 276:21 288:11 touch 11:17 14:12,13 tough 70:6 toward 180:19 315:7 towards 8:16 96:10 216:9 tower 235:2 town 297:3 301:14 324:3 trade 16:13 33:20 34:4 78:14,16 98:18 tradeoffs 34:2 trains 22:13 Trane 2:20 16:19 95:5 111:2 115:3 137:1 183:1

228:21 230:13 250:14 274:20 301:20 transcriber's 227:4 transcribing 227:6 transcript

7:8 223:14 225:21 226:2,5,13 346:6 347:4,6 348:4,6 349:4,6 350:4,6 351:4,6 transcription 347:1,7 348:1,7 349:1,7 350:1,7 351:1,7 Transcriptionist 347:13 348:13 349:13 350:13 351:13 transcripts 222:12,14,18 223:8,20,21 224:12,18 225:17,19 transfer 258:18 transformer 54:6 102:8 198:22 199:14 296:5,11 transformers 52:21 54:5 84:2 88:10 92:12 94:6 95:2 107:17,18 119:22 120:2 132:5 143:1 145:1 189:10 222:11,22 223:19 translate 294:19 translationCapital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 62



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 50:11,13,14 transmitted 98:3 transportation 22:12 23:3,19 24:1,2,5 32:19,21 298:15 trapping 70:21 Traulsen 2:14 17:20 travel 231:5 296:17 303:6 traveling 301:21 314:6 treatment 245:11 tremendous 8:13 78:3 92:7,8 tremendously 92:9 tricky 209:19 tried 261:6 291:21 tries 284:6 trigger 293:17 triggered 244:8 trouble 57:22 85:17 169:21 264:11 310:4 true 2:19 16:21 53:13 125:6 166:12 180:21 186:16,18 234:21 283:20 284:1 346:6 347:7 348:7 349:7 350:7 351:7 truly 85:15 truncating 121:12 Truskoski 3:17 20:9 try8:3 21:9,22 22:4 25:8 28:12 31:12 37:1 39:19 41:6,9 43:14 44:20 54:10 72:14 82:5 99:10 101:14,19 102:2 127:12 145:8 161:19 176:22 219:15 248:12 252:2 253:5 258:9 283:7 301:5,12 305:20 318:17 323:3 325:1 326:21 341:2 trying 10:13 20:19 21:10,12 28:2 32:2 36:19 44:14 53:6 58:16 65:18 66:2,13 99:2 101:10 116:6 124:1,7 137:4 144:3 163:20 166:7 171:14 174:15 190:9 192:1 198:18 200:6 211:15 216:6 218:16 227:1 232:5 250:11 253:3 257:7,8 286:2 306:13 307:1 322:15 334:2 TSNS 4:2 245:9 Tuesday 1:14 306:2,6 307:17 314:1 tune 100:1 turn 6:8 7:19 8:1 9:5 15:3 20:14 turning 5:15 43:5 226:12 twenty 217:4 Twenty-one 109:6

Twenty-two 109:7 twist 334:20 two-day 294:7 298:20 302:16 307:10 two-part 130:2 two-week

304:7 type 57:1,21 62:9 63:4 78:12 203:6 238:19 252:21 253:5 312:5,10 typed 62:11 141:9 347:4 348:4 349:4 350:4 351:4 types 5:22 62:21 90:19 107:18 257:12 typewriting 346:5 typewritten 221:13 typical 50:19 typically 225:20 238:20 241:17 285:2 300:8 typing 57:22 U U.S 2:9 Uh-huh 217:1 UL 254:3 ultimate 62:17 ultimately 13:1,18 14:5 21:10 159:11 271:20 272:6 276:20 unacceptable 162:2 unanimity 91:2,16

93:5,12,21 94:8 97:18 99:2,18 100:15,16,19 101:3,8,10,14,15 102:7 103:10 114:19 152:20 167:10 171:22 174:9,12,17 182:11 189:20 201:1,3,5 202:17 211:19 330:12 unanimous 85:5 88:4,6 94:14 99:18 100:2,4 104:5,12,13 134:6,19 153:8 157:1 163:8 165:20 167:22 169:5,13 170:4,5,18 171:11 172:3,20 173:1 174:19 177:10 178:1,2,7 179:6,9 181:11,15 183:22 184:16 185:15,22 186:1 191:9,15 195:16 200:6 210:15 213:18 320:11 unanimously 126:16 168:3 unbiased 10:1 uncertain 114:1,6 uncertainty 260:18,20 underlying 204:11 undermine 329:15 understand 12:10 29:14 36:5 44:9 47:2,14 48:5 65:14,18 66:18Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 63



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78:1 82:4 84:11 87:21 93:6,9 102:19 104:6 106:18 130:19 131:6,12 148:20 163:10 175:9 205:4,12 211:8 214:10 217:11 218:1,3 231:20 233:12 271:7 278:8 318:22 328:21 331:16 339:17 understanding 24:18 28:7 29:8 44:2 49:14 52:20 86:22 134:13 192:12 196:2,12 202:10 230:5,7 258:14 260:18 277:16 287:3 291:16 318:16 321:10 understating 22:15 understood 96:4 105:21 131:17 159:22 undertake 58:7 Underwriters 3:2 17:9 undoubtedly 299:7 undue 228:1 unfair 102:1 unfortunately 22:8 unhappy 91:4 UNIDENTIFIED 145:5,11,14 union 49:12 unit 63:9,11 230:17 237:7 238:20 250:21 254:10,13 262:14 267:15,17 units 229:7,14,17,20 230:20 236:8,19,22 239:4,5,10 246:4 254:7,17 273:1 274:21 334:8 University307:18 unknown 257:22 262:17 unless 36:13 75:17 86:7 126:8 147:6,7,8 175:13 196:22 223:21 257:21 259:22 265:13 311:20 unlikely 97:13 197:17 unproductive 146:3 unproductivity 145:19 unquote 64:6 unrealistic 101:22 unrepresented 77:7 untouched 282:15,16 283:9,10 upfront 245:21 upon 249:17 273:9 upset 49:16 333:7 uptown 306:9 urgency286:20 287:4

usual 25:16 usually 17:1 36:16 135:16 339:13 UTC 3:4 4:2 20:13 245:9 utilities 78:22 79:8 V valid 80:3 116:1 206:1 264:15 268:3 276:8 validate 267:21 273:7 validation 267:11,22 validity 267:20 Valorous 327:4 value 241:19 values 228:11 variable 17:15 254:8 255:19 268:10 variation 260:21 305:9 variations 267:17 variety 63:19 77:17 237:4 various 43:19 48:19 112:22 113:2 vary 32:16 113:2 Vegas 297:2 vehicle 79:3 ventilators 245:13 verification 56:19 60:10 61:8 246:20 274:16 281:15

verify 176:1 228:15 version 83:7 225:10 251:11 versus 109:21 140:13 175:17 176:2 246:10 250:9,10 261:13 333:19 vertical 252:11,12 vested 18:21 veto 97:13 vetted 208:2 via 14:3 246:4 vibrant 86:16 vicious 268:12 video 14:4 view 114:8 158:15 159:10 180:13 191:11,19 204:14 213:13 239:14 326:1 viewpoint 70:14 91:5 viewpoints 11:6,7 70:11,20 178:9 views 29:10 50:5 98:2,3 153:1 173:19,20 178:7,13,17 180:1,11 182:14 186:5 189:18 190:11 212:12,15 214:17 voice 33:11 79:8 186:11 voices 79:10Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 64



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 void 190:6 volume 254:9 260:12 271:13 275:15 voluntary 231:15 246:19 247:8,15,19 vote 13:10 29:19 38:10 49:6,17,20 74:17 85:5 88:4 90:17,18 94:20 103:4,6,13 106:15 110:4,7 114:5 115:11 116:10,11,18 118:3,21 120:3,5,7 122:10 125:14 126:9,11,12 127:14 128:3,6 129:10,11,17,18, 21 130:11,12,17 131:3,4,13,16,18 132:7,8,10,17,21 133:2,4,10 134:19 140:5,10,11 146:2 154:21 156:11 157:9,18 161:22 162:15,16 164:16 166:8,11,18 168:5,18,19,20,2 2 170:15,19 171:9,18,19,22 172:3,7,14,17 173:2,10,13,15 175:3,14,16,17,2 0 177:10,15,21,22 178:7 179:6,7,10,16,17 180:1,7,10,22 181:4 182:1 183:20,22 184:1,16 185:15,22 186:1,19,22 187:5,16 188:14 189:11 191:9,12,15 197:19 199:2,8,13 202:16,17 203:14 204:4 208:20 209:5 210:15 211:5 213:10,17 214:21 270:10 272:3 276:21 278:3 281:8 320:7 326:7 329:22 343:15,17 344:7 voted 110:17 163:6,19 169:13 202:6 211:11,20,22 212:4 214:6 215:6 325:5,7 330:3,5 voter200:13 330:15 votes 109:17,21 111:16,18 113:19 116:22 117:3,6 118:9,10,12,18 121:3,6 122:9,19,22 126:3,20 127:22 128:14 134:17,18,21 135:4,9 153:11,12,13,18 156:10,20 158:6,12 166:1 167:11 170:7 175:13 178:12

184:18 186:22 188:10 190:11 204:7 213:12 313:17 330:1 342:7 voting 20:6 110:22 117:15 119:1,5,19 120:11,19 121:4 122:14,21,22 124:9,17,18 125:4,12,15 126:12,22 127:1 128:1 129:14,19 132:14 153:16 160:11 185:18 189:3 196:15 200:3 208:22 212:3 215:3 270:8 341:21 342:4 VRF 17:15 VSEP 261:1 W wait 5:4 48:2,4 130:1 167:5 194:10 201:21 waiting 5:4 67:2 260:9 271:2 278:10 waive 162:2 163:3 Waiver 253:19 walk 6:15,20 7:2 30:18 177:5 310:10 walked 31:6,7 256:9 walking 146:1 warning 342:21 warrant 337:4 340:3,9 warranted 37:19 38:7 339:7 340:5 Washington 1:12 wasn't 13:2 33:15 94:13 143:1 164:18 169:12 197:3 200:3 219:9 223:18 wasted 269:16 wasting 293:6 water 16:2 18:8,12 19:4 58:10,19 69:8 111:5,6 234:21 239:16 ways 21:8 22:5,16 43:19 221:6 261:12 265:3 271:14 344:22 web 131:7 144:10,12 198:19 304:15 318:6 Weber 3:18 webinar 5:19 14:20 84:18 95:22 129:21 199:12 224:11 279:13 297:19,22 304:21 we'd 224:7 253:11 270:15 274:8 278:4 283:5 295:17 308:14 315:6 wedge 77:16 Wednesday 306:2 308:9Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 65



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 weeds 11:13 12:5 week 7:9 225:21 276:16 295:8 301:18 304:8 305:9 308:5,6,18 309:16,17,19,22 310:1,12,16,17,2 0 312:2,14 313:6,13,15 315:8,10,12 316:4,15 317:8 319:6,7 320:2 321:12 324:4 weekend 304:6 weekly 226:1 weeks 275:20 276:17 277:8,12 278:11 291:8,9,14 292:7,13 295:5 296:18 300:13 301:17 303:18,20,21 304:4,5,10,20,21 305:10,22 306:1,14 308:22 321:3 weigh 35:22 97:18 217:14 weight 178:18 welcome 5:3,21 6:9 7:12 8:9 10:20 we'll 7:9 11:18 15:4 18:14 37:8 46:17 50:3 62:2,14 85:5 87:14 100:22 103:6 138:8 145:16 176:9 206:21 225:4,6,12 247:1 270:17 275:6 280:19 316:17 317:20,21 320:20,21 328:2 330:13 332:20 337:11 339:19 343:12 344:10 we're 5:3,4 6:8 7:1,16 8:12 9:8 10:13 14:14,18 15:19 16:5,19 17:10,18 19:3 21:10 27:21 28:2 32:6 38:14,16 47:18,21 48:7,8,17 49:13 51:20 54:10 57:6,12,18 58:16 60:8 61:13 63:4,16,18 64:20 66:12,14 67:13 68:15,16,19 70:20 71:5 72:10 74:6 76:11 79:19 80:17 84:22 86:17 89:4 91:11 95:18 97:1 99:1 101:14 102:11 103:12 104:20 106:11 107:11 108:2,14 109:15 116:3 124:2,7 125:14,15 126:1 127:18 129:11 136:14,20 137:5 144:2 148:1 149:14 152:11 156:4 160:19,22 163:21 166:17 167:8 169:21 171:14 172:15 173:4 174:11,15 185:9 189:11 190:9,19 205:1,15 216:5,8 217:5 225:16 227:12

231:6,11,20,21 239:10 240:12 241:1,2 242:12 248:21 250:19,20 251:17 256:10 257:7,8,9 258:8 260:9 261:1 262:1,4,16 266:14 267:2 268:21 270:4,8 271:10,20 275:22 278:8,10 280:16 284:22 285:14 290:22 291:7 292:10 293:5 299:13,14,18 304:5 305:2,6,7 306:13,17 307:6,9 308:4 311:20 314:5 315:13 316:1,6,9 317:8,10,11,12,1 3 318:14,16,17 321:19,21 322:4,10,15 323:2,6 324:20 328:1,2 329:9 331:22 332:19 334:5 341:14,22 we've 28:5 32:7 34:3 50:5 53:7 58:4,18 65:7 67:1,2,22 70:22 78:21 79:7 87:11 124:8 128:1 129:7 136:16,17 139:9 142:18 150:1 155:15 165:7 175:12 198:12 201:21 206:22 213:12 216:7 217:16,17 221:4,11

242:15,18,22 249:12,21 256:7 259:9 266:2,3 274:6 275:1 286:6,13,18,19 287:5 291:6 292:12 300:7 303:17 305:4 321:16 322:2 336:19 338:18 341:19 344:3,8 whatever 13:18 14:14 41:18 65:16 67:6 69:18,19 80:9 91:17 106:11 108:17 114:2 124:13 140:12 149:13 150:19 174:4 186:3 187:15 192:14 203:18 254:21 265:21 278:12 279:13 282:6 287:22 289:8 292:13 304:17 305:8 328:4 336:10 whatsoever 24:6 125:13 whenever 83:2 105:12 301:13 When's 319:8 whereas 90:16 111:4 240:11 246:9 Whereupon 51:3 176:20 345:5 wherever 294:19 whether 32:2,12 34:13,18 35:3 38:7,19 55:15Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 66



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 57:14,16 67:15 82:14 90:10 92:21 97:19 102:9 112:5 116:21 117:2,14 129:3 142:18 150:8 156:13 160:3 169:12 172:18 174:3 180:17 188:22 191:1 192:11 205:8 212:20 215:10 220:12 239:21 240:14 244:8 256:19 261:12 263:11 264:18 265:5 281:8,18 285:17 289:5 305:1 331:3 338:15 339:7,18 344:20 White 3:17 20:9 Whitewall 4:2 Whitewell 245:7,8,9 whole 30:2 38:21 50:17 56:17 94:9,10,19 98:12,19 112:20 117:15 135:21 141:5,7,16,18 159:4 175:19 191:22 222:13 241:11 242:1 261:19 268:9 284:5 285:4 293:11 300:6 333:13 334:8 341:1 wholesale 158:21 159:8 160:13 who'll 100:22 wholly 18:7 whom 242:17 346:2 whoops 79:1 who's 6:9 21:20,21 91:4,7 99:11 107:13 122:21 136:6 287:19 323:9 who've 292:1 wide 275:16 willing 34:4 35:9 49:18,19 127:18 128:18,19 129:4 159:14 162:2 163:3 202:9 209:4 272:9 325:11 wind 175:7 window 172:6 274:2 wish 27:1 withdraw 105:2 333:5 withdrawal 28:14 witness 230:14,15 231:3 234:2 wonder 53:6 192:11 305:5 329:6,12 wondering 176:1 222:17 254:4 worded 80:15 337:22 wording 43:4 121:8 185:5 193:13 204:3 220:14 256:16 260:11 299:19 322:21 329:20 335:17 342:11 wordsmithing 141:3 work 10:14 11:5,19 12:22 17:15 24:18,19 29:17,19 31:14 32:14 34:19 36:7,20 38:8 41:14 42:20 46:19 53:21 57:19 69:15 84:3 88:18 91:6 92:20 98:5 99:22 133:19 135:10,14,21 136:12 137:22 138:21 139:8,12 140:14,19,20 141:3 152:4 162:21 165:22 167:16 168:6 175:11 184:21 192:14,15,19 195:7,15,19 196:20 197:2,5 198:9,21 201:16,17 219:18 221:21 231:21,22 235:13,14 239:1 251:17 253:10 257:5 276:22 281:7 283:11 284:7 286:5,12 287:1 289:14,15 293:20 296:9 298:10 300:18 302:2 310:21 312:17 313:10 317:2 321:3 324:5 329:15 330:5 341:7 workable 268:19 workarounds 206:19

worked 23:4,19,22 24:2 31:9 38:3 44:11 49:11 51:8 88:11 132:2 189:10 223:15 293:22 workgroup 142:15 143:16 192:16 212:10,14 215:17 working 5:22 8:12,19 18:4,18 20:6 41:1 43:3 47:2 54:22 57:10 58:7 64:5 67:17 73:20 74:1,5,6 76:5,9,16 80:22 81:1,8 84:2,3,5,6,8,14 85:13 88:11,15 89:4,11 91:2,6,14,16 92:20 93:6,14,17 98:5 99:8 103:3,20,22 118:1 126:5 129:10 130:11 133:22 134:5,15 135:18 136:5,13,14,20 137:6,9 138:1,6,20,21 139:20 140:1 141:11,13,21 143:1,11,12,13,2 0 144:1,8 145:17 146:21 147:1,3 148:16 153:21 154:12 160:1 165:19 168:13 178:20 180:19 186:8,13 188:9,12,14 189:9,20Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 04-30-2013 Page 67



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191:2,13,16 192:5,9 193:10 194:1 196:19 197:22 200:14 206:12 207:10 216:3,8 220:13 221:22 222:19,20 239:19 240:4 252:19 268:18,21 269:4,6 270:5 285:13 286:13 299:8 300:21 301:9 323:6 332:10 335:17 337:16,18,19 343:21 workings 185:13 workout 330:14 works 24:9 31:14 113:10 116:22 123:16 154:12 188:21 225:21 297:12 300:2 work's 319:20 workshops 141:3 world 275:6 293:11 worried 43:14 287:19 worries 98:14 worry 280:7 296:10 315:16 316:17 worrying 117:14 233:18 worst 99:7 160:12 284:3 286:9,10 worth 17:21 41:8 90:9 177:4 203:2 278:12 288:11

worthwhile 192:11 wrinkle 284:9 write 26:14 30:14 103:7,14 104:11 166:13,19 218:13 252:6 321:8,11 writing 168:16 169:8,9 191:20 215:2,6 276:5 written 29:21 73:16 81:5 87:12 152:18 154:17 158:8 159:17 163:6 167:20 168:2,19 173:8 177:11,16 178:1,3 179:10,18 184:16 191:18 192:12 196:11 227:7 275:12 325:14 340:4 wrong 21:21 94:5 109:3 134:2,20 205:12 344:21 wrote 30:20 33:14 58:15 Y yada 164:5 Yep 18:19 68:13 yet 62:6 73:20 77:1 80:18 83:7 164:17 181:10 225:16 239:15 260:4 263:21 267:20 269:3 284:21 323:21 you'll 21:16 29:4,5 37:12 51:21 74:5 191:19 218:7 295:21 344:9 yourself 169:3 235:13 yourselves 165:7 you've 21:5 29:6 34:20 41:17 48:11 51:13 73:3 89:1 164:15 165:1 198:8,16 216:17 260:5,6 271:6 278:9 300:22 312:7 326:22 344:22