1

 BEFORE THE

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR

 CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURES FOR

 REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 22 June 2010

 Washington, D.C. USA

 ___________________________________________________

 BUNN & ASSOCIATES

 Registered Professional Reporters Worldwide

 Post Office Box 297

 310 South Main Street

 Lusk, Wyoming 82225 USA

 In USA 1-800-435-2468 Worldwide 001-307-334-2423

 Worldwide Telefax 001-307-316-0388

 E-mail: BUNNWORLDWIDE@aol.com

 Copyright 2010
 2

 1 MODERATOR:

 2 JIM RABA

 U.S. Department of Energy

 3 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C.

 4 USA

 5 PRESIDING OFFICERS:

 6 CHARLES LLENZA

 Project Manager

 7 Residential Refrigerator Program Appliance

 Standards Rulemaking

 8 U.S. Department of Energy

 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 9 Washington, D.C.

 USA

 10

 RICHARD KARNEY

 11 Test Procedures for Building Technology Program

 U.S. Department of Energy

 12 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C.

 13 USA

 14 ATTENDEES:

 15 JENNIFER THORNE AMANN

 Director

 16 Buildings Program

 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

 17 529 Fourteenth Street NW

 Suite 600

 18 Washington, D.C. 20045

 USA

 19 PH 202-507-4000 x 4015

 jamann@aceee.org

 20

 21

 22

 23
 3

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 JAMY BACCHUS

 Staff Engineer

 3 Energy Program

 Natural Resources Defense Council

 4 111 Sutter Street

 Twentieth Floor

 5 San Francisco, California 94104

 USA

 6 PH 415-875-6100

 FX 415-875-6161

 7 jbacchus@nrdc.org

 8 TIMOTHY BALLO

 Associate Attorney

 9 Earthjustice

 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

 10 Suite 702

 Washington, D.C. 20036

 11 USA

 PH 202-667-4500

 12 FX 202-667-2356

 tballo@earthjustice.org

 13

 BILL BROWN

 14 General Electric Corporation

 Appliance Park

 15 Louisville, Kentucky 40223

 USA

 16 PH 502-452-4943

 b.brown@ge.com

 17

 STEVE CHURCH

 18 Whirlpool Corporation

 Evansville, Indiana

 19 USA

 PH 812-426-4659

 20

 21

 22

 23
 4

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 JAMES L. CIGLER

 Director

 3 Product Certification & Verification

 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

 4 1111 Nineteenth Street, BNW

 Suite 402

 5 Washington, D.C. 20036

 USA

 6 PH 202-872-5955 x 327

 FX 202-872-9354

 7 jcigler@aham.org

 8 JASON FITZGERALD

 D&R International

 9 1300 Spring Street

 Suite 500

 10 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

 USA

 11 jfitzgerald@drintl.com

 12 KAZ FUKUKURA

 Director

 13 Corporate Engineering & Quality Assurance

 2001 Sanyo Avenue

 14 San Diego, California 92154-6229

 USA

 15 PH 619-671-4323

 FX 619-661-4167

 16 kfukukura@see.sanyo.com

 17 ALLAN HALL

 Laboratory Manager

 18 Electrolux Major Appliances North America

 Cold Technology Center/Refrigeration/Anderson

 19 101 Masters Boulevard

 Anderson, South Carolina 29626

 20 USA

 PH 864-260-0300

 21 FX 864-716-2209

 allan.hall@electrolux.com

 22

 23
 5

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 DAVID HALL

 Manager

 3 Electrolux Major Appliances North America

 Cold Technology Center/Refrigeration/Anderson

 4 101 Masters Boulevard

 Anderson, South Carolina 29626

 5 USA

 PH 864-260-0300

 6 FX 864-716-2209

 david.hall@electrolux.com

 7

 JACK HENRY-RHOADS

 8 D&R International

 1300 Spring Street

 9 Silver Spring, Maryland

 USA

 10 PH 301-588-9387

 jhrhoads@drintl.com

 11

 J. B. HOYT

 12 Director

 Regulatory Affairs and State Government Relations

 13 Whirlpool Corporation

 2000 North M-63, MD3005

 14 Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022

 USA

 15 PH 269-923-4647

 FX 269-923-4652

 16 j_b_hoyt@whirlpool.com

 17 ELIZABETH JOYCE

 Energy Solutions

 18 On behalf of

 Pacific Gas and Electric Company,

 19 Southern California Edison, and

 The Semper Utilities

 20

 MICHAEL KIDO

 21 Office of the General Counsel

 U.S. Department of Energy

 22 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C.

 23 USA
 6

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 KELLEY KLINE

 General Electric

 3 AP2-225

 Appliance Park

 4 Louisville, Kentucky 40056

 USA

 5 PH 502-452-7603

 KelleyKline@ge.com

 6

 JOANNA MAUER

 7 Technical Advocacy Coordinator

 Appliance Standards Awareness Project

 8 529 Fourteenth Street, NW

 Suite 600

 9 Washington, D.C. 20045

 USA

 10 PH 202-507-4034

 jmauer@standardsASAP.org

 11

 KEVIN MESSNER

 12 Vice President of Government Relations

 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

 13 1111 Nineteenth Street, NW

 Suite 402

 14 Washington, D.C. 2 0036

 USA

 15 PH 202-872-5955 x 310

 FX 202-872-9354

 16 kmessner@aham.org

 17 MICHAEL G. RAYMOND

 Building Technologies Program

 18 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

 U.S. Department of Energy

 19 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C. 20585-0121

 20 USA

 PH 202-586-9611

 21 FX 202-586-4617

 michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov

 22

 23
 7

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 CHRIS RIEGER

 Director of Sub-Zero Design

 3 Sub-Zero, Inc.

 Wolf Appliance, Inc.

 4 4717 Hammersley Road

 Madison, Wisconsin 53711

 5 USA

 PH 608-270-3282

 6 FX 608-271-6464

 chris.rieger@subzero.com

 7

 R. DOUGLAS ROBERTS

 8 Vice President of Business Development

 Thermo Cor, LLC

 9 AcuTemp

 2900 Dryden Road

 10 Dayton, Ohio 45439

 USA

 11 PH 937-312-0114 x 243

 FX 937-312-1277

 12 droberts@acutemp.com

 13 JACOB W. TALBOT

 Research Assistant

 14 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

 529 Fourteenth Street NW

 15 Suite 600

 Washington, D.C. 20045

 16 USA

 PH 202-507-4000 x 4035

 17 FX 202-429-2248

 jtalbot@aceee.org

 18

 RICHARD F. TOPPING

 19 Government Relations

 Sub-Zero, Inc.

 20 Wolf Appliance, Inc.

 24 Independence Lane

 21 Shrewsbury, Massachusetts 01545

 USA

 22 PH 508-523-1027

 FX 801-761-9702

 23 richard.topping@subzero.com
 8

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 SUBID WAGLEY

 U.S. Department of Energy

 3 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C.

 4 USA

 5 MEG WALTNER

 Energy Advocate

 6 Natural Resources Defense Council

 1200 New York Avenue, NW

 7 Suite 400

 Washington, D.C. 20005

 8 USA

 PH 202-513-6270

 9 FX 202-289-1060

 mwaltner@nrdc.org

 10

 DETLEF WESTPHALEN

 11 Associate Director

 Navigant Consulting

 12 PH 781-270-8360

 detlef.westphalen@navigantconsulting.com

 13

 JEFFREY M. WOOD

 14 General Manager of Refrigeration Technology and

 Appliances

 15 General Electric Consumer & Industrial

 AP5/1S-103

 16 Louisville, Kentucky 40225

 USA

 17 PH 502-452-3147

 FX 502-452-0734

 18 jeffrey.wood@ge.com

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23
 9

 1 ATTENDEES (Continued):

 2 DAVID YASHAR

 HVAC&R Equipment Performance Group

 3 Building Environment Division

 Building and Fire Research Laboratory

 4 U.S. Department of Commerce

 National Institute of Standards and Technology

 5 100 Bureau Drive

 MS 8631

 6 Building 226 Room B124

 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8631

 7 USA

 PH 301-975-5868

 8 FX 301-975-8973

 dyashar@nist.gov

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23
 10

 1 I N D E X

 Page

 2

 3 WELCOME

 By Jim Raba 11

 4 By Richard Karney 12

 By Charles Llenza 12

 5

 OPENING REMARKS, INTRODUCTIONS, AND AGENDA

 6 REVIEW

 By Jim Raba 13

 7

 STAKEHOLDER OPENING STATEMENTS 17

 8

 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY

 9 HISTORY

 By Charles Llenza 18

 10

 OVERVIEW OF PAST REFRIGERATION PRODUCT

 11 RULEMAKING

 By Charles Llenza 18

 12

 PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE TEST PROCEDURE CHANGES

 13 COMBINATION WINE STORAGE-FREEZER PRODUCTS, NEW

 APPENDICES A and B, and COMPLIANCE DATE FOR

 14 THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURES

 By Detlef Westphalen 22

 15

 AMENDMENTS TO TAKE EFFECT PRIOR TO A NEW ENERGY 34

 16 CONSERVATION STANDARD

 By Detlef Westphalen

 17

 AMENDMENTS TO TAKE EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A

 18 NEW ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD 120

 By Detlef Westphalen

 19

 OTHER ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION 158

 20 By Detlef Westphalen

 21 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER EPCA REQUIREMENTS 163

 By Detlef Westphalen

 22

 CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 169

 23 By Charles Llenza
 11

 1 BEFORE THE

 2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 3 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR

 4 CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURES FOR

 5 REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

 6 Public Meeting was held pursuant to

 7 Notice at Room 8E-089, United States Department of

 8 Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

 9 D.C., USA, commencing on the 22d day of June, 2010,

 10 at 9:02 a.m. ET. Mr. Talbot, Mr. Topping, Ms.

 11 Amann, and Mr. Hall were not present.

 12 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 13 MR. RABA: Good morning, everyone.

 14 Before we get started, does everybody have a copy

09:02:01 15 of today's Agenda and a packet of materials on the

 16 desk where you sign in?

 17 And leave your card so we can make a

 18 record of the attendance of today's meeting. And

 19 after the meeting's over, or during the meeting,

09:02:14 20 we'll give you a copy of all who attended today so

 21 you can see.

 22 So, let's get started. We'll take our

 23 seats, please.
 12

 1 And welcome to the Department of Energy

 2 Public Meeting to Discuss Proposed Test Procedures

 3 for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and

 4 Freezers. Today's public meeting is intended to

09:02:37 5 familiarize you with the statutory, regulatory

 6 requirements, and the Department's proposed test

 7 procedures for these products.

 8 I'm Jim Raba. I'm with the Department

 9 of Energy, and I'll be facilitating your meeting

09:02:52 10 today.

 11 I'll try to keep us on task and ensure

 12 everybody has the opportunity to speak. And also

 13 as a facilitator I'll try to shepherd the process

 14 to make the best use of your time. We know it's

09:03:07 15 valuable.

 16 I want to introduce Charles Llenza and

 17 Richard Karney, our presiding officers of today's

 18 meeting.

 19 Gentlemen, would either of you have

09:03:17 20 opening remarks?

 21 OPENING REMARKS BY RICHARD KARNEY:

 22 MR. KARNEY: I'd like to welcome

 23 everyone to the Department. Many of you know me as
 13

 1 the Department of Energy's lead person on Energy

 2 Star Program.

 3 Ever since the Department has merged

 4 the, the program with EPA I've been given the task

09:03:35 5 of overseeing test procedure development for the

 6 Department, so that's why I'm here today, and

 7 looking for an exciting but calm meeting.

 8 MR. LLENZA: Hi. I'm Charles Llenza.

 9 I'm your Project Manager. And Lucas has

09:03:57 10 not been able to attend this meeting today, but he

 11 sends his regards.

 12 He'll be back in December for the Final

 13 Rule. And I welcome you all to the Department of

 14 Energy, and I will be your contact for the time

09:04:10 15 being on the test procedure and the residential

 16 refrigerator Standards.

 17 MR. RABA: Well, thank you, Richard and

 18 Charles.

 19 The Department of Energy wants to hear

09:04:24 20 from each one of you, either through your comments

 21 today or written comments later on. These are very

 22 important in our rulemaking process.

 23 I see some familiar faces; some new --
 14

 1 and some new faces as well. It's tradition in

 2 these public meetings to have ground rules that

 3 we've come to know as "norms" for our, our

 4 meetings, and some things to remember, please.

09:04:52 5 We'll keep the focus up here on the

 6 presentations, if you would. Please put your cell

 7 phones on vibrate or stun or silent mode.

 8 Sidebar conversations please keep to a

 9 minimum, and if it's a lengthy one, take it

09:05:08 10 out into the passageway so you can feel free to

 11 talk out there. Please raise your hand when you

 12 wish to speak so I can recognize you and queue you

 13 so everybody can have a chance to speak one at a

 14 time.

09:05:20 15 Please be concise and share the air

 16 time. Your comments today, written comments, and

 17 any supporting documents you wish to provide will

 18 be very helpful in this proposed test procedure

 19 rulemaking.

09:05:33 20 You'll note also that there are

 21 microphones around the room. When the green light

 22 is on, the mic is on.

 23 You push to turn it off, turn it, it
 15

 1 off. And those in the back who would like to

 2 speak, there are microphones, standing mics in the

 3 back as well.

 4 Speak clearly each time. State your

09:05:51 5 name and your company, organization, affiliation

 6 for the Record so our Court Reporter can make a

 7 Transcript of today's public meeting, and also

 8 provide that you talk to the Court Reporter later

 9 on if you wish a Transcript, or it will be, it will

09:06:04 10 be available about two weeks or so after the public

 11 meeting, in any event. Contact the Reporter.

 12 Now, for the Record, -- Well, any

 13 questions so far? Just some housekeeping things,

 14 housekeeping matters.

09:06:17 15 Okay. Let's go around the room, and

 16 please state your name and who you represent, for

 17 the Record.

 18 And, again, push the green button. Get

 19 up close to that microphone and speak clearly.

09:06:31 20 Start over here, please.

 21 (Whereupon, at 9:06 a.m. ET,

 22 self-introductions were had, after which Mr.

 23 Topping entered the room. The following then
 16

 1 occurred:)

 2 MR. RABA: Did everyone have a chance to

 3 introduce themselves or herself? Did you?

 4 MR. TOPPING: Good morning, Jim. I'm

09:08:59 5 Dick Topping, Sub-Zero.

 6 MR. RABA: Okay. Everybody ready?

 7 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 8 MR. RABA: Great. Again, does everybody

 9 have a copy of today's Agenda and the presentation

09:09:11 10 materials?

 11 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 12 MR. RABA: Okay. Later during the day I

 13 was just saying I'll receive a copy of the

 14 Attendance List, both who are registered for

09:09:20 15 today's meeting and who are in attendance.

 16 So, let's run through today's Agenda,

 17 shall we? You can see we're going to have a lot to

 18 cover.

 19 Some of the regulatory history, the

09:09:32 20 products that are covered by these test procedures;

 21 amendments. Later on that will take on how it will

 22 have an effect on the Standards-making.

 23 And I would like to talk about their Amendments,
 17

 1 and finally other issues in afternoon. You can see

 2 also during the day there are breaks, scheduled

 3 breaks.

 4 We will take the opportunity to take a

09:09:52 5 break when it's appropriate in the conversation, in

 6 the discussions and the presentation. We'll try to

 7 keep on schedule and keep the meeting going for

 8 your time.

 9 We know it's valuable. We want to hear

09:10:04 10 as much as we can from you and your comments.

 11 And then final wrap-up with closing

 12 remarks from our presiding officers here. I

 13 understand PowerPoint slides do have a lot of

 14 content, and throughout the day there will be

09:10:18 15 comment boxes on the slides which will give some

 16 focus for some structured comments and other things

 17 that you'd like to ask questions about,

 18 opportunities.

 19 STAKEHOLDER OPENING STATEMENTS:

09:10:29 20 MR. RABA: So, speaking of comments, are

 21 there any opening statements that you would like to

 22 make for the Record? Short, brief opening

 23 statement, or something to read for the Record?
 18

 1 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 2 MR. RABA: None is seen. Then let's

 3 proceed.

 4 Any questions so far, on what we've done,

09:10:48 5 covered?

 6 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 7 MR. RABA: Okay. Charles Llenza has

 8 some background and regulatory history to share

 9 with you on the test procedures for refrigerators,

09:11:00 10 refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

 11 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY HISTORY:

 12 MR. LLENZA: Welcome to the Department

 13 of Energy. And we are going to be going through

 14 the presentation for the Test Procedure NOPR Public

09:11:15 15 Meeting being held today.

 16 The main purpose for the Test Procedure

 17 NOPR Public Meeting is to present the Department's

 18 proposed test procedures, to seek the comments from

 19 participants here today, and discuss specific

09:11:31 20 issues and questions related to the proposal, and

 21 discuss the next steps.

 22 We're at the NOPR stage, and in the

 23 test procedure. And subsequently, once we have
 19

 1 concluded the NOPR stage, once the comment period

 2 is closed, we will proceed to the Final Rule stage,

 3 and to publishing a Final Rule by the end

 4 of this year.

09:12:00 5 The comment period for the Test

 6 Procedure NOPR closes August 10th (tenth). I just wanted

 7 to make note of that.

 8 The major issues for the overview of

 9 today's presentation, we'll talk about products

09:12:20 10 covered by this test procedure, by the test

 11 procedure changes, combination wine-storage and

 12 freezer products, establishing new appendices for

 13 Item A and B above, and a compliance date for the

 14 amended test procedure; amendments to take effect

09:12:41 15 prior to the new Energy Conservation Standard, which is

 16 a parallel process that's ongoing right now, but

 17 separate from this process; amendments to take

 18 effect simultaneously with the new Energy

 19 Conservation Standard.

09:12:58 20 We have some other issues to consider, be

 21 taken under consideration, and there's some issues

 22 to be discussed on compliance with other 

 23 EPCA requirements. So, it's important that we get
 20

 1 your comments on this workshop today.

 2 And at the end of the concluding meeting

 3 today we also would appreciate any summary comments

 4 that you might want to make on our Test Procedure

09:13:27 5 NOPR. Participants are also invited to raise any

 6 other issues that you consider germane to the Test

 7 Procedure NOPR today also.

 8 Let me just go briefly over some of the

 9 regulatory history for the Refrigerator,

09:13:48 10 Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers Test Procedure.

 11 It -- The Test Procedure was established in 1977,

 12 and it was revised based on AHAM-HFR-1-1979 in

 13 1982.

 14 Variable defrost control and dual-system

09:14:10 15 defrost was added in 1989, and a long-time defrost

 16 test procedure modification occurred in 2003.

 17 There's a list of some of the recent Waivers that

 18 were granted for the Refrigerator/Refrigerator-

 19 Freezer Test Procedure, and some additional Waivers

09:14:36 20 and Interim Waivers for the variable

 21 anti-sweat controls have been granted also.

 22 The regulatory history from the freezer

 23 test procedure, which is somewhat parallel, the
 21

 1 test procedure was established in 1977, and it was

 2 revised again in 1982. And the variable-defrost and

 3 quick-freeze amendments were established in 1989.

 4 We are continuing to amend the energy

09:15:20 5 conservation requirements for residential

 6 refrigerators based on the Energy Independence and

 7 Security Act of 2007. And in this Energy Pol-,

 8 Policy Conservation Act, DOE must publish by the

 9 end of this year either a determination indicating

09:15:41 10 that the new Energy Conservation Standards are not

 11 needed, 

 12 or an Energy Conservation Final Rule.

 13 So, it leaves the Department in the

 14 position to have to actually complete the Rule by

09:15:54 15 the end of the year. Okay.

 16 And then I will now pass on the

 17 presentation to Detlef Westphalen from NCI.

 18 PROJECTS COVERED BY THE TEST PROCEDURE CHANGES,

 19 COMBINATION WINE STORAGE-FREEZER PRODUCTS, NEW

09:16:05 20 APPENDICES A AND B, AND COMPLIANCE DATE FOR THE

 21 AMENDED TEST PROCEDURES:

 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, Charlie.

 23 I'm going to start with products covered
 22

 1 by the test procedure changes. The -- I guess the

 2 overview of what we're covering has already been

 3 covered.

 4 The products covered by the test

09:16:37 5 procedure changes are basically residential

 6 refrigeration products. They are designated

 7 "refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer"

 8 in the CFR.

 9 Rev- -- The difference between the

09:16:54 10 refrigerator and the refrigerator-freezer has to do

 11 with temperatures acquired by, in the freezer

 12 compartment. In the refrigerator fresh food compartment, 

temperatures are 

 13 above 32 degrees or below 39 degrees, and

 14 freezer compartments get down to 8 Fahrenheit.

09:17:08 15 Obviously, a freezer compartment in a

 16 refrigerator would have to be below 32 to be a

 17 freezer. These are some of the definitions.

 18 I'm not going to read them out one by

 19 one, but these are the products that are covered by

09:17:21 20 the test procedure rulemaking. Electric

 21 refrigerator-freezer, as well.

 22 You'll note the designation of

 23 temperature for electric refrigerator-freezer as
 23

 1 listed currently has, in the fresh-food

 2 compartment, temperature range above 32, while in

 3 the refrigerator there's a limit at, of 39. And

 4 we'll get to that in the next section, why there's

09:17:52 5 that difference, and what DOE proposes to do about

 6 that.

 7 And "freezer" means, obviously, cabinet

 8 designed for freezing temperatures down to 0

 9 Fahrenheit. You'll note that all these products

09:18:07 10 are electric powered.

 11 Refrigeration products powered by other

 12 means are insignificant in terms of sales, and are

 13 not at this time covered. So, we have a request

 14 for comment on the definition of "electric

09:18:23 15 refrigerator."

 16 DOE requests comment on whether any

 17 clarifications are needed regarding this

 18 definition, and if so, explain why and provide

 19 specific language that DOE should add.

09:18:32 20 (Whereupon, at 9:18 a.m. ET, Mr. Talbot,

 21 Ms. Amann, and Mr. Hall entered the room, after

 22 which the following occurred:)

 23 MR. RABA: Yes. Go ahead, please.
 24

 1 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, with AHAM.

 2 MR. RABA: Thank you, Kevin.

 3 MR. MESSNER: I had one question. I

 4 think you clarified it on the -- earlier.

09:18:52 5 In reading the Federal Register Notice,

 6 it, it seemed to state that it was limited to 39

 7 degrees, which means it, it, it could be a -- It's

 8 unclear whether you could go over the 39 degrees,

 9 and it wasn't the highest, coldest setting, or

09:19:12 10 where you talked about 32 to 39. But, the -- It

 11 was unclear whether you would be able to have the

 12 fresh-food compartment at -- You were saying the

 13 fresh-food compartment would have to be a maximum

 14 39 degrees and couldn't go higher than that in the

09:19:30 15 Federal Register Notice.

 16 So, I would like some clarification.

 17 And, and there is a difference between a

 18 refrigerator-freezer and the refrigerator in that

 19 area as well.

09:19:40 20 Follow what I'm saying?

 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: I follow the question.

 22 And, you know, I'm still thinking in my head. . .

 23 can I speak for DOE, or can I speak for
 25

 1 what I think the meaning is? I think the meaning

 2 is the compartment can go above 39, but it is

 3 product designed primarily for 32-to-39 range, and,

 4 you know, can cover that entire range.

09:20:07 5 MR. MESSNER: So, even the fresh-food

 6 cabinet would not be going over 39, is what you're

 7 saying, at any time?

 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: It could, depending on

 9 what temperature settings were selected. But,

09:20:20 10 that's not necessarily what it's designed for, and

 11 the primary range is 32 to 39.

 12 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

 13 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza,

 14 Department of Energy.

09:20:33 15 I would recommend that if the

 16 stakeholders, when they see a definition or some

 17 kind of a range, and it's not clear, that in your

 18 comments, that you write out your comments exactly

 19 what would provide clarity to the Department --

09:20:51 20 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

 21 MR. LLENZA: -- defining those ranges.

 22 And if, if there's a subsection in the refrigerator

 23 that could be higher because of, of its compartment
 26

 1 issues or because of what kind of food that might

 2 be in there, --

 3 MR. MESSNER: Right.

 4 MR. LLENZA: -- then some clarity might

09:21:06 5 help the Department in defining different ranges

 6 within the overall range of the refrigerator

 7 temperatures.

 8 MR. MESSNER: Okay. Yeah, we'll do

 9 that.

09:21:16 10 Yes. So, sounds like the, we were

 11 reading the Federal Register right, where the 39

 12 was in, was in the proposed maximum setting.

 13 And the issue of refrigerator,

 14 refrigerator-freezers, should that wait till the

09:21:31 15 next comment section, too, on the temperatures

 16 differential, or --?

 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Correct. Actually, I should

 18 clarify that this definition of "refrigerator" was

 19 established, I believe, in 2000, and the next

09:21:43 20 section will mention that as well.

 21 MR. MESSNER: But, there is a difference

 22 where the other, the, the refrigerator-freezer in

 23 the previous, I think it's 32, but there's no
 27

 1 39-degree cap.

 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: For refrigerator-

 3 freezer there was no 39-degree cap instituted.

 4 MR. MESSNER: Right. Okay.

09:22:05 5 MR. RABA: Yeah. Those are good

 6 comments.

 7 Thank you. I think that makes a good

 8 point, that your thoughts like that,

 9 questions and comments are very valuable to the

09:22:16 10 Department to be sure that these are very clearly

 11 spelled out in the rulemaking process and test

 12 procedures as well; the design, the applications,

 13 and things like that; especially design ranges.

 14 So, things like that, your positions are

09:22:30 15 very welcome and helpful to the rulemaking process.

 16 Further questions? Comments?

 17 Yes. In the back.

 18 Step to the microphone, please. State

 19 your name for the Record, and company.

09:22:47 20 MR. CHURCH: Yeah, this is Steve Church.

 21 I'd say that when you said in the

 22 Federal Register "maximum 39 degrees," understand

 23 that almost every refrigerator-freezer on the
 28

 1 market today will operate at in excess of 39

 2 degrees, so you've essentially eliminated all the,

 3 all the refrigerator-freezers within the

 4 definition. So, it certainly needs clarification.

09:23:09 5 MR. RABA: And your organization,

 6 please?

 7 MR. CHURCH: Whirlpool.

 8 MR. RABA: Thank you very much. Just a

 9 moment here.

09:23:14 10 I've noticed some new faces come in the

 11 room. As a custom we like to have you introduce

 12 yourselves.

 13 Please step to one of the microphones at

 14 the table or in the back, state your name and

09:23:24 15 affiliation for the Record, please.

 16 MR. HALL: Yes. David Hall with

 17 Electrolux.

 18 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 19 MR. TALBOT: Jacob Talbot, with the

09:23:35 20 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

 21 MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann, American

 22 Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

 23 MR. RABA: Thank you.
 29

 1 Any further comments or questions about

 2 the, the part of coverage, scope of coverage,

 3 definitions?

 4 MR. LLENZA: This is Charlie Llenza,

09:24:06 5 Department of Energy.

 6 We also welcome comments subsequently

 7 through the comment period. So, if you don't have

 8 anything in particular right now, but you'd like to

 9 send a comment in to the Department, please, please

09:24:17 10 do so.

 11 MR. RABA: Shall we move on?

 12 MR. LLENZA: Yeah.

 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: Sure.

 14 Next section, combination wine

09:24:26 15 storage/freezer products. As -- Oh, I've got the

 16 date wrong.

 17 As mentioned, DOE modified the

 18 definition of "electric refrigerator" to exclude

 19 wine storage products in November, 2001. A similar

09:24:41 20 limit was not placed on the range for the

 21 fresh-food compartments of refrigerator-freezers.

 22 This was -- This has been discussed as

 23 part of the Energy Conservation Standard, and, you
 30

 1 know, there has been some discussion. And

 2 stakeholders have suggested that DOE has the

 3 authority to re-extend coverage to wine coolers.

 4 In this rulemaking, DOE proposes to

09:25:08 5 modify, however, its "electric refrigerator-

 6 freezer" definition to make it consistent with the

 7 "refrigerator" definition. DOE intends to pursue

 8 coverage of wine storage and combination of wine

 9 storage/freezer products, but to do so in a

09:25:26 10 separate rulemaking, and at this point to

 11 first establish consistency with the definitions.

 12 And so the modification is designated for

 13 the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures

 14 above 32 and below 39 for one of the compartments,

09:25:43 15 the fresh-food compartment. And so if there are

 16 any additional comments on that topic, --

 17 MR. RABA: Yes. Comment, please?

 18 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, with AHAM.

 19 So, we're getting a little confused on,

09:26:07 20 on this. For -- You're saying that the

 21 refrigerator-freezer-combo-wine-cooler combo, it,

 22 it, it would not be a covered product, but a, a

 23 refrigerator/wine cooler -- Did you come -- Did
 31

 1 you, did you have a proposal of what would happen

 2 with refrigerators and wine coolers?

 3 Because it seems like those should be

 4 treated the same, both as not covered.

09:26:39 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: Right. Right. And

 6 that's the intent here.

 7 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: The wine coolers are

 9 currently not covered because the definition limits

09:26:50 10 the coverage. And so this change in the definition

 11 for "refrigerator-freezers," you know, will provide

 12 consistency, and also, you know, making combination

 13 wine storage refrigerators, or freezers, rather,

 14 not covered.

09:27:07 15 And then DOE would plan in the separate

 16 future rulemaking to address both of those

 17 products.

 18 MR. MESSNER: So, you're saying if it's

 19 over 39 degrees, then that's, that's what you're,

09:27:15 20 you're trying to, making the distinction between.

 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: If it's 

 22 designed primarily to be above 39 degrees, as a

 23 wine storage/freezer product would be, then it
 32

 1 would not be covered.

 2 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

 3 MR. RABA: Yes. Comment, please.

 4 MR. TOPPING: Dick Topping, Sub-Zero.

09:27:34 5 I think the issue here again is with

 6 wording. I think, I think, you know, the industry

 7 agrees that wine coolers should not be considered

 8 refrigerators.

 9 I think the issue, though, is if 39

09:27:46 10 degrees, if any unit operates over 39 degrees is

 11 disqualified from the, from the definition, then we

 12 have a problem. So, I think it's that issue of

 13 what "designed for" means.

 14 I mean, if "designed for" means this is

09:28:00 15 the typical range that the unit operates in but it

 16 can operate outside that range, I think that's

 17 okay. If, if the idea is "designed for" means if

 18 you have a unit that can achieve 40 degrees it's no

 19 longer a refrigerator-freezer, then that's a

09:28:15 20 problem, obviously, I mean, because right now units

 21 are tested at 45 degrees, and will be until 2014.

 22 So, I think the issue

 23 is wording here, not intent.
 33

 1 MR. LLENZA: This is Charlie Llenza,

 2 Department of Energy.

 3 Again, I would, the Department would

 4 welcome specifically-written language from, from

09:28:37 5 the stakeholders as to what they think would be

 6 better wording than what we are proposing. So, --

 7 MR. TOPPING: I'm not sure we know, but

 8 --.

 9 MR. LLENZA: Yeah. Well, we're trying.

09:28:50 10 As you can see, we're proposing some

 11 language and it's causing a little bit of angst.

 12 MR. TOPPING: Yeah. Um-hum. Right.

 13 MR. LLENZA: So, the best way is to

 14 rewrite it and send it.

09:29:01 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: I have a follow-up

 16 question for all of the stakeholders. And

 17 basically are there products that fall in between

 18 what we think of as a refrigerator-freezer and a

 19 wine storage/freezer?

09:29:14 20 And, you know, it would be good to

 21 obtain information on those types of products so

 22 that we can pursue this most appropriately.

 23 MR. FUKUKURA: Kaz Fukukura, Sanyo.
 34

 1 There is -- There are products, part of

 2 refrigerator is wine chiller, which does not even

 3 come close to 39 degrees, and part of product being

 4 refrigerator. So, it's not a combination of wine

09:29:40 5 storage and freezer, but wine storage/refrigerator

 6 products.

 7 And the proper language needs to be qual-,

 8 classified so we don't have any confusion in

 9 future.

09:29:53 10 MR. RABA: Your written comments would

 11 be helpful, too. Thank you.

 12 Thank you.

 13 Additional comments? Questions?

 14 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

09:30:04 15 MR. RABA: Proceed.

 16 AMENDMENTS TO TAKE EFFECT PRIOR TO A NEW ENERGY

 17 CONSERVATION STANDARD:

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: Next section here is

 19 about establishing new Appendices A and B, and

09:30:12 20 compliance date for amended test procedure. And

 21 this section talks about schedule and, you know,

 22 architecture of implementing the proposed

 23 Amendments.
 35

 1 So, there are two groups of proposed

 2 Amendments that we'll, we'll be discussing here,

 3 some that are intended to take, take effect prior

 4 to the Energy Conservation Standards that are

09:30:37 5 scheduled for the beginning of 2014. And those are

 6 proposed to be implemented in the existing

 7 Appendices A1 and B1.

 8 Then there are additional Amendments

 9 that are proposed to be applicable to the new

09:30:53 10 Energy Conservation Standards.

 11 (Whereupon, at 9:30 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 12 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 13 others and off the Record, during which the

 14 following occurred:)

09:30:55 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: And those would be

 16 proposed in the new Appendices A and B, which, in a

 17 lot of ways, are just copies of A1 and B1 with

 18 additional modifications. The proposed effective

 19 date for both sets of the test procedures is 30

09:31:15 20 days after publication of the Final Rule.

 21 However, the new Appendices would not be

 22 required for determining compliance with the

 23 Standard until the new Energy Conservation Standard
 36

 1 takes effect in 2014. We don't have a specific

 2 comment box on that, but if anybody has any

 3 comments, certainly now might be the time.

 4 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

09:31:51 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right, the next

 6 section.

 7 (Whereupon, at 9:31 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 8 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 9 others and off the Record, during which the

09:31:51 10 following occurred:)

 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: Amendments to take

 12 effect prior to a new Energy Conservation Standard,

 13 and we have here 14 of them, so it will be a long

 14 morning. So, why don't we get right into it?

09:32:07 15 The first is procedures for test sample

 16 preparation and testing. This set of Amendments is

 17 intended to provide guidance for product setup to

 18 ensure that the test is based on representative

 19 average use.

09:32:26 20 And this is similar to language that was

 21 initially introduced in AHAM HRF-1 in 2007, but

 22 it's a little bit different and it perhaps goes a

 23 little bit further. And the intent is that there
 37

 1 may be future technology, or there may be product

 2 design features that, that are introduced that make

 3 aspects of, you know, a particular test procedure

 4 unclear or obsolete.

09:32:57 5 Now, certainly DOE should pay attention

 6 to those developments and make test procedure

 7 modifications. However, in the case that the

 8 regulatory process doesn't keep up with the

 9 technology or the innovations, DOE is proposing to

09:33:23 10 add language that would, in a general way, cover

 11 what the intent of the test procedure is so that if

 12 there are different interpretations of how to test

 13 a product, you know, there's a, a basis on which to

 14 evaluate those different interpretations.

09:33:39 15 First subbullet here would be a

 16 requirement that test samples be set up consistent

 17 with the instruction shipped with the cabinet

 18 except as clearly indicated in the test procedure.

 19 Now, the current HRF-1, I should say the HRF-1-'79,

09:33:57 20 which is referenced by the current DOE test

 21 procedure, mentions "setup as nearly as

 22 practicable," or some words to that effect, with

 23 the instructions shipped with the cabinet.
 38

 1 However, DOE feels that that is --

 2 (Whereupon, at 9:34 a.m. ET, Mr. Talbot

 3 left the room, during which the following

 4 occurred:)

09:34:13 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- really not clear

 6 enough and nonenforceable. So, DOE proposes to

 7 say:

 8 Okay, you can set it up as the

 9 instructions say, except for some deviations that

09:34:27 10 are necessary in order to provide consistency in

 11 testing, and some deviations that are allowable

 12 because they don't affect the test results.

 13 The second subbullet here, ex-, an

 14 explanation that the intent of the test procedure

09:34:43 15 is to represent energy use in normal conditions

 16 even though the, these test conditions themselves

 17 aren't specified in the test. You know, most

 18 kitchens aren't at 90 degrees, for instance.

 19 And then, finally, a requirement for

09:34:56 20 petition for Waiver if the setup is, cannot be made

 21 consistent with normal use or if the application of

 22 the requirements to a particular new product aren't

 23 clear.
 39

 1 Proposed modified language in Section

 2 430.23 Subsections (a) and (b), the language

 3 regarding test procedure intent, again the language

 4 similar to HRF-1-2008, Section 1, which first

09:35:25 5 appeared in the 2007 version, --

 6 (Whereupon, at 9:35 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 7 and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the hearing of

 8 others and off the Record, during which the

 9 following occurred:)

09:35:30 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- the language as

 11 modified as described in these subbullets.

 12 Concepts expressed in EPCA, for

 13 instance, are explicitly used, such as “representive

 14 average consumer use.” Explicit

09:35:43 15 acknowledgment is made that the energy use is consistent

 16 with normal conditions, although the conditions

 17 are not themselves representative of average

 18 consumer use.

 19 And then a more, more general

09:35:53 20 description of controls or features that would

 21 provide nonrepresentative measurements rather than

 22 specific examples. Some of the other intent-of-

 23 test-procedure language mentions, you know,
 40

 1 specific examples.

 2 The intent here was to be a little bit

 3 more general for allowing broader relevance of that

 4 language.

09:36:09 5 (Whereupon, at 9:36 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 6 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 7 others and off the Record, during which the

 8 following occurred:)

 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: And then also the

09:36:13 10 explicit requirement for petition for Waiver. I

 11 apologize for that.

 12 That's my fault, Charlie.

 13 MR. RABA: Charles Llenza, Department of

 14 Energy.

09:36:25 15 LLENZA: We're sorry. That wasn't

 16 supposed to be in the slides.

 17 We just -- In the rush of getting that

 18 printed, we just printed a comment we were

 19 conducting --

09:36:37 20 MR. WESTPHALEN: We can --

 21 MR. LLENZA: That's fine. Just ignore

 22 it.

 23 It won't be in the slides that we'll
 41

 1 place on the web, by the way, the final slides.

 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. The proposed

 3 modified language in Appendices A1, B1, A, and B,

 4 in Section 2, which discusses test setup, here we

09:37:00 5 have the language that the, the cabinet and its

 6 refrigerating mechanism is set up in accordance with

 7 the printed consumer instructions, nearly word for

 8 word from HRF-1-'79, and then some of the text

 9 describing some of the possible deviations from

09:37:17 10 that --

 11 (Whereupon, at 9:37 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 12 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 13 others and off the Record, during which the

 14 following occurred:)

09:37:21 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- setup.

 16 And here's one place where we expect

 17 there to be many comments, that DOE could not have

 18 thought of all the possible deviations that might

 19 be valid. And, you know, we certainly want to

09:37:37 20 consider any other potential variations.

 21 So, requests for comment on test sample

 22 preparation and test procedure Waivers. Why don't

 23 we take Issue 4 first, test sample preparation?
 42

 1 DOE invites comments on proposed

 2 clarifications of the proposed test procedures for

 3 preparing test samples. DOE has proposed allowed

 4 and required deviations from setup according to

09:38:04 5 installation instructions, and invites comments on

 6 whether or not additional such deviations should be

 7 incorporated into this test procedure.

 8 MR. RABA: Clarifications for preparing

 9 test samples, allowing requiring deviations from

09:38:18 10 setup on instructions within installation

 11 procedures? Comments, please?

 12 AHAM. Kevin.

 13 MR. MESSNER: I have a couple just

 14 general comments that I might as well speak to now.

09:38:35 15 You talk about, the previous slide, some of the

 16 changes go in effect in 30 days and some in the, in

 17 the, during the Standard change.

 18 And there's a number of things that we,

 19 we believe that you have in the 30-day categories

09:38:52 20 that would impact the energy, and so we'll

 21 highlight those as the day progresses. Also, a

 22 general, general theme is that the test procedures

 23 is important to harm-, it's very important to
 43

 1 harmonize test procedures so they're with Energy

 2 Star, with Canada, NRCan, and so we want to

 3 make sure that there are those, there will be some

 4 issues in that area that we'll get into probably

09:39:21 5 more in detail in our written comments.

 6 So, on these specific issues that we're

 7 at now, we'll provide a little more

 8 on some of these issues, but 

 9 we do have some concerns with some of the

09:39:35 10 things that are laid out here, such as

 11 inconsistency between the clearance requirements

 12 that would be required in this section, versus the

 13 operating instructions. And need to make sure that

 14 those are consistent.

09:39:48 15 I mean, -- And we'll get into

 16 more detail in that area and others as we review

 17 the comments. On, on some of the Appendices'

 18 proposed additions, another initial takeaway that

 19 we would like to provide is that there needs to be

09:40:09 20 some better definitions on smoothly varying

 21 functions of the operating conditions and these

 22 control inputs, and need to -- We'll provide more

 23 detail in our written comments on that, as well.
 44

 1 MR. RABA: Thank you. Lot of things to

 2 clarify.

 3 What's "normal," "average," "smoothly"?

 4 We welcome those in as specific language as

09:40:36 5 possible to clear it up, and so it will be

 6 consistent and repeatable.

 7 That's good. Thank you.

 8 Others, please?

 9 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

09:40:47 10 MR. RABA: Carry on.

 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: The other comment box

 12 on this slide, there's the test procedure Waivers.

 13 DOE seeks comment on the proposed language

 14 requiring petition for Waivers to address products

09:40:58 15 equipped with controls or other features that

 16 modify the operation of equipment that uses energy

 17 during the energy test.

 18 DOE seeks comment on whether more

 19 specific definitions could or should be provided

09:41:07 20 to, to define either the product characteristics

 21 that would make the test procedure unsuitable for

 22 use, or to define representative average use.

 23 (Whereupon, no response was had.)
 45

 1 MR. RABA: Silence. Comments, perhaps?

 2 Petitions for Waiver? Controls?

 3 Features that might need special

 4 consideration? Certainly each product has its own

09:41:40 5 features that may or may not fall into the purview

 6 of the test procedure.

 7 If those are significant, that would be

 8 good to know about, please, and where there's room

 9 for possible Waivers.

09:41:52 10 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 11 MR. RABA: Seeing none, go ahead,

 12 please.

 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Next topic is

 14 product clearance to walls.

09:42:04 15 I guess this is one of the topics that

 16 Kevin mentioned. DOE proposes to update the

 17 requirement for clearance from the rear of the

 18 product.

 19 Currently HRF-1-'79, Section 7.4.2,

09:42:19 20 which is referenced by the DOE test procedure,

 21 requires rear-wall clearance in accordance with the

 22 manufacturer's instructions or as determined by

 23 mechanical stops on the back of the cabinet.
 46

 1 The recent versions of HRF-1 all specify

 2 the minimum distance, and DOE reviewed this

 3 language and developed an alternative language that

 4 it proposes to adopt that will also provide further

09:42:52 5 clarification of flatness and orientation of the

 6 wall facing the unit, leveling of the product, and

 7 orientation with the rear wall, minimum size of the

 8 simulated rear wall, and a requirement that it be

 9 solid.

09:43:05 10 So, DOE requests comment on the proposed

 11 procedures regarding clearance between the rear of

 12 the tested cabinet and the test chamber. If, if

 13 the proposal requires modification, what changes

 14 are needed, and why?

09:43:20 15 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 16 MR. RABA: Okay, let's go ahead, please.

 17 I hear nothing.

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: Next topic -- Yeah.

 19 Next topic is alternative temperature sensor

09:43:39 20 locations.

 21 DOE proposes to clarify requirement for

 22 reporting of alternative temperature sensor

 23 locations. The Figure 7-1 and 7-2 of HRF-1-'79 are
 47

 1 currently referenced by the test procedure.

 2 HRF-1-2008, Figures 5-1 and 5-2,

 3 essentially the same figures, will be referenced by

 4 Appendices A and B. The current reporting

09:44:09 5 requirement for alternative locations --

 6 (Whereupon, at 9:44 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 7 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 8 others and off the Record, during which the

 9 following occurred:)

09:44:13 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- is in Appendix A1,

 11 Section 5.1, that if the interior arrangements do

 12 not conform with those in 7.1 or 7.2, that

 13 measurements shall be taken in selected locations

 14 to represent approximately the entire refrigerated

09:44:29 15 compartment, and that the locations selected shall

 16 be a matter of record.

 17 DOE proposes the following changes:

 18 First of all, clarification of “shall be a matter of

 19 record”, meaning that that shall be noted in the

09:44:40 20 test reports prepared for certification testing.

 21 Requirement for petition for Waiver in case

 22 there are significant deviations from standard

 23 placement; and then specification of what
 48

 1 represents "significant deviation" is proposed to

 2 be two inches from the, what is specified in the

 3 figures currently.

 4 So, DOE requests comment on these

09:45:11 5 proposed Amendments. In particular, DOE seeks

 6 comment regarding frequency of testing using

 7 temperature sensor locations not specifically shown

 8 in the figures, and also seeks comment on whether

 9 the proposed exception to proposed requirements for

09:45:23 10 Waivers associated with nonstandard sensor location

 11 arrangements are reasonable for limiting the

 12 frequency of such Waivers.

 13 MR. RABA: Floor's open. Comments?

 14 (Whereupon, at 9:45 a.m. MT, Mr. Talbot

09:45:42 15 entered the room, after which the following

 16 occurred:)

 17 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, with AHAM.

 18 We would, we would be supportive of

 19 providing DOE the information regarding additional

09:45:53 20 temperature sensor locations, but it would have to

 21 be treated as confidential information until the

 22 Certification Report is, is received. And also,

 23 these additional sensors shouldn't necessitate a
 49

 1 whole waiver process, which is lengthy and it would

 2 delay the time to market, and, and would also

 3 release confidential information on where these

 4 are.

09:46:26 5 MR. RABA: Michael Kido, General

 6 Counsel. Any comments about confidentiality you

 7 might want to add?

 8 MR. KIDO: To the extent that a company

 9 can support its claim to confidentiality, that

09:46:39 10 would be helpful. Each case of confidential

 11 documents that are submitted, those are treated on

 12 a case-by-case basis.

 13 So, while we'll obviously look at this

 14 issue some more, and to the extent it needs

09:46:55 15 clarified, may elaborate a little bit on, on what

 16 it is that, you know, this type of information

 17 would contain and where you believe it's

 18 confidential, that would be helpful.

 19 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

09:47:07 20 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza,

 21 Department of Energy.

 22 Make sure that the document is clearly

 23 marked, at least the portions that you consider
 50

 1 confidential. And in terms of the way the

 2 Department treats the actual documents when they're

 3 received, the Docket has a notation that they've

 4 received a confidential document, but they're not

09:47:28 5 put in the Docket.

 6 They're in a separate folder or

 7 separate storage, and with, with no public access

 8 whatsoever. So, we do treat these documents

 9 separately, so your confidentiality will be,

09:47:45 10 prevail on these documents.

 11 MR. MESSNER: Thank you.

 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Could I ask a

 13 clarifying question? Does, does -- For Kevin.

 14 Does the concern about the

09:47:54 15 confidentiality apply to the comments, or does it

 16 apply to the potential process of a Waiver?

 17 MR. MESSNER: I'm not sure I -- Well,

 18 we, we don't support using the waiver process for

 19 this. That would be too lengthy, and it would also

09:48:12 20 release, I mean, I mean, potentially release the

 21 confidential information.

 22 We think that we could provide the

 23 information if it's treated in a confidential, as
 51

 1 business confidential information until the

 2 certification, until that process, because then at

 3 that point --

 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: I just wanted to

09:48:33 5 clarify whether your question had to do with

 6 confidentiality when you're, when the manufacturer

 7 is going through a certification process and has a

 8 different arrangement, or whether the

 9 confidentiality applies to comments for this

09:48:49 10 rulemaking process, as Charles' comment seemed to

 11 suggest.

 12 (Whereupon, at 9:48 a.m. ET, Mr. Hoyt

 13 and Mr. Messner conferred, out of the hearing of

 14 others and off the Record, during which the

09:49:03 15 following occurred:)

 16 MR. TOPPING: Kevin, can I answer this?

 17 Dick Topping, Sub-Zero Manufacturers.

 18 My take on that is that manufacturers

 19 would view nonstandard sensor location data as

09:49:18 20 proprietary. We would agree that DOE needs that

 21 information.

 22 What you're proposing is a waiver

 23 process. Waivers take forever.
 52

 1 And -- All right? And, and they're

 2 cumbersome.

 3 And we're trying to figure out some way

 4 to, to streamline the process. And so if there's a

09:49:34 5 way to provide that information to DOE in a

 6 confidential nature in the, in the design process

 7 of the product or the certification process of the

 8 product, then that would be great.

 9 And then when the Certification Report

09:49:46 10 is filed, then that is public information and that

 11 would have that information in it. So, I mean,

 12 that's basically what we're concerned about.

 13 And what we're suggesting here is a way

 14 to cut down on, on, on Waivers, streamline the

09:50:02 15 process, give DOE what it needs, and allow the,

 16 the, the industry to maintain the, you know,

 17 necessary confidentiality in terms of developing,

 18 you know, individual manufacturers developing new

 19 products.

09:50:17 20 MR. RABA: That's very helpful. Thank

 21 you.

 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: The other, the other

 23 part of what is proposed here that's implicit in
 53

 1 the proposals is that the, the new arrangements

 2 requiring different temperature sensors would then

 3 be codified as part of the test procedure so that

 4 in future there would be fewer of these instances

09:50:37 5 where there would be any difference. But, you

 6 know.

 7 MR. TOPPING: But, you'll never get

 8 there. There will always be tied to more sensor

 9 locations, sensor locations that aren't prescribed.

09:50:53 10 MR. RABA: There was a comment in the

 11 back I saw before.

 12 Nothing?

 13 MR. WOOD: Well, I was just going to do

 14 what they did, so we're fine.

09:51:01 15 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 16 MR. LLENZA: This is Charlie Llenza,

 17 Department of Energy.

 18 Would it be reasonable to think that

 19 maybe a zone approach for the sensors? In other

09:51:11 20 words, not necessarily specifying in the test

 21 procedure the exact location, but a zone area where

 22 the sensors could be located, and you proposed

 23 several zones and that way the exact locations
 54

 1 wouldn't have to be revealed, if that would work?

 2 MR. TOPPING: Maybe. I suggest that we

 3 kind of work together on this over the next couple

 4 months and figure out whether there's something

09:51:34 5 that can be done that satisfies everybody's needs.

 6 MR. LLENZA: Okay, great. Thank you.

 7 MR. RABA: Let's move on, please.

 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Next topic is

 9 test control settings, particularly for electronic

09:51:56 10 control units.

 11 These proposed modifications would apply

 12 to Appendix A1, Section 3.2.1, for selection of

 13 thermostat settings. The current language talks

 14 about setting the controls in the median

09:52:15 15 position and defeating the mechanical knob detents

 16 if necessary to obtain a median setting.

 17 The key issue here is with electronic

 18 controls, you know, the test technician wouldn't

 19 necessarily be able to defeat any of these

09:52:34 20 electronic controls to get the median position.

 21 And the top bullet there provides an example where

 22 fresh-food compartment with settings from, every

 23 degree Fahrenheit from 33 to 46, and the median 39
 55

 1 and a-half is not possible.

 2 The proposed resolution is to use the

 3 nearest setting to the average of the highest and

 4 lowest that can be selected, and if two selectable

09:53:01 5 settings are the same difference from this average,

 6 to use the warmer setting.

 7 So, DOE requests comment on this

 8 proposal for test control settings on the potential

 9 inability of some electronic control products to be

09:53:19 10 set in the median position, and requests details if

 11 alternative proposals are suggested.

 12 MR. RABA: Yes. Go ahead.

 13 MR. MESSNER: This is short, though.

 14 Yeah, we would agree.

09:53:35 15 Yeah, we agree with what, what, your

 16 approach here.

 17 MR. RABA: Others? In the back, please.

 18 DR. YASHAR: Hi. This is Dave Yashar,

 19 NIST.

09:53:54 20 Just a side comment about the, the

 21 temperature settings. And this has to do with the

 22 harmonization process, process of harmonizing with,

 23 with what's going on within the International
 56

 1 Electrotechnical Commission.

 2 The process they have allows flexibility

 3 for the tester to pick what the settings

 4 are for each compartment, provided that they can

09:54:18 5 graphically connect the results, the temperature

 6 results of those, of those tests in such a way that

 7 it actually draws a triangle around the target

 8 point. And that provides a lot more flexibility,

 9 and it gives you a better result.

09:54:36 10 So, I would like to see that. Everybody

 11 in here I'm sure is familiar with this

 12 alternative approach, but I'd like to see that

 13 also make it in, if possible, as an option.

 14 MR. RABA: Thank you. Comment, General

09:54:57 15 Electric?

 16 MR. BROWN: Yeah. This is Bill Brown,

 17 from G.E.

 18 I'm on the same committee that Dr.

 19 Yashar is with the IEC, and the triangulation,

09:55:09 20 triangle approach is the mapping in a much better

 21 way of doing this. You don't have to worry about a

 22 median setting, et cetera.

 23 You're just forming a triangle around
 57

 1 your reference temperature. My question would be:

 2 Would you propose that this is something

 3 in the next 30 days in this rulemaking, or

 4 something that would be proposed for the 2014

09:55:32 5 rulemaking?

 6 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE.

 7 I think we would have to think about

 8 that. Clearly, having an alternative procedure

 9 like that would probably require some additional

09:55:50 10 work and analysis on our part.

 11 And DOE, correct me if I'm wrong. I

 12 don't think we've done that analysis yet on that

 13 particular option, have we?

 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: No, we have not. And

09:56:02 15 one of the key issues is, you know, having test

 16 data to review to see if there's any impact of

 17 making the change.

 18 I imagine that data's available. You

 19 know, we could review it and consider that change.

09:56:23 20 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE.

 21 I just have one quick follow-up

 22 question, just generally. With respect to this

 23 triangle, triangulation method, how -- Is, is that
 58

 1 a procedure that would be repeatable?

 2 Is it, is it one in which that you would

 3 be able to obtain consistent results, and one in

 4 which there would be sufficient clarity to folks so

09:56:54 5 that they understand what it is that they have to

 6 do as part of the procedure to obtain the necessary

 7 results?

 8 MR. BROWN: This is Bill Brown from G.E.

 9 again.

09:57:02 10 This current procedure is in the

 11 Australian/New Zealand Standard. It's, it's

 12 detailed in there exactly how you'd run the test,

 13 and the calculations that are performed.

 14 For example, at a 39-0 setting like

09:57:18 15 we're proposing for 2014, if you perform the

 16 triangulation, you'll get the energy as if the

 17 cabinet were exactly at 39 and 0. With today's

 18 approach with the linear interpolation, you'd be

 19 at, you know, at 39 and below, or at 0 and below 39

09:57:37 20 when you do the interpolation.

 21 So, it's a, a much more repeatable

 22 approach, and it would give you basically the, the

 23 energy at the test point, and not something close
 59

 1 to it, which is all the linear interpolation will

 2 allow you to do.

 3 MR. CHURCH: This is Steve Church from

 4 Whirlpool.

09:57:55 5 I agree with that. However, in the

 6 short term, I'd say 30 days, when we interpolate

 7 the 45 and 5, that would require, certainly, a lot

 8 of design effort to get controls that would

 9 actually triangulate around those much warmer

09:58:08 10 temperatures.

 11 So, in the long run I think that's,

 12 that's probably a pretty decent approach. In the

 13 short run, it would take a lot of design effort to

 14 make that.

09:58:18 15 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown, from G.E.

 16 There is other options with, with this

 17 triangulation procedure. You do have the option

 18 just doing the simple linear interpolation, or you

 19 can, you also have the option of just run one test

09:58:33 20 point below the reference temperatures.

 21 You know, for example, below 39 and

 22 below 0, that would become your energy point.

 23 So, you do have the option of writing one test, two
 60

 1 tests, or if you want to optimize the energy, it's

 2 three tests.

 3 MR. RABA: Further?

 4 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

09:58:55 5 MR. RABA: Thank you again. Very

 6 helpful.

 7 Continue, please.

 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Next topic is

 9 convertible and special-purpose compartments.

09:59:07 10 Currently there is a difference in

 11 treatment of convertible and nonconvertible special

 12 compartments. HRF-1 has conflicting requirements.

 13 For instance, from HRF-1-2008, Section

 14 5.5.2, compartments which are convertible from

09:59:31 15 refrigerator to freezer are operated in the highest

 16 energy usage position, and others, such as crispers

 17 convertible to meat keepers, shall be considered

 18 special compartments and shall be set with the

 19 controls to provide the coldest temperature.

09:59:45 20 DOE proposes adding specific language to

 21 both Appendices A1 and A, requiring use of the

 22 highest energy-use position for both of these, both

 23 of these situations. The, the language would
 61

 1 reinforce the requirement for convertible

 2 compartments, and would achieve consistency of

 3 treatment for convertible and nonconvertible

 4 compartments.

10:00:06 5 So, DOE requests comment on these

 6 proposed clarifications

 7 of test procedures for treatment of convertible

 8 temperatures, and for the proposed Amendments to

 9 the test procedures for special compartments.

10:00:22 10 DOE also requests comments on whether a

 11 size limit should be established for classification

 12 of a special compartment, and what a reasonable

 13 size limit might be.

 14 MR. RABA: AHAM, please.

10:00:35 15 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, with AHAM.

 16 I'm going to review this further, but

 17 it appears to cause an added-on burden,

 18 test burden to determine what the highest energy

 19 level is. And it also appears to impact the energy

10:00:55 20 level.

 21 So, this would be considered one of the

 22 things to be considered in the 2014 staging.

 23 However, AHAM does support the weighting for
 62

 1 special compartments.

 2 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 3 Others?

 4 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

10:01:13 5 MR. RABA: Go ahead.

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Next topic is auxiliary

 7 compartments, and this is related to the previous

 8 topic, --

 9 (Whereupon, at 10:01 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

10:01:20 10 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 11 others and off the Record, during which the

 12 following occurred:)

 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- and points to the

 14 inadequacy of the two-compartment setting approach;

10:01:29 15 lack, lack of clarity in the current test

 16 procedure. The "refrigerator-freezer" definition

 17 allows for two or more compartments, but the test

 18 procedure use, energy-use calculation and other

 19 calculations associated with the temperature

10:01:44 20 discuss just one TR and one TF as if there's only

 21 one of each requirement.

 22 HRF-1 provides for requirements for

 23 convertible and special compartments, and DOE
 63

 1 proposes adjustment of these requirements as we

 2 just described. Some of the questions and issues

 3 that arise in this discussion have to do with, for

 4 instance, the differing compartment configurations.

10:02:11 5 Some of these are totally separate

 6 compartments. There are sub-compartments.

 7 Some are convertible; some are not. The

 8 question of whether a compartment's temperature

 9 would be incorporated in the overall compartment

10:02:24 10 temperature versus use of the highest energy-use

 11 setting, this, this applies, for instance, for,

 12 say, a third compartment that is convertible, and

 13 the guidance that it should be tested with the

 14 highest energy-use position, does that mean you

10:02:39 15 set it at the coldest, or does that mean you test

 16 it as a freezer compartment?

 17 And also, how to incorporate a

 18 compartment's temperature into the overall

 19 compartment temperature if it's a third or a fourth

10:02:51 20 or a fifth compartment. So, DOE proposes the

 21 following test procedure modification, adding a

 22 definition for "separate auxiliary compartments" to

 23 clarify what type of compartments are addressed by
 64

 1 these test procedure modifications: a freezer or a

 2 fresh-food compartment, in addition to the first

 3 freezer or fresh-food compartment.

 4 And the compartment would have a

10:03:14 5 separate door to the outside. The temperature

 6 sensor placement would be as indicated, for

 7 instance, in the existing diagrams.

 8 In case of separate temperature settings

 9 for a separate auxiliary compartment, the same

10:03:31 10 medium, warm, and cold settings would be used as

 11 specified for the temperature settings for the

 12 other compartments. And then volume-weighted

 13 temperature averaging would be used in determining

 14 where to set the test points for the next test, and

10:03:46 15 also in the energy-use equation.

 16 DOE invites comment on the proposed

 17 approach for the modification of the test

 18 procedures to address auxiliary compartments, and,

 19 and any other specifics regarding any alternative

10:04:08 20 proposals.

 21 MR. RABA: Comments on auxiliary

 22 compartments?

 23 Kevin.
 65

 1 MR. MESSNER: All right. We, we would

 2 agree with the, again, with the temperature-

 3 weighting approach for the auxiliary, auxiliary

 4 compartments.

10:04:29 5 MR. RABA: Those temperature weights as

 6 in averaging?

 7 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. As in, pointed out

 8 in this.

 9 MR. RABA: Um-hum. Thank you. Okay.

10:04:36 10 (Whereupon, at 10:04 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 11 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 12 others and off the Record, during which the

 13 following occurred:)

 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: Now we get into

10:04:52 15 anti-sweat heaters. Good topic for today.

 16 DOE proposes to expand the definition for antisweat

 17 heaters controlling internal sweating. The

 18 current definition specifically addresses exterior

 19 surfaces, but some newer products use anti-sweat

10:05:09 20 heating controls to control sweating inside the

 21 product.

 22 So, DOE proposes a modification to mean

 23 a device incorporated into the design to prevent
 66

 1 the accumulation of moisture on the exterior or

 2 interior surfaces of the cabinet.

 3 DOE invites comments on the proposal to

 4 extend the definition to include condensation of

10:05:29 5 moisture on all surfaces rather than just exterior

 6 cabinet surfaces, including interior surfaces, and

 7 also seeks comments regarding whether any

 8 additional clarity beyond the proposed amendments

 9 is required, and if so, what.

10:05:46 10 MR. RABA: Go ahead, please. You're

 11 getting to be a regular.

 12 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. Kevin Messner.

 13 We can agree with these proposed

 14 changes.

10:05:56 15 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 16 Any disagreements?

 17 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 18 MR. RABA: That's good. Let's move on.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: The anti-sweat heater

10:06:06 20 switch, hopefully also a quick one here. Testing

 21 with anti-sweat heater switch turned off.

 22 Presently 10 CFR Section 430 

Section 23(a), Sections (2) and (5)
 67

 1 are in conflict. The first, Section (2), talks

 2 about measurement of annual operating cost, and

 3 talks about taking an average of two measurements,

 4 one with the switch on and one with the switch in

10:06:32 5 its position when it's shipped from the factory.

 6 Section (5), annual energy use is based

 7 on the energy use for the standard cycle only.

 8 The conflict is also present in Section 23(b).

 9 DOE proposes to make them consistent, as

10:06:44 10 --

 11 (Whereupon, at 10:06 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 12 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 13 others and off the Record, during which the

 14 following occurred:)

10:06:51 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- in Section 23(a)(2)

 16 and 23(b)(2). The Final Rule that established the

 17 measurement of energy use in the test procedures

 18 was to, was published in 1989.

 19 That notice did not

10:07:09 20 discuss the different approach for calculating the

 21 energy use, and most, most manufacturers use the

 22 average. We don't -- We, we didn't have a comment

 23 box for that one, but certainly we can take comment
 68

 1 on that one as well.

 2 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 3 MR. RABA: Time to think about written

 4 comments would be welcome on that one, too.

10:07:43 5 Let's keep going.

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Sure.

 7 Next one is variable anti-sweat heating.

 8 DOE has granted test procedure Waivers for variable

 9 anti-sweat heating.

10:07:56 10 Some products, such as products with

 11 French doors, often require these anti-sweat

 12 heaters, electric anti-sweat heaters. Electronic

 13 control systems can provide a little bit more

 14 sophisticated control for these heaters based on

10:08:11 15 sensor input.

 16 The control will measure the humidity and 

determine how

 17 much heat is required, and when they're actually

 18 needed. G.E. initially petitioned for a Waiver to

 19 measure the energy use of, with, of a variable

10:08:26 20 anti-sweat heater system, and I don't know if I

 21 need to get into all these details here.

 22 They're, I'm sure, mostly -- Most of the

 23 stakeholders are familiar with them. DOE has
 69

 1 granted similar Waivers and interim Waivers to

 2 Whirlpool, Electrolux, Samsung, and Haier.

 3 Maybe there are others since. DOE

 4 proposes an approach that is more amenable to

10:08:52 5 independent verification of performance,

 6 essentially proposing that there be some

 7 measurement of the control system's ability to

 8 reduce the wattage of the anti-sweat heater.

 9 This approach would use the contribution

10:09:10 10 of the anti-sweat heater in moist conditions, and

 11 add that to the regular energy test result, similar

 12 to what is in the Waivers. The proposal would

 13 involve testing in the 72 Fahrenheit ambient,

 14 consistent with the Waiver, and conduct the test at

10:09:31 15 three different relative humidities, one where the

 16 heater would be near full-on, one where the heater

 17 would be expected to be totally off, and one where

 18 there would be expected to be low wattage, and

 19 develop an energy-use relation based on those tests.

10:09:50 20 The test approach assumes that the

 21 anti-sweat heater wattage varies linearly with

 22 ambient dew point, and my understanding recently is

 23 that that might not be so for some of the products
 70

 1 involved. The weighting of the energy use at each

 2 of the humidity conditions, you would use the

 3 weighting factors that are currently used in the

 4 G.E. Waiver and also the other Waivers.

10:10:16 5 And no system adjustment would be needed

 6 for this approach, because the energy would be

 7 measured directly and not based on calculation of

 8 wattage. This slide simply shows modeling done to

 9 show that an ideal control would give you a linear

10:10:37 10 relationship of wattage with dew point, depending

 11 on the parameters.

 12 And, granted, this is a simplified model

 13 and there may be, you know, other algorithms that

 14 are used. The proposed test details, as mentioned,

10:10:56 15 72-degree ambient, three different conditions, a

 16 wider range on the low humidity condition because

 17 the assumption would be the humidity would just

 18 need to be low enough so that the heater wouldn't

 19 be energized.

10:11:11 20 Compartment temperatures for current,

 21 for the current test procedure consistent with the

 22 five degrees/38 that's been used in some of the

 23 other tests where the single set of temperatures
 71

 1 are used, and that would change to the 0/39 with

 2 Appendix A. The test period would be the same as

 3 for a test with the unit having no automatic

 4 defrost; for instance, Appendix A1, Section 4.1.1,

10:11:42 5 to take the defrost piece out of that energy use.

 6 And then the calculation of energy-use

 7 adders for humidity other than 65 percent was

 8 proposed to vary linearly according to the dew-point

 9 temperature. Finally, the last bullet, the proposal

10:12:03 10 includes elimination of the anti-sweat heater

 11 switch allowance if using the variable anti-sweat

 12 heating procedures because it would be expected

 13 that you wouldn't achieve any additional energy

 14 savings with the switch if you had a variable

10:12:18 15 anti-sweating system.

 16 DOE considered variations on that

 17 approach to mitigate test burden.

 18 MR. HALL: So, how long, how long --

 19 Dave Hall, with Electrolux.

10:12:31 20 Can it be assumed -- Well, either a

 21 question or a comment. With the different levels

 22 of humidity and the humidity's load on the cabinet,

 23 should that not be taken into account, considering
 72

 1 we're using a computation?

 2 They're all at 72, but if there is an

 3 impact of the humidity on the energy consumption of

 4 the cabinet, should there not be computation to

10:13:09 5 take that out of the amount of energy that's

 6 considered for the product here?

 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, so let me -- I'm

 8 not sure.

 9 MR. HALL: If it, if it exists.

10:13:21 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: If it exists.

 11 MR. HALL: Right.

 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: In order to respond to

 13 that, if there were some kind of dependence on

 14 energy use of the cabinet with humidity, you know,

10:13:35 15 first, the first-cut assumption might be that it's

 16 close to linear, as with dew point. However, it

 17 might not be.

 18 If, if data is provided showing some

 19 other relationship, then certainly, you know, we

10:13:49 20 would consider that. The tests are conducted with

 21 closed doors, so unless there's something like an

 22 evaporative condensing kind of approach to

 23 reject heat, it's not clear what kind of dependence
 73

 1 there would be, other than the dependency of the

 2 anti-sweat heater wattage.

 3 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE.

 4 As with Electrolux, is, do you have a

10:14:17 5 specific suggestion that we should evaluate?

 6 MR. HALL: Not formulated, but, you

 7 know, we've clearly done some tests on our product,

 8 and it's not exactly the same exact amount of

 9 energy consumption if you take a unit, and test it to

10:14:35 10 the three humidity levels. So, what that would be doing 

would be

 11 including some increment, however large or small,

 12 that would not be attributable to the heater, is

 13 the question here.

 14 But, no, we, we don't have an explicit

10:14:51 15 formula for that to offer at this point.

 16 MR. RABA: Will you consider submitting

 17 one in written comments?

 18 MR. HALL: If we did, we would want to

 19 do that with the, within the AHAM community.

10:15:07 20 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 21 MR. BROWN: This is Bill Brown, with

 22 G.E.

 23 Notice in these slides that the lowest
 74

 1 humidity that you're showing here is 35 percent

 2 plus or minus ten. In the Federal Register Notice,

 3 that is 25 percent.

 4 Which one is correct?

10:15:25 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: I, I would assume it's

 6 the one in the Federal Register Notice. This did

 7 change at one point from 35 to 25, or it was

 8 reduced, and so I think the 25 is correct.

 9 MR. RABA: We'll check on that.

10:15:45 10 MR. BROWN: Okay.

 11 MR. RABA: Thank you. Good catch.

 12 Others, please?

 13 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, the

 14 Department of Energy.

10:15:57 15 We will post a correction to the

 16 presentation if needed for, or clarification in the

 17 presentation to correct that.

 18 (Whereupon, at 10:16 a.m. ET, Mr. Brown

 19 and Mr. Wood conferred, out of the hearing of

10:16:03 20 others and off the Record, during which the

 21 following occurred:)

 22 MR. RABA: Further comments? Concerns?

 23 In the back, please.
 75

 1 DR. YASHAR: Dave Yashar, with NIST.

 2 The issue that I have with, with this is

 3 that it's my understanding most manufacturers don't

 4 use a continuously varying heater wattage for this.

10:16:32 5 They use a lock step because it's certainly a lot

 6 more cost-effective.

 7 And one of the issues with, with the

 8 current arrangement is that those, those heater

 9 wattages need to be disclosed in some way on the

10:16:52 10 certification for it because you can't actually,

 11 you can't actually figure out what it's doing

 12 unless you have that data. And this is the type of

 13 test that you would actually need that to, to

 14 verify.

10:17:04 15 So, you would need to know when a

 16 particular unit is going to turn certain things on

 17 in order to verify that it's actually doing that.

 18 So, I wouldn't, I wouldn't recommend taking this

 19 approach with the fixed values of 95, 65, and 35

10:17:21 20 percent humidity.

 21 I would recommend, instead, that you,

 22 that you obtain from the manufacturer what it's

 23 intended to do, and use the values that they're
 76

 1 disclosing as, as the targets for your humidity.

 2 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE.

 3 Just a quick follow-up for you, Dave.

 4 Would that mean that we would need on -- Are you

10:17:48 5 suggesting that DOE ask for detailed technical

 6 specs with respect to the operation of, of these

 7 products?

 8 DR. YASHAR: This is for this specific

 9 feature. DOE should obtain the, the power settings

10:18:08 10 for those heaters at various humidity levels

 11 because, again, this is, this is an issue where

 12 those numbers are actually put into a calculation

 13 that, that affects the overall and energy

 14 consumption result, and that can't even be verified

10:18:30 15 independently unless those, those numbers are

 16 exposed.

 17 MR. KIDO: Is that something that you

 18 may divorce from, say, the op-, operational part

 19 for these devices? Is this -- Is that something

10:18:41 20 that you can just sort of separate out and say,

 21 "Here are the power settings. Here's how it

 22 operates"?

 23 DR. YASHAR: Well, the Waiver that's in
 77

 1 place right now requires power setting at every,

 2 you know, certain range of humidity. And that's

 3 the data that's needed for this, --

 4 MR. KIDO: Okay.

10:19:01 5 DR. YASHAR: -- is, is what, what is the

 6 power setting at each humidity. Then --

 7 MR. KIDO: Thanks.

 8 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown, with G.E.

 9 In G.E.'s initial Waiver we recognize

10:19:14 10 that no one would be able to replicate this energy

 11 value that is the adder without those ten values,

 12 and we offered at that point, as part of the DOE

 13 certification of the DOE submittal for each

 14 product, to give those ten values for the wattages

10:19:31 15 at each of those ten humidity levels, and would

 16 still recommend that that is what we should be

 17 doing instead of adding extra test burden at these

 18 different settings.

 19 More than happy to disclose the wattages

10:19:48 20 of those settings so that a test house could verify

 21 the different, different watt values at the

 22 humidities.

 23 MR. RABA: Thank you.
 78

 1 In the back, please?

 2 MR. CHURCH: Yeah, Steve Church, with

 3 Whirlpool.

 4 We agree that you should have to submit

10:20:07 5 the wattage values that you use at different

 6 humidity levels as long, as well as your CTO and

 7 CTM for your AEC feature, and several other pieces

 8 of information. That, we request the Department of

 9 Energy update their templates to have places where

10:20:24 10 we can submit that type of information and, and

 11 make it convenient for the manufacturers to do it

 12 on line.

 13 Secondly, we would, we would like to add

 14 that this does add a tremendous amount of test

10:20:36 15 burden to the laboratory to do these three types

 16 of, of tests for the, for the humidity sensor. It

 17 would also require that manufacturers upgrade those

 18 rooms that they have.

 19 Right now we have humidity rooms, as it

10:20:58 20 was mentioned in the Federal Register, but those

 21 humidity rooms aren't up to the level where we

 22 would measure the, the energy consumption of the

 23 product at the accuracies that would be required
 79

 1 for this testing. So, there's, there's a, a great

 2 deal of work that the manufacturer would have to do

 3 to get the facilities up, which couldn't be done in

 4 30 days.

10:21:16 5 Lastly, we would say that we think this

 6 should be moved to, to the 2014 Standard if you're

 7 going to require this testing. We, we would submit

 8 that we don't even do this testing, but do the,

 9 but, but simply report the wattages we use at the

10:21:35 10 humidity levels.

 11 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 12 MR. MESSNER: Just one -- Just -- I can

 13 state that there was industry, industry support for

 14 a number of things. You've heard already about the

10:21:51 15 test chambers.

 16 And the test burden, with probably no

 17 change in result, and that, and even these

 18 test-chamber modifications that would be needed to

 19 having been done in 30 days is not, is not

10:22:09 20 possible.

 21 One other point as you get down into the

 22 weeds a little bit, that there was data that was,

 23 came from Japan that was presented at an
 80

 1 IACSCE59MWG2 in Sao Paulo that also verified some

 2 of the system loss factor here at 1.3, which is

 3 part of it, this issue. And, again, we need to

 4 ensure that we harmonize as much as possible with

10:22:36 5 Canada and IEC when, where appropriate.

 6 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE.

 7 If you could provide us with, I guess, a

 8 copy of that, that study and that data, that would

 9 be really helpful.

10:22:51 10 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

 11 MR. RABA: Go ahead, please.

 12 MS. JOYCE: Elizabeth Joyce.

 13 A question for, for G.E. If I can just

 14 get this right, you were suggesting that if, given

10:23:06 15 the large testing burden, or current testing burden

 16 for having these humidity chambers, if you were,

 17 instead, just to go along with the current, your

 18 current proposal and submit these ten power values,

 19 that those would be verified by some sort of

10:23:22 20 independent testing agency or, or testing lab?

 21 MR. BROWN: Right. If a test lab wanted

 22 to -- Bill Brown, from G.E.

 23 If a test lab wanted to determine
 81

 1 whether the values were accurate, they could have a

 2 test facility at 72 degrees at the different

 3 humidity levels and just verify that the wattages

 4 is what they see. So, if we're going at 0 watts at

10:23:50 5 one, to ten at another, that's what they should be

 6 seeing in their laboratory

 7 (Whereupon, at 10:23 a.m. ET, Mr. Karney

 8 and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the hearing of

 9 others and off the Record, during which the

10:23:52 10 following occurred:)

 11 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 12 Others, please? Comments?

 13 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 14 MR. RABA: Okay, keep going.

10:24:06 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: I didn't quite finish

 16 this section, but --

 17 MR. BROWN: You left out one. Can you

 18 go over the last point on the last slide?

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think I did mention

10:24:23 20 this point. The, the proposal includes elimination

 21 of the anti-sweat heater switch allowance if using

 22 the variable anti-sweating procedure.

 23 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown, from G.E.
 82

 1 We believe that this should not be a

 2 special allowance just for a fixed-watt heater.

 3 Currently the Standard today allows for a

 4 fixed-watt heater.

10:24:44 5 If you have a switch and you ship it in

 6 the "off" position, you can test on and off and

 7 take the average. We do not believe that that

 8 should be eliminated, that, that possibility for a

 9 variable-watt anti-sweat heater.

10:25:00 10 It should be the same for fixed-watt or

 11 variable-watt. And, in addition, if this is

 12 something that is going to go into place, this is a

 13 change in the waiver process.

 14 This is a change in what the

10:25:14 15 manufacturers have been allowed to calculate as far

 16 as energy usage goes, and would be a, an energy

 17 increase; require the, the, the new energy level

 18 for this. So, it should not be included with this

 19 30 days.

10:25:32 20 It should be moved to the 2014 energy

 21 rulemaking.

 22 MR. MESSNER: I guess we'll, we'll

 23 comment on this. Wait for the box to come up, but
 83

 1 --

 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Let me finish the

 3 section first.

 4 MR. MESSNER: Do you want to finish? Do

10:25:59 5 you want to go ahead and finish your last slide and

 6 get to the box?

 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: Sure. DOE did consider

 8 variations on the approach, to mitigate test

 9 burdens.

10:26:08 10 Consideration of all testing conditions

 11 in the tests in a 90-degree ambient, but DOE

 12 concluded that would not be representative of

 13 anti-sweat heating conditions. Possibility of no

 14 test; i.e., use the calculation which is similar to

10:26:23 15 the current Waiver.

 16 That would provide little or no

 17 opportunity for a verification of performance, and

 18 DOE feels that, at minimum, there needs to be some

 19 way of verifying that a product is actually

10:26:40 20 operating. The issue here is not with, necessarily,

 21 with products that are actually operating as

 22 intended, but certainly the way the current Waiver

 23 is worded, a manufacturer could say, "Sure, it's
 84

 1 got the variable anti-sweat heating," and then

 2 have the anti-sweat heater be full on.

 3 And in order to say, "Okay, verify that

 4 it's working," there needs to be a codified test.

10:27:12 5 Third bullet, DOE considered relaxation

 6 of the requirement for chamber humidity control in

 7 the test, but clearly that would, it would be

 8 impossible to verify that the operating system was

 9 working properly in that kind of a test.

10:27:27 10 And finally, the possibility of allowing

 11 results for one product to be used in energy

 12 calculations for certification testing of products

 13 with the same VASH anti-sweating system, and DOE

 14 will consider this report, this approach.

10:27:47 15 So, now we get to the box. It has

 16 multiple components.

 17 First, inviting comment on the proposal

 18 to incorporate into the test procedure

 19 determination of the energy use associated with

10:28:02 20 variable anti-sweat heater controls involving test

 21 measurements. DOE also invites comment on whether

 22 the variable anti-sweat heater test procedure

 23 should also be incorporated into B and B1 for
 85

 1 freezers.

 2 (Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m. ET, Mr. Raba

 3 and Mr. Llenza conferred, out of the hearing of

 4 others and off the Record, during which the

10:28:12 5 following occurred:)

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Finally, DOE invites

 7 comment on the suggested approach for reduction of

 8 the test burden, allowing the test for one product

 9 to be used for products which have the same system.

10:28:29 10 MR. RABA: Yes. Go ahead, Kevin.

 11 MR. MESSNER: Well, back on the formal

 12 process within the box --

 13 MR. RABA: Within the box.

 14 MR. MESSNER: -- regarding a, a few

10:28:38 15 comments, and there's a couple of these areas.

 16 Regarding the proposal dealing with the, the

 17 ambient relative humidity shall be no more than 35

 18 percent, propose that that would be required test

 19 procedure, test chamber modifications, or you'd

10:28:59 20 have to have different test chambers for various

 21 parts of the tests.

 22 On the issue on the switch "On" or "Off"

 23 for variable anti-sweat controls, and, and
 86

 1 specifically on the GE waiver issue, we would

 2 oppose DOE's proposal to modify the G., the G.E.

 3 Waiver because this, it treats, it would treat the

 4 variable anti-sweat heater differently. And it's a

10:29:24 5 more efficient, more efficient component, so it's

 6 kind of penalizing a more efficient component in

 7 the scheme of things.

 8 If, if DOE wants to pursue some type of

 9 modification to the G.E. Waiver, then that should

10:29:41 10 be considered for the next Standard change. And

 11 it, it -- Because it will, it will likely impact

 12 energy use.

 13 So, we would, we would support the,

 14 including those in the G.E. Waiver in its entirety

10:30:00 15 without any modifications for, for freezers in the

 16 Appendix B1. But, again, if you decide to modify

 17 any part of that, that Waiver, it should be

 18 considered for the next, in 2014, the next Standard

 19 change.

10:30:17 20 That's all that we have in this area.

 21 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 22 Would it be helpful to -- Pardon me. --

 23 note that there's some modification, changes? Are
 87

 1 there areas that could be applied sooner than

 2 later?

 3 Maybe some comments. As you submit

 4 written comments, your thoughts about when.

10:30:44 5 Would it be immediately, or -- in this

 6 rulemaking, or 2014, in the future, when there's

 7 more thought to be given?

 8 Michael Kido, you have something?

 9 MR. KIDO: Just a real quick follow-on.

10:30:52 10 You don't have to answer this now, Kevin, but one

 11 thing I think would be of interest, I guess, how

 12 significant a difference would be in the

 13 measurement of energy use if DOE were to adopt this

 14 particular approach.

10:31:05 15 Obviously you can't answer that right

 16 now, but in your written comments let us know.

 17 MR. MESSNER: Right. But, is there, is

 18 there -- I mean, if it changes the energy, it

 19 changes the energy, right?

10:31:24 20 MR. KIDO: Um-hum.

 21 MR. MESSNER: So, I mean, is there a

 22 threshold where, in your opinion, that you're at?

 23 MR. KIDO: Right. Right now I think we,
 88

 1 we just want to get an idea of what, what the

 2 potential magnitude would be if it is.

 3 MR. MESSNER: Okay, it --

 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: I'll go beyond that.

10:31:41 5 If there are differences, we need to have data so

 6 that if an adjustment needs to be made for the 2014

 7 Standard, that we, we need to have the data in

 8 order to make that adjustment.

 9 MR. RABA: Data's good.

10:32:00 10 Yes, please, Elizabeth.

 11 MS. JOYCE: Yes. Elizabeth Joyce, with

 12 California Utilities.

 13 A question for, for industry. For the

 14 current approach, for the switch approach that's

10:32:14 15 used to average the results of the test with the

 16 switch "On" and "Off," can I just ask why it's

 17 currently done that way?

 18 Is that to represent actual in-field

 19 use? Or, or why that, why that current approach?

10:32:32 20 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown, with G.E.

 21 I mean, this is the way that the DOE

 22 mandates that the testing is done today. This

 23 actually predates my involvement with an energy
 89

 1 Standard.

 2 So, again, we're mandated by the DOE to

 3 test "On" and "Off" and take the average.

 4 MS. JOYCE: Okay.

10:32:55 5 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 6 Others, please? Comments? Questions?

 7 Concerns?

 8 MR. HALL: Dave Hall, Electrolux.

 9 MR. RABA: Yes. Thank you.

10:33:05 10 MR. HALL: A couple of aspects of that

 11 is it is a consumer-usable component, so it's

 12 labeled so that the consumer knows either energy

 13 save, moisture reducer, moisture, whatever, sweat

 14 reducer. So, it does communicate that.

10:33:24 15 And since it is shipped with it in that

 16 lower energy position, that also allows us for

 17 doing averaging.

 18 MS. JOYCE: Okay. I guess I just would

 19 make a follow-up comment that the, if it assumes

10:33:38 20 that that would be used to represent actual

 21 consumer operation, that in the case of a machine

 22 with controls, that it should be operated in the

 23 case to represent actual consumer operation, I
 90

 1 guess.

 2 And I would assume that would be having

 3 controls "On" all the time, and not have to have

 4 the results averaged. But, that would be my

10:33:56 5 assumption.

 6 MR. HALL: Dave Hall.

 7 And it does actually say that if you do

 8 ship it in the "Off" position, you are enabled to

 9 do the averaging. I just want to clarify exactly

10:34:10 10 what I said there.

 11 MR. RABA: Thank you. And if you would

 12 like to add that to your written comments, that

 13 would be helpful. Thank you very much.

 14 Well, let's take a break here if we're

10:34:22 15 ready. We've done good.

 16 MR. LLENZA: Charlie Llenza, DOE.

 17 Sorry. I'd like to interject, just to

 18 sort of clarify, I guess, our general approach with

 19 respect to these changes for these, I guess,

10:34:38 20 short-term changes that you're proposing. It's,

 21 it's the Department's position that the current

 22 procedure is enforceable, but these particular

 23 changes that we're looking at are, are designed to
 91

 1 enhance the clarity for manufacturers, as well as

 2 to ensure that the measured energy consumption for

 3 these products are accurately reflected.

 4 So, I just wanted to, to, to emphasize

10:35:04 5 that.

 6 MR. RABA: That was helpful, Michael.

 7 Thank you.

 8 Okay. Take a break.

 9 (Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m. ET, those

10:35:16 10 present took a brief recess and returned at 10:54

 11 a.m. ET. Mr. Karney and Ms. Amann were not

 12 present. The following then occurred:)

 13 MR. RABA: And time again to get

 14 started, please, and take your seats. A lot of

10:54:22 15 good comments this morning.

 16 Welcome back. Thank you very much, and

 17 let's just keep it rolling.

 18 Go ahead. Next slide.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, thank you. We're

10:54:31 20 in the middle of the section for Amendments that take effect

 21 prior to the new Energy Conservation Standards.

 22 The next topic here is the long-time

 23 defrost test method, a modification to the
 92

 1 procedure to capture precooling energy.

 2 (Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 3 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 4 others and off the Record, during which the

10:54:43 5 following occurred:)

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Precooling is a control

 7 function that reduces the freezer temperature just

 8 prior to a defrost. This would address the

 9 long-time defrost test method, which is a two-part

10:55:03 10 method.

 11 First, the method measures the

 12 steady-state not including when the last compressor cycle 

ends

 13 or when the defrost heater is running; you know,

 14 not including the defrost energy use in the

10:55:15 15 process.

 16 And the second part focuses on just the

 17 defrost portion of the energy use, and what

 18 happens shortly thereafter. The, the current test

 19 procedure starts when the defrost cycle starts, 

10:55:34 20 the second part of the test starts either when the

 21 last compressor cycle ends or when the defrost

 22 heater is energized.

 23 And the second variant here was
 93

 1 introduced, I believe, in 2003, as a test procedure

 2 amendment that would allow the -- Sorry. The first

 3 one is a variant that would allow an off cycle

 4 between the end of the last compressor run and the

10:56:05 5 energizing of the, of the defrost heater.

 6 This chart illustrates an example of

 7 precooling. There's a wattage trace.

 8 (Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m. ET, Mr. Karney

 9 entered the room, after which the following

10:56:14 10 occurred:)

 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: That's the red line.

 12 As you can see, it goes up and down for compressor

 13 cycling near the beginning and the end, and then in

 14 the middle there is a defrost heater portion where

10:56:30 15 roughly 460, 470 watts are, are pulled.

 16 And the blue line shows the temperature

 17 in the freezer compartment. You can see right

 18 before the defrost there is a period where the

 19 freezer temperature goes quite low and the

10:56:45 20 compressor ran for significantly longer than it

 21 does during the steady-state portion.

 22 The test duration for this case starts

 23 when the defrost heater is energized, and ends at
 94

 1 the, when the, the second cycle, compressor cycle

 2 after the defrost starts. And you can see that

 3 recovery portion, bringing the tem-, freezer

 4 temperature back down right after the defrost.

10:57:12 5 For this example, the pre-cooling

 6 represents about two percent of the total energy.

 7 DOE proposes to modify the test procedure to

 8 include all the energy use associated with the

 9 defrost.

10:57:29 10 The proposal is to shift the start of

 11 the defrost part of the test to the last compressor

 12 "off" at the end of a period of steady-state

 13 cycling operation before initiation of defrost.

 14 And this modification would apply to existing

10:57:42 15 Appendices A1 and B1, and also to the new

 16 Appendices A and B.

 17 This diagram shows a modification of the

 18 diagram that is currently in the test procedure,

 19 showing an example of a system with precool and

10:57:59 20 with start, where the second part of the test would

 21 start --

 22 (Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 23 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of
 95

 1 others and off the Record, during which the

 2 following occurred:)

 3 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- at the end of the

 4 last regular compressor cycle.

10:58:12 5 Some of the issues associated with

 6 proposing these amendments, one question is: Is

 7 there a change in measured energy use?

 8 It is DOE's understanding that most

 9 refrigerator-freezer products don't have

10:58:28 10 precooling, and there would be absolutely no

 11 change. DOE notes that the intent has always been

 12 measurement of all the energy associated with

 13 defrost.

 14 For instance, if you consider prior to

10:58:38 15 the introduction of long-time defrost it was just a

 16 one-part test from one time period in a defrost

 17 cycle to the same period in the next defrost cycle,

 18 and any recovery and precooling would automatically

 19 be included in that kind of a test.

10:58:57 20 DOE concluded that the adjustment of

 21 the Energy Conservation Standard would not be

 22 necessary. One question arose regarding

 23 suitability for a variable-speed compressor system
 96

 1 that doesn't cycle off.

 2 In that case, you know, the discussion

 3 of starting at the last compressor, at the end of

 4 the last compressor cycle of steady-state operation

10:59:26 5 when that compressor, when the compressor turns off

 6 at the end of that cycle. Well, if the compressor

 7 doesn't turn off, obviously you don't know when to

 8 start.

 9 And so DOE proposed some language to

10:59:37 10 address that situation, that the test would start

 11 at a time when the compartment temperatures are

 12 within their ranges measured during steady-state

 13 operation, or if those ranges are narrow enough,

 14 within half a degree of the average.

10:59:52 15 Other defrost energy issues that some of

 16 the following slides also discuss, --

 17 MR. RABA: May I interrupt?

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: Sure.

 19 MR. RABA: Quick comment from G.E.

11:00:00 20 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown, with G.E.

 21 The first bullet on this slide, and

 22 going back to the last slide, you did mention that

 23 this is a change in the test procedure, but then
 97

 1 you also mention that it accounts for two percent

 2 of the energy. But then your last bullet says the

 3 adjustment of the Energy Conservation Standard is

 4 not necessary.

11:00:21 5 To me, those seem to conflict, that, in

 6 that you are acknowledging you're changing the test

 7 procedure. You're accounting for energy that was

 8 not included in the current test procedure, and

 9 then you're saying that it's not necessary to

11:00:34 10 change the Conservation Standard.

 11 Well, we would suggest that, that, yes,

 12 this energy should be included, but it is a change

 13 in the, in the accounted energy that you're looking

 14 for, and would request that this gets moved into

11:00:51 15 2014, not part of the 30-days change that you're

 16 talking about.

 17 MR. RABA: Set of head nods. Thank you.

 18 Appreciate your comment.

 19 Anyone else?

11:01:06 20 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 21 MR. RABA: Go ahead. Thank you.

 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: Other defrost energy

 23 issues: Some of these are not part of the
 98

 1 proposal, but are put on the table for discussion,

 2 and we'll request comment on them, nevertheless.

 3 One has to do with multiple-evaporator

 4 defrost. The next section in this discussion is a

11:01:32 5 proposal to address that.

 6 (Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m. ET, Ms. Amann

 7 entered the room, after which the following

 8 occurred:)

 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: Partial recovery. Just

11:01:40 10 putting that on the table for discussion, and

 11 whether DOE should consider some additional

 12 amendments to address partial recovery.

 13 Proper selection of start/stop times,

 14 particularly the stop time. And also validity of

11:01:55 15 the 50-percent run assumption; again, if a system

 16 has a variable-speed compressor.

 17 This is my color slide. Here we bring

 18 in all the colors.

 19 Maybe not all. But, this chart shows,

11:02:14 20 illustrates two of these issues, one on the left

 21 side of the plot.

 22 Again, we see wattage trace and also

 23 temperature traces for the freezer compartment and
 99

 1 the fresh-food compartment. If you look at the

 2 freezer portion here in the recovery time after the

 3 defrost, the, clearly the temperature isn't getting

 4 down to the steady-state temperature prior to the

11:02:40 5 end of the test, which would occur at the second

 6 compressor start after the defrost.

 7 This -- The partial, or the multiple

 8 defrost is illustrated on the right side where

 9 there is a defrost period, a defrost cycle for

11:02:59 10 fresh, the fresh-food evaporator for this system,

 11 which has two evaporators, which is not addressed

 12 in the current test procedures.

 13 Partial recovery for the example shown

 14 hides about half percent of the energy for that

11:03:17 15 example, and some possible test procedure

 16 modifications, you know, are put on the table here for

 17 potential discussion. One might be to extend the

 18 defrost part of the test to the third compressor on

 19 after the defrost, rather than going to just the

11:03:36 20 second compressor on; providing a temperature

 21 recovery specification such that the freezer

 22 temperature needs to be within certain tolerance of

 23 the average temperature during steady-state
 100

 1 operation.

 2 Another possibility would be to include

 3 temperature averaging for the defrost period. This

 4 is the temperature that is used in the energy-use

11:03:59 5 calculation in the current test procedure.

 6 The average temperature during the

 7 steady-state portion of the test is used for that

 8 calculation. And the consideration here might be

 9 to include also temperature averaging for the

11:04:15 10 defrost portion, since the temperatures rise, and

 11 that if the recovery is not complete, there is

 12 additional time that would be at a higher

 13 temperature, and that would affect the energy-use

 14 calculation.

11:04:31 15 (Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 16 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 17 others and off the Record, during which the

 18 following occurred:)

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: The issue of start and

11:04:37 20 end times for the defrost part of the test for this

 21 particular example, we noticed that, according to

 22 the current defrost part of the test procedure, the

 23 fresh-food evaporator defrost contribution was
 101

 1 negative. And, you know, we noticed that, you

 2 know, if, if the test was extended to, you know, if

 3 the, a time at the end of the, end of the second

 4 compressor cycle, the actual defrost -- Sorry. --

11:05:16 5 calculated contribution would be 26 watt hours,

 6 which is much more consistent with the actual heat

 7 input associated with energizing the heater for 14

 8 minutes.

 9 Clearly this is not everything that goes

11:05:30 10 into the calculation of how much additional energy

 11 is used by the system during that second part;

 12 however, consideration that maybe the end time is

 13 not the most appropriate in the current test.

 14 This particular example, the total

11:05:48 15 energy-use measurement would be about three percent

 16 higher if the defrost part of the test ends at the

 17 end of the second compressor cycle. And some of

 18 the these measurements shown at the bottom of the

 19 page give a comparison of what a full-cycle

11:06:06 20 measurement would show as compared with what the

 21 two-, two-part test shows for different end times

 22 of the second part of the test.

 23 And essentially it shows that ending the
 102

 1 second part of the test on the compressor "Off" may

 2 be more appropriate than ending it on the

 3 compressor "On." Again, these, this is an issue

 4 just put on the table for potential comment to

11:06:32 5 address, you know, accuracy of testing, and also

 6 the partial recovery issue.

 7 Validity of the 50-percent compressor

 8 run assumption, the first subbullet up there, shows

 9 the energy-use calculation within the first set of

11:06:51 10 parentheses is the steady-state portion of that

 11 measurement, and the rest of the equation after the

 12 plus sign is the defrost portion, which is weighted

 13 by the factor 12 over CT.

 14 The 12 in this equation represents 24

11:07:10 15 hours times 50 percent, and CT is equal to the

 16 average compressor run between defrosts. That's

 17 determined either by time , for a long-time

 18 defrost system, or depending on the details of the

 19 variable defrost control algorithm.

11:07:27 20 With the variable-speed compressor systems,

 21 one would expect that the required number of

 22 compressor operating hours between defrosts should

 23 be longer because the, a variable-speed compressor
 103

 1 would run longer, and so the algorithm CT value

 2 would be higher. However, the 12-over-CT weighting

 3 factor would then underpredict the defrost portion

 4 of the energy used.

11:07:54 5 So, there's a lot here, but requests for

 6 comment on long-time defrost test method, DOE

 7 invites comment on the proposal to include

 8 precooling energy in the procedures for testing

 9 products with the long-time and variable-defrost

11:08:12 10 controls. And defrost -- DOE also invites comment

 11 regarding whether additional test procedure

 12 amendments are appropriate in order to address

 13 possible use of partial recovery to reduce energy

 14 use in this part of the test, or any other issues

11:08:25 15 raised.

 16 DR. YASHAR: Dave Yashar, from NIST.

 17 So, these points, again, it, I've got to

 18 agree with what Bill had said, that these are going

 19 to affect the energy, the test results. So, this

11:08:44 20 would be something that these kinds of changes

 21 should be included in 2014.

 22 But, but certainly these are very

 23 important. Precooling energy does need to be
 104

 1 counted because it is associated with the defrost

 2 cycle, occurs every time, and it, it is a

 3 substantial amount of energy that is currently

 4 being discounted.

11:09:07 5 And the issue of partial recovery, just

 6 to provide a little bit of insight as to what's

 7 happening, we've had these discussions within the

 8 IEC meetings as well, and we feel that that's very

 9 important to, to protect against. And the approach

11:09:26 10 that, that has been agreed upon there was to

 11 include the temperatures realized in the cabinet

 12 during the defrost sequence.

 13 You've got a few options here that, that

 14 are put down as, as possibilities, and that's the

11:09:39 15 one that was found to be the, the best approach.

 16 MR. RABA: Thank you, Dave.

 17 Well, Kevin, please.

 18 MR. MESSNER: Thank you. Kevin Messner,

 19 with AHAM.

11:09:55 20 And to reiterate, the, this modification

 21 test procedure would impact the energy and should

 22 be considered in 2014. Also, the proposal should

 23 state that the, the average temperatures are the
 105

 1 averages from Part 1.

 2 And I think you might have -- That's

 3 what you were alluding to, possibly, when you were

 4 talking to the slides, but unclear. Just need to

11:10:18 5 make sure that the averages are the averages from

 6 Part 1.

 7 And also need to, as you, as you

 8 mentioned, on the variable-speed compressors, they

 9 have to be addressed during the precooling and,

11:10:33 10 which, as said again, will affect the energy. So,

 11 all these things come together.

 12 The last point is that, which I think

 13 you're talking about as a recovery or, and the

 14 precooling, has to be you have to consider this all

11:10:53 15 together. There -- That has to be the holistic

 16 approach to get a, an accurate systems approach to

 17 what's happening.

 18 And we're going to, we're going to look

 19 into this in a little, in more detail and provide

11:11:08 20 in our written comments, because it is important.

 21 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 22 Are further --?

 23 (Whereupon, no response was had).
 106

 1 MR. RABA: Okay.

 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Next topic is

 3 multiple defrost cycle types.

 4 This was mentioned in the previous

11:11:30 5 discussion. DOE proposes language to incorporate

 6 measurement of more than one type of defrost cycle,

 7 such as one defrost cycle for the freezer

 8 evaporator, you want a separate

 9 defrost cycle too, for the fresh-food evaporator.

11:11:48 10 The current test procedure's written as if all

 11 cycles are the same, when it's not the case.

 12 The proposed language will require

 13 proper accounting for energy use of all of these

 14 types of defrosts. A proposed definition is provided

11:12:06 15 for a defrost cycle type, a distinct sequence of

 16 control whose function is to remove frost and/or

 17 ice from the refrigerator surface.

 18 There may be variations in the sequence

 19 of control, such as the number of defrost heaters

11:12:18 20 energized. And each variation establishes a

 21 separate, distinct defrost cycle type.

 22 And then the proposal for the energy

 23 equation is to add in all of those additional
 107

 1 contributions from the additional defrost cycle

 2 types. You recognize the, the parameters inside

 3 the parentheses at the beginning of this equation

 4 are the same steady-state portion of the energy.

11:12:45 5 And then there's a summation over all of

 6 the different defrost cycle types. DOE is not

 7 aware of any more than two at this point.

 8 However, this would be a general

 9 approach to dealing with future general additional

11:13:01 10 types.

 11 MR. RABA: Yes. Go ahead.

 12 MR. BROWN: Just one comment. Bill

 13 Brown, from G.E., again.

 14 Three slides back you had a different

11:13:08 15 equation for the defrost contribution. If you go

 16 back a couple of slides, the one before the comment

 17 box.

 18 And you've got a multiplication there

 19 between EP2 and the area where it should be a

11:13:21 20 subtraction. So, this goes on the public Record,

 21 this should be corrected.

 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: Correct. Thank you.

 23 MR. RABA: Do you have that noted?
 108

 1 Okay.

 2 Thank you. Thank you both.

 3 Okay.

 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: I guess the, the

11:13:38 5 request for comment on this proposal for multiple

 6 defrost cycle types, DOE requests comment.

 7 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, with AHAM.

 8 We support DOE's effort to address the

 9 differing defrost cycle types, but there's a number

11:14:02 10 of technical details that need to be resolved. For

 11 example, the length of time between the defrost --

 12 (Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m. ET, Mr. Karney

 13 and Mr. Llenza conferred, out of the hearing of

 14 others and off the Record, during which the

11:14:06 15 following occurred:)

 16 MR. MESSNER: -- developed for the

 17 freezer would not be the same as fresh, fresh-food

 18 section.

 19 And also, DOE should state that the

11:14:19 20 cycle defrost and fresh-food compartment does not

 21 apply in this section, and Part 3 is also not

 22 required. We're going to provide additional

 23 comments on this in writing on this part as well.
 109

 1 Again, there's energy implications of

 2 this, such as 2014.

 3 (Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 4 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

11:14:37 5 others and off the Record, during which the

 6 following occurred:)

 7 MR. MESSNER: I'm not sure if that's in,

 8 in this, this, in this section or not when you're

 9 talking about long, the longer-time automatic

11:14:57 10 defrost, or is that in the next? Yeah, long time?

 11 There's when you mention you have the,

 12 you, you put in your, in the Federal Register

 13 Notice, and we would support that this proposal

 14 that's -- There's models that don't qualify as

11:15:10 15 long-time for the longer than the 14-hour

 16 compressor run times for the automatic defrost, and

 17 you have that in this Federal Register. You

 18 mention 14-hour.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Correct. This, this

11:15:23 20 proposal does not apply to products that do not

 21 have variable defrost or long-time defrost with

 22 multiple --

 23 MR. MESSNER: That's -- We would spell
 110

 1 it out, okay? Thank you.

 2 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 3 Move on then.

 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay.

11:15:48 5 MR. RABA: Knowledge. Okay.

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Another defrost topic,

 7 variable defrost optional test Part 3, DOE proposes

 8 to eliminate the optional third part of the test

 9 for available defrost products. DOE is not aware

11:16:02 10 that anybody uses this part of the test.

 11 Some testing done under DOE's guidance

 12 showed that the impact is very minor, and this test

 13 has significant test burden, duration of one to two

 14 weeks. This particular test took ten and a-half

11:16:28 15 days straight.

 16 So, DOE requests comment on elimination

 17 of the optional third part of the test for testing

 18 the refrigerator-freezers. In particular, DOE

 19 requests information indicating if the third part

11:16:47 20 of the procedure has been used in recent years for

 21 rating of any product, and whether it provides any

 22 more accurate indication of frequency of defrost

 23 for these products.
 111

 1 MR. RABA: Comment in the back. Dave.

 2 DR. YASHAR: Yes. Dave Yashar, from

 3 NIST again.

 4 Just wanted to say that this third part

11:17:11 5 of the test is, is used to get the value of CT,

 6 which is normally calculated by two parameters that

 7 are, that are programmed into a specific unit. And

 8 most people sort of define their products, noting those

 9 values, but they don't report those values to DOE.

11:17:33 10 And those need to go in certification reports, 

the value of CT minimum

 11 and maximum, because otherwise you can't replicate

 12 the test.

 13 MR. RABA: Interesting. Thank you.

 14 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, we would agree.

11:17:47 15 MR. RABA: Kevin Messner?

 16 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, Kevin Messner, with

 17 AHAM.

 18 MR. RABA: Messner.

 19 MR. MESSNER: We agree to your proposal

11:17:55 20 to eliminate this optional test.

 21 MR. RABA: Others?

 22 (Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 23 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of
 112

 1 others and off the Record, during which the

 2 following occurred:)

 3 MR. RABA: Okay.

 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: One section is really

11:18:10 5 two small sections here, corrections and

 6 improvements; one regarding simplification of the

 7 energy-use equation for products with variable

 8 defrost control, and another, energy tests and

 9 energy-use equation for products with dual

11:18:28 10 automatic defrost.

 11 (Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 12 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 13 others and off the Record, during which the

 14 following occurred:)

11:18:30 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: First of all, the

 16 proposed modifications to variable defrost control

 17 energy consumption equation was missing a

 18 parenthesis in Appendix A1, Section 5.2.1.3. The

 19 units of CTL and CTM are specified incorrectly as in

11:18:47 20 tenths of an hour, which is confusing.

 21 And the section currently provides

 22 equations for some of the parameters that are

 23 unnecessary and confusing. And so the proposed
 113

 1 changes are in this second bullet here.

 2 The bullet shows the --

 3 (Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 4 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

11:19:04 5 others and off the Record, during which the

 6 following occurred:)

 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- current language--

 8 highlighted in the red, the highlighted pieces are

 9 proposed to be removed. These changes would be

11:19:17 10 proposed for Appendices A1 and A, and also for

 11 Appendices B1 and B for freezers.

 12 Next section is, subsection here is on

 13 proposed modifications to dual-defrost control

 14 energy consumption. This is a test procedure that

11:19:37 15 was introduced for products with two separate

 16 refrigeration circuits, each of, each having a

 17 defrost cycle.

 18 And the equation provided for energy is

 19 as indicated. And the labeling of some of these

11:20:02 20 portions of the equation appear to be incorrect and

 21 are being proposed to be changed as indicated.

 22 DOE is not aware of any products

 23 currently on the market that have, you know, an
 114

 1 active automatic defrost cycle with a defrost

 2 heater for which this test procedure is ap-,

 3 applicable. However, DOE, DOE would certainly want

 4 to find out about whether such products exist.

11:20:31 5 These -- DOE proposes these corrections

 6 for Appendices A1 and A. The -- This might be an

 7 error here, that they propose it to B1 and B.

 8 The expectation would be that a freezer

 9 would have just one evaporator, but there may be

11:20:55 10 two evaporator systems -- We will -- for

 11 dual-system freezers. We don't have a comment box

 12 for these two corrections, but it might be

 13 appropriate to allow comment at this point on them.

 14 MR. RABA: No comments?

11:21:17 15 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 16 MR. RABA: Okay, move on.

 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Final section -- I

 18 believe this is the final one -- under this group of

 19 modifications proposed for, to take place prior to

11:21:32 20 the new conservation, Energy Conservation Standard.

 21 Certification report information: DOE

 22 proposes requiring inclusion of basic energy-test

 23 information and certification report information.
 115

 1 And some of the discussion we had earlier alluded

 2 to possibility of interest and the necessity of

 3 doing so.

 4 Some of the information proposed to be

11:22:01 5 included includes, for variable defrost, indication

 6 of whether the product has variable defrost, and

 7 what the values of CTL and CTM are used to

 8 calculate the CT value. Also, if, if the product

 9 has multiple variable defrosts, then additional

11:22:23 10 information would be required.

 11 For instance, if there was a separate

 12 defrost type for just the fresh-food evaporator. For

 13 variable anti-sweat heat control, indication

 14 whether the product has this control feature. Part

11:22:37 15 of the earlier discussion addresses also providing

 16 the control algorithm expressed in terms of wattage

 17 at the different humidity levels, and certainly

 18 that will be considered as well.

 19 Testing with nonstandard temperature

11:22:54 20 sensor locations. This has also been discussed.

 21 Indication that nonstandard locations

 22 have been used in the certification reports and

 23 then in the report that would be filed by the
 116

 1 manufacturer on location would then provide the

 2 details. These changes would be proposed to be

 3 implemented in the CFR in Section 430.62,

 4 Subsection (a)A(4)(xii).

11:23:24 5 Comment on the proposed requirement for

 6 information to be included in the certification

 7 report, --

 8 (Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 9 and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the hearing of

11:23:30 10 others and off the Record, during which the

 11 following occurred:)

 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- DOE requests

 13 comments and asks whether the proposal would be

 14 such to allow accurate testing performed, and if it

11:23:44 15 is not sufficient to have the test performed, what

 16 additional information should be provided.

 17 (Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 18 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

 19 others and off the Record, during which the

11:23:45 20 following occurred:)

 21 MR. RABA: Go ahead, please, Kevin.

 22 MR. MESSNER: I'm not sure. This -- I

 23 understand what you're tying to do here on the
 117

 1 information for the certification reports, but the

 2 current CCMS template might be updated to allow

 3 some of this information to be done on line.

 4 You guys have --

11:24:16 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: I can't speak to the

 6 exact mechanism for the reporting of the

 7 information, but certainly anything that can easily

 8 be done to facilitate the reporting, you know, I'd

 9 encourage personally.

11:24:29 10 (Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 11 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 12 others and off the Record, after which the

 13 following occurred:)

 14 MR. LLENZA: This is Charlie Llenza,

11:24:33 15 Department of Energy.

 16 I'm currently also the Project Manager

 17 for, for the CCMS system.

 18 MR. MESSNER: Oh, okay.

 19 MR. LLENZA: So, we will update this,

11:24:43 20 the template, with all the different updates that

 21 we provide in the test procedure and for

 22 certification, and report back to you so it's, it,

 23 it -- As we're rolling this out, we have the first
 118

 1 set of templates that are based on current

 2 Standards and test procedures.

 3 MR. MESSNER: Oh, okay.

 4 MR. LLENZA: So, what will happen is

11:25:04 5 once this goes to final, then we'll have to do

 6 another iteration of, of changes to the template.

 7 We'll have a period of time to do it, and, and

 8 because usually after the Final Rule is approved

 9 and published there will be an effective date, and

11:25:21 10 then after the effective date there will be an

 11 implementation time frame.

 12 And in between there, we'll have another

 13 template out in order to be ready for the

 14 collection of information based on that, --

11:25:32 15 MR. MESSNER: Okay.

 16 MR. LLENZA: -- on those time frames.

 17 Yep.

 18 MR. RABA: Great.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Finally, you

11:25:51 20 know, a catch-all request for comment on measured

 21 energy impacts with the proposed test procedure

 22 amendments.

 23 This addresses all of the amendments
 119

 1 that have been discussed up to this point --

 2 (Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 3 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 4 others and off the Record, during which the

11:26:05 5 following occurred:)

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- that are proposed

 7 for the test procedure to take effect prior to the

 8 new Energy Conservation Standards. DOE invites

 9 comment on whether any of the Amendments proposed

11:26:15 10 to take effect prior to the effective date of the

 11 new Energy Conservation Standards will be likely to

 12 alter measured energy use, and if so, how.

 13 DOE requests information quantifying

 14 these effects, if any. Some of this was already,

11:26:31 15 you know, put on the table, but certainly anything

 16 that we haven't discussed yet?

 17 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 18 MR. RABA: Okay.

 19 AMENDMENTS TO TAKE EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A

11:26:46 20 NEW ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD

 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, we get back to

 22 the main Agenda here now. We're shifting into the

 23 amendments to take effect simultaneously with the
 120

 1 new Energy Conservation Standard.

 2 And, I should also reiterate that all of

 3 the amendments that were proposed to take effect

 4 prior to the new Energy Conservation Standards

11:27:04 5 would, as indicated, applicable for Appendices

 6 A1 and A, would also still apply when the new Energy

 7 Conservation Standards take effect.

 8 MR. RABA: Yes. Comment, please.

 9 MR. TOPPING: Just to go back, I

11:27:20 10 mean, for the Record, I think

 11 you've mentioned there are several changes that

 12 have been proposed, you know, this morning, and in

 13 the NOPR, that we believe will impact the way

 14 energy is measured and reported; and, therefore,

11:27:35 15 you know, would impact the, the current Standards.

 16 So, it will be -- We'll be outlining

 17 those as, you know, in the industry as in the

 18 written comments.

 19 MR. RABA: Okay.

11:27:57 20 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, so --

 21 (Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 22 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 23 others and off the Record, during which the
 121

 1 following occurred:)

 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- we have five

 3 subsections within this section. First of all,

 4 incorporating the AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008.

11:28:11 5 The current DOE test procedure

 6 references HRF-1-1979. Certainly it, we want to

 7 modernize the referencing, and so HRF-1-2008 will

 8 be referenced in Appendices A and B to introduce

 9 new compartment temperatures, new volume adjustment

11:28:36 10 factors that are tied to those new compartment

 11 temperatures, new volume calculation methods.

 12 The modified Appendices A1 and B1 would

 13 continue to refer to AHAM HRF-1-1979, and DOE

 14 considered whether there would be referencing of

11:28:56 15 2008 in the current, the modified versions of A1

 16 and B1, but decided --

 17 (Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 18 and Mr. Karney conferred out of the hearing of

 19 others and off the Record, during which the

11:29:08 20 following occurred:)

 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- some of the, the

 22 issues with having both versions mentioned in the

 23 same Appendices would probably be too confusing,
 122

 1 and instead, selected this approach of creating the

 2 new Appendices for the new Energy Conservation

 3 Standards.

 4 So, a request for comment on

11:29:24 5 incorporating AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008. DOE

 6 invites comment on the approach used for

 7 incorporating provisions of AHAM HFR-1-2008,

 8 including maintaining reference to '79 in

 9 Appendices A1 and B1, which will continue to be in

11:29:41 10 effect until the end of 2013, incorporating --

 11 (Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 12 and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the hearing of

 13 others and off the Record, during which the

 14 following occurred:)

11:29:44 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- directly into

 16 Appendices A1 and B1 some of the language from AHAM

 17 HRF-1-2008, clarification of test procedures, and

 18 this was one of the first topics, you know, under

 19 the previous sections where, you know, we were

11:29:57 20 talking about test procedure, intent of test

 21 procedure, and also comment on changing references

 22 to HRF-1-2008 for Appendices A and B which will

 23 take effect simultaneously with the new
 123

 1 Conservation Standards.

 2 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza,

 3 Department of Energy.

 4 Go back to Slide 66. Okay.

11:30:26 5 I think we -- There's a typo in terms of

 6 the nomenclature of "effective date," and it should

 7 be "compliance date." It shouldn't be --

 8 "Effective date" means something else.

 9 It's a technicality, but we just got

11:30:42 10 word on this from, from the Standardization Team,

 11 that we've been using the terminology wrong. So,

 12 so where it says "effective date," it's "compliance

 13 date."

 14 And in the, in the body and in the title

11:30:56 15 of this, this slide. And we'll, we'll, we'll put

 16 this correction on the, on the web when we correct

 17 the slides.

 18 So, I just wanted to bring it to the

 19 stakeholders' attention to this.

11:31:11 20 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay.

 21 (Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 22 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 23 others and off the Record, during which the
 124

 1 following occurred:)

 2 MR. RABA: Thank you, Charlie.

 3 Any comments, then, on the, the

 4 references to AHAM HRF-1-2008?

11:31:28 5 Bill.

 6 MR. BROWN: This the Bill Brown, from

 7 G.E.

 8 I think Kevin's going to say this as

 9 well, but if the HRF-1-2008 gets modified between

11:31:38 10 now and, and 2014, will it adopt the new one, or

 11 just the one that is currently existing at 2008?

 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, the proposal now

 13 is to adopt the 2008. When and if a new AHAM

 14 Standard is established, is developed, then DOE can

11:32:02 15 consider revising the reference.

 16 MR. RABA: Is that satisfactory? We'll

 17 just try to keep up with the test procedures as

 18 they are, but we have to consider it first. Thank

 19 you.

11:32:17 20 Others, please?

 21 Kevin.

 22 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. Just in general,

 23 though, we would agree with that, with the
 125

 1 associated values and the line calculations.

 2 And the factors, we would agree to.

 3 (Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 4 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

11:32:26 5 others and off the Record, during which the

 6 following occurred:)

 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: The next two sections

 8 formally discuss proposing changing the

 9 temperatures and changing the volume as they are in

11:32:51 10 HRF-1-2008. I don't think I have to get into this

 11 topic in too much detail.

 12 This is something that's been on the

 13 radar screen for quite some time. There are

 14 changes in compartment temperatures for different

11:33:09 15 products.

 16 Some of the products don't have the

 17 temperature changes. In spite of the fact that the

 18 freezer --

 19 (Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

11:33:16 20 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 21 others and off the Record, during which the

 22 following occurred:)

 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- products have no
 126

 1 test temperature changes, they do have volume adjustment

factor

 2 change from 1.73 to 1.76 that is

 3 associated with all the other temperature changes.

 4 Benefits are improved international

11:33:37 5 harmonization of changing the temperatures, better

 6 consistency with typical settings in the field.

 7 And one thing that came up in some of the

 8 discussions was the potential to reduce the impact

 9 of the warm/warm circumvention that has been

11:33:55 10 reported on by Consumer Union.

 11 Some of the issues that needed to be

 12 addressed: Volume adjustment factor changes. And

 13 as mentioned, the, the number changes also for

 14 the freezer.

11:34:10 15 I guess I have the, the current number

 16 wrong. The measured, the measured energy will

 17 change when the compartment temperatures change.

 18 Hence, energy conservation standards

 19 need to be adjusted. And this last bullet, product

11:34:28 20 classes that are a mix currently of

 21 all-refrigerators and other refrigerators or

 22 refrigerator-freezers need to be split, because the

 23 compartment temperature changes generally increase
 127

 1 the energy, measured energy for refrigerator-

 2 freezers or freezers with a freezer compartment,

 3 while it will reduce the energy measured for

 4 all-refrigerators.

11:34:59 5 This slide gets into logistics. DOE

 6 proposes to adopt the temperature changes in new

 7 Appendices A and B.

 8 New Appendices A and B will be based on

 9 AHAM HRF-1-2008, and the new compartment

11:35:09 10 temperatures. Freezers are affected by the

 11 changes in volume adjustment factors.

 12 The current Appendices A1 and B1, when

 13 modified, will still be based on AHAM HRF-1-1979.

 14 Request for comment on new compartment

11:35:31 15 temperatures?

 16 I think previous comments seem to

 17 address this already, but if there are any other

 18 comments?

 19 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

11:35:47 20 MR. RABA: No comments?

 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: The new volume

 22 calculation method?

 23 MR. RABA: We had a comment in the back.
 128

 1 MR. CHURCH: This is Steve Church, from

 2 Whirlpool.

 3 MR. RABA: Thank you, Steve.

 4 MR. CHURCH: We agree that the

11:36:01 5 compartment temperatures need to be changed for the

 6 various reasons that you have mentioned before, but

 7 also wanted to add in that that it needs to be

 8 explicitly stated that there needs to be a

 9 supplement in the Standards based on the increased

11:36:14 10 energy associated with the interpolation.

 11 Do you understand what I'm saying? Is

 12 it --

 13 (Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 14 and Mr. Wagley conferred, out of the hearing of

11:33:16 15 others and off the Record, during which the

 16 following occurred:)

 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: There, there --

 18 MR. BROWN: This is Bill Brown.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: So, you're saying that

11:36:28 20 there is energy change associated with the new

 21 temperatures, but then you're saying that there's

 22 energy use also associated with the interpolation,

 23 and it, and it's --
 129

 1 MR. CHURCH: As a -- It needs to be

 2 recognized that there's a difference between the

 3 interpolation of 45 and 5, and 39 to 0, and that

 4 needs to be taken into consideration as we con-, as

11:36:49 5 we go forward with 2014 Standard.

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: And the --

 7 MR. CHURCH: It needs to be quantified,

 8 and it needs to be, it needs to be adjusted as we

 9 go forward with the Standard.

11:37:03 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: Now, would that be

 11 incorporated by considering changes in the, the

 12 adjusted volume, or that the volume factor, the

 13 volume adjustment factor?

 14 MR. CHURCH: No, I'm talking about the,

11:37:17 15 the compartment temperatures, that 39 and 0, versus

 16 the 45 and 5. It, it costs more energy to operate

 17 a product at 39 and 0 than it does at 45 and 5,

 18 correct?

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, yeah. Yeah.

11:37:33 20 Yeah. Yeah.

 21 MR. CHURCH: So, I'm saying that needs

 22 to be quantified, and it needs to be part of the

 23 discussion as we go forward with the 2014 Standard.
 130

 1 MR. LLENZA: This is Charlie Llenza with

 2 the Department of Energy.

 3 Whatever the industry can help us

 4 quantify that specific proposal would help, greatly

11:37:52 5 help the Department in terms of in setting the

 6 Standards.

 7 MR. RABA: Bill Brown, you at the ready?

 8 MR. BROWN: Yes.

 9 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown.

11:38:01 10 You know, when industry is, is really

 11 interested in making sure that it is understood in

 12 the Standards rulemaking that the test procedure

 13 rulemaking impacts the standard level in that

 14 moving from 45 to 39 as the reference temperature

11:38:21 15 is taken into account when you, when you discuss,

 16 you know, percentage levels below current standard,

 17 recognizing the fact that the test procedures

 18 change into, which I think the temperature that the

 19 energy's measured at, the volume that is calculated

11:38:38 20 for each product.

 21 So, just, -- Really, I want to hammer

 22 that home, that that is, indeed, considered in the

 23 Standards rulemaking. It, it was the, the standard
 131

 1 volume that Navigant had put together.

 2 And, and just in going forward, we want

 3 to make sure that it is captured; that it doesn't

 4 affect it so you're, you're including that when

11:39:01 5 you're talking about the new energy levels.

 6 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 7 Yes, please.

 8 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline, from G.E.

 9 I think, I think Bill made the point. I

11:39:11 10 was just going to say that this was included in the

 11 Standards rulemaking documents in terms of an

 12 adjustment factor for these changes.

 13 And I think the point we're really

 14 making here is just to make sure it's also

11:39:23 15 reflected in the test procedure documentation.

 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay.

 17 MR. RABA: Anything to add?

 18 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

 19 MR. RABA: And, again, written comments

11:39:32 20 would be helpful there, too. Thanks.

 21 Thank you very much. Okay, that's good.

 22 Keep going.

 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right. Talking
 132

 1 about the new volume calculation method, DOE

 2 proposes adopting the new volume calculation method

 3 of AHAM HRF-1-2008.

 4 It's a simplified method with less room

11:39:55 5 for variation and interpretation, with

 6 a small overall volume impact for most products.

 7 One or two products have greater impact than

 8 others, which requires recasting of the Energy

 9 Conservation Standard, which is expressed in terms

11:40:13 10 of adjusted volume.

 11 DOE proposes incorporating this change

 12 in Appendices A and B, and the existing volume

 13 calculation will still apply to Appendices A1 and

 14 B1. DOE proposes one small adjustment to the new

11:40:37 15 volume calculation method language.

 16 HRF-1-2008 appears to have omitted

 17 mention of the icemaker and storage bin, which are

 18 mentioned in 1979. DOE proposes adding language to

 19 Appendix A to ensure consistency with the current

11:40:53 20 method with regard to those components.

 21 So, any additional comments on the new

 22 volume calculation method?

 23 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, with AHAM.
 133

 1 Yeah, we would, we would agree to the

 2 proposal for both the freezers and the

 3 refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers on the volume

 4 issue, on the ice storage bin be included in that

11:41:27 5 volume measurement. But, the freezers,

 6 refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, all three, is

 7 that what you have?

 8 (Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 9 and Mr. Raba conferred, out of the hearing of

11:33:16 10 others and off the Record, during which the

 11 following occurred:)

 12 MR. MESSNER: Is that what you're

 13 proposing?

 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: The proposal would be

11:41:39 15 that the volume would be calculated as if the

 16 icemaker and ice bin are not there, so that, they

 17 would be part of the volume, --

 18 MR. MESSNER: Okay. All right.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- which is the way

11:41:52 20 it's done, but --

 21 MR. MESSNER: Yeah.

 22 MR. RABA: Just wondering. We're going

 23 to -- Getting close to the, the wind-up here, and
 134

 1 would it make sense just to keep going and finish

 2 up early?

 3 Do you want to?

 4 (Whereupon, a response was had.)

11:42:18 5 MR. RABA: Okay, thank you.

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Next section is

 7 on temperature control settings.

 8 We discussed temperature control

 9 settings a little bit, --

11:33:16 10 (Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m. ET, Mr. Llenza

 11 and Mr. Karney conferred, out of the hearing of

 12 others and off the Record, during which the

 13 following occurred:)

 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- but here are some

11:42:35 15 other considerations. DOE proposes some

 16 clarifications on the procedure for temperature

 17 control settings, and points to some of the

 18 following issues.

 19 The current test procedure specifies

11:42:47 20 standardized temperature only for the freezer

 21 compartment of the refrigerators and refrigerator-

 22 freezers. Settings for the second test based only

 23 on freezer compartment temperature during the first
 135

 1 test.

 2 And the current test procedures, the

 3 settings are based on -- Settings for the second

 4 test are based only on freezer compartment

11:43:08 5 temperatures for the first test, and don't include

 6 consideration of the fresh-food temperature.

 7 The current procedure could commit,

 8 could permit energy-use reporting and certification

 9 for products that don't hold the standardized

11:43:22 10 temperatures, and also test settings for second

 11 tests are not specified for some possible first-

 12 test outcomes.

 13 And some of the comments will, will be

 14 trying to solicit comment on whether any of those

11:43:37 15 other second, first-test outcomes that weren't

 16 specifically addressed are relevant and occur,

 17 with any kind of frequency during testing. DOE

 18 proposes to establish dual standardized

 19 temperatures of basic refrigerators and

11:43:57 20 refrigerator-freezers.

 21 This is, for Appendix A, 39 Fahrenheit

 22 for the fresh-food compartment temperature. This

 23 is consistent with the way energy test procedures
 136

 1 are written in the HRF-2008, HRF-1-2008.

 2 DOE proposes the use of the warm/warm

 3 setting in the second test only if both

 4 compartments are cooler than the standardized

11:44:22 5 temperatures in the first test.

 6 DOE proposes providing clarification for

 7 further testing and energy-use calculations for

 8 situations currently not defined in the test

 9 procedure; that is, results of the first test that

11:44:37 10 weren't defined to provide guidance for how to

 11 conduct the second test.

 12 And DOE provides, proposes putting

 13 tables in the test procedure to be a little bit

 14 more explicit for all the different possible

11:44:50 15 combinations, and what to do for the second and/or

 16 third test. And this is the table that was

 17 presented in the Federal Register document of all

 18 the possible, what DOE considered relevant

 19 possibilities for the first test.

11:45:08 20 Like, likewise for the second test. And

 21 then, you know, the different requirements for how

 22 to conduct the second test, and how to calculate

 23 the energy use and/or whether a third test is
 137

 1 required.

 2 Now, this, the triangulation method was

 3 discussed, and obviously that's, you know, another

 4 possibility that could be considered. DOE requests

11:45:35 5 comment on the temperature settings, comment on the

 6 proposed modifications, including whether DOE's

 7 understanding regarding the approach used by

 8 manufacturers is correct.

 9 Now, we didn't talk about that

11:45:50 10 explicitly here in the presentation, but you notice

 11 that the process of using the warm/warm test only,

 12 in the second test only if both compartments in the

 13 first test are colder than the standardized is

 14 DOE's understanding that that's what manufacturers

11:46:05 15 currently do.

 16 MR. KIDO: Mike Kido.

 17 Just a quick follow-up. Is our

 18 understanding correct?

 19 MR. MESSNER: I've -- I don't have a

11:46:19 20 comment on this specifically at this time.

 21 MR. BROWN: This is Bill Brown from G.E.

 22 I'd say it is correct. I mean,

 23 basically I look at the test today and you're
 138

 1 trying to bracket the standardized temperatures of

 2 45 and 5 today, and just run the test such that you

 3 do that.

 4 Same thing that exists for the 39 and 0.

11:46:40 5 You're trying to bracket those two temperatures,

 6 not just one of them.

 7 Further along you mentioned the

 8 triangulation, and we'll be providing comments as a

 9 pro-, proponent of that method, which would also

11:47:03 10 include the possibility of running the two tests

 11 for interpolation, or just one point for under the

 12 standardized temperature.

 13 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: Part of this comment

11:47:17 15 box asks for comment on whether rating of products

 16 should be disallowed if products don't meet the

 17 standardized temperature.

 18 MR. BROWN: This is Bill Brown from

 19 G.E., again.

11:47:37 20 For 2014 you're talking about the

 21 standardized temperature being 39. If you cannot

 22 get to 39, then would you, by the definition of

 23 whatever, like a refrigerator or
 139

 1 refrigerator-freezer, is not even considered that

 2 type of product? Is that what you're saying?

 3 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, that, that's

 4 certainly, you know, consideration that, you know,

11:47:58 5 as part of the discussion. However, the, the

 6 current test procedure is not explicit in saying --

 7 It basically allows you to come up with a

 8 kilowatt-hour number, you know, for, for a, for a

 9 refrigerator, even though it might be out of bounds

11:48:15 10 of the up to 39, as you mentioned.

 11 And so DOE is proposing that, you know,

 12 language would be the language that would be

 13 modified to disallow ratings of such products

 14 explicitly.

11:48:30 15 (Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m. ET, Mr. Wood

 16 entered the room, after which the following

 17 occurred:)

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: It's DOE's

 19 understanding that the Canadian test procedures, CSA

11:48:47 20 test Standard does not allow rating products that

 21 don't hit the standardized temperatures.

 22 MR. LLENZA: Again, this, this is

 23 Charlie Llenza, the Department of Energy.
 140

 1 We don't need an immediate answer, but I

 2 think you need to consider what we're proposing

 3 here so to make sure that we're all on board with

 4 this.

11:49:13 5 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you, Charlie.

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Moving on to icemaking,

 7 obviously an important topic, again, on a day like

 8 this. DOE has provided guidance regarding

 9 treatment of icemakers during energy testing, and

11:49:33 10 documents made public in January and December,

 11 2009, and there was a Federal Register entry

 12 providing that guidance.

 13 This section discusses incorporation of

 14 icemaking use that is the energy required to make

11:49:48 15 the ice and the energy's measurement. DOE also

 16 raises the question of whether a test procedure

 17 amendment is needed to address the presence of ice

 18 in the ice bin during testing.

 19 That's something that's not explicitly

11:50:04 20 defined in the test procedure currently. Now DOE

 21 proposes an interim approach for incorporation of

 22 icemaking energy use in the test measurement.

 23 DOE is aware that AHAM has been working
 141

 1 on development of a test procedure, and some of

 2 that information is in the Docket for the Energy

 3 Conservation Standard rulemaking. NIST has

 4 conducted testing to explore issues associated with

11:50:33 5 icemaking energy, and maybe we could ask David at

 6 some point during this discussion to provide any

 7 information that he might feel is relevant.

 8 Available information shows that

 9 development of a robust procedure for developing

11:50:48 10 icemaking energy use is challenging, and we could

 11 probably have an all-day discussion on that issue

 12 itself. I don't know if we want to get started on

 13 it, going into all the details.

 14 DOE proposes to incorporate a

11:51:02 15 placeholder icemaking energy use measurement for

 16 products with automatic icemakers. The fixed

 17 placeholder value that is proposed is the 0.23

 18 kilowatt hours per day based on the preliminary

 19 AHAM tests.

11:51:15 20 In spite of questions about, questions

 21 about the tests used to develop that information,

 22 it is the best information available to DOE at this

 23 point. Insufficient information is available to
 142

 1 determine dependency on key product characteristics

 2 at this point such as product class, efficiency

 3 level, et cetera, that would allow variation of

 4 that number with other characteristics other than

11:51:40 5 whether there's an icemaker, automatic icemaker in

 6 the product.

 7 DOE will consider adopting a more

 8 comprehensive icemaking test procedure, and just

 9 some of the objectives for that test procedure:

11:51:55 10 that, first of all, it would be applicable for all

 11 types of automatic icemakers; that there would be

 12 test data provided demonstrating viability of the

 13 procedure; that test procedure should provide an

 14 ice production rate in pounds per day or per year,

11:52:14 15 supported by adequate data and energy used per

 16 pound, allowing conversion into kilowatt hours per

 17 year associated with icemaking.

 18 It would be important to have consensus

 19 among industry representatives that the test burden

11:52:28 20 is not excessive, and certainly accuracy and

 21 repeatability are important. A supplementary notice

 22 would be published to propose such a test procedure

 23 for consideration by stakeholders if a procedure
 143

 1 meeting these objectives could be, you know, put

 2 forth and, and discussed, and the DOE would have

 3 sufficient information to move forward with.

 4 So, two comment boxes here. Why don't

11:52:58 5 we take the second one first?

 6 There might be, you know, less discussion

 7 associated with that one and we can get finished

 8 with that. Presence of ice in the ice bin during

 9 testing.

11:53:13 10 DOE seeks comment on whether there

 11 should be a requirement specifying whether there

 12 should be ice or whether there shouldn't be ice in

 13 the bin during tests.

 14 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Bill, from G.E.

11:53:24 15 MR. BROWN: Yeah, Bill Brown from G.E.

 16 We would recommend that there not be ice

 17 in the ice bin. There -- That's an added thermal

 18 load that has never been in any test before, and

 19 you would not be able to -- One thing, you'd be

11:53:37 20 requiring the test labs to, to have this ice

 21 available, or to make ice, et cetera.

 22 The other is you would not be mandating

 23 what temperature this ice could be, and it's going
 144

 1 to be affecting thermocouples, -couples that are in

 2 the vicinity of the ice bin, just the reflection

 3 off the ice. So, in order to keep it standard with

 4 what you have today, we would recommend that there

11:54:01 5 be no ice in the ice bin at all.

 6 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 7 Ice-slash-no ice?

 8 Thanks, Bill.

 9 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

11:54:12 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right. Going back

 11 to the, the bigger box in this slide, icemaking, --

 12 DR. YASHAR: Actually, no. Before,

 13 before we move on, just a sidebar comment about, --

 14 MR. RABA: David Yashar, NIST.

11:54:27 15 DR. YASHAR: -- about presence of ice

 16 during the testing, and it has to do with making

 17 icemakers inoperable during the test, as opposed to

 18 them being operable, which has been a problem in

 19 the past.

11:54:41 20 There, there, there may need to be some

 21 certain cases where you have to put something in

 22 the bin or in some way make it, make the unit think

 23 that the bin is full, and for those types of
 145

 1 products out there that operate that way, there,

 2 there needs to be an exception for, for what Bill

 3 was saying.

 4 MR. BROWN: Just a comment on that. There

11:55:06 5 are many different ways to, to make the ice maker think

 6 that it has ice without putting ice in the bin.

 7 Tie up the bail, or Styrofoam blocks, et cetera.

 8 DR. YASHAR: Right. But I think your

 9 comment was, "Don't put anything in the bin,

11:55:25 10 period," so that's --

 11 MR. BROWN: Well, I'd consider such to

 12 be nonthermal load.

 13 DR. YASHAR: But there are cases where

 14 you have to do something to the bin that's outside

11:55:36 15 of completely empty.

 16 MR. BROWN: Yeah. Well, we would agree

 17 with that.

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, back to the Issue

 19 1, icemaking. DOE requests comment on the proposed

11:55:49 20 approach for integrating icemaking energy use into

 21 the energy-use metrics for refrigeration products.

 22 DOE requests recommendations for the

 23 development of the test method for determination of
 146

 1 icemaking energy use, including data to show the

 2 viability of the recommended approaches. And, DOE

 3 requests comments on whether refrigerators with

 4 freezer compartments could include icemakers.

11:56:13 5 Finally, DOE requests any updated data

 6 supporting determination of a representative daily

 7 ice production factor.

 8 MR. RABA: Comment?

 9 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner.

11:56:30 10 I had a quick -- Just wanted to clarify

 11 on the .23 kilowatt hours per, per daily cycle,

 12 that's -- It's unclear about whether you're talking

 13 about -- That's, that's an additive number to the

 14 Standard, correct?

11:56:44 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: That would be a number

 16 that would be added to the Standard, 84 kilowatt

 17 hours per year.

 18 MR. MESSNER: Right.

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: And that would be a

11:56:53 20 number that would add to the measured energy use

 21 for a product with an automatic icemaker: 84

 22 kilowatt hours a year.

 23 MR. MESSNER: Right. Okay.
 147

 1 MR. RABA: David.

 2 DR. YASHAR: Would it be possible to

 3 have that as a separate metric on the Standard?

 4 And my concern is that if, if we get in place a

11:57:16 5 test method that is not robust enough to, to give

 6 the same kind of accuracy, then you're going to run

 7 into problems with people leaning on the icemaking

 8 credit to, for gains in, in, in efficiency of their

 9 cabinet.

11:57:39 10 And the other thing that, that I wanted

 11 to, to state was the, the, the metric there is in

 12 kilowatt hours per day, but still I feel pretty

 13 strongly that for icemaking energy it needs to be

 14 expressed in energy per unit of ice produced, per

11:57:59 15 mass of ice produced, because the, the, the design

 16 variations regarding production rates are very

 17 widespread, and, and, and that is actually a, a, a

 18 benefit to consumers.

 19 So, I would caution against that.

11:58:19 20 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE.

 21 Just as follow-up, so if, if the Agency

 22 were to adopt that kind of metric for icemaking,

 23 based on energy per mass of ice produced, I guess
 148

 1 I'm the, the nontechnical person here. Is there a

 2 way to insert that into the current energy-usage

 3 calculation for the energy guideline?

 4 DR. YASHAR: Yes. You can make an

11:58:47 5 assumption, based on, based on the consumer usage.

 6 I think AHAM has a number of 1.8, you

 7 know, pounds per day is that, based on their, on

 8 their surveys. But, I mean, some, some icemakers

 9 are -- It -- They produce at different rates.

11:59:07 10 They shut off to a very small

 11 compartment, so they're only operating at very

 12 small portions of the time. It gets very

 13 complicated if you try to do it this way.

 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: I guess in response to

11:59:18 15 your first point, that some manufacturers would use

 16 the icemaking energy portion for quantities that

 17 have other inefficiencies, the way that it is

 18 proposed now in the test procedure, and the way

 19 that it is envisioned that would be then in the

11:59:36 20 Energy Conservation Standard is that that 84

 21 kilowatt hours would not, would really not affect,

 22 you know, the design of the product.

 23 It would just be there as information
 149

 1 for the consumer, the way it's proposed now and

 2 envisioned to be proposed for the Standard. So,

 3 that the 84 kilowatt hours would be added in for

 4 the product with an automatic icemaker in the

11:59:58 5 measurement, and it would also be added in in the

 6 Standard.

 7 So, there's no, no crossover impact

 8 there of energy use the way it's currently proposed

 9 and envisioned.

12:00:09 10 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, the

 11 Department of Energy.

 12 And while this is a (sic) interim

 13 solution, we, the Department also feels that the

 14 icemakers are energy-consuming features that should

12:00:25 15 be capped or regulated, because that's an area for

 16 improvement within the, the equipment. And so we

 17 would like to propose at this time that the

 18 industry provide us some solutions here in order to

 19 help us provide some means of codifying this

12:00:48 20 equipment, the testing of this equipment, this part

 21 of the equipment, and then also to provide metrics

 22 at some point for the Standards for this.

 23 It would be of great interest to the
 150

 1 Department.

 2 MR. RABA: Okay.

 3 MR. TOPPING: Hi. Dick Topping,

 4 Sub-Zero.

12:01:04 5 You know, I think the industry agrees

 6 with DOE's approach at this point, realizing that

 7 it is incomplete and it's temporary, and it was

 8 basically driven by schedule more than anything

 9 else. I mean, the industry got together almost a

12:01:20 10 year ago and developed a draft, you know, test

 11 protocol, which we then tested and reported back to

 12 DOE. The NOPR points to the issues that we found.

 13 It's not an easy issue to resolve. And

 14 so at this point in time, what you've done is

12:01:38 15 probably the best that, that, that can be done.

 16 You know, long-term, the industry is

 17 still open to working with DOE, with NIST, with the

 18 stakeholders, in developing an accurate, repeatable

 19 procedure that would measure energy; also, try to

12:01:54 20 determine what consumer usage of ice is, you know,

 21 better than what we know right now, and at some

 22 point, factor that all into this process.

 23 As we've said before, that's at least a
 151

 1 year project, and, and maybe more. So, again,

 2 given, given what we know now, you know, I think

 3 this is, this is a reasonable interim approach.

 4 It certainly shouldn't be the long-term

12:02:23 5 approach.

 6 MR. RABA: Okay, good.

 7 Yes, Elizabeth.

 8 MS. JOYCE: Elizabeth Joyce, California

 9 Utilities.

12:02:32 10 We definitely agree that this approach

 11 is appropriate for the time being, but, of course,

 12 prefer that, in the long term, an actual test

 13 procedure be implemented. I have a specific

 14 question for DOE.

12:02:45 15 You mentioned that there was

 16 insufficient data to determine dependency on

 17 product class, et cetera, but in the TSD for the

 18 Standards rulemaking it was noted that typically

 19 products with the through-the-door feature used

12:03:04 20 more energy than those without.

 21 And I wanted to know if there was data

 22 on that, or if DOE would consider that in its

 23 interim factor.
 152

 1 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yeah. I think we

 2 can look at that and consider it.

 3 And, you know, we'll have to look at

 4 that a little bit more closely. There, there are

12:03:25 5 some questions about exactly what that data was

 6 showing.

 7 MS. JOYCE: Okay.

 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: But, it's a good point.

 9 MS. JOYCE: And I guess I have another

12:03:36 10 question, then, for industry, as per developing the

 11 AHAM test procedure, if you intend to go along with

 12 that, independent of DOE's procedure, or, or try to

 13 harmonize, instead, with DOE's, I guess, timing for

 14 the process as if you'll continue to work on your

12:03:54 15 test procedure beyond the end of this year.

 16 MR. MESSNER: Well, well, in a, in a

 17 perfect world, perfect world, you have a test

 18 procedure and then you do a standard. Sorry.

 19 MS. JOYCE: I see. I see. Um-hum.

12:04:19 20 MR. MESSNER: So, as Dick Topping said,

 21 we've, we've been looking at looking, struggling to

 22 try to figure out what that procedure could be, and

 23 can't say, "Okay, we've got a -- We're going to
 153

 1 have that done by this date or that date." We were

 2 -- It's going to take some work to find the

 3 solution and try to figure out how to do it.

 4 And we've been, been working on it, and

12:04:44 5 continuing to work on it.

 6 MS. JOYCE: Okay.

 7 (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m. ET, Ms. Amann

 8 left the room, after which the following occurred:)

 9 MR. LLENZA: This is Charlie Llenza, the

12:04:50 10 Department of Energy.

 11 Part of what I think the Department

 12 would be interested in, since our test procedure

 13 would probably be out before AHAM's amended test

 14 procedure, is that AHAM use what we provide as a

12:05:05 15 Final Rule for the test procedure, and then we work

 16 together to sort of develop the next-generation

 17 test procedure down the line, because I've done

 18 this with other products, where we're working with

 19 AHRI for refrigerator systems for commercial

12:05:24 20 refrigeration equipment, and it's been efficient to

 21 not only industry, but to DOE, for an industry test

 22 procedure to incorporate within its test procedures

 23 and within its Standards for the future.
 154

 1 So, we're more than welcome to work with

 2 you guys.

 3 MR. MESSNER: Great. Thanks. Always

 4 want to work with DOE.

12:05:44 5 MR. KIDO: I think, with DOE as part of

 6 that process, would be open to have the public and

 7 be totally transparent.

 8 MR. RABA: Say that again, please?

 9 MR. KIDO: That approach would be open

12:05:53 10 and transparent.

 11 MR. RABA: Thank you.

 12 Any further comments or questions

 13 concerning --

 14 MS. JOYCE: Sorry. Elizabeth Joyce.

12:06:00 15 Just to get a question, what -- Have you

 16 tested three representative units to try to

 17 determine icemaking usage? What test procedure did

 18 you use for, for that?

 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: That test procedure --

12:06:14 20 I think it was described in the, in the Notice. It

 21 was, it was testing conducted not with, you know,

 22 the proper, you know, test facility.

 23 MS. JOYCE: Um-hum.
 155

 1 MR. WESTPHALEN: An ambient close to 80

 2 Farenheit rather than 90 or rather than 70 or 72.

 3 (Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m. ET, Ms. Amann

 4 entered the room, after which the following

12:06:34 5 occurred:)

 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: And it was tests

 7 conducted long before any of the other data was

 8 available. And it was to provide some information

 9 on what some of the other issues might be, you

12:06:52 10 know, associated with icemakers.

 11 MS. JOYCE: Um-hum. Thank you.

 12 MR. RABA: Yes. Comment, please?

 13 Question?

 14 MR. BACCHUS: I'll steal Kevin's mic.

12:07:04 15 Jamy Bacchus, NRDC.

 16 I just wanted to know if we, if the

 17 group has the testing from AHAM that results in the

 18 84 kilowatt hours per, is there a specific year and

 19 title of that report?

12:07:18 20 MR. WESTPHALEN: That's in the Docket

 21 for the Energy Conservation Standard rulemaking.

 22 MR. BACCHUS: Is it? Great.

 23 MR. WOOD: Yeah. Jeff Wood from G.E.
 156

 1 I just want the group to consider

 2 possibly misleading customers by only putting,

 3 making energy on a unit that's equipped with an

 4 icemaker, because even with a unit without an

12:07:46 5 icemaker, it still takes the same amount of energy

 6 to freeze the water in ice trays, and you have the

 7 opening of the freezer to get the ice trays out.

 8 So, you could be misleading people that

 9 an automatic icemaker uses more energy, when in

12:08:02 10 reality there's no study that says it, it does,

 11 over a unit without an icemaker.

 12 MR. RABA: Interesting point. Thank

 13 you.

 14 MR. KIDO: Just a quick follow-up.

12:08:17 15 Michael Kido, DOE.

 16 With respect to an automatic icemaker,

 17 isn't there energy used in the process of spitting

 18 out the ice, whether it's crushed ice, cubes, or

 19 whatever?

12:08:28 20 MR. RABA: There's a microphone there.

 21 MR. WOOD: Yes, there is. And usually

 22 to harvest the ice there's energy used.

 23 But, in retrospect, opening the freezer
 157

 1 to get your ice trays out, to fill your ice trays,

 2 also loses a lot of the cooling and causes a lot

 3 more run time on a compressor. So, that -- You

 4 need to balance those two items out.

12:08:56 5 MR. BROWN: One other follow-up -- Bill

 6 Brown, from G.E. -- is that if you do not add

 7 anything to a non-icemaker unit, you're basically

 8 assuming that it takes zero energy to, to make ice

 9 in that type of unit.

12:09:09 10 So, I mean, there is some, just the

 11 thermodynamic energy it takes to, to, to freeze

 12 water, that's still going to be the same in a

 13 non-icemaker model. It is included in the .23

 14 kilowatt hours per day, along with the other

12:09:26 15 harvesting of the ice.

 16 So, at least that portion the freezing

 17 of the ice should be included in a non-icemaker unit

 18 just to compare apples with apples here.

 19 MR. LLENZA: Yeah, that's a good point.

12:09:39 20 MR. RABA: Yeah, good point. Certainly.

 21 Thank you.

 22 David.

 23 DR. YASHAR: Just a technical sidebar.
 158

 1 It's been my experience that the mechanisms used to

 2 eject ice and to bring water into the cabinet is

 3 generally a lot larger than the thermal load of

 4 freezing the ice.

12:09:58 5 So, automatic icemakers do, in fact, use

 6 more energy. But, that's not to say that with some

 7 regulation, what's done in current practice would

 8 change substantially and you'd see those numbers

 9 get a lot closer.

12:10:18 10 MR. RABA: Okay.

 11 OTHER ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION

 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right. Now we're

 13 getting to Section F here, other issues under

 14 consideration.

12:10:33 15 This section here addresses electric

 16 heaters. There's no proposed language associated

 17 with this topic.

 18 The, the NOPR discusses electric

 19 heaters, --

12:10:49 20 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. ET, Ms. Amann

 21 left the room, after which the following occurred:)

 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- electric resistance

 23 heaters, and points out how other sections of the
 159

 1 NOPR, you know, address treatment of electric

 2 heaters in test procedure. For, for anti-sweat,

 3 for instance, there's a definition

 4 change for the "internal sweat," a correction of

12:11:15 5 energy-use calculation, and the proposed test

 6 procedures for variable anti-sweat heat control.

 7 Defrost, we've talked about modification

 8 of the long-time procedure, test procedure language

 9 correction and improvement, and the multiple

12:11:29 10 defrost cycles. 

The compartment temperature

 11 trimming, electric resistance heaters that might be

 12 used to adjust temperatures of subcompartments or

 13 special compartments.

 14 This is addressed by the requirements

12:11:44 15 for the compartment temperature setpoint

 16 adjustment and/or the requirements for auxiliary

 17 compartments and subcompartments, --

 18 (Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m. ET, Ms. Amann

 19 entered the room, after which the following

12:11:53 20 occurred:)

 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- heaters related to

 22 icemakers as the mold heaters and fill-tubes.

 23 These have been addressed in the
 160

 1 guidance document that was published in December,

 2 and then in the Federal Register in January.

 3 MR. RABA: Humm.

 4 (Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m. ET, Mr. Raba

12:12:55 5 and Ms. Edwards conferred, out of the hearing of

 6 others and off the Record, during which the

 7 following occurred:)

 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: And then, obviously,

 9 icemaking energy use addresses these heaters as well.

12:12:15 10 Heaters potentially used for external evaporation

 11 of liquid water, say in drain pans or dispenser recess,

 12 would theoretically be addressed by requirements

 13 consistent with normal use.

 14 And then the question: is there, are there any

12:12:31 15 others that DOE should be considering?

 16 (Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m. ET, Mr. Wood

 17 left the room, after which the following occurred:)

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: So, request for

 19 comments on electric heaters. DOE requests

12:12:41 20 comments for electric heaters.

 21 What types are not discussed in this NOPR

 22 section? How do they contribute to normal use?

 23 And is, is test procedure modification
 161

 1 recommended to more accurately reflect these energy

 2 factors?

 3 (Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m. ET, Mr. Raba

 4 and Ms. Edwards conferred, out of the hearing of

12:12:55 5 others and off the Record, during which the

 6 following occurred:)

 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: I guess no comments on

 8 electric heaters?

 9 (Whereupon, no response was had.)

12:13:13 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: Another topic, energy

 11 use round-off. The current test procedure does not

 12 specify how many significant digits after the

 13 decimal point are required for energy use.

 14 This is specified in some other test

12:13:26 15 procedures. DOE feels that better precision than

 16 reporting to the nearest kilowatt hour per year is

 17 probably not justified.

 18 The required energy measurement accuracy

 19 specified in the test procedure is plus or minus

12:13:44 20 0.5 percent. At 500 kilowatt hours per year, that's

 21 plus or minus two and a-half kilowatt hours.

 22 If such a requirement were introduced as

 23 part of the test procedure, then clearly the Energy
 162

 1 Conservation Standards would have to have some kind

 2 of provisions so that you know if, if you round up

 3 in the test procedure, you can't be penalized for

 4 having done that.

12:14:08 5 So, request for comment on energy-use

 6 measurement round-up. DOE requests comment on the

 7 achievable accuracy and measurement of

 8 refrigeration product energy use and the guidance

 9 under consideration, and whether DOE should be

12:14:22 10 introducing some amendments to specify what the

 11 round-off should be.

 12 MR. RABA: Kevin.

 13 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, AHAM.

 14 AHAM is amenable -- We support round-,

12:14:37 15 reporting to the nearest kilowatt hour.

 16 MR. RABA: I see some nods. Okay.

 17 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER EPCA REQUIREMENTS

 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: Then the final section

 19 here, compliance with other EPCA requirements,

12:14:52 20 there's two subsections here: first, consideration

 21 of test burden, and then the second, standby and

 22 "off" mode energy use.

 23 Test burden, EPCA mentions that test
 163

 1 procedures shall not be unduly burdensome to

 2 conduct. DOE considered the burden associated with

 3 all of the proposed test procedure changes.

 4 Most of the changes do not significantly

12:15:20 5 affect requirements for test facility equipment,

 6 instrumentation, or test time. Key changes that

 7 may significantly increase test burden are the

 8 variable anti-sweat heating procedure and the

 9 icemaking test procedure.

12:15:36 10 DOE is currently proposing a simplified,

 11 considering a simplified approach to incorporating

 12 icemaking, or DOE is currently proposing a

 13 simplified incorporation of icemaking use that

 14 would not impose additional test burden, and may

12:15:51 15 consider the approach discussed when we're talking

 16 about variable anti-sweat heater control test

 17 burden.

 18 I think we talked about this already.

 19 Manufacturers already have humidity control

12:16:09 20 chambers.

 21 One of the points made was that these

 22 chambers may not have all the instrumentation

 23 needed to accurately do an energy measurement. The
 164

 1 Proposed test, DOE feels it represents the minimum

 2 amount of testing that could be done to measure and

 3 verify variable anti-sweat heating control.

 4 And, DOE's considering having one test

12:16:31 5 apply for multiple certifications.

 6 EPCA requirement to incorporate the

 7 standby and "Off" mode energy use. This is already

 8 considered in the current energy test procedure,

 9 and will also be, continue to be part of any of the

12:16:52 10 amended test procedures.

 11 (Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m. ET, Mr. Raba

 12 and Mr. Llenza conferred, out of the hearing of

 13 others and off the Record, during which the

 14 following occurred:)

12:16:56 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: Standby and off modes

 16 of auxiliary features that are captured, auxiliary

 17 features are captured, they call for the lowest

 18 energy-use position according to HRF-1-1979 or

 19 HRF-1-2008. They do not mention disconnecting the

12:17:20 20 particular component so that standby use of these

 21 special features are also incorporated.

 22 MR. LLENZA: Okay.

 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: And I guess if there
 165

 1 are any particular comments on these last sections

 2 I'll stay up here through that part of the meeting

 3 in case there's any response required.

 4 MR. RABA: Brave.

12:17:50 5 Not the last chance for comments,

 6 certainly. Written comments are most welcome, and

 7 they're very helpful.

 8 And, as we think through, well,

 9 everybody thinks through the process, the topics we

12:18:01 10 discussed today, the short-term ones, the long-term

 11 ones, but for now are there any further comments on

 12 what's been discussed today?

 13 MR. BROWN: Just -- Yeah, one last

 14 comment. Bill Brown, from G.E.

12:18:16 15 The one slide where you're concluding

 16 that anti-sweating is not unduly burdensome, Steve

 17 Church, from Whirlpool, had already mentioned that

 18 the humidity chambers that most manufacturers had,

 19 have, are not gauged to accurately measure energy

12:18:34 20 consumption; more so, qualitative measurements such

 21 as condensation on their products.

 22 The other part is that, is the added

 23 equipment necessary in order to achieve what's in
 166

 1 the Federal Register as 25 percent humidity in a

 2 room. That's more difficult to obtain than what

 3 we're normally looking at in -- Our humidity

 4 chambers are higher, like 65 to 95.

12:19:00 5 Not that difficult to achieve.

 6 Twenty-five, if you really want to attain that,

 7 that's going to require adjustment, reinvestment

 8 on, and burden on the manufacturer. So, just

 9 requiring, that is, you're requiring extra

12:19:17 10 investment for every company as well to run these.

 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: I wonder if

 12 stakeholders could comment on what range of

 13 humidities could be achieved without additional

 14 requirement for investment.

12:19:32 15 MR. BROWN: That mainly depends on what

 16 part of the country you're in. If you're in

 17 Mississippi, it's probably easier to get the

 18 higher.

 19 If you're in Arizona, it's probably

12:19:41 20 easier to get the lower. And where I'm from, you

 21 get everything.

 22 MR. WOOD: Jeff Wood, from G.E.

 23 The 95 percent is, is very difficult
 167

 1 because you will have water dripping all over the

 2 room. If, if you've ever been in a 95-percent

 3 chamber, --

 4 MR. LLENZA: Charlie Llenza, --

12:20:09 5 MR. BROWN: Certainly we can, but --.

 6 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Steve Church.

 7 MR. CHURCH: This is Steve Church, and

 8 I'd like to -- If we tested at ninety five percent,

 9 there's also something, there's also energy beyond

12:20:21 10 that of the heater that will be measured, and

 11 that's the added work that the product's doing

 12 because it's going to have moisture infiltration

 13 into the product, and the load on the evaporator.

 14 So, it night not even be a very good

12:20:35 15 measurement of the heater itself. I guess I would,

 16 I would like to reiterate that we encourage the

 17 Department, if it wants to, wants to develop a test

 18 for that, that's fine.

 19 But, -- And to verify what we report as

12:20:51 20 our wattages on those heaters. But, this is going,

 21 substantially is inaccurate on its measurement, and

 22 unduly burdensome.

 23 MR. HALL: Dave Hall, with Electrolux,
 168

 1 to support the burden.

 2 When you go from the different humidity

 3 levels at a constant temperature, there's a

 4 transition time for the chamber to become, to

12:21:16 5 transition and reach stability, and then for the

 6 product also to reach stability in that

 7 environment. And that's -- When you're changing

 8 humidities, that's, that's a pretty lengthy

 9 process.

12:21:25 10 MR. RABA: That was helpful. Thank you.

 11 I think we're good. Anything else?

 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: No, I think we're done

 13 -- I guess final comments.

 14 MR. LLENZA: Yeah, final comments.

12:21:44 15 MR. RABA: Before final comments, a

 16 couple of things I'd like to offer here. One is

 17 that we have copies of the business cards and the

 18 other sign-in sheets that you take with you for

 19 those who attended and participated in today's

12:21:57 20 meeting.

 21 That's the good news. The bad news,

 22 there are some folks I see here that are missing

 23 from this sheet, and so please check out with
 169

 1 Brenda Edwards at the reception desk.

 2 Be sure you leave your name either on a

 3 filled-out form so we can keep a record, or leave

 4 your business card -- Most helpful. -- with her so

12:22:18 5 these will be available.

 6 And please don't get away without

 7 filling out a critique sheet of today's public

 8 meeting. Pass these around.

 9 And, likewise, these. And Charles will

12:22:46 10 have closing remarks on behalf of the Department.

 11 CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

 12 MR. LLENZA: On behalf of the Department

 13 I'm happy that you attended these proceedings

 14 today, and we're looking forward to your comments.

12:22:58 15 A reminder that the comment period closes, the

 16 public comment period closes August tenth, and you

 17 see here we have the slow-mail approach in terms of

 18 delivering comments.

 19 We would prefer that you use the federal

12:23:18 20 rulemaking portal that's specified in the NOPR, the

 21 published NOPR. That would guarantee that the

 22 information gets to us as fast as possible.

 23 And that's all I have for today, so
 170

 1 thank you for coming.

 2 MR. RABA: Thank you very much. Did

 3 well.

 4 Covered a lot of ground. Look forward

12:23:36 5 to your written comments, and give yourselves a

 6 round of applause.

 7 Thank you very much.

 8 (Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m. ET, the above

 9 Hearing was concluded.)

 10 I certify the foregoing to be a

 11 true transcript from my notes.

 12 E-signature: D. I. Bunn

 13 CSR CP RPR

 14 CERTIFICATION

 15 I, D. I. Bunn, a Registered

 16 Professional Reporter, Certified Conference

 17 Reporter, and Notary Public, do hereby certify that

 18 the foregoing testimony was duly taken and reduced

 19 to writing before me at the place and time therein

 20 mentioned. I further certify that I am neither

 21 related to any of the parties by blood or marriage,

 22 nor do I have any interest in the outcome of the

 23 above matter.
 171

 1 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set

 2 my hand and affixed my official seal, at Denver,

 3 Colorado, USA, this 24th day of June, 2010.

 4

 E-signature: D. I. Bunn

 5

 Notary Public

 6

 7 My Commission expires January 5, 2012.

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23