202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 + + + + +

 APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING

 FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 + + + + +

 COMMERCIAL HVAC, WATER HEATING AND

 REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATION 

 WORKING GROUP MEETING

 + + + + +

 WEDNESDAY

 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013

 + + + + +

 The Working Group met in the

Forrestal Building, Room GH-019, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., at

8:30 a.m., Neil Eisner, Facilitator,

presiding.

PRESENT

NEIL EISNER, Facilitator 

KARIM AMRANE, AHRI 

VIKTOR ANDERSON, Structural Concepts

TIMOTHY BALLO, Earthjustice

JEFF BAUMAN, National Refrigeration and Air 

 Conditioning

MARY DANE, Traulsen

PAUL DOPPEL, Mitsubishi Electric

BRIAN FERRIOL, Underwriters Laboratories

MARK FLY, AAON

GEOFFREY HALLEY, ABMA

CHARLES HON, True Manufacturing

JILL HOOTMAN, Trane

RALPH HUDNALL, AHAM
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

JOHN HURST, Lennox 

TOM JOHNSON, Daikin McQuay

JEFF KLEISS, Lochinvar

MICHAEL KOJAK, Underwriters Laboratories 

KAREN MEYERS, Rheem Manufacturing

PETE MOLVIE, Cleaver-Brooks

HARVEY SACHS, ACEEE

RON SHEBIK, Hussmann Corporation*

FRANK STANONIK, AHRI

PHILLIP STEPHENS, HTP, Inc.

RUSTY THARP, Goodman Manufacturing

BILL TRITSIS, AHRI

BOB WHITWELL, Carrier*

ALSO PRESENT

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG, U.S. Department of Energy

LAURA BARHYDT, U.S. Department of Energy

BRENDA EDWARDS, U.S. Department of Energy

JEREMIAH FREEMAN

COLLIN WEBER, Navigant 

*Present via teleconference
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Opening Remarks 4

Enforcement Issues 6

Language Changes 85

Verification 90

CRE 97

Working Group/Sub-Group Discussion 185
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

2 8:30 a.m.

3 MR. EISNER: All right, if we

4 could get started. 

5 A bunch of things were raised in

6 between meetings. One was some comments by

7 Harvey, with respect to the report that was

8 submitted to ASRAC, and I think Harvey is not

9 here, so maybe we'll put that off until he

10 gets here. I assume he's coming, but if not,

11 we can -- I know some of you responded to it. 

12 You were familiar with it. Nobody seemed --

13 nobody who responded to it, seemed to have a

14 problem.

15 The other thing was, when we ended 

16 the last meeting, we were talking about some

17 enforcement issues, and there are some people

18 who pointed out that we had not yet addressed

19 those issues at the very first meeting we

20 held, when we talked about ground rules, and

21 we put that on the list of issues.

22 So, I'd like to start off by
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 having someone who is familiar with the

2 concern on the part of industry or advocacy

3 groups or whatever, that if you could state

4 what your concern is and then we could ask DOE

5 to address them.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, and if

7 everybody can speak up. We have some

8 microphones on the table, but it's probably

9 not going to get any of the people in the

10 back, unless you really speak up loud.

11 MR. THARP: And for the people on

12 the phone too.

13 MS. BARHYDT: And also for the

14 people on the phone.

15 PARTICIPANT: We can talk loud. 

16 Is that okay?

17 MR. EISNER: Yes.

18 PARTICIPANT: Okay, thank you.

19 MR. KLEISS: Would it be fair to

20 start, when we're talking about enforcement,

21 to maybe have DOE start with what they are

22 already doing, or what they will be doing, as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 far as enforcement?

2 MS. BARHYDT: That is so broad. I

3 mean, I honestly -- I have no idea what your

4 issues or concerns are. 

5 So, I mean, I can talk for hours

6 and days about enforcement. It would help if

7 you give me some context for what it is that

8 you want to hear about.

9 MR. AMRANE: Maybe I can start,

10 just going with AHRI.

11 I think it was much of -- much of

12 the concern, I think, was more like for DOE or

13 for us, to review what is in here.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

15 MR. AMRANE: Pretty much a

16 statistical whatever, the process by which DOE

17 goes about to enforcement, and those

18 requirements were put in place, not for

19 commercial product, but they were put in place

20 for residential product initially, or

21 something of that nature, no?

22 MS. BARHYDT: No.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 MR. AMRANE: But I don't believe

2 it's a statistical, you know, formulas, where

3 they were necessarily developed for the

4 commercial product in the first place.

5 Okay, so, I think --

6 MS. BARHYDT: So, just to -- so,

7 just on that point.

8 The statistics were developed in

9 Part 431 back in the 90's, as part of a

10 rulemaking for commercial equipment.

11 We moved them in 2011, to Part

12 429, but we didn't change any of those

13 statistics. Those were the old statistics.

14 MR. AMRANE: I understand, and so,

15 it's more for to -- I guess, to revisit this

16 and maybe not -- maybe it's not part of this

17 working group, but it's an action item for

18 DOE, to go back and to look at this, and see

19 whether or not really, there is some science

20 behind those numbers.

21 MS. BARHYDT: So, are the

22 statistics the only concern?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 MR. THARP: This is what I'm --

2 MS. BARHYDT: Or is it -- 

3 MR. AMRANE: But that also is true

4 with the issues. Part of it, on the second

5 product, which are different from residential

6 than commercial --

7 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

8 MR. AMRANE: -- and that also, I

9 think is an issue.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

11 MR. AMRANE: And hopefully that

12 will be addressed, as well. I don't know.

13 MS. BARHYDT: So, I will say that

14 in the 2011 rulemaking, we asked industry for

15 data to help us support changing those

16 statistics, and we got no comment at all.

17 We would welcome the opportunity

18 to revisit those, but we are going to have to

19 have significant data to back up the change to

20 those statistics.

21 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp

22 with Goodman. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 I think, you know, I think that

2 industry is -- our relationship is different

3 now than it was in 2011, and things are --

4 this type of arrangement is a very good

5 arrangement, and I think we will be able to

6 work more to of course, getting something

7 together.

8 MS. BARHYDT: So, I would say,

9 back to you, that the Department is very

10 willing to revisit that issue, but we're going

11 to have to have a lot of data, so that we -- 

12 MS. MEYERS: So, this is Karen

13 Meyers. What kind of data are you looking

14 for?

15 MS. BARHYDT: So, the whole

16 premise behind the statistics, there are two

17 kinds of statistics. There are certification

18 statistics and there are enforcement

19 statistics.

20 MS. MEYERS: Okay.

21 MS. BARHYDT: The certification

22 statistics force the manufacturer to be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 conservative in their rating, basically over2 rate, based on your test data. That way it

3 ensures consumers get at least as good of as

4 what you have represented to them.

5 Enforcement is the reverse. It

6 gives all of the benefit of the doubt to the

7 manufacturer and makes it harder for us to

8 find a product non-compliant.

9 So, the statistics are weighed,

10 depending on whether it's an up front

11 certification statistic or whether it's an

12 after-the-fact enforcement statistic.

13 But so, as a result of that, the

14 numbers aren't the same. The confidence

15 intervals aren't the same. The confidence

16 intervals are not the same for all different

17 products within the certification statistics. 

18 They are for enforcement.

19 That is all things that we could

20 look at. What the appropriate confidence

21 intervals should be is where the data really

22 comes in. How much variability is there, both
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 within a lab, within the test procedure

2 itself, and between test procedures, I mean,

3 between labs.

4 The statistics are currently

5 designed so that they take both of those

6 factors into account. There is a confidence

7 interval and then there is a separate deviser,

8 and so, all of that is designed to take that

9 variability into account.

10 If you don't think the numbers are

11 right, we're going to have to have data to

12 explain why those numbers need to be changed.

13 MR. HALLEY: Geoff Halley with

14 ABMA. I am wondering if we need several

15 levels, depending on the product, if you start

16 with residential, then small commercial and

17 then the larger commercial units, there may be

18 different sets of statistics for --

19 MS. BARHYDT: Well, so for --

20 MR. HALLEY: -- each level.

21 MS. BARHYDT: For certification

22 statistics, it's product specific.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 MR. HALLEY: Yes.

2 MS. BARHYDT: For enforcement

3 statistics, there are two sets.

4 There are residential and then

5 there are small volume, which is most

6 commercial equipment, but there is also a

7 provision in there that allows us to apply it

8 even for consumer products, where it's a

9 built-to-order very low volume product.

10 So, there are differences in the

11 enforcement statistics, depending on how many

12 units are generally produced.

13 MR. TRITSIS: Laura? Bill Tritsis

14 with AHRI. 

15 Have you analyzed the data that

16 you already have, based on the testing that

17 you've conducted?

18 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

20 MR. TRITSIS: Yes? 

21 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

22 MR. TRITSIS: And can you share
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 with us, some of what your findings are?

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: What would you

3 like to know? 

4 MR. TRITSIS: You know, some of

5 the questions that were brought up, that Laura

6 just mentioned, regarding of the statistical

7 differences between enforcement and

8 certification, and which have you found, as

9 you compare some of the actual testing that

10 has happened, and you know, the manufacturer's

11 data that has been provided to you with these

12 enforcement cases.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sharing aside,

14 I'll speak on some generalities and then we'll

15 see what Laura says, as she stares at me very

16 nervously.

17 MS. BARHYDT: No, I'm not nervous.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, one of the

19 things though, we don't see a lot of the data

20 behind the certifications. I mean, we do when

21 Laura asks for it, and we ask for it from the

22 manufacturers.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 So, the test data that

2 manufacturers are doing themselves, whether it

3 be in their own labs or at third party labs of

4 their choosing, we don't see a whole lot of

5 that.

6 So, for us to be able to assess

7 the variability coming off the line or coming

8 off of their test facilities is pretty much --

9 you know, that is going to be pretty

10 impossible.

11 I think when Laura is saying we

12 need data, I mean, that is really what the

13 cert steps are trying to capture, because we

14 allow you guys the discretion to choose where

15 you're testing, what units you're testing, who

16 is running the test. I mean, that is all data

17 you have control over.

18 So, the cert data, you know, the

19 cert starts are really trying to capture the

20 variability when you guys are running the

21 tests yourselves.

22 So, it's really manufacturer line
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 variability. It's the tests in your own lab

2 variability. It's test procedure variability,

3 as well as test technician. But that's all

4 within your control.

5 Obviously, there are going to be

6 sources of variability, you know, inherent in

7 testing itself and inherent in products

8 themselves and inherent in the test procedure,

9 but you can minimize that as much as possible,

10 because that is something you have control

11 over.

12 So, I think when Laura says we

13 need data to be able to change those, that is

14 not something that DOE easily has access to,

15 and that is something that is going to be very

16 different from manufacturer to manufacturer,

17 depending on the risk decisions they make. At

18 least that's my opinion of it.

19 Now, that being said, when we

20 transition to enforcement, one of the reasons

21 we have different stats, and there could be

22 some arguments about whether we should or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 whether we shouldn't, they are confusing to

2 have them different. But one of the reason we

3 have different sets is because the enforcement

4 stats really do make it harder for DOE to find

5 a product non-compliant.

6 So, and a lot of times, if we had

7 the same statistics that we used for

8 certification, we would have been able to find

9 something non-compliant. But with our

10 existing enforcement stats we have not been

11 able to.

12 There are a lot of times where we

13 have come up with a product that -- you know,

14 we'll have the initial sample for enforcement

15 is four. We will test four units. They will

16 all four be below the standard, but without

17 our -- with our current enforcement stats we

18 cannot find that product non-compliant. In

19 other words, it passes within the tolerance.

20 However, if you run that sample of

21 four back through the certification stats to

22 get the rating, you cannot rate it, you cannot
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 certify it and you cannot distribute it in

2 commerce.

3 That is the stats we have today,

4 and the reason for that was that our stats may

5 get -- our stats for enforcement put the onus

6 on the Department to make sure when we're

7 saying, "Your product is a failure of our

8 standards," that, you know, we're sure that

9 they're -- you know, with some certainty, we

10 are sure that it's not there.

11 So, to your question about have we

12 analyzed that? Yes, and I would say, you

13 know, we don't see as much variability on the

14 enforcement side.

15 I mean, it depends pretty much on

16 the specific basic model. Some of them, you

17 know, if the unit -- I'm just going to make up

18 numbers.

19 If the unit is a 20, I mean, I've

20 seen four units come out at 20, 20.05, 19.95

21 and 20, you know, very close together. But

22 yes, that's tested at a third-party lab. That
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 is tested in the same lab, by the same people,

2 you know, using the DOE test procedures.

3 And I've seen a very wide variety. 

4 So, I don't know if there is, you know -- it

5 really is, in my opinion, basic model

6 specific. And there is some trends, I guess,

7 we could see, between manufacturers -- amongst

8 -- within a given manufacturer, but I wouldn't

9 say our sample size is large enough, you know.

10 I could turn the question around

11 to you guys, because you guys should have a

12 lot more data necessarily than we do. Have

13 you guys analyzed to see the variation, and is

14 that data that you and your members would be

15 willing to share and to present to DOE, if you

16 believe that our stats should be changed?

17 MR. ANDERSON: Viktor Anderson,

18 Structural Concepts. We test -- we make air

19 screen cases, refrigerator cases. This last

20 summer, we pulled six-foot tall air screen,

21 three of them out of production, put them in

22 our test labs, exact same spot, exact same
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 data acquisition system.

2 We had a 13 percent variance

3 between models. I could share -- I'm more

4 than willing to share that information, but

5 that is not even within different labs. 

6 That's within the same area, because you put

7 an air screen in a lab, you get air flow

8 different from one point to the other on an

9 air screen, potentially.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: DOE's position on

11 that is we've all -- we have testing for a

12 reasons. We acknowledge that there is

13 variability present. Now, what they should be

14 has always been a point of discussion, you

15 know.

16 We can make the -- it goes hand17 in-hand, right, with the -- we can change the

18 tolerances, they go with the standard levels,

19 you know. They all go the same.

20 So, I mean, to say that we need to

21 change our tolerances to 20 percent, I am not

22 saying there is not merit there, but perhaps,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 that also gets to, we need to tighten the

2 individual tolerances in the test procedure.

3 I mean, there is a couple of

4 different ways we could do this, and probably

5 a combination of a lot of things are needed.

6 You know, we're trying in each

7 test procedure we're making to tighten the

8 test procedure as much as possible where there

9 are ambiguities, where there are test

10 tolerances that may be too large without, you

11 know, completely revamping the way you guys do

12 testing and imposing unnecessary burden.

13 MR. SACHS: Ashley?

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

15 MR. SACHS: Hi, this is Harvey.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I can't see you. 

17 You're behind me.

18 MR. SACHS: Well, you're very

19 lucky today.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. SACHS: I have a question

22 related to the previous one on the air
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 screens. My sense is that we've pretty well

2 moved to one-sided tolerance spans for

3 certification, and I assume for verification,

4 as well.

5 So, if you're not going to

6 penalize -- be penalized for being too

7 efficient, it seems to me that you have an

8 internal issue of how much of a safety factor,

9 beyond the federal minimum, you want to do.

10 It seems to me that if there is

11 only a one-sided tolerance, it's a business

12 and engineering decision on your part on what

13 your target is to assure that you've got

14 tolerance.

15 Nobody is going to penalize you

16 for being too efficient, and that would seem

17 to be the most favorable way to proceed in

18 terms of simplification and putting the

19 responsibility where it ought to be.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, back

21 to the original question. So, Laura's point

22 is the Department is open to changing the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 statistics. A lot of the questions that I get

2 on a regular basis are just coming from, "I

3 don't understand the statistics," and don't

4 get me wrong, it took me a lot of time to get

5 up to speed, as well.

6 But they change because it's a

7 confidence limit. So, it's not like a single

8 number across the board. So, it's harder to

9 implement because each -- depending on the

10 variation within the sample, they change. The

11 number changes, the target changes, period.

12 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim from

13 AHRI. I assume that those equations are in

14 place because somebody must have done a study

15 back then.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have a study

17 that was done a long time ago by NIST. It was

18 a big statistical study.

19 MR. AMRANE: Can you share it?

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, it's on -- I

21 don't know if it's on our website. At one

22 point in time, it was on our website.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 MR. AMRANE: Okay.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure.

3 MS. BARHYDT: When you look at the

4 website, I'm not sure where it went to.

5 MR. AMRANE: It would be good for

6 us to look at that.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's older, and I

8 know we have a hard copy. I don't know if we

9 have a PDF. We can get it in a PDF format at

10 some point, but --

11 MR. THARP: Is that the one from

12 like 1970 or --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, it's older. 

14 (Laughter.)

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. SACHS: The basic statistical

17 methods seem to be very similar today.

18 MR. AMRANE: The methods are the

19 same, but things are different.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I mean, and

21 at that point in time, I think -- you know, I

22 read at lot and back then, to get to some of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 the -- the way I understand what happened, and

2 obviously, I was not around back then, or at

3 least working at the Department.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: The way I

6 understood what happened was that NIST came up

7 with a lot of statistical, you know, analysis

8 and based on theoretical methods, and then

9 manufacturers shared with them, or some

10 manufacturers shared with them, their

11 variability that they were seeing, whether it

12 be scrubbed data or that -- you know, they

13 were able to analyze some actual data about

14 variability off the line, variability off of -

15 - from the test procedures themselves,

16 variability off the instrumentation.

17 So, you know, and conduct some

18 round robins, and DOE has done some round

19 robins for select products, none for

20 commercial. That is something we could also

21 work on initiating to try to help pull all

22 this together.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 But it's going to take, you know,

2 an effort by everyone, honestly, to get to

3 numbers that we're all comfortable with.

4 MR. AMRANE: And that is my point. 

5 This is Karim with AHRI. I mean, this analysis

6 that you're referring to, it was 1976. At

7 that time, commercial products were not even

8 regulated by DOE.

9 So, obviously, the data was not

10 based on commercial products, was mostly based

11 on the residential mass-produced products.

12 So, I think that brings up a valid

13 point. I think we should, and you are right,

14 I agree with you, there should be an effort

15 from both DOE and industry, but maybe it's not

16 for this group to resolve. I don't think we

17 can probably do it, you know, within this

18 group right now.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

20 MR. AMRANE: You know, but it's

21 something that DOE is open to having the

22 discussion at some point, I think that would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 be good.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Absolutely.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: I will say, so,

4 one thing, we get this comment a lot, you see

5 Ralph over there from AHAM, but we get this

6 from all across industry-wide, and one of the

7 things, it might be interesting. I don't know

8 exactly a whole lot about it, but I know NEMA

9 undertook an effort rather recently, for some

10 of their lighting products, to try to capture

11 the variability within -- almost like the cert

12 variability.

13 It was manufacturing variability

14 as well as test variability within a

15 manufacturer's facility that they were seeing

16 for certain types of lighting products, and

17 they published a report on it. So, it might be

18 something also worth looking at.

19 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and

20 Karim and Bill, I think a couple of meetings

21 ago you all stated that the 20 percent

22 guideline that your sections have generally
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 adopted, with exceptions, were based on sort

2 of an empirical convergence of what works.

3 And if there is similar analytical

4 work underlying that to what is being

5 requested by the Department, it sure would be

6 helpful in this conversion.

7 MR. TRITSIS: Absolutely it would,

8 we agree with that, Harvey, particularly as --

9 you know, based on what we heard. We need to

10 revisit these analyses that have been done in

11 the past, particularly now, as we discuss

12 certification of commercial products,

13 verification. We have enforcement.

14 You know, we need to see under

15 what basis we're going to judge the

16 performance of these products, given these

17 unknowns, and before we even delve too far.

18 MR. SACHS: Wonderful. 

19 MR. TRITSIS: Okay, I agree with

20 you.

21 MR. EISNER: Does anybody disagree

22 with the idea that this need not be resolved
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 in this group as part of this process, that

2 DOE will take some action to get public

3 participation and a review of this set of

4 enforcement statistics? Because there was

5 some question raised at the last meeting as to

6 whether any amendments had to be made to

7 existing rules. So, no one disagrees?

8 MS. MEYERS: Well, I don't know

9 that I'm quite ready to agree with that yet.

10 You know, I think it's a very important topic

11 that, you know, when we're talking about, you

12 know, certification and AEDMs, that we

13 understand the enforcement side of that, and

14 no, I just -- I don't know. I mean, I guess

15 I'll --

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, I think

17 the answer from the Department's perspective

18 is, right now, the enforcement stats are what

19 they are.

20 But what you're hearing from us is

21 a general willingness and openness to sit down

22 and work through them, and open to change
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 them.

2 But the ones on the books now are

3 the ones that we are going to use until such

4 a point where we can come to an agreement and

5 a decision about what should be changed. And

6 I don't that is going to be something we can

7 do soon. But that's not to say we're not

8 willing to start working on it soon.

9 MS. MEYERS: Well, I think it's

10 very important that the working group report

11 that to ASRAC, express some concern about the

12 current enforcement statistics, as they apply

13 to commercial products, and that there is a

14 significant need for an immediate review of

15 how the enforcement statistics apply to

16 commercial products.

17 I mean, that is, I think, what I

18 would like to see happen because, you know, to

19 Karim's point, those were set back before

20 commercial products were even regulated, so,

21 do they even apply? I don't know the answer.

22 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, granted,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 they were done a long time ago. These regs

2 date back -- I wish I had my old book -- I

3 believe to the `90s.

4 So, but they are -- by design,

5 they are weighed in favor of the manufacturer,

6 and it is a fact that the Department has not

7 found products non-compliant because of those

8 stats --

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: In a lot of cases.

10 MS. BARHYDT: -- in a lot of

11 cases. So, I mean, I don't think

12 manufacturers need to feel like they are at

13 significant risk as a result of the current

14 stats.

15 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss,

16 Lochinvar. We do want a balance. We do want

17 DOE to be able to find the people that are bad

18 players. We also don't want to be unfairly

19 judged negatively.

20 The other thing is, if you're

21 talking about testing samples of four

22 appliances, I mean, that is just not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 financially realistic for you in a lot of

2 cases.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Right, and the regs

4 actually allow smaller sample sizes. 

5 MR. KLEISS: Right.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: They do now.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Well, for

8 commercial, they do.

9 MR. KLEISS: Okay.

10 MS. BARHYDT: So, I mean, it's not

11 that there has to be four. The number is to

12 protect you.

13 MR. KLEISS: Right.

14 MS. BARHYDT: So, I mean, if a

15 manufacturer wants to say, "I'll test one and

16 I'll go with that," they can do that. We've

17 offered.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: We've never had

19 that happen, I don't think. I'm not going to

20 say never, but I'm 99 percent sure that has

21 never happened. Most people have elected

22 their full sample size when seeing the results
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 of one.

2 The way the stats work out, a

3 sample size of one does not necessarily work

4 out in your favor as much as a sample size of

5 four.

6 MR. KLEISS: Right.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: But you would still

8 have to purchase all four, right?

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: You would have to

10 -- we don't --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MS. BARHYDT: We pay for the

13 testing.

14 MR. EISNER: Any other comments? 

15 So, would everybody like to see a few

16 sentences in the next report to ASRAC, that

17 DOE will want to -- the group recommends that

18 DOE follow up to review the statistical -- the

19 use of the statistical data in the enforcement

20 proceedings?

21 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. I

22 think it goes -- it has to go beyond just
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 enforcement. I think it also has to be the

2 certification model. I think statistics

3 should look at that.

4 MR. TRITSIS: And not necessarily

5 only statistical data, it could be overall

6 uncertainty that is involved in measuring the

7 performance of the product. 

8 Because, Laura, in my opinion, you

9 know, there is a significant reason that the

10 manufacturer is facing, depending on where he

11 tests the product, who tests the product and

12 how the product is set up, and putting aside

13 all of the other variances that Ashley brought

14 up.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I mean, what

16 we're trying to do -- sorry, Laura.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I guess,

18 again, I want to emphasize that there have not

19 been a lot of DOE actions finding non20 compliant commercial products.

21 I would attribute a lot of that to

22 the statistics. I mean, it's not that we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 don't test products below the standard. And

2 so, it's -- the statistics really are set up

3 right now in a way that makes it very

4 difficult for the Department to find products

5 non-compliant.

6 So, I don't think it's -- I

7 understand that you have a lot of concern

8 about when I test in my lab and when DOE tests

9 in their lab the result is not going to come

10 out the same, but the reality is that our

11 experience has shown that that variability is

12 still within the margin of error on the

13 enforcement stats.

14 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, Goodman

15 Manufacturing.

16 I want to also reiterate, you

17 know, Laura actually made the comment that you

18 can test products and they're all below the

19 standard and not find it non-compliant.

20 The reality is also true on the

21 flip side, that you can have four tests where

22 everything is above the standard and it's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 still non-determinate, at least from my

2 calculations. I'll double-check this. But it

3 basically goes to the --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's not

5 indeterminate with compliance with the

6 standard.

7 MR. THARP: It goes to the -- if

8 you follow what is in -- I'm pretty sure; not

9 100 percent -- but I'm pretty sure that if you

10 follow 10 CFR 449 Appendix A, that that is

11 true. But I'll double-check at break.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Well, so, Appendix A

13 gives you an indeterminate and then it gives

14 you next steps. But at the end of the day, it

15 comes out with a pass or fail.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

17 MR. THARP: Correct, but it's

18 after four units, I guess my -- according to

19 my calculations, which need to be double20 checked, but you can take four units that are

21 all tested at or above, or very, very close to

22 the minimum compliant value. Use that to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 legally rate a product, then you take the

2 exact same four values and put it into the

3 enforcement action, and it comes out non4 compliant, or it comes out indeterminate, you

5 have to test more. So, from a statistic

6 standpoint -- but I think it goes back to --

7 it's all in the statistics.

8 And it's within the -- so, the

9 tolerances come into play, the variance comes

10 into play, and if a manufacturer presently has

11 a very tight tolerance, then you can actually

12 be penalized because of the tight tolerance.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

14 MR. THARP: And if you have a very

15 broad range of performance, then it's easier

16 to pass.

17 MS. BARHYDT: And I would say that

18 that is one of the things that concerns the

19 Department because it seems to be rewarding

20 poor quality --

21 MR. THARP: Poor performance,

22 right. And to make Harvey happy, I think that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 is one thing that we, as a group, need to do,

2 is to get together and reward those that are

3 able to have tighter tolerances and better

4 performance. But how we do that is -- you

5 know, there is a lot of questions that need to

6 be answered before we get to that point.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

9 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I

10 appreciate that you want to satisfy me, but

11 I've been thinking along a slightly different

12 line, that there really is sequential track.

13 There is a very important task of

14 getting the statistical regime under control. 

15 There is a second task, I believe particularly

16 as we get into more specialty products, of

17 getting a flow chart that a manufacturer can

18 easily follow, and an enforcement agency can

19 easily follow, that eliminates some of the

20 ambiguities that Rusty has alluded to, which

21 I fear are actually much greater.

22 But I think that is the only way
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 we can really expect the process to work and

2 the only way we can expect everybody to

3 understand it.

4 So, I would just add to the call

5 for statistics and call for clarification of

6 whatever regulatory language emerges.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, you want the

8 flow chart. Just so I understand, you want a

9 flow chart of the enforcement process starting

10 with a single unit selection throughout? Or

11 starting with the Department has a reason to

12 believe that something may fail standards,

13 just a process?

14 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I

15 appreciate the question, and I need to

16 understand it better to be able to respond.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

18 MR. SACHS: The goal is a clear

19 roadmap, and exactly what form that takes it

20 might not have any boxes in there at all.

21 MS. BARHYDT: I guess what I was

22 trying to figure out was are you saying that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 you need a roadmap of the process or a roadmap

2 of how the stats work?

3 MR. SACHS: I think, ultimately,

4 what is needed, and I think I understand the

5 distinction, is a process map that everybody

6 can agree on and follow.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Right, okay. 

8 MR. EISNER: Any other comments? 

9 Do you want to put language up on the screen,

10 or are you confident we can get this right in

11 the report to ASRAC? Anybody want to see the

12 actual language and about what we will say?

13 MR. KLEISS: Sure.

14 MR. SHEBIK: Neal, this is Ron

15 Shebik on the phone.

16 MR. EISNER: Go ahead, Ron.

17 MR. SHEBIK: Can I ask, other than

18 Laura, Ashley and Neil, I can barely hear

19 anybody else.

20 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, Ron. I'll

21 shout.

22 MR. SHEBIK: That helps. Thank
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 you.

2 MR. EISNER: I'll remind everybody

3 to shout at you.

4 MR. SACHS: And it's not shouting

5 in anger.

6 MR. EISNER: Okay, we're going to

7 put the language up on the screen now and

8 start crafting, and I think we're very close -

9 -

10 MS. BARHYDT: So, what do you want

11 it to say?

12 MR. EISNER: I mean, I think

13 everybody agrees we start out by saying that

14 DOE will revisit and hold public meetings or

15 whatever with effected interests to resolve

16 the use of the statistical data and the

17 enforcement regulations.

18 What do we want to say here about

19 the --

20 MS. BARHYDT: To review the

21 certification and enforcement statistics.

22 MR. EISNER: Okay, can we use a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 larger type-face? There you go.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Certification and

3 enforcement statistics.

4 MR. SACHS: And processes that

5 follow from them.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

7 MR. EISNER: Can everybody see

8 that? Is that sufficient? Anybody want to

9 add anything? 

10 MR. KLEISS: Would it be of value

11 to add a statement that we expressed interest

12 in altering the method so that it does not

13 reward variability in product performance?

14 MS. BARHYDT: And it's one of

15 those things were the certification statistics

16 do not, but the enforcement statistics do.

17 MR. EISNER: Do you want to add

18 that?

19 MS. BARHYDT: Sure, yes.

20 MR. SACHS: So that verification -

21 -

22 MS. BARHYDT: So that it -- change
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 `it' to `the enforcement statistics'.

2 MS. EDWARDS: Can we hold up for

3 just a second? Another table is coming in, so

4 we might have to do some readjustment for a

5 moment.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

7 MR. EISNER: Sure, why don't we

8 take a 10-minute break, everybody? 

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

10 matter went off the record at 9:08 a.m. and

11 resumed at 9:25 a.m.)

12 MR. EISNER: All right, any

13 comments? Any questions? 

14 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp

15 again. I guess my question is, it's stated

16 that this would be a -- revisiting this, would

17 this be something that ASRAC would be -- done

18 through ASRAC?

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, I think we

20 could do it. If we needed a working group, it

21 might be worthwhile, asking ASRAC to form a

22 separate working group --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 MR. THARP: Yes.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- to look into

3 this.

4 MR. THARP: Yes.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Otherwise, it

6 would be like a formal public meeting, which

7 we like.

8 MR. THARP: Don't like?

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: No comment. 

10 MS. BARHYDT: What is -- I mean,

11 is the working group going to tell ASRAC that

12 we think we need -- that ASRAC should

13 recommend to DOE that there be a working group

14 for this, as opposed to a public meeting?

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I guess it

16 depends on what you guys want to do.

17 If you guys want to do more round

18 tables, like we're going to have like more

19 round tables where we want DOE involved and we

20 want to share data and we want to come up with

21 ideas, that needs to be more in a working

22 group format, because the public meeting is a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 little bit more limited, as to what DOE can

2 do.

3 If you want just a public meeting,

4 to have like a call about DOE is open to this,

5 we want to share ideas, come hither with your

6 data and present to DOE options, and the DOE

7 does something from there, that is the other

8 option.

9 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and as

10 I'm thinking about this, it seems to me that

11 there is another option, which might work

12 better, and that might be to ask for a working

13 group to be pulled together, to define the

14 issues and a second stage of analysis by

15 experts, which will take a few months, and a

16 third stage, perhaps a public hearing on the

17 recommendations that come from that report.

18 So, there is input at the front

19 end, as well as throughout the process, but we

20 -- we really have a group of detached folks

21 who are responsible for understanding the

22 state-of-the-art and making recommendations
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 for what is actually required.

2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim from

3 AHRI. I agree with that, that it's going to

4 require more than just a working group here. 

5 It's going to require some analysis, somebody

6 running, you know, the data.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I mean, DOE

8 can get a study --

9 MR. AMRANE: A study.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- get a study

11 conducted.

12 MR. AMRANE: Right.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is not an

14 issue. The problem is going to be the data,

15 getting the data, at least part of it.

16 I mean, they can analyze stats all

17 day, but what really is going to get to the

18 heart of tolerances is going to be a couple of

19 things.

20 One is going to be perhaps, some

21 coordinated round robin effort, and two, some

22 type of characterization of manufacture and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 variability, or at least the variability you

2 guys are seeing when you do your testing and

3 your manufacturing and stuff, and your rating

4 basically, how you come up with your rating.

5 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again,

6 and just a suggestion to be considered, and I

7 will confess that I sit on the Research

8 Administration Committee at ASHRAE.

9 But I wonder if this analysis

10 might be done most easily with some funding by

11 the Department through ASHRAE, or co-funding

12 through ASHRAE, to try to have a contract that

13 is likely to get wide cooperation and buy-in.

14 Again, I don't know that that

15 level of detail should be on the board, but I

16 would hope that it would be something to be

17 considered, and I do not get a commission of

18 the ASHRAE project funding.

19 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. It's

20 an interesting idea that you have, Harvey. 

21 But ASHRAE typically is not fast enough, and

22 that is the concern I would have with ASHRAE. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 I mean --

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: DOE shares your

3 concerns.

4 MR. AMRANE: Okay, yes.

5 MR. THARP: Ditto.

6 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, and ASHRAE's

7 really not in testing. So, it's not their

8 expertise.

9 They write the standards, but they

10 don't sit and actually physically test these.

11 MR. SACHS: I very much appreciate

12 that, Jill, and we can probably take this

13 offline.

14 The sense I had is that the task

15 is about understanding testing, but more so,

16 understanding testing in order to develop

17 guidelines that the Department can adopt for

18 the interaction between tolerances and number

19 of samples and all of these things that those

20 of us sitting around the table don't feel

21 comfortable with our own expertise, and at

22 least I don't.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 MS. BARHYDT: On this language --

2 so, I have that we're recommending to ASRAC

3 that they should develop a separate working

4 group to frame the issues, followed by data

5 gathering and analysis.

6 That analysis should support a

7 standard rulemaking and negotiated rulemaking.

8 MR. SACHS: Why not make that

9 ambiguous?

10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, we can make it

11 ambiguous.

12 MR. AMRANE: And when we say

13 statistics, are we also including uncertainty

14 analysis and things of that nature, that we

15 thought of that, right? Should we clarify

16 that or is it -- I don't know, I mean --

17 MS. BARHYDT: I don't know. To

18 me, uncertainty is part of the statistics, I

19 mean --

20 MR. SACHS: I would certainly

21 agree, support -- statistics paren, including

22 uncertainty --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

2 MR. SACHS: -- uncertainty

3 analysis. I would certainly support that. I

4 don't see how it could harm it.

5 MR. STEPHENS: If we include

6 uncertainty analysis --

7 MS. BARHYDT: I was going to say -

8 -

9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

10 HTP. If we include uncertainty analysis, then

11 we need to include error analysis also,

12 because you have uncertainty of the test

13 method itself. You have uncertainty of

14 certain products. You have --

15 MS. BARHYDT: I would rather just

16 leave it the broader statistics --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: I agree.

18 MS. BARHYDT: -- because as soon

19 as we start enumerating things, we're going to

20 have to sit here and --

21 MR. STEPHENS: Yes.

22 MS. BARHYDT: -- try and come up
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 with all the different --

2 MR. AMRANE: Fine, as long it's

3 understood that the -- it's going to include

4 those.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss,

7 Lochinvar. On the third sentence,

8 "Manufacturers committed to provide data

9 regarding manufacturing and testing

10 variability."

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, good. 

12 MR. EISNER: Okay, any other

13 comments? Any other changes to the language

14 on the screen?

15 All right, do we want to take a

16 vote on this, or do we just want to treat it

17 very informally? Any reason not to -- does

18 anybody object?

19 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman

20 from NRAC. I do have a question.

21 Is everybody okay with just the

22 manufacturers being able to provide data
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 regarding manufacturing and testing

2 variability? 

3 Is that something that would

4 potentially be confidential? Should that be

5 called out here, would that potentially be

6 confidential, or to me, when you read that, it

7 says --

8 MR. AMRANE: That we don't --

9 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, so, you think

10 that that reads like you're agreeing to

11 provide public information?

12 MR. BAUMAN: Correct.

13 MS. BARHYDT: As opposed to just

14 providing information on the --

15 MR. BAUMAN: That would be just

16 for the Department's use --

17 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

18 MR. BAUMAN: -- for the analysis,

19 and it's kept --

20 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

21 MR. BAUMAN: -- under a lot -- I

22 draw a lot of concerns on that, right now.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

2 HTP. I think we're well within our purview to

3 normalize our own data and supply that.

4 That way, it has a level of

5 generic --

6 MR. EISNER: Everybody okay with -

7 -

8 MS. BARHYDT: I think we could do

9 it either way, right?

10 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and

11 perhaps unlike my friend Tim, I'm not at all

12 convinced that I need to see these individual

13 manufacturer's data, but it is part of the

14 reason that I've been thinking, in terms of

15 the third-party analysis, to help keep this --

16 those submissions FOIA proof.

17 MR. EISNER: You're not making any

18 decisions as to whether the data is

19 confidential. You're just saying somebody may

20 make a claim.

21 MR. SACHS: Yes.

22 MR. EISNER: Is that --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 MR. THARP: I am personally --

2 Rusty, again, and I am personally fine with

3 leaving it generic at this point, also.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: It isn't hard to

5 keep that sentence in there. 

6 MS. BARHYDT: I was going to say,

7 that clause does not say there is or there

8 isn't or anything else. It just --

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, the

10 reality of it is that --

11 MS. BARHYDT: To the extent that

12 there is --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

14 MS. BARHYDT: -- a concern.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: You know, yes, we

16 make -- end up with third-parties looking at

17 this, but we would also have our contractors

18 help, and if we need to deal with confidential

19 sharing through them, so it doesn't cross the

20 FOIA lines --

21 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

22 MR. EISNER: Any other comments?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with

2 Goodman. I would like to add to the last --

3 the very last one-line paragraph, that says,

4 "Nor penalize manufacturers for low

5 variability."

6 MR. EISNER: Okay.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is what that

8 means.

9 MR. EISNER: Does anybody object

10 to the -- the dash between high and

11 variability? 

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. DOPPEL: Just above that, do

14 we need, in order to be better to define the

15 methods as, you know, a paragraph in -- is it

16 431 or 429? Four-twenty-nine.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, sorry, we edited

18 the sentence and I don't think we actually got

19 it quite -- does that work?

20 MR. THARP: Actually, it really --

21 certification or enforcement, certification

22 statistics or enforcement statistics.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 MS. BARHYDT: Does that --

2 MR. THARP: Do we want to --

3 MS. BARHYDT: The certifications

4 is the --

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: The certifications

6 don't.

7 MR. THARP: They don't what?

8 MS. BARHYDT: They don't reward it

9 or penalize it.

10 MR. THARP: But they -- I guess my

11 thought is that there is -- the two are

12 somewhat tied together.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. So, it

14 is -- the first paragraph takes into account

15 the fact that if the report comes out and it

16 recommends changes in the statistics

17 generally, because of the variability that is

18 captured, then the analysis would support a

19 rulemaking to --

20 MR. THARP: To change those?

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- to change

22 those.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 MR. THARP: Okay, so --

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: The next statement

3 is just that currently our enforcement stats

4 seem to reward high variability and product

5 performance, and penalize low variability,

6 because we can't actually determine when

7 things are non-compliant.

8 MR. THARP: Okay.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, that is a

10 different idea and our current stats don't do

11 that, right now.

12 MR. THARP: Okay, but based on

13 that study, you are open to certification

14 stats and changes?

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

16 MR. THARP: All right, thank you

17 for the clarification.

18 MR. EISNER: Anyone else?

19 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. I

20 had a question.

21 The idea of having a different

22 working group for this, I'm just wondering, I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 really don't know, like are there people that

2 are in this process, that should be involved

3 in that process? How much overlap really is

4 there?

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: The way -- so,

6 Harvey, you may want to chime in here, but the

7 way I saw it is to have like the -- some type

8 of expertise group that is not directly

9 involved, review the data, review our stats,

10 and provide DOE and the working group, all the

11 interested parties, with like a third-party

12 recommendation of what changes could benefit

13 the program, whether it be --

14 So, that panel could be

15 statisticians. It could be people from NIST. 

16 It could be -- you know, it's not regulated

17 entities. It's not the Department. It's not

18 the vested interest, let's put it that way.

19 But we would all have the ability

20 to have a public meeting and discuss the

21 report afterwards. 

22 Does that make -- does that seem
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 like what you were saying? 

2 MR. SACHS: Actually, this is

3 Harvey, and appreciate it. Just a little

4 nuance.

5 My sense is that some of us might

6 want to be on the working group, and some of

7 us might not. I could well imagine a

8 manufacturer wanting its certification

9 department head or someone else who is very

10 much involved with the layouts, representing

11 that manufacturer, rather than some of the

12 people who are here today, who are

13 extraordinary, but have broader interests.

14 I think we would want to have such

15 a person. That is the group that is

16 formulating the charge --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

18 MR. SACHS: -- to the analytical

19 group.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, and the

21 analytical group would be separate.

22 MR. SACHS: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

2 MR. SACHS: The we come back and

3 presumably, want to be paid. Then we come

4 back with some sort of a meeting at which,

5 presumably, a broader range of folks from

6 industry and elsewhere would want to be

7 involved, because now, we're getting into the

8 implications --

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

10 MR. SACHS: -- as well as the

11 recommendations.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, right.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Did that answer your

14 question, Tim?

15 MR. BALLO: Yes, I think so.

16 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

17 MR. SACHS: We're trying to make

18 it more complicated.

19 MR. THARP: Does this scope of

20 this work, would this be just commercial? 

21 Would it be --

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Doesn't have to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 be.

2 MR. THARP: -- HVAC products? 

3 Would it be all covered products?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I sense that it's

5 a -- based on the feedback we've gotten, to

6 open it up to everything.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

8 MR. THARP: To all covered

9 products?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

11 MR. THARP: And the reason that is

12 --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, everyone

14 has asked us for the same thing, pretty much

15 from all directions.

16 MR. THARP: That is a big group.

17 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, there are

18 some unique issues for commercial equipment,

19 but those apply as well to low-volume products

20 on the residential side.

21 So, I think that what we hear are

22 -- the issues are the same, across all product
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 types.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: It may be when we

3 get to the -- it may be after we get the

4 report, where people are -- you know, those

5 groups have decided to participate and the

6 study has come out, when it says we have to

7 look at -- it may be that we decide to either

8 hold separate public meetings for certain

9 products --

10 MS. BARHYDT: For products.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- at that point

12 in time, or separate rulemaking to change

13 things, because probably the recommendations

14 and the implementation of this may be very

15 well be -- end up being product specific or --

16 MS. BARHYDT: Like the cert

17 statistics right now are product specific.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

19 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, there is a

20 lot of reason to think that the answer is not

21 going to be identical for every single

22 product, but the issues are.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I

2 am not sure, and I'm certainly not dogmatic,

3 but I wonder if it might make sense to start

4 with the products that have been covered in

5 this working group, because for the really

6 mass-produced things, like set-top boxes --

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: We don't talk

8 about those. 

9 (Laughter.)

10 MR. SACHS: Well, I think I've

11 just established my point, that there are

12 products within your 80 groups of covered

13 products, which are just going to make the

14 task of working on these things a whole lot

15 more complex, because of the inner -- or even

16 more urgent.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, maybe it's --

18 I mean, we can definitely put the

19 recommendation, whatever we'd like it to be

20 per ASRAC, and I can definitely relay the

21 message.

22 I would say because ASRAC
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 represents a wider cross-section of

2 industries, they might have some views on what

3 -- you know, how their points should go.

4 MR. SACHS: I am just volunteering

5 this group to be the mine canary.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay, that is

7 fine. I have a feeling the Department would

8 hear a lot of feedback if it starts this for

9 one and didn't actually, at least provide the

10 ability to open it up for others.

11 MR. HUDNALL: This is Ralph with

12 AHAM. It may be that the first meeting would

13 be the larger meeting and cover all the

14 products, and they could come out with

15 breakouts for individual product categories.

16 MR. EISNER: Anything else? All

17 right, look at what is up on the screen. Does

18 anybody object to that going in the next

19 report to ASRAC?

20 MS. MEYERS: Should that last

21 sentence that says -- should we say, "Or vice

22 versa for certification statistics."
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 MR. EISNER: Are there thoughts on

2 that?

3 MS. BARHYDT: I would oppose that.

4 MS. MEYERS: So, in a

5 certification program, if you have high

6 variability, it's more of a penalty, right?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

8 MS. MEYERS: Then a reward?

9 MS. BARHYDT: And I think that is

10 appropriate, because if you are making very

11 variable units, the whole idea is that a

12 consumer who goes in and buys a product, is

13 more likely than not, going to get one that

14 meets whatever you've rated it at.

15 If you have very high variability,

16 then not only may they not quite meet it, but

17 it may not meet it by a lot, and I think that

18 it's appropriate to shift the bell-curve to

19 bump up that number a little bit.

20 I think that high variability

21 should not be -- should be penalized on a

22 certification.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 MS. MEYERS: It is, isn't it,

2 because we have an adjusted -- we don't

3 average it, right? So --

4 MS. BARHYDT: Sure.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

6 HTP. My concern is when we initially release

7 a product and a certification, these are the

8 first few units built.

9 So, we're going to have the most

10 manufacturing variability.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

12 MR. STEPHENS: Right, as we

13 produce more and more of these, our

14 variability naturally is going to --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: And you have the

16 ability to always revise your rating. If you

17 minimize your variable -- so, if from the

18 outset, you are pushed to rate conservatively,

19 which is what our stats will push you to do,

20 if you had high variability, that would be

21 your initial cert.

22 Then if you needed to revise that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 later down the line, because you have tweaked

2 things or gotten things under control, or the

3 ratings changed, it can -- you know, you can

4 push for a higher rating and you're allowed to

5 do that.

6 MR. STEPHENS: But now, with what

7 we're negotiating within this meeting, it's

8 going to cost a lot more money to re-rate in

9 the future.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. Why?

11 MR. STEPHENS: 17-025 mandatory

12 third-party.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, none of that

14 is for cert.

15 MS. BARHYDT: None of that is for

16 cert.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is nothing --

18 none of that is for how you determine your

19 rating. It could be, but it's not.

20 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with

21 AHRI.

22 MR. SACHS: Shout, Frank.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 MR. STANONIK: I need to shout? 

2 Well, that actually raises another question.

3 This paragraph has the heading,

4 and maybe I missed the discussion, the heading

5 is `enforcement', right, and then the very

6 first thing it says is that --

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

8 MR. STANONIK: -- certification

9 enforcement statistics --

10 MS. BARHYDT: So, the reason I put

11 `enforcement' up there was because that was

12 the thing that was within the agreed upon

13 scope.

14 MR. STANONIK: All right, but let

15 me finish my question.

16 So, then at the end, it says,

17 okay, the working group developer, that

18 analysis should support a rulemaking. 

19 Are we talking about a rulemaking

20 to change the enforcement regulations or a

21 rulemaking to change certification or both?

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Both.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 MS. BARHYDT: Both.

2 MR. STANONIK: Okay, all right.

3 MS. BARHYDT: We can --

4 MR. STANONIK: All right, so, you

5 mean in the --

6 MS. MEYERS: And we left it open7 ended because we didn't know --

8 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

9 MS. MEYERS: -- if the rules --

10 MR. STANONIK: Okay.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's the title,

12 where it says `enforcement'.

13 PARTICIPANT: Change the title.

14 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, we can

15 change the title. I just put it there because

16 that was --

17 MR. STANONIK: That's all right,

18 you answered the question.

19 MS. BARHYDT: -- the topic area.

20 MR. STANONIK: But then on the --

21 and one more other comment --

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 analysis --

2 MR. STANONIK: -- on this

3 discussion, I think Ashley brought it back to

4 the center, is that certification is the test

5 you do before, to determine the initial rating

6 before you introduce it into Commerce.

7 There has always been this kind of

8 chicken and egg question because the

9 regulations say you're supposed to determine

10 your rating on production units, and yet,

11 theoretically, you can't produce units to sell

12 until you have the rating, and so, it's always

13 kind of been this grey zone of the units that

14 you're using to determine your rating.

15 But in fact, I would say in many

16 cases, that it's more likely the aspect of

17 more hands-on manufacturing than unit 1000

18 that came down in production line, that would

19 be used to determine your rating, and I think

20 that's the way it's going to be.

21 MS. BARHYDT: The regulation

22 states --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 MR. THARP: The regs do state a

2 production representative, right?

3 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, it says the

4 sample comprised of production units or units

5 representative of production units.

6 MR. THARP: Right.

7 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

8 HTP.

9 MR. SACHS: Shout.

10 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

11 HTP. So, we release. We do our

12 certifications, and we list it one rating.

13 Six months later, we update the

14 rating. Which one do you want verification

15 for?

16 MS. BARHYDT: It'll be whatever is

17 current.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Current.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Okay.

20 MR. DOPPEL: In the -- this is

21 Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi.

22 In the second to the last sentence
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 on that first paragraph, working group

2 recommends that ASRAC develop a separate,

3 should we insert `technical working group',

4 just to make sure that it's understood that

5 it's not just anybody? 

6 (Laughter.)

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, the way this

8 works, right, is we will -- just like we did

9 for this, we will announce a public -- open

10 for nominations. We will accept them. ASRAC

11 will come up with their recommendations for

12 the Department.

13 So, I mean, if you --

14 MS. BARHYDT: If you trust ASRAC

15 to --

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can recommend

17 to ASRAC that they are --

18 MR. DOPPEL: But my point --

19 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and

20 I'd like to ask what value the word `separate'

21 adds to the paragraph?

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: It just
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 distinguishes it from this one.

2 PARTICIPANT: Please don't make us

3 do this. 

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. STANONIK: But clearly, it

6 doesn't say assign this working group

7 responsibility. I mean, saying develop -- to

8 develop a working group, the fact of another

9 one --

10 MS. MEYERS: I just would -- yes,

11 I would just take out `technical'. Develop a

12 working group. It could be this same one. It

13 could be another one. It could be a technical

14 one. It could be --

15 PARTICIPANT: The developer group

16 is --

17 MS. MEYERS: It could be a --

18 PARTICIPANT: -- is not the same

19 group.

20 MR. WHITWELL: Hello. This is Bob

21 Whitwell.

22 MS. MEYERS: Convene a working
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 group?

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

3 PARTICIPANT: Hi, Bob.

4 MR. WHITWELL: Hi. So, I just

5 joined. I feel like I've missed a lot in the

6 last hour.

7 Can you briefly describe what the

8 scope is of this working group that you're

9 describing here? 

10 I'm sorry, that you have to rehash

11 what you've already covered, but I just wanted

12 to see if I could get up to speed a little

13 bit. 

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, the

15 CliffsNotes version is, the group asked the

16 Department to consider changes to

17 certification and enforcement steps.

18 The Department said it is

19 completely open to revising the certification

20 and enforcement steps, such that data is

21 provided that shows that more appropriate

22 values might -- should be.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 So, we decided that this working

2 group probably wouldn't be able to tackle that

3 today, or even in the near term, and instead,

4 what we're going to do is, what we see -- what

5 you see on the screen, which is recommend to

6 ASRAC that they form a -- develop a separate

7 working group, although we can't say separate,

8 to frame up the issues with the current

9 certification and enforcement regulations and

10 statistics.

11 That once the issues are framed

12 up, that we want -- you know, all the issues

13 that we want looked into, framed up. 

14 DOE will commit a third-party to

15 do a study of its statistics, basically a

16 statistical analysis, looking at different

17 errors and different uncertainties, inherent

18 within our current regulations.

19 They will also have access to

20 manufacturer-supplied data on variability, as

21 well as both from their manufacturing and

22 testing variability.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 They will come out with a report.

2 DOE will then hold a public meeting about the

3 findings of the report and how -- and get

4 feedback from everyone about how to implement

5 that. That is the CliffsNotes version.

6 MR. WHITWELL: So, looking at cost

7 variability, looking at number of samples

8 required for certification, if it's based on

9 test, and looking at statistical confidence

10 levels that are to be used --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct.

12 MR. WHITWELL: -- for those

13 calculations --

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

15 MR. WHITWELL: -- as well as the -

16 -

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, it gets the

18 stuff that --

19 MR. WHITWELL: Is that kind of

20 what we're talking about here?

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- that you --

22 yes, it gets to all the stuff you brought up
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 at the last meeting, that you thought we

2 should look into.

3 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, thanks.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

5 MR. BAUMAN: Jeff Bauman. For

6 clarification, when we did -- I know the

7 Department breaks up certification,

8 enforcement, conservation standards and there

9 are different sets of rulemaking, and I'm not

10 going to let you go today without talking

11 about conservation standards.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, no.

13 MR. BAUMAN: What we're talking

14 about here, that would -- to me, that would --

15 if we're saying what we want this analysis to

16 support, I think rulemaking for standards

17 would be included in that.

18 So, is that beyond what we're

19 talking about here?

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, it would be

21 separate. I get that the statistics will

22 ultimately impact the stringency of the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 standard, but the standard rulemaking that is

2 ongoing for your products, as well for other -

3 - well, let's be honest, for everyone's

4 products in this room, pretty much, would stay

5 separate.

6 MS. MEYERS: Say that one more

7 time.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: And that's about

9 all I can say about the rulemaking for

10 standards.

11 MS. MEYERS: Yes.

12 MR. BAUMAN: Can we say that -- I

13 apologize for interrupting.

14 Can we say the analysis should

15 support a rulemaking for survey and be

16 considered in -- for future standard

17 developments?

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I mean, we

19 can talk offline about exactly -- you know,

20 this is something Rusty and I just had a

21 sidebar on, as well, that I was trying to

22 avoid getting --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 MR. THARP: You're welcome.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, thank you. 

3 This is really appreciated.

4 (Laughter.)

5 You know, I think the answer is,

6 long-term, yes, the stats and the standards

7 and the whole process, the test procedures,

8 they all work together, right. They all, you

9 know, make up what we call our program.

10 It's hard because everything is

11 going on right now simultaneously.

12 So, how it will impact things, I

13 can't say, but yes, we can talk about it.

14 What we won't be able to do

15 though, is change the level that comes out,

16 and so, if the level comes out as final first,

17 if that is what you're asking --

18 MR. BAUMAN: I'm not asking that.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

20 MR. BAUMAN: If I'm doing

21 anything, I'll say I am trying to calm the

22 potential waters that are going to be -- waves
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 that you're going to be riding a couple weeks

2 from now.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: I am aware. I'm

4 not going to that meeting. That is John. 

5 MR. BAUMAN: We'll come and find

6 you.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't see the

8 standards. I see the test procedures and --

9 MR. BAUMAN: But anything we can

10 do along -- I understand that that is a

11 different set of --

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

13 MR. BAUMAN: -- of fun and games

14 that we're going to have, but any potential

15 help we can do that would --

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I mean --

17 MR. BAUMAN: -- the first things,

18 the efforts that the Department is making or

19 groups are making to help alleviate some of

20 the concerns that are ultimately going to come

21 out there.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 MR. BAUMAN: That is my thought. 

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, like I

3 said, I don't know what wording to put on the

4 screen there, necessarily. It's not going to

5 -- so, it's not going to change what is

6 happening in that rulemaking.

7 But what I can tell you is, the

8 outcome of that rulemaking is not determined

9 yet. It's a -- you've seen the proposal. Very

10 aware of what is coming, and that might change

11 the final outcome of the rulemaking. I don't

12 know.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

14 HTP. Can you clarify the use of the pronoun

15 `that'?

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know where

17 that is.

18 MS. BARHYDT: She said `that' like

19 20 times.

20 MR. STEPHENS: Right.

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, so, he is

22 talking about the rulemaking that just came
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 out last week, or two weeks ago.

2 MS. BARHYDT: There was a CRE --

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: A CRE in walk-in,

4 but I think most of you know, there are

5 rulemakings going on for most of your

6 products, for example.

7 MR. EISNER: Anything else? 

8 MR. WHITWELL: Yes, this is Bob

9 Whitwell, again.

10 So, the last sentence there, can

11 you -- can you help me understand the comments

12 about rewarding high variability or penalizing

13 low variability?

14 (Laughter.)

15 MS. BARHYDT: Sorry, Bob, there

16 was a pretty amusing cell phone ring.

17 MR. WHITWELL: Yes, I know, I

18 heard it.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MS. BARHYDT: So, the current

21 enforcement statistics benefit a manufacturer

22 with high variability in their manufacturing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 process, and conversely, it penalizes

2 manufacturers who have very low variability in

3 their manufacturing process.

4 The working group agreed that that

5 was not a desirable aspect of enforcement

6 statistics.

7 MR. WHITWELL: Is this related to

8 the sample size and then the calculations done

9 on the results? Is that what you're talking

10 about?

11 MS. BARHYDT: No, it's -- well --

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Kind of.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Kind of. The --

14 because it's based off of the confidence

15 interval --

16 MR. WHITWELL: Yes.

17 MS. BARHYDT: -- the -- as your

18 variability increases, your confidence

19 interval, obviously, is getting bigger, and s,

20 the way the stats are set up for enforcement,

21 the variability, the lack of confidence, goes

22 to the manufacturer.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 So, if there is a lot of

2 uncertainty we cannot find it non-compliant.

3 So, if you have a lot of

4 variability, but all of the units are below

5 the standard, we may not be able to find the

6 product non-compliant because of the high

7 variability.

8 MR. WHITWELL: Okay.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Whereas, if you have

10 very tight variability, we may be able to find

11 it non-compliant.

12 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, I got it. 

13 Thank you.

14 MR. EISNER: Any other comments? 

15 Does anybody object to the recommendation on

16 the screen? Does anybody want to abstain?

17 Okay, it's unanimous. All right.

18 MR. AMRANE: One clarification. 

19 Is this going to be part of the report that is

20 going to ASRAC tomorrow?

21 MS. BARHYDT: So, what I'm hoping

22 we can do is basically read it off to them or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 hand out a supplement or something like that.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: They've gotten the

3 report already.

4 MR. AMRANE: Already?

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: They've been --

8 the report that you guys have seen has been

9 transmitted to them.

10 So, I'm happy to read this at the

11 meeting to them. 

12 MR. EISNER: And that relates to

13 the next issue I had mentioned at the

14 beginning of the meeting with Harvey, on

15 raising something over the weekend. 

16 So, that also could be handled in

17 the same way depending on what this group

18 decides.

19 So, if there is nothing else on

20 this issue, let's turn it over to Harvey, who

21 will raise his voice and indicate what he was

22 talking about in his email.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 MR. SACHS: I will raise my voice

2 in thanksgiving. We've used the same language

3 for all sorts of products and the language

4 about condensing or evaporating coils is

5 probably just not technically correct for

6 water source heat pumps, where we're talking

7 about a refrigerator to water heat exchange --

8 exchanger on at least one side and maybe both.

9 So, I've only suggested that

10 technical change of using the term `heat

11 exchanger' instead of `coil' and letting that

12 apply to both, since most of the units sold

13 are heat pumps or hermaphrodites.

14 So, it's not any intent to change

15 the meaning, but just make us look like we

16 understood the product.

17 I think there is general agreement

18 that, that would not change the meaning and is

19 an okay thing to do.

20 Now, in contrast, I sent another

21 email out, suggesting there were some things

22 I was unhappy with, and I'm here to apologize,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 that I think I understand, we really can't do

2 that stuff, and I accept the figurative slap

3 on the fingers.

4 MR. EISNER: So, the only issue

5 then remaining is one about changes.

6 MR. SACHS: Yes.

7 MR. EISNER: And several of you

8 responded in emails. I believe everybody who

9 did respond said that was fine with them.

10 MR. SACHS: Did anyone reach Wes?

11 MR. THARP: No, Wes never

12 responded, but I think he'd be okay with it.

13 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel,

14 Mitsubishi. I think this same change would

15 also be applicable to the BRF definition.

16 MR. THARP: The reality is, you

17 could use that for all --

18 MR. DOPPEL: Actually, you're

19 right.

20 MR. THARP: -- applications and

21 the source --

22 MR. SACHS: Yes, it would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 generalize for all applications and it gets

2 away from all the awkwardness about heat

3 sources and air conditioners.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: That would be

5 fine.

6 MR. THARP: I don't have a -- from

7 a technical standpoint, I don't have a problem

8 changing all of them from coil to heat

9 exchanger.

10 MR. AMRANE: Yes, I mean, that's a

11 generic, heat exchanger.

12 MR. THARP: Right.

13 MR. EISNER: All right. Anybody

14 want to comment any further?

15 Does anyone object to this change

16 being made and provided tomorrow, if possible,

17 to ASRAC, with a handout?

18 MR. WHITWELL: So, the change that

19 we're talking about here -- sorry, Bob

20 Whitwell, Carrier.

21 So, the change we're talking about

22 here is changing -- just changing the wording
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 with comparable heat exchanger in the other

2 basic model definitions, correct?

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

4 MR. EISNER: Yes, that is correct.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, wherever it

6 references the coils, changing that to heat

7 exchangers.

8 MR. WHITWELL: Right.

9 MR. EISNER: Okay, so no one

10 objects? Does anybody want to abstain?

11 All right, so, the group is

12 unanimous on this. It's essentially a

13 clarification.

14 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen from

15 Rheem. I mean, in our industry, we definitely

16 refer to coils and heat exchangers,

17 separately.

18 So, I mean, is everyone okay with

19 this? I mean, because it's -- I mean, I know

20 a coil is a heat exchanger, but we definitely

21 use coils in some instances, the terminology -

22 - 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 PARTICIPANT: Commercial HVAC,

2 Karen, we don't.

3 I agree with you, if we're talking

4 about residential --

5 MS. MEYERS: Okay, you're right. 

6 You're right.

7 MR. DOPPEL: Well, for a furnace,

8 that could also be --

9 MS. MEYERS: You're right, it's

10 commercial.

11 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, furnace, that

12 could be referred to as a heat exchanger in

13 the furnace.

14 MS. MEYERS: We know, we've done

15 it, I mean, we've got -- 

16 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

17 PARTICIPANT: You have the gas

18 heater.

19 MR. DOPPEL: Gas-fired heater

20 exchanger.

21 MS. MEYERS: Okay, never mind. I

22 rescind my comment.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 MR. EISNER: So, we're okay with

2 this, then?

3 All right, next issue is

4 verification, and we did have three sub-groups

5 working. We start off with reports on where

6 each of the sub-groups is, and whether you've

7 made further progress. Who wants to start

8 off?

9 MR. AMRANE: If I may, just to --

10 this is Karim with AHRI.

11 I've requested before, maybe for

12 Laura, to give us a little bit of a

13 background, as to why DOE believes it has the

14 authority to establish verification programs

15 paid by manufacturers.

16 So, you know, we researched this a

17 little bit and we couldn't find anything in

18 that guide that gives the authority, so, I

19 think it will be good for the group to

20 understand, where DOE is coming from.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so, for

22 commercial equipment, it gets a little
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 convoluted because 42 USC 63.16 adopts the

2 provisions sort of piece-mail from the

3 consumer products sections.

4 So, the authority for commercial

5 products is in 63.16, but it references back

6 to language in 62.96, I believe. Yes,

7 62.96(d).

8 MR. DOPPEL: And what was the

9 first paragraph that you referred to?

10 MS. BARHYDT: 42 USC 63.16, which

11 basically incorporates by reference, a lot of

12 the provisions from the consumer products

13 section. They just didn't repeat all of the

14 language.

15 So, it references that. So, the

16 62.96 language is in the consumer products

17 section, but it applies to commercial, and it

18 is -- for the purposes of carrying out this

19 part, I'm going to leave out a lot of

20 language, because there is a lot of stuff in

21 here that makes it very convoluted.

22 For the purposes of carrying out
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 this part, the Secretary may require each

2 manufacturer of a covered product to submit

3 information with respect to energy efficiency,

4 as the Secretary determines may be necessary

5 to ensure compliance with the requirements of

6 this part.

7 We are requiring you to do testing

8 and submit information under that section.

9 MR. AMRANE: And this is the --

10 this is Karim with AHRI.

11 This is being -- the idea by DOE

12 as mandating manufacturers to go through a

13 verification program?

14 MS. BARHYDT: It is the same as us

15 requiring you to do testing for certification. 

16 It is as the Secretary determines necessary,

17 to ensure compliance, whether it's up front,

18 whether it's ongoing.

19 MR. STANONIK: This is Frank

20 Stanonik. But how is that different than

21 enforcement, which is also --

22 MR. AMRANE: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 MR. STANONIK: -- embedded to

2 allow the Secretary to determine compliance?

3 MS. BARHYDT: So, enforcement

4 falls under each manufacturer of a covered

5 product, when requested by the Secretary for

6 purposes of ascertaining whether a project --

7 product subject to standard is in compliance

8 with that standard, or by the Commission. 

9 That is FTC stuff.

10 Each manufacturer of such a

11 product shall supply at his expense, a

12 reasonable number of such covered products to

13 any laboratory designated by the Secretary as

14 the case may be.

15 Any reasonable charge levied by

16 the laboratory for such testing shall be borne

17 by the United States.

18 So, that is where enforcement

19 testing comes in. That is why the

20 manufacturers are required to provide the

21 units and the Government pays for the testing.

22 MR. STANONIK: All right, Frank
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 Stanonik. So, the distinction would be that

2 if it's enforcement, the Secretary is

3 conducting to determine compliance. The bill

4 is paid by DOE, but if it's information that

5 the Secretary wants from the manufacturer to

6 determine compliance --

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

8 MR. STANONIK: -- the manufacturer

9 foots the bill.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

11 MR. STANONIK: Slightly cynical,

12 it's like DOE would never do enforcement,

13 because then they don't have to pay for

14 anything.

15 MS. BARHYDT: But we do. 

16 MR. STANONIK: Well, at the

17 moment, but there is not real verification in

18 the --

19 MS. BARHYDT: Well --

20 MR. STANONIK: -- in the

21 regulations, detailing that.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Well, obviously,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 there are no verification regulations right

2 now, at all.

3 MR. STANONIK: Yes, right.

4 MS. BARHYDT: But there are

5 enforcement regulations and the enforcement

6 regulations make clear that we pay for that

7 testing.

8 MR. STANONIK: Okay.

9 MR. HURST: How do you determine

10 what reasonable is?

11 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, a lot of it

12 has to do with the rulemaking process and the

13 cost-benefit analysis.

14 MR. HURST: I mean, is there an

15 algorithm or mathematical calculation that

16 comes up with --

17 MS. BARHYDT: There is a --

18 MR. HURST: -- defining a line

19 between reasonable and lack of?

20 MS. BARHYDT: No, not really.

21 MR. HURST: Because your

22 reasonable is --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 MS. BARHYDT: It's not like a

2 mathematical --

3 MR. HURST: Your reasonable could

4 hypothetically -- you know, Harvey and I could

5 disagree on what reasonable is or what the

6 burden is.

7 MR. SACHS: I can't imagine it.

8 MR. HURST: I can't imagine it

9 either, but it gets hypothetically --

10 MR. THARP: Laura, you're

11 referring to 62.96(d)(1)?

12 MS. BARHYDT: I believe so.

13 MR. THARP: The paragraph? The

14 very last sentence there also says, "In making

15 any determination," --

16 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, it does.

17 MR. THARP: -- "under this

18 paragraph, the Secretary shall consider

19 existing public sources of information,

20 including nationally recognized," --

21 MS. BARHYDT: Certification, yes,

22 it certainly does.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 MR. THARP: -- "certification."

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, it does.

3 MR. THARP: So, that already

4 exists, though.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Not for everybody. 

6 MR. THARP: Not for everybody, but

7 for those who are members of one it already

8 exists.

9 MS. BARHYDT: And we are talking

10 about verification programs.

11 MR. THARP: I get the reason.

12 MS. BARHYDT: It is a reason.

13 MR. EISNER: Any other questions

14 or comments? 

15 All right, what about the progress

16 made? Why don't we start with the CRE people? 

17 In the last two weeks, anything further to

18 report?

19 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. 

20 There has been several issues that have come

21 up and the one thing we are facing right now

22 is, we had a very large change in rulemaking. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 There is a publication that was

2 issued the day after our last meeting, which

3 effectively greatly reduced the allowable

4 energy consumption proposal on the table part,

5 as standard rulemaking -- standard updates.

6 Basically, in some of the

7 categories, we went -- the standard went as

8 far as reduction of up to 75 percent of the

9 power allowed in certain categories, and as

10 such, the CRE group has a lot of homework to

11 be done for rulemaking on October 3rd, plus

12 the comment period thereafter.

13 As such, several members of the

14 CRE would like to extend the deadlines because

15 of the sudden change of allotted resources

16 available to the CRE group.

17 They've dropped in at least two

18 solid months of very active, high-priority

19 engineering work, into the middle of our laps

20 here, for which we hadn't counted on.

21 MR. EISNER: You're talking about

22 raising -- changing the deadline?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 MR. HON: Yes.

2 MR. EISNER: For the rulemaking

3 itself?

4 MR. HON: Yes.

5 MR. EISNER: That just came out.

6 MR. HON: Does anybody have any

7 questions? Do you agree with that one?

8 MS. DANE: I didn't personally do

9 that one. I mean, it was a group of us.

10 MR. HON: Yes, it was a group of -

11 - it's certainly the industry as a whole. 

12 There are individual companies who

13 have reviewed the numbers and certain

14 categories are not nearly so severe, but other

15 categories, they are very, very severe.

16 As such, we'll require a lot of

17 activity in certain categories.

18 So, a lot of the industry is

19 asking for push-back on the dates.

20 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, Charlie,

21 the dates of which? The DOE process or this

22 process?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 MR. HON: This process, because

2 the DOE process is a separate item completely,

3 but allocation of resources have changed

4 because they are going to have to be doing

5 their engineering work on this, because this

6 is a higher priority than certification, at

7 this time.

8 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? 

9 Response from DOE?

10 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen Meyers

11 with Rheem. I just had a general comment on

12 verification.

13 You know, our company supports

14 involuntary programs. We believe in

15 verification, but having a DOE-mandated

16 verification program, to me, it should be a

17 broader issue and it's, to me, a little -- you

18 know, applying this to commercial HVAC may be

19 years in advance, before it gets applied to

20 other Federally covered products, really

21 increases the regulatory burden.

22 And so, you know, we think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 verification should be looked at as a whole

2 for all covered products, because it's, you

3 know, in our mind, not appropriate for DOE to

4 mandate it on commercial HVAC water heaters

5 and carriers in commercial refrigeration, as

6 well, before it's mandated on all Federally

7 covered products.

8 You know, so just as a matter of

9 policy, you know, we question whether that

10 should be -- we should be defining

11 verification rules, just for these products,

12 because you know, essentially, you know, ours

13 could go into effect way before other

14 products, and you know, if you're going to do

15 a verification, a DOE mandated verification

16 program, I think it should be looked at for

17 all Federally covered products and it should

18 all be treated similarly within the same time

19 frame.

20 But I would request that the full

21 ASRAC committee look at that issue, and I know

22 that we are asking --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 MS. BARHYDT: I was going to say,

2 before we had said we wanted additional time

3 for us to continue meeting, but if I'm

4 understanding what you're saying correctly,

5 you're saying we should go back to ASRAC and

6 say, basically, we're done, but ASRAC should

7 just -- just like we just did for that, they

8 should convene a broader working group for

9 more products, or all products, to look at the

10 verification issue?

11 MS. MEYERS: Right. 

12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

13 MR. HUDNALL: Ralph Hudnall. We

14 support that position. We'd like to see, if

15 there is going to be a verification program

16 for Federally covered products, we'd at least

17 like to have our stakeholders involved in the

18 conversation, as well.

19 Something that could be done with

20 this group could have while duplications for

21 programs that are out there existing, that we

22 think more stakeholders should be involved --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 should be at the table to have a voting voice

2 in those, in the process.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Thoughts? 

4 MS. MEYERS: We think it's an

5 important subject and would certainly welcome

6 the opportunity to participate in a working

7 group to discuss this.

8 But it needs to be for all covered

9 products, at once.

10 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? 

11 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. I

12 have a concern that given the breadth of

13 products that DOE covers, having just one

14 working group, I mean, I don't think we have

15 an auditorium that big, that you can

16 accommodate all the interest in that.

17 MS. MEYERS: I guess, Tim, that's

18 a good point. But I would envision that you

19 would have several working groups, and I don't

20 know how DOE would structure this on this side

21 -- on their side, but meeting at the same

22 time.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 Certainly, the implementation

2 dates should be the same, so that there is not

3 increased burden on one sector before another

4 sector.

5 MR. BALLO: So, your comments is

6 isolated to the timing of implementation,

7 because I would share the concern that we've

8 had enough challenge here between the

9 different product groups getting coordinated.

10 So, adding more to the mix would

11 be tough, but I think specific to what you're

12 saying on timing, I agree with.

13 MS. MEYERS: Well, I still -- you

14 know, I'm a little unclear on the whole

15 authority issue, but you know, that is kind of

16 a separate issue, but certainly on the timing

17 issue, I think that is only fair, that it --

18 you know, if the authority issue is resolved,

19 and many may think it is resolved, then at

20 least the timing ought to be the same.

21 MR. HUDNALL: This is Ralph with

22 AHAM again, and I appreciate your comments.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 It would be a huge group to take -

2 - to get down to the nuts and bolts of every

3 verification issue, but I also think it's a

4 similar situation as the previous discussion

5 about the statistical analysis that is such a

6 broad topic across all DOE products.

7 You could start with one major

8 group, that then has breakout sessions for the

9 individual products, but the general process

10 should be set, this is how DOE is going to do

11 it, and again, AHAM would like to be one of

12 the stakeholders, or one of the commenters.

13 But it should be a larger group,

14 to start talking about it, and then we can

15 break out into individual processes along the

16 way, as we go.

17 MR. BALLO: So, maybe one

18 suggestion is that this group would just go on

19 hiatus until ASRAC can appoint a separate

20 group to look at residential products, and

21 then the two groups start reconvening again,

22 and I don't know if that is -- if it really is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 just one other group that would need to be

2 made or if there is something --

3 MS. MEYERS: It's probably

4 industrial. I mean, it's all Federally

5 covered products, right. 

6 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

7 HTP. Just to be clear, what other categories,

8 product types are we talking about? How big

9 is this issue?

10 MS. MEYERS: It's not --

11 MR. BALLO: Well, it was -- 

12 MR. HUDNALL: This is Ralph from

13 AHAM, but if it's verification, in our

14 opinion, it would eventually -- as, I'm sorry,

15 Karen said, it would be all covered DOE

16 products, which was like 80 different

17 categories, lighting and, set-top boxes and

18 our products, the home appliance products, all

19 of the products.

20 Again, that is why I say one

21 larger overarching group could then break it

22 down into, okay, here is the general process,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 and then the individual groups would determine

2 how it fits to their products.

3 MR. BALLO: I'm wondering though

4 if the one larger overarching group isn't

5 really an abstract. I mean, just in that what

6 they are --

7 MS. MEYERS: It may be.

8 MR. HUDNALL: May be.

9 MS. MEYERS: Right.

10 MR. HUDNALL: Again, I think the

11 final comment and the final voting process

12 should be maybe -- should include a few more

13 people that may or may not be already in it. 

14 That is the tough part.

15 But we don't -- AHAM does not want

16 to see a verification program launched that

17 has immediate impact on any programs or a

18 detrimental impact on the programs we're

19 currently running.

20 We are running some verification

21 programs, and we don't want to see ours

22 negatively impacted by things are that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 discussed by a larger group.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I was going to

3 be quiet, but it lasted for 30 seconds.

4 PARTICIPANT: Not even that long.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Surprising, right. 

6 I don't think you're going to get ASRAC to

7 come to conclusions on some of the details

8 that you might be -- so, I don't know exactly

9 what you're looking for, from ASRAC.

10 But you know, to Ralph's point,

11 there are some aspects of a verification

12 program, I think from the Department's

13 perspective, that would probably be

14 streamlined for all products.

15 That may not be tolerances. That

16 may not be selection. That may not be what

17 types of labs and where. I don't know

18 exactly.

19 But there are certain things that

20 I think that from the Department's

21 perspective, we would find it may need to be

22 similar.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 So, I think what -- we could do

2 this one -- and that is what I see the larger

3 working group, working towards. In other

4 words, these are the things of a verification

5 program that should be the same across the

6 board, no matter what product it is, and these

7 are the things that product specific sections

8 need to address.

9 I don't -- we can ask ASRAC to

10 tackle that problem. I have no problem

11 asking, but knowing the 12 members, including

12 myself on there, I don't think you're going to

13 get them to work on that part of it, and the

14 detail that is probably needed to come to, but

15 we can ask.

16 MR. BALLO: That's fine. My only

17 concern was that it will be a process to

18 convene the big working group --

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: It will.

20 MR. BALLO: -- and then there will

21 be separate processes to convene, once that

22 group is established, a bunch of little
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 working groups.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I guess it depends

3 on if you see the little working group formal,

4 separate working groups or if you see them

5 just being break-outs of the larger working

6 group with additional public attendees.

7 That is a much easier way to go,

8 than doing separate smaller working groups

9 with public announcements and the whole 25

10 nominations process again.

11 If we were -- just knowing the DOE

12 process, it would be easier to recommend to

13 ASRAC to form a separate verification working

14 group. It will be limited to 25 members,

15 recognizing that it's 60 covered products.

16 Obviously, you know, limited -- it

17 would be limited in its attendance.

18 That being said, it's open to the

19 public. Everyone can come to every meeting

20 and voice their opinions and concerns, just

21 voting will have to be limited to 25 people,

22 period, if that is the way you wanted to go.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 MS. DANE: Ashley, I think -- this

2 is Mary from Traulsen.

3 My concern would be -- I

4 understand that there is -- there is

5 verification topics for each individual

6 industry and I recognize that, but as you

7 said, my concern would be the generic

8 application of a manufacturer's designed

9 verification program, and I would very much

10 want that solved as part of this working

11 group, because CRE is kind of a different

12 animal than some of the other groups that are

13 okay with one existing program. We would like

14 to have a manufacturer's option available to

15 us.

16 So, I would probably, on a -- set

17 aside a verification program, although I still

18 question whether the DOE can ask manufacturers

19 to pay for it, I think at least that should be

20 solved.

21 So, I would have to vote `no' that

22 we set it aside.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

2 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

3 AHRI. I mean, Ashley, when you were talking

4 about okay, if ASRAC set up a separate working

5 group, it would be limited to 25.

6 Would there be anything that

7 constrains ASRAC from setting up two working

8 groups, one for residential verification and

9 one for commercial, recognizing you have to

10 trust ASRAC to say, establish the

11 commonalities or recommend the commonalities,

12 where they exist. That way, you would open up

13 participation.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: That would be

15 fine. I mean, you can recommend to ASRAC, to

16 do 1 to 20. I mean, it would not -- really,

17 you can recommend whatever you guys can agree

18 to here, to ASRAC. It's really up to you, how

19 you see this working.

20 The Department has received some,

21 I would say inquiries and questions and

22 concerns from manufacturers not represented by
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 this group, about the establishment or the

2 agreement of any verification program and the

3 potential application of it to them, since

4 they are not represented here.

5 MR. THARP: Actually, I think that

6 we're -- you're allowed more than 25, if the

7 Department head determines it necessary,

8 because Title 5.565-something-something(b)

9 membership, the Agency shall admit membership

10 on a negotiated rulemaking committee to 25

11 members, unless the Agency head determines

12 that a greater number of members are necessary

13 for the functioning of the committee or to

14 achieve balanced membership.

15 MR. EISNER: It's really a

16 question. It is not mandatory at the very

17 beginning of the statute, it gives the Agency

18 the authority to set it up in any other way

19 that it deems appropriate for the potential

20 circumstances.

21 The 25 is generally used because

22 looking around the room, it's about the most
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 people you can get around a decent size

2 conference table, where people can effectively

3 participate also, otherwise too many people

4 are talking and you don't get a chance to get

5 into the debate until an hour and a half goes

6 by.

7 So, the experts say you don't want

8 to go above 25, you shouldn't go above 25, but

9 if you've got good reasons for doing it, you

10 can, but we're not talking about 50 or 75. I

11 don't think it would have effective

12 negotiations.

13 You know, one of the issues you

14 have here, that I'm hearing around the table

15 is, well, we need to have some general

16 parameters established. We need to have

17 multiple sub-groups that are then established

18 to go back and work on their areas, and then

19 this group, we were already establishing

20 multiple sub-groups, to go back to their

21 areas.

22 MR. THARP: I just thought it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 might be easier for DOE if there was one big

2 group and then several sub-groups that broke

3 out.

4 MR. EISNER: Well, the question

5 is, could you put together a group in this

6 industry, and I don't know, could you put

7 together a group that would cover all the

8 covered products, that could set reasonable

9 parameters for the substantive sub-groups to

10 then break out and do what they need to do?

11 We're having, as you saw, our own

12 problems here, with a group that has been

13 working together very, very well for a few

14 months.

15 MR. THARP: Right.

16 MR. EISNER: And I'm not saying it

17 can't happen, but you really have to think

18 about how you'd set that up.

19 By the way, one of the things you

20 do in order to make sure that the process will

21 work well is, you don't just -- ASRAC doesn't

22 come back and say, "DOE set up these
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 regulatory negotiation groups for each one of

2 them," that what they did here was they picked

3 a neutral convener who went out and talked to

4 many of you, to find out if you'd come to the

5 table and negotiate in good faith.

6 So, you'd have to do that for each

7 of the committees. We're hearing from others

8 who would want to participate, but there may

9 be people who would not effectively

10 participate.

11 So, there is a lot to think about,

12 a lot that has to be done.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

14 HTP. My concern would be, if we go to a

15 larger group than this, then the ones that are

16 going to be whittled out will be the smaller

17 manufacturers. 

18 You'll have more trade

19 associations involved. You'll have the larger

20 manufacturers. It will be difficult to have

21 equal footing for all different sizes of

22 businesses.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 MR. EISNER: And it's required to

2 have a balance, and that is -- may be a

3 problem. Can you effectively have a balance

4 of the people?

5 It's not just small businesses. 

6 It's not just major manufacturers. It's the

7 Harvey's and the Tim's, also, and there may be

8 multiple ones of those for some of these other

9 segments.

10 MR. EISNER: I'm not saying it

11 couldn't work, but you should be giving some

12 thought to how it could be done.

13 You also have to think about

14 whether what you're working on here, and what

15 I was hearing from my perspective, was each of

16 the sub-groups we established was going into

17 another room and starting to come up with

18 something that would be very, very different

19 from the second and third ones, and maybe

20 everybody was going to be willing to live with

21 something different for each of these groups,

22 which would mean that a group like yours might
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 not have a problem with what came out of here. 

2 I don't know, because they may

3 say, "We've got something very specific to

4 CRE." Others may say, "Well, we have

5 something very, very specific for HVAC, and

6 here is why we think DOE should accept unique

7 standards for each of these segments."

8 If that is what they base it on,

9 that may not cause a problem for the other --

10 the other covered entities, but again, I don't

11 know how we're going to resolve this. We're

12 having enough problems in the last meeting. 

13 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I

14 think that the biggest issue we face here is

15 that the difference in the types of

16 manufacture, whether it be commodity, high17 volume manufacturing versus specialty high18 technology, low-volume equipment.

19 There is vast differences, and I

20 do not see how any single set of standards

21 would ever come them all.

22 So, statistics get very dicey,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 when you get into the low-volume groups.

2 Statistics on high-volume production are

3 pretty straight forward.

4 So, I think that the Agency has to

5 be realistic, but also, when you look in this

6 room, and we have some of everything in this

7 room. We have that very high-volume

8 manufacturing. We have very small-volume

9 manufacturing and we have a very, very

10 expensive extremely low-volume manufacturing

11 all in this room.

12 So, we do cover the gamut of most

13 of the major problems, but we don't find the

14 commonality, and I think that we can see it

15 from the scope of this room, that we're

16 crossing paths right now.

17 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with

18 Rheem, and you know, we have test procedures

19 for all of the -- you know, that cover all the

20 different covered products. Certification

21 programs are a little bit different.

22 I think that verification programs
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 would need to follow that, but I still go back

2 to my comment that the timing needs to be

3 synchronized between all the covered products.

4 It is, to me, not fair to impose

5 additional regulatory burden on the industries

6 represented in this room, versus lighting,

7 transformers, refrigerators, freezers, all

8 these other covered products that currently do

9 not have a verification program.

10 So, I go back to my point that if,

11 in fact, DOE does have the authority, and

12 again, I'm still, you know, trying to get my

13 head around that, that the verification burden

14 should apply to all covered products at the

15 same time.

16 Still, you know, I agree that

17 they're all going to have to be a little bit

18 different to fit those industries, we've

19 certainly determined that within this room

20 already.

21 But it certainly should -- I think

22 the timing needs to be coordinated, because if
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 another covered product doesn't have their

2 verification program decided for seven or

3 eight years, you know, then you know, to me,

4 that is not fair to the industries.

5 So, essentially, it stays the

6 same. I mean, we still are going to

7 participate in a voluntary verification

8 program. Some people in our industry will

9 not, but you know, we do need to probably work

10 towards some type of Federal program, but it

11 needs to be coordinated and everyone, I think

12 needs to be treated the same, since they're

13 going to be treated the same on the CCMS

14 database.

15 MR. BALLO: So, I mean, one

16 possibility would be to continue the work of

17 this group with the idea that if that is a big

18 concern, that the -- whatever we decide on

19 wouldn't take effect, until there is a similar

20 process for other products.

21 But I do think it would be a value

22 to have -- to sort of let this group complete
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 its work and have that as a model for other

2 products. I don't know, maybe that is not

3 valuable.

4 MS. MEYERS: Well, I would

5 certainly like to get the input of the other

6 groups not in -- the other industries not

7 covered in this room.

8 MR. BALLO: Right.

9 MS. MEYERS: I don't know that we

10 should be setting the standard for these other

11 industries that we don't know anything about.

12 So, that would be my only concern

13 with that, is that we may be forcing other

14 industries to somewhat -- I mean, if we set

15 this model, you know, is that fair to

16 transformers? I don't know. 

17 I don't know. Maybe we're letting

18 them off easy. I don't know.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

20 HTP. I think there is an opportunity for

21 compromise here.

22 If we do one product per year, for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 each of their product categories, basic model

2 groups, however you want to phrase it, then

3 we're doing something towards the DOE, and

4 that is as small of the burden as the

5 manufacturers could undertake reasonably, to

6 have the effort to implement the Federal

7 minimum verification testing.

8 It is definitely not an over9 burden for anyone in the room. We've already

10 agreed on each of their product sections, to

11 do more than that in the upcoming proposal.

12 But if your concern is truly that

13 the 10 million BTU commercial boiler is going

14 to have a significant disadvantage over a

15 television set, then I think one product a

16 year is something reasonable, that all the

17 manufacturers could step up to the plate and

18 do, if that is what the DOE truly wants.

19 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

20 AHRI. That may certainly be a way to eat the

21 elephant, but I think what, as Laura was

22 educating us here, as to where this authority
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 is coming from, I mean, the basic premise is

2 that DOE has the authority to request

3 information to determine compliance, and that

4 is kind of the very short Cliff note, okay.

5 And it seems to me that if you

6 say, "Okay, that is the case," then there

7 would -- I would believe, be a high likelihood

8 you could develop a -- let's call it a set of

9 guidelines to say, okay, this is the

10 information that -- you know, can be requested

11 or whatever. You know, maybe that's a little

12 -- maybe that's getting a little too much --

13 you know, DOE is going to say, personal

14 business.

15 But it seems to me, there could be

16 some definition to say, okay, in looking for

17 information that would be useful for

18 determining this compliance, here is the kind

19 of information that would be -- all industries

20 should consider having available. Let's put

21 it that way.

22 But I think, you know, that can be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 to some degree, a baseline and as people have

2 said, it may be a little different for each

3 industry, as to how you might make that

4 information available or under what

5 conditions.

6 But I think there is a way to

7 define that baseline, and say, here is the

8 kind of stuff any manufacturer should have

9 available, if ever they get the call from the

10 Secretary that says, "Hey, can you just kind

11 of show me how you're complying?"

12 MR. THARP: Some other things we

13 need to remember also, Rusty Tharp, Goodman.

14 Karen would probably point this

15 out, if I didn't, that if there is a

16 verification program that is specified by

17 Department of Energy, and it's on the DOE's

18 website, there will be manufacturers who say,

19 "My ratings are valid because they've verified

20 by DOE."

21 If it's just one per year, that is

22 not equivalent to those that are at 20 percent
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 per year, and so, it's -- would appear to be

2 a level playing field to consumers, that in

3 reality, it's not.

4 So, just, we need to keep that in

5 mind, as we have this discussion.

6 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I

7 appreciate these.

8 I'd like to roll back these

9 comments, and I'd like to roll back though, to

10 the item which we accepted by consensus, a

11 little while ago, because I think that had the

12 goal of setting in motion, a process whose

13 outcome would require sensitivity to the needs

14 of different industries and industry sectors.

15 In that sense, I am a little less

16 afraid of it being generalized than I'm

17 hearing some people, and I would expect that 

18 the outcome of that process, Rusty, would be

19 one that would recognize that there are

20 different sampling requirements for products

21 with different characteristics, including

22 volume and cost.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 MR. THARP: Agreed.

2 MR. SACHS: So, I think that

3 framework is going to be useful for addressing

4 the concerns that have been expressed, but I

5 may be missing something.

6 MR. THARP: Yes, and I agree with

7 you, Harvey, that --

8 MS. HOOTMAN: But that doesn't

9 include verification, right?

10 MR. THARP: Right, this is --

11 MR. SACHS: It doesn't --

12 MS. HOOTMAN: It did not say

13 verification.

14 MR. THARP: This is statistics

15 only.

16 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, it says

17 enforcement and I guess I assumed that that

18 includes verification, and I may be wrong.

19 MS. HOOTMAN: Laura, shake your

20 head. Thank you.

21 MS. BARHYDT: No.

22 MR. SACHS: We mark this up to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 error number three for Harvey today.

2 MR. BAUMAN: We decided to include

3 verification, right? I think where we got to

4 on this point is, you go back to the original

5 list.

6 Okay, how do we -- what people are

7 certifying on, not the Department is

8 certifying it or verifying it, and the

9 manufacturers are certifying their numbers. 

10 How does that become trustworthy?

11 I think as I recall, the

12 discussion of verification was the Department

13 thinks -- felt that that was a good way to

14 help, as opposed to other means that could be

15 used to potentially ensure the integrity, and

16 basically, enforcing the numbers that are

17 published.

18 So, you know, going back to kind

19 of that basic question, you know, do we need

20 a verification program, and I think we're

21 getting back to that and I think as we've

22 expressed from the CRE, we've heard a lot
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 about safety.

2 The conference calls, more so than

3 people within this room, and a lot of vocal

4 conversations we've had on people saying,

5 "Hey," and the question about authority, and

6 I appreciate the clarification, Laura, and I

7 think that is something that -- people outside

8 of this room, I think and even some inside

9 this room, kind of stepping back and getting

10 the impression, hey, we're kind of going above

11 and beyond what people thought was going to go

12 on here.

13 Maybe that happens, but I think

14 again, the report that John put together also,

15 I mean, we've said we're going to break

16 verification out separately, is that correct? 

17 The report to ASRAC?

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: No.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Well, yes, I mean,

20 we transmitted the --

21 MR. BAUMAN: Yes.

22 MS. BARHYDT: -- the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 certification. ASRAC has that.

2 MR. BAUMAN: Correct.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Verification is --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: But not to a

5 separate group. That is the difference.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

7 MR. BAUMAN: Well, but the

8 separate rulemaking --

9 MS. BARHYDT: Then we need to talk

10 about --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right,

12 separate --

13 MS. BARHYDT: We're talking about

14 separate reports.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Separate reports,

16 yes, absolutely.

17 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, I mean, that

18 report could say this working group thinks it

19 should be considered as a separate rulemaking,

20 I would guess. We could say that, okay.

21 MS. BARHYDT: I think we said

22 something along --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 PARTICIPANT: I think the report

2 says verification.

3 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, that is --

4 okay, that is what I thought it was.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

6 MR. BAUMAN: So, now, we're

7 talking about this would potentially be a

8 whole other set of rulemaking.

9 I think, again, people outside

10 this room, and some inside here, would like to

11 see that for the reasons we've discussed. 

12 People come back to us and say, "Hey, is there

13 really, you know, an opportunity there, or do

14 you really need this program," and kind of

15 going back and answering that basic question.

16 I think we are all kind of going

17 along the assumption that that is mainly, or

18 you know, non-unanimous consensus that

19 verification is needed, but I think that is

20 still an unresolved issue for a lot of people.

21 So, if you phase it out separately

22 and go back to the basic question, and is that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 a question that this group needs to revisit,

2 do we need a verification program?

3 MS. BARHYDT: So, I thought I

4 heard you say that perhaps, and maybe what you

5 were saying was talking to people outside this

6 room, within your product area, and what --

7 the way I interpreted that was, talking to

8 people outside of this room, not part of this

9 working group, subject area at all.

10 So, maybe I took your statement a

11 little bit too broadly.

12 MR. BAUMAN: The people within the

13 industry, but I think it also -- when you talk

14 about expanding, there is also a sense of

15 fairness I think, people are concerned about,

16 that hey, others -- as Karen said previously,

17 other manufacturers aren't doing this. Why

18 should we be doing this?

19 I think the idea of expanding that

20 to verification of all commercial products

21 and/or all residential products would give

22 people outside of this room and people within
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 this room, a better sense of fairness for any

2 potential verification program.

3 MS. BARHYDT: So, it sounds like

4 you're supporting the idea of convening a new

5 broader group, working group.

6 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, yes, is that the

7 question to be answered, or to be recommended

8 to ASRAC by this group?

9 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with

10 Mitsubishi. So, are you going to, in the

11 future then, for products under 65,000

12 institute a verification program for those?

13 PARTICIPANT: Residential.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Residential.

15 MR. DOPPEL: Residential? 

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think that is

17 the question, right? I mean, I think that was

18 Karen's point, not to maybe -- I'm going to

19 say it a different way, but in other words, if

20 you were to -- and maybe that is some

21 concerns, that the Department has been getting

22 over the past week, that if this group comes
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 out with negotiations which effectively

2 institute a mandatory verification program for

3 certain parts of the regulatory phase, that

4 DOE then on its own, extend that by default to

5 other parts.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Do you people end up

7 with whatever we agree to, without ever

8 getting a sit at the table?

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Without getting a

10 say, and so, the question, you know, want to

11 be asked from other -- from someone not

12 represented here is then, to form the separate

13 group that is maybe more overarching as a

14 cross-section, to start, realizing that some

15 of the things like number of products tested

16 annually, how they are tested and stuff like

17 that, may be product specific and need

18 separate working groups, like you guys have

19 done in your break-out sessions.

20 But the whole idea of whether

21 there fundamentally should be one and what

22 that process might look like would be more of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 an overarching committee represented by

2 residential, commercial, all different types

3 of products alike.

4 Because I mean, if you guys come

5 up -- like, to your point, Paul, I mean, if

6 you guys come up with commercial HVAC rules,

7 which you guys seem to be in the previous

8 weeks, you know, pretty far along in your

9 agreement there, at least internally in your

10 working group, I mean, would you want those

11 applied to all other products you make period,

12 across the board?

13 Maybe the answer is yes. Maybe the

14 answer is no. I don't know, but I think that

15 is the fundamental question.

16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. I

17 think there is another fundamental question. 

18 What is DOE's position here?

19 I mean, is DOE's intent to mandate

20 a verification program in the first place or

21 it just --

22 PARTICIPANT: For all products.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 MR. AMRANE: For all products,

2 yes, I'm not talking about just commercial

3 here. What is the intent of DOE? We don't --

4 we haven't heard that from you.

5 MS. BARHYDT: So, we haven't

6 talked about other products, because that is

7 not within the scope of this working group.

8 As I've stated, DOE sees value in

9 having a verification program, and for the

10 same reasons that apply to these products,

11 apply to all products.

12 So, from our perspective, there is

13 value and the value is not unique to these

14 products. The value is in having a higher

15 level of certainty that the representations

16 being made that a product meets the standards,

17 what those representations are. Those are --

18 there is value regardless of the product type.

19 It's not like we're ultra20 skeptical about your products and we think you

21 need extra scrutiny.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, I think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 the other thing is that, you know, this is one

2 of the things -- I mean, from the Department's

3 perspective, this is one of the things that

4 you guys asked to put on the agenda, which is

5 why it's there.

6 It wasn't necessarily one that the

7 Department asked to be on the agenda.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, this is true.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, to the -- to

10 your point about what is the Department's

11 position on this, I don't know that we really

12 have one.

13 We are waiting to see what you

14 guys wanted and came up with, before we

15 articulated anything because to date, we don't

16 have a verification program on the books.

17 MS. HOOTMAN: In all honesty, this

18 is Jill with Trane, when we put it on there,

19 I think I used verification and certification

20 synonymously. 

21 They were, in my mind, the same

22 thing. So, as we've gotten along this process
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 and gotten a whole lot more educated, you

2 know, I didn't think of verification as the

3 same, you know, as something different than

4 certification. It was that these models were

5 being --

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: It is assessment.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: -- portrayed and

8 assessments, right.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: So, there is a lot

11 in the language that we all used there, and

12 maybe we did put it forward, not really

13 understanding that until we've gotten into

14 this and made more -- 

15 MR. DOPPEL: Well, the other part

16 of that, Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi, is that

17 knowing that all the products would have to be

18 listed on a DOE website, then that created a

19 concern about who was going to check to make

20 sure that all those products were meeting what

21 they were being certified to, if they were not

22 members of a verification program.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 You know, so, kind of the model

2 that is already out there is the residential,

3 where everybody is listed and it's -- I think

4 that the number of models that are listed at

5 AHRI is very close to the models that are

6 listed on the DOE website.

7 So, it means there are not too

8 many other players out there, unless they're

9 way, way below the radar.

10 So, it seems that now that -- it

11 looks like the true assessments and maybe some

12 enforcement of the DOE is in effect, verifying

13 what is already out there for the residential

14 products, just by using assessment and

15 enforcement.

16 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think I

17 followed that.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: We are, I mean,

19 basically saying -- we are testing, if that is

20 what you're getting at.

21 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: We are doing some
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 testing, in the residential and commercial

2 space, period.

3 Now, whether that should take the

4 place of formalized testing, we've had a

5 number of different asks over time, and some

6 would argue for a mandatory verification

7 program, some would argue that they want DOE

8 to not test their product, that they're part

9 of a verification program. Some will argue

10 that -- in other words, it's all some part of

11 DOE doing some part of the process differently

12 than it does now.

13 So, to the extent we want to

14 commence a working group to kind of tackle

15 those types of issues, how do industry

16 verification programs work in the space where

17 DOE is also testing? And how do we utilize so

18 that we're both benefitting and not doing the

19 same type of testing on the same products, and

20 getting the best outcomes and reducing the

21 burden, as much as possible? And that's the

22 goal, right?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

2 AHRI. Aren't you doing it already, for

3 example?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: What?

5 MR. AMRANE: I mean, maybe you can

6 elaborate a little bit more about what you --

7 what kind of agreement you have with AHAM, for

8 example, on the assessment test. What is it,

9 that you do?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have an

11 agreement with AHAM on Energy Star

12 verification for clothes washers, dish washers

13 and refrigerators. 

14 It says the Department will not

15 test those products that participate in the

16 AHAM program for Energy Star levels and above

17 only, as long as there is a variety of

18 conditions that the Department and AHAM have

19 agreed to and are met.

20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I got

21 a sense that one of the clouds darkening the

22 room now is how the verification and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 enforcement processes will handle commercial

2 HVAC less than 65,000 BTUs, which is rated to

3 the residential standard.

4 I want to make sure that I

5 understand where we are now. First of all,

6 it's tested to the residential standard. 

7 Secondly, it's all three phase, and thirdly,

8 the shipment volumes are in the range of 10

9 percent reps less of those for the residential

10 comparable single phase products.

11 Now, it seems to me that, in

12 general, industry practice would likely to be

13 to substitute a three phase compressor for the

14 single phase and otherwise leave the product

15 as untouched as you can. I mean, there would

16 still be some single phase stuff, I guess.

17 If that is the general practice,

18 is it possible for us to reach an agreement

19 that either the under 65,000 BTU stuff will

20 get the same verification regime as

21 residential products, or that it will get the

22 regime of commercial products and sort of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 settle it, rather than having the uncertainty

2 that's influencing our conversations on what

3 I'd like to call the truly commercial products

4 from SPVU on up?

5 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel

6 from Mitsubishi.

7 You know, I think essentially DOE

8 is getting the benefit of a verification

9 program on three phase below 65,000 and

10 residential 65,000, you know, based on the

11 current assessment testing that they're doing. 

12 And also on the input that they're getting

13 from AHRI, which is if there are any products

14 that have to be re-rated, then that report is

15 given to -- re-rated due to test failure, that

16 that information is provided to DOE.

17 So, essentially, there is a kind

18 of verification program already in existence

19 for those residential products.

20 MR. SACHS: I understand and

21 appreciate that, but I'm -- as someone else

22 earlier this morning said, I'm trying to think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 about at least much theoretically, to see if

2 we can choose one team or the other.

3 Is this to be verified like residential or

4 verified like commercial?

5 I think I could be completely

6 comfortably either way. I'm looking for what

7 works best for the Department and the

8 manufacturers.

9 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with

10 AAON, and just to build on what you said.

11 You also have to realize that the three phase

12 under 65,000 is also a very significant part

13 of the commercial market.

14 You know, so, which is much smaller than the

15 residential market in the first place.

16 So, you know, you can't -- I think

17 that has to be factored into this whole

18 discussion, that that is a very big part of

19 the dollar volume of commercial equipment sold

20 is in that bucket, and you're right, it is

21 being rated with the residential or consumer

22 products type standards.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, I know on the --

2 in support of what you're saying, I believe

3 that the number is like two-thirds of the

4 65,000 product shift, single package are three

5 phase, something along those lines. So,

6 you're exactly right. Not single phase -- not

7 split system. 

8 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. 

9 Across the totality of split and packaged,

10 it's in the range of 10 percent, I think.

11 MR. AMRANE: Yes, you're right,

12 you're right.

13 MR. SACHS: Okay, so, what you're

14 saying is that there may be an additional

15 dimension of this kind of split out, of

16 package being treated differently than single

17 -- than split.

18 I don't know, but I'm just asking

19 if there is clean way that we can make our

20 problems easier to deal with.

21 MR. EISNER: Everybody's out of

22 words?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

2 AHRI. Let me suggest something, and I think

3 what I would like to see, at least from DOE,

4 is a framework. What do you want, as DOE, to

5 apply for all products, for example?

6 So, that this way we can react to

7 something, because right now we've been

8 spinning our wheels. You have one group doing

9 something, you have another group doing

10 something very different, and at the end of

11 the day, I think Ashley mentioned that you

12 want a set of at least requirements that would

13 apply, you know, across all products.

14 So, I think that is what we need,

15 and that document should only be -- should be

16 for all products, not just commercial

17 products. This should include also

18 residential product, because that is what you

19 intend to do here, to cover everything.

20 So, then maybe we can react to

21 something like that.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, okay, I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 don't think be default, we intend to -- so,

2 for example, if the working group -- if one

3 of the sections of the working groups here

4 voted to have a mandatory verification program

5 and voted, you know, yes, these are the

6 constructs of my verification program, I don't

7 think by default, DOE is just going to say,

8 "Okay, everybody else do this." I don't think

9 that was the intent.

10 So, sorry, if I misstated it that

11 way. I just think that there have been some

12 concerns that DOE -- voiced to DOE, that DOE

13 would do that or that certain people would be

14 -- you know, if DOE decided to venture into

15 the topic of a verification program for

16 another industry or another regulated product

17 that was not part of this, so, say, I'm just

18 going to make up something, shower heads, my

19 favorite -- Laura's favorite topic. That, you

20 know, that all of a sudden, certain things

21 that were negotiated here would be

22 automatically by default brought into those as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 the de facto. 

2 And I don't think, necessarily,

3 that is DOE's position that it would be the

4 case. But I do think that there are certain

5 things that would come out, like when the

6 Department is notified and how those types of

7 things, process-type things that probably

8 would need to be the same across the board,

9 unless there is a specific reason that they be

10 different.

11 MS. BARHYDT: So, Karim, it's

12 sounding to me like you are sort of seconding

13 the idea that the discussion should happen in

14 a framework with the full product range.

15 MR. AMRANE: At least initially,

16 yes.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

18 MR. AMRANE: And then later, maybe

19 several groups.

20 MS. BARHYDT: Do you want folks to

21 vote on that?

22 MS. MEYERS: Well, I would like to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 get ASRAC's perspective on this, as well. 

2 MR. AMRANE: Yes.

3 MS. MEYERS: You know, they're,

4 you know, covering all product groups, and I

5 would certainly like to hear, you know, their

6 perspective.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can ask them

8 tomorrow. I mean, that effectively is the --

9 the verification is the last thing for this

10 working group that was left on the agenda. 

11 So, if we do formally vote to send

12 -- to at least suggest to ASRAC that they have

13 a discussion about forming a separate

14 verification working group that's

15 representative of all parties, working with

16 the Department to identify a framework and

17 then, you know, some kind of -- what the

18 Department and what generally people would

19 like to see from a verification program, this

20 working group would be done, unless there is -

21 -

22 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, and what's the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 scope that ASRAC would --

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: The scope, right.

3 MS. HOOTMAN: -- say what it's

4 covering, yes.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

6 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

7 HTP. My concern here is small manufacturers. 

8 We're strapped. I mean, this is killing us to

9 be here and a part of this already.

10 So, to say we need to do another

11 one and start from scratch and come up with a

12 unified field theory, it's not going to work.

13 I'd much rather stay the course

14 and finish what we have, and if the question

15 comes down to the effective date, then, yes,

16 let's say the effective date, it doesn't come

17 into effect until everyone else comes into

18 effect. I'd be okay with that.

19 But small manufacturers just can't

20 keep giving. We don't have -- there is no more

21 blood in this turnip. End of rant.

22 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey and --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 MR. THARP: Beginning of rant.

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. SACHS: I'm glad that others

4 agree that a little humor helps diffuse

5 tension, if not take away the underlying

6 problems.

7 I am concerned about including the

8 second sentence requiring the same

9 implementation date for all products.

10 I am not sure that all product

11 categories, all effected industries would

12 agree that it's necessary to have a far out

13 date or an early date. And I think there is

14 a lot to be said for a rolling implementation,

15 just in terms of reducing the likelihood of

16 all sorts of administrative problems, without

17 meaning in any way to reflect on the core

18 competencies of the Agency.

19 So, I just -- I think that leaving

20 out that sentence would be helpful.

21 MS. MEYERS: That's my main

22 concern, Harvey. So, I would not agree with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 that.

2 MR. SACHS: I'm just trying to

3 allow that if the CRE people are -- or I'm

4 sorry, the psycho-ceramic people are really

5 concerned that they're ready to go and want to

6 have the benefits of that verification

7 tomorrow, they should be allowed to do it

8 earlier than some common implementation date. 

9 That's the perspective I'm trying

10 to take, that I understand, I think, your

11 desire to have it not be immediate, and I'm

12 quite sympathetic to that, but I don't see why

13 that requires other industries not to be able

14 to pioneer and get this work out before

15 Niagara Falls hits you guys in the face.

16 MR. THARP: Karen, correct me if

17 I'm wrong, but if it were weeks or months,

18 that would be one thing, but years would be

19 different.

20 So, if everybody had effectivity

21 in 2015, some in January, some in December,

22 that would be okay, but we wouldn't want it,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 you know, one in 2015 and another one in 2020.

2 MR. SACHS: Good point.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Isn't that the

4 whole rationale for having the separate

5 working group that would be overarching and

6 they could come up with that?

7 MR. THARP: Yes.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, isn't that

9 the whole fundamental reason for sentence one? 

10 I mean, I don't think you need sentence two,

11 because, in theory, that is part of the reason

12 why there are certain things -- I guess from

13 the Department's perspective, I don't know

14 that implementation is necessarily one of them

15 -- but at least that we would get feedback on

16 if implementation should be the same or should

17 be different, and to Harvey's point, if there

18 are portions of that group that are

19 represented, that they think they should go

20 first, and they're fully willing and everyone

21 is okay with it, let them go.

22 If there are others then -- but
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 that is the whole point of, right, having the

2 separate group the represents the entire

3 cross-section to deal with at least tee-up

4 issues for the individual groups.

5 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

6 AHRI. But I didn't hear any disagreement with

7 the basic concept -- and I'm going to call

8 them the verification regulations -- that the

9 verification regulations should be specified

10 for all products at the same time.

11 They might be implemented at

12 different times, but, you know, the stuff that

13 says, "Okay, here is what you're going to do

14 for verification, for all covered products,"

15 that should, if you will, hit the Federal

16 Register at the same time.

17 MR. SACHS: A tip of the hat from

18 Harvey. I'm not sure I agree, but I do agree

19 it's an important distinction.

20 My only reservation is that it

21 might take a little longer for some of these

22 very heterogenous product classes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 MR. STANONIK: Yes, I would -- but

2 again, I think that is kind of the -- at least

3 what I was hearing is that in doing this, that

4 was part of the idea, that all covered

5 products, at the same time, know, okay, here

6 is what you're going to have to do for

7 regulation -- for verification, I'm sorry,

8 verification. When you're going to have to do

9 it might flow, but here is kind of the basic

10 ground rules.

11 MR. SACHS: Well, this is Harvey. 

12 My concern is, do you think that verification

13 rule could be developed quickly or is that

14 going to be another five-year process?

15 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

16 AHRI. I don't know. I don't know. I guess

17 I'm going to say it could be developed as

18 quickly as you could develop the common

19 certification enforcement recommendations.

20 MR. SACHS: Damn, you're good.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 I'll go the other direction, because I do not

2 see how that is physically possible to happen,

3 because the DOE has implemented rules of --

4 basic rules over years and years and years.

5 We started in the early 70's with

6 regulations on energy efficiency of certain

7 groups, and it has taken the DOE 30-some years

8 to get to where we are today.

9 And I'm sure that there are more

10 categories that are being brought in all the

11 time, such as TV-top boxes, a category we

12 would never have thought of 10 or 15 years

13 ago.

14 So, I do not see how we can

15 possibly get the DOE to complete such a

16 massive task in a single step. Physically, I

17 do not see any logic in it. 

18 There are too many diverse

19 products here. I think that we have to defend

20 the DOE sometimes and say, okay, our object is

21 to be fair to everyone in the same industry so

22 that the industry as a whole is playing on the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 same playing field.

2 As long as the industry as a whole

3 is on the same playing field, we're not

4 hurting an industry. If a nation as a whole

5 is playing on a different field, that is

6 unfortunate because the less we control energy

7 efficiency the more the nation suffers from a

8 lot of other issues. 

9 And we can debate strategic

10 thought on that forever. But it is the

11 mandate of the Department to regulate

12 products, and I do not believe that it's

13 physically possible to regulate everything at

14 one time.

15 Obviously, we've proven that over

16 the last years, because I'm sure you have

17 rulemakings coming on product classifications

18 we have not had on the books yet.

19 MR. EISNER: The problem I'm

20 having understanding some of this is, as part

21 of what Charlie just said, the Department of

22 Energy didn't set energy efficiency standards
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 for all 400 categories on the same day. 

2 Why did people not say it's not

3 fair for light bulbs to have to meet a

4 standard if refrigerators aren't going to have

5 to meet an energy standard? What is there

6 different about verification that requires it

7 to all be done at the same time?

8 MS. MEYERS: I think the

9 difference is, in my opinion, is that the

10 verification testing that is being proposed

11 today, comes at the -- that the manufacturer

12 has to pay for it.

13 So, you are increasing the

14 regulatory burden on this industry because of

15 a DOE mandatory verification testing -- and

16 also it's not just the verification testing,

17 but it's the potential penalties that could

18 come with that.

19 MR. EISNER: But when they set the

20 first standard for energy efficiency for one

21 segment of the industry, manufacturers had to

22 pay those costs.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 So, why didn't they say it's

2 unfair for light bulbs to have to pay a cost,

3 that refrigerators don't have to pay? That is

4 where I'm having a problem with this.

5 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, we didn't have

6 to annually verify when they set the

7 standards.

8 MR. EISNER: But they had to pay

9 the cost, which seems to be the concern.

10 I now have the added expense of making my

11 light bulbs --

12 MS. HOOTMAN: I can choose to test

13 anyway I want to and still say that I am

14 within the minimum. That doesn't mean that I

15 have to so-called get every 20 percent of my

16 models every year.

17 MR. EISNER: No, but didn't you

18 have to pay a lot more money to manufacture

19 the same product in a more energy efficient

20 manner?

21 I think you mentioned something

22 being up by 75 -- or cut by 75 percent. That,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 I assume, is going to impose a cost on them,

2 similar to the cost of having to test the

3 product, if they had to do that. 

4 But they're starting off having to

5 pay more to manufacture the same refrigerator

6 meeting a much more efficient standard.

7 So, that is where I am having

8 trouble understanding why verification is

9 different than testing.

10 MR. BAUMAN: You know, I think the

11 --

12 MS. MEYERS: Because it's not

13 saving any energy -- it may not be saving any

14 energy. I think the energy efficiency

15 standards are tied all back to the cost

16 benefit analysis, and there is a lot of

17 analysis that goes into setting those

18 standards that DOE goes through.

19 There is none of that with this

20 additional cost burden. There is not the cost

21 benefit analysis. There is not the

22 manufacturer impact analysis. There is not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 any of the technical support documents that go

2 into determining what -- and the Congress

3 specifically gave DOE guidance on what to do

4 with that.

5 None of that is happening with

6 this. This is an additional cost being

7 imposed on the manufacturers without any of

8 that analysis or any direction by Congress.

9 So, I think it's completely,

10 completely different.

11 MR. DOPPEL: Plus, we're

12 additionally already participating in a

13 voluntary certification program. 

14 So, it's not like we are totally

15 unregulated, unchecked out there. And I'm

16 sure there are other product categories that

17 have no type of certification verification

18 programs.

19 So, you know, it's like we already

20 are incurring, we are voluntarily paying.

21 MR. EISNER: So, if DOE accepted

22 that, under their program, you would have no
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 additional cost, other than perhaps reports?

2 MR. AMRANE: Well, again, this is

3 part of the discussion we've been having the

4 last few weeks. You know, it has to be

5 comparable. It has to be a level playing

6 field, and I think the way it's going right

7 now it's probably not going to be the case.

8 Anyway, but that is the concern we

9 have, absolutely.

10 MR. EISNER: And if you add a

11 verification program to the rule, wouldn't you

12 have to do a cost benefit analysis for it?

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

14 MR. HON: There is also questions

15 we also need to clarify also, the true

16 analysis of what is going on here. We have

17 yet to ever hear statistical numbers on how

18 many units are truly tested in any of these

19 programs.

20 We hear 20 percent quoted and 30

21 percent quoted, but that is not of total

22 units. That is of categories. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 The same as, statistically, UL

2 requires more of us for Energy Star

3 certification than what would be required if

4 we were in the AHRI self-contained

5 refrigeration categories, we would be down to

6 approximately one percent of our products --

7 well, excuse me, three percent of our products

8 being tested, compared to 10 percent we're

9 doing right now.

10 So, we would have to do a complete

11 analysis of all of the programs and everything

12 else in the system to make this a true system,

13 because there are differences in the way

14 people set up programs that make statistical

15 major changes in programs and thought, whether

16 it be a Greenleaf program, an AHRI program,

17 AHAM program.

18 Each of these has their own

19 statistical anomalies to reduce costs to their

20 people, and it is highly unclear what that

21 really means to the total package, because we

22 cannot compare apples to oranges right now. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 We do not know what this means.

2 MS. DANE: This is Mary from

3 Traulsen. We've already determined from the

4 beginning of the conversation that, in the

5 case of industry program that exists, one size

6 doesn't fit all.

7 MR. HON: Right.

8 MS. DANE: You know, if that were

9 the case, all the CRE members would already be

10 testing through AHRI, and we've chosen not to

11 because that doesn't fit our business model.

12 So, I think that if we -- I

13 understand having a framework, but like I

14 said, there are some things that are important

15 to CRE that we've kind of slogged our way to

16 this point that I would be pretty reticent in

17 giving up the ground we've made as far as

18 coming up with something.

19 Whether or not we feel it should

20 be, you know, brought in, we've at least tried

21 to sit down and talk about, well, if we have

22 a verification program, what would that be?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 MR. HON: Right, because a

2 voluntary verification program is not the same

3 as a very structured government program where

4 they set the ground rules. They're the same

5 for everybody. All the statistics are done

6 the same way. All the selection is done the

7 same way. Everything is clear.

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 MR. AMRANE: I'm sorry, but

10 Charlie, what you're talking about, about

11 being the same way. Already, it's not the

12 same way.

13 What you're talking about is not

14 the same way the HVAC is talking about.

15 MR. HON: I know.

16 MR. AMRANE: So, that is why we

17 need some sort of --

18 MR. HON: That is exactly why I'm

19 saying this and --

20 MR. AMRANE: -- framing document

21 from DOE, that would settle.

22 MR. HON: I agree with you 100
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 percent. That is exactly what -- you're

2 correct that we need a standard program, but

3 voluntary programs would have to be parallel

4 to that and completely understandable and

5 completely transparent for the DOE to accept

6 them.

7 MR. AMRANE: Absolutely.

8 MR. HON: And that is where a lot

9 of times, right now, we don't know the

10 transparency. It isn't clear at this moment.

11 MS. BARHYDT: So, obviously, if

12 ASRAC convened a new working group, I don't

13 know who would ultimately end up on that

14 working group. But I can't imagine that that

15 group would not capitalize off of all of the

16 work that you've done. 

17 I would not expect for one moment

18 that the work that you've done would be lost. 

19 Nobody wants to reinvent the wheel, and I know

20 you all have spent a whole lot of time working

21 through a lot of issues.

22 I think my main question to you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 then is, is it written or is it in your heads? 

2 Because is it transferrable to that working

3 group?

4 MR. AMRANE: Transferrable?

5 MS. BARHYDT: Well, because I

6 think what I'm hearing Mary say is that

7 they've invested a lot of time and effort, and

8 she doesn't want all of that time and effort

9 to go to waste if we're not the group pursuing

10 it, but it's a different group pursing it.

11 So, I'm trying to figure out can

12 that effort be transferred to a new working

13 group?

14 MR. BAUMAN: Well, for CRE, again,

15 we've basically been bouncing around a draft

16 that we've been building upon, and it's been

17 in various versions -- it was shared at one

18 point, and I think we came up with a number of

19 changes from that point.

20 But I would think as we're -- you

21 know, if we're saying we're going to set this

22 verification aside for a different -- I think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 CRE would welcome the opportunity to come up

2 with a chance to unitize that and present it

3 to DOE to be used for future consideration.

4 MS. DANE: And I think the one

5 that we were talking about went into more

6 detail of how we would structure a

7 manufactured one, a program that the DOE would

8 be comfortable with because of the

9 accreditation process of the labs we use.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

11 MS. DANE: And we just would like

12 to make sure that that doesn't go along the

13 way, because we know there are other groups

14 who are, you know, negotiating amendments

15 through laws, and we don't want to be caught

16 up in that, period.

17 MR. AMRANE: But having said that

18 -- this is Karim with AHRI -- whatever came up

19 with the CRE group has the input from those

20 people who are here, not much of input from

21 others, who are not in this room.

22 So, I think we need to, to do a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 good justice here, to reach out to many more

2 than just the few --

3 MS. DANE: Well, I would disagree. 

4 I would say that CRE does a lot of work. I've

5 been in contact with NAPA almost after every

6 meeting we have, and they have an open door. 

7 I know that I personally have been

8 talking to members of NAPM, as has Ron. I

9 cannot speak for Charlie and Jeff, but I know

10 that through AHRI meetings, you guys talk to

11 some of the members --

12 MR. AMRANE: No, we talk. I am not

13 saying -- I'm not sure to what extent,

14 frankly, people are fully engaged in this.

15 MS. DANE: I think that they're

16 relying heavily on the people that are in this

17 room to go back and forth with their ideas,

18 and I know that CRE is very adamant about not

19 having to have an AHRI-structured program, to

20 be able to use the current manufacturer21 structured program, and I would hate to see

22 those people who are in the room fighting for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 that risk losing the ability to fight for

2 that. That is all I'm saying.

3 I know that your industry is

4 already in lock-step with one another. You

5 guys should be allowed to continue.

6 MR. AMRANE: Again, we're not

7 going to get into this discussion here,

8 because I think it's going to -- it is not

9 going to go anywhere. But I think, again,

10 what you're saying is not correct, but that's

11 fine.

12 MR. BAUMAN: What I was trying to

13 imply by CRE also, Karim, what that you had --

14 Karim has been part of the discussions we've

15 had and the --

16 MR. AMRANE: Yes, that's right.

17 MR. BAUMAN: There is items there,

18 you know, we would present it also with. There

19 might be items that we present but that might

20 have parenthetical comments about how it

21 wasn't completely agreed to by everybody or

22 whatever.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 MR. AMRANE: Right.

2 MR. BAUMAN: Again, to give a

3 general framework that could potentially be

4 built on with other manufacturers, for however

5 this verification group is set up.

6 MS. BARHYDT: What about

7 boiler/water heaters? So, are you also

8 expressing concern that all the work that has

9 gone into it would be lost?

10 MR. STEPHENS: Yes. Phillip

11 Stephens, HTP. I think what we have is three

12 groups, three camps. You have one camp that

13 is completely outside of AHRI, that has their

14 own way they prefer to do things.

15 Then you have the boilers and the

16 water heaters, which some of us are, some of

17 us aren't, and we cannot reach consensus in

18 our group, because we do not all agree with

19 everything to do with the AHRI program and

20 outline.

21 Then you have the HVAC group,

22 which is predominantly AHRI members, which
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 accepted the AHRI model all the way across.

2 That's fine for their industry. If they think

3 it's appropriate, that's fine. It's not

4 appropriate for the boilers or the commercial

5 water heaters. So, I am --

6 MR. AMRANE: Speak for yourself. 

7 I mean, not the --

8 MR. STEPHENS: Well, the fact that

9 we can't reach consensus said it's says it's

10 not appropriate for the entire group.

11 MS. MEYERS: So, I disagree with

12 that. I would say we have not reached

13 consensus at this point.

14 MR. AMRANE: I'm sorry.

15 MS. MEYERS: It's not that we

16 cannot, but we have not reached consensus at

17 this point. And so I think there is a clear

18 distinction in that, and we're holding

19 meetings when the full group can't be there,

20 and so it's not that we cannot, but we have

21 not.

22 So, I think there is a very big
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 difference in those two terminologies.

2 MR. STEPHENS: I'm concerned, from

3 what is going on here, that we're shuffling

4 the deck. We're not getting the outcome that

5 others in the group want, the larger

6 companies, so they want to shuffle the deck

7 and get different players that may be more

8 sympathetic.

9 MR. EISNER: Let's not get into

10 what people are thinking. Let's just talk

11 about what we want.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, maybe the ask

13 for ASRAC is for them to discuss, you know --

14 we can make some statements about the work and

15 the great work that has been done. We can

16 make a statement that it seems like consensus

17 hasn't been reached for all product types that

18 were subject to this, in terms of

19 verification.

20 And we can ask them for what their

21 opinion is about what to do with verification,

22 whether to let this group keep going, or to --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 because it doesn't seem like we're going to

2 reach consensus on whether we should or

3 shouldn't here.

4 So, maybe we ask ASRAC whether

5 they think this group should -- they want to

6 ask this group to keep going with everything

7 they've been doing, or whether they think a

8 different group is more appropriate. That is

9 one idea.

10 MR. EISNER: That's a good point. 

11 We can turn this around a little bit on what

12 we said in the slide and say, "Here is where

13 we are now. Here is what some people think

14 we've accomplished. Others disagree." 

15 Whatever we put up there, and then

16 maybe raise things for ASRAC to consider in

17 deciding how to go ahead and how to proceed

18 with this.

19 I mean, that I think it is a good

20 suggestion.

21 MS. DANE: At a minimum, I think

22 that it needs to be recognized that each
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 industry is different enough that we need our

2 own verification program model for each of

3 those industries.

4 MR. EISNER: And that is one of

5 the things we could say up there.

6 MS. DANE: Yes.

7 MR. EISNER: And we could say,

8 "Most agree with this, some agree with this,

9 all agree with this," whatever it is we want,

10 but we can put that down there as a report,

11 rather than a full recommendation, saying,

12 "ASRAC, what would you like us to do next?"

13 MS. DANE: Right, because I don't

14 disagree that CRE won't reach consensus. I

15 don't think that that is an issue for CRE. I

16 think we've made good progress. I know Ron

17 Shebik has put together a summary of all of

18 our collective thoughts. So, a written

19 framework does exist.

20 MR. ANDERSON: This is Viktor

21 Anderson, Structural Concepts. We develop

22 one-offs all the time. So, verification
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 programs are very difficult for us to do.

2 So, I guess I --

3 MS. DANE: We have a plank in

4 there to deal with one-offs. They're not

5 included.

6 MR. ANDERSON: So, then we don't

7 have to -- don't have to do anything?

8 MS. DANE: You have to certify it. 

9 MR. STANONIK: You have to

10 certify.

11 MR. ANDERSON: Okay.

12 MS. DANE: Yes.

13 MR. EISNER: Frank?

14 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with

15 AHRI. Two things. First of all, at the last

16 working group meeting it was in fact

17 determined that the time frame for developing

18 verification recommendations was extended to

19 roughly the end of October.

20 So, it's certainly very important

21 for AHRI to make the conclusion that we can't

22 reach consensus on the boiler issues is just
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 not an appropriate statement to make now.

2 We have more time to work that

3 out, and I can tell you, we're trying to put

4 together the information because I think

5 everybody is just looking at pieces of this. 

6 We're trying to put the information together

7 to frame a recommendation that may reach

8 consensus. 

9 And I'll also mention that at the

10 last meeting, and I'll say it again, it should

11 not be the commercial boiler and water heater

12 working group. They need to be distinct

13 groups. They are very different products,

14 very different markets, and whatever comes out

15 of the commercial boiler working group should

16 not necessarily drive the water heater group. 

17 I think that is important.

18 But the other point, and I don't

19 want to lose it, because Harvey made it and I

20 think it got misunderstood a little bit.

21 Everybody is talking about

22 uniqueness of product, uniqueness of testing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 and things like that. Again, the effort that

2 was discussed earlier today about the --

3 looking at the -- let's call it the statistics

4 of certification and the statistics of

5 enforcement, that will provide useful

6 information that will identify, let's call it

7 the uniquenesses of various products, that can

8 have some impact on how verification gets

9 played out, okay.

10 You know, as an extreme example,

11 let's say you had a covered product that, in

12 fact, nobody in the business made more than

13 five of any model, all right, not that that is

14 -- you know, that's pretty hard to envision.

15 But let's say that was there,

16 okay? Trying to come up with -- first of all,

17 certification and enforcement for that would

18 be very different than let's talk about

19 residential water heaters, where the industry

20 is making eight or nine-million on an annual

21 basis, okay?

22 But, again, I think we can't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 ignore that very useful information we're

2 going to get out of that effort that will help

3 frame, okay, we've got what I'm going to call

4 verification basics, and then we're going to

5 look how do those really get applied when I

6 start talking about commercial refrigeration

7 versus large boilers versus packaged roof-tops

8 or whatever.

9 So, I think that there is going to

10 be a synergy there we should not ignore. 

11 Which I guess the point of this, what I think

12 -- I just keep seeing this going back to say

13 we really do need a separate -- verification

14 needs to be addressed separately, in a

15 separate working group. 

16 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

17 HTP. Verification, I agree, it's pretty

18 obvious we do need to separate that. As far

19 as separating commercial water heaters from

20 commercial boilers, I disagree. They are the

21 same beast. Same technology. Same materials. 

22 Very similar constructions. I disagree.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp. 

2 I think it's almost lunch time.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: I agree.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. EISNER: Do we have a

6 consensus on lunch?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

8 MR. EISNER: Okay, it's 11:30 a.m.

9 MR. SACHS: Are there any

10 abstentions? 

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. EISNER: We can put them in a

13 working group together, a separate group.

14 Okay, it's almost 11:30 a.m. Why

15 don't we come back at 12:30 p.m.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

17 matter went off the record at 11:26 a.m. and

18 resumed at 12:43 p.m.)

19 MR. EISNER: Okay, anybody want to

20 suggest language to put up on the screen about

21 --

22 MS. BARHYDT: I put some language
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 up that I think reflects where people were. 

2 Basically to leave it to ASRAC to decide.

3 MR. HALLEY: This is Geoff Halley,

4 ABMA. I've got one comment to make as regards

5 to the boiler group.

6 They're meeting on Monday and from

7 my point of view, from ABMA's point of view,

8 I think we've got to a point where I was sort

9 of happy with what we did. You know, whether

10 it's going to apply to everybody remains to be

11 seen.

12 But from the ABMA point of view,

13 as long as it wasn't changed at this point,

14 we're fine.

15 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

16 MR. HALLEY: Okay.

17 MS. BARHYDT: So, the last

18 sentence I have up there says, "significant

19 progress." Do you want to go even further and

20 say that -- 

21 MS. DANE: This is Mary from

22 Traulsen. I don't believe that CRE said that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 we couldn't reach consensus and that we wanted

2 to turn it over to ASRAC. Did we, Geoff?

3 MR. HALLEY: Reach consensus?

4 MS. DANE: Well, no, as far as the

5 -- we're talking about the verification

6 program, correct?

7 MS. BARHYDT: So, we're talking

8 about whether or not to leave to ASRAC whether

9 to continue that discussion in this group or

10 in a different group.

11 I mean, ultimately, it's their

12 call anyway, because at this point we have to

13 get them to agree to let us continue. So, I

14 mean, effectively, whether we make a

15 recommendation or not, they still have that --

16 MR. EISNER: Right, if we make a

17 recommendation to ASRAC, do we want to say any

18 more than we're turning it over to you to make

19 a decision? Do we want to say what we think

20 they ought to consider in making that

21 decision? Do we want to, for example,

22 describe the progress we have made, describe
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 what we think is possible to get out of this,

2 if we have more time?

3 Do we want to talk about the pros

4 and cons of this group developing verification

5 standards alone, or the benefits of a bigger

6 group representing all 400 product lines

7 developing it?

8 Do you want to start speaking --

9 even if it's not a majority, even if it's not

10 a consensus, to say the factors that ought to

11 be considered by ASRAC, or do you just want to

12 say to ASRAC, "Here is it. You decide."

13 MR. BAUMAN: I think the point,

14 you know, is -- and you hit on the difference

15 there, is that I think stressing the idea that

16 the recommendations be for all covered

17 products, not just products that fall under

18 this, within this group.

19 I think that was the big

20 difference, the idea of expanding this so that

21 all covered products would be subject to

22 similar verification, or, you know, equivalent
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 levels across the board, not just that these

2 products are the only ones that would have a

3 verification program.

4 To me, that seemed to be the

5 difference that we were talking about, is that

6 we -- you know, the idea that people in here -

7 - or the products we represent or whatever,

8 would be the only ones that would have a

9 verification program, and saying that, okay,

10 go back and look at all covered products as a

11 general sense, and then have potentially sub12 groups, which would be people working with

13 this group, potentially for some of the

14 classifications.

15 MR. EISNER: So, for example

16 though, would you want to give them guidance

17 by saying, this group might be able to develop

18 with more time, standards for itself, but

19 there is some concern that whatever they

20 develop might some -- in some way, affect the

21 negotiations or the general rulemaking that

22 the Agency would do, for all products?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 So, should we convene a bigger

2 group to outline what ought to be in

3 verification standards, then let this group

4 meet again to resolve it, for the products

5 covered by these negotiations, or do you want

6 to say we think -- you know, some think it

7 might be very, very different and there is no

8 need to have general guidance?

9 Again, I don't know what you want

10 to say, but I look at this as -- if I were

11 ASRAC, I might be thinking, well, what is it

12 you think I ought to do and why is this an

13 issue, and why can't you guys resolve it? 

14 That sort of thing. Do you need to say more

15 to them?

16 MR. HON: I agree. That's what we

17 were discussing at lunch, all at the same

18 time.

19 We need to -- this isn't -- I

20 don't like the one --

21 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, let me try

22 doing --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 MR. HON: That is my opinion of

2 it.

3 MR. EISNER: What I saw us going

4 toward is, if nothing else, if this group

5 decided that it did not want to proceed, or

6 didn't have a consensus to proceed with the

7 negotiations on verification, then you might

8 want to at least say what it is you think

9 you've learned, that the -- that ASRAC ought

10 to consider, if it wants to set up a big group

11 to look at this.

12 The valid points were made, you

13 might not be able to get adequate

14 representation of all industries around the

15 table, but it might be better to get the best

16 you can, to come up with general guidelines

17 for the group, that sort of thing.

18 MR. HON: I think we've done a lot

19 of work here that is very solid foundation. 

20 Why would we give it up?

21 It's not finalized, but it's a

22 solid foundation.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 MR. EISNER: Why don't we put --

2 Laura, why don't we put that point on the

3 screen, and start getting points like that up

4 there, and then see what we can agree to?

5 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, what was it?

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: That this group

7 has made solid progress.

8 MS. DANE: I think the distinction

9 should be is, which groups believe, at the end

10 of this exercise, we will leave with a

11 verification program that you're comfortable

12 with.

13 I am hearing that there is

14 problems on part of the groups, that they feel

15 that we should all start verification programs

16 at the same time, even though certification17 wise, we're all going at different times.

18 You know, I am not saying that I

19 should have -- you know, neither one of us

20 should be stuck with each other's belief

21 system. 

22 I think if CRE can say, we can
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 come up with a verification program, we should

2 go ahead and finalize it.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

4 MS. DANE: And that the groups

5 that can't, can say to ASRAC, "Well, it's up

6 to you. We'll throw it all back in the pot,

7 stir it up, and start over."

8 I don't believe CRE is willing --

9 well, some -- I would say that Charlie and I,

10 and some of the people I've talked to, do not

11 want to start over from scratch.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

13 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

14 AHRI. But at the same time, what would make

15 this program acceptable to DOE versus another

16 program acceptable to DOE?

17 People are going to come up with

18 very different requirements, very different

19 requirements.

20 So, I think we need to get from

21 DOE, a piece -- a set of -- a set of

22 framework, what do you want, because otherwise
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 you're going to be getting very, very

2 different, I guess suggestions, as to how to

3 proceed, and I'm not sure as an Agency, how

4 you would address that. 

5 I mean, I guess all the

6 rulemakings are done about the same way. I

7 mean, you do the same kind of analysis, there

8 is some sort of consistency.

9 In this case, you might end up

10 with very different requirements.

11 So, that is why I think it's

12 needed for our -- for us to proceed, this

13 document, I believe it is.

14 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. 

15 Two points. I think the boiler and commercial

16 water heater group are pretty much in line

17 with what Geoffrey said earlier.

18 We made good progress, and we had

19 the document that Geoff put together, that I

20 think we could provide. It's not everyone's

21 opinions or a couple people -- couple groups

22 that weren't there, but I think we could
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 probably provide that, circulate it, out to

2 the people that were there.

3 I've reviewed it, and I don't have

4 any problems with it. 

5 But to the second point, you were

6 talking -- Karim was talking about very

7 different verification programs for every

8 product segment, but we also have very

9 different method of tests for every different

10 product segment.

11 So, I don't see where that would

12 be an issue.

13 MR. EISNER: Let's go back to

14 Karim's point. 

15 You made, as I recall, I can't

16 remember the exact phrase you used, but you

17 wanted -- obviously, as least costly as

18 possible, a program that will ensure -- give

19 you the level of confidence you need in the

20 testing.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

22 MR. EISNER: Is that something we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 can put up on the screen, to show what DOE

2 says its objective is?

3 MR. BAUMAN: Didn't we have that

4 in a previous slide? There was a slide on the

5 verification process --

6 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, there was.

7 MR. BAUMAN: -- and DOE is

8 considering including a requirement, and kind

9 of, we started this, right?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, Karim, to

11 your point, and since Jeff brought it up, I

12 mean, I think those slides were the starting

13 point of discussions of what DOE -- the types

14 of questions that DOE would like to see

15 answered by a potential verification program,

16 in terms of, you know, how many products -- a

17 minimum number of products tested per year,

18 how selections are made in great detail.

19 How notifications are made, what

20 determines a failure, who is involved in what

21 communications, that could -- those who --

22 what are the laboratory requirements? I mean,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 I'm doing this off of memory, but those are

2 more or less some of the questions.

3 Now, we didn't provide a DOE

4 answer to any of those or opinions to any of

5 those, because I don't know at this point,

6 that we had one. We wanted to see what

7 everyone was thinking, in terms of -- for

8 their specific products, and it may be that

9 some of those can be uniform.

10 Obviously, the number of products 

11 to be tested and how that stuff is done is

12 probably going to be very product-specific,

13 and that needs to reside in product specific

14 working groups and be dealt with accordingly.

15 So, I don't know, exactly. We

16 will have to reconcile at some point. I don't

17 know exactly how we would do it. 

18 But I think we also need to

19 understand like, we need to see what the

20 proposals are on some level, to be able to

21 provide some feedback, or at least ask some

22 questions to flush out some of the details
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 that we would need to try to compare across

2 different product types.

3 MS. BARHYDT: So, going back to

4 something that Ashley brought up earlier.

5 Verification testing ended up on

6 the agenda for this at you all's request. It

7 wasn't something that the Department set out

8 to do. It is something that we see value in,

9 but it's not something that we have -- I mean,

10 a set view of, well, this is what we want.

11 I mean, this is -- we do see value

12 in it, but we don't have a real strong view

13 of, it has to be this way or it has to be that

14 way.

15 There would be benefits to having

16 very similar programs across a lot of

17 different product types, because that would

18 ease our administrative burden. The more

19 similar they are, the easier it is for us to

20 deal with it.

21 But if there are reasons to do it

22 different ways for different products, I mean,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 we can work with that.

2 We have gone into this trying to

3 be as flexible as possible, to work with you

4 all because we'd like to be able to get to

5 something on this, because it -- I keep saying

6 the same thing, we do see value, but it's not

7 something that we're just --

8 MR. THARP: So, Laura, I guess

9 what I'm sort of hearing is that DOE's opinion

10 is that you have statutory authority to do it,

11 but you're not statutorily required to do it.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

13 MR. THARP: And there is not a

14 deadline that you have to have this done by

15 12/31/2013 --

16 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

17 MR. THARP: -- or anything of that

18 nature.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Right, exactly.

20 MR. CALABRESE: This is Dave

21 Calabrese, AHRI, and I was listening in, so,

22 I apologize, I was -- got a little behind.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 I think that an important for it -

2 - to be discussed and actually, why it's

3 important to go back to ASRAC is back on that

4 statutory authority.

5 I understand, like and correct me

6 if I'm wrong, that you're basing it on the

7 6296(d), which is the informational

8 requirements.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

10 MR. CALABRESE: And if you look

11 through 6296, the requirements for

12 manufacturers, (b) is actually the section

13 that says that if there is going to be

14 testing, where the Secretary can compel a

15 manufacturer to provide --

16 MS. BARHYDT: Units for testing.

17 MR. CALABRESE: -- products, for

18 testing.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

20 MR. CALABRESE: And then of

21 course, the Department has to pay for that,

22 and at the end, it says some kind of ambiguous
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 language, that it has to be also provided for

2 in appropriations, which must be a hold-off

3 from the days where there used to be

4 appropriation, because that is not the case.

5 But to me, I -- you know, and I am

6 not saying this is a fatal flaw, but to me,

7 that is a serious distinction between using

8 the (b) authority and the (d), because under

9 (d) it is more designed for information. It

10 says specifically to -- for the Department to

11 determine how to create new test procedures

12 and standards, and to ensure compliance, and

13 it also says that should rely upon industry

14 associations.

15 But (b) is directly on point to

16 testing, and so, I would argue, and I think

17 this is something we could, you know -- we're

18 in debate right now, but perhaps in the larger

19 ASRAC, is that it should be based under (b).

20 Now, that creates a problem

21 because then now, we're talking about money,

22 but I do think it's a significant issue that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 we probably should talk about at some point

2 during the larger discussions.

3 MR. EISNER: If we were to take a

4 vote right now, on whether or not DOE should

5 have a verification testing program, would

6 people be ready to do anything, other than

7 abstain? Would everybody vote? Not hearing

8 any objections? 

9 MR. MOLVIE: I'd vote no. 

10 MR. EISNER: All right.

11 PARTICIPANT: No.

12 MR. EISNER: All right, who would

13 -- raise your hands if you would vote `yes',

14 they should have a testing program.

15 MR. BAUMAN: With some time of

16 minimum -- I have just a little bit to throw

17 in there.

18 I just have a little bit of a

19 different recollection, where I thought this

20 was initially, which is -- I thought it was

21 initially brought up in the presentation,

22 where it says DOE is considering its
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 requirements governing --

2 To me, that focus, that DOE was

3 putting it out there to us, and I thought at

4 that time, we all agreed that yes, now, let's

5 go into looking at different --

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I created

7 those based on the scope that was determined -

8 -

9 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, so, that was

10 based on previous --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, and it was --

12 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, on April 30th.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

14 MR. BAUMAN: All right, all right.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is why.

16 MR. BAUMAN: But I think this --

17 I'm not sure -- I think some sort of minimum

18 requirement is -- because you cannot define

19 some way to get reliability to whatever the

20 manufacturers are certifying.

21 I mean, we just ask people as they

22 answer that question, to think to yourself
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 what the alternatives are.

2 You know, if you're not going to

3 do some kind of -- if the Department is not

4 going to do some kind of certification or some

5 kind of verification program, what is the

6 alternative that they could look at?

7 MR. KLEISS: Well, that is a

8 decent question. What are we doing today? 

9 We have VICP's that we participate

10 in, and for those who don't participate, what

11 is the current method of verification?

12 MS. BARHYDT: We have some

13 assessment testing.

14 MR. KLEISS: Okay.

15 MR. EISNER: And we're talking two

16 different things here. We have to be very

17 careful.

18 Voluntary programs are one thing. 

19 Basically, all that is being done under the

20 Government program is, they're doing some

21 independent testing.

22 So, the issue again is, should the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 Government continue doing only its assessment

2 testing on its own or should the Government

3 have a verification program established in the

4 rules? 

5 All those who say `no', all those

6 who say they should stay with the current

7 program, also saying therefore, no to an

8 independent verification program?

9 MS. DANE: Can you say that one

10 more time? I think the I can parse --

11 MR. EISNER: I am not clear,

12 myself. 

13 MR. SACHS: Neil, I think there

14 are some nuances here, and I'm uncomfortable

15 with the formulation of sort of the --

16 everyone or no one on verification, that I

17 would support, and I think ACEEE would support

18 the need for verification testing for some

19 product classes that have been identified.

20 MR. SHEBIK: I can't hear anybody.

21 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry. This is

22 Harvey at ACEEE.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 I think the question has to be a

2 little bit more specific, in that ACEEE would

3 likely be comfortable with some approaches to

4 not requiring verification for some product

5 classes, but I think I've heard enough from

6 some manufacturer categories, people who feel

7 that some verification testing isn't

8 necessary, that I would be uncomfortable

9 making an all-encompassing recommendation.

10 MR. EISNER: All right, let me see

11 if I can word it a little more clearly.

12 MR. SACHS: Karen is --

13 apparently, wants to comment on what I said.

14 MS. MEYERS: I think we need to

15 discuss the cost issue, because while I agree,

16 there is a need for verification testing, I do

17 not agree that DOE has the authority to

18 require manufacturers --

19 MR. SHEBIK: Can you guys please

20 speak up?

21 MS. MEYERS: So, this is Karen

22 with Rheem, and while I would support some
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 type of verification testing, I do not think

2 that DOE has the authority to impose those

3 costs, those new costs on manufacturers,

4 without Congressional authority. 

5 That is a new regulatory cost

6 burden to manufacturers, and this is something

7 new that has not been done before, and I do

8 not support manufacturers having to bear this

9 cost, unless Congress gives them that

10 authority to do so.

11 MR. EISNER: All right, I assume

12 you therefore, would not vote `yes' for any

13 assessment program, that was not paid for by

14 DOE.

15 PARTICIPANT: Verification.

16 MR. EISNER: What did I say?

17 MS. MEYERS: Well, I would say --

18 PARTICIPANT: Assessment.

19 MR. EISNER: No, verification.

20 MS. MEYERS: I would vote that I

21 do not believe DOE has the authority to

22 require manufacturers to pay for it, not --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 you know --

2 MR. EISNER: Okay, which means you

3 wouldn't vote for a verification program that

4 DOE did not pay for?

5 MS. MEYERS: Unless Congress gives

6 them the authority to do so.

7 MR. EISNER: Unless Congress gives

8 them the authority to do that.

9 As of right now, you're saying

10 they don't have that authority. You wouldn't

11 vote for it.

12 MS. MEYERS: Yes.

13 MR. EISNER: How many others would

14 vote the same way?

15 MR. KLEISS: May I amend one thing

16 to that? This is Jeff Kleiss.

17 As I understand what was read,

18 regarding the DOE authority, they still have

19 the authority to require information from the

20 manufacturers.

21 So, to say that there is no

22 manufacturer verification program, there could
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 still be a manufacturer verification program

2 that is limited to the supplying information

3 to DOE.

4 MR. HALLEY: Such as the product

5 hasn't changed in the last 12 months, or

6 something like that?

7 MS. HOOTMAN: Or we had

8 tentatively tested 20 of them?

9 MR. HALLEY: Yes, right.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: End of sentence?

11 MR. HURST: Just a point of

12 clarification. I don't think my vote matters,

13 whether or not I think the DOE has the

14 authority or not.

15 So, I would like -- you know --

16 MS. BARHYDT: Nor do I think our

17 discussion of it matters.

18 MR. HURST: -- people with law

19 degrees to have -- no, I mean, it's an

20 interesting point that needs to be resolved.

21 But I don't think -- I'm not an

22 attorney. I think there is two in the room. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 There may be more.

2 But I'm uniquely unqualified to

3 answer that question and my vote doesn't

4 matter.

5 MR. EISNER: Your vote -- I don't

6 disagree, your vote doesn't matter if DOE

7 thinks it has the authority. They'll write a

8 rule and you can sue them.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

10 MR. EISNER: But what I'm asking

11 is, if you don't think they have the legal

12 authority, does that mean you will vote `no'

13 to any verification program --

14 MR. HURST: My point, Neil, is if

15 I don't think they have the authority, I don't

16 think they have the authority, and I wouldn't

17 contradict myself, by voting that they should,

18 if they don't. I don't know if that makes any

19 sense but --

20 MS. BARHYDT: I understood.

21 PARTICIPANT: He is the attorney.

22 MR. BAUMAN: Should the question
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 be posed as if they -- if it's determined the

2 Department has the authority, then --

3 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

4 MR. BAUMAN: -- then they're going

5 to --

6 MR. HURST: Then they're going to

7 regardless of what way I vote.

8 MR. EISNER: Again, we're trying

9 to get a recommendation out of this group, and

10 if you do not believe they have the legal

11 authority and you will therefore, not vote for

12 any verification program, I'm trying to

13 determine whether we have a significant number

14 of people would vote that way.

15 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel,

16 Mitsubishi.

17 MR. HURST: I think you're

18 confusing the question, Neil, but I'm not

19 trying to take that out of it, because I don't

20 think, as John said, we're -- I'm also

21 uniquely unqualified to answer that question. 

22 I would even take a guess at it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 But I'm going to go -- if I go

2 with the assumption that, trusting Laura as

3 the attorney, or even if you don't, if the

4 question is posed, if it is determined that

5 the DOE has legal authority, and I'm sure

6 people will be answering this question, other

7 than Laura, then I think that is where we need

8 --

9 MR. EISNER: All right, we can --

10 MR. HURST: -- to proceed from,

11 versus you don't -- to John's point of it, if

12 they don't -- if they don't have the

13 authority, then it's --

14 MR. EISNER: All right, if you're

15 going to put that condition into your vote,

16 how will -- what will you accept? What will

17 you accept as a determination that DOE has the

18 authority?

19 Will it be a written opinion from

20 Laura or will it have to be something else?

21 PARTICIPANT: That would be good.

22 MR. HURST: Nothing against Laura.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

2 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

3 HTP. I think what we have is a dividing line

4 here. We can put a comment segment, saying

5 that we want to verify the authority of this,

6 and we can still vote to submit the

7 information that we have.

8 MR. EISNER: All I was trying to

9 do was, you know, was trying to find out

10 whether some people would vote `no', no matter

11 what --

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

13 MR. EISNER: -- if they don't

14 agree that DOE has the authority.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, I

16 think that -- to Jeff's point, I think you

17 have to assume that the premise here is that

18 DOE has the authority.

19 Now, granted, we've heard the

20 concerns, we've heard what is going on in the

21 room, legal can take it back. Ultimately,

22 legal's decision, whether they have the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 authority, they'll decide and let program

2 know. That is kind of how it works around

3 here.

4 But if we make that -- you know,

5 you have to make that assumption. If we do

6 have it, what is your answer? 

7 Do you support a verification

8 program or not?

9 MS. MEYERS: I think it depends on

10 who pays for it.

11 MR. BAUMAN: If it's a

12 manufacturer funded verification program we're

13 talking about --

14 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with

15 Mitsubishi. I think that --

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: It would be an

17 acknowledgment of those industry programs

18 currently running and they were --

19 MR. BAUMAN: Which are

20 manufactured --

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- as long as

22 they've met certain criteria, which are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 manufacturer paid for.

2 MR. BAUMAN: Right.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

4 MR. BAUMAN: So, however you talk

5 about it you have to factor that in.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly, and it

7 would also be a requirement for those that

8 don't have a more -- participating, and they

9 would -- yes.

10 MR. EISNER: Can we put something

11 up on the screen first, before we continue?

12 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel,

13 Mitsubishi. 

14 MR. EISNER: Wait a second, Paul. 

15 I'd like to get something up on the screen, so

16 --

17 MR. DOPPEL: Okay.

18 MR. EISNER: -- we're getting

19 people onboard with what we're talking about.

20 Assuming that DOE has the legal

21 authority to require a verification program --

22 MS. MEYERS: Manufacturer funded.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 MR. EISNER: -- and it is

2 manufacturer funded, would you support a

3 recommendation to do this, to do verification

4 testing?

5 All right, that is up there. Now,

6 who wanted to talk?

7 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel,

8 Mitsubishi. You know, this has raised such a

9 question about whether they have the authority

10 and whether other -- what other implications

11 there might be, that I don't -- I mean, I

12 would be ill-advised, I think to address that

13 because we don't know what other verification

14 -- or other ramifications there could be from,

15 you know, whether DOE does or does not.

16 So, I think there is another area

17 that says, you know, we're not sure what the

18 situation is, and it would be best to get a

19 full clarification before, you know, we try to

20 get -- whether you're on this side or that

21 side.

22 I don't even know where the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 dividing line is. So, I don't know exactly

2 which side to say.

3 MR. CALABRESE: This is Dave

4 AHRI. The legal question is actually more

5 sophisticated then I think more that we're

6 getting at.

7 MR. DOPPEL: That is what I'm

8 saying.

9 MR. CALABRESE: It's not whether -

10 -

11 MR. DOPPEL: That is what I was

12 trying to say.

13 MS. BARHYDT: That's why you need

14 a lawyer. 

15 MR. CALABRESE: You can make a

16 strong argument that DOE has the authority. 

17 The problem is that depending upon where they

18 try to derive that authority, if it's under

19 one of the areas of the law, I think that they

20 have weak argument.

21 However, on the other one, I think

22 they could, under this (b) paragraph, however,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 they must pay for all the testing, and if they

2 were not to pay for all the testing, I think

3 there would be a serious question as to

4 whether they were appropriately using the

5 authority under 6296(b).

6 So, it is a -- the question is,

7 perhaps maybe it is a fundamental question of

8 the authority, but it is how they would use

9 that authority, that I think would get -- we

10 get wrapped up in to.

11 MR. EISNER: So, again, the two

12 assumptions that are up there, you would not

13 support, you would not vote for that program,

14 because it assumes that the manufacturer will

15 bear the cost?

16 So, all I'm trying to get to, are

17 we going to be able to negotiate if a certain

18 number of people in this room will vote `no',

19 because they don't think DOE has the legal

20 authority?

21 I'm not telling you, your vote

22 means anything in terms of the legal
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 authority, but if you're going to vote against

2 any recommendation for a verification program

3 because you don't think they have the legal

4 authority, I'd like to find that out.

5 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

6 AHRI. I think, based on what just Dave said,

7 DOE probably has the authority.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

9 MR. AMRANE: The question is under

10 what section? Is it 6296(b) or (d)?

11 MS. BARHYDT: Well, but the way

12 the question has been presented is, does DOE

13 have authority to require manufacturers to

14 fund a verification program --

15 MR. AMRANE: Right.

16 MS. BARHYDT: -- which is the

17 question that is worded here.

18 MR. AMRANE: Exactly, and the

19 question maybe for DOE is that assuming that

20 DOE has to pay for it, is DOE willing to have

21 a verification program?

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're just trying
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 to get to the fact of, do people in the room

2 agree that we should? We haven't gotten there

3 yet.

4 So, why don't we --

5 MS. BARHYDT: But if people don't

6 think that --

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why should we even

8 investigate it, if we --

9 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, if I may.

10 I think that most -- I'll speak for just

11 myself, I guess.

12 If the -- 

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're going to,

14 for us.

15 MR. THARP: I'm going to, whether

16 you like it or not.

17 Goodman would support a

18 verification program for everybody, so there

19 would be a level playing field.

20 But the rules would need to be

21 delineated and until there are some rules on

22 the table, I don't think I could vote one way
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 or the other, without knowing the full end of

2 the requirement.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, the hard part

4 about this is that this gets us to whether we

5 should even go forward with establishing

6 rules.

7 So, what we're trying to -- what

8 Neil is fundamentally asking you is, do you

9 guys agree with the concept of a verification

10 program, a manufacturer funded verification

11 program, because if there is enough people

12 around the table that say `no', there is no

13 point in negotiating the details.

14 MR. THARP: So, the --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: In other words,

16 we're done. I mean, I'll say it more bluntly

17 than Neil did, but I mean, that is what he is

18 asking.

19 MS. MEYERS: I still find it hard

20 to vote on it, because while we support a

21 verification program, if the verification

22 program that is eventually implemented by DOE
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 causes my verification cost to increase by,

2 you know, $10 million, then I'm no longer

3 going to support that program.

4 So, it all depends upon what those

5 details are and whether I could support it and

6 the --

7 MR. EISNER: It doesn't change

8 their legal authority. So, if you don't think

9 they have the legal authority, that is

10 irrelevant. That is why I am very confused,

11 as to what are the arguments being made, and

12 I'm wondering what we're going to end up with.

13 If they don't have the legal

14 authority, it doesn't matter how much it

15 costs.

16 MR. THARP: If you make the

17 assumption that DOE has the legal authority,

18 then I am very interested in participating in

19 negotiations.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Then you would

21 fundamentally --

22 MR. THARP: Like Dave said, and I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 would --

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Fundamentally, you

3 would vote `yes'.

4 MR. THARP: Like he said --

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is not going

6 to excuse you from having the ability to vote

7 `no' on any single part of the details that

8 are further negotiated.

9 MR. THARP: Yes.

10 MS. BARHYDT: I would just --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: But the

12 fundamental question and the answer to Neil's

13 question is that yes, it's not no.

14 MR. THARP: Yes.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I've got this on

16 record.

17 MS. MEYERS: I don't know that I

18 agree with that actually.

19 MR. THARP: Yes, get the head20 nodding no's recorded, please.

21 MS. BARHYDT: So, I think --

22 MR. BALLO: I am wondering if this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 is something that maybe we can address by

2 changing the ground rules.

3 If I'm reading this right, the

4 concern of some members if, we would be

5 conceding DOE's authority to impose costs on

6 us, if we agree to negotiate something that is

7 premised on the idea that DOE has the

8 authority.

9 What if we added an additional

10 ground rule that says, you know, doesn't --

11 that participating in this process does not,

12 you know, waive your right to challenge DOE's

13 legal authority to impose costs on the

14 manufacturers.

15 MS. MEYERS: You're doing this --

16 this already, you're doing this assessment and

17 enforcement testing already.

18 So, I am trying to decide why we

19 need something else.

20 MS. BARHYDT: So, you would vote

21 `no'.

22 MS. MEYERS: I mean, you are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 currently doing verification testing. You

2 call it assessment testing, and you -- and if

3 something is wrong, you are -- so, why are we

4 trying to develop this whole other regulatory

5 scope section --

6 MS. BARHYDT: Because you guys --

7 MS. MEYERS: That was, you know, I

8 think the -- I think before -- I think we're

9 better informed now.

10 So, that is why my argument -- I'm

11 like, well, why are we doing this?

12 MS. HOOTMAN: That goes back to my

13 point of, I think it was added when we didn't

14 understand all of that, plus it was added --

15 MS. BARHYDT: So, if everybody in

16 the room agrees, then we don't need to talk

17 about this and --

18 MS. HOOTMAN: Plus, it was added

19 in light of the statistics area, too. You

20 know, if you already use the same statistical,

21 you know, areas and issues that we are -- that

22 we know we need to discuss, then it also had
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 issues.

2 MR. THARP: My personal opinion is

3 that what would be a good thing is for a

4 working group, as discussed earlier, a working

5 group be established and complete their work

6 to do the analysis of statistical

7 certification and enforcement issues, and then

8 address a verification program, when we have

9 that information.

10 MR. EISNER: Brian is the only one

11 with his hand up. 

12 MR. FERRIOL: Brian with UL. So,

13 here is my question, in listening to the

14 discussion, for Ashley and Laura, if this

15 group votes `no', is that then saying that DOE

16 will not pursue a verification program?

17 MS. BARHYDT: No.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not necessarily. 

19 We could do it on our own.

20 MR. FERRIOL: Understood, okay,

21 but so, just a clarifying point.

22 If we vote `no' versus `yes', how
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 would that influence your pursuing

2 verification?

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know that

4 -- so, obviously, if you vote `yes', we would

5 be looking to this group to continue their

6 efforts to come up with verification program

7 guidelines, detailed for product specific

8 things, or at least you would be asking ASRAC

9 to allow you to continue, which I thought is

10 where we started the meeting at the beginning

11 of this.

12 If you vote `no', then it is done. 

13 The working group -- the committee is done

14 with their working group session, then if DOE

15 -- you know, Laura and I and many people above

16 us, decide that verification is what the

17 Department -- mandatory verification

18 requirement is the way the Department wants to

19 proceed, we would do it on our own accord,

20 with our own details --

21 MR. FERRIOL: Okay.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and put it out
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 for notice and comment.

2 MR. FERRIOL: I think that was an

3 important point to bring out.

4 MS. BARHYDT: I actually think

5 there is a third potential option, which is

6 that ASRAC could decide that they want to make

7 a recommendation to the Department, that we --

8 that they think that there should be a working

9 group, or I mean --

10 MR. FERRIOL: Okay.

11 MS. BARHYDT: That is also a

12 possibility.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

14 MR. FERRIOL: Okay.

15 MS. BARHYDT: Irrespective of

16 whatever --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: It would be a

18 different working group. It would go through

19 the re-nomination process. 

20 So, you know, people here working

21 on it who have voting membership wouldn't

22 necessarily be assured voting membership on a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 separate one.

2 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We

3 keep coming back to the fundamental question,

4 that everyone tries to ignore, is the fact

5 that at this time, I believe that there are

6 enough of us in this room, that know there are

7 enough bad players running around in the

8 world, that we need some sort of verification

9 program.

10 The people in this room are

11 probably not the ones who are out there

12 putting out the bad numbers, but

13 unfortunately, with the scope and what we've

14 heard in this room, I do not see how the DOE

15 is possibly ever going to capture a majority

16 of the bad players under the present scenario

17 of testing a few units with a few million

18 dollars a year budget, because there is such

19 value of product in this room, they wouldn't

20 get very far, more than 50 pieces and they'd

21 run out of budget.

22 So, I for one, as I -- this is my
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 company, nobody else in the industry, I say

2 that we would want to support a verification

3 program because there are enough bad players

4 in our segment of industry, numbers that we

5 see by testing competition products, that we

6 would want some verification.

7 It may be because they just don't

8 know how to test correctly, and one good

9 verification step through, and they're going

10 to learn how to test correctly, because a

11 third-party is going to make them learn how to

12 test correctly, or they're going to get

13 caught, just because they're putting bad

14 product out there.

15 But our industry right now has

16 several players -- companies who we know ahead

17 of time, when they publish a number, it's

18 bogus.

19 They aren't sitting in this room

20 because they're not the ones -- they're the

21 ones who are hiding out from this meeting.

22 MR. SACHS: Neil, I'd just like to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 propose a modest amendment to what is up

2 there, which would simply say -- 

3 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ron Shebik,

4 with Hussman. I've tried to follow the

5 question that you stated.

6 If a company, if a manufacturer is

7 aware that there is bad players out there,

8 could you not -- could the manufacturer not

9 report this to DOE?

10 I guess if you're a bad player, is

11 the verification -- could the verification

12 program stop you anyway?

13 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. If they're

14 -- if bad players get involved in a third15 party, they will get caught in a reasonable

16 time window, if there is verification testing,

17 which is independently operated by a third18 party.

19 If they do not have anything, is

20 what we have right now, the DOE still has a

21 limited budget and if we all decide to list

22 everybody that we consider as a bad player,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 how many years before DOE can actually test

2 their product?

3 MR. SHEBIK: Okay, this is Ron at

4 Hussman. That is a good question for Laura

5 and for DOE.

6 I mean, we all test our

7 competitors' products. They test ours. We

8 test theirs.

9 If we're suspect of something,

10 we're going to test it and we're going to find

11 out if it works or not, or if it's valid or

12 not. Could DOE handle this?

13 MS. BARHYDT: To date, we have

14 been able to investigate every report every

15 report that we've had. We have not had so

16 many reports that we were not able to deal

17 with it.

18 Now, I don't know, maybe now that

19 I said that, we will, but currently, but we've

20 been able to deal with it.

21 MR. EISNER: Harvey wanted to make

22 an amendment. You've got to speak up, that is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 why --

2 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I am

3 hearing from at least Mary and Charlie, and

4 perhaps others, that CRE feels that a

5 verification program will help keep their

6 field of business fair and implicitly that

7 it's a cost-effective way to do it.

8 I would therefore, like to segment

9 this and suggest adding at the end, the three

10 words `for CRE'. I want to eat the elephant

11 one bite at a time.

12 MR. ANDERSON: I would disagree

13 with that. That is -- 

14 MR. SACHS: Okay.

15 MR. ANDERSON: I don't -- I would

16 disagree with that. 

17 Harvey and Mary have a totally

18 different segment in the CRE industry and what

19 structural concepts zeros in on is, and I

20 don't think that will --

21 MR. SACHS: Well, help -- can you

22 help please, understand what the concern is?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 MR. BAUMAN: Can I jump in real

2 quick, because I think the problem with that

3 statement, Harvey, and I appreciate the input,

4 and I won't say that that is not a position

5 we're talking about.

6 But I think what we're talking

7 about here is getting again, back to a level

8 playing field for everybody.

9 The CRE manufacturers, while there

10 -- a lot of those not in this room, maybe

11 would have a lot of issue with you saying,

12 well, CRE, you're going to have a verification

13 program and nobody else does.

14 I think that is a basic quality

15 idea there, whatever, and I think this is the

16 idea that generally should -- commercial

17 products have some type of verification

18 program, but again, this -- should this --

19 it's almost the question, should this working

20 group have an effect on that, or should they

21 let DOE or ASRAC go back and decide on their

22 own? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 That's what we're walking away

2 from here. We're not walking away with the

3 idea that verification --

4 MR. SACHS: I appreciate that. My

5 sense has been that the industry structures

6 differ greatly, but I'd like to go back and

7 hear the specific concerns from Structured

8 Concepts.

9 MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have -- we

10 developed -- we have totally different

11 products than what True has. They build door

12 cases. They're part of Energy Star. We don't

13 have any Energy Star products right now. We

14 don't build in that market.

15 MR. HON: Then let me -- mind if I

16 interrupt a second? Charlie Hon.

17 Our product is more of a

18 commodity, you buy it as we build it. Not all

19 of our products is that way, but a majority of

20 our products, the vast majority is that we

21 build it, you buy it as it is, you can this,

22 this or this option on it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 It is not a custom design to the

2 building structure, that a lot of CRE actually

3 maintains.

4 You get into backroom grocery

5 store business, it is a totally different

6 section, and that is why I made my comments,

7 I said, this is true for True Manufacturing.

8 It is not necessarily true for

9 other sectors of ours. Remember, we had the

10 20-some categories spelled out, for that

11 reason, because there are such differences

12 within the system.

13 MR. SACHS: Now, that is very

14 helpful. My understanding was that -- and my

15 memory may be failing me on this, that we had

16 already decided that true one-offs were not

17 going to have a verification program.

18 So, that I think your concerns --

19 MR. ANDERSON: Right, but we do

20 make a lot of one-off, we do have some

21 catalogue product, we do have very limited

22 scope of stock -- just for quick shipments.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 So, yes, there is a segment of our

2 product that would fall underneath that.

3 MR. SACHS: So, have you --

4 MR. ANDERSON: But it's not the

5 same product that True makes.

6 MR. SACHS: I certainly respect

7 that, and again, I'm just trying to

8 understand, to see if there is a combination

9 or if I ought to just jump off the creek, jump

10 off the wall.

11 The build to order also had some

12 special considerations, and I guess I'm asking

13 if there are ways that as a business, what has

14 been -- if you've had time to review what has

15 been recommended and if it would work for you?

16 I don't -- it's a question of

17 where there are problems.

18 MR. ANDERSON: I am not 100

19 percent, but there are also other say,

20 competitors or players in our industry that

21 make something very close, that I think would

22 also --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 MR. SACHS: Okay, no, I appreciate

2 that.

3 MR. ANDERSON: I'm just saying

4 Structural Concept, there is others -- 

5 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon.

6 MR. SACHS: Thank you.

7 MR. HON: I think you have to be

8 cognizant of the build to order people and the

9 customized people may not have the same market

10 impact as we suffer in a commodity type

11 product.

12 Over the years, commodity products

13 are the first to be copied and reduced costs

14 engineering put to them, quite often reducing

15 quality along the way. As such, commodity

16 products are the ones which quite often,

17 somebody else spins off and makes their own

18 product very similar to what we are presently

19 making, by cutting corners and doing less of

20 a job, and not really -- and then basically

21 copying another number, make up a number to

22 justify what they're doing.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 It is much more -- when you're

2 doing a customized product, it is not an easy

3 thing to -- you're not just out there by --

4 with heavy competition from all angles. 

5 You're bidding a window against other people

6 in the same window category.

7 We're dealing with different cost

8 structures that we have to deal with, then

9 what they have to deal with, and as such, I

10 can understand them saying, "No, I don't want

11 that," completely, and if I was in their boot

12 -- shoes, I may be saying exactly the same

13 thing.

14 But from our sector of the

15 industry, we are seeing falsification,

16 improper data inputs. There is no way that

17 some of the numbers we see could ever be real.

18 MR. SACHS: Okay, well, Charlie,

19 and is there a way you could segment the piece

20 of CRE, that you, Mary and some others feel

21 ought to have verification?

22 MR. HURST: So, back to kind of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

1 what Neil was saying, and I'm going to answer

2 your question also.

3 Lennox, through Kaiser Warren,

4 does a lot of what you guys do, through

5 Heatcraft and other stuff, we do a lot of what

6 you do.

7 My assumption, being a part of the

8 multiple conversations that have happened

9 prior, are that there is an accommodation for

10 build to order types of products.

11 I agree with Charlie's comments,

12 that there are bad actors in the industry,

13 that I'd certainly like to run out of the

14 industry or get them to clean up their act.

15 Neil, to your point, the challenge

16 that I have is being on the CRE side, as well

17 as the HVAC, commercial HVAC side, is how do

18 you have multiple programs that are equitable,

19 where I am not increasing my burden even

20 further for commercial HVAC because I feel we

21 do quite a bit today through the AHRI program.

22 But I also understand that there
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 is a minimum standard that has to be met for

2 commercial refrigeration equipment, as well.

3 But I don't think an additional

4 burden should be heaped on commercial HVAC

5 because, this is debatable, but we're already

6 there, but we're a lot further than some of

7 the other product classes are, that we've

8 discussed.

9 So, my concern with what Karen

10 said earlier about the date or the timing, is

11 just what is equitable? How do you spend your

12 money -- as a taxpayer, how do you spend the

13 money, the Department's money, which is in

14 effect our money, how do you spend it

15 equitably, with the best bang for the buck,

16 where it gives our consumers what they

17 deserve, which is the rating that we sold into

18 commerce?

19 MR. EISNER: I understand that,

20 but before you get to that question, how do

21 you set up an equitable program, because it

22 could be very, very different --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 MR. HURST: Well, I think that the

2 --

3 MR. EISNER: -- is do you think --

4 MR. HURST: One of the points --

5 MR. EISNER: Do you think they

6 have the legal authority, and if you don't,

7 then there is nothing to vote on.

8 MR. HURST: So, I think there is

9 value to this group. As much as I, you know,

10 love leaving my family on a biweekly basis, to

11 come spend time with you folks, I think there

12 is value to continuing the discussion.

13 So, if that is the question, yes. 

14 I don't want to couch it as legal authority,

15 because I am not an attorney. I'm going under

16 the assumption that somebody knows what

17 they're talking about and we didn't just waste

18 months of time coming up here, because the

19 Department didn't have some authority that

20 we're now debating, you know, at 1:30 in the

21 afternoon, at the back end of this thing.

22 So, I'm assuming that somebody has
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 the authority to do something, and that

2 gathering as a group to discuss these issues

3 is beneficial versus having the Department

4 follow the process of a rulemaking, we file

5 comments, we go back and forth, then there is

6 a legal challenge, I'm not up for that. Both

7 of them are time consuming. I think this one

8 is more effective.

9 MS. DANE: And to Harvey's

10 question, I would say that I believe that CRE

11 as a group could segment the different topics

12 within CRE.

13 You know, their group has not been

14 excluded from having discussions with us on

15 the side meetings. We've put them -- the NAPA

16 sends out notices when we're going to have a

17 conference call.

18 It's open to all commercial

19 refrigeration groups, whether they choose to

20 participate or raise their issues is, you

21 know, their choice.

22 But we bring all of their opinions
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 back, whether they're popular or not, or

2 whether we know we're going to get talked to

3 sternly or not, we bring them all back to the

4 group and I throw them out there.

5 So, I would like to see what is

6 happening with CRE going on forward, and not

7 leave it up to rest, but ASRAC will say,

8 "Well, because these certain groups are

9 disgruntled," or whatever, where do you want

10 to attach to it, that all of them need to be

11 reset.

12 CRE would like to continue on, and

13 we'd like to continue on with an open forum

14 for the groups that are not attending all the

15 time, and decide what works best for our

16 industry.

17 MR. EISNER: Let me ask one more

18 basic question, and it might be good time for

19 some discussion, for a little more discussion

20 on this, not just a `yes' or `no'.

21 For those of you who still do not

22 believe that DOE has the legal authority to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 set up a program and impose the cost on the

2 manufacturers, what would it take to satisfy

3 your concern about that? What would you want

4 to see, to establish that they do have the

5 authority? 

6 Laura says they do. What do you

7 want beyond that?

8 MR. AMRANE: How about a legal

9 memo from DOE --

10 MS. MEYERS: Third-party legal

11 memo.

12 MR. AMRANE: Well, maybe third13 party.

14 MR. EISNER: Well, are you willing

15 to pay for it?

16 MR. HURST: How much do they cost?

17 I'll write one.

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. EISNER: All right, so, one

20 person is saying, a third-party legal memo. 

21 One is saying a legal memo from Laura. Other

22 ideas? Other things?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 MR. HURST: Can I ask the

2 attorneys a question? I mean, if you were to

3 resolve this, without filing a suit, is there

4 outside counsel that can be jointly consulted

5 to --

6 MR. CALABRESE: There is plenty of

7 --

8 MR. HURST: -- resolve this issue?

9 MR. CALABRESE: There is plenty of

10 lawyers out there that --

11 MR. HURST: I don't think there

12 are.

13 MR. CALABRESE: I don't think the

14 question is so clear cut, and I think that --

15 I mean, like any legal argument, there is both

16 sides to it, and you could argue strongly on

17 one side or the other, and I think you're

18 going to get -- you know, if you want the

19 answer to be a certain thing, you'll find

20 certain pieces that say they're -- that will

21 play it off, and if you want to prove that you

22 do have the authority, you're going to say,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 "Well, look at this."

2 So, I don't know how much value

3 that --

4 PARTICIPANT: That is what you do

5 when you get lawyers in the --

6 MR. EISNER: Now, come on, guys. 

7 This is all on the record. Don't say negative

8 things about lawyers.

9 (Laughter.)

10 MS. DANE: Or engineers.

11 MR. BAUMAN: Does is make sense to

12 have the lawyers in the room get -- like we've

13 been having CRE meetings with everybody else,

14 and legal meetings -- I mean, I trust the

15 people in this room, but I think to the point

16 -- you know, I'm not completely kidding about

17 that, is that I think I trust opinions, and I

18 think there is a variation and I think the

19 people - people have spoken up and they're

20 appreciated.

21 They all talk about this, and it's

22 way over my head, and but I trust that they
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 would be able to come back with, would be

2 something that could potentially be --

3 convince everyone. I don't know if that is

4 reasonable or not.

5 Again, that is not a legal -- you

6 know, not a legal standing or whatever, but a

7 review of the people that understand these

8 issues better than myself and John. We're not

9 -- 

10 MR. BALLO: I mean, my concern is

11 that I think based on what Dave had said, I

12 get the sense that CRE has a view of the

13 statute, and I get the sense that Laura has a

14 view of the statute, and I know I have a view

15 of the statute, and I just don't see us

16 agreeing, but I could see us agreeing to

17 reserve the right to disagree later.

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. SACHS: Neil, this is Harvey,

20 and I guess I'm of the mind that given the

21 ambiguities that Dave and others have pointed

22 out to us, our job is to think about what is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 the right public policy.

2 My own sense is that that is going

3 to be much more granular than an overall

4 statement, and I think if we reach a set of

5 consensus recommendations, that somehow, those

6 who are in the room will find a way to

7 interpret the law to support it.

8 MR. EISNER: The thing that

9 bothers me is the neutral, is whether we can

10 effectively negotiate a consensus standard if

11 some people do not believe DOE has the legal

12 authority.

13 MR. SACHS: I understand that and

14 I'm much closer to being totally foolish than

15 a lawyer -- than being a lawyer, but I guess

16 I'm still hearing the opportunity, as we've

17 done in other areas, like verification, for

18 doing some segmentation by product class and

19 reaching understandings, on things that are

20 workable, and once they're workable, they can

21 be recommended, and then it's ASRAC's question

22 whether they're legal or not. ASRAC would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 have to gives its own advice.

2 I don't think -- as John said, I

3 don't think we're in a position to decide

4 whether DOE has the authority.

5 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss,

6 Lochinvar, and to that point, we already

7 invested over 100-man days in discussing

8 verification testing, and I am disinclined to

9 make it a full man-year invested in this, if

10 in fact it's a moot point.

11 MR. EISNER: That is my concern.

12 MR. STEPHENS: Neil, can I make a

13 recommendation that we break into our sections

14 to have a more detailed discussion for each

15 one of our sections, and then we get back in

16 a few minutes?

17 MS. DANE: Is it possible to vote

18 by industry, about whether or not -- I mean,

19 if CRE decides that we don't have a problem

20 with whether or not the DOE has the regulatory

21 authority, blah, blah, blah, and we say, we're

22 assuming that they do, we feel this?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

1 I mean, we don't want to hold the

2 rest of the people back if they honestly don't

3 think they can come to a consensus, but if we

4 feel we can, shouldn't we be allowed to?

5 MR. CALABRESE: Didn't ASRAC set

6 voting rules?

7 PARTICIPANT: Yes, I think so.

8 MR. CALABRESE: And that was first

9 established and it was -- I don't know --

10 MS. DANE: Well, it's two negative

11 votes, but I could see where if -- I could see

12 where somebody could torpedo another

13 industry's stuff, if they wanted to.

14 I would hope that people would

15 abstain, if it's not their industry.

16 MR. BAUMAN: I think it's a more

17 general question, you know, it's not, should

18 CRE have -- should CRE outline any

19 abstentions and the fact is, everybody should

20 be on a level playing field, that if you're

21 going to have verification burdens, it should

22 be for all covered products. I thought that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 was kind of how we got to this -- to this

2 point.

3 I mean, if -- you know, we're

4 close on ideas and I think most people in CRE

5 -- but I think again, to the people that I've

6 heard objections to, when they think we're

7 kind of set back during this, like this wasn't

8 part of it, and how come other people aren't

9 going to have to have this type of

10 verification programs, that is where the idea

11 of -- in general, should covered products,

12 commercial, residential, whatever, should they

13 be -- if the DOE has legal authority, should

14 they be susceptible to a manufacturer funded

15 verification -- regular verification burden,

16 we're going to call it.

17 MR. EISNER: Let's hear from Frank

18 and then we'll get back to whether we should

19 break up in accordance with Phillip's

20 suggestion.

21 MR. STANONIK: Earlier today, the

22 discussion was about -- the question was to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 make a recommendation to ASRAC, to develop a

2 separate working group to address

3 verification.

4 By the way, there was -- I didn't

5 hear anyone suggest that any of the work that

6 occurred in this working group, up to this

7 point on verification, would be wiped off the

8 slate. It would be forwarded. It would not

9 be eliminated, as Jeff said, the man hours

10 that were spent to be -- you know, to be

11 obliged to give them that information.

12 And so, somehow, we've gone from

13 that discussion about do we think that this

14 would be better addressed on a -- I'll call it

15 all covered products basis, by a separate

16 working group?

17 Now, we've kind of got hinged on

18 this question, which will not be solved in

19 this group, whether or not DOE has the legal

20 authority, and somehow, I think we've really 

21 lost the question.

22 MR. BALLO: When you talk about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 getting the question solved, the only way that

2 question is ever going to be solved is with,

3 you know, three Judges of the D.C. Circuit.

4 But I mean --

5 MR. THARP: And that will be years

6 down the road.

7 MR. BALLO: You have to get

8 through -- you have to get to some sort of

9 regulation first, to be challenged.

10 So, I don't see why we don't just

11 put that question off until -- if you're not

12 happy with the outcome, challenge it on that

13 basis, but -- but I'd still like to see us try

14 to work something out, so we would actually be

15 happy with the outcome.

16 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with

17 AHRI. I guess in my way of thinking, okay,

18 again, let's just say the recommendation was,

19 okay, ASRAC, we really think for various and

20 sundry reasons, there should be a separate

21 working group to address verification. Here

22 is where we have gotten so far.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 I think then, as part of that --

2 if that were the recommendation, there would

3 also have to be information to say, "Oh, and

4 by the way, this working group had a

5 significant discussion about, in fact, what

6 the," -- to say, what is the level of DOE's

7 authority, in fact, to establish verification

8 regulations, right, I'm paraphrasing a little

9 bit.

10 MR. EISNER: And that is the point

11 that was made down here also, that this is the

12 only issue on which the legal authority has

13 been raised.

14 So, we're asking people to stay in

15 this room and continue to negotiate, knowing

16 that some are thinking about challenging the

17 legal authority to begin with.

18 So, do you want to continue to put

19 the time in --

20 MR. CALABRESE: Right, but the

21 question was --

22 MR. EISNER: -- and if you say you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

1 all think it's worth it, then we can keep

2 coming back.

3 MR. CALABRESE: I mean, could this

4 working group provide a report to the ASRAC,

5 not a recommendation, but a report of issues

6 discussed, questions raised, and then it's

7 presented to that committee?

8 I don't know what the rules are. 

9 Do we have to have a recommendation?

10 MR. EISNER: There is no reason

11 you have to have a recommendation, but the

12 question is whether people want to continue to

13 even devote time to developing what they would

14 say in a report, if they don't think that DOE

15 has the legal authority to do anything, short

16 of paying for it.

17 MR. SACHS: We should break that

18 up. We want the tape -- can we rewind the

19 tape and go back a minute or two?

20 MR. EISNER: Now or after we

21 break?

22 MR. SACHS: Before we break,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 before we go further.

2 This is Harvey, and I think that -

3 - as I've been listening, and trying to listen

4 deeply, I'm hearing different meanings aside

5 to -- assigned to the words `level playing

6 field' and `equitable'.

7 MR. EISNER: What was that?

8 MR. SACHS: Equitable. To me, and

9 I think of parallels in other areas of policy,

10 like affirmative action, level playing field

11 refers to competition between manufacturers

12 providing the same -- or within industry,

13 providing similar products and services.

14 It shouldn't be easier for Charlie

15 than Mary or Jeff or vice versa. It doesn't

16 refer to competition between barbers and

17 surgeons. We understand those today.

18 To me, equitable does not mean

19 identical, but achieving the same goals, even

20 though the processes might be different for

21 different industry segments.

22 In this case as an example,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 equivalent assurance against the sale or

2 consistent sale of non-conforming products in

3 the market.

4 So, I think it's, to me, important

5 to distinguish between equitable and

6 identical, as we're dealing with such a

7 diverse fleet of industries. End of rant.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

9 HTP. I guess my question is, if we as a group

10 do not make a recommendation to ASRAC, which

11 would go to the Department, what is the

12 Department going to do?

13 Are you going to include it on

14 your own, now that that topic is up?

15 MS. BARHYDT: No, that policy

16 decision has not been made.

17 MR. STEPHENS: I know you're

18 leaving us in just total limbo there.

19 MS. BARHYDT: I am terribly sorry,

20 but there has been no decision, so I can't

21 tell you anything.

22 MR. CALABRESE: But if the ASRAC
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 is presented with a report of these

2 deliberations, I mean, they would act upon

3 that, or they would consider it, and so,

4 that's right, I don't know, maybe it makes

5 sense for us to huddle with some -- everybody

6 to take a break and maybe work on this --

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, ASRAC is

8 meeting tomorrow. So, the idea of generating

9 a report tonight is a little --

10 MR. CALABRESE: I'm talking about

11 a report here, I've seen the bullet points,

12 here are the issues discussed --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

14 MR. CALABRESE: -- here is the

15 decision -- the problems.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Like I said, I'm

17 happy to relay any message. I am the DOE rep

18 on ASRAC. So, I think I'm the only one from

19 ASRAC here right now.

20 If it's a one-pager or just a note

21 --

22 MR. CALABRESE: Or less.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- or whatever, I

2 don't know what you -- you know, you can --

3 the meeting is open. ASRAC can discuss it.

4 ASRAC may very well vote to say go

5 back, working group, and keep going for it, or

6 no, you know.

7 I guess the -- typically what I've

8 seen is that they -- they like to know what

9 the working group is thinking.

10 So, if there are opinions of the

11 working group, especially consensus ones, it

12 would be really good to at least be able to

13 iron those out.

14 So, if for example, CRE, if

15 everyone on the committee for CRE says, "Yes,

16 we want to keep going," then that would be a

17 bullet point.

18 But if everyone -- I'm just going

19 to make up -- like, if everyone in another

20 group says, "No, we definitely want to keep

21 going," then I think that would be a

22 worthwhile bullet point for them, and they can
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 decide what they want the committee to do from

2 there.

3 MR. EISNER: All right, why don't

4 we break up into the groups?

5 MR. DOPPEL: Can I ask a question,

6 first?

7 MR. EISNER: Sure.

8 MR. DOPPEL: Okay, so, you said

9 that this group put verification on the list,

10 okay.

11 So, if we did not have any

12 conversation, any discussion about

13 verification, where would that be in the frame

14 of what ASRAC has started, and what the whole

15 process has been started? Is verification

16 even on the radar?

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, it has not

18 been discussed to date, yet.

19 MR. DOPPEL: Okay, that is --

20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, with respect

21 to ASRAC, right?

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, I mean --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 MR. DOPPEL: How about with

2 respect to the whole -- the rulemaking that

3 led to ASRAC being formed? Is there -- was

4 verification within that scheme?

5 MS. BARHYDT: ASRAC is just a

6 general advisory committee dealing with the

7 appliance standards program.

8 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

9 MS. BARHYDT: It's very broad.

10 MR. DOPPEL: Okay.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: There was no

12 rulemaking that led to that being formed. 

13 MR. DOPPEL: Well, I meant not

14 being formed, but discussion about

15 verification.

16 MR. AMRANE: Whether it would be -

17 -

18 MS. HOOTMAN: You're saying the

19 CEE --

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, so, and this

21 --

22 MS. BARHYDT: The CE1?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, we said that it

3 was a topic that we wanted to take up in the

4 future. It was for -- 

5 MS. HOOTMAN: It was under your

6 questions, under CE?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, right, and in

8 the original RFI, we said, what did people

9 think about verification.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: We get a lot of

12 comments. I mean, the honest answer is --

13 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- we get a lot of

15 comments saying, you know, we would like DOE

16 to acknowledge industry programs. We would

17 like to know how DOE's testing works with

18 industry programs, and so, it's really been

19 more of a -- people have come to ask us

20 about, you know, how are you going to handle,

21 how will you acknowledge, why won't you

22 acknowledge, will you acknowledge industry
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 programs, and you know, this is a fundamental

2 step to that.

3 MR. BAUMAN: Maybe the general

4 question too is, again, going back, I'll say

5 one level above verification, since we -- kind

6 of what we went through when we got to

7 verification was, maybe it's by product

8 categories, how do the groups think the best

9 way -- the best approach is to ensure

10 integrity of certified values, you know. 

11 Maybe for some industries, that

12 is, you know, reporting -- reporting cheaters,

13 or it's, you know, the Department -- it is the

14 Department going out and buying stuff, and you

15 know, that basic level question, I'll say

16 above there, where verification is one of the

17 optional -- one of the possible answers to

18 that question.

19 But I think we keep going back and

20 not verification, then what? 

21 So, by industry, I think it's fair

22 to maybe ask that, what the recommendation
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 would be by industry or if everybody says the

2 same thing, then maybe we have one answer for

3 everything.

4 MR. EISNER: All right, let me

5 suggest we break up into three groups, plus I

6 would suggest the lawyers in the room get

7 together and see if there is anything they can

8 learn from each other that might help clarify

9 some of this.

10 Let's take 20 minutes. One of you

11 can go to the Subway side of the restaurant

12 down there. The other can go to the Dunkin

13 Donuts side, if everyone can have this room,

14 and the lawyers can do it in the hallway. 

15 (Laughter.)

16 PARTICIPANT: And what is the

17 question we're discussing?

18 MR. EISNER: The question is

19 discussing your thoughts from your particular

20 groups on how to proceed. I guess that's it.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

22 matter went off the record at approximately
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 1:50 p.m. and resumed at approximately 2:50

2 p.m.)

3 MR. EISNER: All right, would

4 anybody like to start off or should I call on

5 someone?

6 MR. BAUMAN: I think CRE, we got

7 together with everybody. We appreciate some

8 additional input that we may have not had

9 quite clearly from our previous discussion,

10 other voices being heard, which is

11 appreciated.

12 Basically, going through and we

13 kind of started it with the approach of the

14 concept of, you know, if we were sitting in

15 Laura and Ashley's chair, kind of, what do we

16 think would be a minimum level if we were

17 running a DOE program and we were not

18 certifying numbers, you know, what would we

19 feel comfortable with, through some level of

20 integrity to what is being manufacturers

21 reporting and that type of thing.

22 Everybody that was on the call or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 here present, was in agreement that a -- some

2 type of verification, regular verification

3 program, manufacturer funded, that as a

4 minimum burden, is the best approach, I'll

5 say.

6 Details on that, and again,

7 opportunity to go back and talk to some other

8 members who might not be present, to get

9 additional feedback and -- on that, I think we

10 still want to do that, but in general, I think

11 that was the, I'll say unanimous consensus,

12 that they give everybody that was involved in

13 that discussion that we were able to have.

14 We have a -- as I think we

15 mentioned previously, we do have -- I'll say

16 that an outline is still in draft form. I

17 don't think we're ready to present that to the

18 full working group here even. I think if we

19 had a little more time to I'll say polish that

20 up, I think we can present something that

21 gives recommendations on most of the items

22 that we think are necessary or needed.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 Admittedly, there may be some

2 items that we include, but we may say either,

3 you know, don't have consensus, complete

4 consensus on that or, you know, a couple

5 things to be considered.

6 So, it might not be a -- you know,

7 an absolute menu of this, this, this and this. 

8 It might be -- there might be some things in

9 there that are -- explaining a couple things

10 that were considered in some of the

11 discussions.

12 So, I think that is the approach

13 we're taking, and I think in the next -- I

14 would hope in the next -- possibly the next

15 day, we can -- if we have additional time for

16 break out sessions here, today or tomorrow, we

17 can potentially come up with something that

18 could then be moved forward for consideration.

19 MR. EISNER: Okay, any questions? 

20 Anybody have any -- anything you want to ask?

21 Okay, who is next?

22 MR. KLEISS: Boiler and water
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 heater group. First statement was we do not

2 support DOE required manufacturer-funded

3 verification testing programs.

4 The analysis of certification and 

5 enforcement testing -- sorry, enforcement and

6 testing variability needs to be completed

7 before development of any verification

8 regulations.

9 If and when DOE opens verification

10 program rulemaking, we strongly urge them to

11 include ASRAC and the development of that

12 rule, and the certification of DOE energy

13 consumption ratings should be focused on

14 substantiation of the ratings published in the

15 database.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you read that

17 last sentence again, please?

18 MR. KLEISS: The certification of

19 DOE energy consumption ratings should be

20 focused on substantiation of the ratings

21 published in the database.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: What does that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 mean?

2 MR. KLEISS: As opposed to

3 verification.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: How were -- 

5 MR. KLEISS: Catching things on

6 the front end, rather than on the back end.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, so, how

8 would you propose that is done though?

9 Are you suggesting that you submit

10 your test data, that we don't get --

11 MS. BARHYDT: That we use the

12 ADDM's?

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: That we don't ask

14 for them?

15 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens

16 with HTP. I think our intent was, we've made

17 so many changes, that what we want to do is we

18 want to make sure that the changes we've made

19 so far, will be better filtered on the front

20 end.

21 Then we want the information from

22 the statistic items that we talked about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

1 earlier today, add that in resolution, before

2 we work to establish the verification program.

3 So, more of a stepping into it.

4 MS. BARHYDT: I still don't

5 understand the last sentence.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't either.

7 MR. KLEISS: Well, part of that --

8 Jeff Kleiss from Lochinvar.

9 I think it's in response to the

10 expression we were getting from the CRE group,

11 of concerns of catching the bad players, and

12 verification testing seems to be the main

13 means that is being addressed there, and we

14 wanted to be -- to address that, but to do it

15 in a way other than a manufacturing

16 verification test burden.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, to Charlie's

18 point earlier, or Mary, I'm not sure which one

19 of you made it, so, I apologize if I get it

20 wrong.

21 If somebody -- if somebody then

22 sells -- if somebody themselves is doing --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 just fundamentally running the test wrong,

2 substantiation allows for them to run the

3 test, them to submit the results and them to

4 keep on going with their daily business.

5 You don't send that data -- right

6 now, there is no proposal to send that data to

7 the Department, to have anyone, whether it be

8 a third-party lab or someone else, review that

9 data, look over them before they test.

10 I mean, none of that is part of

11 certification. Certification, as we agreed to

12 it, is all on you guys. You control the

13 testing. You control where you test, how you

14 get to your ratings. There is a minimum

15 required to test. You may test more. That's

16 all on you.

17 The only way we get involved is if

18 you get a letter from Laura, asking for us to

19 -- asking for you information.

20 And so, since we hope that never

21 happens, we will -- the assumption here would

22 be, we would never see that, so, I am not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 quite sure I understand how your last sentence

2 equates to catching bad players.

3 MR. KLEISS: I understand your

4 concern. I don't have a response to that. 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MS. BARHYDT: So, it is -- is that

7 last sentence what you're getting at, is just

8 that you think that -- you don't have a

9 particular idea, but you think that more

10 brain-storming, people -- the Department

11 should be looking at other options?

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay, sure.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Can we use that

14 sentence instead of your last sentence,

15 because your last sentence has all kinds of

16 other implications. I think it triggers -- 

17 MR. KLEISS: The rest of the

18 group?

19 MS. MEYERS: Yes, I mean, for our

20 groups there are -- for our products,

21 especially when you get into the boiler areas,

22 there is other ways to substantiate your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 ratings.

2 So, we -- you know, I think we are

3 -- think that there are other options besides

4 testing to substantiate competitor's ratings,

5 including those currently available through

6 DOE's assessment and enforcement testing.

7 MR. EISNER: What would be the

8 others, in addition to that? Is there more on

9 the list?

10 MS. MEYERS: We didn't talk about

11 those in our groups, in the 20 minute break

12 out session -- yes, I mean, we have -- I mean,

13 you've heard a lot from the boiler people, and

14 everyone else, and you know, the way you build

15 pressure vessels and you know, there is a lot

16 of other things that those products have to --

17 other standards those products have to meet.

18 So, I mean, we've gone over that

19 ad nauseam in recent meetings. So, but I don't

20 think they need to be included right now, in

21 this.

22 MR. EISNER: And I thought I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 understood what you said was that, not that

2 you're -- the first sentence, not that you

3 will not support non-manufacturer funded

4 verification, or manufacturer-funded

5 verification, but that you're not ready for it

6 yet. You want to see how this program works,

7 as it gets put in place? Does that mean you

8 might support it in a few years?

9 MR. KLEISS: We would do it if --

10 MS. MEYERS: It was a third point.

11 MR. KLEISS: We would be

12 interested in being part of planning and

13 developing a verification program in the

14 future, once the statistical evaluation has

15 been addressed.

16 MR. STEPHENS: Where we expect

17 there to be a lot more discussion needed is

18 the manufacturer-funded testing.

19 MR. FERRIOL: And testing wasn't

20 put into the record here, because that was --

21 that was kind of the question earlier.

22 So, after the word `verification'
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 on line one --

2 PARTICIPANT: Verification test,

3 yes.

4 MR. FERRIOL: -- insert `testing'.

5 PARTICIPANT: Yes. 

6 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

7 AHRI. Part of the discussion is leading up to

8 the breakouts, we've identified a number of

9 questions, various aspects related to

10 verification programs, and I think we reached

11 the conclusion that the -- that would we be

12 interested in participating in development of

13 a verification program? Yes. 

14 Does it need to happen now? 

15 Probably in fact, no, because as we noted, the

16 information that is going to come out of the

17 certification and enforcement analysis will

18 have significant impact on how you might run

19 a verification program.

20 So, the other part of that, I

21 think as Jeff was mentioning, is that okay,

22 when DOE is ready to address verification
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 regulations, we think it should be something 

2 that, for lack of a better word here, managed

3 through ASRAC, and maybe that's the wrong

4 word, but funneled through ASRAC or whatever.

5 There is an inherent assumption

6 here that the work that has gone -- of the --

7 that has happened so far, is now on the record

8 and doesn't get lost. You know, we're not

9 starting over again, when this effort would

10 pick up.

11 MR. EISNER: Would you, from the

12 perspective of a boiler or water heater

13 manufacturer, believe there is a difference

14 between you and the other industries, so that

15 they could accept verification testing, or are

16 you just against verification testing until

17 all of the segments of the discussion in this

18 room have a chance to check how the

19 certification works in the real world?

20 MR. STEPHENS: I believe that know

21 their market best, and they --

22 MR. EISNER: And why is your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

1 market different from theirs? What could DOE

2 put into a rule, to justify a distinction for

3 your having verification testing -- not having

4 it, and CRE having it?

5 MR. KLEISS: There are two

6 elements to that. Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar.

7 I think one is that we are

8 comfortable with our VICP and the history that

9 that has provided in our industry, and as a

10 secondary, that we are comfortable with

11 challenging the existing DOE challenge

12 procedure, when we believe there is a bad

13 player.

14 MR. STANONIK: Yes, there is a --

15 Frank Stanonik, AHRI.

16 There is a significant difference.

17 These industries have dealt with efficiency

18 regulations and certification in some form or

19 another, for, in the case of water heaters, 30

20 years at least, in the case of boilers, we're

21 probably maybe going back to 70 or 80 years.

22 So, they have a long history of,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 let's call it industry sponsored certification

2 and verification, that in the case of CRE,

3 just isn't there, right.

4 I mean, to this point, you have

5 not had it in a program of that magnitude or

6 scope. It is a big difference.

7 MR. EISNER: Is the assessment

8 program available for all segments? It is,

9 isn't it?

10 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

11 MR. EISNER: So, this one could be

12 challenged under the -- boiler and water

13 heaters could be challenged under that?

14 MS. BARHYDT: You mean people can

15 notify us and we can do testing?

16 MR. EISNER: Yes. Okay, HVAC?

17 MS. BARHYDT: Did everyone agree

18 with that last sentence I added, because that

19 is what I think you all were saying, was that

20 if there is a future rulemaking, you think it

21 should be a negotiated rulemaking with you all

22 at the table, as opposed to a standard DOE --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 PARTICIPANT: Yes.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

3 MR. STEPHENS: One of the caveats

4 that we did discuss was the same people that

5 we have currently.

6 MS. BARHYDT: You can't specify

7 that.

8 MR. STEPHENS: It's worth a shot.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Good try.

10 MR. EISNER: Okay, HVAC? 

11 MR. THARP: I hate to say this,

12 but let's let Paul do it.

13 MR. DOPPEL: I thought John had

14 volunteered.

15 MR. THARP: John volunteered?

16 MR. KLEISS: Regarding the boiler

17 statement, I think you can just delete, rather

18 than strike out that statement. Thank you.

19 MR. THARP: We would support a --

20 this group would support a DOE required

21 manufacturer-funded verification testing

22 program if there was substantial different --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 is that right? Is it?

2 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, no.

3 MR. THARP: No?

4 MS. HOOTMAN: The group would

5 support -- almost exact same sentence she just

6 read put up there for -- should be addressed

7 through future -- we wanted to continue

8 working through the negotiated rulemaking.

9 MR. THARP: Right.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes.

11 MR. THARP: We want the bottom,

12 the bottom sentence.

13 MS. HOOTMAN: Bottom sentence.

14 MR. THARP: Right.

15 MS. HOOTMAN: Two, I guess would

16 be we feel that they're -- in the

17 certification -- I can never remember what

18 CCMS is.

19 CCMS is the --

20 MR. THARP: We continue discussing

21 through this group, right?

22 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 MR. THARP: Continue discussing

2 through this group.

3 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Right, so, not a

5 future negotiator rulemaking, but as a

6 continuation of --

7 MR. THARP: As a continuation of -

8 -

9 MS. HOOTMAN: As a continuation.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Continue?

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes.

12 MR. THARP: That is correct.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

14 MS. HOOTMAN: There should be a

15 distinction between -- on CCMS, between

16 verified and non-verified ratings.

17 MR. DOPPEL: Two separate lists,

18 verified and non-verified.

19 MS. HOOTMAN: A very distinct

20 separation, whether that is two separate lists

21 or what -- not some column that's off to the

22 15th -- you know, all the way off the screen. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

1 Very distinct.

2 MR. DOPPEL: Two separate lists.

3 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, and very

4 distinct, yes.

5 MR. HURST: A reasonable

6 distinction.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes.

8 MR. THARP: And those that are

9 manufacturer-funded are then verified under

10 the 2(b), right?

11 MS. HOOTMAN: What?

12 MR. THARP: Under -- so, there is

13 --

14 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, no, no, no, and

15 that we would come up with --

16 MR. THARP: Okay, word it then.

17 MR. KLEISS: Do you all need

18 longer to take --

19 MS. HOOTMAN: No, I think -- he

20 was buying us cookies.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. HURST: There should be a very
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 distinct something, delineation or --

2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, delineation

3 between verified and non-verified --

4 MR. THARP: Very good.

5 MS. HOOTMAN: -- listings in CCMS.

6 MR. BALLO: Just to be clear, do

7 you mean once a product has been tested as

8 part of a verification program, it then gets

9 kicked over to that other database, or is it

10 the delineation based on which program you're

11 --

12 MR. DOPPEL: The delineation would

13 be based on, if you were part of a DAVP, then

14 you would be on the verified list. If you are

15 not part of a DAVP, then you would end up on

16 the non-verified list.

17 MS. BARHYDT: So, you're saying a

18 voluntary participation, not mandatory

19 participation, but still have DOE approved

20 verification programs?

21 MR. DOPPEL: Correct.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: You want there to

2 be --

3 MS. HOOTMAN: And then we would

4 give you guidelines on what we think a DAVP

5 program is.

6 PARTICIPANT: Should be.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: Should be.

8 MS. BARHYDT: What was the

9 beginning of that?

10 MS. HOOTMAN: So, we would give

11 you guidelines on what we think a DAVP program

12 should be.

13 MR. FLY: And negotiate the

14 requirements for what a DAVP program would be.

15 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

16 AHRI. So, just so I understand you correctly,

17 Jill, it's not a mandatory verification

18 program. It's voluntary and those who will be

19 in those contract programs will be listed. 

20 Those who are not, won't be --

21 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.

22 MR. AMRANE: But there will be two
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 different --

2 MS. HOOTMAN: So, no customer, no

3 building owner can say that, "Oh, yes, I am

4 buying a piece of equipment. It is DOE

5 certified." It's not verified by DOE.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Well, they already

7 can't say that.

8 MS. HOOTMAN: But they will,

9 because potentially --

10 PARTICIPANT: We will never

11 convince --

12 MS. BARHYDT: Well, they won't for

13 very long. 

14 PARTICIPANT: Well, they'll say

15 it's certified to DOE, right? 

16 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, I mean, that

17 is a true statement, you are required to the -

18 - I mean, that is like saying, I am not

19 breaking the law.

20 PARTICIPANT: Right.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: I mean, correct?

22 PARTICIPANT: Correct, but that is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 a -- 

2 MR. FLY: It's going to be

3 extremely difficult to --

4 PARTICIPANT: Right, but everybody

5 could.

6 MR. FLY: -- for the consumer, even

7 as sophisticated consumer, consulting

8 engineer, the difference between self9 verification and verified certification,

10 unless it's explained.

11 MR. DOPPEL: Let's change DAVP to

12 what we've -- the -- 

13 MR. FLY: DICP.

14 MR. DOPPEL: -- DICP, yes.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: The Department

16 approves verification programs, is our new

17 word -- we'll just get rid of all the old

18 wording.

19 PARTICIPANT: Why don't you just

20 take a new era?

21 MS. MEYERS: You're going to give

22 guidelines on the verification program and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 what it should be.

2 MS. DANE: So, we're going to have

3 a 12-step program to verification.

4 MS. BARHYDT: And what sort of

5 time frame?

6 MS. DANE: We have to recognize

7 that we have a problem first.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MS. BARHYDT: It says group to

10 give guidelines on what it should be. I mean,

11 is this -- back to what we had discussed two

12 weeks ago, where you think you can produce

13 that by the end of October, or is this

14 something you think tomorrow or --

15 MS. MEYERS: Yes.

16 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, tomorrow and --

17 MS. MEYERS: End of October.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, and the end of

19 October, and you all were tomorrow, if we have

20 break out time? 

21 MR. AMRANE: I have to say for

22 AHRI, I don't think that we'll be able to --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 to agree to it by tomorrow.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

3 MR. AMRANE: I mean, we have to --

4 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, okay. 

5 MR. AMRANE: We'll need more time.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, yes.

7 MS. DANE: I think the difference

8 is theirs is close to being ready to send out,

9 right?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Isn't that

11 everyone? 

12 MR. EISNER: Legal group hasn't

13 reported yet.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

15 MS. BARHYDT: DOE believes we have

16 authority.

17 MR. EISNER: That is the most

18 important part.

19 Okay, where are we on the legal

20 issue, if we send this to ASRAC? What do we

21 tell them about the legal authority of DOE, to

22 establish this kind of a program? What do we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 want to put up on the screen? 

2 MR. CALABRESE: You're saying you

3 want to address the issue?

4 MR. EISNER: Yes.

5 MR. CALABRESE: What?

6 MR. EISNER: That people do not

7 believe they have the legal authority. We

8 have to say something.

9 MR. CALABRESE: I don't think

10 anybody has raised it in the last several

11 working group reports, have they? 

12 MR. EISNER: Yes.

13 MR. CALABRESE: Because if they

14 haven't, the issue is still on the table?

15 MR. STANONIK: But the premise of

16 the question when we left was, assume they

17 have the authority.

18 MR. CALABRESE: Right.

19 MR. STANONIK: So, that is how our

20 discussion was framed, with the assumption

21 they had it.

22 MR. EISNER: Okay, we're assuming
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 they have it. 

2 Now, if you don't believe they do

3 have it, what do we want to tell DOE about the

4 members of this group and what they think

5 about the legal authority?

6 Well, putting it differently, what

7 is the incentive to negotiate a workable

8 agreement, if you don't believe the Agency has

9 the authority to issue a workable agreement?

10 MS. MEYERS: Well, I think you

11 should just say, you know, there is not

12 complete agreement on the authority of a

13 manufacturer-funded verification testing

14 program and that the -- all parties are

15 continuing to review the statute and whatever.

16 MR. HURST: Verify and certify and

17 test that DOE is --

18 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

19 AHRI. Maybe to report to ASRAC, to say that

20 there is a question about the authority and

21 maybe ASRAC decides what ASRAC wants to do.

22 MR. EISNER: All right, so, we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 report to ASRAC -- we report to ASRAC, that

2 there is a question about the legal authority. 

3 DOE believes it has the legal

4 authority. The following parties do not

5 believe they do have it.

6 MR. EISNER: No, I have heard

7 people say they do not -- DOE does not have

8 the legal authority.

9 PARTICIPANT: Okay.

10 MR. EISNER: I mean, do people

11 want to take that back? Do we want to say

12 some people question, but nobody says they do

13 not have it absolutely? I've heard in the

14 room, they do not have it.

15 MS. HOOTMAN: Neil, the overall

16 ground rule says that if I vote on something,

17 that I cannot come back and legally challenge

18 it.

19 I cannot sit here today and put my

20 company in that position. I have not

21 consulted with my lawyers. 

22 So, I cannot say -- I will have to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 vote `no' on anything, to leave myself the out

2 that my company could come back and have a

3 legal position, and so, if you force it --

4 MR. EISNER: I am not trying to

5 force it. I am trying to make a decision as

6 to whether is it worth it to proceed.

7 MS. MEYERS: I think we've all

8 told you from our work-out groups, that we're

9 willing to continue to discuss this issue,

10 while there is still some doubt on this legal

11 authority.

12 We've all given you, in each

13 break-out group has said that they're willing

14 to continue to work on -- on a verification

15 program, but as that is going on, we need to

16 get this doubt cleared up one way or the

17 other.

18 MR. EISNER: How long will it take

19 to get the doubt cleared up, because you're

20 asking people to put time in, when some people

21 will question whether it will be good faith

22 negotiation, and if you question the legal
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 authority of the Agency.

2 MR. CALABRESE: I think you could

3 question the Agency's legal authority on a

4 number of issues.

5 We've talked about effective

6 dates, and I think there is legitimate

7 questions as to whether they're able to make

8 decisions about effective dates, but we didn't

9 raise that, and in my mind, I have that

10 question, but we didn't say that was a

11 condition to agree to there -- that the dates

12 are --

13 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure I

14 understand, what kind of question about legal

15 authority to set an effective date?

16 MR. CALABRESE: That we're going -

17 - didn't the working group agree on effective

18 dates for the certification role?

19 MR. EISNER: Yes, what was the

20 question about whether DOE had authority to do

21 that? I'm not clear.

22 MR. CALABRESE: There are -- I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 mean, there is issues related to how they

2 conduct rulemaking and how you would determine

3 -- but I mean, I'm not challenging it, but

4 there are questions that were raised -- that

5 are legitimate questions.

6 What I'm saying is, there is

7 numerous legal questions out there. I don't

8 think we have to address each one of them, if

9 in our minds, we think there is some doubt.

10 But I think --

11 MR. EISNER: I think that --

12 MR. CALABRESE: I think it's

13 unnecessary --

14 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry, but I

15 think if you were in negotiations, and you

16 were saying, "I agree with this

17 recommendation," and you don't say, "I

18 question whether you have legal authority or

19 I'm not sure you have the legal authority,"

20 I'm not quite sure what you're doing. I'm not

21 sure why you're doing that, and I don't

22 understand. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 I still don't understand what

2 possible legal question there was about the

3 effective date.

4 MR. CALABRESE: There is many

5 legal questions, but we're not -- I'm not

6 raising them here. I'm not saying I'm going

7 to -- it's going to be an issue later for all

8 --

9 MR. EISNER: Again, there is a

10 difference between your thinking you could

11 challenge it as reasonable, but you're willing

12 to live with it, therefore, you think it's

13 reasonable, and saying you don't think they

14 have the authority to do something.

15 So, I have to talk to -- I have to

16 be involved with everybody in this room, some

17 of whom are going to possibly say, if they

18 don't think you have the legal authority, why

19 should I spend time negotiating what the

20 standard ought to be, if they don't think you

21 have the authority --

22 MR. CALABRESE: Somebody said
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 that?

2 MR. EISNER: Yes. Why wouldn't

3 they say it? Why would they want to negotiate

4 if you're saying I think you don't have the

5 legal authority to --

6 MR. CALABRESE: What difference

7 does it make if --

8 MS. MEYERS: Because maybe it

9 becomes the basis for voluntary certification

10 program on the -- I think this is a great

11 discussion that we're having, and that we

12 should -- everyone has indicated a willingness

13 to keep going down this path, to discussing

14 this issue.

15 There is this outlier that we need

16 to address, but I don't think that -- you

17 know, if people don't want to continue working

18 on it, then that is their prerogative.

19 But I don't think that -- you've

20 heard that from one member in this room.

21 MR. STANONIK: And the question

22 that is on the screen has been properly
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 captured. 

2 But we, in fact, are not

3 necessarily debating whether those regulations

4 give DOE some authority to do a -- to set up

5 verification regulations, because whether (d)

6 or (b), it does say (d), the Secretary is

7 empowered to request information, right?

8 So, I think the issue is, does

9 DOE, in fact, have -- as part of a

10 verification program, have the authority to

11 require, and that's emphasized, manufacturer12 funded testing, okay, because that is not very

13 clear, as David indicated, and there is even,

14 I would say, impressions of the text saying

15 information, information granted is broad, but

16 some of us will say, well, really it meant

17 testing. You should have said testing, because

18 there is enforcement testing.

19 I'm not getting into that, but the

20 point is, that is the question, but that

21 question is not -- should not be misconstrued

22 to say, is there -- does DOE have the right to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 set up verification regulations? I think they

2 do, because whether it's (d) or (b), it does

3 say the Secretary has the right -- has the

4 authority to ask for information to -- I

5 forget the right word, but check compliance or

6 determine compliance of products, right? That

7 would be verification.

8 So, I think what Laura wrote up

9 there, that is the question and that question

10 doesn't preclude the working group from

11 discussing what they might think are

12 appropriate verification regulations.

13 MR. EISNER: And does everybody in

14 the room agree that DOE has the authority to

15 establish a verification program?

16 PARTICIPANT: Yes.

17 PARTICIPANT: I think so, yes.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: They already have

19 it. They already do verification testing.

20 MR. STANONIK: No, that is

21 assessment testing. It's not the same.

22 PARTICIPANT: You're not done with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 that.

2 MR. STANONIK: It's not the same.

3 MR. AMRANE: Yes, just the

4 manufacturer-funded, that should be --

5 MS. HOOTMAN: That is the issue,

6 the cost.

7 MR. AMRANE: Maybe it's a just a

8 question for ASRAC to discuss. 

9 MR. SACHS: Frank, this is Harvey. 

10 Could you help me with the difference between

11 assessment and verification? I may need to be

12 beat for -- beat with a two-by-four.

13 MR. STANONIK: Well, I'm not the

14 lawyer, okay, but you will find --

15 MR. SACHS: But you raised the

16 point.

17 MR. STANONIK: As Laura educates

18 me, that the provision that addresses the

19 assessment testing, is for 429.107.

20 That is under the sub-section

21 enforcement. That is the only place you find

22 it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 So, the question of DOE doing

2 assessment testing is under the category of

3 enforcement.

4 I would read that to mean it is a

5 prelude to enforcement testing, and it's also

6 very clear, the assessment testing is paid for

7 by DOE.

8 Verification, in the sections

9 which have been cited for giving DOE -- giving

10 the Secretary the right to seek verification

11 information, okay, is in a different section,

12 doesn't specifically mention testing of any --

13 at least not that I -- doesn't mean at all, of

14 any flavor, okay.

15 So, there are the distinct

16 sections, but again, the assessment testing,

17 as presented in the regulations, clearly is

18 tied to enforcement. Verification is

19 separate.

20 MR. SACHS: That is actually

21 helpful, and probably more understandable to

22 me than the lawyer's version, not just the --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 MR. STANONIK: I play one on TV.

2 MR. SACHS: As much as respect it

3 -- no, the ones who play it on television are

4 handsome.

5 MR. EISNER: So, we can put a

6 sentence up here that is unanimous agreement,

7 that DOE has the authority to establish a

8 verification program?

9 MR. CALABRESE: Why is it

10 necessary, I just don't understand why it's

11 necessary to cite that, if we're making very

12 good progress here. I think you're creating

13 unnecessary road-blocks.

14 MR. EISNER: Can I ask you why you

15 have a problem with saying that?

16 MR. CALABRESE: Because we talked

17 about it. There is a distinction of the

18 authority they have. We've never said that --

19 MR. EISNER: So, there is still

20 the question about whether they even have the

21 authority to establish a verification --

22 MR. CALABRESE: Well, I think --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 MR. EISNER: No, let's go on

2 another issue, and I'm trying to get language

3 up here, and now, I'm being questioned about

4 why I even need language to clarify it, when

5 people are having problems with the words. I

6 want to find out what the problems are.

7 MS. MEYERS: I think your words

8 are being very, very specific and this is

9 still a very complex vague issue, that we are

10 all still discussing and you're trying to put

11 us in this box --

12 MR. EISNER: I am not trying to

13 put anybody on the spot. I am trying to make

14 a decision on whether it is worth proceeding,

15 or if there isn't agreement on --

16 MR. CALABRESE: Okay, here is

17 something we can say.

18 MR. EISNER: -- what DOE can do.

19 MR. CALABRESE: There is questions

20 -- where is it? There is not complete

21 agreement, whether DOE has the authority under

22 42 USC 6296 paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 (d)(1). Something like that, that is what

2 we're talking about.

3 MR. EISNER: And you're limiting

4 it to a manufacturer-funded verification

5 program. I want to see if there is agreement

6 to everything else, to a program in general,

7 that is not specific, a program that doesn't

8 include that, what -- is it all right to do

9 anything else?

10 Is it all right to have a

11 verification program that requires, for

12 example, assessment tests? I don't know what

13 you're working out here. I don't know that we

14 have a clear understanding, as to what it is

15 we can effectively negotiate. I'm asking you

16 simply whether what you have up there is the

17 only thing you don't think DOE has the

18 authority to --

19 MR. CALABRESE: But does DOE want

20 this distinction? Do they -- does DOE want

21 this group to say -- to make that statement?

22 MS. BARHYDT: I think that it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 would be helpful if we understood the full

2 range of what the concerns are.

3 MR. DOPPEL: So, this is kind of -

4 -

5 MS. BARHYDT: So, is this the full

6 --

7 MR. DOPPEL: Well, this puts it

8 kind of in a different area.

9 So, when we had our discussions,

10 okay, we realized that everybody is going to

11 be on the CCMS, and so, that is where we came

12 up with the list to separate those that are

13 verified and those to a voluntary program, and

14 those who are not verified.

15 So, that separates those

16 categories, and then we initially -- our

17 initial thought was that DOE could address

18 those on the non-verified list, through

19 assessment -- assessment testing or

20 enforcement testing, okay.

21 So, there is no DOE program,

22 verification program there, you know, it's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 just -- so, that was -- but okay, then kind of

2 the other side of that is that we're concerned

3 that people who are on that non-verified list

4 may say, "Oh, yes, we're certified. We're on

5 the DOE certified list," and then we don't

6 know that they in fact, are going to be

7 verified.

8 So, we're kind of torn between

9 that, and we know that you're not going to

10 sign up for us to say that everyone has to be

11 in the voluntary program, because there is

12 only one, and you can't say that.

13 So, that other -- you know, what

14 to do about those who are on the non-verified

15 list, is problematic, and there is not a clean

16 solution.

17 We don't even know if those -- I

18 mean, we know who the manufacturers are. We

19 don't even know if they are aware of what is

20 going on now, or if the rule was published,

21 they would even still be aware, or they would

22 even be entered on -- think about having to be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 on a list.

2 So, I mean, it's not real clear

3 cut. You know, there is no -- nobody has any

4 problem with DOE doing the assessment testing

5 and enforcement testing, it's just how to --

6 you know, those of us who are in a voluntary

7 program, are being good, you know, citizens,

8 as far as, you know, we're trying to portray

9 ourselves, we're trying to -- we're paying a

10 lot of money. Those who are on the non11 verified list, we don't want them to be free12 loaders to get away. So, that is kind of the

13 -- this is just HVAC talk, not -- HVAC talk,

14 you know.

15 MR. CALABRESE: What about in that

16 sentence, saying you know, if there is not

17 going to be an agreement, but the parties, you

18 know, wish to continue discussions none the

19 less?

20 I mean, that shows that -- that

21 shows an interest in continuing to discuss

22 these issues. Maybe there is some implicit
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 recognition of authority or not, but we want

2 to continue discussions.

3 I mean, that is -- that gets us

4 forward.

5 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss,

6 Lochinvar. I can echo -- I believe, echo that

7 same concern of the CCMS, the listing of the

8 products verified, not verified, in the same

9 directory.

10 It has been a significant topic of

11 boiler and water heater discussions, and

12 adding to that statement, the impact -- one of

13 the impacts that we've had trouble getting

14 past, is just the burden and potentially,

15 unequal burden on manufacturers, in order to

16 verify products.

17 So, how do you balance those two

18 issues, of the manufacturers, that it's a

19 crushing burden to them, to do verification,

20 versus the manufacturers who do voluntary

21 verification, and now are put together on this

22 list?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 MR. SACHS: Jeff, this is Harvey

2 Sachs. I'm pretty confident I understand the

3 concern.

4 Was I wrong to feel heartened,

5 that there seems to have been some progress

6 about verification in the boiler water heater

7 call earlier this week?

8 It doesn't address specifically,

9 the CCMS issue, but it addressed the issue of

10 whether -- of getting somewhere.

11 MR. KLEISS: Yes, there are two --

12 two twists to that.

13 One is that there are exceptions,

14 there are non-verified subsets that were part

15 of that agreement, and the other thing is that

16 that was not the whole group, and there were

17 some significant interests that were not

18 represented.

19 MR. SACHS: Thank you.

20 MR. EISNER: The issue you raise,

21 we have discussed before. We have talked

22 about whether there is language that DOE could
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 put on their webpage, to clarify what the

2 information is.

3 I don't know whether they can

4 consider two lists, but that is getting beyond

5 the question I'm asking about legal authority,

6 and I'm still not clear on what people think

7 about the legal authority.

8 So, if nobody feels that we can

9 clarify it any further, we can talk about what

10 else we want to add to this list, and the we

11 can talk about how we proceed.

12 Anybody have anything else they

13 want to put on this list?

14 MR. KLEISS: Would it be fair to -

15 - I believe that most of us, as manufacturers,

16 would -- if we had to make a statement, that

17 we are not yet willing to concede that DOE has

18 that authority.

19 MR. EISNER: Okay, and the

20 question that we have to think about is

21 whether we want to proceed absent that

22 agreement, and if that is not possible to do
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 in the near term, whether we want to go with

2 what we've got, or whether people still want

3 to proceed negotiating, where there still may

4 be a serious question and whether anything can

5 come out of those negotiations.

6 MR. FLY: For the HVAC product,

7 we've provided a voluntary path, which I think

8 is still on that path, that would still need

9 definition of what verification, even

10 voluntary verification program is.

11 So, at least from an HVAC point of

12 view, I think we need to have -- we have

13 presented something that doesn't stop if

14 everybody decides that DOE doesn't have the

15 authority to mandate manufacturer-funded

16 verification.

17 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? 

18 Comments? Nothing further anybody wants to

19 add to the list, in terms of what we report to

20 ASRAC?

21 MR. DOPPEL: I'm not sure that is

22 the wording we want to put on that last point.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 MR. EISNER: What is the word

2 we're -- what were the words?

3 MR. DOPPEL: "There was not

4 complete agreement."

5 MR. EISNER: How would you change

6 it?

7 PARTICIPANT: There is discussion.

8 MR. DOPPEL: Discussion.

9 MS. DANE: And isn't it only

10 certain groups that still think that? I mean,

11 I heard when CRE reported, that you know, we

12 were past that, that we thought that it was

13 best an industry, to meet with and open

14 negotiations with the DOE, to come up with

15 something that both of us would be comfortable

16 with.

17 I am not sure that I'm comfortable

18 with saying there is not complete agreement on

19 whether DOE has the authority when, you know,

20 a number of us are still saying that that

21 doesn't matter. We still think this is the

22 forum to discuss this.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

1 MR. EISNER: But if one part of

2 the rule says we don't have the legal

3 authority to require it at manufacturers cost,

4 and another approach says it should be at

5 manufacturers cost, we have a conflict that

6 has to be resolved before we can present the

7 recommendation.

8 MS. DANE: I understand the

9 conflict between some of the --

10 MR. EISNER: Yes, so the conflict

11 --

12 MS. DANE: -- but some of the

13 groups --

14 MR. EISNER: The conflict is on

15 the screen right now.

16 MR. CALABRESE: But it's not a

17 recommendation. That's just a report. That's

18 just reporting what the views of the committee

19 are.

20 MR. EISNER: Yes, but it talks

21 about everybody continuing negotiations, where

22 some of them would require manufacturer-funded
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 tests, leading to a resolution that would --

2 a recommendation that would be inconsistent.

3 That's why we're talking about

4 whether we have enough here to proceed.

5 You could not proceed with your

6 recommendation, if there decision were made

7 that there was not adequate legal authority.

8 MR. STANONIK: But the other thing

9 --

10 MS. DANE: But you could get legal

11 authority.

12 MR. STANONIK: But the fact is a

13 question now, as opposed to a determination

14 that allows them to -- they're willing to

15 proceed because it is unresolved. If you

16 will, they're willing to run that risk, I

17 guess.

18 MR. STEPHENS: I think Neil's

19 point is that may be, but there may be another

20 manufacturer that comes in tomorrow, that

21 starts brand new, then they're in the awkward

22 position where it's not required by law, but
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

1 it's been industry practice, they have granted

2 that permission to the Department.

3 So, now, there is no legal

4 precedence for it. It's just --

5 MR. STANONIK: Okay, but if it

6 gets to the point of being a DOE regulation,

7 it is then a regulation, if it gets to that

8 point. 

9 So, the manufacturer who comes in,

10 they now have to meet the DOE regulation.

11 MR. EISNER: DOE can't require

12 them to do it, if a decision is made that they

13 don't have the legal authority.

14 MR. STANONIK: Absolutely true. 

15 Absolutely true, but then that means --

16 MR. EISNER: So, the question --

17 these -- I think these three should be

18 consistent. I don't know that DOE would want

19 to recommend inconsistent parts of their rule.

20 MR. DOPPEL: But Neil, what Laura

21 said a little bit ago was that there was not

22 a policy on DOE verification programs.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 So, we're kind of being put in a

2 spot here to say whether they have the

3 authority to do that or not, when they don't

4 even really have a policy on the verification

5 programs.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Well, we don't have

7 a policy as to whether we want to pursue this,

8 independent of a recommendation from ASRAC.

9 MR. DOPPEL: Okay.

10 MR. EISNER: In other words, they

11 may not end up with any verification program.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have a clear

13 opinion on our authority.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, we have a clear

15 opinion on our authority.

16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. But

17 did ASRAC say `yes', then this policy would be

18 made on the spot, right, to go?

19 MS. BARHYDT: If ASRAC makes the

20 recommendation?

21 MR. AMRANE: Yes.

22 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, we've
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 committed as part of this working group, that

2 DOE will go forward with the recommendation.

3 MR. AMRANE: Okay.

4 MR. EISNER: You can't do it. You

5 don't have the legal authority to go to this

6 direction.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Right, this working

8 group says there is something where we won't

9 do that.

10 MR. STEPHENS: Neil? Phillip

11 Stephens, HTP. Just a question. I'm sure

12 this has come up before in previous

13 rulemaking's.

14 But what happening previous

15 rulemaking's, when someone brought it up,

16 whether it was allowable or in the purview of

17 the Department, to make these kinds of

18 regulations?

19 MR. CALABRESE: That hasn't

20 happened before.

21 PARTICIPANT: This is brand new.

22 MR. EISNER: What is brand new?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 MS. BARHYDT: Does this ever show

2 up in your transportation --

3 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry, who is

4 said -- what is brand new?

5 MR. STEPHENS: Not just the

6 negotiated part, but when there is a notice of

7 proposed rulemaking and then you receive a

8 comment that we -- that so-and-so believes

9 that this is outside of the current regulatory

10 --

11 MR. EISNER: The Agency considers

12 it and makes a decision, whether to proceed,

13 whether they think they're right or they're

14 wrong, on their authority.

15 MS. BARHYDT: If the Agency thinks

16 they're right, they issue a final rule and if

17 people still disagree, they sue.

18 MR. STEPHENS: And it's tied for a

19 decade.

20 MR. EISNER: It's usually the

21 other way around. The commenter says, "We

22 don't think you should do it." The Agency
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 just says, "It's a statute of mandate." "We

2 still think it's stupid. You shouldn't do

3 it."

4 MR. CALABRESE: See, I guess the

5 difficulty I'm having is, the Courts are

6 filled with cases where people think the

7 Government is exceeding its authority, and the

8 Government gets sued thousands of times a

9 month over that same question, all the

10 different agencies.

11 So, I don't really think -- to me,

12 it's not that significant, whether we have

13 questions about the authority, and that is

14 what -- that is what the Government --

15 MR. EISNER: This is not an every

16 day rulemaking, where there are differences of

17 opinion about authority. 

18 This is a rulemaking where

19 everybody has come to the table to negotiate

20 in good faith, a resolution of a problem.

21 If some of you, during the

22 negotiations, believe there is a question
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 about legal authority, that is fine. You

2 don't have to understand everything before you

3 start the negotiations.

4 But an Agency wouldn't generally

5 agree to a negotiated rulemaking, if they

6 thought people didn't think they had the

7 authority, they should rule in the first place

8 and weren't going to negotiate on those

9 issues, because they didn't have authority.

10 MR. CALABRESE: You can't change

11 people's thoughts and their minds. People are

12 going to have them. You can't dictate where

13 our views are, and I don't think that --

14 that's not an answer to the question, frankly.

15 MR. EISNER: Where have I dictated

16 anybody's views on this?

17 I've asked simply whether you have

18 a position that will prevent you from voting

19 for a resolution -- on a recommendation,

20 because you don't believe the Agency has the

21 authority.

22 MR. CALABRESE: I think the answer
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 is right there, that we're willing to move

2 forward despite questions that we have.

3 MR. EISNER: But the question is

4 not whether you're willing to move forward,

5 where you don't have the legal -- you don't

6 think they have legal authority. It's whether

7 it is worth continuing negotiations, when one

8 party doesn't believe they have the authority,

9 or two parties or 10 parties or 15 parties.

10 I am trying to find out what it is

11 that people don't believe the Agency has

12 authority to do, so that I can make a

13 recommendation on whether it's worth

14 proceeding.

15 MR. CALABRESE: Well, I think the

16 committee is making a recommendation. You're

17 mediating this group, right?

18 So, if the committee believes we

19 should move forward --

20 MR. EISNER: Exactly. No, I can

21 make --

22 MR. CALABRESE: -- it's the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 committee's role to make that decision.

2 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry, but one of

3 the jobs I'm supposed to do is make a

4 recommendation on whether I think we can

5 proceed in good faith, to negotiate a rule,

6 and I'm trying to understand what the issues

7 are, so I can make that determination.

8 This is the first time you've been

9 at a meeting. I've said many, many times in

10 these meetings --

11 MR. CALABRESE: Not the first

12 time.

13 MR. EISNER: -- I don't make the

14 decisions. I'm simply pointing things out. 

15 I'm trying to understand what the problem is,

16 so I know whether we have a possibility of a

17 good faith effort being made here.

18 I am not saying anybody is acting

19 in bad faith. I'm trying to make a decision

20 on whether I think it's okay to proceed,

21 whether it's worth proceeding.

22 MR. DOPPEL: So, Neil, from the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 HVAC side, okay, all the HVAC manufacturers

2 are already paying -- we are already self3 funding in a voluntary program, okay.

4 So, you know, it's not a matter of

5 paying money to do verification. We are

6 already doing that, okay. There are others

7 who are not there.

8 So, I mean, it's -- this is kind

9 of a question that is -- I mean, it's not a

10 matter of money. It's like we're saying, we

11 already have a program, so we're uncertain as

12 to whether DOE is going to add something on

13 top of that or around that.

14 So, there is -- it's more of an

15 uncertainty, because I mean, it's not that we

16 don't want -- you know, we're not going to

17 verify what we have. That is not the -- that

18 is not the issue.

19 It's that there is -- we're

20 already doing that. So, why should we say

21 that DOE has the authority to require that we

22 do what we're already doing?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 MR. EISNER: Well, I think DOE has

2 to require it, especially for new entrance

3 into the marketplace, in your area.

4 So, I think DOE would say, "You

5 either must participate in a voluntary

6 program, or," am I wrong? 

7 MS. BARHYDT: You said voluntary.

8 MR. EISNER: What?

9 MS. BARHYDT: You said must

10 participate in a voluntary program.

11 MR. DOPPEL: But see, that

12 statement is, DOE has the authority to

13 establish a mandatory manufacturer

14 verification program. That is not what we're

15 talking about, at all.

16 We are participating in a

17 voluntary program, and we are saying that DOE

18 should okay that, which is different than

19 establish a required program.

20 MR. EISNER: I understand it as

21 being a little bit different from that. They

22 don't have any authority to require people to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 satisfy the program, by being in a voluntary

2 one, because you're saying they can't require

3 that.

4 MR. DOPPEL: But this is just

5 saying that DOE is establishing a program. We

6 already are in a program.

7 MR. EISNER: No, Laura, I don't --

8 MS. HOOTMAN: We don't want to go

9 over and above what we're already doing in the

10 marketplace today.

11 MR. EISNER: Exactly, but they

12 have to require some minimum standard and they

13 can accept participation. That is what I

14 thought we've been talking about, they are

15 accepting participation in a voluntary

16 program.

17 MR. DOPPEL: Well, so, then that

18 is -- that is a whole different statement

19 then.

20 MS. HOOTMAN: So --

21 MR. DOPPEL: That DOE, I think

22 everyone agrees that DOE can require
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

1 verification of ratings that are on CCMS,

2 because that is -- I mean, that is the whole

3 purpose. That was the whole question. 

4 So, then it's an issue of how is

5 that funded? 

6 So, that is like questioning -- I

7 mean, the question is, you know, who pays for

8 it, and that is like a detail to be sorted

9 out. 

10 I don't think there is any doubt

11 that, HVAC speaking, that you know, DOE can

12 require participation in a verification

13 program, whether it -- and it should be a

14 voluntary program.

15 MS. BARHYDT: But then it's not

16 required.

17 MR. DOPPEL: But this statement --

18 MS. BARHYDT: Then it's not

19 required.

20 MR. EISNER: If you are required

21 to --

22 MR. DOPPEL: But how can you have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

1 a required voluntary program? 

2 PARTICIPANT: You can't.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Right, you actually

4 just said the same thing too. I think people

5 have the `v' in their head and they say

6 voluntary, instead of verification but --

7 MR. DOPPEL: Well, but that is

8 what we want to set up, is that you know, that

9 a voluntary program is acceptable.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: In place of --

11 PARTICIPANT: In lieu of.

12 MS. HOOTMAN: In lieu of, not in

13 addition to.

14 MR. EISNER: But how would the

15 rule be written? I'm assuming it would be

16 written as follows.

17 You must meet the standards of

18 this rule, which can be met by participating,

19 for example, in an AHRI program.

20 You participate in AHRI. You've

21 met the rule. DOT has required you to meet it

22 through that or some other means.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

1 MS. BARHYDT: That is not what I

2 got out of your report-out.

3 MR. HURST: What did you get out

4 of it?

5 MS. BARHYDT: That you don't have

6 to participate in any verification, but that

7 if you participate in verification, your name

8 goes on a different list on CCMS.

9 MR. HURST: Right, that is

10 correct.

11 PARTICIPANT: That's what it says.

12 MR. HURST: But we said that is --

13 MS. BARHYDT: But that is not what

14 I got --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's not what

16 you just said.

17 MS. BARHYDT: That is not what you

18 just said.

19 MR. DOPPEL: There was two parts

20 to that. That is the first part. You know,

21 but then how do you treat, that is the

22 conundrum, how do you treat those --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

1 MS. HOOTMAN: To give guidelines

2 by the end of October --

3 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

4 MS. HOOTMAN: -- which we had to

5 give --

6 MR. DOPPEL: And we said we would

7 give guidelines on how those --

8 MS. BARHYDT: But on the voluntary

9 -- but on voluntary, and what I thought you

10 just said was that you agree everybody should

11 be subjected to some mandatory verification,

12 and that participation in voluntary program

13 could count towards that, but that everybody

14 should have some mandatory verification

15 testing.

16 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Which is not what I

18 --

19 MS. HOOTMAN: That is my opinion,

20 it's not necessarily the rest of them --

21 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

22 MS. HOOTMAN: -- because we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

1 haven't gotten there.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, because that

3 is not what I read that to say.

4 MS. HOOTMAN: Right, and that's

5 right, that doesn't say that, that is why I

6 said that's my opinion.

7 MS. MEYERS: Hence the need for us

8 to continue this working group in addressing

9 some of these issues, to see where we can get.

10 There is a lot of strategy here on

11 how I think we should proceed. I think the

12 strategy will be different between each one of

13 the groups.

14 Certainly, I think HVAC is in a

15 different position and then CRE, and so, those

16 strategies are going to be different.

17 I think it's very important that

18 we continue these discussions, and you know,

19 if it is in fact, determined that DOE doesn't

20 have the authority, I don't think the work is

21 -- will be useless.

22 I think these industries can use
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

1 that work to either set up their own voluntary

2 program or they can -- you know, or we can set

3 it up within a narrower assessment testing

4 thing within DOE.

5 I just think it's important that

6 we keep this up. There is a lot of options

7 still out there, that we haven't even gotten

8 to yet, and I'm not ready to give up on this,

9 and I'm not ready to make any firm statements

10 yet, because I want to listen to what everyone

11 else has to say, and you know, hopefully get

12 to an end point.

13 But are we -- am I ready to get to

14 an end point yet? No, I think we haven't

15 looked at all the options.

16 You know, maybe for one group that

17 is not even -- you know, maybe another DOE

18 covered product has a completely different

19 strategy for verification testing. Maybe it's

20 all at the front end. Maybe it's not

21 different verification testing.

22 You know, maybe it's a way in, you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

1 know, how they step -- certify their AEDM's. 

2 Maybe they agree that DOE should verify the

3 AEDM's, as part of a verification program.

4 I mean, there is thousands of

5 options out there, and many of those won't

6 work for this industry, but they may work for

7 some other industries, and so, I think that

8 from my company's view point, it is important

9 that we continue these discussions and try and

10 see if we can come up with some different

11 strategies to make sure that the ratings on

12 the CCMS database are substantiated.

13 That is what I'm worried about. 

14 I'm not worried about my ratings. I'm not

15 worried about my competitors that are in a

16 VICP. I am worried about those manufacturers

17 who do not have that, and with this DOE CCMS

18 website, I think there needs to be a way to

19 check that.

20 I think the assessment and

21 enforcement rules that we have today can work. 

22 I think -- but you know, do they need to be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

1 put up for some industries? Possibly.

2 But you know, I just -- you know,

3 I don't want Neil to indicate to the ASRAC

4 committee that this group is, you know,

5 unwilling to continue the discussions, because

6 I have not heard that from one working group

7 member, and I'm concerned that, you know, Neil

8 is getting -- he thinks that we can't find

9 resolution, and I totally disagree with that.

10 MR. DOPPEL: I think part of the

11 problem is that -- just that the operative

12 part of that statement, DOE has the authority

13 to establish a mandatory manufacturer-funded

14 verification program.

15 That in and of itself gives DOE

16 authority way beyond what we were

17 contemplating here, because it says that DOE

18 essentially could tell AHRI, you no longer

19 have a valid verification program and so,

20 we're starting up the DOE verification

21 program.

22 That is not what -- I mean, I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

1 don't think anyone on HVAC would want that to

2 happen, because there is a lot of things that

3 we do within AHRI advocacy-wise and standards4 wise, that are -- make that an important trade

5 association.

6 So, that is -- I just don't like

7 that statement, because it doesn't frame what

8 we're actually talking about.

9 MR. EISNER: You don't like this

10 sentence or -- that's up there already or --

11 MR. DOPPEL: It's that statement

12 that is up there, it's just -- does not frame

13 at all, what the discussion is.

14 MR. EISNER: So, how would you

15 rewrite it?

16 MS. BARHYDT: Because I thought

17 that somebody else thought that it did frame. 

18 So, now, I'm really confused, Paul.

19 MR. STANONIK: Can you scroll back

20 up and go -- before the break, what was the

21 question that was one the screen?

22 MS. BARHYDT: I just saw it there. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

1 MR. STANONIK: I would say that

2 what Laura had -- whoever typed that, that is

3 answering that question. 

4 Now, if that is now the wrong

5 question, then it's the wrong question, but

6 what follows, answers that specific question.

7 MR. EISNER: Actually, that wasn't

8 the question we asked the sub-groups to go out

9 and verify -- talk about.

10 MS. BARHYDT: No, it was the --

11 MR. EISNER: This was the question

12 we were --

13 MS. BARHYDT: We were talking

14 about.

15 MR. EISNER: -- we were talking

16 about.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

18 MR. EISNER: And whether or not we

19 could vote on it, vote on whether we wanted to

20 say that, would you support their authority --

21 a recommendation? We agreed, there wasn't

22 even consensus on how to word the question
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

1 yet.

2 MS. BARHYDT: I think that --

3 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry, let's go

4 back to what was up on the screen, that you

5 were saying, Paul, I think you said -- were

6 saying you didn't think it was worded

7 properly.

8 MS. BARHYDT: So, we can't --

9 MR. EISNER: How would you rewrite

10 that?

11 MR. DOPPEL: Basically, we're

12 trying to figure out, and all the parties are

13 trying to figure out how a verification

14 program would fit in their product categories.

15 MS. BARHYDT: So, Paul, I think

16 that is a different issue.

17 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

18 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, yes,

19 everybody in here is trying to figure out how

20 to come up with a program that would work for

21 their products, and that is what we've been

22 doing for well over a month.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

1 But the issue that came up this

2 morning for the first time is, people

3 expressing a belief that DOE did not have

4 authority to mandate participation in a

5 verification program that is funded by

6 manufacturers, which is why I wrote it up

7 there that way, with all those pieces, it's

8 mandatory, it's manufacturer-funded and it's

9 a verification program, that it's the

10 combination of those three factors together,

11 that there is question over.

12 I think, as you know, I mean,

13 it's a huge input of resources by all of you,

14 but it's a huge input of resources by the

15 Department, and if we're going to spend

16 another three months negotiating every last

17 detail of a verification program, only to be

18 challenged in Court and end up with no

19 verification program, then what are we doing?

20 MR. AMRANE: Right.

21 MS. BARHYDT: And so, to me, that

22 calls into question about how committed are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

1 people to really negotiating all the details

2 if, really, they're thinking, well, we're just

3 going to walk out of here and we're going to

4 sue on the rule for lack of authority.

5 MR. HURST: I can answer that from

6 my perspective. I mean, I hate to drudge up,

7 you know, a recent wound, but regional

8 standards are dealing with that right now, and

9 I think the concern is that I'm going to run

10 out of here and call my legal counsel and gin

11 up opposition.

12 But we represent the industry. We

13 don't speak for every single entity within the

14 industry.

15 So, from my perspective, Lennox's

16 perspective, I would prefer to get

17 clarification and make sure that we have kind

18 of run all the traps before going further down

19 the path, and then have, you know, somebody

20 chuck a curveball and it hits us upside the

21 head.

22 So, my concern isn't that I don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

1 think the Department has the authority or

2 whether they do. Like I stated before, my

3 opinion, my legal opinion really doesn't

4 matter.

5 But what does matter is if we go

6 further down the path and we start

7 implementation, whatever implementation looks

8 like, and it gets challenged by somebody that

9 is not sitting in this room.

10 I would have much rather solved that and had

11 a definitive legal opinion that both sides

12 agree upon early in the process versus late in

13 the process, because the regional standards

14 piece on the residential side has been

15 extremely painful.

16 We've spent a lot of money in

17 product development for a standard that, to

18 this day, we still don't know if it's going to

19 go into effect, and if it does, we don't know

20 when.

21 So, my preference, my personal

22 preference, my non-legally informed opinion is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

1 that we get this figured out early versus

2 late, if there is a concern, which I hear

3 there is.

4 MS. BARHYDT: But that sounds to

5 me like an argument in favor of holding

6 everything in abeyance, as opposed to

7 continuing to plow forward.

8 MR. HURST: No, I don't agree with

9 that. Because, you know, let's say

10 hypothetically I didn't think the Department

11 has the authority. I could be wrong. I might

12 be wrong and I probably am wrong, but that

13 doesn't mean that we can't still have

14 productive discussions on what we've been

15 doing. 

16 I think these discussions, to

17 Karen's point, is they have been very

18 productive and this isn't the only avenue to

19 achieve whatever the Department's objectives

20 are, because what I have heard and what I've

21 been surprised by is the Department's

22 objectives match a lot of our objectives, as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

1 well.

2 We don't want to see consumers or

3 customers get ripped off. We'd like to go

4 after the bad actors in the various product

5 categories. I think we can all agree on that.

6 So, whether this is the right

7 approach or not, I don't know, but I think the

8 discussions are very positive.

9 MR. BALLO: But the kind of

10 certainty you're looking for on what the

11 Department is empowered to do just can't

12 happen.

13 You know, the only way to achieve

14 certainty is by consensus. If everyone agrees

15 that the Department is going to do something,

16 no one will challenge it, and if no one sues,

17 then they have the authority.

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. DOPPEL: But Tim, like he

20 said, you know, we can all say in here we're

21 not going to sue, and there could be 20 people

22 on the phone right now, that are running to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

1 their lawyers and saying, "Hey, let's," --

2 MR. BALLO: But that is -- there

3 is nothing you can do about that.

4 MR. HURST: That's right, yes.

5 MS. BARHYDT: There is nothing you

6 can do about that, but when people in the room

7 are saying, "I don't know if I'm going to

8 sue," I mean, it calls into question whether

9 we're all here --

10 MR. CALABRESE: I don't think

11 anybody is and I don't think we ever

12 contemplated that.

13 I mean, we're raising these

14 questions that I think need to be addressed,

15 but I'll say from an AHRI standpoint, at this

16 point, a lawsuit is certainly not being

17 contemplated.

18 So, I mean, you know, I don't know

19 what else to say.

20 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, my

21 impression from the wording this morning was

22 far more definitive than that.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

1 MR. STEPHENS: I think our group,

2 the answer, we may want to reconsider, because

3 our response in the boiler and water heater

4 section did not match Karen's -- will she be

5 back?

6 MR. DOPPEL: No.

7 MR. STEPHENS: Okay, our response

8 we agreed to did not match what Karen said a

9 while ago, at least my interpretation of our

10 agreement in our break-out session did not

11 match what Karen said a while ago.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Which part of what

13 she said?

14 MR. HURST: What are you not

15 agreeing with?

16 MR. STEPHENS: The way this is

17 written, we are deferring this --

18 MR. HURST: What specifically?

19 What piece are you referring to?

20 MR. STEPHENS: She said -- she was

21 very adamant a few minutes ago about being

22 very positive, very constructive of this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

1 current process and very supportive to

2 continuing.

3 MS. BARHYDT: And that's not that

4 language?

5 MR. STEPHENS: That is not what

6 that says and that is not what came out of our

7 break-out session.

8 I am more inclined to agree with

9 what she just said than what we put up here in

10 print.

11 MR. FERRIOL: So, how would you

12 reword it?

13 MR. STEPHENS: With a break-out

14 session, so we can reword it together.

15 MR. EISNER: All right, why don't

16 we take a 10 minute break?

17 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

19 matter went off the record at 3:57 p.m. and

20 resumed at approximately 4:29 p.m.)

21 MR. EISNER: Paul, do you want to

22 go back to the language again and suggest
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

1 anything?

2 MR. DOPPEL: So, rather than

3 establish a mandatory manufacturer-funded

4 verification program, it should be to require

5 participation in a -- we don't need the

6 `mandatory' -- require participation in a

7 manufacturer-funded verification program. To

8 me, that is a start on getting closer.

9 MR. EISNER: All right, now how

10 would you expect the rule to be written that

11 would cover a verification?

12 I mean, as I said earlier, I would

13 anticipate the rule would say something like,

14 "all manufacturers are required to do either

15 A or B."

16 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

17 MR. EISNER: But you're required

18 to do one or the other. So, is that troubling

19 under the statute as to whether they have the

20 authority? Because that would be the

21 manufacturer paying for the cost of the

22 testing being done?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

1 MR. DOPPEL: I don't necessarily

2 have a problem about the funding issue. I

3 think there are some people that have a

4 problem with the funding issue.

5 So, you know, we had -- Laura read

6 sort of where the paragraphs were, but that is

7 not -- so, it's like the first time we've

8 heard where that has come from, so everybody

9 goes, well, you know, we haven't had a chance

10 to fully check that out, fully understand

11 that. And then to be asked to say we either

12 have a problem with what you said or we don't

13 have a problem with what you said is kind of

14 putting us on the spot, because we haven't had

15 -- I mean, basically, we haven't had a chance

16 to check that out.

17 MS. BARHYDT: I think the surprise

18 for me was people had said where is the

19 authority, but I had never heard anyone, prior

20 to today, express the belief that we did not

21 have authority to do what we were negotiating

22 the last few months. Because up until today we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

1 were talking about mandatory.

2 MR. DOPPEL: Well, everything

3 else, I don't think that anybody has ever

4 questioned anything else. Verification kept

5 getting pushed out because --

6 MS. BARHYDT: Well, we've been

7 talking about verification for a good six

8 meetings now.

9 MR. DOPPEL: Well, but it was

10 pushed to the end.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, no, it was

12 pushed to the end.

13 MR. DOPPEL: Because everybody

14 knew there is a lot of controversy with it.

15 MR. EISNER: I didn't know it.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. DOPPEL: I mean, I just don't

18 think we need that statement today, because,

19 you know, I mean, this morning was probably

20 the first time that a lot of people heard that

21 expressed.

22 MS. BARHYDT: The concern or the -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

1 - just what the authority was?

2 MR. THARP: The source of

3 authority.

4 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

6 MR. DOPPEL: Yes. So, again, so,

7 you read some things. I mean, we don't even

8 have the documents to look at, to understand

9 what that is.

10 MS. BARHYDT: He does, because he

11 was reading the next sentence before where I

12 stopped at the period.

13 MR. THARP: But it's the 2011

14 version, which isn't the latest version,

15 right?

16 MR. EISNER: You're talking about

17 the two paragraphs?

18 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, so if we had

19 that language to look at --

20 MS. BARHYDT: You want it tonight,

21 or you want it put up on the screen right now?

22 MR. DOPPEL: I think tonight.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

2 MR. DOPPEL: Look at it tonight.

3 MS. BARHYDT: That's easier.

4 MR. DOPPEL: Rather than try to

5 put it on the screen.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Because then I can

7 copy and paste it instead of typing it.

8 MR. DOPPEL: But not just -- but

9 like big chunks around it, not just the two

10 paragraphs.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, it's all in

12 6296, so, I'll just take all of 6296 and put

13 it in there.

14 MR. DOPPEL: Okay.

15 MR. THARP: And the reality is,

16 there has been several other things where

17 we've sort of tabled discussion until the next

18 meeting. So, I personally don't have a

19 problem continuing on, and just --

20 MS. BARHYDT: So, I'm not

21 disagreeing with you, Rusty. The problem is

22 that ASRAC meets tomorrow, and so we've got to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

1 figure out what it is we want to say to ASRAC.

2 MR. EISNER: What time is the

3 meeting?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: One o'clock.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Are we at the

6 beginning or the end?

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, you are

8 pretty much the agenda, I mean, there are some

9 minor things, but --

10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's the

12 beginning.

13 MR. STANONIK: Laura, I would

14 change your question a little bit, because the

15 report -- there is a report, right, and that

16 report has many references to discussions,

17 work on verification proposals or whatever.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

19 MR. STANONIK: I would say the

20 question is, do you want to add anything to

21 that? I mean, again, the report, you know,

22 has statements that the working group thinks
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

1 that, you know, negotiations should continue

2 on verification regulation, whatever it says.

3 It notes that there is some

4 disagreement on some issues, whether it's

5 needed even, and then, you know, the

6 conclusions are that it wants to continue

7 negotiating the verification provision.

8 So, I think the real question is,

9 you know, what do you want to add or change to

10 that, because it's there already.

11 MS. BARHYDT: So, when we started

12 this morning, Karen initiated this discussion

13 with, "I think that we should not be

14 continuing to" --

15 MR. STANONIK: There should be a

16 step in there -- 

17 MS. BARHYDT: -- "do this, in this

18 framework."

19 MR. STANONIK: Yes.

20 MS. BARHYDT: And so we've been

21 going from there all day.

22 MR. STANONIK: Okay, I just wanted
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

1 to point out there is information there

2 already. The question is how much does the

3 working group want to change it, I guess.

4 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

5 HTP. But right before she left, she said that

6 different comment that was very supportive.

7 MS. BARHYDT: She did, yes, she

8 did.

9 MR. EISNER: Any other discussion? 

10 Let's go back to the beginning and see whether

11 people think this is what we should ask Ashley

12 to talk about tomorrow, to represent our

13 position right now on the verification.

14 MR. STEPHENS: We do have a change

15 for the boiler and the water heaters.

16 MR. EISNER: That's right, I'm

17 sorry, we were going to look at that. Let's

18 look at boiler first.

19 MR. STEPHENS: We changed it, and

20 step in if I overlook something.

21 Boilers and water heaters prefer

22 that any mandatory manufacturer verification
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

1 testing program share --

2 MR. EISNER: Hang on a second.

3 MR. STEPHENS: -- manufacturer

4 verification testing programs share the

5 expense between the DOE and the manufacturers,

6 period. We support negotiating in good faith

7 and continuing the progress we have initiated

8 with respect to verification testing, period.

9 The group considers it important

10 to note the importance of revisiting

11 verification requirements after the

12 statistical aspects of verification previously

13 noted are completed, period.

14 Did I leave out anything?

15 MR. STANONIK: Well, it's actually

16 the study of --

17 MR. STEPHENS: The study of, yes.

18 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

19 AHRI. Couple things. I think there is -- as

20 far as we support negotiating, I think the

21 statement was more that we believe we can

22 continue to negotiate in good faith and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

1 continue progress, notwithstanding this

2 unanswered question about authority.

3 MR. STEPHENS: I knew I messed up

4 your words there somehow. Sorry. Up at the

5 beginning of the sentence, instead of `we

6 support,' `we believe'. 

7 MR. STANONIK: Yes.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Then whatever Frank

9 said.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. STANONIK: I think that I said

12 we believe that we can continue to negotiate

13 in good faith and continue the progress we've

14 initiated, notwithstanding the question that

15 has been raised regarding legal authority, or

16 however you want to couch that.

17 Then the last piece, Phil, I don't

18 really remember we talked about sharing

19 expense. We just kind of --

20 MR. KLEISS: Yes, I would like to

21 have the first sentence stricken.

22 MR. EISNER: Completely?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

1 MR. KLEISS: Yes.

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MS. BARHYDT: Okay to delete the

4 strike out? Oh, you're reading? Okay, sorry.

5 MR. MOLVIE: Maybe we should leave

6 it until tomorrow morning so Karen can see

7 what we've done. And Frank Myers will be here

8 tomorrow too, so I think it might be a good

9 idea to revisit this tomorrow morning, if we

10 can do that.

11 MR. KLEISS: And if you want to

12 add that first sentence in there with the

13 strike out, that too.

14 MR. STEPHENS: I thought that was

15 one of the things that we talked about, was

16 the issue of manufacturer -- 

17 MR. KLEISS: I missed that. I

18 don't have that on the slide.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Okay, sometimes

20 it's just the voices in my head.

21 MR. EISNER: Let's go up to the

22 beginning of it and have people look at again
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

1 slowly and see if this is what we want Ashley

2 to bring to the committee tomorrow.

3 Do we mean to say altering the

4 enforcement statistics? You are not going to

5 change statistics. You're going to change the

6 way they're gathered or something?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there are

8 statistical formulas in the regulations and

9 those that will -- that we would be --

10 MR. EISNER: Right, so, should it

11 be enforcement statistical --

12 MR. THARP: Statistical

13 requirements.

14 MR. EISNER: Is everybody okay

15 with these first two paragraphs?

16 MR. THARP: Yes.

17 MR. EISNER: Okay, let's go onto

18 the --

19 MR. SACHS: Again, even in line

20 one -- this is Harvey -- it's not the

21 statistics. It's the statistical methods, the

22 analytical basis, that might even be a more
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

1 general term. I am just -- statistics didn't

2 work for me.

3 MR. EISNER: Everybody agree with

4 that?

5 MS. BARHYDT: No.

6 MR. THARP: Yes.

7 MR. EISNER: No? 

8 MR. SACHS: Statistics are the

9 output.

10 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, I get that. 

11 Well, statistics is also the applicable

12 confidence intervals and the methodology. I

13 mean, statistics is the mathematical analysis.

14 MR. SACHS: I'd rather say the

15 mathematical analysis than just statistics,

16 but, you know, I don't mean to be a stick in

17 the mud about it.

18 MS. BARHYDT: I'm not saying -- 

19 MR. SACHS: It's ambiguous.

20 MS. BARHYDT: I get that. 

21 MR. KLEISS: But it is clarified

22 in the next paragraph, or rather the second
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

1 paragraph. 

2 MS. BARHYDT: Something about

3 analytical methodology, to me, just sounds too

4 vague, as it could be just about anything.

5 MR. SACHS: Hey, if the --

6 MS. BARHYDT: Whereas, there are

7 parts of it that are clearly based on

8 statistics.

9 MR. SACHS: If everybody else is

10 happy, I'll keep quiet.

11 MR. EISNER: How about if we say

12 what we said in the second paragraph, just

13 point about say -- just saying enforcement and

14 statistical requirements should be reviewed? 

15 Would that do it?

16 MS. BARHYDT: Does that work,

17 Harvey?

18 MR. SACHS: Yes, it's fine.

19 MR. EISNER: Okay, everybody okay

20 with that now? Let's go onto the next screen.

21 Okay, everybody okay on the August

22 30th report? Verification? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 354

1 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill

2 Hootman. One other thing on the August 30th

3 report, we still have yet to -- in commercial

4 HVAC, work on motor definition.

5 If we get to that tomorrow or some

6 other point, what do we do, as far as getting

7 it to ASRAC?

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think what we --

9 we took care of that last time, right, because

10 we agreed upon the premise and we told them we

11 were going to work out the details, but we did

12 need to send them the details back to them.

13 In other words, they were agreeing

14 that the Department -- they were agreeing to -

15 - that is all in the report already.

16 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.

17 MS. BARHYDT: So, provided they

18 agreed to that --

19 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.

20 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, the framework is

21 agreed --

22 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

1 MR. DOPPEL: The framework was

2 there, and we tried to work within that

3 framework.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, my proposal is

5 tomorrow morning first thing, that we let

6 everyone else either have a break-out session

7 or breakfast or sleep in or break, while we --

8 the commercial HVAC world and anyone else

9 interested in the motor discussion come to the

10 table and iron out that, that is the only

11 thing, which hopefully, shouldn't take that

12 long because I think we saw in the way I read

13 Alex's email, the scaling pretty much works. 

14 Does that work for everyone? 

15 MR. EISNER: Yes, I mean, some of

16 the --

17 MR. WHITWELL: Ashley, this is Bob

18 Whitwell. So, is there a -- you're going to

19 have a proposal for us to discuss or we bring

20 proposals or what is the thought?

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I think that

22 this scaling proposal that we have shown you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

1 before, I mean, I think Alex is pretty much

2 saying that the manufacturers can give you the

3 data for the most part.

4 We have a small portion of the

5 market we need to talk about, but I think what

6 I gather from that call and from Alex's

7 subsequent emails, they'll give you the data

8 you need, and at the full load point.

9 So, that basically the scaling

10 that we were talking about previously would

11 hold true, as long as you have those values.

12 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, but for the

13 ones that don't have the test procedures, we

14 would still need to write something about

15 that.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, so, Bob had

17 sent around something at one point. So, we

18 can just talk.

19 I mean, I don't have anything else

20 to show tomorrow.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, all right.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, let's put it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

1 that way.

2 MR. WHITWELL: Okay.

3 MR. EISNER: Okay, August 30th,

4 everybody is okay with? Verification?

5 MS. BARHYDT: So, there are a

6 whole lot of notes here that we jotted down,

7 and we haven't struck through everything that

8 we jotted down.

9 So, it's really a matter of

10 figuring out if we only want that very last

11 part, if you want the whole thing, starting at

12 the 20 minute break, resume at 2:40 p.m., if

13 that -- if you only want the stuff after that

14 point.

15 MR. DOPPEL: Can you put that up

16 higher, that one?

17 MS. BARHYDT: Which part?

18 MR. DOPPEL: The part about the

19 legal. That is it.

20 MS. BARHYDT: That's at the very,

21 very end.

22 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, but there was
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

1 something else.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

3 MR. DOPPEL: There was something

4 more in there. I don't know if we're going up

5 or down.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so, going down

7 just a little bit, scroll down a little bit

8 more, take out the question, because that was

9 a discussion point. 

10 MR. DOPPEL: Right, okay, that's

11 good, and then the HVAC part of that, we

12 should probably look at.

13 MS. BARHYDT: So, do you all want

14 to get rid of the two things that are -- the

15 working group sees three, get rid of that,

16 this group has made solid progress.

17 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

18 MS. BARHYDT: You all want to get

19 rid of that?

20 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

21 MS. BARHYDT: And then what about

22 that? That is kind of where we started this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

1 morning, was the let ASRAC decide what to do. 

2 I mean, ASRAC gets to decide what to do

3 anyway, but it was the -- 

4 MR. DOPPEL: But we were --

5 MS. BARHYDT: -- non6 recommendation approach.

7 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, but I think we

8 migrated away from that.

9 PARTICIPANT: Yes.

10 MS. BARHYDT: So, we can delete

11 that?

12 MR. AMRANE: Hold on a minute. 

13 The issue of all covered products, I think is

14 a valid issue.

15 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

16 MR. AMRANE: So, I think ASRAC

17 needs to discuss that, you know, whether to at

18 the same time, address the --

19 MS. BARHYDT: So?

20 MR. EISNER: Take out the first

21 sentence and --

22 MS. BARHYDT: Actually, what about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

1 that original language that is struck through

2 right now? Does that -- 

3 MR. SACHS: I would prefer that

4 line three of paragraph two say, "Each covered

5 product class," rather than all covered

6 products, because I am not sure -- I'm worried

7 about the implications of a single

8 verification program across so many classes.

9 MR. THARP: Is this really right,

10 though? I mean, we're not -- I don't think we

11 presently view this as an either/or. I think

12 don't most people want to continue this

13 working group, regardless of there being maybe

14 another working group to convene for

15 residential products or other commercial

16 equipment that is not covered here?

17 MR. STANONIK: Yes, what is the --

18 have the product list, what about after the

19 period, and it simply said, "We're working on

20 this," which is to --

21 MS. BARHYDT: Continue.

22 MR. STANONIK: -- continue or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

1 complete the negotiations for commercial

2 equipment, which is commercial equipment.

3 MR. SACHS: Quickly.

4 MR. STANONIK: You could say for

5 the equipment within its scope, whatever

6 works.

7 MR. EISNER: So, we're asking them

8 to decide whether they have to -- to convene

9 a working group for the formation of the

10 verification program for each covered product

11 class, but let us continue to go, with respect

12 to verification for these products?

13 This morning, we were talking

14 about basically a general concept on how to

15 set up a verification program. Now, we're

16 saying we might want to start another

17 committee in addition to the one we recommend

18 you continue to let us negotiate on.

19 MR. SACHS: I'm hearing the

20 earlier suggestion that there isn't anybody

21 who really wants to stop, so, that line one

22 and line two, pushing the decision to ASRAC,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

1 doesn't -- doesn't work, and I'd like to think

2 about deleting that sentence and saying this

3 working group wishes to complete negotiations

4 for the equipment types within the working

5 group scope, and that covers the each versus

6 all product classes too, I think.

7 MR. AMRANE: No, no, no. This is

8 Karim with AHRI.

9 I think the -- it's important, the

10 point made this morning, is that ASRAC, with

11 other products, for example, other products

12 and decide whether that each perform a working

13 group to address verification programs.

14 MR. SACHS: Okay, so, it's the --

15 so, it's not a -- as I read it now, it's a

16 choice that doesn't explicitly talk about that

17 expansion, read to me like a choice between

18 two approaches for these commercial products.

19 MS. HOOTMAN: That is not what we

20 -- 

21 MR. SACHS: Right, that is not we

22 meant.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 363

1 MS. HOOTMAN: That is why I would

2 say each covered product class.

3 MR. AMRANE: Maybe it's product

4 class, each covered product.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, why don't you

6 just say for covered products not subject to

7 the negotiations?

8 MR. AMRANE: Right.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because that is

10 really what you're talking about.

11 MR. AMRANE: Right, yes.

12 MR. SACHS: Good. I'm sorry, I'd

13 forgotten that, Karim. 

14 MR. THARP: This is an awfully

15 neutral statement. Would we want to say

16 something stronger, like working group

17 encourages ASRAC to convene a working group

18 regarding the formation? I mean, rather than

19 just suggesting that they think about it.

20 MR. EISNER: Is everybody with

21 this now? They should convene a working group

22 and they should let us keep going?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 364

1 MS. BARHYDT: What was that?

2 MR. STANONIK: I would say that

3 you convene a working group to address the

4 formation, rather than -- 

5 MR. STEPHENS: I'm going to

6 abstain from this one. I'm indifferent to

7 this topic.

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 MR. STEPHENS: I make the boilers

10 and water heaters, not televisions.

11 MR. EISNER: Okay, this is the

12 general statement on verification. Is

13 everybody okay with it?

14 All right, we have one abstention

15 on this one. It's been noted. Anybody else? 

16 Okay?

17 MR. HUDNALL: One more, if I may. 

18 Should it say working group or groups? Again,

19 refrigerators, televisions, lighting, may be

20 different groups. Maybe it's too deep.

21 MR. STANONIK: Well, I thought the

22 intent was once you had the working group, it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 365

1 could determine its own sub-groups, as this

2 group does.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I mean, the

4 scope could potentially be significantly

5 broader.

6 So, you know, you might want to

7 have a -- just like we have these commercial

8 products in a group, maybe they would have a

9 residential product in a group.

10 MR. STANONIK: Sure.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Which would have its

12 own billion little break-out groups too.

13 MR. STANONIK: They're going to do

14 what they want, right?

15 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

16 MR. EISNER: Okay, then we get

17 down to the specific categories. CRE first,

18 everybody happy with that?

19 MR. STANONIK: I've got a general

20 comment here. 

21 I mean, all of this -- all of

22 these positions, let's say, were developed
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 366

1 based on the legal question, or the debate

2 that came from the legal questions. Does this

3 really need to presented to ASRAC tomorrow?

4 MR. HUDNALL: Especially based on

5 the previous statement that this group wants

6 to continue working on verification, the

7 second sentence in that, "This working group

8 wishes to complete negotiations." I'd go just

9 like this, just an observation. 

10 MR. EISNER: Anybody disagree? 

11 Anybody want to keep that language in, on the

12 three -- those three sub-groups? Might be

13 good for Ashley to have it, so she can talk

14 about where she is on each of those things.

15 MR. AMRANE: Right.

16 MR. EISNER: But not have to

17 necessarily present it.

18 MR. SACHS: Help me understand. 

19 These are not recommendations, but just a

20 status update?

21 MR. EISNER: Well, we are

22 recommending they let us continue. We are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 367

1 recommending that they set up a new committee,

2 and we are recommending -- the earlier stuff

3 is recommendations and some changes on the

4 package we already submitted.

5 MR. SACHS: Right.

6 MS. BARHYDT: I would think that

7 if I was on ASRAC and I had not heard anything

8 that went on here, and I read that earlier

9 statement that this group thinks that they

10 should convene some more working groups, but

11 let us finish what we were doing, without some

12 additional context about where things stand,

13 I might be more inclined to just say, "Well,

14 why don't we just stick everything together?"

15 It seems to me like it can only

16 help the cause to continue this group, to say

17 where things are, because otherwise, it seems

18 like on one hand, we're saying you should do

19 this really broad group, but don't touch our

20 stuff, without any context of, we're really

21 close, we really think we can finish this in

22 a short time frame. I mean, I really think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 368

1 that that context could be beneficial.

2 MR. EISNER: Comments? 

3 MR. DOPPEL: Well, can we look at

4 that language up above? I mean, that thought

5 probably should be out there.

6 Maybe we should say something,

7 rather than `form working groups', that this

8 group identified the fact that there are many

9 other programs out there, for which there are

10 not verification programs, and that those

11 should be addressed.

12 I mean, that is kind of the

13 context. This -- I think by saying

14 `establishing working groups', up front, if we

15 said that this group noted that there are many

16 other product categories or program categories

17 that are not currently covered by verification

18 programs, and that we feel that this situation

19 should be addressed and then maybe put in

20 after that, that person's -- 

21 MS. BARHYDT: I would change that

22 a little bit. This group noted that there are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 369

1 many other product categories, not currently

2 subject to verification testing.

3 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

4 HTP. It's late, it's wearing on me. I may be

5 losing focus here, and please correct me if

6 I'm wrong, but how do we, in the heating

7 industry, know that the radios need more

8 regulation and verification on an annual

9 basis?

10 MS. BARHYDT: Well, perhaps you

11 make residential products and think that those

12 should be addressed.

13 MR. AMRANE: Yes, and again, maybe

14 the working group -- the conclusion is going

15 to be that we don't need one.

16 MR. STEPHENS: Then I am not --

17 I'm going to change my abstention to a

18 negative vote.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

20 MS. DANE: I would probably vote

21 negative too, only because I don't think -- I

22 mean, when that was originally put up there,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 370

1 the argument was, why do we have to do

2 something nobody else wants to do, and that is

3 where that conversation first came from, is we

4 should tell them everybody has got to do it,

5 and it should roll out at the first date.

6 So, if now, we're just stating the

7 obvious to them, I don't think it's necessary

8 and I would vote also.

9 MR. DOPPEL: You really didn't

10 change that, other than to establish a

11 sentence there that says, we noted that there

12 are other programs out there.

13 MS. DANE: But then when we came

14 down to the bottom, it's like, well, why do we

15 need to have all this, and we went back,

16 because we were discussing whether or not

17 people believed the DOE had the funding.

18 So, our statement specifically

19 said that CRE supports DOE required

20 manufacturer-funded verification programs.

21 MR. DOPPEL: So, you're talking

22 about --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 371

1 MS. DANE: I am saying that they

2 all --

3 MR. DOPPEL: -- below the line. 

4 Below the line.

5 MS. DANE: Well, the line that has

6 been added, but what I'm saying is, is that

7 all of that was tied to a very large

8 discussion over, we don't want to do something

9 nobody else has to do and we don't want to pay

10 for it.

11 So, when we made our CRE

12 statement, it was based on those two things,

13 saying that we supported -- one, we supported

14 it, and you know, we're comfortable with going

15 ahead with ours, without worrying about what

16 the rest of the world does, because CRE is

17 going to stand up and say, you know, we're

18 behind this and we want to be an active part

19 of it.

20 So, that statement means -- you

21 know, if you're going to take one out, I would

22 say -- they're all tied together.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 372

1 MR. EISNER: There was a third

2 point that I think you mentioned, which was

3 they should all be required to start at the

4 same time.

5 MS. DANE: Right, they should be -

6 - yes, because the point was brought up, is

7 certification dates rolled in, individually. 

8 Why wouldn't verification dates roll in all

9 differently?

10 So, let's say, I would have

11 abstained, but the more I think about it, I

12 don't -- I think that is -- 

13 MR. EISNER: Reactions to that?

14 MS. DANE: We don't really need to

15 say anything because they already know that. 

16 So, unless we're telling them we need it at

17 the same time, and we don't want to pay for

18 it, that is the only reason I would see that

19 statement being there.

20 MR. KLEISS: Do the negatives

21 recommend striking the whole paragraph or

22 could you revise the paragraph?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 373

1 MR. STEPHENS: I'd recommend

2 striking the entire paragraph.

3 MS. DANE: I think so, too.

4 MR. AMRANE: What do you object to

5 here? I mean, I don't understand exactly,

6 the issue.

7 MR. STEPHENS: It's too generic. 

8 We're not just mentioning the auxiliary -- the

9 ancillary products that we produce. We're

10 saying TVs, radios, blenders, whatever --

11 PARTICIPANT: Shower heads.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Let me see if this

13 makes it meaningful again, in a way that it

14 seems to have lost its meaning.

15 MR. KLEISS: How about leaving the

16 last two sentences, striking everything else?

17 MR. EISNER: I think that is in

18 the current report we sent up to them.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Right, it's not

20 adding anything.

21 MR. EISNER: Both sentences, I

22 think are in the report.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 374

1 MS. BARHYDT: Does that make it

2 meaningful, that they need to do this for

3 other products, so that it all kicks in at the

4 same time?

5 MR. STEPHENS: There again --

6 MS. BARHYDT: No?

7 MR. STEPHENS: -- I don't feel

8 like we have --

9 MS. BARHYDT: You didn't care

10 about that?

11 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, we could --

12 MS. BARHYDT: Because certainly --

13 MR. STEPHENS: We don't know --

14 MS. BARHYDT: -- there were people

15 who expressed concern about that.

16 MR. STEPHENS: Right, but I don't

17 think there is anybody in here that

18 manufactures --

19 MS. DANE: Light bulbs.

20 MR. STEPHENS: -- 400 different

21 product classes.

22 MS. DANE: VCRs.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 375

1 MR. HURST: Is the desire for an

2 equitable --

3 MR. AMRANE: Yes.

4 MR. HURST: -- program across --

5 MR. AMRANE: Covered products.

6 MR. HURST: -- all covered

7 products? Whatever equitable is, I am not

8 trying to define that here.

9 MS. DANE: They would still have

10 to have groups go first, and I believe that my

11 understanding of what is going on here is that

12 we are the lucky chosen few.

13 MR. HURST: I didn't ask about the

14 timing. I said is the desire to have

15 equitable programs across all product classes?

16 MR. STEPHENS: I think that is way

17 outside the scope of this working group.

18 MR. AMRANE: That's for ASRAC to

19 decide, not for us.

20 MS. DANE: And as far as

21 equitable, I think that Harvey brought up a

22 very valid point, of what the word `equitable'
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 376

1 means, and some of the application of the word

2 in this group.

3 I get the impression that unless

4 an AHRI clone for every single thing comes

5 out, that there won't be support for anything

6 different.

7 So, I would have to say that that

8 -- that is meaningless because it's already in

9 the report, that we wish to continue on. So,

10 why state the obvious again?

11 MR. KLEISS: Should we turn this

12 upside down and take a vote for who would

13 agree to striking the entire paragraph?

14 MR. EISNER: Sense of where

15 everybody is? 

16 MR. KLEISS: I don't think it

17 distracts from this to strike the paragraph,

18 so, I would -- 

19 MR. EISNER: So, what do we give

20 them? Just the status of each of the three

21 sub-groups?

22 MS. DANE: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 377

1 MR. EISNER: Frank?

2 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. 

3 I've really got thrown here. I mean, we had -

4 - have had huge discussions about what

5 encompasses verification, for any DOE covered

6 product, certainly certification requirement,

7 there will be.

8 Clearly, enforcement regulations. 

9 I don't care what you make, all right, there

10 is this vast, at the moment, empty space

11 about, okay, you certified your -- either

12 prototypes or your early production or

13 representative samples or whatever, all right,

14 and potentially nothing ever gets looked at

15 again, until DOE comes knocking on your door

16 and says, "Oh, I think we want to do some

17 enforcement testing," or assessment testing.

18 So, I don't care what the product

19 is. There is a -- if there is a need to

20 verify, get information for commercial

21 products, then there is a need for every DOE

22 covered product, because there is -- DOE has
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 378

1 determined, there is a need for efficiency

2 regulations, which suggest there is a

3 variability in efficiency.

4 MS. BARHYDT: So, I think what

5 Phillip is saying is that while DOE might

6 care, why should he care.

7 MR. STEPHENS: It's outside the

8 scope of this group.

9 MS. BARHYDT: This group is

10 supposed to talk about commercial --

11 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, and with

12 expect a valid discussion on the --

13 MR. STANONIK: And the group

14 collectively stated, okay, if we have to

15 develop -- we're negotiating verification

16 programs for commercial equipment, and we

17 recognize that ASRAC has a broader scope. 

18 We're simply saying hey, ASRAC, we

19 think you ought to set up another working

20 group to look at those other covered products.

21 MR. EISNER: How about if you

22 instead said the thing -- instead of saying we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 379

1 recommend or anything like that, we think you

2 should consider or recommend that you consider

3 --

4 MR. AMRANE: That's fine.

5 MR. STANONIK: It says encourage.

6 MR. EISNER: -- the need for --

7 well, but instead of saying `encourage', like

8 we know better, I understand, the concern with

9 other products.

10 Why not say we recommend

11 consideration of the need for this for other

12 products? Does that work better or do you

13 still have objections to that?

14 MR. STEPHENS: I think it's just

15 outside the scope of what we're doing.

16 MR. KOJAK: Yes, I don't understand

17 why we would say that anyway.

18 MR. STEPHENS: We've spun our

19 wheels for a day because of this.

20 MR. EISNER: We could say we think

21 what we're doing is so good, it should be

22 applied to everybody.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 380

1 MR. KOJAK: Yes, but these types

2 of products have inductive motors, they have,

3 you know, charging, they have a lot of

4 manufacturing variability.

5 You're talking about a set-top

6 box, that is solid state electronics. There

7 is really not a lot of variability between the

8 manufacturing process, how much energy it's

9 going to consume or not, like in these type of

10 complicated products, where one tiny, you

11 know, variability can change the amount of

12 energy it consumes.

13 So, to try to tell shower head

14 manufacturers they have to go through this

15 same thing, it doesn't even make sense.

16 MR. AMRANE: We're not saying

17 that. 

18 MR. KOJAK: Well, that is part of

19 the --

20 MR. AMRANE: That is not what

21 we're saying.

22 MR. KOJAK: That is part of it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 381

1 MR. AMRANE: We're saying that is

2 for ASRAC to assess, and that is for ASRAC to

3 decide and eventually, people -- working

4 groups, it's going to be for those working

5 groups to decide whether they need it or not.

6 MR. KOJAK: Well, why waste the

7 time?

8 MR. AMRANE: Who is wasting the

9 time?

10 MR. KOJAK: To develop all these

11 groups, to determine that.

12 MR. BALLO: How about this?

13 MR. KOJAK: I don't understand

14 that.

15 MR. BALLO: The members who

16 manufacture equipment in other covered product

17 classes believe that ASRAC -- should recommend

18 that ASRAC convene working groups to address

19 verification in those product classes.

20 MR. BAUMAN: You mean you and

21 Harvey don't agree? You're the one who is the

22 --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 382

1 MR. BALLO: Right.

2 MR. BAUMAN: I would think you

3 want this also then.

4 MR. BALLO: Well, we do, but to

5 come up language the is agreeable to everybody

6 in the room, I think it has to be more limited

7 than the entire working group believes that

8 negotiations are appropriate for other product

9 classes.

10 MR. STEPHENS: If that's the way

11 you want to go, I fully support you doing

12 that. Outside of this group, I think it's

13 just outside the scope of this group. We're

14 heating equipment.

15 We're not radios and televisions

16 and --

17 MR. BALLO: But that isn't making

18 a representation about what you think. That

19 is making a representation about what other

20 members of the working group think.

21 MR. STANONIK: And the working

22 group is not saying we know what to do or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 383

1 anything.

2 MR. BALLO: Right.

3 MR. STANONIK: Or you should do

4 this. We're simply saying, there is a void

5 there, and that ASRAC does have the ability to

6 set up a working group to address that void,

7 and I'm going to say something I know would

8 never pass, okay.

9 But my position would be that the

10 DOE regulations for commercial verification do

11 not get published until there are verification

12 requirements for all covered products.

13 MS. DANE: That's what I vote for

14 on that point.

15 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm sorry.

16 MR. EISNER: Anybody have other

17 language they would suggest?

18 MS. BARHYDT: So, there are some

19 people in the room who very strongly think we

20 need to say something, is that correct,

21 because there is also clearly, at least one

22 person who very strongly thinks we should not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 384

1 say anything on it.

2 So, I mean, does anyone really

3 care about whether we say it or not?

4 MR. BAUMAN: I think the reason

5 that this was -- probably partly me, brought

6 into some of the -- in the first place, was

7 that from our colleagues out there

8 particularly, a sense of, going back to the

9 term playing field, level playing field or a

10 basic sense of -- basic sense that if -- why

11 would we be regulated -- why would we agree to

12 be regulated, if we're -- not regulated.

13 Why would we agree to pay for a

14 verification program for the Department of

15 Energy, when other products don't have to?

16 I think that is where this

17 question initially goes back to, and the idea

18 -- I think my view on putting or not putting

19 something in here, back to ASRAC, is this

20 again, more of a chance of potentially

21 reducing some of the negative feedback that

22 may come after, and if we said that should be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 385

1 considered, the people here, other

2 manufacturers, including those not in this

3 room, aren't going to feel quite so like

4 they're -- the rug is being pulled out from

5 under them, or however you want to do that,

6 that we're agreeing to something that other

7 people aren't having agreed to.

8 Maybe, I don't know if there is

9 language too, that -- you know, that we just

10 want to talk about other commercial products? 

11 I don't know if there is a logical separation,

12 and I'm not that familiar with how the

13 categories go for that, there might be some

14 where we're not talking about light bulbs and

15 things, if that is beyond what we should even

16 be -- in our minds.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Are you okay with it

18 being framed in that way, because that brings

19 it back to the subject matter of our working

20 group.

21 MR. KOJAK: Well, why not put in

22 there, to recommend groups of manufacturing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 386

1 variabilities `x' percent or greater, because

2 if something is manufactured exactly the same,

3 because it's solid state, over and over and

4 over again --

5 MR. EISNER: How about something

6 similar --

7 MR. KOJAK: -- why do you have a

8 verification program to test a cell phone or

9 a VRC/DVD player?

10 MR. EISNER: Michael, what about

11 something simpler, like ASRAC should review

12 whether there are other products that would be

13 -- for which it would be appropriate to have

14 verification testing, so that people would not

15 feel like this industry was being picked on,

16 some other words?

17 Would that take care of your

18 concern? You don't say all products, you just

19 simply say, should examine whether there are

20 other products for which such testing would be

21 warranted, or such --

22 MR. KOJAK: Well, I just feel like
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 387

1 -- the same thing like Phillip, they should be

2 able to come to that own conclusion

3 themselves. I don't see why we should be

4 making that recommendation to them, to do

5 that.

6 MR. EISNER: But we're -- the

7 point that was just made is, there will be

8 people in this industry who will be concerned

9 that these -- these requirements are being

10 imposed on them.

11 They think they're a good idea,

12 but they think they should be imposed on

13 everybody, if they're going to be imposed on

14 them.

15 MR. KOJAK: But what about the

16 people that you're imposing that on, the other

17 ones that were recommending they're imposed on

18 them? They're going to say the same thing.

19 MR. EISNER: But it --

20 MR. KOJAK: Why are we imposing

21 that on to them?

22 MR. EISNER: Because we will --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 388

1 MR. KOJAK: You're recommending us

2 to.

3 MR. EISNER: We're saying it

4 should be imposed on them, if it's as good an

5 idea as it is for this segment of the

6 industry.

7 In other words, it helps you get

8 the successful adoption of the proposed rule

9 you're making. 

10 MR. KOJAK: Like walk-in coolers?

11 MR. STEPHENS: Basically, what

12 we're saying is, misery loves company.

13 MR. EISNER: No, goodness, the

14 negative attitude.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. STANONIK: The recommendation,

17 liken to an exactly what Phillip says, we

18 don't have the authority to do, because the

19 recommendation in no way, says what the

20 program will require or won't require, for

21 that matter.

22 It simply is saying, we think that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 389

1 there needs to be another working group, and

2 if you'll remember early in the day today,

3 again, DOE is very clear at some point, they

4 intended to do verification regulation.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Well, we intended to

6 raise the issue in a rulemaking.

7 MR. STANONIK: In a rulemaking,

8 and that would be for all products, okay.

9 So, I would purport that if that

10 is still the position, those other covered

11 products would be in a better position if they

12 had a working group to start negotiating what

13 that might be, as opposed to waiting for DOE

14 to drop the other shoe.

15 MR. EISNER: Right, I understand

16 the argument about the success of how it would

17 help us get this final rule adopted, final

18 rule on this subject adopted.

19 What the other three are saying

20 over here is, why are we -- committee --

21 looking at HVAC, boilers and CRE, in a

22 position to make a recommendation that I'm
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 390

1 above the rest of the industry?

2 It's not why we were created, to

3 make recommendations about other parts of the

4 industry.

5 MR. STEPHENS: It's outside of our

6 scope.

7 MR. EISNER: It's outside the

8 scope, but I thought a good point was made, it

9 could help get this rule through, if people

10 understood this industry is not being picked

11 on, so to speak.

12 MR. KOJAK: What about if we --

13 the scope is limited to other industries that

14 will eventually be allowed to certify by AEDM?

15 MR. STEPHENS: Neil, when you

16 phrase it that way, then I will go through --

17 from the negative up to abstaining.

18 MS. DANE: I'll go back to

19 abstaining.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. EISNER: Mike has thrown out

22 another idea here.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 391

1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

2 MR. FERRIOL: Neil, could you

3 restate what you had said and Phillip agreed

4 to the same thing?

5 MR. EISNER: I was saying that

6 there was -- that Frank's position, that we

7 should be telling them that other industries

8 should be subject to this, they have a

9 legitimate point, that that is not what we're

10 here for.

11 That is not what we were asked to

12 do, so, why are we making this recommendation?

13 But a good point was made on the

14 other side, that this could help get this rule

15 successfully through. We wouldn't -- DOE

16 would not be getting -- this group would not

17 be seeing comments coming in, saying, why us? 

18 Why are we being picked on? Why does this

19 have to happen to us?

20 No, the group said that it might

21 possibly be necessary for others too.

22 MR. FERRIOL: So, was there
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 392

1 suggested language or going back to --

2 MR. EISNER: Well, Laura was --

3 MR. STEPHENS: Well, I think that

4 is what Laura is putting through.

5 MR. FERRIOL: Okay. Do we care

6 how they address it? I mean, we're saying

7 form a working group, but -- 

8 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, we care that

9 they go through a negotiated rulemaking.

10 MR. FERRIOL: All right.

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Versus notice in

12 comment.

13 MR. FERRIOL: Okay.

14 MS. HOOTMAN: We're saying that

15 this process works a whole lot better. The

16 negotiated rulemaking and the working group

17 process works a whole lot better than notice

18 and comment.

19 MR. AMRANE: Right.

20 MR. SACHS: Although it's

21 sometimes hard to feel that way.

22 MS. HOOTMAN: I realize that.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 393

1 MS. BARHYDT: Phillip, does that

2 one --

3 MR. KLEISS: At this point, we

4 don't know if this is true.

5 MR. EISNER: Which part of this?

6 MR. KLEISS: We're hopeful.

7 MS. BARHYDT: It says `may'.

8 MR. STEPHENS: I'm believe it's

9 the scope.

10 MR. EISNER: Okay, why don't we go

11 to the -- do we want to have any kind of

12 report on the separate sub-groups that were

13 established?

14 MR. SACHS: I thought that was

15 really useful. I really think that is part of

16 the messaging that this is a heterogenous

17 group of products, and industries with

18 different interests, that we have been trying

19 to resolve, group by group, I just don't see

20 us as being one size fits all.

21 MR. EISNER: Others?

22 MR. KOJAK: I agree because if
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 394

1 they want to start an additional working

2 group, they'll understand, since we broke up

3 in the smaller ones, more by product type,

4 that that will happen again, and maybe even,

5 you know, sub again, smaller after that.

6 So, I think it should be showing

7 that we did break up into smaller sub-groups

8 from this working group because that -- if

9 they continue this process in the future, with

10 -- you know, our other recommendation to have

11 this done, you know, for other product

12 categories, they should be expecting those

13 same type of things, where it breaks down into

14 smaller sub-groups.

15 MR. EISNER: Anybody opposed now,

16 to putting in the three sub-group status?

17 MR. DOPPEL: Can we look at the

18 HVAC one more time? Then do we really need to

19 -- I'm still concerned about keeping that

20 legal authority one in there.

21 MR. SACHS: I am not sure what it

22 adds either.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 395

1 MR. EISNER: Anybody object to

2 taking it out now?

3 MR. KOJAK: That was quick.

4 MR. AMRANE: One question.

5 MR. STANONIK: So, would these --

6 this additional text, would that be added --

7 would that be added to the key points that are

8 currently listed on page four in the report?

9 MS. HOOTMAN: This whole

10 additional text? Is that what you're saying?

11 MR. STANONIK: Each of these. I

12 mean, these points, on the key points, page

13 four of the report, it talks about the

14 commercial refrigeration equipment activities

15 on verification, it talks about boiler and

16 water heating equipment. It talks about HVAC

17 and furnaces.

18 It gives a slice synopsis. So,

19 this is to be added to those, at the end of

20 each of them?

21 MR. DOPPEL: I think what we said

22 was that that first part would be, you know,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 396

1 to amend the report, would be added to the

2 report, but the rest of this, my understanding

3 was, it would give Ashley talking points.

4 MR. STANONIK: No, the question --

5 I'm sorry, for the question I thought Neil

6 raised is, does this get added to the report?

7 MR. EISNER: No, I don't -- if I

8 said that, I may have been misunderstood or

9 mis-stated it.

10 MR. STANONIK: Well, maybe you did

11 --

12 MR. EISNER: What I'm saying is, I

13 thought Ashley was going to take this in and

14 read it tomorrow. The report was not going to

15 be changed in any way. She was going to read

16 this and then --

17 MR. STANONIK: I misunderstood.

18 MR. EISNER: -- hand this sheet

19 out.

20 MR. STANONIK: I misunderstood.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Well, the first two

22 points, I think we'll probably put in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 397

1 docket, because enforcement was in the scope

2 and we want the docket to reflect that we did

3 actually talk about enforcement and make a

4 recommendation on that.

5 MR. EISNER: Yes, you're putting

6 that in the docket.

7 MS. BARHYDT: So, we'll put that

8 in the docket and --

9 MR. EISNER: In addition to the --

10 MS. BARHYDT: -- we'll put in the

11 change to the heat exchanger.

12 MR. EISNER: But am I correct,

13 that she intended to either hand this sheet

14 out or read it to them?

15 MS. BARHYDT: I think that is what

16 we were discussing. I think people agreed to

17 that, but I don't know.

18 MR. EISNER: I don't think anybody

19 is trying to go back and redo the report,

20 itself.

21 MS. BARHYDT: No.

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

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 398

1 MR. EISNER: Does anybody think it

2 should be done that way?

3 MS. HOOTMAN: No, I guess I was of

4 the opinion also, that they're just going to

5 discuss it, yes.

6 MR. EISNER: Now, again, though

7 Frank makes a point, we're not saying that

8 much more in these three bullets about the

9 sub-group than we said in the original report.

10 We did have an update, in terms of

11 whatever progress we had today, we had a

12 little bit of that in there. The question is

13 do we need to give them this?

14 The report itself makes the point

15 that there were three sub-groups. It is a

16 complex issue. So, do we need to add it or do

17 we want to keep it simple?

18 MR. FERRIOL: Brian with UL. I

19 agree with Harvey, that whether it's stating

20 the same thing or not, I think that reiterates

21 the point that we are continuing in three

22 separate groups, and we have diverse views and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 399

1 so, I would recommend that we leave it --

2 MR. EISNER: Would you?

3 MR. FERRIOL: -- and again, give

4 it to Ashley, to report to the ASRAC.

5 01 Maybe that is a good lead in to

6 that, we continue to make progress -- continue

7 to make progress at this week's meeting. Here

8 is the latest status, or something like that.

9 MR. THARP: Or it may be that that

10 would be just good hit-pocket back-up

11 information that she only whips it out if it's

12 needed. Most of us go into our meetings for

13 projects and things with some supplemental

14 information and if you pass with what you

15 present, that is okay, and then if there is

16 questions, you have some back up material.

17 MR. EISNER: And there are the

18 first -- we could give her two sheets of

19 paper. The first one would be

20 recommendations. The second one would be back

21 up information on status.

22 All right, is everybody okay with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 400

1 that? There is hope for this group to get

2 consensus. Any objections?

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MR. EISNER: Any objections to any

5 of this? Any abstentions? Okay.

6 MR. BALLO: I just had a question. 

7 On the CRE portion, it says the details are

8 still to be worked out by the end of October,

9 but earlier, I thought I heard that you all

10 had some concerns about that kind of a time

11 line because of the proposed rule that is out. 

12 Is that it?

13 MR. HON: Yes.

14 MR. BALLO: So, is it October or

15 is it later than October?

16 MS. DANE: I don't think the

17 detail -- all of the details hinge on getting

18 it done by the end of October.

19 Our concern is, is to make sure

20 that the implementation of the verification

21 program does -- you know, works with what

22 we're trying to do on the second one.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 401

1 MR. THARP: Delete the phrase `by

2 end of October'?

3 MS. DANE: No, the details that we

4 would be submitting to DOE, we could very

5 likely have a framework done.

6 What we are saying is, is we won't

7 be jumping into a verification program. That

8 is not the same thing. Talking about it and

9 coming up with the framework is not the same

10 as --

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Effective date.

12 MS. DANE: Right, as the effective

13 date.

14 MS. HOOTMAN: The effective date

15 would not --

16 MS. DANE: So, that is one of the

17 things that may not be hammered out in our

18 report, only because of the new numbers in the

19 next report that came out.

20 MR. EISNER: Are you comfortable

21 with that?

22 MR. THARP: Maybe change `still
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 402

1 need' to `could'. 

2 MR. EISNER: Should?

3 MR. THARP: That way we just leave

4 it like that, you're saying you have the

5 capability of doing it.

6 MS. DANE: Right.

7 MR. THARP: Not committing to it,

8 but you have the capability.

9 MS. DANE: We have the capability.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Should or could?

11 MR. KOJAK: Could.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Could, okay.

13 MR. THARP: Could.

14 MR. STEPHENS: Boiler and water

15 heater section, we've struck out the other

16 references to negotiating in good faith and

17 issues of legal authority.

18 Do we want to modify our

19 statement?

20 MS. DANE: I thought you were

21 going to leave it until Karen saw it.

22 MR. STEPHENS: Well, we're going
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 403

1 to --

2 MR. EISNER: We could look at this

3 tomorrow morning, if you want to, because

4 there are some other people, Karen and -- I

5 mean, I'd like to know where we are now, and

6 then supplement tomorrow morning, any changes

7 that we have.

8 MR. STEPHENS: I would not feel

9 comfortable with us being the only ones

10 mentioning both those things, because that is

11 sort of the lay-over from all of the previous

12 discussions earlier in the day, and you've

13 already agreed to strike the other references

14 to those.

15 MR. EISNER: Did you want to say

16 something like we believe we can continue to

17 negotiate effectively and continue the

18 progress we've initiated, with respect to

19 verification testing, period?

20 MR. SACHS: I'm struck by Neil's

21 comment that -- and remembering that Karen had

22 very strong feelings, and I really think we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 404

1 ought to let her be part of this.

2 MR. EISNER: Just put it in red or

3 something like. She can focus on it tomorrow

4 morning.

5 MR. STANONIK: Yes, I'd like to

6 just mention that, you know, and this isn't

7 essentially, let's say, things that Ashley

8 will have to present verbally.

9 I guess I have a hard time

10 foreseeing that ASRAC will not receive some

11 information about the debate that occurred

12 here today, regarding legal authority.

13 So, I am not at all -- I've been -

14 - because of that, I'm not really -- I'm

15 comfortable with our statement as it exists.

16 I mean, I don't see how you can -- how that

17 doesn't at least get mentioned.

18 MS. BARHYDT: We'll see.

19 MR. STANONIK: Yes, right, we'll

20 see.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Ashley was here for

22 the whole thing.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 405

1 MR. STANONIK: Yes.

2 MR. EISNER: Well, the question

3 is, do we want to make that just in statement

4 -- just in the boiler and water heater area,

5 or do we want to make a general statement,

6 that there is some concern about the -- about

7 legal authority and the ability to negotiate

8 in good faith?

9 MS. BARHYDT: I think that --

10 MR. EISNER: Or let's say

11 negotiate effectively.

12 MS. BARHYDT: I guess what I was

13 saying was that Ashley was here for the whole

14 thing, and she is an ASRAC member.

15 So, regardless of what we say, we

16 want her to say, she is going to say whatever

17 she wants.

18 MS. DANE: And I believe that is

19 why CRE worded the statement the way they did.

20 MR. EISNER: We'll throw her off

21 the committee.

22 MR. FERRIOL: This is Brian. So,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 406

1 in light of that discussion, I think whoever

2 just un-highlighted legal authority, I agree

3 with putting it more of a general statement,

4 not highlighting it under the boiler sub5 group, because I think everybody had that same

6 feeling.

7 MS. DANE: No, I did not have that

8 feeling and I don't -- Charlie, did you have

9 that feeling?

10 MR. FERRIOL: With regard to?

11 MS. DANE: With regard to whether

12 or not DOE had the authority.

13 MR. STANONIK: But you're

14 validating the statement. There is not

15 complete agreement. There is a difference of

16 opinion on it. Your opinion is -- I mean,

17 that is just -- that is just stating the fact.

18 MS. DANE: I guess my point is it

19 was centralized in certain groups, not --

20 MR. STANONIK: I'm sorry, I mean,

21 doesn't matter. You know, the rules of the

22 working group, our consensus is no more than
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 407

1 two `no' votes. It doesn't say which two or

2 whatever, and so, I mean --

3 MR. STEPHENS: I think we can use

4 some formatting to identify this and mention

5 CRE first and then mention the legal issues

6 and the other two groups.

7 MS. DANE: I believe CRE's

8 comments address that we agreed already.

9 MR. HUDNALL: That is your first

10 statement.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, that is your

12 first statement. I think that takes care of

13 the concern.

14 MR. EISNER: Jeremiah, in the

15 boiler and water heater one, why don't you put

16 brackets around good faith and the legal

17 issue, so that we don't miss that in the

18 morning?

19 Okay, other comments? We'll get

20 at people's ideas tomorrow morning and then

21 resolve all of this.

22 MS. DANE: Can we discuss the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 408

1 schedule for tomorrow morning? Are we --

2 because first I heard we were going to talk

3 about motors. Now, I'm hearing that there

4 might be some other discussion related to

5 this.

6 MR. EISNER: Well, I think this

7 should probably come up first.

8 MS. DANE: Okay.

9 MR. EISNER: Then we should get to

10 motors, if everybody is okay with that. 

11 MR. KLEISS: So, we will all

12 convene together here?

13 MS. DANE: At 8:30 a.m.?

14 MR. EISNER: Yes.

15 MS. BARHYDT: So, if lawyers are

16 just going to talk for a long time -- 

17 MR. THARP: Which they will.

18 MS. BARHYDT: -- it does seem --

19 unfair to make CRE and water heater --

20 MR. EISNER: You can come early.

21 MR. KLEISS: Water heater and

22 boilers, we have plenty to discuss.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 409

1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so, you're

2 going to be here anyway?

3 MR. EISNER: Yes.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

5 MR. EISNER: I think all of us

6 will probably benefit.

7 MR. AMRANE: Are we meeting from

8 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. tomorrow?

9 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, it's on the

10 schedule.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's on the

12 schedule that way.

13 MR. AMRANE: And we can get to the

14 ASRAC?

15 MS. BARHYDT: So, when we all met

16 and set up the schedule, we said we will break

17 for the ASRAC meeting. Anyone who has to go

18 to the ASRAC meeting can go to the ASRAC

19 meeting.

20 Then whenever that is done, we'll

21 resume here, assuming that ASRAC authorizes us 

22 to continue.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 410

1 MR. EISNER: Where does ASRAC fit

2 in?

3 MS. BARHYDT: I think it's at one.

4 MR. SHEBIK: Is there a dial-in

5 number or a webinar for the ASRAC meeting,

6 that I can dial in to?

7 MR. EISNER: Where do they meet,

8 though? In this building?

9 MR. AMRANE: But are we going to

10 be able to --

11 MR. FREEMAN: It's a dial in. So,

12 if you guys want to participate, we can do it

13 so the person running the meeting webinar can

14 connect to ASRAC's meeting, but it would

15 essentially shut down your meeting.

16 MR. AMRANE: Yes, okay.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

18 MR. KLEISS: I would ask that

19 tomorrow morning, we establish up front, who

20 will be back here after the ASRAC meeting --

21 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

22 MR. KLEISS: -- because I don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 411

1 want -- if half the people are going to be

2 here, I don't want to be in that half.

3 MS. BARHYDT: If everyone is

4 leaving, you want to leave.

5 MR. EISNER: He doesn't want to be

6 in the half that is here.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. EISNER: That is when we're

9 going to schedule all the final votes on

10 everything.

11 MR. SACHS: If it goes until five,

12 I hope we get somewhere -- I vote we will be

13 convening from five until six.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Right. From what

15 Ashley told me, there isn't a lot of schedule

16 other than this. So, I don't see how they

17 could talk about this for that long.

18 MR. EISNER: So, you said they

19 don't meet in this building? 

20 MR. SHEBIK: They don't.

21 MS. BARHYDT: They're webinar.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 412

1 MR. EISNER: Okay, they're not

2 here either?

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MR. SHEBIK: So, sorry, you said

5 that we will be able to join through this

6 webinar tomorrow, the ASRAC meeting?

7 MR. FREEMAN: So, the people on

8 the phone will have to reconnect to a

9 different webinar information, which I will

10 send out tonight.

11 MR. SHEBIK: Okay, great, thanks.

12 MR. EISNER: So, we reached some

13 kind of a consensus that we will stay on for

14 no more than a certain amount of time?

15 MS. BARHYDT: I don't know, my

16 sense is that if they're still talking about

17 our stuff, then probably everybody here wants

18 to hear what is going on.

19 MS. DANE: Right.

20 MR. EISNER: And we'll all be in

21 this room anyway?

22 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 413

1 MS. DANE: Right.

2 MS. BARHYDT: And we'll just

3 transition over and we'll connect to their

4 webinar.

5 MR. EISNER: Okay.

6 MR. KOJAK: So, in the morning

7 though, are we talking about motors? What are

8 we doing in the morning?

9 MR. EISNER: Well, I believe we're

10 going to start with the ASRAC supplement, so

11 we make sure we have that done in time for her

12 to have it for the meeting. That is my

13 thought, and then we will talk about motor

14 requirements, but that is also a time that you

15 could break up in sub-groups.

16 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, break out.

17 MR. EISNER: And Laura won't be

18 here until 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m.

19 MS. BARHYDT: I'll be here. I

20 will be here.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: That was a stab.

22 MS. BARHYDT: It was, but I've
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 414

1 complained about those 8:00 a.m. meetings.

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 MR. SACHS: I'm hearing a motion

6 to adjourn.

7 MR. EISNER: All right.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

10 matter concluded at 5:40 p.m.)

11 

12 

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 415

A

AAON 1:23 144:10

abeyance 335:6

ability 57:19 63:10

65:16 170:1 218:6

383:5 405:7

able 9:5 14:6 15:13

16:8,11 24:13

30:17 37:3 38:16

50:22 74:2 78:14

83:5,10 152:13

169:20 184:17

186:13 192:20

194:4 213:17

227:14,16,20

243:1 255:12

262:13 283:22

289:7 387:2

410:10 412:5

ABMA 1:23 11:14

181:4,12

ABMA's 181:7

above-entitled 42:9

180:16 260:21

339:18 414:9

absent 305:21

absolute 263:7

absolutely 26:2

27:7 130:16 162:9

166:7 287:13

310:14,15

abstain 83:16

88:10 197:7

246:15 364:6

abstained 372:11

abstaining 390:17

390:19

abstention 364:14

369:17

abstentions 180:10

246:19 400:5

abstract 107:5

accept 71:10 86:2

118:6 166:5

207:16,17 272:15

320:13

acceptable 188:15

188:16 322:9

accepted 126:10

161:21 172:1

accepting 320:15

access 15:14 74:19

accommodate

103:16

accommodation

235:9

accomplished

174:14

accord 222:19

account 11:6,9

55:14

accreditation 168:9

ACEEE 2:4 200:17

200:22 201:2

achieve 113:14

335:19 336:13

achieving 252:19

acknowledge 19:12

258:16,21,22,22

acknowledgment

209:17

acquisition 19:1

act 235:14 254:2

acting 317:18

action 7:17 28:2

36:3 252:10

actions 33:19

active 98:18 371:18

activities 395:14

activity 99:17

actors 235:12

336:4

actual 13:9 24:13

39:12

ad 269:19

adamant 169:18

338:21

add 38:4 41:9,11

41:17 54:2 162:10

266:1 305:10

306:19 318:12

345:20 346:9

350:12 398:16

added 159:10

219:9 220:13,14

220:18 274:18

371:6 395:6,7,19

396:1,6

adding 104:10

228:9 303:12

373:20

addition 269:8

322:13 361:17

397:9

additional 102:2

110:6 120:5

145:14 160:20

161:6 162:1 219:9

236:3 261:8 262:9

263:15 367:12

394:1 395:6,10

additionally 161:12

ADDM's 265:12

address 5:5 109:8

189:4 211:12

219:1 221:8 248:2

249:21 266:14

271:22 285:3

290:8 292:16

300:17 304:8

359:18 362:13

364:3 381:18

383:6 392:6 407:8

addressed 4:18

8:12 179:14

248:14 266:13

270:15 276:6

304:9 337:14

368:11,19 369:12

addresses 295:18

addressing 127:3

325:8

adds 71:21 394:22

adequate 186:13

309:7

adjourn 414:6

adjusted 65:2

Administration

46:8

administrative

151:16 193:18

admit 113:9

Admittedly 263:1

adopt 47:17

adopted 27:1

389:17,18

adoption 388:8

adopts 91:1

advance 100:19

advice 245:1

advisory 1:4 257:6

advocacy 5:2

advocacy-wise

329:3

AEDM 390:14

AEDMs 28:12

AEDM's 327:1,3

affect 184:20

affirmative 252:10

afraid 126:16

afternoon 237:21

after-the-fact

10:12

agencies 314:10

agency 37:18 113:9

113:11,17 119:4

151:18 184:22

189:3 286:8 289:1

313:11,15,22

315:4,20 316:11

Agency's 289:3

agenda 137:4,7

149:10 193:6

345:8

ago 22:17 26:21

30:1 81:1 126:11

156:13 283:12

310:21 338:9,11

338:21

agree 25:14 27:8,19

28:9 39:6 45:3

48:21 49:17 89:3

99:7 104:12

112:17 120:16

127:6 134:7 151:4

151:12,22 154:18

154:18 165:22

171:18 175:8,8,9

179:17 180:3

182:13 185:16

187:4 201:15,17

208:14 215:2

216:9 218:18

219:6 235:11

274:17 284:1

289:11,17 290:16

294:14 315:5

324:10 327:2

334:12 335:8

336:5 339:8 352:3

376:13 381:21

384:11,13 393:22

398:19 406:2

agreeable 382:5

agreed 67:12 82:4

123:10 127:1

141:19 170:21

198:4 267:11

330:21 338:8

354:10,18,21

385:7 391:3

397:16 403:13

407:8

agreeing 51:10

243:16,16 338:15

354:13,14 385:6

agreement 29:4

85:17 113:2 135:9

141:7,11 142:18

262:1 286:8,9,12

297:6 298:15,21

299:5 302:17

304:15 305:22

307:4,18 338:10

406:15

agrees 40:13

220:16 320:22

336:14

AHAM 1:25 26:5

63:12 104:22

105:11 106:13

107:15 141:7,11

141:16,18 163:17

ahead 39:16 174:17

188:2 225:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 416

371:15

AHRI 1:18 2:6,9

6:10 12:14 22:13

25:5 45:3 66:21

90:10 92:10 112:3

123:20 139:5

141:2 143:13

146:2 154:6

155:16 163:4,16

164:10 168:18

169:10 171:13,19

171:22 172:1

176:15,21 188:14

194:21 212:4

214:6 235:21

249:17 271:7

273:15 280:16

283:22 286:19

322:19,20 328:18

329:3 337:15

348:19 362:8

376:4

AHRI-structured

169:19

air 1:20 18:18,20

19:7,7,9 20:22

87:3

Alex 356:1

Alex's 355:13

356:6

algorithm 95:15

alike 135:3

alleviate 79:19

allocation 100:3

allotted 98:15

allow 14:14 31:4

93:2 152:3 222:9

allowable 98:3

312:16

allowed 66:4 98:9

113:6 152:7 170:5

246:4 390:14

allows 12:7 267:2

309:14

alluded 37:20

all's 193:6

all-encompassing

201:9

altering 41:12

351:3

alternative 199:6

alternatives 199:1

ambiguities 20:9

37:20 243:21

ambiguous 48:9,11

195:22 352:19

amend 203:15

396:1

amendment 226:1

227:22

amendments 28:6

168:14

amount 380:11

412:14

AMRANE 1:18 6:9

6:15 7:1,14 8:3,8

8:11 22:12,19

23:1,5,18 25:4,20

32:21 45:2,9,12

46:19 47:4 48:12

50:2 51:8 83:18

84:4 87:10 90:9

92:9,22 135:16

136:1 141:1,5

145:11 146:1

148:15,18 149:2

162:2 165:9,16,20

166:7 167:4

168:17 169:12

170:6,16 171:1

172:6,14 188:13

214:5,9,15,18

240:8,12 257:16

280:15,22 283:21

284:3,5 286:18

295:3,7 311:16,21

312:3 332:20

359:12,16 362:7

363:3,8,11 366:15

369:13 373:4

375:3,5,18 379:4

380:16,20 381:1,8

392:19 395:4

409:7,13 410:9,16

amusing 81:16

analyses 27:10

analysis 24:7 25:5

44:14 45:5 46:9

48:5,6,14 49:3,6

49:10,11 51:18

52:15 55:18 67:18

69:1 74:16 76:15

77:14 95:13 105:5

160:16,17,21,22

161:8 162:12,16

163:11 189:7

221:6 264:4

271:17 352:13,15

analytical 27:3

58:18,21 351:22

353:3

analyze 24:13

45:16

analyzed 12:15

17:12 18:13

ancillary 373:9

Anderson 1:19

18:17,17 175:20

175:21 176:6,11

228:12,15 230:9

231:19 232:4,18

233:3

and/or 132:21

anger 40:5

angles 234:4

animal 111:12

announce 71:9

announcements

110:9

annual 178:20

369:8

annually 134:16

159:6

anomalies 163:19

answer 28:17 29:21

59:13 61:20 78:5

135:13,14 192:4

198:22 205:3

206:21 209:6

218:12 235:1

241:19 258:12

260:2 315:14,22

333:5 338:2

answered 37:6

68:18 133:7

191:15

answering 131:15

207:6 330:3

answers 259:17

330:6

anticipate 340:13

anybody 27:21

39:11,19 41:8

50:18 54:9 63:18

71:5 83:15,16

87:13 88:10 99:6

180:19 200:20

261:4 263:20

285:10 298:13

305:12 306:18

317:18 337:11

342:3 361:20

364:15 366:10,11

374:17 383:16

394:15 395:1

397:18 398:1

anybody's 315:16

anyway 159:13

162:8 182:12

226:12 359:3

379:17 409:2

412:21

apologize 77:13

85:22 194:22

266:19

apparently 201:13

appear 126:1

Appendix 35:10,12

apples 163:22

appliance 1:3

106:18 257:7

appliances 30:22

applicable 86:15

352:11

application 111:8

113:3 376:1

applications 86:20

87:1

applied 100:19

135:11 179:5

379:22

applies 91:17

apply 12:7 29:12

29:15,21 60:19

85:12 120:14

136:10,11 146:5

146:13 181:10

applying 100:18

appoint 105:19

appreciate 37:10

38:15 47:11 58:3

104:22 126:7

129:6 143:21

229:3 230:4 233:1

261:7

appreciated 78:3

242:20 261:11

approach 259:9

261:13 262:4

263:12 308:4

336:7 359:6

approaches 201:3

362:18

appropriate 10:20

64:10,18 73:21

101:3 113:19

172:3,4,10 174:8

177:1 294:12

382:8 386:13

appropriately

213:4

appropriation

196:4

appropriations

196:2

approved 279:19

approves 282:16

approximately

163:6 260:22

261:1 339:20

April 198:12

area 19:6 68:19

132:6,9 211:16

220:19 300:8

319:3 405:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 417

areas 114:18,21

212:19 220:21

244:17 252:9

268:21

argue 140:6,7,9

196:16 241:16

argument 212:16

212:20 220:10

241:15 335:5

370:1 389:16

arguments 15:22

217:11

ARMSTRONG

2:15 12:19 13:2

13:13,18 19:10

20:14,16 21:20

22:16,20 23:2,7

23:13,20 24:5

25:19 26:3 28:16

30:9 31:6,18 32:9

33:15 35:4,16

37:7 38:7,17

42:19 43:2,5,9,15

45:7,10,13 47:2

49:17 53:4,9,13

53:15 54:7 55:5

55:13,21 56:2,9

56:15 57:5 58:17

58:20 59:1,9,12

59:22 60:4,10,13

61:2,11,18 62:7

62:17 63:6 65:11

65:15 66:10,13,17

67:22 68:11,22

70:18 71:7,16,22

73:14 75:11,14,17

75:21 76:4,12,20

77:8,18 78:2,19

79:3,7,12,16,22

80:2,16,21 81:3

82:12 84:2,5,7

87:4 88:3 108:2,5

109:19 110:2

112:1,14 129:18

130:4,11,15

133:16 134:9

136:22 137:9

138:6,9 139:18,22

141:4,10 146:22

149:7 150:2,5

153:3,8 162:13

173:12 180:3

187:6 188:3,12

191:10 198:6,11

198:13,15 208:12

208:15 209:16,21

210:3,6 214:22

215:7,13 216:3,15

217:20 218:2,5,11

218:15 221:18

222:3,22 223:13

223:17 254:7,13

254:16 255:1

256:17,22 257:11

257:20 258:1,11

258:14 264:16,22

265:4,7,13 266:6

266:17 268:12

280:1 282:15

284:10 311:12

323:15 345:4,7,11

354:8 355:4,21

356:16,22 363:5,9

409:11

arrangement 9:4,5

articulated 137:15

ascertaining 93:6

Ashley 2:15 20:13

33:13 39:18 69:3

111:1 112:3

146:11 193:4

221:14 347:11

351:1 355:17

366:13 396:3,13

399:4 404:7,21

405:13 411:15

Ashley's 261:15

ASHRAE 46:8,11

46:12,18,21,22

ASHRAE's 47:6

aside 13:13 33:12

111:17,22 167:22

252:4

asked 8:14 60:14

73:15 134:11

137:4,7 315:17

330:8 341:11

391:11

asking 42:21 78:17

78:18 99:19

101:22 109:11

145:18 205:10

216:8,18 222:8

232:12 250:14

267:18,19 288:20

299:15 305:5

361:7

asks 13:21 140:5

aspect 69:16 82:5

aspects 108:11

271:9 348:12

ASRAC 4:8 29:11

32:16 39:11 42:17

42:18,21 43:11,12

48:2 62:20,22

63:19 71:2,10,14

71:17 74:6 83:20

87:17 101:21

102:5,6 105:19

108:6,9 109:9

110:13 112:4,7,10

112:15,18 115:21

129:17 130:1

133:8 149:12

150:1 166:12

173:13 174:4,16

175:12 181:2

182:2,8,17 183:11

183:12 185:11

186:9 188:5 195:3

196:19 222:8

223:6 229:21

239:7 244:22

246:5 248:1

249:19 251:4

253:10,22 254:7

254:18,19 255:3,4

256:14,21 257:3,5

264:11 272:3,4

284:20 286:19,21

286:21 287:1,1

295:8 306:20

311:8,17,19 328:3

344:22 345:1

354:7 359:1,2,16

361:22 362:10

363:17 366:3

367:7 375:18

378:17,18 381:2,2

381:17,18 383:5

384:19 386:11

399:4 404:10

405:14 409:14,17

409:18,18,21

410:1,5,20 412:6

413:10

ASRAC's 149:1

244:21 410:14

assess 14:6 381:2

assessment 138:6

139:14 141:8

143:11 199:13

200:1 202:13,18

219:16 220:2

269:6 274:7

294:21 295:11,19

296:2,6,16 299:12

300:19,19 302:4

326:3 327:20

377:17

assessments 138:8

139:11

assign 72:6

assigned 252:5

association 329:5

associations 116:19

196:14

assume 4:10 21:3

22:13 160:1

202:11 208:17

285:16

assumed 127:17

assumes 213:14

assuming 210:20

214:19 237:22

245:22 285:22

322:15 409:21

assumption 131:17

207:2 209:5

217:17 235:7

237:16 267:21

272:5 285:20

assumptions

213:12

assurance 253:1

assure 21:13

assured 223:22

attach 239:10

attendance 110:17

attendees 110:6

attending 239:14

attitude 388:14

attorney 204:22

205:21 207:3

237:15

attorneys 241:2

attribute 33:21

auditorium 103:15

August 353:21

354:2 357:3

authority 90:14,18

91:4 104:15,18

113:18 120:11

123:22 124:2

129:5 194:10

195:4 196:8

201:17 202:2,4,10

202:21 203:6,8,10

203:18,19 204:14

205:7,12,15,16

206:2,11 207:5,13

207:18 208:5,14

208:18 209:1

210:21 211:9

212:16,18 213:5,8

213:9,20 214:1,4

214:7,13 217:8,9

217:14,17 219:5,8

219:13 237:6,14

237:19 238:1

239:22 240:5

241:22 244:12

245:4,21 247:13

248:20 250:7,12

250:17 251:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 418

284:16,21 285:7

285:17 286:5,9,12

286:20 287:2,4,8

288:11 289:1,3,15

289:20 290:18,19

291:14,18,21

292:5 293:4,10

294:4,14 297:7,18

297:21 298:21

299:18 303:1

305:5,7,18 306:15

307:19 308:3

309:7,11 310:13

311:3,13,15 312:5

313:14 314:7,13

314:17 315:1,7,9

315:21 316:6,8,12

318:21 319:12,22

325:20 328:12,16

330:20 332:4

333:4 334:1

335:11 336:17

340:20 341:19,21

343:1,3 349:2,15

388:18 394:20

402:17 404:12

405:7 406:2,12

authorizes 409:21

automatically

147:22

auxiliary 373:8

available 98:16

111:14 124:20

125:4,9 269:5

274:8

avenue 1:14 335:18

average 65:3

avoid 77:22

aware 79:3 80:10

226:7 301:19,21

awfully 363:14

awkward 309:21

awkwardness 87:2

a.m 1:14 4:2 42:10

42:11 180:8,14,17

408:13 409:8

413:18,18 414:1

B

b 195:12 196:8,15

196:19 212:22

293:6 294:2

298:22 340:15

back 5:10 7:9,18

8:19 9:9 16:21

21:20 22:15 23:22

24:2 29:19 30:2

36:6 59:2,4 69:3

91:5 102:5 114:18

114:20 115:22

120:1,10 126:8,9

128:4,18,21 129:9

131:12,15,22

160:15 169:17

179:12 180:15

184:10 188:6

190:13 193:3

195:3,3 208:21

220:12 224:3

229:7,21 230:6

234:22 237:21

238:5 239:1,3

243:1 245:15

246:2 247:7,18

251:2,19 255:5

259:4,19 262:7

265:6 273:21

283:11 287:11,17

288:2 329:19

331:4 338:5

339:22 347:10

354:12 370:15

384:8,17,19

385:19 390:18

392:1 397:19

399:16,20 410:20

background 90:13

backroom 231:4

back-up 399:10

bad 30:17 224:7,12

224:16 225:3,13

226:7,10,14,22

235:12 266:11

268:2 273:12

317:19 336:4

balance 30:16

117:2,3 303:17

balanced 113:14

Ballo 1:19 56:19,19

59:15 103:11,11

104:5 105:17

106:11 107:3

109:16,20 121:15

122:8 218:22

243:10 248:22

249:7 279:6 336:9

337:2 381:12,15

382:1,4,17 383:2

400:6,14

bang 236:15

barbers 252:16

barely 39:18

BARHYDT 2:16

5:6,13 6:2,14,22

7:6,21 8:2,7,10,13

9:8,15,21 11:19

11:21 12:2,18,21

13:17 23:3 26:2

29:22 30:10 31:3

31:7,10,14 32:12

33:17 35:12 36:13

36:17 37:8 38:21

39:7 40:10,20

41:2,6,14,19,22

42:6 43:10 48:1

48:10,17 49:1,7

49:15,18,22 50:5

50:11 51:9,13,17

51:20 52:8 53:6

53:11,14,21 54:17

55:1,3,8 59:13,16

60:7,17 61:10,16

61:19 64:3,7,9

65:4 66:15 67:7

67:10 68:1,3,8,14

68:19 69:21 70:3

70:16 71:14 73:2

80:18 81:2,15,20

82:11,13,17 83:9

83:21 84:6 88:5

90:21 91:10 92:14

93:3 94:7,10,15

94:19,22 95:4,11

95:17,20 96:1,12

96:16,21 97:2,5,9

97:12 102:1,12

103:3 127:21

129:19,22 130:3,6

130:9,13,21 131:5

132:3 133:3,14

134:6 136:5 137:8

139:16 148:11,17

148:20 166:11

167:5 168:10

171:6 180:7,22

181:15,17 182:7

185:21 187:5

190:21 191:6

193:3 194:12,16

194:19 195:9,16

195:19 198:12

199:12 204:16

205:9,20 206:3

208:1 212:13

214:8,11,16 215:5

218:10,21 219:20

220:6,15 221:17

223:4,11,15

227:13 253:15,19

256:20 257:5,9,22

258:2,7,13 265:11

266:4 268:6,13

274:10,14,17

275:2,6,9 277:4

277:10,13 279:17

279:22 280:8

281:6,12 283:4,9

283:16,18 284:2,4

284:6,14,15

299:22 300:5

311:6,14,19,22

312:7 313:1,15

319:7,9 321:15,18

322:3 323:1,5,13

323:17 324:8,17

324:21 325:2

329:16,22 330:10

330:13,17 331:2,8

331:15,18 332:21

335:4 337:5,20

338:12 339:3,17

341:17 342:6,11

342:22 343:5,10

343:20 344:1,3,6

344:11,20 345:5

345:10,18 346:11

346:17,20 347:7

350:3 351:7 352:5

352:10,18,20

353:2,6,16 354:17

357:5,17,20 358:2

358:6,13,18,21

359:5,10,19,22

360:21 364:1

365:3,11,15 367:6

368:21 369:10,19

373:12 374:1,6,9

374:12,14 378:4,9

383:18 385:17

389:5 391:1 393:1

393:7 396:21

397:7,10,15,21

402:10,12 404:18

404:21 405:9,12

407:11 408:15,18

409:1,4,9,15

410:3,17,21 411:3

411:14,21 412:15

412:22 413:2,16

413:19,22 414:3,8

base 118:8

based 10:2 12:16

24:8 25:10,10

27:1,9 56:12 60:5

75:8 82:14 143:10

196:19 198:7,10

214:6 243:11

279:10,13 353:7

366:1,4 371:12

baseline 125:1,7

basic 17:16 18:5

23:16 88:2 123:1

124:1 128:19

131:15,22 154:7

155:9 156:4

229:14 239:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 419

259:15 384:10,10

basically 10:1 35:3

46:4 74:15 83:22

91:11 98:6 102:6

128:16 139:19

167:15 181:2

199:19 233:20

261:12 331:11

341:15 356:9

361:14 388:11

basics 179:4

basing 195:6

basis 22:2 27:15

178:21 237:10

248:15 249:13

292:9 351:22

369:9

Bauman 1:20

50:19,19 51:12,15

51:18,21 76:5,5

76:13 77:12 78:18

78:20 79:5,9,13

79:17 80:1 128:2

129:21 130:2,7,17

131:3,6 132:12

133:6 160:10

167:14 170:12,17

171:2 183:13

191:3,7 197:15

198:9,14,16

205:22 206:4

209:11,19 210:2,4

229:1 242:11

246:16 259:3

261:6 381:20

382:2 384:4

bear 202:8 213:15

beast 179:21

beat 295:12,12

beginning 84:14

113:17 151:1

164:4 222:10

280:9 345:6,12

347:10 349:5

350:22

belief 187:20 332:3

341:20

believe 7:1 18:16

30:3 37:15 38:12

86:8 91:6 96:12

100:14 124:7

145:2 157:12

181:22 187:9

188:8 189:13

202:21 206:10

224:5 238:10

239:22 244:11

272:13,20 273:12

285:7 286:2,8

287:5 303:6

305:15 314:22

315:20 316:8,11

348:21 349:6,12

375:10 381:17

393:8 403:16

405:18 407:7

413:9

believed 370:17

believes 90:13

284:15 287:3

313:8 316:18

382:7

bell-curve 64:18

beneficial 238:3

368:1

benefit 10:6 57:12

81:21 143:8

160:16,21 162:12

409:6

benefits 152:6

183:5 193:15

benefitting 140:18

best 140:20 144:7

186:15 211:18

236:15 239:15

259:8,9 262:4

272:21 307:13

better 37:3 38:16

44:12 54:14 133:1

186:15 220:9

243:8 248:14

265:19 272:2

379:8,12 389:11

392:15,17

beyond 21:9 32:22

76:18 129:11

240:7 305:4

328:16 385:15

bidding 234:5

big 22:18 60:16

103:15 106:8

109:18 115:1

121:17 144:18

172:22 183:19

186:10 274:6

344:9

bigger 82:19 183:5

185:1

biggest 118:14

bill 2:9 12:13 26:20

94:3,9

billion 365:12

bit 44:1 64:19

73:13 90:12,17

119:21 120:17

132:11 141:6

174:11 177:20

197:16,18 201:2

235:21 250:9

310:21 319:21

345:14 358:7,7

368:22 398:12

bite 228:11

biweekly 237:10

blah 245:21,21,21

blenders 373:10

blood 150:21

bluntly 216:16

board 22:8 46:15

109:6 135:12

148:8 184:1

Bob 2:11 72:20

73:3 81:8,15

87:19 355:17

356:16

bogus 225:18

boiler 123:13

176:22 177:11,15

181:5 189:15

263:22 268:21

269:13 272:12

274:12 275:16

303:11 304:6

338:3 347:15,18

395:15 402:14

405:4 406:4

407:15

boilers 171:15

172:4 179:7,20

273:20 347:21

364:9 389:21

408:22

boiler/water 171:7

bolts 105:2

book 30:2

books 29:2 137:16

157:18

boot 234:11

borne 93:16

bothers 244:9

bottom 276:11,12

276:13 370:14

bouncing 167:15

box 298:11 380:6

boxes 38:20 62:6

106:17 156:11

brackets 407:16

brain-storming

268:10

brand 309:21

312:21,22 313:4

breadth 103:12

break 35:11 42:8

105:15 106:21

115:10 129:15

245:13 247:19

251:17,21,22

254:6 256:4 260:5

263:16 269:11

283:20 329:20

339:16 355:7

357:12 394:7

409:16 413:15,16

breakfast 355:7

breaking 281:19

breakout 105:8

breakouts 63:15

271:8

breaks 76:7 394:13

break-out 134:19

288:13 338:10

339:7,13 355:6

365:12

break-outs 110:5

BRENDA 2:17

BRF 86:15

Brian 1:22 221:10

221:12 398:18

405:22

briefly 73:7

bring 223:3 238:22

239:3 351:2

355:19

brings 25:12

385:18

broad 6:2 36:15

105:6 257:9

293:15 367:19

broader 49:16

58:13 59:5 100:17

102:8 133:5 365:5

378:17

broadly 132:11

broke 115:2 394:2

brought 13:5 33:13

69:3 75:22 147:22

156:10 164:20

191:11 193:4

197:21 312:15

372:6 375:21

384:5

BTU 123:13 142:19

BTUs 142:2

buck 236:15

bucket 144:20

budget 224:18,21

226:21

build 144:10

230:11,14,18,21

232:11 233:8

235:10 269:14

building 1:13

167:16 231:2

281:3 410:8

411:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 420

built 65:8 171:4

built-to-order 12:9

bulbs 158:3 159:2

159:11 374:19

385:14

bullet 254:11

255:17,22

bullets 398:8

bump 64:19

bunch 4:5 109:22

burden 20:12 96:6

100:21 104:3

120:5,13 123:4,9

140:21 158:14

160:20 193:18

202:6 235:19

236:4 247:15

262:4 266:16

303:14,15,19

burdens 246:21

business 21:11

124:14 164:11

178:12 228:6

231:5 232:13

267:4

businesses 116:22

117:5

buy 230:18,21

buying 259:14

278:20 281:4

buys 64:12

buy-in 46:13

C

Calabrese 194:20

194:21 195:10,17

195:20 212:3,9,15

241:6,9,13 246:5

246:8 250:20

251:3 253:22

254:10,14,22

285:2,5,9,13,18

289:2,16,22

290:12 291:4,22

292:6 297:9,16,22

298:16,19 299:19

302:15 308:16

312:19 314:4

315:10,22 316:15

316:22 317:11

337:10

calculation 95:15

calculations 35:2

35:19 75:13 82:8

call 38:4,5 44:4

78:9 124:8 125:9

143:3 154:7 178:3

178:6 179:3

182:12 220:2

238:17 247:16

248:14 261:4,22

274:1 304:7

333:10 356:6

called 51:5

calls 129:2 332:22

337:8

calm 78:21

camp 171:12

camps 171:12

canary 63:5

capability 402:5,8

402:9

capitalize 166:15

capture 14:13,19

26:10 224:15

captured 55:18

293:1

care 354:9 374:9

377:9,18 378:6,6

384:3 386:17

392:5,8 407:12

careful 199:17

Carrier 2:11 87:20

carriers 101:5

carrying 91:18,22

case 93:14 124:6

148:4 162:7 164:5

164:9 189:9 196:4

252:22 273:19,20

274:2

cases 13:12 18:19

18:19 30:9,11

31:2 69:16 230:12

314:6

catalogue 231:21

catching 265:5

266:11 268:2

categories 63:15

98:7,9 99:14,15

99:17 106:7,17

123:1 151:11

156:10 158:1

161:16 162:22

163:5 201:6

231:10 259:8

300:16 331:14

336:5 365:17

368:16,16 369:1

385:13 394:12

category 156:11

234:6 296:2

caught 168:15

225:13 226:15

cause 118:9 367:16

causes 217:1

caveats 275:3

CCMS 121:13

276:18,19 277:15

279:5 300:11

303:7 304:9 321:1

323:8 327:12,17

CE 258:6

CEE 257:19

cell 81:16 386:8

center 69:4

centralized 406:19

cert 14:13,18,19

26:11 61:16 65:21

66:14,16

certain 26:16 49:14

61:8 98:9 99:13

99:17 108:19

134:3 147:13,20

148:4 153:12

156:6 209:22

213:17 239:8

241:19,20 307:10

406:19 412:14

certainly 48:20

49:3 62:2 96:22

99:11 103:5 104:1

104:16 120:19,21

122:5 123:20

149:5 176:20

232:6 235:13

325:14 337:16

374:12 377:6

certainty 17:9

136:15 336:10,14

certification 1:6

9:17,21 10:11,17

11:21 13:8 16:8

16:21 21:3 27:12

28:12 33:2 40:21

41:2,15 54:21,21

56:13 58:8 63:22

64:5,22 65:7 67:8

67:21 69:4 73:17

73:19 74:9 75:8

76:7 92:15 96:21

97:1 100:6 119:20

130:1 137:19

138:4 155:19

161:13,17 163:3

178:4,17 187:16

199:4 221:7 264:4

264:12,18 267:11

267:11 271:17

272:19 273:18

274:1 276:17

282:9 289:18

292:9 372:7 377:6

certifications 13:20

55:3,5 70:12

certified 138:21

259:10 281:5,15

301:4,5 377:11

certify 17:1 176:8

176:10 286:16

327:1 390:14

certifying 128:7,8,9

198:20 261:18

CE1 257:22

CFR 35:10

chair 261:15

challenge 104:8

219:12 235:15

238:6 249:12

273:11 287:17

291:11 336:16

challenged 249:9

274:12,13 332:18

334:8

challenging 250:16

273:11 290:3

chance 114:4 168:2

272:18 341:9,15

384:20

change 7:12 8:19

15:13 19:17,21

22:6,10 28:22

41:22 55:20,21

61:12 67:20,21

68:13,15 78:15

80:5,10 85:10,14

85:18 86:14 87:15

87:18,21 97:22

98:15 217:7

282:11 307:5

315:10 345:14

346:9 347:3,14

351:5,5 368:21

369:17 370:10

380:11 397:11

401:22

changed 11:12

18:16 29:5 66:3

100:3 181:13

204:5 347:19

396:15

changes 3:17 22:11

22:11 50:13 55:16

56:14 57:12 73:16

86:5 163:15

167:19 265:17,18

367:3 403:6

changing 8:15

21:22 87:8,22,22

88:6 98:22 219:2

characteristics

126:21

characterization

45:22

charge 58:16 93:15

charging 380:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 421

CHARLES 1:24

Charlie 97:19

99:20 118:13

155:22 157:21

165:10 169:9

188:9 224:2

226:13 228:3

230:16 233:5

234:18 252:14

406:8

Charlie's 235:11

266:17

chart 37:17 38:8,9

cheaters 259:12

check 138:19

272:18 294:5

327:19 341:10,16

checked 35:20

chicken 69:8

chime 57:6

choice 238:21

362:16,17

choose 14:14 144:2

159:12 238:19

choosing 14:4

chosen 164:10

375:12

chuck 333:20

chunks 344:9

Circuit 249:3

circulate 190:1

circumstances

113:20

cite 297:11

cited 296:9

citizens 302:7

claim 52:20

clarification 38:5

56:17 76:6 83:18

88:13 129:6

204:12 211:19

333:17

clarified 352:21

clarify 48:15 80:14

162:15 260:8

298:4 305:1,9

clarifying 221:21

class 244:18 360:5

361:11 363:2,4

classes 154:22

200:19 201:5

236:7 360:8 362:6

374:21 375:15

381:17,19 382:9

classifications

157:17 184:14

clause 53:7

clean 145:19

235:14 301:15

clear 38:18 95:6

106:7 165:7

166:10 172:17

200:11 241:14

279:6 289:21

293:13 296:6

299:14 302:2

305:6 311:12,14

389:3

cleared 288:16,19

clearly 72:5 201:11

261:9 296:17

353:7 377:8

383:21

Cleaver-Brooks

2:4

Cliff 124:4

CliffsNotes 73:15

75:5

clone 376:4

close 17:21 35:21

40:8 139:5 232:21

247:4 284:8

367:21

closer 244:14 340:8

clothes 141:12

clouds 141:21

cognizant 233:8

coil 85:11 87:8

88:20

coils 85:4 88:6,16

88:21

colleagues 384:7

collective 175:18

collectively 378:14

COLLIN 2:20

column 277:21

combination 20:5

232:8 332:10

come 16:13 17:20

29:4 34:9 36:9

43:20 44:5,17

46:4 49:22 59:2,3

61:6 63:14 71:11

75:1 79:5,20

97:20 108:7

109:14 110:19

115:22 116:4

117:17 118:21

131:12 135:4,6

148:5 150:11,16

153:6 158:18

168:1 178:16

180:15 186:16

188:1,17 222:6

237:11 242:6

243:1 246:3 247:8

258:19 263:17

271:16 278:15

287:17 288:2

306:5 307:14

312:12 314:19

327:10 331:20

341:8 355:9 382:5

384:22 387:2

408:7,20

comes 10:22 35:15

36:3,4,9 55:15

78:15,16 93:19

95:16 133:22

150:15,17 158:11

177:14 309:20

310:9 376:4

377:15

comfortable 25:3

47:21 168:8

187:11 201:3

261:19 273:8,10

307:15,17 371:14

401:20 403:9

404:15

comfortably 144:6

coming 4:10 14:7,7

22:2 42:3 80:10

90:20 124:1

157:17 164:18

224:3 237:18

251:2 391:17

401:9

commence 140:14

comment 8:16 26:4

34:17 43:9 68:21

87:14 89:22 98:12

100:11 107:11

120:2 181:4

201:13 208:4

223:1 313:8 347:6

365:20 392:12,18

403:21

commenter 313:21

commenters

105:12

comments 4:6

32:14 39:8 42:13

50:13 53:22 81:11

83:14 97:14 104:5

104:22 126:9

170:20 231:6

235:11 238:5

258:12,15 306:18

368:2 391:17

407:8,19

commerce 17:2

69:6 236:18

commercial 1:6

6:19 7:4,10 8:6

11:16,17 12:6

24:20 25:7,10

27:12 29:13,16,20

31:8 33:20 59:20

60:18 89:1,10

90:22 91:4,17

100:18 101:4,5

112:9 123:13

132:20 135:2,6

136:2 140:1 142:1

142:22 143:3

144:4,13,19

146:16 172:4

177:11,15 179:6

179:19,20 189:15

229:16 235:17,20

236:2,4 238:18

247:12 354:3

355:8 360:15

361:1,2 362:18

365:7 377:20

378:10,16 383:10

385:10 395:14

commission 46:17

93:8

commit 74:14

committed 50:8

312:1 332:22

committee 1:4 46:8

101:21 113:10,13

135:1 222:13

251:7 255:15

256:1 257:6

308:18 316:16,18

328:4 351:2

361:17 367:1

389:20 405:21

committees 116:7

committee's 317:1

committing 402:7

commodity 118:16

230:18 233:10,12

233:15

common 152:8

155:18

commonalities

112:11,11

commonality

119:14

communications

191:21

companies 99:12

173:6 225:16

company 100:13

225:1 226:6

287:20 288:2

388:12

company's 327:8

comparable 88:1

142:10 162:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 422

compare 13:9

163:22 193:1

compared 163:8

compel 195:14

competencies

151:18

competition 225:5

234:4 252:11,16

competitors 227:7

232:20 327:15

competitor's 269:4

complained 414:1

complete 121:22

156:15 163:10

221:5 263:3

286:12 298:20

307:4,18 361:1

362:3 366:8

406:15

completed 264:6

348:13

completely 20:11

73:19 100:2 144:5

161:9,10 166:4,5

170:21 171:13

234:11 242:16

326:18 349:22

complex 62:15

298:9 398:16

compliance 35:5

92:5,17 93:2,7

94:3,6 124:3,18

196:12 294:5,6

compliant 33:20

35:22 36:4

complicated 59:18

380:10

complying 125:11

compressor 142:13

comprised 70:4

compromise

122:21

concede 305:17

conceding 219:5

concept 154:7

216:9 233:4

261:14 361:14

concepts 1:19

18:18 175:21

228:19 230:8

concern 5:2,4 6:12

7:22 29:11 34:7

46:22 53:14 65:6

103:12 104:7

109:17 111:3,7

116:14 121:18

122:12 123:12

138:19 150:7

151:22 155:12

159:9 162:8 171:8

184:19 219:4

228:22 236:9

240:3 243:10

245:11 268:4

303:7 304:3 333:9

333:22 335:2

342:22 374:15

379:8 386:18

400:19 405:6

407:13

concerned 132:15

151:7 152:5 173:2

301:2 328:7 387:8

394:19

concerns 6:4 36:18

47:3 51:22 79:20

110:20 112:22

127:4 133:21

147:12 208:20

230:7 231:18

266:11 300:2

400:10

concluded 414:10

conclusion 176:21

271:11 369:14

387:2

conclusions 108:7

346:6

condensing 85:4

condition 207:15

289:11

conditioners 87:3

Conditioning 1:21

conditions 125:5

141:18

conduct 24:17

290:2

conducted 12:17

45:11

conducting 94:3

conference 114:2

129:2 238:17

confess 46:7

confidence 10:14

10:15,20 11:6

22:7 75:9 82:14

82:18,21 190:19

352:12

confident 39:10

304:2

confidential 51:4,6

52:19 53:18

conflict 308:5,9,10

308:14

confused 217:10

329:18

confusing 16:1

206:18

Congress 161:2,8

202:9 203:5,7

Congressional

202:4

connect 410:14

413:3

cons 183:4

consensus 126:10

131:18 171:17

172:9,13,16

173:16 174:2

175:14 176:22

177:8 180:6 182:1

182:3 183:10

186:6 244:5,10

246:3 255:11

262:11 263:3,4

330:22 336:14

400:2 406:22

412:13

conservation 76:8

76:11

conservative 10:1

conservatively

65:18

consider 73:16

96:18 124:20

174:16 182:20

186:10 226:22

254:3 305:4 379:2

379:2

consideration

168:3 263:18

379:11

considerations

232:12

considered 46:6,17

77:16 130:19

183:11 263:5,10

385:1

considering 191:8

197:22

considers 313:11

348:9

consistency 189:8

consistent 253:2

310:18

constrains 112:7

constructions

179:22

constructive

338:22

constructs 147:6

consulted 241:4

287:21

consulting 282:7

consume 380:9

consumer 12:8

64:12 91:3,12,16

144:21 282:6,7

consumers 10:3

126:2 236:16

336:2

consumes 380:12

consuming 238:7

consumption 98:4

264:13,19

contact 169:5

contemplated

337:12,17

contemplating

328:17

CONTENTS 3:10

context 6:7 367:12

367:20 368:1,13

continuation 277:6

277:7,9

continue 102:3

121:16 170:5

182:9,13 200:1

210:11 222:5,9

239:12,13 250:15

250:18 251:12

276:7,20 277:1,10

288:9,14 292:17

302:18 303:2

325:8,18 327:9

328:5 346:1,6

348:22 349:1,12

349:13 360:12,21

360:22 361:11,18

366:6,22 367:16

376:9 394:9 399:6

399:6 403:16,17

409:22

continuing 237:12

286:15 302:21

308:21 316:7

335:7 339:2

344:19 346:14

348:7 398:21

contract 46:12

280:19

contractors 53:17

contradict 205:17

contrast 85:20

control 14:17 15:4

15:10 37:14 66:2

157:6 267:12,13

controversy 342:14

conundrum 323:22

convene 72:22

102:8 109:18,21

185:1 360:14

361:8 363:17,21

364:3 367:10

381:18 408:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 423

convened 166:12

convener 116:3

convening 133:4

411:13

convergence 27:2

conversation

102:18 164:4

256:12 370:3

conversations

129:4 143:2 235:8

conversely 82:1

conversion 27:6

convince 243:3

281:11

convinced 52:12

convoluted 91:1,21

cookies 278:20

coolers 388:10

cooperation 46:13

coordinated 45:21

104:9 120:22

121:11

copied 233:13

copy 23:8 344:7

copying 233:21

core 151:17

corners 233:19

Corporation 2:5

correct 35:17 51:12

55:13 75:11 85:5

88:2,4 129:16

130:2 152:16

166:2 170:10

182:6 195:5

277:12 279:21

281:21,22 323:10

369:5 383:20

397:12

correctly 102:4

225:8,10,12

280:16

cost 66:8 75:6

126:22 159:2,9

160:1,2,15,20,20

161:6 162:1,12

201:15 202:5,9

213:15 217:1

234:7 240:1,16

295:6 308:3,5

340:21

costly 190:17

costs 158:22 163:19

202:3,3 217:15

219:5,13 233:13

cost-benefit 95:13

cost-effective 228:7

couch 237:14

349:16

counsel 241:4

333:10

count 324:13

counted 98:20

couple 20:3 26:20

45:18 79:1 189:21

189:21 263:4,9

348:19

course 9:6 150:13

195:21

Court 332:18

Courts 314:5

cover 63:13 115:7

119:12,19 146:19

340:11

covered 60:3,8 62:4

62:12 73:11 92:2

93:4,12 100:20

101:2,7,17 102:16

103:8 106:5,15

110:15 115:8

118:10 119:20

120:3,8,14 121:1

122:7 154:14

155:4 178:11

183:16,21 184:10

185:5 246:22

247:11 248:15

326:18 359:13

360:4,5,16 361:10

363:2,4,6 368:17

375:5,6 377:5,22

378:20 381:16

383:12 389:10

covering 149:4

150:4

covers 103:13

362:5

co-funding 46:11

crafting 40:8

CRE 3:19 81:2,3

97:16 98:10,14,16

111:11 118:4

128:22 152:3

164:9,15 167:14

168:1,19 169:4,18

170:13 175:14,15

181:22 187:22

188:8 228:4,10,18

229:9,12 231:2

234:20 235:16

238:10,12 239:6

239:12 242:13

243:12 245:19

246:18,18 247:4

255:14,15 261:6

266:10 273:4

274:2 307:11

325:15 365:17

370:19 371:11,16

389:21 400:7

405:19 407:5

408:19

create 196:11

created 138:18

198:6 390:2

creates 196:20

creating 297:12

creek 232:9

CRE's 407:7

criteria 209:22

cross 53:19

crossing 119:16

cross-section 63:1

134:14 154:3

crushing 303:19

current 16:17

29:12 30:13 56:10

70:17,18 74:8,18

81:20 143:11

169:20 199:11

200:6 313:9 339:1

373:18

currently 11:4 56:3

107:19 120:8

209:18 220:1

227:19 269:5

275:5 368:17

369:1 395:8

curveball 333:20

custom 231:1

customer 281:2

customers 336:3

customized 233:9

234:2

cut 159:22 241:14

302:3

cutting 233:19

cynical 94:11

D

d 196:8,9 214:10

293:5,6 294:2

299:1

Daikin 2:1

daily 267:4

Damn 155:20

DANE 1:21 99:8

111:1 164:2,8

168:4,11 169:3,15

174:21 175:6,13

176:3,8,12 181:21

182:4 187:8 188:4

200:9 238:9

242:10 245:17

246:10 283:2,6

284:7 307:9 308:8

308:12 309:10

369:20 370:13

371:1,5 372:5,14

373:3 374:19,22

375:9,20 376:22

383:13 390:18

400:16 401:3,12

401:16 402:6,9,20

405:18 406:7,11

406:18 407:7,22

408:8,13 412:19

413:1

darkening 141:21

dash 54:10

data 8:15,19 9:11

9:13 10:2,21

11:11 12:15 13:11

13:19 14:1,12,16

14:18 15:13 18:12

18:14 19:1 24:12

24:13 25:9 32:19

33:5 40:16 43:20

44:6 45:6,14,15

48:4 50:8,22 52:3

52:13,18 57:9

73:20 74:20

234:16 265:10

267:5,6,9 356:3,7

database 121:14

264:15,21 279:9

327:12

date 30:2 137:15

150:15,16 151:9

151:13,13 152:8

227:13 236:10

256:18 289:15

291:3 370:5

401:11,13,14

dates 99:19,21

104:2 289:6,8,11

289:18 372:7,8

Dave 194:20 212:3

214:6 217:22

243:11,21

David 293:13

DAVP 279:13,15

280:4,11,14

282:11

day 35:14 45:17

98:2 146:11 158:1

263:15 314:16

334:18 346:21

379:19 389:2

403:12

days 6:6 196:3

245:7

de 148:1

deadline 98:22

194:14

deadlines 98:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 424

deal 53:18 145:20

154:3 176:4

193:20 227:16,20

234:8,9

dealing 234:7

253:6 257:6 333:8

dealt 192:14

273:17

debatable 236:5

debate 114:5 157:9

196:18 366:1

404:11

debating 237:20

293:3

decade 313:19

December 152:21

decent 114:1 199:8

decide 61:7 121:18

181:2 183:12

209:1 219:18

222:16 223:6

226:21 229:21

239:15 245:3

256:1 359:1,2

361:8 362:12

375:19 381:3,5

decided 61:5 74:1

121:2 128:2

147:14 186:5

231:16

decides 84:18

245:19 286:21

306:14

deciding 174:17

decision 21:12 29:5

182:19,21 208:22

253:16,20 254:15

288:5 298:14

309:6 310:12

313:12 317:1,19

361:22

decisions 15:17

52:18 289:8

317:14

deck 173:4,6

deems 113:19

deep 364:20

deeply 252:4

default 134:4 147:1

147:7,22

defend 156:19

deferring 338:17

define 44:13 54:14

125:7 198:18

375:8

defining 95:18

101:10

definitely 62:18,20

88:15,20 123:8

255:20

definition 86:15

124:16 306:9

354:4

definitions 88:2

definitive 334:11

337:22

degree 125:1

degrees 204:19

delete 275:17 350:3

359:10 401:1

deleting 362:2

deliberations 254:2

delineated 215:21

delineation 279:1,2

279:10,12

delve 27:17

department 1:1

2:15,16,17 9:9

17:6 21:22 24:3

27:5 30:6 34:4

36:19 38:11 46:11

47:17 57:17 58:9

63:7 71:12 73:16

73:18 76:7 79:18

112:20 113:7

125:17 128:7,12

133:21 137:7

141:14,18 144:7

148:6 149:16,18

157:11,21 193:7

195:21 196:10

199:3 206:2

222:17,18 223:7

237:19 238:3

253:11,12 259:13

259:14 267:7

268:10 282:15

310:2 312:17

332:15 334:1

335:10 336:11,15

354:14 384:14

Department's

28:17 51:16

108:12,20 137:2

137:10 153:13

236:13 335:19,21

depending 10:10

11:15 12:11 15:17

22:9 33:10 84:17

212:17

depends 17:15

43:16 110:2 209:9

217:4

derive 212:18

describe 73:7

182:22,22

describing 73:9

deserve 236:17

design 30:4 231:1

designated 93:13

designed 11:5,8

111:8 196:9

desirable 82:5

desire 152:11 375:1

375:14

despite 316:2

detached 44:20

detail 46:15 109:14

168:6 191:18

321:8 332:17

400:17

detailed 222:7

245:14

detailing 94:21

details 108:7

192:22 216:13

217:5 218:7

222:20 262:6

333:1 354:11,12

400:7,17 401:3

determination

96:15 207:17

309:13 317:7

determine 56:6

66:18 69:5,9,14

69:19 93:2 94:3,6

95:9 107:1 124:3

196:11 206:13

290:2 294:6 365:1

381:11

determined 80:8

120:19 164:3

176:17 198:7

206:1 207:4

325:19 378:1

determines 92:4,16

113:7,11 191:20

determining

124:18 161:2

detrimental 107:18

develop 47:16 48:3

71:2 72:7,8,11

74:6 124:8 155:18

175:21 184:17,20

220:4 248:1

378:15 381:10

developed 7:3,8

155:13,17 230:10

365:22

developer 67:17

72:15

developing 176:17

183:4,7 251:13

270:13

development 264:7

264:11 271:12

334:17

developments

77:17

deviser 11:7

devote 251:13

dial 410:6,11

dial-in 410:4

dicey 118:22

DICP 282:13,14

dictate 315:12

dictated 315:15

differ 230:6

difference 118:15

130:5 158:9 173:1

183:14,20 184:5

272:13 273:16

274:6 282:8 284:7

291:10 292:6

295:10 406:15

differences 12:10

13:7 118:19

163:13 231:11

314:16

different 8:5 9:2

10:16 11:18 15:16

15:21 16:2,3 19:5

19:8 20:4 23:19

37:11 50:1 56:10

56:21 74:16,17

76:9 79:11 92:20

104:9 106:16

111:11 116:21

117:18,21 119:20

119:21 120:18

125:2 126:14,20

126:21 133:19

135:2 138:3 140:5

146:10 148:10

152:19 153:17

154:12 157:5

158:6 160:9

161:10 167:10,22

173:7 174:8 175:1

177:13,14 178:18

182:10 185:7

187:17 188:18,18

189:2,10 190:7,9

190:9 193:2,17,22

193:22 197:19

198:5 199:16

223:18 228:18

230:10 231:5

234:7 236:22

238:11 252:4,20

252:21 273:1

275:22 281:1

296:11 300:8

314:10 319:18,21

320:18 323:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 425

325:12,15,16

326:18,21 327:10

331:16 347:6

364:20 374:20

376:6 393:18

412:9

differently 140:11

145:16 286:6

372:9

difficult 34:4

116:20 176:1

282:3

difficulty 314:5

diffuse 151:4

dimension 145:15

direction 156:1

161:8 312:6

directions 60:15

directly 57:8

196:15

directory 303:9

disadvantage

123:14

disagree 27:21 96:5

169:3 172:11

174:14 175:14

179:20,22 205:6

228:12,16 243:17

313:17 328:9

366:10

disagreeing 344:21

disagreement

154:6 346:4

disagrees 28:7

discretion 14:14

discuss 27:11 57:20

103:7 173:13

201:15 220:22

238:2 255:3 275:4

288:9 295:8

302:21 307:22

355:19 359:17

398:5 407:22

408:22

discussed 108:1

131:11 178:2

195:2 221:4 236:8

251:6 254:12

256:18 283:11

304:21

discussing 185:17

245:7 260:17,19

276:20 277:1

292:13 294:11

298:10 370:16

397:16

discussion 3:20

19:14 25:22 67:4

69:3 105:4 126:5

128:12 144:18

148:13 149:13

162:3 170:7 182:9

204:17 221:14

237:12 239:19,19

245:14 247:22

248:13 250:5

256:12 257:14

261:9 262:13

270:17 271:7

272:17 285:20

292:11 307:7,8

329:13 344:17

346:12 347:9

355:9 358:9 371:8

378:12 406:1

408:4

discussions 170:14

191:13 197:2

238:14 263:11

300:9 302:18

303:2,11 325:18

327:9 328:5

335:14,16 336:8

345:16 377:4

403:12

disgruntled 239:9

dish 141:12

disinclined 245:8

distinct 177:12

277:19 278:1,4

279:1 296:15

distinction 39:5

94:1 154:19

172:18 187:8

196:7 273:2

277:15 278:6

297:17 299:20

distinguish 253:5

distinguishes 72:1

distracts 376:17

distribute 17:1

Ditto 47:5

diverse 156:18

253:7 398:22

dividing 208:3

212:1

docket 397:1,2,6,8

document 146:15

165:20 189:13,19

documents 161:1

343:8

DOE 5:4,21 6:12

6:16 7:18 15:14

16:4 18:2,15

24:18 25:8,15,21

28:2 30:17 32:17

32:18 33:19 34:8

40:14 43:13,19

44:1,4,6,6 45:7

47:2 57:10 74:14

75:2 90:13,20

92:11 94:4,12

99:21 100:2,9

101:3,15 103:13

103:20 105:6,10

106:15 110:11

111:18 115:1,22

118:6 120:11

123:3,18 124:2,13

125:20 134:4

136:3,8 138:18

139:6,12 140:7,11

140:17 143:7,16

146:3,4 147:7,12

147:12,12,14

156:3,7,15,20

158:15 160:18

161:3,21 165:21

166:5 168:3,7

188:15,16,21

191:1,7,13,14

192:3 197:4,22

198:2 201:17

202:2,14,21 203:4

203:18 204:3,13

205:6 207:5,17

208:14,18 210:20

211:15 212:16

213:19 214:7,12

214:19,20,20

216:22 217:17

219:7 221:15

222:14 224:14

226:9,20 227:1,5

227:12 229:21

239:22 240:9

244:11 245:4,20

247:13 248:19

251:14 254:17

258:15 261:17

264:2,9,12,19

271:22 273:1,11

274:22 275:20

279:19 281:4,5,15

284:15,21 286:3

286:17 287:3,7

289:20 293:4,9,22

294:14 296:1,7,9

297:7 298:18,21

299:17,19,20

300:17,21 301:5

302:4 304:22

305:17 306:14

307:14,19 310:6

310:10,11,18,22

312:2 318:12,21

319:1,4,12,17

320:5,21,22

321:11 325:19

326:4,17 327:2,17

328:12,15,17,20

332:3 348:5

370:17,19 377:5

377:15,21,22

378:5 383:10

389:3,13 391:15

401:4 406:12

DOE's 19:10

125:17 135:18,19

148:3 194:9 219:5

219:12 250:6

258:17 269:6

DOE-mandated

100:15

dogmatic 62:2

doing 5:22,22 14:2

78:20 100:4 110:8

114:9 123:3

132:17,18 139:22

140:11,18 141:2

143:11 146:8,9

155:3 163:9 174:7

185:22 192:1

199:8,20 200:1

219:15,16 220:1

220:11 233:19,22

234:2 244:18

266:22 290:20,21

296:1 302:4 318:6

318:20,22 320:9

331:22 332:19

335:15 367:11

379:15,21 382:11

402:5 413:8

dollar 144:19

dollars 224:18

Donuts 260:13

door 169:6 230:11

377:15

Doppel 1:22 54:13

70:20,21 71:18

86:13,13,18 89:7

89:11,16,19 91:8

133:9,9,15 138:15

138:16 139:21

143:5,5 145:1

161:11 206:15,15

209:14,14 210:12

210:12,17 211:7,7

212:7,11 256:5,8

256:19 257:1,8,10

257:13 275:13

277:17 278:2

279:12,21 282:11

282:14 300:3,7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 426

306:21 307:3,8

310:20 311:9

317:22 319:11

320:4,17,21

321:17,22 322:7

323:19 324:3,6,16

328:10 329:11

331:11,17 336:19

338:6 340:2,16

341:1 342:2,9,13

342:17 343:4,6,18

343:22 344:2,4,8

344:14 354:20

355:1 357:15,18

357:22 358:3,10

358:17,20 359:4,7

359:15 368:3

370:9,21 371:3

394:17 395:21

DOT 322:21

double 35:19

double-check 35:2

35:11

doubt 10:6 288:10

288:16,19 290:9

321:10

draft 167:15

262:16

draw 51:22

drive 177:16

drop 389:14

dropped 98:17

drudge 333:6

due 143:15

Dunkin 260:12

duplications

102:20

D.C 1:14 249:3

E

earlier 143:22

152:8 178:2

189:17 193:4

221:4 236:10

247:21 266:1,18

270:21 304:7

340:12 361:20

367:2,8 400:9

403:12

early 151:13 156:5

334:12 335:1

377:12 389:2

408:20

Earthjustice 1:19

ease 193:18

easier 36:15 110:7

110:12 115:1

145:20 193:19

252:14 344:3

easily 15:14 37:18

37:19 46:10

easy 122:18 234:2

eat 123:20 228:10

echo 303:6,6

edited 54:17

educated 138:1

educates 295:17

educating 123:22

EDWARDS 2:17

42:2

effect 101:13

121:19 139:12

150:17,18 229:20

236:14 334:19

effected 40:15

151:11

effective 114:11

150:15,16 238:8

289:5,8,15,17

291:3 401:11,12

401:14

effectively 98:3

114:2 116:9 117:3

134:1 149:8

182:14 244:10

299:15 403:17

405:11

effectivity 152:20

efficiency 92:3

156:6 157:7,22

158:20 160:14

273:17 378:1,3

efficient 21:7,16

159:19 160:6

effort 25:2,14 26:9

45:21 123:6 167:7

167:8,12 178:1

179:2 272:9

317:17

efforts 79:18 222:6

egg 69:8

eight 121:3 178:20

Eisner 1:14,18 4:3

5:17 27:21 32:14

39:8,16 40:2,6,12

40:22 41:7,17

42:7,12 50:12

52:6,17,22 53:22

54:6,9 56:18

63:16 64:1 81:7

83:14 84:12 86:4

86:7 87:13 88:4,9

90:1 97:13 98:21

99:2,5 100:8

103:10 113:15

115:4,16 117:1,10

145:21 157:19

158:19 159:8,17

161:21 162:10

173:9 174:10

175:4,7 176:13

180:5,8,12,19

182:16 184:15

186:3 187:1

190:13,22 197:3

197:10,12 199:15

200:11 201:10

202:11,16,19

203:2,7,13 205:5

205:10 206:8

207:9,14 208:8,13

210:10,14,18

211:1 213:11

217:7 221:10

227:21 236:19

237:3,5 239:17

240:14,19 242:6

244:8 245:11

247:17 250:10,22

251:10,20 252:7

256:3,7 260:4,18

261:3 263:19

269:7,22 272:11

272:22 274:7,11

274:16 275:10

284:12,17 285:4,6

285:12,22 286:22

287:6,10 288:4,18

289:13,19 290:11

290:14 291:9

292:2 294:13

297:5,14,19 298:1

298:12,18 299:3

304:20 305:19

306:17 307:1,5

308:1,10,14,20

310:11,16 311:10

312:4,22 313:3,11

313:20 314:15

315:15 316:3,20

317:2,13 319:1,8

319:20 320:7,11

321:20 322:14

329:9,14 330:7,11

330:15,18 331:3,9

339:15,21 340:9

340:17 342:15

343:16 345:2

347:9,16 348:2

349:22 350:21

351:10,14,17

352:3,7 353:11,19

355:15 357:3

359:20 361:7

363:20 364:11

365:16 366:10,16

366:21 368:2

372:1,13 373:17

373:21 376:14,19

377:1 378:21

379:6,20 383:16

386:5,10 387:6,19

387:22 388:3,13

389:15 390:7,21

391:5 392:2 393:5

393:10,21 394:15

395:1 396:7,12,18

397:5,9,12,18

398:1,6 399:2,17

400:4 401:20

402:2 403:2,15

404:2 405:2,10,20

407:14 408:6,9,14

408:20 409:3,5

410:1,7 411:5,8

411:18 412:1,12

412:20 413:5,9,17

414:7

either 52:9 61:7

96:9 142:19 144:6

263:2 266:6 319:5

326:1 340:14

341:11 355:6

377:11 394:22

397:13 412:2

either/or 360:11

elaborate 141:6

elected 31:21

Electric 1:22

electronics 380:6

elements 273:6

elephant 123:21

228:10

eliminated 248:9

eliminates 37:19

email 84:22 85:21

355:13

emails 86:8 356:7

embedded 93:1

emerges 38:6

emphasize 33:18

emphasized 293:11

empirical 27:2

empowered 293:7

336:11

empty 377:10

encompasses 377:5

encourage 379:5,7

encourages 363:17

ended 4:15 68:7

193:5

energy 1:1 2:15,16

2:17 92:3 98:4

125:17 141:11,16

156:6 157:6,22,22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 427

158:5,20 159:19

160:13,14,14

163:2 230:12,13

264:12,19 380:8

380:12 384:15

enforcement 3:16

4:17 5:20 6:1,6,17

9:18 10:5,12,18

12:2,11 13:7,12

15:20 16:3,10,14

16:17 17:5,14

27:13 28:4,13,18

29:12,15 32:19

33:1 34:13 36:3

37:18 38:9 40:17

40:21 41:3,16

42:1 54:21,22

56:3 67:5,9,11,20

68:12 73:17,20

74:9 76:8 81:21

82:5,20 92:21

93:3,18 94:2,12

95:5,5 127:17

139:12,15 142:1

155:19 178:5,17

219:17 221:7

264:5,5 269:6

271:17 293:18

295:21 296:3,5,18

300:20 302:5

327:21 351:4,11

353:13 377:8,17

397:1,3

enforcing 128:16

engaged 169:14

engineer 282:8

engineering 21:12

98:19 100:5

233:14

engineers 242:10

ensure 92:5,17

128:15 190:18

196:12 259:9

ensures 10:3

entered 301:22

entire 154:2 172:10

373:2 376:13

382:7

entities 57:17

118:10

entity 333:13

entrance 319:2

enumerating 49:19

envision 103:18

178:14

equal 116:21

equates 268:2

equations 22:13

equipment 1:6 7:10

12:6 60:18 90:22

118:18 144:19

236:2 281:4

360:16 361:2,2,5

362:4 378:16

381:16 382:14

395:14,16

equitable 235:18

236:11,21 252:6,8

252:18 253:5

375:2,7,15,21,22

equitably 236:15

equivalent 125:22

183:22 253:1

era 282:20

error 34:12 49:11

128:1

errors 74:17

especially 255:11

268:21 319:2

366:4

essentially 88:12

101:12 121:5

143:7,17 328:18

404:7 410:15

establish 90:14

112:10 240:4

250:7 266:2

284:22 294:15

297:7,21 319:13

319:19 328:13

340:3 370:10

410:19

established 62:11

109:22 114:16,17

117:16 200:3

221:5 246:9

393:13

establishing 114:19

216:5 320:5

368:14

establishment

113:1

evaluation 270:14

evaporating 85:4

eventually 106:14

216:22 381:3

390:14

everybody 5:7

32:15 38:2 39:5

40:2,13 41:7 42:8

50:21 52:6 86:8

97:5,6 117:20

139:3 147:8

152:20 165:5

170:21 177:5,21

181:10 197:7

215:18 220:15

226:22 229:8

242:13 246:19

254:5 260:1 261:7

261:22 262:12

282:4 291:16

294:13 300:10

306:14 308:21

314:19 324:10,13

331:19 341:8

342:13 351:14

352:3 353:9,19,21

357:4 363:20

364:13 365:18

370:4 376:15

379:22 382:5

387:13 399:22

406:5 408:10

412:17

Everybody's

145:21

everyone's 77:3

189:20

exact 18:22,22 36:2

190:16 276:5

exactly 26:8 38:19

77:19 108:8,18

145:6 165:18

166:1 192:15,17

194:19 210:6

212:1 214:18

234:12 316:20

320:11 373:5

386:2 388:17

examine 386:19

example 81:6 141:3

141:8 146:5 147:2

178:10 182:21

184:15 252:22

255:14 299:12

322:19 362:11

exceeding 314:7

exceptions 27:1

304:13

exchange 85:7

exchanger 85:8,11

87:9,11 88:1,20

89:12,20 397:11

exchangers 88:7,16

excluded 238:14

excuse 163:7 218:6

exercise 187:10

exist 112:12 175:19

existence 143:18

existing 16:10 28:7

96:19 102:21

111:13 273:11

exists 97:4,8 164:5

404:15

expanding 132:14

132:19 183:20

expansion 362:17

expect 38:1,2

126:17 166:17

270:16 340:10

378:12

expecting 394:12

expense 93:11

159:10 348:5

349:19

expensive 119:10

experience 34:11

expertise 47:8,21

57:8

experts 44:15

114:7

explain 11:12

explained 282:10

explaining 263:9

explicitly 362:16

express 29:11

341:20

expressed 41:11

127:4 128:22

342:21 374:15

expressing 171:8

332:3

expression 266:10

extend 98:14 134:4

extended 176:18

extent 53:11

140:13 169:13

extra 136:21

extraordinary

58:13

extreme 178:10

extremely 119:10

282:3 334:15

F

face 118:14 152:15

Facilitator 1:14,18

facilities 14:8

facility 26:15

facing 33:10 97:21

fact 30:6 55:15

69:15 72:8 120:11

172:8 176:16

178:12 215:1

224:4 245:10

246:19 250:5,7

271:15 293:2,9

301:6 309:12

325:19 368:8

406:17

facto 148:1

factor 21:8 210:5

factored 144:17

factors 11:6 183:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 428

332:10

fail 35:15 38:12

failing 231:15

failure 17:7 143:15

191:20

fair 5:19 104:17

120:4 121:4

122:15 156:21

158:3 228:6

259:21 305:14

fairness 132:15

133:1

faith 116:5 288:21

314:20 317:5,17

317:19 348:6,22

349:13 402:16

405:8 407:16

fall 183:17 232:2

falls 93:4 152:15

falsification 234:15

familiar 4:12 5:1

385:12

family 237:10

far 6:1 27:17 98:8

135:8 151:12

164:17 179:18

182:4 224:20

249:22 265:19

272:7 302:8

337:22 348:20

354:6 375:20

fast 46:21

fatal 196:6

favor 30:5 32:4

335:5

favorable 21:17

favorite 147:19,19

fear 37:21

federal 1:4 21:9

121:10 123:6

154:15

Federally 100:20

101:6,17 102:16

106:4

feedback 60:5 63:8

75:4 153:15

192:21 262:9

384:21

feel 30:12 47:20

73:5 164:19

187:14 201:6

234:20 235:20

245:22 246:4

261:19 276:16

304:4 368:18

374:7 385:3

386:15,22 392:21

403:8

feeling 63:7 406:6,8

406:9

feelings 403:22

feels 228:4 305:8

felt 128:13

FERRIOL 1:22

221:12,20 222:21

223:2,10,14

270:19 271:4

339:11 391:2,22

392:5,10,13

398:18 399:3

405:22 406:10

field 126:2 150:12

157:1,3,5 162:6

215:19 228:6

229:8 246:20

252:6,10 384:9,9

fight 170:1

fighting 169:22

figurative 86:2

figure 38:22 167:11

331:12,13,19

345:1

figured 335:1

figuring 357:10

file 238:4

filing 241:3

filled 314:6

filtered 265:19

final 78:16 80:11

107:11,11 313:16

389:17,17 411:9

finalize 188:2

finalized 186:21

financially 31:1

find 10:8 16:4,8,18

30:17 34:4,19

79:5 83:2,5,10

90:17 108:21

116:4 119:13

208:9 214:4

216:19 227:10

241:19 244:6

295:14,21 298:6

316:10 328:8

finding 33:19

findings 13:1 75:3

fine 50:2 53:2 63:7

86:9 87:5 109:16

112:15 170:11

172:2,3 181:14

315:1 353:18

379:4

fingers 86:3

finish 67:15 150:14

367:11,21

firm 326:9

first 4:19 7:4 55:14

63:12 65:8 67:6

71:1 78:16 79:17

91:9 135:20 142:5

144:15 153:20

158:20 176:15

178:16 210:11

233:13 246:8

249:9 256:6 264:1

270:2 283:7 315:7

317:8,11 323:20

332:2 341:7

342:20 347:18

349:21 350:12

351:15 355:5

359:20 365:17

370:3,5 375:10

384:6 395:22

396:21 399:18,19

407:5,9,12 408:2

408:7

fit 120:18 164:6,11

331:14 410:1

fits 107:2 393:20

five 178:13 411:11

411:13

five-year 155:14

flavor 296:14

flaw 196:6

fleet 253:7

flexible 194:3

flip 34:21

flow 19:7 37:17

38:8,9 155:9

flush 192:22

Fly 1:23 144:9,9

280:13 282:2,6,13

306:6

focus 198:2 369:5

404:3

focused 264:13,20

FOIA 52:16 53:20

folks 44:20 59:5

148:20 237:11

follow 32:18 35:8

35:10 37:18,19

39:6 41:5 120:1

226:4 238:4

followed 48:4

139:17

following 287:4

follows 322:16

330:6

foolish 244:14

footing 116:21

foots 94:9

force 9:22 288:3,5

forcing 122:13

foreseeing 404:10

forever 157:10

forget 294:5

forgotten 363:13

form 38:19 42:21

74:6 110:13

134:12 262:16

273:18 368:7

392:7

formal 43:6 110:3

formalized 140:4

formally 149:11

format 23:9 43:22

formation 361:9

363:18 364:4

formatting 407:4

formed 257:3,12,14

forming 149:13

formulas 7:2 351:8

formulating 58:16

formulation 200:15

Forrestal 1:13

forth 169:17 238:5

forum 239:13

307:22

forward 119:3

138:12 216:5

239:6 263:18

303:4 312:2 316:2

316:4,19 335:7

forwarded 248:8

found 13:8 30:7

foundation 186:19

186:22

four 16:15,15,16,21

17:20 30:21 31:11

32:5,8 34:21

35:18,20 36:2

395:8,13

Four-twenty-nine

54:16

frame 48:4 74:8

101:19 176:17

177:7 179:3

256:13 283:5

329:7,12,17

367:22

framed 74:11,13

285:20 385:18

framework 127:3

146:4 148:14

149:16 164:13

171:3 175:19

188:22 346:18

354:20 355:1,3

401:5,9

framing 165:20

Frank 2:6 66:20,22

92:19 93:22 112:2

123:19 154:5

155:15 176:13,14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 429

247:17 249:16

271:6 273:15

295:9 348:18

349:8 350:7 377:1

377:2 398:7

frankly 169:14

315:14

Frank's 391:6

free 302:11

FREEMAN 2:19

410:11 412:7

freezers 120:7

friend 52:11

front 10:10 44:18

92:17 265:6,19

326:20 368:14

410:19

FTC 93:9

full 31:22 101:20

148:14 172:19

175:11 211:19

216:1 245:9

262:18 300:1,5

356:8

fully 153:20 169:14

341:10,10 382:11

fun 79:13

functioning 113:13

fund 214:14

fundamental

135:15,17 153:9

213:7 218:12

224:3 259:1

fundamentally

134:21 216:8

217:21 218:2

267:1

funded 209:12

210:22 211:2

216:10 247:14

262:3 270:3

293:12 321:5

332:5

funding 46:10,18

318:3 341:2,4

370:17

funneled 272:4

furnace 89:7,11,13

furnaces 395:17

further 87:14 90:7

97:17 181:19

218:8 235:20

236:6 252:1 305:9

306:18 333:18

334:6

future 66:9 77:16

133:11 168:3

258:4 270:14

274:20 276:7

277:5 394:9

G

games 79:13

gamut 119:12

gas 89:17

Gas-fired 89:19

gather 356:6

gathered 351:6

gathering 48:5

238:2

general 28:21

85:17 100:11

105:9 106:22

114:15 142:12,17

171:3 184:11,21

185:8 186:16

246:17 247:11

257:6 259:3

262:10 299:6

352:1 361:14

364:12 365:19

405:5 406:3

generalities 13:14

generalize 87:1

generalized 126:16

generally 12:12

26:22 55:17

113:21 149:18

229:16 315:4

generating 254:8

generic 52:5 53:3

87:11 111:7 373:7

Geoff 11:13 181:3

182:2 189:19

Geoffrey 1:23

189:17

getting 9:6 37:14

37:17 45:15 59:7

77:22 82:19 104:9

124:12 128:21

129:9 133:21

134:8,9 139:20

140:20 143:8,12

173:4 187:3 189:1

210:18 212:6

229:7 249:1

266:10 268:7

293:19 303:13

304:10 305:4

328:8 340:8 342:5

354:6 391:16

400:17

GH-019 1:13

gin 333:10

give 6:7 90:12

132:21 171:2

184:16 186:20

190:18 248:11

262:12 280:4,10

282:21 283:10

293:4 324:1,5,7

326:8 356:2,7

376:19 396:3

398:13 399:3,18

given 18:8 27:16

103:12 143:15

243:20 288:12

gives 10:6 35:13,13

90:18 113:17

202:9 203:5,7

236:16 245:1

262:21 328:15

395:18

giving 117:11

150:20 164:17

296:9,9

glad 151:3

go 7:18 19:18,19

31:16 32:22 39:16

41:1 63:3 76:10

92:12 101:13

102:5 105:16,18

110:7,22 114:8,8

114:18,20 116:14

120:1,10 128:4

129:11 131:22

152:5 153:19,21

156:1 161:1 167:9

168:12 169:17

170:9 174:17

181:19 184:10

188:2 190:13

195:3 198:5 207:1

207:1 216:5

223:18 229:21

230:6 238:5

251:19 252:1

253:11 255:4

260:11,12 262:7

298:1 306:1

311:18 312:2,5

320:8 329:20

330:8 331:3 334:5

334:19 336:3

339:22 347:10

350:21 351:17

353:20 361:11

366:8 375:10

380:14 382:11

385:13 390:16,18

392:9 393:10

397:19 399:12

409:17,18

goal 38:18 126:12

140:22

goals 252:19

goes 6:17 19:16

32:22 35:3,7 36:6

64:12 82:21 114:5

160:17,18 220:12

323:8 341:9

384:17 411:11

going 5:9 6:10 8:18

9:10 11:11 14:9

15:5,15 17:17

21:5,15 25:1

27:15 29:3,6

31:19 34:9 40:6

43:11,18 45:3,5

45:14,17,18,20

49:7,19 50:3 53:6

61:21 62:13 63:18

64:13 65:9,14

66:8 69:20 74:4

76:10 78:11,22

79:1,4,14,20 80:4

80:5 81:5 83:19

83:20 91:19 100:4

101:14 102:1,15

105:10 108:2,6

109:12 116:16

117:16,20 118:11

120:17 121:6,13

123:13 124:13

127:3 128:18

129:10,11,15

131:15,16 133:10

133:18 138:19

147:7,18 150:12

154:7,13 155:6,8

155:14,17 158:4

160:1 162:6,7,16

167:21 170:7,8,9

173:3,22 174:1,6

179:2,3,4,9,12

181:10 186:3

187:17 188:17

189:1 192:12

193:3 195:13

199:2,4 206:4,6

207:1,15 208:20

213:17 214:1

215:13,15 217:3

217:12 218:5

224:15 225:9,11

225:12 227:10,10

229:12 231:17

235:1 237:15

238:16 239:2,6

241:18,22 244:2

246:21 247:9,16

249:2 253:12,13

255:5,16,18,21

258:20 259:4,14

259:19 261:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 430

267:4 271:16

273:21 282:2,21

283:2 288:15

289:16 291:6,7,17

292:13 300:10

301:6,9,20 302:17

315:8,12 318:12

318:16 325:16

332:15 333:3,3,9

333:18 334:18

336:15,21 337:7

346:21 347:17

351:4,5 354:11

355:18 358:4,6

363:22 364:5

365:13 369:14,17

371:14,17,21

375:11 380:9

381:4 383:7 384:8

385:3 387:13,18

392:1 396:13,14

396:15 398:4

402:21,22 405:16

408:2,16 409:2

410:9 411:1,9

412:18 413:10

good 9:4 10:3 23:5

26:1 50:11 90:19

103:18 114:9

116:5 128:13

153:2 155:20

169:1 174:10,19

175:16 189:18

207:21 221:3

225:8 227:4

239:18 255:12

275:9 279:4

288:21 297:12

302:7 314:20

317:5,17 342:7

348:6,22 349:13

350:8 358:11

363:12 366:13

379:21 387:11

388:4 390:8

391:13 399:5,10

402:16 405:8

407:16

Goodman 2:8 8:22

34:14 54:2 125:13

215:17

goodness 388:13

gotten 60:5 66:2

84:2 137:22 138:1

138:13 215:2

249:22 325:1

326:7

governing 198:1

government 93:21

165:3 199:20

200:1,2 314:7,8

314:14

granted 29:22

208:19 293:15

310:1

granular 244:3

great 173:15

191:18 292:10

412:11

greater 37:21

113:12 386:1

greatly 98:3 230:6

Greenleaf 163:16

grey 69:13

grocery 231:4

ground 4:20

155:10 164:17

165:4 219:2,10

287:16

group 1:7,13 7:17

25:16,18 28:1

29:10 32:17 37:1

42:20,22 43:11,13

43:22 44:13,20

45:4 48:4 56:22

57:8,10 58:6,15

58:19,21 60:16

62:5 63:5 67:17

71:1,3 72:6,8,12

72:15,19 73:1,8

73:15 74:2,7 82:4

84:17 88:11 90:19

98:10,16 99:9,10

102:8,20 103:7,14

105:1,8,13,18,20

106:1,21 107:4

108:1 109:3,18,22

110:3,6,14 111:11

112:5 113:1

114:19 115:2,5,7

115:12 116:15

117:22 121:17,22

130:5,18 132:1,9

133:5,5,8,22

134:13 135:10

136:7 140:14

146:8,9 147:2

149:10,14,20

153:5,18 154:2

166:12,14,15

167:3,9,10,13

168:19 171:5,18

171:21 172:10,19

173:5,22 174:5,6

174:8 176:16

177:12,15,16

179:15 180:13,13

181:5 182:9,10

183:4,6,18 184:13

184:17 185:2,3

186:4,10,17 187:6

189:16 206:9

221:4,5,15 222:5

222:13,14 223:9

223:18 229:20

237:9 238:2,11,13

239:4 248:2,6,16

248:19 249:21

250:4 251:4 253:9

255:5,9,11,20

256:9 262:18

264:1 266:10

268:18 275:20

276:4,21 277:2

283:9 284:12

285:11 286:4

288:13 289:17

294:10 299:21

304:16 312:1,8

316:17 325:8

326:16 328:4,6

338:1 345:22

347:3 348:9

358:15,16 360:13

360:14 361:9

362:3,5,13 363:16

363:17,21 364:3

364:18,22 365:2,8

365:9 366:5,7

367:9,16,19 368:8

368:15,22 369:14

375:17 376:2

378:8,9,13,20

382:7,12,13,20,22

383:6 385:20

389:1,12 391:16

391:20 392:7,16

393:17,19,19

394:2,8 400:1

406:5,22

groups 5:3 61:5

62:12 79:19

103:19 104:9

105:21 107:1

110:1,4,8 111:12

112:8 116:1

117:21 119:1

122:6 123:2

134:18 147:3

148:19 149:4

154:4 156:7

168:13 171:12

177:13 184:12

187:9,14 188:4

189:21 192:14

238:19 239:8,14

256:4 259:8 260:5

260:20 268:20

269:11 288:8

307:10 308:13

325:13 364:18,20

365:12 367:10

368:7,14 375:10

381:4,5,11,18

385:22 398:22

406:19 407:6

Group/Sub-Group

3:20

guess 7:15 18:6

28:14 33:17 35:18

38:21 42:15 43:15

55:10 103:17

110:2 127:17

130:20 142:16

153:12 155:16

176:2 179:11

189:2,5 194:8

206:22 215:11

226:10 232:12

243:20 244:15

249:17 253:9

255:7 260:20

276:15 309:17

314:4 347:3 398:3

404:9 405:12

406:18

guidance 161:3

184:16 185:8

guide 90:18

guideline 26:22

guidelines 47:17

124:9 186:16

222:7 280:4,11

282:22 283:10

324:1,7

guys 14:14,20

18:11,11,13 20:11

43:16,17 46:2

84:8 112:17

134:18 135:4,6,7

137:4,14 152:15

169:10 170:5

185:13 201:19

216:9 220:6 235:4

242:6 267:12

410:12

H

half 114:5 411:1,2

411:6

Halley 1:23 11:13

11:13,20 12:1

181:3,3,16 182:3

204:4,9

hallway 260:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 431

hammered 401:17

hand 19:16 84:1

221:11 367:18

396:18 397:13

handle 142:1

227:12 258:20

handled 84:16

handout 87:17

hands 197:13

handsome 297:4

hands-on 69:17

Hang 348:2

happen 29:18

31:19 115:17

148:13 156:2

271:14 329:2

336:12 391:19

394:4

happened 13:10

24:1,6 31:21

235:8 272:7

312:20

happening 80:6

161:5 239:6

312:14

happens 129:13

267:21

happy 36:22 84:10

181:9 249:12,15

254:17 353:10

365:18

hard 23:8 53:4

78:10 178:14

216:3,19 392:21

404:9

harder 10:7 16:4

22:8

harm 49:4

Harvey 2:4 4:7,8

20:15 26:19 27:8

36:22 37:9 38:14

44:9 46:5,20

52:10 57:6 58:3

62:1 71:19 84:14

84:20 96:4 126:6

127:7 128:1

141:20 145:8

150:22 151:22

154:18 155:11

177:19 200:22

227:21 228:2,17

229:3 243:19

252:2 295:9 304:1

351:20 353:17

375:21 381:21

398:19

Harvey's 117:7

153:17 238:9

hat 154:17

hate 169:21 275:11

333:6

head 58:9 113:7,11

120:13 127:20

218:19 242:22

322:5 333:21

350:20 380:13

heading 67:3,4

heads 147:18 167:1

373:11

heaped 236:4

hear 6:8 39:18

60:21 63:8 149:5

154:6 162:17,20

200:20 230:7

247:17 248:5

335:2 412:18

heard 27:9 81:18

128:22 132:4

136:4 201:5

208:19,20 224:14

247:6 261:10

269:13 287:6,13

292:20 307:11

328:6 335:20

341:8,19 342:20

367:7 400:9 408:2

hearing 28:20

44:16 114:14

116:7 117:15

126:17 155:3

167:6 187:13

194:9 197:7 228:3

244:16 252:4

361:19 408:3

414:5

heart 45:18

heartened 304:4

heat 85:6,7,10,13

87:2,8,11 88:1,6

88:16,20 89:12

397:11

Heatcraft 235:5

heater 89:18,19

177:11,16 189:16

264:1 272:12

303:11 304:6

338:3 402:15

405:4 407:15

408:19,21

heaters 101:4

171:7,16 172:5

178:19 179:19

273:19 274:13

347:15,21 364:10

heating 1:6 369:6

382:14 395:16

heavily 169:16

heavy 234:4

held 4:20

Hello 72:20

help 6:6 8:15 24:21

52:15 53:18 79:15

79:19 81:11

128:14 179:2

228:5,21,22 260:8

295:10 366:18

367:16 389:17

390:9 391:14

helpful 27:6 151:20

231:14 296:21

300:1

helps 39:22 151:4

388:7

hermaphrodites

85:13

heterogenous

154:22 393:16

hey 125:10 129:5

129:10 131:12

132:16 337:1

353:5 378:18

Hi 20:15 73:3,4

hiatus 105:19

hiding 225:21

high 54:10 56:4

64:5,15,20 65:20

81:12,22 83:6

118:16,17 124:7

higher 66:4 100:6

136:14 357:16

highlighting 406:4

highly 163:20

high-priority 98:18

high-volume 119:2

119:7

hinge 400:17

hinged 248:17

history 273:8,22

hit 154:15 183:14

hither 44:5

hits 152:15 333:20

hit-pocket 399:10

hold 40:14 42:2

61:8 75:2 246:1

356:11 359:12

holding 172:18

335:5

hold-off 196:2

home 106:18

homework 98:10

Hon 1:24 97:19,19

99:1,4,6,10 100:1

118:13,13 155:22

155:22 162:14

164:7 165:1,15,18

165:22 166:8

185:16 186:1,18

224:2,2 226:13,13

230:15,16 233:5,5

233:7 400:13

honest 77:3 258:12

honestly 6:3 25:2

246:2

honesty 137:17

Hootman 1:25 32:7

47:6 127:8,12,19

137:17 138:7,10

149:22 150:3

159:5,12 204:7,10

220:12,18 257:18

258:5,10 276:2,4

276:10,13,15,22

277:3,9,11,14,19

278:3,7,11,14,19

279:2,5 280:3,7

280:10,21 281:2,8

281:16,21 287:15

294:18 295:5

320:8,20 322:10

322:12 324:1,4,19

324:22 325:4

354:1,2,16,19,22

356:12 362:19

363:1 383:15

392:8,11,14,22

395:9 398:3

401:11,14 413:21

hope 46:16 246:14

263:14 267:20

400:1 411:12

hopeful 393:6

hopefully 8:11

326:11 355:11

hoping 83:21

hour 73:6 114:5

hours 6:5 248:9

HTP 2:7 49:10 52:2

65:6 70:8,11

80:14 106:7

116:14 122:20

150:7 171:11

179:17 208:3

253:9 265:16

312:11 347:5

369:4

huddle 254:5

Hudnall 1:25 63:11

102:13,13 104:21

106:12 107:8,10

364:17 366:4

407:9

huge 105:1 332:13

332:14 377:4

humor 151:4

HURST 2:1 95:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 432

95:14,18,21 96:3

96:8 204:11,18

205:14 206:6,17

207:10,22 234:22

237:1,4,8 240:16

241:1,8,11 278:5

278:22 286:16

323:3,9,12 333:5

335:8 337:4

338:14,18 375:1,4

375:6,13

hurting 157:4

Hussman 226:4

227:4

Hussmann 2:5

HVAC 1:6 60:2

89:1 100:18 101:4

118:5 135:6 142:2

165:14 171:21

235:17,17,20

236:4 274:16

275:10 302:13,13

306:6,11 318:1,1

321:11 325:14

329:1 354:4 355:8

358:11 389:21

394:18 395:16

hypothetically 96:4

96:9 335:10

I

idea 6:3 27:22

46:20 56:10,21

64:11 92:11

121:17 132:19

133:4 134:20

148:13 155:4

174:9 183:15,20

184:6 219:7

229:15,16 230:3

247:10 254:8

268:9 350:9

384:17 387:11

388:5 390:22

ideas 43:21 44:5

169:17 240:22

247:4 407:20

identical 61:21

252:19 253:6

identified 200:19

271:8 368:8

identify 149:16

178:6 407:4

ignore 179:1,10

224:4

ill-advised 211:12

imagine 58:7 96:7

96:8 166:14

immediate 29:14

107:17 152:11

impact 76:22 78:12

107:17,18 160:22

178:8 233:10

271:18 303:12

impacted 107:22

impacts 303:13

implement 22:9

75:4 123:6

implementation

61:14 104:1,6

151:9,14 152:8

153:14,16 334:7,7

400:20

implemented

154:11 156:3

216:22

implications 59:8

211:10 268:16

360:7

implicit 302:22

implicitly 228:6

imply 170:13

importance 348:10

important 28:10

29:10 37:13 103:5

154:19 164:14

176:20 177:17

195:1,3 223:3

253:4 284:18

325:17 326:5

327:8 329:4 348:9

362:9

impose 120:4 160:1

202:2 219:5,13

240:1

imposed 161:7

387:10,12,13,17

388:4

imposing 20:12

387:16,20

impossible 14:10

impression 129:10

337:21 376:3

impressions 293:14

improper 234:16

incentive 286:7

inclined 339:8

367:13

include 49:5,10,11

50:3 107:12 127:9

128:2 146:17

253:13 263:2

264:11 299:8

included 76:17

176:5 269:20

includes 127:18

including 48:13,21

96:20 109:11

126:21 151:7

191:8 269:5 385:2

inconsistent 309:2

310:19

incorporates 91:11

increase 217:1

increased 104:3

increases 82:18

100:21

increasing 158:13

235:19

incurring 161:20

Independence 1:14

independent

199:21 200:8

311:8

independently

226:17

indeterminate 35:5

35:13 36:4

indicate 84:21

328:3

indicated 292:12

293:13

indifferent 364:6

individual 20:2

52:12 63:15 99:12

105:9,15 107:1

111:5 154:4

individually 372:7

inductive 380:2

industrial 106:4

industries 63:2

120:5,18 121:4

122:6,11,14

124:19 126:14

151:11 152:13

175:3 186:14

253:7 259:11

272:14 273:17

325:22 327:7

328:1 390:13

391:7 393:17

industry 5:2 8:14

9:2 25:15 59:6

88:15 99:11,18

111:6 115:6 121:8

125:3 126:14

132:13 140:15

142:12 147:16

156:21,22 157:2,4

158:14,21 164:5

170:3 172:2 175:1

178:19 196:13

209:17 225:1,4,15

228:18 230:5

232:20 234:15

235:12,14 239:16

245:18 246:15

252:12,21 258:16

258:18,22 259:21

260:1 273:9 274:1

307:13 310:1

327:6 333:12,14

369:7 386:15

387:8 388:6 390:1

390:4,10

industry's 246:13

industry-wide 26:6

influence 222:1

influencing 143:2

informally 50:17

information 19:4

51:11,14 92:3,8

94:4 96:19 124:3

124:10,17,19

125:4 143:16

177:4,6 178:6

179:1 196:9

203:19 204:2

208:7 221:9

248:11 250:3

265:21 267:19

271:16 293:7,15

293:15 294:4

296:11 305:2

347:1 377:20

399:11,14,21

404:11 412:9

informational

195:7

informed 220:9

334:22

inherent 15:6,7,8

74:17 272:5

initial 16:14 65:21

69:5 300:17

initially 6:20 65:6

148:15 197:20,21

300:16 384:17

initiated 346:12

348:7 349:14

403:18

initiating 24:21

inner 62:15

input 44:18 122:5

143:12 168:19,20

229:3 261:8

332:13,14

inputs 234:16

inquiries 112:21

insert 71:3 271:4

inside 129:8 131:10

instances 88:21

institute 133:12

134:2

instrumentation
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 433

24:16

integrity 128:15

259:10 261:20

intend 146:19

147:1

intended 389:4,5

397:13

intent 85:14 135:19

136:3 147:9

265:16 364:22

interaction 47:18

interest 41:11

57:18 103:16

302:21

interested 57:11

217:18 270:12

271:12 355:9

interesting 26:7

46:20 204:20

interests 40:15

58:13 304:17

393:18

internal 21:8

internally 135:9

interpret 244:7

interpretation

338:9

interpreted 132:7

interrupt 230:16

interrupting 77:13

interval 11:7 82:15

82:19

intervals 10:15,16

10:21 352:12

introduce 69:6

invested 167:7

245:7,9

investigate 215:8

227:14

involuntary 100:14

involved 33:6

43:19 57:2,9

58:10 59:7 102:17

102:22 116:19

191:20 226:14

262:12 267:17

291:16

in-hand 19:17

iron 255:13 355:10

irrelevant 217:10

Irrespective 223:15

isolated 104:6

issue 8:9 9:10 21:8

45:14 84:13,20

86:4 90:3 100:17

101:21 102:10

104:15,16,17,18

105:3 106:9

118:14 131:20

175:15 185:13

190:12 196:22

199:22 201:15

229:11 241:8

250:12 284:20

285:3,14 286:9

288:9 291:7

292:14 293:8

295:5 298:2,9

304:9,9,20 313:16

318:18 321:4

331:16 332:1

341:2,4 350:16

359:13,14 373:6

389:6 398:16

407:17

issued 98:2

issues 3:16 4:17,19

4:21 6:4 8:4

44:14 48:4 60:18

60:22 61:22 74:8

74:11,12 97:20

114:13 140:15

154:4 157:8

166:21 176:22

220:21 221:1,7

238:2,20 243:8

251:5 254:12

289:4 290:1

302:22 303:18

315:9 317:6 325:9

346:4 402:17

407:5

item 3:12 7:17

100:2 126:10

items 170:17,19

262:21 263:2

265:22

It'll 70:16

J

January 152:21

Jeff 1:20 2:2 30:15

50:6,19 76:5

169:9 191:11

203:16 245:5

248:9 252:15

266:8 271:21

273:6 303:5 304:1

Jeff's 208:16

Jeremiah 2:19

407:14

Jill 1:25 47:12

137:18 280:17

354:1

job 233:20 243:22

jobs 317:3

John 2:1 79:4

129:14 206:20

243:8 245:2

275:13,15

JOHNSON 2:1

John's 207:11

join 412:5

joined 73:5

jointly 241:4

jotted 357:6,8

judge 27:15

judged 30:19

Judges 249:3

jump 229:1 232:9,9

jumping 401:7

justice 169:1

justify 233:22

273:2

K

Kaiser 235:3

Karen 2:3 9:12

88:14 89:2 100:10

106:15 119:17

125:14 132:16

152:16 201:12,21

236:9 338:8,11

346:12 350:6

402:21 403:4,21

Karen's 133:18

335:17 338:4

Karim 1:18 22:12

25:5 26:20 32:21

45:2 46:19 90:10

92:10 135:16

141:1 146:1

148:11 168:18

170:13,14 188:13

190:6 191:10

214:5 280:15

286:18 311:16

362:8 363:13

Karim's 29:19

190:14

keep 52:15 53:5

126:4 150:20

173:22 174:6

179:12 194:5

224:3 228:5 251:1

255:5,16,20

259:19 267:4

292:13 326:6

353:10 363:22

366:11 398:17

keeping 394:19

kept 51:19 342:4

key 395:7,12

kicked 279:9

kicks 374:3

kidding 242:16

killing 150:8

kind 9:13 69:7,13

75:19 82:12,13

104:15 111:11

124:4,18 125:8,10

128:18 129:9,10

131:14,16 139:1

140:14 141:7

143:17 145:15

149:17 155:2,9

164:15 189:7

191:8 195:22

199:3,4,5 209:2

234:22 247:1,7

248:17 259:5

261:13,15 270:21

284:22 289:14

300:3,8 301:1,8

302:12 311:1

318:8 333:17

336:9 341:13

349:19 358:22

368:12 393:11

400:10 412:13

kinds 9:17 268:15

312:17

Kleiss 2:2 5:19

30:15,15 31:5,9

31:13 32:6 39:13

41:10 50:6,6

199:7,14 203:15

203:16 245:5,5

263:22 264:18

265:2,5 266:7,8

268:3,17 270:9,11

273:5,6 275:16

278:17 303:5,5

304:11 305:14

349:20 350:1,11

350:17 352:21

372:20 373:15

376:11,16 393:3,6

408:11,21 410:18

410:22

knew 342:14 349:3

knocking 377:15

know 4:11 7:2 8:12

9:1 13:3,4,10 14:9

14:18 15:6 16:13

17:8,9,13,17,21

18:2,4,4,9 19:15

19:19 20:6,11

22:21 23:8,8,21

24:7,12,17 25:1

25:17,20 26:7,8

27:9,14 28:8,10

28:11,12,14 29:18

29:21 33:9 34:17

37:5 45:6 46:14

48:16,17 53:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 434

54:15 57:1,16

61:4 63:3 66:3

68:7 74:12 76:6

77:19 78:5,9 80:3

80:12,16 81:4,17

88:19 89:14 90:16

96:4 100:13,18,22

101:3,8,9,12,12

101:14,21 103:20

104:14,15,18

105:22 108:8,10

108:17 110:16

114:13 115:6

118:2,11 119:18

119:19 120:12,16

121:3,3,9 122:2,9

122:11,15,16,17

122:18 124:10,11

124:13,22 128:18

128:19 131:13,18

134:10 135:8,14

137:1,11 138:2,3

139:1 143:7,10

144:14,16 145:1

145:18 146:13

147:5,14,20 149:3

149:4,5,17 153:1

153:13 154:12

155:5,16,16

160:10 161:19

162:4 164:1,8,20

165:15 166:9,13

166:19 167:21

168:13,14 169:7,9

169:18 170:3,18

173:13 175:16

178:10,14 181:9

183:14,22 184:6

185:6,9 187:18,19

191:16 192:5,15

192:17 196:5,17

199:2 203:1

204:15 205:18

208:9 209:2,4

211:8,13,15,17,19

211:22 212:1

217:2 218:17

219:10,12 220:7

220:20,21,22

222:3,15 223:20

224:6 225:8,16

227:18 237:9,20

238:13,21 239:2

241:18 242:2,16

243:3,6,14 246:9

246:17 247:3

248:10 249:3

251:8 253:17

254:4 255:2,2,6,8

258:15,17,20

259:1,10,12,13,15

261:14,18 263:3,4

263:6 269:2,14,15

272:8,20 277:22

286:11 292:17

299:12,13 300:22

301:6,9,13,17,18

301:19 302:3,6,7

302:8,14,16,18

305:3 307:11,19

310:18 317:16

318:4,16 321:7,11

322:8 323:20

325:18 326:2,11

326:16,17,22

327:1,22 328:2,2

328:4,7 332:12

333:7,19 334:18

334:19 335:9

336:7,13,20 337:7

337:18,18 341:5,9

342:15,19 345:21

346:1,5,9 352:16

358:4 359:17

365:6 369:7

371:14,17,21

372:15 374:13

379:8 380:3,11

382:22 383:7

385:8,9,11 393:4

394:5,10,11

395:22 397:17

400:21 403:5

404:6 406:21

412:15

knowing 109:11

110:11 138:17

216:1 250:15

knows 237:16

KOJAK 2:2 379:16

380:1,18,22 381:6

381:10,13 385:21

386:7,22 387:15

387:20 388:1,10

390:12 393:22

395:3 402:11

413:6

L

lab 11:1 15:1 17:22

18:1 19:7 34:8,9

267:8

Laboratories 1:22

2:2

laboratory 93:13

93:16 191:22

labs 11:3 14:3,3

18:22 19:5 108:17

168:9

lack 82:21 95:19

272:2 333:4

language 3:17 38:6

39:9,12 40:7 48:1

50:13 85:2,3 91:6

91:14,16,20

138:11 180:20,22

196:1 298:2,4

304:22 339:4,22

343:19 360:1

366:11 368:4

382:5 383:17

385:9 392:1

laps 98:19

large 18:9 20:10

97:22 179:7 371:7

larger 11:17 41:1

63:13 105:13

106:21 107:4

108:1 109:2 110:5

116:15,19 173:5

196:18 197:2

lasted 108:3

late 334:12 335:2

369:4

latest 343:14 399:8

Laughter 20:20

23:14 24:4 54:12

62:9 71:6 72:4

78:4 81:14,19

151:2 155:21

180:4,11 240:18

242:9 243:18

260:15 268:5

278:21 283:8

336:18 342:16

349:10

launched 107:16

Laura 2:16 12:13

13:5,15,21 14:11

15:12 33:8,16

34:17 39:18 90:12

96:10 123:21

127:19 129:6

187:2 194:8 207:2

207:7,20,22

221:14 222:15

227:4 240:6,21

243:13 261:15

267:18 294:8

295:17 310:20

320:7 330:2 341:5

345:13 392:2,4

413:17

Laura's 21:21

147:19

law 204:18 212:19

244:7 281:19

309:22

laws 168:15

lawsuit 337:16

lawyer 212:14

244:15,15 295:14

lawyers 241:10

242:5,8,12 260:6

260:14 287:21

337:1 408:15

lawyer's 296:22

layouts 58:10

lay-over 403:11

lead 399:5

leading 271:7

309:1

learn 225:10,11

260:8

learned 186:9

leave 49:16 91:19

142:14 181:2

182:8 187:10

239:7 288:1

348:14 350:5

399:1 402:3,21

411:4

leaving 53:3 151:19

237:10 253:18

373:15 411:4

led 257:3,12

left 68:6 149:10

285:16 347:5

legal 205:11 206:10

207:5 208:21

210:20 212:4

213:19,22 214:3

217:8,9,13,17

219:13 237:6,14

238:6 239:22

240:8,10,20,21

241:15 242:14

243:5,6 244:11,22

247:13 248:19

250:12,17 251:15

284:12,19,21

285:7 286:5 287:2

287:3,8 288:3,10

288:22 289:3,14

290:7,18,19 291:2

291:5,18 292:5

305:5,7 308:2

309:7,10 310:3,13

312:5 315:1 316:5

316:6 333:10

334:3,11 349:15

357:19 366:1,2

394:20 402:17

404:12 405:7

406:2 407:5,16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 435

legally 36:1 287:17

legal's 208:22

legitimate 289:6

290:5 391:9

Lennox 2:1 235:3

Lennox's 333:15

letter 267:18

letting 85:11

122:17

let's 57:18 77:3

84:20 124:8,20

150:16 173:9,10

178:3,6,11,15,18

190:13 198:4

247:17 249:18

260:10 274:1

275:12 282:11

298:1 331:3 335:9

337:1 347:10,17

350:21 351:17

353:20 356:22

365:22 372:10

404:7 405:10

level 11:20 46:15

52:4 78:15,16

126:2 136:15

162:5 190:19

192:20 215:19

229:7 246:20

250:6 252:5,10

259:5,15 261:16

261:19 384:9

levels 11:15 19:18

75:10 141:16

184:1

levied 93:15

lieu 322:11,12

light 158:3 159:2

159:11 220:19

374:19 385:14

406:1

lighting 26:10,16

106:17 120:6

364:19

likelihood 124:7

151:15

liken 388:17

limbo 253:18

limit 22:7

limited 44:1 110:14

110:16,17,21

112:5 204:2

226:21 231:21

382:6 390:13

limiting 299:3

line 14:7,22 24:14

37:12 66:1 69:18

95:18 189:16

208:3 212:1 271:1

351:19 360:4

361:21,22 371:3,4

371:5 400:11

lines 53:20 145:5

183:6

list 4:21 70:12

128:5 226:21

256:9 269:9

279:14,16 300:12

300:18 301:3,5,15

302:1,11 303:22

305:10,13 306:19

323:8 360:18

listed 138:18 139:3

139:4,6 280:19

395:8

listen 252:3 326:10

listening 194:21

221:13 252:3

listing 303:7

listings 279:5

lists 277:17,20

278:2 305:4

little 44:1 58:3

64:19 73:12 90:12

90:17,22 100:17

104:14 109:22

110:3 119:21

120:17 124:11,12

125:2 126:11,15

132:11 141:6

151:4 154:21

174:11 177:20

194:22 197:16,18

201:2,11 239:19

250:8 254:9

262:19 310:21

319:21 345:14

358:7,7 365:12

368:22 398:12

live 117:20 291:12

load 356:8

loaders 302:12

Lochinvar 2:2

30:16 50:7 245:6

266:8 273:6 303:6

lock-step 170:4

logic 156:17

logical 385:11

long 22:17 30:1

50:2 108:4 141:17

157:2 181:13

209:21 273:22

281:13 288:18

355:12 356:11

408:16 411:17

longer 154:21

217:2 278:18

328:18

long-term 78:6

look 7:18 10:20

23:3,6 33:3 43:2

61:7 63:17 76:2

85:15 101:21

102:9 105:20

119:5 134:22

179:5 184:10

185:10 186:11

195:10 199:6

242:1 267:9 343:8

343:19 344:2

347:17,18 350:22

358:12 368:3

378:20 394:17

403:2

looked 74:13 101:1

101:16 326:15

377:14

looking 9:13 26:18

53:16 74:16 75:6

75:7,9 108:9

113:22 124:16

144:6 177:5 178:3

198:5 222:5

268:11 336:10

389:21

looks 139:11 334:7

lose 177:19

losing 170:1 369:5

lost 166:18 171:9

248:21 272:8

373:14

lot 9:11 13:19 14:4

16:6,12 18:12

20:5 22:1,4 23:22

24:7 26:4,8 30:9

30:10 31:1 33:19

33:21 34:7 37:5

51:21,22 61:20

62:14 63:8 64:17

66:8 73:5 83:1,3

91:11,19,20 95:11

98:10 99:16,18

116:11,12 128:22

129:3 131:20

138:1,10 151:14

157:8 159:18

160:16 166:8,20

166:21 167:7

169:4 186:18

193:16 229:10,11

231:2,20 235:4,5

236:6 258:11,14

269:13,15 270:17

302:10 325:10

326:6 329:2

334:16 335:22

342:14,20 357:6

380:3,7 392:15,17

411:15

loud 5:10,15

love 237:10

loves 388:12

low 12:9 54:4 56:5

81:13 82:2

low-volume 60:19

118:18 119:1,10

lucky 20:19 375:12

lunch 180:2,6

185:17

M

magnitude 274:5

main 151:21

166:22 266:12

maintains 231:3

major 105:7 117:6

119:13 163:15

majority 183:9

224:15 230:19,20

making 20:7 44:22

52:17 64:10 79:18

79:19 96:14

159:10 178:20

182:20 201:9

233:19 297:11

316:16 382:17,19

387:4 388:9

391:12

man 248:9

managed 272:2

mandate 101:4

135:19 157:11

306:15 314:1

332:4

mandated 101:6,15

mandating 92:12

mandatory 66:11

113:16 134:2

140:6 147:4

158:15 222:17

279:18 280:17

319:13 324:11,14

328:13 332:8

340:3,6 342:1

347:22

manner 159:20

manufacture 45:22

118:16 159:18

160:5 381:16

manufactured

168:7 209:20

386:2

manufacturer 9:22

10:7 14:22 15:16

15:16 18:8 30:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 436

31:15 33:10 36:10

37:17 58:8,11

81:21 82:22 92:2

93:4,10 94:5,8

125:8 158:11

160:22 169:20

195:15 201:6

203:22 204:1

209:12 210:1,22

211:2 213:14

216:10 226:6,8

247:14 262:3

272:13 293:11

309:20 310:9

319:13 340:21

347:22 348:3

350:16

manufacturers

13:22 14:2 18:7

24:9,10 30:12

50:8,22 54:4 82:2

90:15 92:12 93:20

111:18 112:22

116:17,20 117:6

123:5,17 125:18

128:9 132:17

144:8 150:7,19

158:21 161:7

171:4 195:12

198:20 201:18

202:3,6,8,22

203:20 214:13

219:14 229:9

240:2 252:11

261:20 301:18

303:15,18,20

305:15 308:3,5

318:1 327:16

332:6 340:14

348:5 356:2

380:14 385:2

manufacturer's

13:10 26:15 52:13

111:8,14

manufacturer-fu...

264:2 270:4,18

275:21 278:9

286:13 295:4

299:4 306:15

308:22 328:13

332:8 340:3,7

370:20

manufacturer-su...

74:20

manufactures

374:18

manufacturing

1:24 2:3,8 26:13

34:15 46:3 50:9

51:1 65:10 69:17

74:21 81:22 82:3

118:17 119:8,9,10

231:7 266:15

380:4,8 385:22

man-year 245:9

map 39:5

margin 34:12

mark 1:23 127:22

144:9

market 144:13,15

230:14 233:9

253:3 272:21

273:1 356:5

marketplace 319:3

320:10

markets 177:14

Mary 1:21 111:2

164:2 167:6

181:21 228:3,17

234:20 252:15

266:18

massive 156:16

mass-produced

25:11 62:6

match 335:22

338:4,8,11

material 399:16

materials 179:21

mathematical

95:15 96:2 352:13

352:15

matter 42:10 101:8

109:6 180:17

205:4,6 208:10

217:14 260:22

307:21 318:4,10

334:4,5 339:19

357:9 385:19

388:21 406:21

414:10

matters 204:12,17

McQuay 2:1

mean 6:3,5 11:2

13:20 14:12,16

17:15,19 19:20

20:3 21:20 23:20

25:5 28:14,16

29:17,22 30:11,22

31:10,14 33:15,22

40:12 43:10 45:7

45:16 47:1 48:16

48:19 53:9 60:13

60:17 61:19 62:18

68:5,14 71:13

72:7 77:18 79:16

80:2 87:10 88:15

88:18,19,19 89:15

95:11,14 99:9

103:14 106:4

107:5 112:3,15,16

117:22 121:6,15

122:14 124:1

129:15,19 130:17

133:17 135:4,5,10

135:19 136:22

137:2 139:18

141:5 142:15

146:22 149:8

150:8 153:8,10

159:14 172:7

174:19 182:11,14

189:5,7 191:10,12

191:22 193:9,11

193:22 198:21

204:19 205:12

208:15 211:11

216:16,17 219:22

223:9 227:6 241:2

241:15 242:14

243:10 245:18

246:1 247:3 249:4

251:3 252:18

254:2,7 256:22

258:12 265:1

267:10 268:19

269:12,12,18

270:7 274:4,14

279:7 281:16,18

281:21 283:10

284:3 287:10

290:1,3 296:4,13

301:18 302:2,20

303:3 307:10

311:22 318:8,9,15

321:2,7 327:4

328:22 331:18

332:12 333:6

335:13 337:8,13

337:18,20 340:12

341:15 342:17,19

343:7 345:8,21

351:3 352:10,13

352:16 355:15

356:1,19 359:2

360:10 363:18

365:3,21 367:22

368:4,12 369:22

373:5 377:3

381:20 384:2

392:6 395:12

403:5 404:16

406:16,20 407:2

meaning 85:15,18

151:17 373:14

meaningful 373:13

374:2

meaningless 376:8

meanings 252:4

means 54:8 128:14

139:7 163:21

164:1 203:2

213:22 266:13

310:15 322:22

371:20 376:1

meant 257:13

293:16 362:22

measuring 33:6

mediating 316:17

meet 64:16,17

158:3,5 185:4

269:17 307:13

310:10 322:17,21

410:7 411:19

meeting 1:7 4:16

4:19 28:5 43:6,14

43:22 44:3 57:20

59:4 63:12,13

66:7 75:2 76:1

79:4 84:11,14

98:2 102:3 103:21

110:19 118:12

138:20 160:6

169:6 176:16

177:10 181:6

222:10 225:21

254:8 255:3 317:9

344:18 345:3

399:7 409:7,17,18

409:19 410:5,13

410:14,15,20

412:6 413:12

meetings 4:6 26:20

40:14 61:8 169:10

172:19 238:15

242:13,14 269:19

317:10 342:8

399:12 414:1

meets 64:14 136:16

344:22

member 292:20

328:7 405:14

members 18:14

97:7 98:13 109:11

110:14 113:11,12

138:22 164:9

169:8,11 171:22

219:4 262:8 286:4

381:15 382:20

membership 113:9

113:9,14 223:21

223:22

memo 240:9,11,20

240:21

memory 192:1

231:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 437

mention 177:9

296:12 404:6

407:4,5

mentioned 13:6

84:13 146:11

159:21 262:15

372:2 404:17

mentioning 271:21

373:8 403:10

menu 263:7

merit 19:22

message 62:21

254:17

messaging 393:16

messed 349:3

met 1:13 141:19

209:22 236:1

322:18,21 409:15

method 41:12

49:13 190:9

199:11

methodology

352:12 353:3

methods 23:17,18

24:8 54:15 351:21

Meyers 2:3 9:12,13

9:20 28:8 29:9

63:20 64:4,8 65:1

68:6,9 72:10,17

72:22 77:6,11

88:14 89:5,9,14

89:21 100:10,10

102:11 103:4,17

104:13 106:3,10

107:7,9 119:17

122:4,9 148:22

149:3 151:21

158:8 160:12

172:11,15 201:14

201:21 202:17,20

203:5,12 209:9

210:22 216:19

218:17 219:15,22

220:7 240:10

268:19 269:10

270:10 282:21

283:15,17 286:10

288:7 292:8 298:7

325:7

Michael 2:2 386:10

microphones 5:8

middle 98:19

migrated 359:8

Mike 390:21

million 123:13

217:2 224:17

mind 89:21 101:3

126:5 137:21

230:15 243:20

289:9

minds 290:9

315:11 385:16

mine 63:5

minimize 15:9

65:17

minimum 21:9

35:22 123:7

159:14 174:21

191:17 197:16

198:17 236:1

261:16 262:4

267:14 320:12

minor 345:9

minute 251:19

269:11 339:16

357:12 359:12

minutes 245:16

260:10 338:21

misconstrued

293:21

misery 388:12

missed 67:4 73:5

350:17

missing 127:5

misstated 147:10

misunderstood

177:20 396:8,17

396:20

mis-stated 396:9

Mitsubishi 1:22

70:21 86:14

133:10 138:16

143:6 206:16

209:15 210:13

211:8

mix 104:10

model 17:16 18:5

33:2 88:2 122:1

122:15 123:1

139:1 164:11

172:1 175:2

178:13

models 19:3 138:4

139:4,5 159:16

modest 226:1

modify 402:18

MOLVIE 2:4

197:9 350:5

moment 42:5 94:17

166:10,17 377:10

Monday 181:6

money 66:8 159:18

196:21 236:12,13

236:13,14 302:10

318:5,10 334:16

month 314:9

331:22

months 44:15

70:13 98:18

115:14 152:17

204:5 237:18

332:16 341:22

moot 245:10

morning 143:22

332:2 337:21

342:19 346:12

350:6,9 355:5

359:1 361:13

362:10 403:3,6

404:4 407:18,20

408:1 410:19

413:6,8

motion 126:12

414:5

motor 354:4 355:9

413:13

motors 380:2 408:3

408:10 413:7

move 316:1,4,19

moved 7:11 21:2

263:18

mud 352:17

multiple 114:17,20

117:8 235:8,18

Myers 350:7

N

name 323:7

NAPA 169:5

238:15

NAPM 169:8

narrower 326:3

nation 157:4,7

National 1:20

nationally 96:20

naturally 65:14

nature 6:21 48:14

194:18

nauseam 269:19

Navigant 2:20

Neal 39:14

near 74:3 306:1

nearly 99:14

necessarily 7:3

18:12 32:3 33:4

80:4 137:6 148:2

153:14 177:16

221:18 223:22

231:8 293:3

324:20 341:1

366:17

necessary 92:4,16

113:7,12 151:12

201:8 262:22

297:10,11 370:7

391:21

need 11:12,14

14:12 15:13 19:20

20:1 27:9,14,22

29:14 30:12 35:19

37:1,5 38:15 39:1

43:12 49:11 52:12

53:18 54:14 67:1

106:1 108:21

109:8 114:15,16

115:10 120:1

121:9 125:13

126:4 128:19

130:9 131:14

132:2 134:17

136:21 146:14

148:8 150:10

153:10 162:15

165:17 166:2

168:22 175:1

177:12 179:13,18

185:8,14,19

188:20 190:19

192:18,19 193:1

200:18 201:14,16

207:7 212:13

215:20 219:19

220:16,22 224:8

239:10 269:20

271:14 278:17

284:5 288:15

292:15 295:11

298:4 306:8,12

325:7 327:22

337:14 340:5

342:18 354:12

356:5,8,14 366:3

369:7,15 370:15

372:14,16 374:2

377:19,21 378:1

379:6,11 381:5

383:20 394:18

398:13,16 402:1

needed 20:5 39:4

42:20 65:22

109:14 131:19

189:12 262:22

270:17 346:5

399:12

needs 43:21 103:8

120:2,22 121:11

121:12 126:13

132:1 174:22

179:14 192:13

204:20 264:6

327:18 359:17

389:1

negative 242:7

246:10 369:18,21

384:21 388:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 438

390:17

negatively 30:19

107:22

negatives 372:20

negotiate 116:5

213:17 219:6

244:10 250:15

280:13 286:7

292:3 299:15

314:19 315:8

317:5 348:22

349:12 361:18

403:17 405:7,11

negotiated 48:7

113:10 147:21

218:8 274:21

276:8 313:6 315:5

392:9,16

negotiating 66:7

168:14 216:13

291:19 306:3

332:16 333:1

341:21 346:7

348:6,20 378:15

389:12 402:16

negotiation 116:1

288:22

negotiations

114:12 134:1

184:21 185:5

186:7 217:19

290:15 306:5

307:14 308:21

314:22 315:3

316:7 346:1 361:1

362:3 363:7 366:8

382:8

negotiator 277:5

Neil 1:14,18 39:18

200:13 205:14

206:18 216:8,17

225:22 235:1,15

243:19 245:12

287:15 310:20

312:10 317:22

328:3,7 390:15

391:2 396:5

Neil's 218:12

309:18 403:20

neither 187:19

NEMA 26:8

nervous 13:17

nervously 13:16

neutral 116:3

244:9 363:15

never 31:18,20,21

86:11 89:21 94:12

156:12 267:20,22

276:17 281:10

297:18 341:19

383:8

new 133:4 166:12

167:12 196:11

202:3,5,7 282:16

282:20 309:21

312:21,22 313:4

319:2 367:1

401:18

Niagara 152:15

nine-million

178:20

NIST 22:17 24:6

57:15

nodding 218:20

nominations 71:10

110:10

non 33:19 36:3

302:10 359:5

non-compliant

10:8 16:5,9,18

30:7 34:5,19 56:7

83:2,6,11

non-conforming

253:2

non-determinate

35:1

non-legally 334:22

non-manufacturer

270:3

non-unanimous

131:18

non-verified

277:16,18 279:3

279:16 300:18

301:3,14 304:14

normalize 52:3

note 124:4 254:20

348:10

noted 271:15

348:13 364:15

368:15,22 370:11

notes 346:3 357:6

notice 223:1 313:6

392:11,17

notices 238:16

notifications

191:19

notified 148:6

notify 274:15

notwithstanding

349:1,14

no's 218:20

NRAC 50:20

nuance 58:4

nuances 200:14

number 22:8,11

31:11 47:18 64:19

75:7 93:12 113:12

128:1 134:15

139:4 140:5 145:3

167:18 191:17

192:10 206:13

213:18 225:17

233:21,21 271:8

289:4 307:20

410:5

numbers 7:20

10:14 11:10,12

17:18 25:3 99:13

128:9,16 162:17

224:12 225:4

234:17 261:18

401:18

numerous 290:7

nuts 105:2

O

object 50:18 54:9

63:18 83:15 87:15

156:20 373:4

395:1

objections 197:8

247:6 379:13

400:2,4

objective 191:2

objectives 335:19

335:22,22

objects 88:10

obliged 248:11

observation 366:9

obvious 179:18

370:7 376:10

obviously 15:5 24:2

25:9 82:19 94:22

110:16 157:15

166:11 190:17

192:10 222:4

occurred 248:6

404:11

October 98:11

176:19 283:13,17

283:19 324:2

400:8,14,15,18

401:2

offered 31:17

offline 47:13 77:19

Oh 51:9 54:17

76:12 250:3 281:3

301:4 350:4

377:16

okay 5:6,16,18 6:14

7:5 9:20 23:1

27:19 31:9 38:17

39:7 40:6,22 41:6

42:6 47:4 48:10

49:1 50:12,21

51:17,20 52:6

54:6 56:1,8,12

59:1,16 63:6

67:17 68:2,10

70:19 76:3 78:19

83:8,12,17 85:19

86:12 88:9,18

89:5,21 90:1,21

95:8 102:12

106:22 111:13

112:4 124:4,6,9

124:16 128:6

130:6,17,20 131:3

131:4 145:13

146:22 147:8

148:17 150:18

152:22 153:21

154:13 155:5

156:20 168:10

176:11 178:9,16

178:21 179:3

180:8,14,19

181:15,16 184:9

185:21 187:5

188:3,12 198:9

199:14 203:2

210:17 221:20

222:21 223:10,14

227:3 228:14

233:1 234:18

249:17,19 256:8

256:10,19 257:10

263:19,21 268:12

271:21 274:16

275:2,10 277:13

278:16 283:18

284:2,4,4,6,19

285:22 287:9

293:12 295:14

296:11,14 298:16

300:10,20 301:1

305:19 310:5

311:9 312:3

317:20 318:1,3,6

319:18 324:21

325:2 338:7

339:17 343:5

344:1,14 345:10

346:22 350:3,4,19

351:14,17 353:19

353:19,21,21

356:21 357:2,3,4

358:2,6,10 362:14

364:11,13,16

365:16 369:19

377:11 378:14

383:8 385:17

389:8 391:1 392:5

392:13 393:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 439

397:22 399:15,22

400:5 402:12

407:19 408:8,10

409:1,4 410:16,17

412:1,11 413:5

old 7:13 30:2

282:17

older 23:7,13

onboard 210:19

once 74:11 103:9

109:21 244:20

270:14 279:7

364:22

ones 29:2,3 116:15

117:8,19 184:2,8

224:11 225:20,21

233:16 255:11

297:3 356:13

387:17 394:3

403:9

one-line 54:3

one-off 231:20

one-offs 175:22

176:4 231:16

one-pager 254:20

one-sided 21:2,11

ongoing 77:2 92:18

onus 17:5

open 21:22 25:21

28:22 44:4 56:13

60:6 63:10 68:6

71:9 73:19 110:18

112:12 169:6

238:18 239:13

255:3 307:13

Opening 3:14

openness 28:21

opens 264:9

operated 226:17

operative 328:11

opinion 15:18 18:5

33:8 106:14 158:9

173:21 186:1

194:9 207:19

221:2 311:13,15

314:17 324:19

325:6 334:3,3,11

334:22 398:4

406:16,16

opinions 110:20

189:21 192:4

238:22 242:17

255:10

opportunity 8:17

103:6 122:20

131:13 168:1

244:16 262:7

oppose 64:3

opposed 43:14

51:13 128:14

265:2 274:22

309:13 335:6

389:13 394:15

opposition 333:11

option 44:8,11

111:14 223:5

230:22

optional 259:17

options 44:6

268:11 269:3

326:6,15 327:5

oranges 163:22

order 47:16 54:14

115:20 232:11

233:8 235:10

303:15

original 21:21

128:4 258:8 360:1

398:9

originally 369:22

other's 187:20

ought 21:19 104:20

182:20 183:10

185:2,12 186:9

232:9 234:21

291:20 378:19

404:1

outcome 80:8,11

126:13,18 173:4

249:12,15

outcomes 140:20

outlier 292:15

outline 171:20

185:2 246:18

262:16

output 352:9

outset 65:18

outside 129:7 131:9

132:5,8,22 171:13

241:4 313:9

375:17 378:7

379:15 382:12,13

390:5,7

overall 33:5 244:3

287:15

overarching

106:21 107:4

134:13 135:1

153:5

overlap 57:3

overlook 347:20

owner 281:3

o'clock 345:4

P

package 145:4,16

163:21 367:4

packaged 145:9

179:7

page 3:12 395:8,12

paid 59:3 90:15

94:4 202:13 210:1

296:6

painful 334:15

panel 57:14

paper 399:19

paragraph 54:3,15

55:14 67:3 71:1

71:21 91:9 96:13

96:18 212:22

298:22,22 352:22

353:1,12 360:4

372:21,22 373:2

376:13,17

paragraphs 341:6

343:17 344:10

351:15

parallel 166:3

parallels 252:9

parameters 114:16

115:9

paraphrasing

250:8

paren 48:21

parenthetical

170:20

parse 200:10

part 5:2 7:9,9,11,16

8:4 21:12 28:1

45:15 48:18 52:13

83:19 91:19 92:1

92:6 98:4 107:14

109:13 111:10

132:8 138:15

140:8,10,11

144:12,18 147:17

150:9 153:11

155:4 157:20

162:3 170:14

187:14 216:3

218:7 230:12

235:7 247:8 250:1

266:7 267:10

270:12 271:7,20

279:8,13,15

284:18 293:9

304:14 308:1

312:1 313:6

323:20 327:3

328:10,12 338:12

356:3 357:11,17

357:18 358:11

371:18 380:18,22

393:5,15 395:22

404:1

PARTICIPANT

5:15,18 68:13

72:2,15,18 73:3

89:1,17 108:4

131:1 133:13

135:22 197:11

202:15,18 205:21

207:21 242:4

246:7 260:16

271:2,5 275:1

280:6 281:10,14

281:20,22 282:4

282:19 287:9

294:16,17,22

307:7 312:21

322:2,11 323:11

359:9 373:11

participate 61:5

103:6 114:3 116:8

116:10 121:7

141:15 199:9,10

238:20 319:5,10

322:20 323:6,7

410:12

participating

161:12 210:8

217:18 219:11

271:12 319:16

322:18

participation 28:3

112:13 279:18,19

320:13,15 321:12

324:12 332:4

340:5,6

particular 260:19

268:9

particularly 27:8

27:11 37:15 384:8

parties 57:11

149:15 286:14

287:4 302:17

316:9,9,9 331:12

partly 384:5

parts 134:3,5

310:19 323:19

353:7 390:3

party 14:3 226:15

226:18 240:13

316:8

pass 35:15 36:16

383:8 399:14

passes 16:19

paste 344:7

path 292:13 306:7

306:8 333:19

334:6

paths 119:16

Paul 1:22 70:21

86:13 133:9 135:5

138:16 143:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 440

206:15 209:14

210:12,14 211:7

275:12 329:18

331:5,15 339:21

pay 32:12 94:13

95:6 111:19

158:12,22 159:2,3

159:8,18 160:5

195:21 202:22

203:4 213:1,2

214:20 240:15

371:9 372:17

384:13

paying 161:20

251:16 302:9

318:2,5 340:21

pays 93:21 209:10

321:7

PDF 23:9,9

penalize 21:6,15

54:4 55:9 56:5

penalized 21:6

36:12 64:21

penalizes 82:1

penalizing 81:12

penalties 158:17

penalty 64:6

people 4:17 5:9,11

5:14 18:1 30:17

31:21 57:1,15

58:12 61:4 97:16

107:13 110:21

114:1,2,3 116:9

117:4 121:8 125:1

126:17 128:6

129:3,4,7,11

131:9,12,20 132:5

132:8,12,15,22,22

134:6 147:13

149:18 152:3,4

158:2 163:14,20

168:20 169:14,16

169:22 173:10

174:13 181:1

184:6,12 188:10

188:17 189:21

190:2 197:6

198:21 201:6

204:18 206:14

207:6 208:10

210:19 213:18

215:1,5 216:11

222:15 223:20

224:10 233:8,9

234:5 242:15,19

242:19 243:7

244:11 246:2,14

247:4,5,8 250:14

251:12 258:8,19

268:10 269:13

274:14 275:4

285:6 287:7,10,12

288:20,20 292:17

298:5 301:3 305:6

306:2 313:17

314:6 315:6,11

316:11 319:22

322:4 332:2 333:1

336:21 337:6

341:3,18 342:20

347:11 350:22

360:12 370:17

374:14 381:3

383:19 385:1,7

386:14 387:8,16

390:9 397:16

403:4 411:1 412:7

people's 315:11

407:20

percent 19:2,21

26:21 31:20 35:9

98:8 125:22 142:9

145:10 159:15,22

162:20,21 163:6,7

163:8 166:1

232:19 386:1

perform 362:12

performance 27:16

33:7 36:15,21

37:4 41:13 56:5

period 22:11 98:12

110:22 135:11

140:2 168:16

343:12 348:6,8,13

360:19 403:19

permission 310:2

person 58:15

240:20 383:22

410:13

personal 124:13

221:2 334:21

personally 53:1,2

99:8 169:7 344:18

person's 368:20

perspective 28:17

108:13,21 117:15

136:12 137:3

149:1,6 152:9

153:13 272:12

333:6,15,16

PETE 2:4

phase 131:21 134:3

142:7,10,13,14,16

143:9 144:11

145:5,6

Phil 349:17

Phillip 2:7 49:9

52:1 65:5 70:7,10

80:13 106:6

116:13 122:19

150:6 171:10

179:16 189:14

208:2 253:8

265:15 312:10

347:4 369:3 378:5

387:1 388:17

391:3 393:1

Phillip's 247:19

phone 5:12,14

39:15 81:16

336:22 386:8

412:8

phrase 123:2

190:16 390:16

401:1

physically 47:10

156:2,16 157:13

pick 272:10

picked 116:2

386:15 390:10

391:18

piece 188:21

234:19 281:4

334:14 338:19

349:17

pieces 177:5 224:20

241:20 332:7

piece-mail 91:2

pioneer 152:14

place 6:18,19 7:4

22:14 135:20

140:4 144:15

270:7 295:21

315:7 322:10

384:6

plank 176:3

planning 270:12

plate 123:17

play 36:9,10 241:21

297:1,3

played 178:9

player 226:10,22

273:13 386:9

players 30:18

139:8 173:7 224:7

224:16 225:3,16

226:7,14 232:20

266:11 268:2

playing 126:2

156:22 157:1,3,5

162:5 215:19

229:8 246:20

252:5,10 384:9,9

please 72:2 201:19

218:20 228:22

264:17 369:5

plenty 241:6,9

408:22

plow 335:7

plus 98:11 161:11

220:14,18 260:5

point 7:7 19:8,14

21:21 22:22 23:10

23:21 25:4,13,22

29:4,19 37:6 53:3

61:11 62:11 71:18

103:18 108:10

120:10 125:14

128:4 133:18

135:5 137:10

153:2,17 154:1

164:16 167:18,19

172:13,17 174:10

177:18 179:11

181:7,7,8,12,13

182:12 183:13

187:2 190:5,14

191:11,13 192:5

192:16 196:15

197:1 204:11,20

205:14 207:11

208:16 216:13

220:13 221:21

223:3 235:15

242:15 245:6,10

247:2 248:7

250:10 255:17,22

266:18 270:10

274:4 293:20

295:16 306:11,22

309:19 310:6,8

326:12,14 327:8

335:17 337:16

347:1 353:13

354:6 356:8,17

357:14 358:9

362:10 372:2,6

375:22 383:14

387:7 389:3 390:8

391:9,13 393:3

398:7,14,21

406:18

pointed 4:18

243:21

pointing 317:14

points 63:3 186:12

187:3 189:15

237:4 254:11

395:7,12,12 396:3

396:22

policy 101:9 244:1

252:9 253:15

310:22 311:4,7,17

polish 262:19

poor 36:20,21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 441

popular 239:1

portion 356:4

400:7

portions 153:18

portray 302:8

portrayed 138:7

posed 206:1 207:4

position 19:10

102:14 135:18

137:11 148:3

229:4 245:3

287:20 288:3

309:22 315:18

325:15 347:13

383:9 389:10,11

389:22 391:6

positions 365:22

positive 336:8

338:22

possibility 121:16

223:12 317:16

possible 15:9 20:8

87:16 140:21

142:18 156:2

157:13 183:1

190:18 194:3

245:17 259:17

291:2 305:22

possibly 156:15

224:15 263:14

291:17 328:1

391:21

pot 188:6

potential 78:22

79:14 113:3,19

133:2 158:17

191:15 223:5

potentially 19:9

51:4,5 128:15

131:7 171:3

184:11,13 243:2

263:17 281:9

303:14 365:4

377:14 384:20

power 98:9

practice 142:12,17

310:1

precedence 310:4

preclude 294:10

predominantly

171:22

prefer 171:14

333:16 347:21

360:3

preference 334:21

334:22

prelude 296:5

premise 9:16 124:1

208:17 285:15

354:10

premised 219:7

prerogative 292:18

present 1:17 2:13

2:22 18:15 19:13

44:6 168:2 170:18

170:19 224:16

262:1,8,17,20

308:6 366:17

399:15 404:8

presentation

197:21

presented 214:12

251:7 254:1

296:17 306:13

366:3

presently 36:10

233:18 360:11

presiding 1:15

pressure 269:15

presumably 59:3,5

pretty 6:15 14:8,9

17:15 21:1 35:8,9

60:14 77:4 81:16

119:3 135:8

164:16 178:14

179:17 189:16

304:2 345:8

355:13 356:1

prevent 315:18

previous 20:22

105:4 135:7 191:4

198:10 261:9

312:12,14 366:5

403:11

previously 132:16

262:15 348:12

356:10

print 339:10

prior 235:9 341:19

priority 100:6

probably 5:8 20:4

25:17 47:12 61:13

74:2 85:5 106:3

108:13 109:14

111:16 121:9

125:14 148:7

162:7 190:1

192:12 197:1

214:7 224:11

271:15 273:21

296:21 335:12

342:19 358:12

368:5 369:20

384:5 396:22

408:7 409:6

412:17

problem 4:14

45:14 87:7 109:10

109:10 117:3

118:1,9 157:19

159:4 196:20

212:17 229:2

245:19 283:7

297:15 302:4

314:20 317:15

328:11 341:2,4,12

341:13 344:19,21

problematic

301:15

problems 115:12

118:12 119:13

145:20 151:6,16

187:14 190:4

232:17 254:15

298:5,6

procedure 11:1

15:2,8 20:2,7,8

273:12

procedures 11:2

18:2 24:15 78:7

79:8 119:18

196:11 356:13

proceed 21:17

174:17 186:5,6

189:3,12 207:10

222:19 260:20

288:6 305:11,21

306:3 309:4,5,15

313:12 317:5,20

325:11

proceeding 298:14

316:14 317:21

proceedings 32:20

process 6:16 28:1

38:1,9,13 39:1,5

44:19 57:2,3 78:7

82:1,3 95:12

99:21,22 100:1,2

103:2 105:9

106:22 107:11

109:17 110:10,12

115:20 121:20

126:12,18 134:22

137:22 140:11

155:14 168:9

191:5 219:11

223:19 238:4

256:15 334:12,13

339:1 380:8

392:15,17 394:9

processes 41:4

105:15 109:21

142:1 252:20

process-type 148:7

produce 65:13

69:11 283:12

373:9

produced 12:12

product 6:19,20

7:4 8:5 10:8

11:15,22 12:9

16:5,13,18 17:7

33:7,11,11,12

36:1 41:13 56:4

60:22 61:15,17,22

63:15 64:12 65:7

83:6 85:16 92:2

93:5,7,11 104:9

106:8 109:6,7

121:1 122:22

123:1,10,15 132:6

134:17 136:16,18

140:8 142:14

145:4 146:18

147:16 148:14

149:4 151:10

154:22 157:17

159:19 160:3

161:16 173:17

177:22 178:11

183:6 190:8,10

192:13 193:2,17

200:19 201:4

204:4 222:7

224:19 225:14

227:2 230:17

231:21 232:2,5

233:11,18 234:2

236:7 244:18

259:7 279:7 306:6

326:18 331:14

334:17 336:4

360:5,18 361:10

362:6 363:2,3,4

365:9 368:16

369:1 374:21

375:15 377:6,18

377:22 381:16,19

382:8 394:3,11

production 18:21

69:10,18 70:2,4,5

119:2 377:12

productive 335:14

335:18

products 10:17

12:8 15:7 24:19

25:7,10,11 26:10

26:16 27:12,16

29:13,16,20 30:7

33:20 34:1,4,18

37:16 49:14 60:2

60:3,9,19 61:9,10

62:4,12,13 63:14

77:2,4 81:6 85:3

91:3,5,12,16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 442

93:12 100:20

101:2,7,11,14,17

102:9,9,16 103:9

103:13 105:6,9,20

106:5,16,18,18,19

107:2 108:14

110:15 115:8

119:20 120:3,8,14

121:20 122:2

126:20 132:20,21

133:11 134:15

135:3,11,22 136:1

136:6,10,11,14,20

138:17,20 139:14

140:19 141:15

142:10,21,22

143:3,13,19

144:22 146:5,13

146:16,17 151:9

154:10,14 155:5

156:19 157:12

163:6,7 177:13

178:7 183:17,17

183:21 184:2,7,10

184:22 185:4

191:16,17 192:8

192:10 193:22

195:17 225:5

227:7 229:17

230:11,13,19,20

233:12,16 235:10

246:22 247:11

248:15 252:13

253:2 268:20

269:16,17 294:6

303:8,16 331:21

359:13 360:6,15

361:12 362:11,11

362:18 363:6

365:8 369:11

373:9 374:3 375:5

375:7 377:21

378:20 379:9,12

380:2,10 383:12

384:15 385:10

386:12,18,20

389:8,11 393:17

product-specific

192:12

program 57:13

64:5 78:9 92:13

100:16 101:16

102:15 107:16

108:12 109:5

111:9,13,17 113:2

120:9 121:2,8,10

125:16 128:20

131:14 132:2

133:2,12 134:2

135:20 136:9

137:16 138:22

140:7,9 141:16

143:9,18 147:4,6

147:15 149:19

161:13,22 162:11

163:16,16,17

164:5,22 165:2,3

166:2 168:7

169:19,21 171:19

175:2 182:6 184:3

184:9 187:11

188:1,15,16

190:18 191:15

197:5,14 199:5,20

200:3,7,8 202:13

203:3,22 204:1

205:13 206:12

209:1,8,12 210:21

213:13 214:2,14

214:21 215:18

216:10,11,21,22

217:3 221:8,16

222:6 224:9 225:3

226:12 228:5

229:13,18 231:17

235:21 236:21

240:1 257:7

261:17 262:3

264:10 266:2

270:6,13 271:13

271:19 274:5,8

275:22 279:8,10

280:5,11,14,18

282:22 283:3

284:22 286:14

288:15 292:10

293:10 294:15

297:8 299:5,6,7

299:11 300:13,21

300:22 301:11

302:7 306:10

311:11 318:3,11

319:6,10,14,17,19

320:1,5,6,16

321:13,14 322:1,9

322:19 324:12

326:2 327:3

328:14,19,21

331:14,20 332:5,9

332:17,19 340:4,7

348:1 360:8

361:10,15 368:16

375:4 384:14

386:8 388:20

400:21 401:7

programs 90:14

97:10 100:14

102:21 107:17,18

107:21 119:21,22

140:16 161:18

162:19 163:11,14

163:15 166:3

176:1 187:15

190:7 193:16

199:18 209:17

235:18 247:10

258:16,18 259:1

264:3 271:10

279:20 280:19

282:16 310:22

311:5 348:4

362:13 368:9,10

368:18 370:12,20

375:15 378:16

progress 90:7

97:15 175:16

181:19 182:22

187:7 189:18

297:12 304:5

348:7 349:1,13

358:16 398:11

399:6,7 403:18

project 46:18 93:6

projects 399:13

pronoun 80:14

proof 52:16

properly 292:22

331:7

proposal 80:9 98:4

123:11 267:6

355:4,19,22

proposals 192:20

345:17 355:20

propose 226:1

265:8

proposed 158:10

313:7 388:8

400:11

pros 183:3

protect 31:12

prototypes 377:12

prove 241:21

proven 157:15

provide 50:8,22

51:11 57:10 63:9

93:20 178:5

189:20 190:1

192:3,21 195:15

251:4

provided 13:11

73:21 87:16

143:16 196:1

273:9 306:7

354:17

providing 51:14

252:12,13

provision 12:7

295:18 346:7

provisions 91:2,12

psycho-ceramic

152:4

public 28:2 40:14

43:6,14,22 44:3

44:16 51:11 57:20

61:8 71:9 75:2

96:19 110:6,9,19

244:1

publication 98:1

publish 225:17

published 26:17

128:17 264:14,21

301:20 383:11

pull 24:21

pulled 18:20 44:13

385:4

pumps 85:6,13

purchase 32:8

purport 389:9

purpose 321:3

purposes 91:18,22

93:6

pursing 167:10

pursue 221:16

311:7

pursuing 167:9

222:1

purview 52:2

312:16

push 65:19 66:4

pushed 65:18 342:5

342:10,12

pushing 361:22

push-back 99:19

put 4:9,21 6:18,19

17:5 18:21 19:6

36:2 39:9 40:7

57:18 62:18 67:10

68:15 80:3 115:5

115:6 124:20

129:14 137:4,18

138:12 174:15

175:10,17 177:3,6

180:12,20,22

187:1,2 189:19

191:1 207:15

208:4 210:10

222:22 233:14

238:15 249:11

250:18 256:9

270:7,20 273:2

276:6 285:1

287:19 288:20

297:5 298:10,13

303:21 305:1,13

306:22 311:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 443

328:1 339:9

343:21 344:5,12

356:22 357:15

368:19 369:22

385:21 396:22

397:7,10 404:2

407:15

puts 300:7

putting 21:18

33:12 198:3

224:12 225:13

286:6 341:14

384:18,18 392:4

394:16 397:5

406:3

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

4:1

p.m 180:15,18

261:1,2 339:19,20

357:12 409:8

414:10

Q

quality 36:20

229:14 233:15

question 17:11

18:10 20:21 21:21

28:5 38:15 42:15

50:20 56:20 59:14

67:2,15 68:18

69:8 101:9 111:18

113:16 115:4

128:19 129:5

131:15,22 132:1

133:7,17 134:10

135:15,17 150:14

166:22 198:22

199:8 201:1 205:3

205:22 206:18,21

207:4,6 211:9

212:4 213:3,6,7

214:9,12,17,19

218:12,13 221:13

224:3 226:5 227:4

229:19 232:16

235:2 236:20

237:13 238:10

239:18 241:2,14

244:21 246:17

247:22 248:18,21

249:1,2,11 250:21

251:12 253:9

256:5 259:4,15,18

260:17,18 270:21

285:16 286:20

287:2,12 288:21

288:22 289:3,10

289:14,20 290:18

291:2 292:21

293:20,21 294:9,9

295:8 296:1

297:20 305:5,20

306:4 309:13

310:16 312:11

314:9,22 315:14

316:3 318:9 321:3

321:7 329:21

330:3,5,5,6,8,11

330:22 332:11,22

337:8 345:14,20

346:8 347:2 349:2

349:14 358:8

366:1 384:17

395:4 396:4,5

398:12 400:6

405:2

questioned 298:3

342:4

questioning 321:6

questions 13:5 22:1

37:5 42:13 97:13

99:7 112:21

162:14 191:14

192:2,22 251:6

258:6 263:19

271:9 289:7 290:4

290:5,7 291:5

298:19 314:13

316:2 337:14

366:2 399:16

quick 229:2 231:22

395:3

quickly 155:13,18

361:3

quiet 108:3 353:10

quite 28:9 54:19

64:16 152:12

233:14,16 235:21

261:9 268:1

290:20 385:3

quoted 162:20,21

R

radar 139:9 256:16

radios 369:7

373:10 382:15

raise 84:21 85:1

174:16 197:13

238:20 289:9

304:20 389:6

raised 4:5 28:5

211:8 250:13

251:6 285:10

290:4 295:15

349:15 396:6

raises 67:2

raising 84:15 98:22

291:6 337:13

Ralph 1:25 26:5

63:11 102:13

104:21 106:12

Ralph's 108:10

ramifications

211:14

range 36:15 59:5

142:8 145:10

148:14 300:2

rant 150:21 151:1

253:7

rate 10:2 16:22

36:1 65:18

rated 64:14 142:2

144:21

rating 10:1 16:22

46:3,4 65:16 66:4

66:19 69:5,10,12

69:14,19 70:12,14

236:17

ratings 66:3 125:19

264:13,14,19,20

267:14 269:1,4

277:16 321:1

327:11,14

rationale 153:4

reach 86:10 142:18

169:1 171:17

172:9 174:2

175:14 176:22

177:7 182:1,3

244:4

reached 172:12,16

173:17 271:10

412:12

reaching 244:19

react 146:6,20

Reactions 372:13

read 23:22 51:6

83:22 84:10

203:17 264:16

276:6 296:4 325:3

341:5 343:7

355:12 362:15,17

367:8 396:14,15

397:14

reading 219:3

343:11 350:4

readjustment 42:4

reads 51:10

ready 28:9 152:5

197:6 262:17

270:5 271:22

284:8 326:8,9,13

real 94:17 193:12

229:1 234:17

272:19 302:2

346:8

realistic 31:1 119:5

reality 34:10,20

53:10 86:16 126:3

344:15

realize 144:11

392:22

realized 300:10

realizing 134:14

really 5:10 7:19

10:21 14:12,19,22

16:4 18:5 34:2

37:12 38:1 44:20

45:17 47:7 54:20

57:1,3 62:5 78:3

86:1 95:20 100:20

105:22 107:5

112:16,18 113:15

115:17 131:13,14

137:11 138:12

152:4 163:21

179:5,13 233:20

248:20 249:19

255:12 258:18

293:16 311:4

314:11 329:18

333:1,2 334:3

349:18 357:9

360:9 361:21

363:10 366:3

367:19,20,21,22

370:9 372:14

377:3 380:7 384:2

393:15,15 394:18

403:22 404:14

reason 16:2 17:4

33:9 38:11 50:17

52:14 60:11 61:20

67:10 97:11,12

148:9 153:9,11

231:11 251:10

372:18 384:4

reasonable 93:12

93:15 95:10,19,22

96:3,5 115:8

123:16 226:15

243:4 278:5

291:11,13

reasonably 123:5

reasons 15:20

19:12 114:9

131:11 136:10

193:21 249:20

recall 128:11

190:15

receive 313:7

404:10

received 112:20

recognition 303:1

recognize 111:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 444

126:19 283:6

378:17

recognized 96:20

174:22

recognizing 110:15

112:9

recollection 197:19

recommend 43:13

71:16 74:5 110:12

112:11,15,17

310:19 361:17

372:21 373:1

379:1,2,10 381:17

385:22 399:1

recommendation

57:12 62:19 83:15

175:11 177:7

182:15,17 201:9

206:9 211:3 214:2

223:7 245:13

248:1 249:18

250:2 251:5,9,11

253:10 259:22

290:17 308:7,17

309:2,6 311:8,20

312:2 315:19

316:13,16 317:4

330:21 359:6

387:4 388:16,19

389:22 391:12

394:10 397:4

recommendations

44:17,22 59:11

61:13 71:11

155:19 176:18

183:16 244:5

262:21 366:19

367:3 390:3

399:20

recommended

133:7 232:15

244:21

recommending

48:2 366:22 367:1

367:2 387:17

388:1

recommends 32:17

55:16 71:2

reconcile 192:16

reconnect 412:8

reconsider 338:2

reconvening

105:21

record 42:10

180:17 218:16

242:7 260:22

270:20 272:7

339:19

recorded 218:20

red 404:2

redo 397:19

reduce 163:19

reduced 98:3

233:13

reducing 140:20

151:15 233:14

384:21

reduction 98:8

refer 88:16 252:16

reference 91:11

references 88:6

91:5,15 345:16

402:16 403:13

referred 89:12 91:9

referring 25:6

96:11 338:19

refers 252:11

reflect 151:17

397:2

reflects 181:1

refrigeration 1:6

1:20 101:5 163:5

179:6 236:2

238:19 395:14

refrigerator 18:19

85:7 160:5

refrigerators 120:7

141:13 158:4

159:3 364:19

regard 406:10,11

regarding 13:6

50:9 51:1 203:18

275:16 349:15

363:18 404:12

regardless 136:18

206:7 360:13

405:15

regards 181:4

regime 37:14

142:20,22

regional 333:7

334:13

Register 154:16

regs 30:1 31:3 70:1

regular 22:2

247:15 262:2

regulate 157:11,13

regulated 25:8

29:20 57:16

147:16 384:11,12

384:12

regulation 69:21

155:7 249:9 310:6

310:7,10 346:2

369:8 389:4

regulations 40:17

67:20 69:9 74:9

74:18 94:21 95:1

95:5,6 154:8,9

156:6 250:8 264:8

272:1 273:18

293:3,5 294:1,12

296:17 312:18

351:8 377:8 378:2

383:10

regulatory 38:6

100:21 116:1

120:5 134:3

158:14 202:5

220:4 245:20

313:9

rehash 73:10

reinvent 166:19

reiterate 34:16

reiterates 398:20

related 20:22 82:7

271:9 290:1 408:4

relates 84:12

relationship 9:2

relay 62:20 254:17

release 65:6 70:11

reliability 198:19

rely 196:13

relying 169:16

remaining 86:5

remains 181:10

Remarks 3:14

remember 125:13

190:16 231:9

276:17 349:18

389:2

remembering

403:21

remind 40:2

rep 254:17

repeat 91:13

report 4:7 26:17

29:10 32:16 39:11

44:17 55:15 57:21

61:4 63:19 75:1,3

83:19 84:3,8

97:18 129:14,17

130:18 131:1

143:14 175:10

226:9 227:14,15

251:4,5,14 254:1

254:9,11 286:19

287:1,1 306:19

308:17 345:15,15

345:16,21 353:22

354:3,15 373:18

373:22 376:9

393:12 395:8,13

396:1,2,6,14

397:19 398:9,14

399:4 401:18,19

reported 284:13

307:11

reporting 259:12

259:12 261:21

308:18

reports 90:5

130:14,15 162:1

227:16 285:11

report-out 323:2

represent 184:7

333:12 347:12

representation

186:14 382:18,19

representations

136:15,17

representative 70:2

70:5 149:15

377:13

represented 10:4

112:22 113:4

120:6 134:12

135:1 153:19

304:18

representing 58:10

183:6

represents 63:1

154:2

reps 142:9

request 101:20

124:2 193:6 293:7

requested 27:5

90:11 93:5 124:10

require 45:4,5 92:1

99:16 126:13

201:18 202:22

203:19 210:21

214:13 293:11

308:3,22 310:11

318:21 319:2,22

320:2,12,22

321:12 340:4,6

388:20,20

required 45:1 75:8

93:20 117:1 163:3

194:11 264:2

267:15 275:20

281:17 309:22

319:19 321:16,19

321:20 322:1,21

340:14,17 370:19

372:3

requirement 191:8

198:18 210:7

216:2 222:18

377:6

requirements 6:18

92:5 126:20

146:12 188:18,19

189:10 191:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 445

195:8,11 198:1

280:14 348:11

351:13 353:14

383:12 387:9

413:14

requires 152:13

158:6 163:2

299:11

requiring 92:7,15

151:8 201:4

rescind 89:22

Research 46:7

researched 90:16

reservation 154:20

reserve 243:17

reset 239:11

reside 192:13

residential 6:20 8:5

11:16 12:4 25:11

60:20 89:4 105:20

112:8 132:21

133:13,14,15

135:2 139:2,13

140:1 142:3,6,9

142:21 143:10,19

144:3,15,21

146:18 178:19

247:12 334:14

360:15 365:9

369:11

resolution 266:1

309:1 314:20

315:19 328:9

resolve 25:16 40:15

118:11 185:4,13

241:3,8 393:19

407:21

resolved 27:22

104:18,19 204:20

308:6

resources 98:15

100:3 332:13,14

respect 4:7 92:3

232:6 256:20

257:2 297:2 348:8

361:11 403:18

respond 38:16 86:9

responded 4:11,13

86:8,12

response 100:9

266:9 268:4 338:3

338:7

responsibility

21:19 72:7

responsible 44:21

rest 239:7 246:2

268:17 324:20

371:16 390:1

396:2

restate 391:3

restaurant 260:11

result 10:13 30:13

34:9

results 31:22 82:9

267:3

resume 357:12

409:21

resumed 42:11

180:18 261:1

339:20

reticent 164:16

revamping 20:11

reverse 10:5

review 6:13 28:3

29:14 32:18 40:20

57:9,9 232:14

243:7 267:8

286:15 386:11

reviewed 99:13

190:3 353:14

revise 65:16,22

372:22

revising 73:19

revisit 7:15 8:18

9:10 27:10 40:14

132:1 350:9

revisiting 42:16

348:10

reward 37:2 41:13

55:8 56:4 64:8

rewarding 36:19

81:12

rewind 251:18

reword 339:12,14

rewrite 329:15

331:9

re-nomination

223:19

re-rate 66:8

re-rated 143:14,15

RFI 258:8

Rheem 2:3 88:15

100:11 119:18

201:22

rid 282:17 358:14

358:15,19

riding 79:1

right 4:3 8:7,10

11:11 19:17 25:13

25:18,19 28:18

31:3,5,13 32:6,8

34:3 36:22 39:7

39:10 42:12 45:12

48:15 50:15 51:22

52:9 53:13 56:11

56:16 58:22 59:12

59:12 61:17,18

63:17 64:6 65:3

65:12 67:5,14

68:2,4,8,17 70:2,6

71:8 78:8,11

80:20 83:17 86:19

87:12,13 88:8,11

89:5,6,9 90:3

92:22 93:22 95:1

95:3 97:15,21

102:11 106:5

107:9 108:5

115:15 119:16

122:8 127:9,10

128:3 130:11

133:17 138:8

140:22 144:20

145:6,11,12 146:7

150:2 154:1 162:6

163:9,22 164:7

165:1 166:9

170:16 171:1

175:13 178:13

182:16 190:21

191:9 194:12,19

196:18 197:4,10

197:12 198:14,14

201:10 202:11

203:9 204:9 205:9

207:9,14 208:12

210:2 211:5

214:15 219:3,12

225:15 226:20

230:13 231:19

240:19 243:17

244:1 250:8,20

254:4,19 256:3,21

256:22 257:8

258:7,10 260:4

261:3 265:7 267:5

269:20 274:3

276:1,9,14,21,22

277:3,4 278:10

279:22 280:21

281:15,20 282:4

284:9 285:18

286:22 293:7,22

294:3,5,6 296:10

299:8,10 308:15

311:18 312:7

313:13,16 316:1

316:17 322:3

323:9 324:3,16

325:4,5 331:17

332:20 333:8

336:6,22 337:4

339:15 340:9

343:4,15,21

345:15 347:5,13

347:16 351:10

354:9,16,19,22

356:16,21 358:10

360:2,9 362:21

363:8,11 364:14

365:14 366:15

367:5 372:5

373:19 374:16

377:9,13 382:1

383:2 389:15

392:10,19 399:22

401:12 402:6

404:19 410:21

411:14 412:19

413:1 414:7

ring 81:16

ripped 336:3

risk 15:17 30:13

170:1 309:16

road 249:6

roadmap 38:19

39:1,1

road-blocks 297:13

robin 45:21

robins 24:18,19

role 289:18 317:1

roll 126:8,9 370:5

372:8

rolled 372:7

rolling 151:14

Ron 2:5 39:14,16

39:20 169:8

175:16 226:3

227:3

roof-tops 179:7

room 1:13 77:4

113:22 117:17

119:6,7,11,15

120:6,19 122:7

123:9 129:3,8,9

131:10 132:6,8,22

133:1 141:22

168:21 169:17,22

204:22 208:21

213:18 215:1

220:16 224:6,10

224:14,19 225:19

229:10 242:12,15

244:6 250:15

260:6,13 272:18

287:14 291:16

292:20 294:14

334:9 337:6 382:6

383:19 385:3

412:21

roughly 176:19

round 24:18,18

43:17,19 45:21

rug 385:4

rule 155:13 162:11
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 446

205:8 219:10

264:12 273:2

287:16 301:20

308:2 310:19

313:16 315:7

317:5 322:15,18

322:21 333:4

340:10,13 388:8

389:17,18 390:9

391:14 400:11

rulemaking 1:3

7:10 8:14 48:7,7

55:19 61:12 67:18

67:19,21 76:9,16

77:1,9,15 80:6,8

80:11,22 95:12

97:22 98:5,11

99:2 113:10 130:8

130:19 131:8

184:21 238:4

257:2,12 264:10

274:20,21 276:8

277:5 290:2 313:7

314:16,18 315:5

389:6,7 392:9,16

rulemakings 81:5

157:17 189:6

rulemaking's

312:13,15

rules 4:20 28:7

68:9 101:11 135:6

155:10 156:3,4

165:4 200:4

215:20,21 216:6

219:2 246:6 251:8

327:21 406:21

run 16:20 224:21

235:13 267:2

271:18 309:16

333:9,18

running 14:16,20

45:6 107:19,20

209:18 224:7

261:17 267:1

336:22 410:13

Rusty 2:8 8:21

34:14 37:20 42:14

53:2 54:1 77:20

125:13 126:18

180:1 215:9

344:21

S

s 82:19

Sachs 2:4 20:13,15

20:18,21 23:16

26:19 27:18 37:9

38:14,18 39:3,20

40:4 41:4,20 44:9

46:5 47:11 48:8

48:20 49:2 52:10

52:21 58:2,18,22

59:2,10,17 62:1

62:10 63:4 66:22

70:9 71:19 85:1

86:6,10,22 96:7

99:20 126:6 127:2

127:11,16,22

141:20 143:20

145:8,13 150:22

151:3 152:2 153:2

154:17 155:11,20

180:9 200:13,21

201:12 225:22

228:2,14,21 230:4

231:13 232:3,6

233:1,6 234:18

243:19 244:13

251:17,22 252:8

295:9,15 296:20

297:2 304:1,2,19

351:19 352:8,14

352:19 353:5,9,18

360:3 361:3,19

362:14,21 363:12

366:18 367:5

392:20 393:14

394:21 403:20

411:11 414:5

safety 21:8 129:1

sale 253:1,2

sample 16:14,20

18:9 22:10 31:4

31:22 32:3,4 70:4

82:8

samples 30:21

47:19 75:7 377:13

sampling 126:20

satisfy 37:10 240:2

320:1

saving 160:13,13

saw 57:7 115:11

186:3 329:22

355:12 402:21

saying 14:11 17:7

19:22 38:22 40:13

52:19 58:1 72:7

76:15 102:4,5

104:12 115:16

117:10 129:4

132:5 139:19

145:2,14 165:19

167:21 169:13

170:2,10 175:11

184:9,17 187:18

194:5 196:6 200:7

203:9 208:4 212:8

221:15 229:11

233:3 234:10,12

235:1 240:20,21

257:18 258:15

274:19 279:17

281:18 285:2

290:6,16 291:6,13

292:4 293:14

297:15 302:16

307:18,20 317:18

318:10 319:17

320:2,5 331:5,6

337:1,7 352:18

353:13 356:2

361:16 362:2

367:18 368:13

371:1,6,13 373:10

378:5,18,22 379:7

380:16,21 381:1

382:22 383:4

388:3,12,22

389:19 391:5,17

392:6,14 395:10

396:12 398:7

401:6 402:4

405:13

says 13:15 15:12

51:7 54:3 61:6

63:21 67:6,16

68:12 70:3 96:14

125:10 127:16

131:2 141:14

154:13 172:9

181:18 191:2

195:13,22 196:10

196:13 197:22

211:17 219:10

240:6 255:15,20

260:1 283:9

287:12,16 308:2,4

312:8 313:21

314:1 323:11

328:17 339:6

346:2 370:11

377:16 379:5

388:17,19 393:7

400:7

scaling 355:13,22

356:9

scenario 224:16

schedule 408:1

409:10,12,16

411:9,15

scheme 257:4

science 7:19

scope 59:19 67:13

73:8 119:15 136:7

150:1,2 198:7

220:5 224:13

231:22 274:6

361:5 362:5 365:4

375:17 378:8,17

379:15 382:13

390:6,8,13 393:9

397:1

scratch 150:11

188:11

screen 18:19,20

19:7,9 39:9 40:7

50:14 63:17 74:5

80:4 83:16 180:20

187:3 191:1

210:11,15 277:22

285:1 292:22

308:15 329:21

331:4 343:21

344:5 353:20

screens 21:1

scroll 329:19 358:7

scrubbed 24:12

scrutiny 136:21

second 8:4 37:15

42:3 44:14 70:22

117:19 151:8

190:5 210:14

230:16 348:2

352:22 353:12

366:7 399:20

400:22

secondary 273:10

seconding 148:12

Secondly 142:7

seconds 108:3

Secretary 92:1,4,16

93:2,5,13 94:2,5

96:18 125:10

195:14 293:6

294:3 296:10

section 91:13,17

92:8 195:12

214:10 220:5

231:6 296:11

338:4 402:15

sections 26:22 91:3

109:7 123:10

147:3 245:13,15

296:8,16

sector 104:3,4

234:14

sectors 126:14

231:9

see 7:18 13:15,19

14:4 17:13 18:7

18:13 20:16 26:4

27:14 29:18 32:15

39:11 41:7 49:4

52:12 73:12 74:4

74:5 79:7,8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 447

102:14 107:16,21

109:2 110:3,4

112:19 118:20

119:14 131:11

137:13 144:1

146:3 149:19

152:12 156:2,14

156:17 169:21

187:4 190:11

191:14 192:6,19

193:8,11 194:6

201:10 224:14

225:5 232:8

234:17 239:5

240:4 243:15,16

246:11,11 249:10

249:13 260:7

267:22 270:6

299:5 314:4

319:11 325:9

327:10 336:2

347:10 350:6

351:1 372:18

373:12 387:3

393:19 404:16,18

404:20 411:16

seeing 24:11 26:15

31:22 46:2 179:12

234:15 391:17

seek 296:10

seen 17:20 18:3

80:9 84:8 181:11

254:11 255:8

sees 136:8 358:15

segment 158:21

190:8,10 208:4

225:4 228:8,18

232:1 234:19

238:11 388:5

segmentation

244:18

segments 117:9

118:7 252:21

272:17 274:8

select 24:19

selection 38:10

108:16 165:6

selections 191:18

self 282:8 318:2

self-contained

163:4

sell 69:11

sells 266:22

send 149:11 267:5

267:6 284:8,20

354:12 412:10

sends 238:16

sense 21:1 47:14

58:5 60:4 62:3

126:15 132:14

133:1 141:21

184:11 205:19

230:5 242:11

243:12,13 244:2

254:5 376:14

380:15 384:8,10

384:10 412:16

sensitivity 126:13

sent 85:20 356:17

373:18

sentence 50:7 53:5

54:18 63:21 70:22

81:10 96:14 151:8

151:20 153:9,10

181:18 204:10

264:17 266:5

268:1,7,14,14,15

270:2 274:18

276:5,12,13 297:6

302:16 329:10

343:11 349:5,21

350:12 359:21

362:2 366:7

370:11

sentences 32:16

373:16,21

separate 11:7

42:22 48:3 58:21

61:8,12 71:2,20

74:6,7 76:21 77:5

100:2 104:16

105:19 109:21

110:4,8,13 112:4

130:5,8,12,14,15

130:19 134:12,18

149:13 153:4

154:2 179:13,15

179:18 180:13

224:1 248:2,15

249:20 277:17,20

278:2 296:19

300:12 393:12

398:22

separately 88:17

129:16 131:21

179:14

separates 300:15

separating 179:19

separation 277:20

385:11

SEPTEMBER

1:10

sequential 37:12

serious 196:7 213:3

306:4

services 252:13

session 222:14

269:12 338:10

339:7,14 355:6

sessions 105:8

134:19 263:16

set 28:3 29:19

33:12 34:2 79:11

82:20 105:10

111:16,22 112:4

113:18 115:8,18

115:22 118:20

122:14 123:15

124:8 131:8

146:12 157:22

158:19 159:6

163:14 165:4

167:21 171:5

186:10 188:21,21

193:7,10 236:21

240:1 244:4 246:5

247:7 289:15

293:4 294:1 322:8

326:1,2 361:15

367:1 378:19

383:6 409:16

sets 11:18 12:3 16:3

76:9

setting 112:7

122:10 126:12

160:17

settle 143:1 165:21

set-top 62:6 106:17

380:5

seven 121:2

severe 99:14,15

shake 127:19

share 12:22 18:15

19:3,4 22:19

43:20 44:5 104:7

348:1,4

shared 24:9,10

167:17

shares 47:2

sharing 13:13

53:19 349:18

Shebik 2:5 39:14

39:15,17,22

175:17 200:20

201:19 226:3,3

227:3 410:4

411:20 412:4,11

sheet 396:18

397:13

sheets 399:18

shift 64:18 145:4

shipment 142:8

shipments 231:22

shoe 389:14

shoes 234:12

short 124:4 251:15

367:22

shot 275:8

shout 39:21 40:3

66:22 67:1 70:9

shouting 40:4

show 125:11 191:1

313:1 356:20

shower 147:18

373:11 380:13

showing 394:6

shown 34:11

355:22

shows 73:21 302:20

302:21

shuffle 173:6

shuffling 173:3

shut 410:15

side 17:14 28:13

34:21 60:20 85:8

103:20,21 211:20

211:21 212:2

235:16,17 238:15

241:17 260:11,13

301:2 318:1

334:14 391:14

sidebar 77:21

sides 241:16 334:11

sign 301:10

significant 8:19

29:14 30:13 33:9

123:14 144:12

181:18 196:22

206:13 250:5

271:18 273:16

303:10 304:17

314:12

significantly 365:4

similar 23:17 27:3

105:4 108:22

121:19 160:2

179:22 183:22

193:16,19 233:18

252:13 386:6

similarly 101:18

simple 398:17

simpler 386:11

simplification

21:18

simply 226:2

299:16 315:17

317:14 360:19

378:18 383:4

386:19 388:22

Simultaneous

23:15 32:11 165:8

350:2 364:8

388:15 390:20

400:3 411:7,22

412:3 414:2,4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 448

simultaneously

78:11

single 22:7 38:10

61:21 118:20

142:10,14,16

145:4,6,16 156:16

218:7 333:13

360:7 376:4

sit 28:21 46:7 47:10

49:20 134:8

164:21 287:19

sitting 47:20

225:19 261:14

334:9

situation 105:4

211:18 368:18

six 70:13 342:7

411:13

six-foot 18:20

size 18:9 31:22 32:3

32:4 82:8 114:1

164:5 393:20

sizes 31:4 116:21

skeptical 136:20

slap 86:2

slate 248:8

sleep 355:7

slice 395:18

slide 174:12 191:4

191:4 350:18

slides 191:12

slightly 37:11

94:11

slogged 164:15

slowly 351:1

small 11:16 12:5

117:5 123:4 150:7

150:19 356:4

smaller 31:4 110:8

116:16 144:14

394:3,5,7,14

small-volume

119:8

sold 85:12 144:19

236:17

solid 98:18 186:19

186:22 187:7

358:16 380:6

386:3

solution 301:16

solved 111:10,20

248:18 249:1,2

334:10

somebody 22:14

45:5 52:19 233:17

237:16,22 246:12

266:21,21,22

291:22 329:17

333:19 334:8

somewhat 55:12

122:14

soon 29:7,8 49:18

sophisticated 212:5

282:7

sorry 33:16 39:20

54:17 73:10 81:15

87:19 99:20

106:14 127:16

147:10 152:4

155:7 165:9

172:14 200:21

253:19 264:5

290:14 313:3

317:2 331:3

347:17 349:4

350:4 363:12

383:15 396:5

406:20 412:4

sort 27:1 59:4 91:2

121:22 142:22

148:12 165:17

181:8 185:14

186:17 189:8

194:9 198:17

200:15 224:8

249:8 283:4 341:6

344:17 403:11

sorted 321:8

sorts 85:3 151:16

sounding 148:12

sounds 133:3 335:4

353:3

source 85:6 86:21

343:2

sources 15:6 87:3

96:19

so-and-so 313:8

so-called 159:15

space 140:2,16

377:10

spans 21:2

speak 5:7,10 13:14

169:9 172:6

201:20 215:10

227:22 333:13

390:11

speaking 23:15

32:11 165:8 183:8

321:11 350:2

364:8 388:15

390:20 400:3

411:7,22 412:3

414:2,4

special 232:12

specialty 37:16

118:17

specific 11:22

17:16 18:6 61:15

61:17 104:11

109:7 118:3,5

134:17 148:9

192:8,13 201:2

222:7 230:7 298:8

299:7 330:6

365:17

specifically 161:3

196:10 296:12

304:8 338:18

370:18

specified 125:16

154:9

specify 275:6

speed 22:5 73:12

spelled 231:10

spend 236:11,12,14

237:11 291:19

332:15

spent 166:20

248:10 334:16

spinning 146:8

spins 233:17

split 145:7,9,15,17

spoken 242:19

sponsored 274:1

spot 18:22 298:13

311:2,18 341:14

spun 379:18

SPVU 143:4

stab 413:21

stage 44:14,16

stakeholders

102:17,22 105:12

stand 367:12

371:17

standard 16:16

19:18 34:1,19,22

35:6 48:7 77:1,1

77:16 83:5 93:7,8

98:5,5,7 122:10

142:3,6 158:4,5

158:20 160:6

166:2 236:1

244:10 274:22

291:20 320:12

334:17

standards 1:3 17:8

38:12 47:9 76:8

76:11,16 77:10

78:6 79:8 118:7

118:20 136:16

144:22 157:22

159:7 160:15,18

183:5 184:18

185:3 196:12

257:7 269:17

322:17 329:3

333:8 334:13

standing 243:6

standpoint 36:6

87:7 337:15

Stanonik 2:6 66:20

66:20 67:1,8,14

68:2,4,10,17,20

69:2 72:5 92:19

92:20 93:1,22

94:1,8,11,16,20

95:3,8 112:2,2

123:19,19 154:5,5

155:1,15,15 176:9

176:14,14 247:21

249:16,16 271:6,6

273:14,15 285:15

285:19 292:21

294:20 295:2,13

295:17 297:1

309:8,12 310:5,14

329:19 330:1

345:13,19 346:15

346:19,22 348:15

348:18,18 349:7

349:11 360:17,22

361:4 364:2,21

365:10,13,19

377:2,2 378:13

379:5 382:21

383:3 388:16

389:7 395:5,11

396:4,10,17,20

397:22 404:5,19

405:1 406:13,20

Star 141:11,16

163:2 230:12,13

stares 13:15

start 4:22 5:20,21

6:9 11:15 29:8

40:8,13 49:19

62:3 90:5,7 97:16

105:7,14,21

134:14 150:11

179:6 183:8 187:3

187:15 188:7,11

261:4 315:3 334:6

340:8 361:16

372:3 389:12

394:1 413:10

started 4:4 156:5

191:9 222:10

256:14,15 261:13

346:11 358:22

starting 38:9,11

117:17 160:4

191:12 272:9

328:20 357:11

starts 14:19 63:8

309:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 449

state 5:3 70:1

376:10 380:6

386:3

stated 26:21 42:15

136:8 226:5 334:2

378:14

statement 41:11

56:2 132:10

173:16 177:1

229:3 244:4 264:1

275:17,18 281:17

299:21 303:12

305:16 319:12

320:18 321:17

328:12 329:7,11

342:18 348:21

363:15 364:12

366:5 367:9

370:18 371:12,20

372:19 402:19

404:15 405:3,5,19

406:3,14 407:10

407:12

statements 173:14

326:9 345:22

states 1:1 69:22

93:17

state-of-the-art

44:22

stating 370:6

398:19 406:17

statistic 10:11,12

36:5 265:22

statistical 6:16 7:2

13:6 22:18 23:16

24:7 32:18,19

33:5 37:14 40:16

74:16 75:9 105:5

162:17 163:14,19

220:20 221:6

270:14 348:12

351:8,11,12,21

353:14

statistically 163:1

statisticians 57:15

statistics 7:8,13,13

7:22 8:16,20 9:16

9:17,18,19,22

10:9,17 11:4,18

11:22 12:3,11

16:7 22:1,3 28:4

29:12,15 33:2,22

34:2 36:7 38:5

40:21 41:3,15,16

42:1 48:13,18,21

49:16 54:22,22

55:16 61:17 63:22

67:9 74:10,15

76:21 81:21 82:6

118:22 119:2

127:14 165:5

178:3,4 220:19

351:4,5,21 352:1

352:8,11,13,15

353:8

stats 15:21 16:4,10

16:17,21 17:3,4,5

18:16 28:18 30:8

30:14 32:2 34:13

39:2 45:16 56:3

56:10,14 57:9

65:19 78:6 82:20

status 366:20

376:20 394:16

399:8,21

statute 113:17

243:13,14,15

286:15 314:1

340:19

statutorily 194:11

statutory 194:10

195:4

stay 77:4 150:13

200:6 250:14

412:13

stays 121:5

step 123:17 156:16

225:9 259:2 327:1

346:16 347:20

Stephens 2:7 49:5,9

49:9,21 52:1,1

65:5,5,12 66:6,11

70:7,7,10,10,19

80:13,13,20 106:6

106:6 116:13,13

122:19,19 150:6,6

171:10,11 172:8

173:2 179:16,16

189:14,14 208:2,2

245:12 253:8,8,17

265:15,15 270:16

272:20 275:3,8

309:18 312:10,11

313:5,18 338:1,7

338:16,20 339:5

339:13 347:4,4,14

347:19 348:3,17

349:3,8 350:14,19

364:5,9 369:3,3

369:16 373:1,7,19

374:5,7,11,13,16

374:20 375:16

378:7,11 379:14

379:18 382:10

388:11 390:5,15

392:3 393:8

402:14,22 403:8

407:3

stepping 129:9

266:3

steps 14:13 35:14

73:17,20

sternly 239:3

stick 352:16 367:14

stir 188:7

stock 231:22

stop 226:12 306:13

361:21

stopped 343:12

store 231:5

straight 119:3

strapped 150:8

strategic 157:9

strategies 325:16

327:11

strategy 325:10,12

326:19

streamlined 108:14

stressing 183:15

stricken 349:21

strike 275:18 350:4

350:13 376:17

403:13

striking 372:21

373:2,16 376:13

stringency 76:22

strong 193:12

212:16 403:22

stronger 363:16

strongly 241:16

264:10 383:19,22

struck 357:7 360:1

402:15 403:20

structural 1:19

18:18 175:21

228:19 233:4

structure 103:20

168:6 231:2

structured 165:3

169:21 230:7

structures 230:5

234:8

stuck 187:20

study 22:14,16,18

45:8,9,10 56:13

61:6 74:15 348:16

348:17

stuff 46:3 75:18,22

86:2 91:20 93:9

125:8 134:16

142:16,19 154:12

192:11 235:5

246:13 259:14

357:13 367:2,20

412:17

stupid 314:2

sub 184:11 394:5

406:4

subject 93:7 103:5

132:9 173:18

183:21 363:6

369:2 385:19

389:18 391:8

subjected 324:11

submissions 52:16

submit 92:2,8

208:6 265:9 267:3

submitted 4:8

367:4

submitting 401:4

subsequent 356:7

subsets 304:14

substantial 275:22

substantiate

268:22 269:4

substantiated

327:12

substantiation

264:14,20 267:2

substantive 115:9

substitute 142:13

Subway 260:11

sub-group 394:16

398:9

sub-groups 90:4,6

114:17,20 115:2,9

117:16 330:8

365:1 366:12

376:21 393:12

394:7,14 398:15

413:15

sub-section 295:20

success 389:16

successful 388:8

successfully 391:15

sudden 98:15

147:20

sue 205:8 313:17

333:4 336:21

337:8

sued 314:8

sues 336:16

suffer 233:10

suffers 157:7

sufficient 41:8

suggest 146:2

149:12 180:20

228:9 248:5 260:5

260:6 339:22

378:2 383:17

suggested 85:9

392:1

suggesting 85:21

265:9 363:19

suggestion 46:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 450

105:18 174:20

247:20 361:20

suggestions 189:2

suit 241:3

summary 175:17

summer 18:20

sundry 249:20

supplement 84:1

403:6 413:10

supplemental

399:13

supply 52:3 93:11

supplying 204:2

support 8:15 48:6

48:21 49:3 55:18

67:18 76:16 77:15

102:14 145:2

161:1 200:17,17

201:22 202:8

209:7 211:2

213:13 215:17

216:20 217:3,5

225:2 244:7 264:2

270:3,8 275:19,20

276:5 330:20

348:6,20 349:6

376:5 382:11

supported 371:13

371:13

supporting 133:4

supportive 339:1

347:6

supports 100:13

370:19

supposed 69:9

317:3 378:10

sure 17:6,8,10 23:2

23:4 27:5 31:20

35:8,9 39:13

41:19 42:7 62:2

65:4 71:4 115:20

138:20 142:4

151:10 154:18

156:9 157:16

161:16 168:12

169:13 189:3

198:17 207:5

211:17 256:7

265:18 266:18

268:1,12 289:13

290:19,20,21

306:21 307:17

312:11 327:11

333:17 360:6

365:10 394:21

400:19 413:11

surgeons 252:17

surprise 341:17

surprised 335:21

Surprising 108:5

survey 77:15

susceptible 247:14

suspect 227:9

SW 1:14

sympathetic

152:12 173:8

synchronized

120:3

synergy 179:10

synonymously

137:20

synopsis 395:18

system 19:1 145:7

163:12,12 187:21

231:12

T

table 3:10 5:8 42:3

47:20 98:4 103:1

114:2,14 116:5

134:8 186:15

215:22 216:12

274:22 285:14

314:19 355:10

tabled 344:17

tables 43:18,19

tackle 74:2 109:10

140:14

take 11:5,8 25:1

28:2 35:20 36:1

42:8 44:15 47:12

50:15 72:11 105:1

121:19 140:3

151:5 152:10

154:21 197:3

206:19,22 208:21

240:2 254:6 258:3

260:10 278:18

282:20 287:11

288:18 339:16

344:12 355:11

358:8 359:20

371:21 376:12

386:17 396:13

taken 156:7

takes 38:19 55:14

407:12

talk 5:15 6:5 62:7

77:19 78:13 130:9

132:13 164:21

169:10,12 173:10

178:18 183:3

197:1 210:4 211:6

220:16 242:21

248:22 262:7

269:10 291:15

302:13,13 305:9

305:11 330:9

347:12 356:5,18

362:16 366:13

378:10 385:10

397:3 408:2,16

411:17 413:13

talked 4:20 116:3

136:6 188:10

239:2 265:22

289:5 297:16

304:21 349:18

350:15

talking 4:16 5:20

28:11 30:21 67:19

75:20 76:10,13,19

80:22 82:9 84:22

85:6 87:19,21

89:3 97:9 98:21

105:14 106:8

112:3 114:4,10

130:13 131:7

132:5,7 136:2

165:10,13,14

168:5 169:8

177:21 179:6

182:5,7 184:5

190:6,6 196:21

199:15 209:13

210:19 229:5,6

237:17 254:10

299:2 309:3

319:15 320:14

329:8 330:13,15

342:1,7 343:16

356:10 361:13

363:10 370:21

380:5 385:14

396:3 401:8

412:16 413:7

talks 308:20 395:13

395:15,16

tall 18:20

tape 251:18,19

target 21:13 22:11

task 37:13,15 47:14

62:14 156:16

taxpayer 236:12

team 144:2

technical 71:3

72:11,13 85:10

87:7 161:1

technically 85:5

technician 15:3

technology 118:18

179:21

tee-up 154:3

teleconference 2:22

television 123:15

297:3

televisions 364:10

364:19 382:15

tell 43:11 80:7

177:3 253:21

284:21 286:3

328:18 370:4

380:13

telling 213:21

372:16 391:7

tension 151:5

tentatively 204:8

term 74:3 85:10

306:1 352:1 384:9

terminologies

173:1

terminology 88:21

terms 21:18 52:14

151:15 173:18

191:16 192:7

213:22 306:19

398:10

terribly 253:19

test 10:2 11:1,2

14:1,8,16 15:2,3,8

16:15 18:2,18,22

20:2,7,8,9 24:15

26:14 31:15 34:1

34:8,18 36:5

47:10 49:12 69:4

75:9 78:7 79:8

119:18 140:8

141:8,15 143:15

159:12 160:2

196:11 225:8,10

225:12 227:1,6,7

227:8,10 265:10

266:16 267:1,3,9

267:13,15,15

271:2 286:17

356:13 386:8

tested 17:22 18:1

35:21 134:15,16

142:6 162:18

163:8 191:17

192:11 204:8

279:7

testing 12:16 13:9

14:15,15 15:7

19:11 20:12 30:21

32:13 46:2 47:7

47:15,16 50:9

51:1 74:22 92:7

92:15 93:16,19,21

95:7 123:7 139:19

140:1,4,17,19

143:11 158:10,15

158:16 160:9

164:10 177:22

190:20 193:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 451

195:14,16,18

196:16 197:5,14

199:13,21 200:2

200:18 201:7,16

202:1 211:4 213:1

213:2 219:17

220:1,2 224:17

225:5 226:16

245:8 258:17

264:3,5,6 266:12

267:13 269:4,6

270:18,19 271:4

272:15,16 273:3

274:15 275:21

286:13 293:12,17

293:17,18 294:19

294:21 295:19

296:2,5,6,12,16

300:19,20 302:4,5

324:15 326:3,19

326:21 340:22

348:1,4,8 369:2

377:17,17 386:14

386:20 403:19

tests 14:21 15:1

33:11,11 34:8,21

190:9 299:12

309:1

text 293:14 395:6

395:10

thank 5:18 39:22

56:16 78:2 83:13

127:20 233:6

275:18 304:19

thanks 76:3 412:11

thanksgiving 85:2

Tharp 2:8 5:11 8:1

8:21,21 23:11

34:14,14 35:7,17

36:14,21 42:14,14

43:1,4,8 47:5 53:1

54:1,1,20 55:2,7

55:10,20 56:1,8

56:12,16 59:19

60:2,8,11,16 70:1

70:6 78:1 86:11

86:16,20 87:6,12

96:10,13,17 97:1

97:3,6,11 113:5

114:22 115:15

125:12,13 127:1,6

127:10,14 151:1

152:16 153:7

180:1,1 194:8,13

194:17 215:9,9,15

216:14 217:16,22

218:4,9,14,19

221:2 249:5

275:11,15,19

276:3,9,11,14,20

277:1,7,12 278:8

278:12,16 279:4

343:2,13 344:15

351:12,16 352:6

360:9 363:14

399:9 401:1,22

402:3,7,13 408:17

theirs 227:8 273:1

284:8

theoretical 24:8

theoretically 69:11

144:1

theory 150:12

153:11

they'd 224:20

thing 4:15 26:4

30:20 37:1 60:14

67:6,12 85:19

97:21 137:1,22

149:9 152:18

185:14 186:17

194:6 199:18

203:15 221:3

234:3,13 237:21

241:19 244:8

260:2 261:21

299:17 304:15

309:8 322:4 326:4

354:2 355:5,11

357:11 376:4

378:22 380:15

387:1,18 391:4

398:20 401:8

404:22 405:14

things 4:5 9:3

10:19 13:19 20:5

23:19 26:7 36:18

41:15 45:19 47:19

48:14 49:19 56:7

61:13 62:6,14

66:2,2 78:12

79:17 85:21

107:22 108:19

109:4,7 115:19

125:12 134:15

137:2,3 147:20

148:5,7,7 153:12

164:14 171:14

174:16 175:5

176:15 178:1

199:16 222:8

240:22 242:8

244:19 263:5,8,9

265:5 269:16

317:14 329:2

343:7 344:16

345:9 348:19

350:15 358:14

366:14 367:12,17

371:12 385:15

394:13 399:13

401:17 403:10

404:7

think 4:8 6:11,12

7:5 8:9 9:1,1,5

11:10 14:11 15:12

23:21 25:12,13,16

25:22 26:20 28:10

28:16 29:9,17

30:11 31:19 32:22

33:1,2 34:6 36:6

36:22 37:22 39:3

39:4 40:8,12

42:19 43:12 51:9

52:2,8 54:18

58:14 59:15 60:21

61:20 62:10 64:9

64:17,20 68:22

69:3,19 76:16

78:5 81:4 85:17

86:1,12,14 90:19

100:22 101:16

102:22 103:4,14

104:11,17,19

105:3 107:10

108:6,12,20 109:1

109:12 111:1,19

113:5 114:11

115:17 116:11

117:13 118:6,14

119:4,14,22

120:21 121:11,21

122:20 123:15,21

124:22 125:6

126:11 127:2

128:3,11,20,21

129:7,8,13 130:21

131:1,9,16,19

132:13,15,19

133:16,17 135:14

135:17 136:20,22

137:19 138:2

139:3,16 143:7,22

144:5,16 145:10

146:2,11,14 147:1

147:7,8,11 148:2

148:4 151:13,19

152:10 153:10,19

155:2,12 156:19

158:8 159:21

160:10,14 161:9

162:6 164:12

166:22 167:6,18

167:20,22 168:4

168:22 169:15

170:8,9 171:11

172:2,17,22 174:5

174:7,13,19,21

175:15,16 177:4

177:17,20 178:22

179:9,11 180:2

181:1,8 182:19

183:1,13,15,19

185:6,6,12 186:8

186:18 187:8,22

188:20 189:11,15

189:20,22 191:12

192:18 195:1

196:16,22 198:16

198:17,22 200:10

200:13,17 201:1,5

201:14 202:1

204:12,13,16,21

204:22 205:11,15

205:16 206:17,20

207:7 208:3,16,16

209:9,15 211:12

211:16 212:5,19

212:21 213:2,9,19

214:3,6 215:6,10

215:22 217:8

218:21 220:8,8,8

220:13 223:2,4,8

228:20 229:2,6,14

229:15 231:18

232:21 233:7

236:3 237:1,3,5,8

237:11 238:7

241:11,13,14,17

242:15,17,18,18

243:11,22 244:4

245:2,3 246:3,7

246:16 247:4,5,6

248:13,20 249:19

250:1 251:1,14

252:2,9 253:4

254:18 255:21

258:9 259:8,19,21

261:6,16 262:9,10

262:14,17,18,20

262:22 263:12,13

265:16 266:9

268:8,9,16 269:2

269:3,20 271:10

271:21 272:1

273:7 274:19,20

275:17 278:19

280:4,11 283:12

283:14,22 284:7

285:9 286:4,10

288:7 289:2,6

290:8,9,10,11,12

290:15 291:12,13

291:18,20 292:4

292:10,16,19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 452

293:8 294:1,8,11

294:17 297:12,22

298:7 299:17,22

301:22 305:6,20

306:7,12 307:10

307:21 309:18

310:17 313:13,22

314:2,6,11 315:6

315:13,22 316:6

316:15 317:4,20

319:1,4 320:21

321:10 322:4

325:11,11,14,17

325:20,22 326:5

326:14 327:7,18

327:20,22 328:10

329:1 331:2,5,6

331:15 332:12

333:9 334:1

335:10,16 336:5,7

337:10,11,14

338:1 341:3,17

342:3,18 343:22

346:8,13 347:11

348:19,20 349:11

350:8 354:8

355:12,21 356:1,5

359:7,13,16

360:10,11 362:1,6

362:9 363:19

367:6,21,22

368:13 369:11,21

370:7 372:2,11,12

373:3,17,22

374:17 375:16,21

376:16 377:16

378:4,19 379:1,14

379:20 382:2,6,12

382:18,20 383:19

384:4,16,18

387:11,12 388:22

392:3 393:15

394:6 395:21

396:22 397:15,16

397:18 398:1,20

400:16 403:22

405:9 406:1,5

407:3,12 408:6

409:5 410:3

thinking 37:11

44:10 52:14

173:10 185:11

192:7 249:17

250:16 255:9

291:10 333:2

thinks 128:13

130:18 205:7

313:15 328:8

345:22 367:9

383:22

third 14:3 44:16

50:7 117:19 223:5

226:14,17 240:12

270:10 372:1

thirdly 142:7

third-parties 53:16

third-party 17:22

52:15 57:11 66:12

74:14 225:11

240:10,20 267:8

thought 48:15

55:11 76:1 80:1

114:22 117:12

129:11 131:4

132:3 156:12

157:10 163:15

197:19,20 198:3

222:9 246:22

269:22 275:13

300:17 307:12

315:6 320:14

324:9 329:16,17

350:14 355:20

364:21 368:4

390:8 393:14

396:5,13 400:9

402:20 413:13

thoughts 64:1

100:8 103:3,10

175:18 260:19

306:17 315:11

thousands 314:8

327:4

three 18:21 90:4

128:1 142:7,13

143:9 144:11

145:4 163:7

171:11,12 228:9

249:3 260:5

310:17 332:10,16

358:15 360:4

366:12,12 376:20

389:19 394:16

398:8,15,21

throw 188:6 197:16

239:4 405:20

thrown 377:3

390:21

tied 55:12 160:15

296:18 313:18

371:7,22

tight 36:11,12

83:10

tighten 20:1,7

tighter 37:3

Tim 52:11 56:19

59:14 103:11,17

336:19

time 22:4,17,22

23:21 25:7 30:1

61:12 77:7 100:7

101:18 102:2

103:22 120:15

140:5 154:10,16

155:5 156:11

157:14 158:7

166:20 167:7,8

175:22 176:17

177:2 180:2 183:2

184:18 185:18

187:16 188:14

197:15 198:4

200:10 224:5

225:17 226:16

228:11 232:14

237:11,18 238:7

239:15,18 250:19

251:13 262:19

263:15 283:5,20

284:5 288:20

291:19 317:8,12

332:2 341:7

342:20 345:2

354:9 359:18

367:22 372:4,17

374:4 381:7,9

394:18 400:10

404:9 408:16

412:14 413:11,14

times 16:6,12 80:19

154:12 166:9

187:17 314:8

317:9

timing 104:6,12,16

104:20 120:2,22

236:10 375:14

TIMOTHY 1:19

Tim's 117:7

tiny 380:10

tip 154:17

title 68:11,13,15

113:8

today 17:3 20:19

23:17 58:12 74:3

76:10 128:1 156:8

158:11 178:2

199:8 235:21

247:21 252:17

263:16 266:1

287:19 320:10

327:21 341:20,22

342:18 389:2

398:11 404:12

told 288:8 354:10

411:15

tolerance 16:19

21:2,11,14 36:11

36:12

tolerances 19:18,21

20:2,10 36:9 37:3

45:18 47:18

108:15

TOM 2:1

tomorrow 83:20

87:16 149:8 152:7

254:8 263:16

283:14,16,19

284:1 309:20

344:22 347:12

350:6,8,9 351:2

354:5 355:5

356:20 366:3

396:14 403:3,6

404:3 407:20

408:1 409:8

410:19 412:6

tonight 254:9

343:20,22 344:2

412:10

top 318:13

topic 28:10 68:19

105:6 147:15,19

253:14 258:3

303:10 364:7

topics 111:5 238:11

torn 301:8

torpedo 246:12

total 162:21 163:21

253:18

totality 145:9

totally 161:14

228:17 230:10

231:5 244:14

328:9

touch 367:19

tough 104:11

107:14

track 37:12

trade 116:18 329:4

Trane 1:25 137:18

transferrable

167:2,4

transferred 167:12

transformers 120:7

122:16

transition 15:20

413:3

transmitted 84:9

129:20

transparency

166:10

transparent 166:5

transportation

313:2

traps 333:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 453

Traulsen 1:21

111:2 164:3

181:22

treat 50:16 323:21

323:22

treated 101:18

121:12,13 145:16

trends 18:6

tried 164:20 226:4

355:2

tries 224:4

triggers 268:16

Tritsis 2:9 12:13,13

12:20,22 13:4

27:7,19 33:4

trouble 160:8

303:13

troubling 340:18

true 1:24 8:3 34:20

35:11 137:8

139:11 162:15

163:12 230:11

231:7,7,8,16

232:5 281:17

310:14,15 356:11

393:4

truly 123:12,18

143:3 162:18

trust 71:14 112:10

242:14,17,22

trusting 207:2

trustworthy 128:10

try 24:21 26:10

46:12 49:22

185:21 193:1

211:19 212:18

249:13 275:9

327:9 344:4

380:13

trying 14:13,19

20:6 33:16 38:22

59:17 77:21 78:21

120:12 143:22

152:2,9 167:11

170:12 177:3,6

178:16 194:2

206:8,12,19 208:8

208:9 212:12

213:16 214:22

216:7 219:18

220:4 232:7 252:3

288:4,5 298:2,10

298:12,13 302:8,9

316:10 317:6,15

317:19 331:12,13

331:19 375:8

393:18 397:19

400:22

turn 18:10 84:20

174:11 182:2

376:11

turning 182:18

turnip 150:21

TV 297:1

TVs 373:10

TV-top 156:11

tweaked 66:1

twists 304:12

two 9:16 12:3 45:21

55:11 81:1 97:17

98:17 105:21

112:7 153:10

173:1 176:15

189:15 199:15

204:22 213:11

246:10 251:19

273:5 276:15

277:17,20 278:2

280:22 283:11

303:17 304:11,12

305:4 316:9

323:19 343:17

344:9 351:15

358:14 360:4

361:22 362:18

371:12 373:16

396:21 399:18

407:1,1,6

two-by-four 295:12

two-thirds 145:3

type 9:4 45:22 57:7

121:10 136:18

140:19 144:22

161:17 202:1

229:17 233:10

247:9 261:21

262:2 380:9 394:3

394:13

typed 330:2

types 26:16 61:1

106:8 108:17

118:15 135:2

140:15 148:6

173:17 191:13

193:2,17 235:10

362:4 380:1

type-face 41:1

typically 46:21

255:7

typing 344:7

U

UL 163:1 221:12

398:18

ultimately 39:3

76:22 79:20

166:13 182:11

208:21

ultra 136:19

unanimous 83:17

88:12 262:11

297:6

unanswered 349:2

uncertain 318:11

uncertainties 74:17

uncertainty 33:6

48:13,18,22 49:2

49:6,10,12,13

83:2 143:1 318:15

unchecked 161:15

unclear 104:14

163:20

uncomfortable

200:14 201:8

underlying 27:4

151:5

underneath 232:2

understand 7:14

22:3 24:1 28:13

34:7 38:3,8,16

39:4 79:10 81:11

86:1 90:20 111:4

142:5 143:20

152:10 164:13

192:19 195:5

203:17 220:14

228:22 232:8

234:10 235:22

236:19 243:7

244:13 252:17

266:5 268:1,3

280:16 289:14

290:22 291:1

297:10 304:2

308:8 315:2 317:6

317:15 319:20

341:10 343:8

366:18 373:5

379:8,16 381:13

389:15 394:2

understandable

166:4 296:21

understanding

44:21 47:15,16

102:4 138:13

157:20 160:8

231:14 299:14

375:11 396:2

understandings

244:19

understood 24:6

50:3 71:4 85:16

205:20 221:20

270:1 300:1

390:10

undertake 123:5

undertook 26:9

Underwriters 1:22

2:2

unequal 303:15

unfair 159:2

408:19

unfairly 30:18

unfortunate 157:6

unfortunately

224:13

unhappy 85:22

unified 150:12

uniform 192:9

unique 60:18 118:6

136:13

uniquely 205:2

206:21

uniqueness 177:22

177:22

uniquenesses 178:7

unit 17:17,19 38:10

69:17

United 1:1 93:17

unitize 168:2

units 11:17 12:12

14:15 16:15 17:20

35:18,20 64:11

65:8 69:10,11,13

70:4,4,5 83:4

85:12 93:21

162:18,22 195:16

224:17

unknowns 27:17

unnecessary 20:12

290:13 297:13

unqualified 205:2

206:21

unregulated

161:15

unresolved 131:20

309:15

untouched 142:15

unwilling 328:5

un-highlighted

406:2

upcoming 123:11

update 70:13

366:20 398:10

updates 98:5

upside 333:20

376:12

urge 264:10

urgent 62:16

USC 91:1,10

298:22

use 29:3 32:19

35:22 40:16,22

51:16 80:14 86:17

88:21 168:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 454

169:20 213:8

220:20 265:11

268:13 325:22

407:3

useful 124:17 127:3

178:5 179:1

393:15

useless 325:21

usually 313:20

utilize 140:17

U.S 2:15,16,17

V

v 322:5

vague 298:9 353:4

valid 25:12 125:19

186:12 227:11

328:19 359:14

375:22 378:12

validating 406:14

valuable 122:3

value 35:22 41:10

71:20 121:21

136:8,13,13,14,18

193:8,11 194:6

224:19 237:9,12

242:2

values 36:2 73:22

259:10 356:11

variabilities 386:1

variability 10:22

11:9 14:7,20 15:1

15:2,2,6 17:13

19:13 24:11,14,14

24:16 26:11,12,13

26:14 34:11 41:13

46:1,1 50:10 51:2

54:5,11 55:17

56:4,5 64:6,15,20

65:10,14,20 74:20

74:22 75:7 81:12

81:13,22 82:2,18

82:21 83:4,7,10

264:6 378:3 380:4

380:7,11

variable 64:11

65:17

variance 19:2 36:9

variances 33:13

variation 18:13

22:10 242:18

variety 18:3 141:17

various 167:17

178:7 249:19

271:9 336:4

vast 118:19 230:20

377:10

VCRs 374:22

venture 147:14

verbally 404:8

verification 3:18

21:3 27:13 41:20

70:14 90:4,14

92:13 94:17 95:1

97:10 100:12,15

100:16 101:1,11

101:15,15 102:10

102:15 105:3

106:13 107:16,20

108:11 109:4

110:13 111:5,9,17

112:8 113:2

119:22 120:9,13

121:2,7 123:7

125:16 127:9,13

127:18 128:3,12

128:20 129:16

130:3 131:2,19

132:2,20 133:2,12

134:2 135:20

136:9 137:16,19

138:2,22 140:6,9

140:16 141:12,22

142:20 143:8,18

147:4,6,15 149:9

149:14,19 152:6

154:8,9,14 155:7

155:8,12 158:6,10

158:15,16 160:8

161:17 162:11

164:22 165:2

167:22 171:5

173:19,21 175:2

175:22 176:18

178:8 179:4,13,17

182:5 183:4,22

184:3,9 185:3

186:7 187:11,15

188:1 190:7 191:5

191:15 193:5

197:5 199:5,11

200:3,8,16,18

201:4,7,16 202:1

202:15,19 203:3

203:22 204:1

205:13 206:12

209:7,12 210:21

211:3,13 214:2,14

214:21 215:18

216:9,10,21,21

217:1 220:1 221:8

221:16 222:2,6,16

222:17 224:8

225:2,6,9 226:11

226:11,16 228:5

229:12,17 230:3

231:17 234:21

244:17 245:8

246:21 247:10,15

247:15 248:3,7

249:21 250:7

256:9,13,15 257:4

257:15 258:9

259:5,7,16,20

262:2,2 264:3,7,9

265:3 266:2,12,16

270:4,5,13,22

271:2,10,13,19,22

272:15,16 273:3

274:2 275:21

279:8,20 280:17

282:9,16,22 283:3

286:13 288:14

293:5,10 294:1,7

294:12,15,19

295:11 296:8,10

296:18 297:8,21

299:4,11 300:22

303:19,21 304:6

306:9,10,16

310:22 311:4,11

318:5 319:14

321:1,12 322:6

323:6,7 324:11,14

326:19,21 327:3

328:14,19,20

331:13 332:5,9,17

332:19 340:4,7,11

342:4,7 345:17

346:2,7 347:13,22

348:4,8,11,12

353:22 357:4

360:8 361:10,12

361:15 362:13

364:12 366:6

368:10,17 369:2,8

370:20 372:8

377:5 378:15

381:19 383:10,11

384:14 386:8,14

389:4 395:15

400:20 401:7

403:19

verified 125:19

144:3,4 277:16,18

278:9 279:3,14

281:5 282:9

300:13,14 301:7

302:11 303:8,8

verify 159:6 208:5

286:16 303:16

318:17 327:2

330:9 377:20

verifying 128:8

139:12

versa 63:22 252:15

version 73:15 75:5

296:22 343:14,14

versions 167:17

versus 118:17

120:6 179:7,7

188:15 207:11

221:22 238:3

303:20 334:12

335:1 362:5

392:11

vessels 269:15

vested 57:18

vice 63:21 252:15

VICP 273:8 327:16

VICP's 199:9

view 181:7,7,12

193:10,12 243:12

243:14,14 306:12

327:8 360:11

384:18

views 63:2 308:18

315:13,16 398:22

Viktor 1:19 18:17

175:20

vocal 129:3

voice 84:21 85:1

103:1 110:20

voiced 147:12

voices 261:10

350:20

void 383:4,6

volume 12:5,9

118:17 126:22

144:19

volumes 142:8

voluntarily 161:20

voluntary 121:7

161:13 165:2

166:3 199:18

279:18 280:18

292:9 300:13

301:11 302:6

303:20 306:7,10

318:3 319:5,7,10

319:17 320:1,15

321:14 322:1,6,9

324:8,9,12 326:1

volunteered 275:14

275:15

volunteering 63:4

vote 50:16 111:21

148:21 149:11

197:4,7,9,13

202:12,20 203:3

203:11,14 204:12

205:3,5,6,12

206:7,11,14

207:15 208:6,10

213:13,18,21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 455

214:1 215:22

216:20 218:3,6

219:20 221:22

222:4,12 237:7

245:17 255:4

287:16 288:1

330:19,19 369:18

369:20 370:8

376:12 383:13

411:12

voted 147:4,5

votes 221:15

246:11 407:1

411:9

voting 103:1

107:11 110:21

205:17 223:21,22

246:6 315:18

VRC/DVD 386:9

W

Wait 210:14

waiting 137:13

389:13

waive 219:12

walk 333:3

walking 230:1,2

walk-in 81:3

388:10

wall 232:10

want 6:8 21:9

30:16,16,18 32:17

33:18 34:16 37:10

38:7,8 39:9,11

40:10,18 41:8,17

43:16,17,19,20,20

44:3,5 50:15,16

55:2 57:6 58:6,14

59:3,6 70:14

74:12,13 76:15

83:16 87:14 88:10

107:15,21 111:10

114:7 116:8 123:2

134:10 135:10

140:7,13 142:4

146:4,12 148:20

152:5,22 159:13

167:8 168:15

173:5,6,11 174:5

175:9 177:19

180:19 181:19

182:17,19,21

183:3,8,11 184:16

185:5,9 186:5,8

188:11,22 193:10

208:5 223:6 225:2

225:6 228:10

234:10 237:14

239:9 240:3,7

241:18,21 246:1

250:18 251:12,18

255:16,20 256:1

262:10 263:20

265:17,18,21

270:6 276:11

280:1 285:1,3

286:3 287:11,11

292:3,17 298:6

299:5,19,20

302:11 303:1

305:10,13,21

306:1,2,22 310:18

311:7 318:16

320:8 322:8

326:10 328:3

329:1 336:2 338:2

339:21 343:20,21

345:1,20 346:9

347:3 349:16

350:11 351:1

357:10,11,13

358:13,18 360:12

361:16 363:15

365:6,14 366:11

371:8,9,18 372:17

377:16 382:3,11

385:5,10 393:11

394:1 397:2

398:17 402:18

403:3,15 405:3,5

405:16 410:12

411:1,2,4,5

wanted 73:11 102:2

110:22 137:14

182:1 190:17

192:6 211:6

227:21 246:13

258:3 266:14

276:7 330:19

346:22

wanting 58:8

wants 31:15 90:7

94:5 123:18

166:19 186:10

201:13 222:18

286:21 306:18

346:6 361:21

366:5 370:2

405:17 412:17

warranted 386:21

Warren 235:3

washers 141:12,12

Washington 1:14

wasn't 137:6

170:21 181:13

193:7 247:7

270:19 330:7,21

waste 167:9 237:17

381:6

wasting 381:8

water 1:6 85:6,7

101:4 171:16

172:5 177:11,16

178:19 179:19

189:16 263:22

272:12 273:19

274:12 303:11

304:6 338:3

347:15,21 364:10

395:16 402:14

405:4 407:15

408:19,21

waters 78:22

waves 78:22

way 10:2 20:11

21:17 24:1,5 32:2

34:3 37:22 38:2

52:4,9 57:5,7,18

69:20 71:7 82:20

84:17 101:13

105:16 110:7,22

112:12 113:18

115:19 123:20

124:21 125:6

128:13 132:7

133:19 139:9,9

144:6 145:19

146:6 147:11

151:17 162:6

163:13 164:15

165:6,7,11,12,14

168:13 171:14

172:1 184:20

189:6 193:13,14

198:19 203:14

206:7,14 214:11

215:22 222:18

228:7 230:19

233:15 234:16,19

242:22 244:6

248:4 249:1,17

250:4 259:9

266:15 267:17

269:14 277:22

288:16 313:21

326:22 327:18

328:16 332:7

336:13 338:16

351:6 355:12

357:1 373:13

375:16 382:10

385:18 388:19

390:16 392:21

396:15 398:2

402:3 405:19

409:12

ways 20:4 193:22

232:13 268:22

weak 212:20

wearing 369:4

WEBER 2:20

webinar 410:5,13

411:21 412:6,9

413:4

webpage 305:1

website 22:21,22

23:4 125:18

138:18 139:6

327:18

WEDNESDAY 1:9

week 81:1 133:22

304:7

weekend 84:15

weeks 79:1 81:1

97:17 135:8

152:17 162:4

283:12

week's 399:7

weighed 10:9 30:5

welcome 8:17 78:1

103:5 168:1

went 23:4 42:10

98:7,7 116:3

168:5 180:17

259:6 260:22

339:19 367:8

370:15

weren't 189:22

315:8

Wes 86:10,11

we'll 4:9 13:14

16:14 79:5 99:16

188:6 247:18

282:17 283:22

284:5 396:22

397:7,10 404:18

404:19 405:20

407:19 409:20

412:20 413:2,3

we're 5:20 9:10

11:11 17:6,8 20:6

20:7 25:3 27:15

28:11 29:7 33:16

40:6,8 43:18 48:2

49:19 52:2 59:7

59:17 65:9 66:7

74:4 75:20 76:13

76:15,18 79:14

85:6 87:19,21

89:3 90:1 102:6

107:18 113:6

114:10 115:11

116:7 118:11,11

119:15 122:17

123:3 128:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 456

129:10,15 130:13

131:6 136:19

140:18 150:8

157:3 161:11

163:8 167:9,20,21

167:21 170:6

172:18 173:3,4

174:1 177:3,6

179:1,4 181:14

182:5,7,18 187:17

194:7 196:17,21

199:15 206:8,20

209:12 210:18,19

211:17 212:5

214:22 216:7,16

217:12 220:8

227:9,10,10 229:5

229:6 230:1,2

234:7 236:5,6

237:20 238:16

239:2 243:8 245:3

245:21 247:3,6,16

250:14 253:6

260:17 262:17

263:13 272:8

273:20 283:2

285:22 288:8

289:16 291:5

292:11 297:11

299:2 301:2,4,4,8

302:8,9,9 307:2

309:3 311:1 316:1

318:10,11,16,19

318:22 319:14

320:9 328:20

329:8 331:11

332:15 333:2,3

336:20 337:9,13

358:4 360:10,19

361:7,15 367:18

367:20 370:6

371:14,17 372:16

373:8,9 378:15,18

379:15,21 380:16

380:21 381:1

382:13,15 383:4

384:12 385:6,14

387:6 388:3,12

391:9 392:6,14

393:6 398:7

400:22 402:22

411:8 413:9

we've 19:11 21:1

31:16,18 60:5

85:2 89:14,15

104:7 118:3

120:18 123:9

128:21,22 129:4

129:15 131:11

137:22 138:13

140:4 146:7

157:15 162:3

164:3,10,15,17,20

167:15,16 170:14

174:14 175:16

179:3 181:8

186:18 208:19,20

224:13 227:15,19

236:7 238:15

242:12 244:16

248:12,17,20

265:16,18 269:18

271:8 282:12

288:7,12 289:5

297:18 303:13

306:2,7 311:22

320:14 331:21

334:16 335:14

341:7 342:6

344:17,22 346:20

349:13 350:7

379:18 402:15

403:18

wheel 166:19

wheels 146:8

379:19

whips 399:11

whittled 116:16

Whitwell 2:11

72:20,21 73:4

75:6,12,15,19

76:3 81:8,9,17

82:7,16 83:8,12

87:18,20 88:8

355:17,18 356:21

357:2

wide 18:3 46:13

wider 63:1

willing 9:10 18:15

19:4 29:8 117:20

153:20 188:8

214:20 240:14

288:9,13 291:11

305:17 309:14,16

316:1,4

willingness 28:21

292:12

window 226:16

234:5,6

wiped 248:7

wise 187:17 329:4

wish 30:2 302:18

376:9

wishes 362:3 366:8

wonder 46:9 62:3

Wonderful 27:18

wondering 11:14

56:22 107:3

217:12 218:22

word 71:20 201:11

270:22 272:2,4

278:16 282:17

294:5 307:1

330:22 375:22

376:1

worded 214:17

331:6 405:19

wording 80:3 87:22

282:18 306:22

337:21

words 16:19 109:4

133:19 140:10

145:22 216:15

228:10 252:5

298:5,7 307:2

311:10 349:4

354:13 386:16

388:7

work 9:6 24:21

27:4 28:22 32:2,3

38:1 39:2 44:11

54:19 59:20 78:8

98:19 100:5

109:13 114:18

115:21 117:11

121:9,16 122:1

140:16 150:12

152:14 166:16,18

169:4 171:8

173:14,15 177:2

186:19 194:1,3

221:5 232:15

248:5 249:14

254:6 266:2 272:6

288:14 325:20

326:1 327:6,6,21

331:20 345:17

352:2 353:16

354:4,11 355:2,14

362:1 379:12

workable 244:20

244:20 286:7,9

worked 400:8

working 1:7,13

3:20 7:17 24:3

29:8,10 42:20,22

43:11,13,21 44:12

45:4 48:3 56:22

57:10 58:6 62:5

62:14 67:17 71:1

71:3 72:6,8,12,22

73:8 74:1,7 82:4

90:5 102:8 103:6

103:14,19 109:3,3

109:18 110:1,3,4

110:5,8,13 111:10

112:4,7,19 115:13

117:14 130:18

132:9 133:5

134:18 135:10

136:7 140:14

147:2,3 149:10,14

149:15,20 153:5

166:12,14,20

167:2,12 176:16

177:12,15 179:15

180:13 184:12

192:14 221:4,4

222:13,14 223:8

223:18,20 229:19

248:2,6,16 249:21

250:4 251:4 255:5

255:9,11 262:18

276:8 285:11

289:17 292:17

294:10 299:13

312:1,7 325:8

328:6 345:22

347:3 358:15

360:13,14,19

361:9 362:3,4,12

363:16,17,21

364:3,18,22 366:6

366:7 367:10

368:7,14 369:14

375:17 378:19

381:3,4,18 382:7

382:20,21 383:6

385:19 389:1,12

392:7,16 394:1,8

406:22

works 27:2 71:8

144:7 209:2

227:11 239:15

258:17 270:6

272:19 355:13

361:6 392:15,17

400:21

work-out 288:8

world 224:8 272:19

355:8 371:16

worried 327:13,14

327:15,16 360:6

worrying 371:15

worth 26:18 251:1

275:8 288:6

298:14 316:7,13

317:21

worthwhile 42:21

255:22

wouldn't 18:8 74:2

121:19 152:22

162:11 203:3,10

205:16 223:21

224:19 292:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 457

315:4 372:8

391:15

wound 333:7

wrapped 213:10

write 47:9 205:7

240:17 356:14

written 167:1

175:18 207:19

322:15,16 338:17

340:10

wrong 22:4 127:18

152:17 195:6

220:3 266:20

267:1 272:3 304:4

313:14 319:6

330:4,5 335:11,12

335:12 369:6

wrote 294:8 332:6

X

x 386:1

Y

year 122:22 123:16

125:21 126:1

159:16 191:17

224:18

years 100:19 121:3

152:18 156:4,4,4

156:7,12 157:16

227:1 233:12

249:5 270:8

273:20,21

Z

zeros 228:19

zone 69:13

$

$10 217:2

0

01 399:5

1

1 112:16 299:1

1:30 237:20

1:50 261:1

10 35:10 123:13

142:8 145:10

156:12 163:8

316:9 339:16

10-minute 42:8

10:00 413:18

100 35:9 165:22

232:18

100-man 245:7

1000 1:13 69:17

11 1:10

11:26 180:17

11:30 180:8,14

12 109:11 204:5

12-step 283:3

12/31/2013 194:15

12:30 180:15

12:43 180:18

13 19:2

15 156:12 316:9

15th 277:22

17-025 66:11

185 3:20

19.95 17:20

1970 23:12

1976 25:6

2

2 298:22

2(b) 278:10

2:40 357:12

2:50 261:1

20 17:19,20,21

19:21 26:21 80:19

112:16 125:22

159:15 162:20

204:8 260:10

269:11 336:21

357:12

20-some 231:10

20.05 17:20

2011 7:11 8:14 9:3

343:13

2013 1:10

2015 152:21 153:1

2020 153:1

25 110:9,14,21

112:5 113:6,10,21

114:8,8

3

3rd 98:11

3:57 339:19

30 108:3 162:20

273:19

30th 198:12 353:22

354:2 357:3

30-some 156:7

4

4 3:14

4:29 339:20

400 158:1 183:6

374:20

42 91:1,10 298:22

429 7:12 54:16

429.107 295:19

431 7:9 54:16

449 35:10

5

5.565-something-...

113:8

5:40 414:10

50 114:10 224:20

6

6 3:16

6:00 409:8

60 110:15

62.96 91:6,16

62.96(d) 91:7

62.96(d)(1) 96:11

6296 195:11 298:22

344:12,12

6296(b) 213:5

214:10

6296(d) 195:7

63.16 91:1,5,10

65,000 133:11

142:2,19 143:9,10

144:12 145:4

7

70 273:21

70's 156:5

75 98:8 114:10

159:22,22

8

8:00 414:1

8:30 1:14 4:2

408:13 409:8

80 62:12 106:16

273:21

85 3:17

9

9:08 42:10

9:25 42:11

9:30 413:18

90 3:18

90s 30:3

90's 7:9

97 3:19

99 31:20
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

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

458

Commercial HVAC, Water Heating and

Refrigeration Equipment

US DOE

09-11-13

Washington, DC