UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LLF 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC HEARING: 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY TEST PROCEDURES FOR 

COMMERCIAL FURNACES 

AND 

CERTIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR 

HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND 

WATER HEATING EQUIPMENT 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 2 7, 2 0 0 0 

The hearing commenced at 9 : 00 a.m. in Room 

IE-245, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., Cyrus Nasseri, Team 

Leader, presiding, Jim Raba facilitating. 

DOE PRESENT: 

EDWARD 0. POLLOCK, Jr . CYRUS NASSERI 

ED LEVY 

JIM RABA 

NIST PRESENT: 

STANLEY LIU 

STEVEN TREAD0 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
ALSO PRESENT: 

LAKE COULSON 

WILBUR HAAG 

JOHN HODGES 

BRAD HOLLOMON 

GEORGE KUSTERER 

MICHAEL MARTIN 

JOSEPH M. MATTINGLY 

MARK MENZER 

FRANK STANONIK 

CHARLES STEPHENS 

STEVE WILSON 

ARI 

A.O. Smith 

ARI 

Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory 

Bock Water Heaters 

California Energy 

Commission 

GAMA 

ARI 

GAMA 

Oregon Department of 

Energy 

York International 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
A-G-E-N-D-A 

Asenda Item Pase 

I. Opening Remarks 

Mr. Nasseri .............. 4 

11. Agenda Review and Introductions 

Mr. Raba .............. 10 

111. Brief Review of the Proposed Rule 

Mr. Nasseri ............ 22 

IV. Topics for Discussion 

A. Test Procedures for Commercial 

Furnaces ................ 30 

B. Sampling, Certification and 

Enforcement Procedures for Commercial 

HVAC and Water Heating Equipment ... 117 

V. Summary Discussion and Adjournment ... 154 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
(9:30 a.m.) 

MR. NASSERI: Good morning. It is 9:30. 

I would like to start our public hearing at this 

point. If you would be seated and we'll start our 

hearing at this time. 

Good morning. I am Cyrus Nasseri, senior 

program manager and team leader for the Commercial 

Equipment Team within the Office of Building Research 

and Standards here at the Department of Energy. 

The others joining me today are: Edward 

Pollock, Director of Office of Building Research and 

Standards; Stanley Liu, and Steve Treado of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology; Edward 

Levy from the Department's Office of General Counsel; 

and sometimes we have Mark Friedrichs from the 

Department's Office of Policy and International 

Af fairs, as well as several of my colleagues here that 

I see. 

On behalf of the Department, I would like 

to thank you all for taking the time, that considering 

the weather conditions that we have had the last days, 

to participate in this public hearing. 

We will be addressing DOE'S proposals for 

commercial warm air furnace test procedures, and for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
efficiency certification, compliance, and enforcement 

requirements for all of the covered commercial 

heating, air conditioning, water heating products or 

equipment. 

The format of this public hearing is 

designed to enable interested parties to present oral 

comments on these proposals, and to facilitate 

clarification, discussionI and an exchange of ideas as 

to these comments. 

Today's hearing will consist primarily of 

two distinct parts. In the first part, the Department 

is seeking comments on all facets of the proposed rule 

for commercial warm air furnace test procedures, 

including comments on the ASHRAE referenced test 

standards, the definition of thermal efficiency, the 

test procedure for measurement of energy efficiency, 

and other test standards topics. 

In the second part, we seek comments 

related to the proposal or proposed rule on the 

certification and enforcement procedure for all the 

covered HVAC and water heating products, including 

comments related to certification, the alternative 

efficiency determination method (AEDM), the voluntary 

independent certification programs (VICPs), the 

provisions on non-participating manufacturers, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
other certification and enforcement topics. 

In addition, you may offer comments on any 

other pertinent issues that you wish to bring to DOE'S 

attention. 

The comments received here today, along 

with comments submitted during the written comment 

period, will assist the Department in developing the 

final rules for commercial warm air furnaces test 

procedures, as well as commercial HVAC and water 

heating product compliance, certification, and 

enforcement provisions. 

I am the presiding officer for the 

workshop. Our own Jim Raba, on my left side at first , 

will facilitate and set the guidelines for the 

conducting of this workshop. 

In approximately two weeks, a complete 

copy of the transcript, this is the workshop 

transcript, will be available for inspection and 

copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of 

Information Reading Room, located in Room IE-190, the 

same floor as we are, on the extreme right to the end 

of the building. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of 

the transcript may make arrangements with the court 

reporter, who is sitting on my right side, right here. 

We will begin with introductions, and then 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
review the agenda. We invite you to add issues you 

think are important, but not already covered. 

Following the agenda review, we will entertain any 

general statements participants wish to make. Then we 

will move to the discussion of topics on the agenda. 

As to each topic concerning the proposed 

commercial warm air furnace procedures, Stan Liu -- 

where's Stan? He's sitting at the table -- will make 

a brief presentation. I will summarize any written 

comments we have received to date. 

Then participants can make any prepared 

statements on that topic. Members of the panel will 

ask any questions they have, and we will open the 

floor for questions and discussion. We will move 

through each topic identified by the Department in the 

same way, and try to do the same for the topics that 

you might add to the agenda. 

We will follow a similar approach in the 

second part of this workshop, where Steve Treado of 

NIST will make a presentation regarding the topics on 

the certification, compliance, and enforcement 

provisions for all of the covered commercial products, 

followed by statements, questions, and discussion. 

We should have ample time to raise and 

discuss all important issues. We would ask, however, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
8 

that all participants refrain from making prepared 

statements of more than five minutes on any points or 

overly lengthy follow-up remarks so that everyone gets 

the floor time they need. Our facilitator will 

enforce this ground rule, and will also limit debate 

when speakers' points have been made and are clear. 

In formulating the proposed rules we are 

discussing today, we have considered all oral and 

written comments that you, the stakeholders, gave to 

us earlier. The published notice discusses the 

reasons for incorporating or not incorporating any of 

your significant recommendations. 

For your information, we will soon issue 

separate notices of proposed rulemaking regarding the 

test procedures for commercial water heaters, boilers, 

and air conditioners. We intend to set up a single 

set of provisions on compliance, certification, 

enforcement, and certain other general matters. They 

would apply to all the covered commercial heating, 

ventilating, and air conditioning products. 

Therefore, the other notices proposingtestprocedures 

for such equipment will not address these subjects. 

Quest ions are welcome throughout any of 

our presentations unless you are advised otherwise. 

It may be necessary, however, to cut off debate on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
9 

some topics to remain on schedule, although there may 

be time at the end of today's session for additional 

discussion of significant issues. I encourage 

everyone present to participate as much as possible so 

that we may get a full spectrum of opinions of these 

topics. 

The session is scheduled to adjourn at 

5:00 today, 5:00 p.m., unless of course we finish 

early. Topics which have not been completely 

discussed by that time can be addressed in additional 

written comments which are due by February 28, 2000, 

February 28, next month. 

All written comments and data submissions 

will be available for public inspection at the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room. I am providing 

their phone number, which is (202) 586-6020. 

Please send your written comments to 

Brenda Edward-Jones. Brenda is sitting at the table. 

Referring to docket no., when you send your comments, 

EE-RM/TP-99-450, when you respond. 

We would like to have ten copies of your 

comments and any supporting data, along with an 

electronic copy of comments or data using Wordperfect 

8 for text-based information or Microsof t Excel 97 for 

data-based information. No faxed comments will be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
accepted. Anyone attending this hearing or submitting 

written comments will be added to our list for future 

mailings concerning the subjects of this rulemaking. 

Again, we appreciate the time and effort 

you have taken in participating in this hearing. We 

will be pleased to receive your comments and opinions. 

Our purpose today is to listen to your views. 

I would like now to introduce our 

facilitator, Mr. Jim Raba, who will review the agenda, 

provide some housekeeping details, and describe how we 

will conduct this hearing. 

Jim? 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Welcome, everybody, to todayf s public 

hearing. It's good you all are here. I appreciate 

the time and effort you spent to do that for this 

important hearing. This goes in the public record, so 

again, thanks for coming today. 

We are going to look first of all at the 

introductions from everybody. I would like to go 

around the table, please, and speak clearly into the 

microphones. State your name and your company. We'll 

go around the room. 

Also, later on, about 10: 00 this morning, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
11 

we are going to be joined by -- our phone lines will 

be open too. So we'll have to take into account as we 

have our statements given to the record and 

introductions that will begin then. 

I'm Jim Raba, your facilitator. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GM. 

MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag with A.O. Smith 

Water Products Company. 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson, with York 

International. 

MR. KNOWLES: Stewart Knowles with NIST. 

MR. HOLLOMON: Brad Hollomon, with Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Office of Energy. 

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California 

Energy Commission 

MR. LIU: Stanley Liu, NIST. 

MR. TREADO: Steve Treado, NIST. 

MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock, Department of 

Energy. 

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, Office of General 

Counsel, Department of Energy. 

MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri, Department of 

Energy. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
12 

FACILITATOR RABA: In the back, please, 

and around. Incidently, there's a live mike in the 

back, if you'll stand up also. 

MR. HOGDES: John Hodges, Air Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. 

MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Sriram Somasundaram, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

FACILITATOR RABA: In the back there? 

MS. MURPHY: Chlorine Murphy, Department 

of Energy. 

MS. JONES: Edna Jones, Department of 

Energy, and Sandy. 

(Laughter. ) 

FACILITATOR RABA: Sandy Bell, Department 

of Energy. 

Thank you very much. If we find that 

there are not many people, please, the participants 

are welcome to gather at the table and take up closer 

to the microphones if you feel more comfortable that 

way. 

In the agenda review now, take a look at 

your agenda, which is broken into two major areas. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
The first segment being the test procedures for 

commercial furnaces, and the second segment being the 

sampling, certification, and enforcement procedures 

for commercial heating, air conditioning, and water 

heating equipment. 

On the first area, we have the ASHRAE/IES 

standard, 90.1 referenced furnace test standards or 

test procedures, the definition of thermal efficiency 

for furnaces, a sub-topic, and test procedures for 

measurement of energy efficiency. 

In that category of the test procedures 

for commercial furnaces, are there any other items to 

add to that? Anything we missed on this? 

Michael? Michael Martin, California 

Energy Commission. 

MR. MARTIN: Excuse me. I have something 

in my throat. I'm never quite sure what is going to 

happen when I open my mouth. 

I do have a short comment I would like to 

make about the scope of this rulemaking. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay, thank you. We'll 

hold onto that. We'll go through this one time. 

We'll get all these out. Then we'll come back. Thank 

you very much. Anything else for the first series of 

topics? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
The second series, those are the sampling, 

certification, and enforcement procedures, the subtopics there. Incidently too, let me go back. Back 

up a little bit too on the commercial furnaces, as 

well the test procedures for energy efficiency. There 

are some sub-topics which include the flue loss 

calculation for oil-fired furnaces, condensing 

furnaces, and other standards topics. Okay? 

These came from your public notice, so if 

you would like to refer to some of these there, they 

are in Notice of Public Hearing. If you need a copy 

of this, there will be some in the back too with Sandy 

and Brenda. 

Also, the topics of certification, the 

alternative efficiency determination methods, 

voluntary independent certificationprograms, both for 

participating and non-participating manufacturers. 

Anything to add to that for the agenda? 

Hearing one -- Joe? I'm sorry. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

Jim, when you get into that section, would it be 

useful to go section by section rather than topic by 

topic? I don't know what your plan is on that. 

MR. TREADO: That's kind of how it breaks 

down anyway. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
15 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay, fine. So we'll 

do that. Wer 11 leave that to the chairman and he will 

guide it. Thank you very much. Good comment. 

If you would like to make your comment now 

about the scope, and then we'll go onto some other 

housekeeping items and we'll get started then too. 

MR. MARTIN: Cyrus mentioned an 

introductory -- 

FACILITATOR RABA: Your name, sir? 

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin. 

FACILITATOR RAF3A: Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Cyrus mentioned an 

introductory statement. So I would like to read a 

short one to indicate I have been employed by the 

California Energy Commission for 24 years. I helped 

draft and enforce the Nation's first appliance 

efficiency standards for commercial appliances, most 

of which were later incorporated into the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992. 

The purpose of DOE'S rulemaking is to 

incorporate the standards into a workable framework of 

Federal regulation to implement the standards. The 

Commission, this is the California Energy Commission, 

is very interested in this rulemaking. MY 

Commissioners want me to make sure that you publish 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
16 

regulations that they can support. 

If DOE does not have a workable system of 

regulations to implement and enforce the efficiency 

standards and the resources necessary to carry out an 

effective program, California may be forced into 

debating whether it should develop its own standards, 

what we have now come to call EPACT products, and 

petition for exemption from Federal preemption. No 

state has ever done this. The Commissioners and I 

sincerely hope this won't become necessary. 

I have also just finished a term as a 

member of the ASHRAE/IES NA Standing Standard Project 

Committee 90.1-1989R and as Chair of its Mechanical 

Subcommittee. 

While I am proud of the achievements both 

of the California Energy Commission and ASHRAE, I also 

look at myself as an expert on all the potential 

mistakes that can be made in developing and 

implementing regulations and conducting enforcement 

programs. If I haven't made those mistakes myself, I 

have watched with other people make them. 

The Commission is impressed with the 

quality of the proposed rule and strongly supports 

several aspects of it. However, there are also some 

needed improvements, which we will discuss at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
17 

appropriate time. 

The definition of commercial warm air 

furnace in section 431.141, on page 69610 -- 

FACILITATOR RABA: Michael, excuse me. 

MR. MARTIN: Yes? 

FACILITATOR RABA: I think we're getting 

into a specific area of the topics. Would you hold 

that, please? 

MR. MARTIN: Sorry. I thought you were 

asking me to come up on the topic to discuss. 

FACILITATOR RABA: I was speaking more of 

a general statement. Forgive me, please. My fault. 

When we move into those, may we have those comments at 

that time, please, the statement? Then we can stay 

right on focus with what your thoughts are. We won't 

lose them that way. Would that be all right with you? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. The question of the 

scope is not a sub -- itf s a third item following your 

first two. It's not on your agenda at all. But any 

time that is convenient to you is fine. 

MR. LEVY: Two things. Does anybody have 

any questions or observations about the first part of 

Mr. Martin's statement? 

Okay. Then hearing none, the second -- 

whoever made the observation that the matter that he 

I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
18 

started to address is not on the agenda, the questions 

of definition. So I think you should go ahead and 

make your statement on that. 

MR. POLLOCK: There were some housekeeping 

items that Jim was proposing covering. Should we do 

those first, get them out of the way, and then get 

into substance? 

MR. LEVY: Sure. Okay. That's fine. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. That was Ed 

Levy from General Counsel, DOE. Ed Pollock, DOE also. 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. From my point of view, 

there is no significance in what order you do things. 

Whatever is convenient for you. 

FACILITATOR RABA: I just want to give you 

the best for the topic. If you hold onto that, we'll 

come back to it for sure. Just let me add to it on 

the agenda. Again, thank you for your indulgence. 

With that, just some quick housekeeping 

items. Some of you have been here before. You know 

the ropes pretty well about the Department ' s 

procedures too. Some things that we have that we call 

norms for conducting our hearings/workshop today. We 

would ask everybody speak one at a time. Raise your 

hand to be recognized, to get you in the queue to 

speak in turn. I will be taking care of that and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
matching as your facilitator. Make sure everybody 

gets a chance to make a statement or to be heard with 

a comment. 

State your name for the record also so we 

can get that in our transcript and we know who to get 

back with the comments for later on. We'll also ask 

that people who call in, for their names and where 

they are calling from too each time. 

Be concise when you make your statements. 

Try to avoid repetition. We'll focus on the topic and 

stay with that too. If there's something that does 

come up in addition, let me know. We' 11 put it on the 

parking lot here. We'll hold onto it until we can get 

to the appropriate time in our hearing for that 

statement or comment. 

We would like you also to be heard, 

everybody be heard. So listen as an ally. Listen 

constructively to move this process forward. 

We will be taking some breaks during the 

day. I'm presuming this will move rather efficiently. 

There may be some extra time at the end. We' 11 look at 

the agenda, see how our time is going for that. But 

indeed, if we do have some breaks in the meantime, 

please return promptly from those breaks as well. 

Also, you can get up and move around and about as you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
like. 

Those of you who are maybe not so familiar 

with the building, just remember that we have the 

restroom at either end of the main passage way here. 

There are the phones here in the elevator bay area. 

Also directly downstairs in the room is a small 

snackbar for coffee or for lunch. The main cafeteria, 

by going downstairs to the ground floor and walking 

west about two blocks underground, follow the 

escalator upstairs or your colleagues who know the 

way. I think I see some smiles who know the ropes, so 

I'm pretty confident that you won't get lost today. 

Also, of course there's no smoking in the 

building. I expect we'll look at our lunch break when 

the time comes as to how we want to schedule that, and 

look at any other things while we're in the meeting 

for moving things along in the topics. 

So, again 1/11 be your facilitator. I am 

interested in the process. My job is to make your job 

easy. Everybody is heard. I will not enter the 

substance, but indeed, I will be sure that as an 

honest broker, everything goes according to the 

process that's before us here. 

Are there any questions at this time? Any 

comments? Seeing none -- also, if you have brought a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
21 

computer, one other thing too. If you need a property 

pass to leave the building, see Brenda in the back. 

She can probably help you exit the building 

successfully with your computer. 

MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. For 

those of you who haven't been here before, just make 

sure you know it's not if you need one. If you want 

to take your computer with you, you do need to get a 

property pass. 

FACILITATOR RABA: We have some persons 

just joining us. I will invite them to introduce 

themselves once they get settled. 

Hearing no other opening remarks or 

statements at this time, we do have one. I would like 

to turn this over to the Chairman at this time. Then 

we can proceedwith the public hearing. Mr. Chairman? 

MR. NASSERI: Thank you, Jim. 

According to your agenda, I put a brief 

review of the proposed rule. Here, I would like to 

mention the fact. 

Should we have the gentlemen introduce 

themselves? 

FACILITATOR RABA: Yes. We can do that. 

At the table, please introduce yourselves. State your 

name, and where you are coming from. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. MENZER: My name is Mark Menzer . I am 

with the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Welcome, Mark. 

MR. MENZER: Thank you. My colleague is 

Lake Coulson, also with ARI. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay. Thank you very 

much. Noted for the record. Let's continue then. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. NASSERI : I just want to again review 

the Notice of Proposed Rule which was published in the 

Federal Resister on December 13. We have a comment 

period until February 28th. So you have that much 

time, another month to submit your written comments. 

~lso, this public hearing was announced in 

the NOPR at that time, January 27th. Then we 

requested that you send your statements to speak by 

January 24th, and also since we had the weather 

difficulties and everything else in the last few days, 

I understand of arranging things. I had a problem 

myself. Some of the things that you see here, for 

example, I tried to put the agenda together yesterday. 

The topics for discussion under A and B, 

there are sub-topics on test procedures and sampling 

that probably I should have listed, but those are 

basically on the two handouts that you see. One is on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the issues related to test procedures, warm air 

furnaces. The other handout is on sampling. If you 

look at the sheets on that, those are basically the 

sub-topics that we are going to cover under each of 

those topics. 

Also, I should mention the fact that I 

only received, the Department only received one 

statement, written statement from Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association -- thank you, Joe, -- very 

late yesterday. We have copies here. 

I had a phone call from Lake. I tried to 

get in touch with him this morning, that's ARI, that 

their phone was basically busy all day. I think Lake 

mentioned in the message that they are working on the 

statement. I assume it was yesterday and they are 

going to bring it to the workshop or hearings today. 

Is that right, Lake? 

MR. COULSON: That's correct. 

MR. NASSERI: So actually, we have two 

requested statements. I read GAMA's statement, which 

basically is related to compliance and enforcement and 

not to the test procedure. So our test procedure 

session and topics might be short. You can make it as 

short as possible so we can basically not actually 

stay until 5:00, the scheduled time. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
24 

My recommendation is that when we go on 

the topics of discussion, as GAMA requested, we go for 

the items that conclude under the area, and then we 

basically at that point open the floor to discussions 

and any statement that anybody would like to make. 

Michael -- is there anybody's comments 

which are related to the issues that we have on this 

handout? Michael Martin of California Commission has 

some comments. Are your comments related to issues 

that are listed on this handout on test procedures? 

MR. MARTIN: It is related to that. They 

are all complimentary. We just feel from time to time 

we need to say you did a good job, without saying you 

need a good job back. So it does not require going 

into anything in detail. It is just to tell you you 

did a good job. We're talking now furnaces. We 

talking now just furnaces. 

MR. LEVY: There was a comment on the 

definitions provision. Why don't you go ahead with 

that because that's not specifically addressed. 

MR. MARTIN: That is not related to the 

test method. 

MR. LEVY: Right. 

MR. MARTIN: Can I say my nice things 

about you before I do that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
25 

MR. LEVY: Sure. 

MR. NASSERI : While Brenda is doing this, 

we provided a call-in number yesterday. I sent it to 

ARI and GAMA by e-mail. I'm pretty sure you did not 

receive it because you didn't go to your offices 

maybe. It provided a call-in number in case if you're 

not able to make it to this workshop. 

MR. LEVY: She will announce the other 

parties as they call in. 

MR. NASSERI : Okay. Now we have the call - 

in number open. So if anybody wants to call us, 

hopefully they know. 

MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. There 

were several people yesterday who I talked with and 

Cyrus has talked with others, who were finding it 

difficult to travel because of the weather along the 

east coast. So that is why this is not a normal thing 

which we plan on doing, but we felt given the 

emergency, that we would include it for this 

conference, to allow broader participation. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you, Ed. 

MR. MARTIN: We commend DOE on: separating 

the regulations for commercial appliances, part 431, 

from those for consumer products in part 430; for 

considering warm air furnaces and boilers as separate 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
26 

appliances and discussing their test procedures at 

separate hearings; for its decision that DOE'S test 

method should include a procedure for testing the 

performance of commercial and densing furnaces; and 

for your proposed test procedure in which DOE appears 

to have taken the best of several industry test 

methods, none of which are totally satisfactory, and 

made a satisfactory combination. No buts. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you, Michael. 

MR. NASSERI : I think we' re ready. I 

don't have anything else to add to the brief review of 

the proposed rule. I think we are ready to start our 

topic discussion at this point, which I think is test 

procedure for commercial furnaces. I think we 

probably should have Stan Liu to have his 

presentation. Then we basically have our open floor 

for any statements for the areas after that. We'll go 

in that fashion. Is that okay with everybody? 

Stan? 

MR. LEVY: Before we go ahead with that, 

this is Ed Levy. Did you have a statement, Mike, on 

the definitional provisions? I thought you said you 

did earlier or did I just misunderstand you? 

MR. MARTIN: I do, but it1 s not the agenda 

item we are talking about now. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
They have just found the overhead 

projector . 

MR. LEVY: Well, why don't you make that 

statement while they are setting that up. 

MR. MARTIN: Okay. The definition of 

commercial warm air furnace, section 431.141 on page 

69610, reads, a warm air furnace, that is, a 

commercial HVAC and WH product, the definition of a 

furnace that is a consumer product in section 430.2 is 

a product which utilizes only a single-phase electric 

current in conjunction with natural gas or oil and 

which is designed to be the principal eating source 

for the living space of a residence, is not contained 

within the same cabinet with a central air conditioner 

whose rated cooling capacity is above 65,000 btu per 

hour, and has a heat input rate of less than 225,000 

btu per hour. 

It appears from these definitions that 

warm air furnaces with less than 225,000 btu per hour 

which are not consumer products, as defined above, are 

commercial warm air furnaces, and that the efficiency 

certification compliance and enforcement requirements 

in the proposed rule apply. 

This is not obvious to the casual reader, 

and needs to be clarified. However, the standards 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
28 

proposed in section 431.171 does not apply as written 

to any warm air furnaces of less than 225,000 btu per 

hour. We urge DOE to modify section 431.171 to 

include warm air furnaces less than 225,000 btu per 

hour that are not consumer products as being subject 

to the thermal efficiency standards for other 

commercial furnaces. 

The background of this is consumer 

products under NAECA do not include three-phase 

equipment. Commercial products apparently do not -- 

the standard for commercial products does not include 

three-phase equipment of the smaller sizes. It 

appears to me that this was overlooked by the people 

who drafted EPACT. 

It needs to be clear just where these 

things stand in your final notice. 

MR. LEVY: This is Ed Levy. I have a 

question. Are you suggesting that we expand the 

coverage of the standard beyond the scope as in the 

statute? 

MR. MARTIN: That is the suggestion. 

Well, there's two suggestions. The key one is that 

you make whatever the position you take is, very 

clear. The suggestion that we have as to how you 

should solve it would be to include these as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
29 

commercial products. It is, as you say, beyond the 

wording of the statute. Whether it's beyond the 

intent is another question. 

MR. LEVY: Any other comments on that 

point? 

FACILITATOR RABA: Charlie Stephens? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Energy Off ice. We concur with the CEC's 

recommendation. That we have actually been involved 

in doing some three-phase 150,000 btu per hour 

equipment. Under the way NAECA reads now and the way 

your proposed rule reads now, none of that equipment 

would be covered by any standard. We think it needs 

to be covered somewhere. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: Michael again. Overall, it 

needs to be very clear where we stand so we don't have 

to ask for interpretations later. 

MR. NASSERI: Excuse me, Michael. You are 

going to submit a written comment before February 

MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir, I am. Yes, indeed. 

MR. NASSERI: Okay. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Ed Pollock? 

MR. POLLOCK: I was just going to ask -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
3 0 

I believe Joe Mattingly from GAMA was involved in 

drafting the language in both of these -- if he had 

any sense of what was intended here or how it will be 

most appropriate to deal with this. 

MR. MATTINGLY: This is Joe Mattingly. I 

had no sense at all when I drafted EPACT. We 

recognize there's a gap there. Beyond that, I can't 

say more. I will say obviously you do have a 

statutory problem, whether you can expand beyond the 

statute. But we acknowledge there is a gap and 

frankly, I don't know if it was just a total 

oversight, possibly, when we drafted EPACT. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay, thank you. Any 

others? Any other comments? 

MR. NASSERI : I think our projector is 

working now. I think you are ready for Stan's 

presentation on issues on commercial furnace test 

procedures. Stan? 

MR. LIU: Okay. This is the title page 

which everybody can read. I don't have to read it. 

The first issue is incorporation of the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 referenced furnace test 

standards. In the proposed NOPR, a NOPR was proposed 

to adopt -- 

MR. NASSERI : Stan, could you speak in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
microphone, please? 

MR. LIU: For gas-fired furnaces, is ANSI 

221.47 1993 version. For the oil-fired furnaces, is 

UL on the writers laboratory, 727 version 1994. 

The reasons listed for adopting the two 

standards are first, EPCA specifies adoption of the 

industry test standard referenced by ASHRAE 90.1 and 

in effect on June 30, 1992. 

The second reason is the standards are 

those referenced by ASHRAE/IE 90.1 for furnaces. 

The third one is you'll notice that since 

June 30, 1992, the effective date. But all dates, the 

reference date for gas furnaces is 1993 and for the 

oil furnaces is 1994. We looked into the version 

that's referenced in ASHRAE 90.1 prior to 1992 and 

compared with the latest version of the standards, and 

found out there is no difference between the prior 

version and the current version. 

The current version is much easier to 

obtain. That is why we reference the current version. 

During the previous, we had two workshops 

on the test procedure for furnaces and other subjects. 

The comments during the workshop, all support. 

MR. NASSERI: I think the best way to 

handle this, we'll stop at this point and see if 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
32 

anybody wants to make any comments on this issue of 

referencing the latest version of the ASHRAE 

standards, which is basically in the standard 90.1, 

ASHRAE 90.1. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

My technical staff wonders why you are not referencing 

221.47 1998, since the thermal efficiency test 

procedure didn't change? 

MR. NASSERI: 221.47 1998? Are you 

recommending that we look at the latest? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Right, and adopt that as 

the current standard applicable to furnaces. I say 

the thermal efficiency requirements or test methods 

didn't change. 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson from York 

International. I would like to state also that the 

thermal efficiency section outlined as 2.37 did switch 

to 2.38 in the 1998 version. It would be important to 

upgrade to that year. 

MR. LIU: Yes, we'll look into that, and 

make sure that they agree with each other. 

FACILITATOR RABA: So essentially, we're 

looking to update these current standards. Do you see 

substantive differences? 

MR. WILSON: No. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
33 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay, good. Thank you 

very much. 

Any other comments? 

MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag. I have a question 

because I am not that familiar with the furnace 

standard, but if the furnace standard is harmonized, 

like the water heater standard is? The number may not 

be right. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Harmonized? How is 

that? Harmonized with international? 

MR. HAAG: The Canadian. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Canadian? 

MR. HAAG: Yes. 

MR. NASSERI: Let me clarify on that. 

Wilbur is talking about 221 which has AD standards. 

It's harmonized with the Canadian standards. So 

whoever is referring to that. 

As I recall, there was many of his 

standards, since I am a member of that committee also, 

is that there are certain differences in the members 

of the committee on some of these. Then obviously we 

did look at this latest version of this standard and 

did include any harmonization or numbering system as 

far as Canadian standards. 

FACILITATOR RABA : Thank you, Mr. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
Chairman. 

Mr. Martin? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Michael Martin. I am 

a member of this committee too. These harmonized 

standards, this is U.S. and Canadian, have two 

numbers, both the 221 and the Canadian number. So the 

221 number, the -47 is an accurate way of defining it 

in the United States regulation. 

I would also support updating it to the 

later edition. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. Any other 

comments, questions on the standard reference for 

commercial furnace test procedures? 

Okay. Ready to go to the next? 

MR. LIU: Now for the commercial warm air 

furnaces, there is a definition of what is thermal 

efficiency. Proposed in the NOPR, is to define the 

term thermal efficiency for commercial furnaces, I 

stress only for commercial furnaces, as 100 percent 

minus percent of flue loss. 

The reason for that is EPCA specified the 

minimum standard for commercial warm air furnaces in 

terms of thermal efficiency, which is also the same 

term used in ASHRAE 90 .l. ASHRAE 90.1 uses thermal 

efficiency as an energy efficiency descriptor. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
The third one is the referenced ANSI 

221.47, I guess now it's 1998, explicitly defines 

thermal efficiency as equal to -- they write it out, 

100 minus percent flue loss in the thermal efficiency 

test section. 

The proposed would define it exactly, 

explicitly as 100 percent minus flue loss as the 

thermal efficiency, is to eliminate possible confusion 

with some of the usual definitions of thermal 

efficiency which is usually defined as output energy 

divided by input energy. 

To measure the output energy is different 

than to measure flue loss. So it is important to 

define that 100 percent minus flue loss, so we measure 

the flue loss. This procedure mentions the flue loss. 

There is a different procedure for measuring the 

output energy, which is involved in flow rate, 

captured differences and so on. 

The comments during the prior two 

workshops, all support the proposal. Also the comment 

is that no jacket loss should be included, because if 

you measure jacket loss and subtract that from the 100 

percent minus flue loss, then you are supposed to get 

the usual definition of thermal efficiency. But 

during workshop, the comments is that since the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
3 6 

definition in ANSI 221.47 is 100 percent minus flue 

loss as the thermal efficiency, therefore, no jacket 

loss should be included, which in the proposal, there 

is no jacket loss included. 

MR. NASSERI: Any comments on this issue? 

Did everybody understand what the issues are and what 

you are talking about here? Any questions? Anybody 

need any clarification on this? No questions? No 

clarification. 

All right. Let's go to the next slide, 

Stan. 

MR. LIU: The third topic is flue loss 

calculation for oil-fired furnaces. In the reference, 

the proposed in NOPR is to adopt a flue loss 

calculation procedure specified in the 1989 Hydronics 

Institute test standard for oil-fired boilers as a 

calculation procedure for oil-fired furnaces. 

The reason is first, under writer 

laboratory UL 727 for oil furnaces does not provide a 

method for flue loss calculation which is needed for 

determining thermal efficiency, 100 percent minus 

percent flue loss. 

UL 727 does specify, mention flue loss, 

except it didn't say how. Also, how to calculate it. 

The proposed 1989 Hydronics Institute test 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
3 7 

standard is ASHRAE 90.1 referenced test standard for 

oil fired boilers. So in an indirect way, it is 

referenced in ASHRAE 90.1. 

The third way, there is no difference in 

the flue gas analysis for oil-fired heating equipment, 

either boiler or furnace. Therefore, adopting the one 

for the boiler, the test procedure, and the 

calculation procedures are identical, which are also 

being used in the ASHRAE standard for residential 

furnaces and boilers. 

The comments during the prior workshop is 

no objection to this proposal. 

FACILITATOR RAl3A: Does everybody 

understand that? Everybody get that? Any comments? 

MR. NASSERI: I have a question here from 

GAMA. We are waiting for -- I see Joe doesn't like 

this question -- my question is that GAMA has been or 

- - this as part of GAMA, they have been revising this 

test standard for the last few years. I would like to 

know if there's any update on the status of the 

standards. Because we very much would like to 

reference the latest version of the HI standards. 

Joe? 

MR. MATTINGLY: I am not sure, Cyrus, but 

we'll address that in our written comments or let you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
know beforehand. 

MR. NASSERI: Thank you very much. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Has anybody joined us 

on the telephone for the Department of Energy 

Commercial Equipment Public Hearing? So be it. 

Nothing heard. 

MR. LIU: Okay. Looks like we' re finished 

with this then. Let's go to the next issue. 

The last one on the agenda is optional 

test procedure for gas-fired condensing furnaces. 

MR. LEVY: One clarification here. I 

think the word probably is misplaced here. 

The test is not an option. It is only optional in the 

sense that if you have a condensing furnace, then this 

is the test to use. But it is not the manufacturer's 

option as to whether to use this test. I wanted to 

clarify that point. Go ahead. 

MR. LEVY: The one proposed in the NOPR is 

adopting the steady state test method for flue 

condensate measurement specified in ASHRAE standard 

103 in the 1993 version. 

The reason is in the referenced test 

standard, none of them give a test procedure for 

measuring the increased efficiency of gas-fired 

condensing furnaces. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
3 9 

But DOE does need a method for use in the 

design option evaluation process. 

The third one, I already said. The fourth 

one is ASHRAE 103 is the referenced test procedure for 

residential furnaces and is a familiar procedure for 

the furnace industry. So there shouldn't be any 

problem understanding using the test method. 

The comments during the prior workshops is 

there is really at the present time, no commercial 

condensing furnace. So comments were why bother 

providing a test procedure for it. 

DOE'S point is even though there is no 

commercial condensing furnace, but eventually there 

will be one developed. DOE would like to have a test 

procedure in place rather than playing a catch-up 

game. When a condensing furnace comes up, and then 

say where's the test procedure, then DOE is supposed 

to develop a test procedure which takes time. So DOE 

would rather have a test procedure in place, in 

waiting, if ever there is one developed. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you, Stan. 

MR. NASSERI : Any comments on this issue? 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson, York 

International. Two preceding slides ago, we agreed to 

define thermal efficiency of 100 percent minus flue 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
40 

loss. In this slide, for which there is no product on 

the market at this time, and most of the manufacturers 

in the past meetings have proposed this particular 

section, we are now referencing ASHRAE 103 1993, which 

is an AFUE calculation. The AFUE calculation requires 

that jacket loss be taken. So now we are in direct 

conflict on what we are asking for a standard, 80 

percent tied furnaces versus condensing furnaces. 

There needs to be a clarification of how we are going 

to test this. 

MR. NASSERI : I guess you are correct that 

ASHRAE standard is based on AFUE rating. But also, 

there is a method of measuring their steady state 

efficiency on the same document. AFUE is not the only 

way of measuring efficiency. So 103 very clearly 

gives you the test procedure for steady state. 

In the case of condensing furnaces, we're 

talking about that issue, not AFUE, and 103, as I 

said, has a very clear procedure for measuring the 

efficiency for condensing furnaces. This is a 

technology that is on the market. Even though we had 

comments that it's not commercially used, but we 

believe that this is a technology that actually 

basically saves energy if we use this technology and 

reclaim some of the losses through your flue, and is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
a good position to have a test procedure since 

industry has run as ASHRAE 103 in our test procedure 

for future. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Comment? 

MR. LEVY: Yes. I just want to raise a 

question. This is a question for Mr. Wilson. If the 

regulation made clear that we were referencing only 

the steady state test procedure, the one that Cyrus 

just referred to, would that address your concern? 

MR. WILSON: That would. 

MR. LEVY: The concern you just expressed. 

MR. WILSON: That would. 

MR. LEVY: Okay. 

MR. WILSON: There is no reference to a 

steady state temperature up there or steady state 

efficiency. 

MR. NASSERI: As we understand it, as we 

talk, is this self-explanatory that when we're taking 

the efficiency for condensing, you are talking about 

a steady state efficiency, which is the method in the 

ASHRAE 103 measurement. 

MR. WILSON: Exactly. 

MR. LIU: In the test procedure proposed 

NOPR would be mentioned, referenced, the section 

numbers in ASHRAE 103, which is specifically only 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
42 

aimed at the steady state efficiency. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. That was Ed 

Levy just prior to that asking the question, and Steve 

Wilson responding. Indeed, we have two hands raised. 

I will to you in just a moment. 

We would like to have your comments on 

this topic, invite certainly, maybe bring it up later 

on, we would invite your written comments. 

Michael Martin? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. I think first of all, 

we need to get this into context. You are setting a 

test method, but these things are so very much more 

efficient that they are not going to be used for 

determining whether or not you comply with a minimum 

Federal standard. 

Therefore, all we're actually doing here 

is specifying a national method of describing the 

efficiency this kind equipment. such, 

would support following the details of the ASHRAE 

standard as a means of describing the efficiency. But 

it doesn't affect the question as to whether or not 

you comply with a minimum because condensing furnaces 

are never going to be down that low. 

So I disagree with Steve. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Again, your written 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
comments are invited also on that point. 

Brad? 

MR. HOLLOMON: Brad Hollomon, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory. I just wanted to ask 

for confirmation of Ed Levy's remark that this is in 

effect a mandatory procedure if you have a condensing 

device, given the comment that Michael Martin just 

made. One would ask the question I think asked in 

some of the previous workshops, whether or not if a 

manufacturer had a condensing device and was not 

particularly interested taking credit for the 

latent heat of the condensate, that he would not 

necessarily have to test the device according to this 

particular procedure. 

MR. LEVY: I am not going to try and 

answer that question here. That is something we can 

address, and we will. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Any other comments, 

please. Mr. Chairman? 

MR. NASSERI : At this point, since we are 

finished with the presentation of the issue, I would 

like to open the floor for general discussion if 

anybody wants to make any statements related to the 

commercial furnace test procedures. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
44 

We did have a comment on the definition section on 

basic model, which pertains to all the regulations. 

It seems like it is better discussed when we talk 

about the certification and enforcement. 

MR. NASSERI : Any comments on the issue of 

test procedures for furnaces? There is none. 

I think we are ready, Mr. Facilitator, if 

you would like to have a break at this point. Or do 

we go to the next item? 

FACILITATOR RABA: What's the rule of the 

group today? Take a break or keep moving? Okay, a 

short break. Ten minutes. Back at quarter of. 

MR. NASSERI: Then we're going with the 

certification compliance presentation. 

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 

the record at 10 : 35 a.m. and went back on 

the record at 10 : 54 a.m. ) 

FACILITATOR RABA: Please take your seats. 

Mr. Chairman? 

MR. NASSERI : Thank you. We are ready to 

go to the next issue of this workshop or public 

hearing. That is the sampling, certification, and 

enforcement for commercial heating, ventilating, and 

air conditioning and water heating equipment. 

At this point, Steve Treadow will have a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
presentation. Then we go and do the same procedure 

item by item and discussion. 

FACILITATOR RABA: One point of order, Mr. 

Chairman. I note that Joe Mattingly of GAMA has a 

brief comment about basic -- well, an agenda item that 

was not previously brought up, and would like to 

invite his comments at this time to give a picture of 

the overall on that one. 

Then we'll have Steve's presentation. We 

can then revisit the definition of basic model, 

comments, even more detail as we go along. 

So please, if you would. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Okay. Thanks. Joe 

Mattingly, from GAMA. 

This subject first comes the 

definitions section of basic model. This issue comes 

up even more starkly in section 431.503. But in your 

definition of basic model, it appears from that 

definition that if you had a gas furnace or a gas 

boiler that was entirely, you know, the same but had 

different energy consumption, that couldn't be 

considered the same model. Even if their energy 

efficiencies were the same, but their energy 

consumption is different, it couldn't be the same 

model. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
46 

We looked at the definitions in part 430, 

which you have for the NAECA regulations. When you 

look down to the different products, indeed you see 

energy consumption as a basis for having different 

models for each product, except when you get to 

furnaces. For that matter, room air conditioners. 

But we did that on purpose in NAECA 

because residential furnace manufacturers have model 

series or families. They will offer a basic model, 

and then they will have like different input options, 

just add a little more heat exchanger and you have a 

different input. So we just flagged that. We don't 

really have a definitive position on that yet. We are 

discussing it with furnace manufacturers to see if 

that is an issue. 

Now, later on in that other section I 

referred to, you have recognized this because you say 

look, if there is a difference in energy consumption 

but the energy efficiency is the same, you don't have 

to test the other units as a different basic model. 

But you do have to file a certification report for it. 

So the fact that manufacturers may have to 

add model numbers may complicate their business. We 

will comment if we find out that it does. We are just 

flagging it as an issue now. We will address it one 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
way or the other in our written comments. 

MR. LEVY: Okay. Just one brief 

understanding that you will address it definitively in 

your comments. Does it appear at this point that use 

of the approach in part 430, the definitions there, 

basic comment would address your concern? If that 

were imported into the final rule here? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Yes. If you just modified 

your definition, except for furnaces which -- YOU 

know, and change it somewhat. But again, we don1 t 

want to though raise an issue if it's not truly a 

problem for manufacturers. That is what we are trying 

find out. 

MR. LEVY: We'll look at your final 

comments on this. The approach in part 430 defines 

basic model product by product. Here there is only 

one definition for all of these HVAC and water heating 

commercial products. So maybe it would make sense. 

We'll look forward to your comments. Maybe it would 

make sense to have a parallel approach here, where the 

definition of basic model varies from one type of 

product to another. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you for your 

patience. We have one comment from Michael Martin, 

please. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
48 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. If Joe could explain to 

me what circumstances we would be talking about where 

-- I think you said the input is the same but the 

efficiency is different? Or was it the other way 

around? 

MR. MATTINGLY: No. It is the other way 

around. Under the NAECA, you know, the residential 

products, you might have a basic model in a family. 

Then it's offered with 30,000 btu input, 40,000 btu 

input, 50,000 btu input all within the same model. 

MR. MARTIN: Same basic model? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Same basic model, yes, 

MR. MARTIN: But they would have different 

model numbers when they are on the market then, I take 

it? 

MR. MATTINGLY : I'm not sure how the 

numbering would be different, but it would be 

considered still the same basic model. 

MR. MARTIN: That would affect the model 

testing you have to do. That is the significance of 

what you are bringing up? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Well actually, DOE seems 

to have forecast that, and they are addressing that in 

this later paragraph, saying you don't have to do 

additional testing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
49 

What we are trying to find out though is 

this going to complicate the way you do business in 

some other way. 

MR. MARTIN: I see. 

MR. MATTINGLY: If not, then we'll just 

say it's not an issue. If it does, we will let you 

know. 

MR. MARTIN: Great. Thank you. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Steve? 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson, York 

International. The basic model issue would have a 

different series model number. But the problem is 

that when you define a basic model in the fashion itr s 

being defined, you end up testing each one of those 

gas inputs when in reality, every one of them is going 

to have the same efficiency, just a different input 

size, as just pointed out. 

So that the danger is here that when you 

define a basic model in this fashion, that when you 

have different gas heat sections, say with a five ton 

three-phase unit for cooling, then you may have a 

60,000 and 80,000, and 100,000 input, that those are 

all defined as three different models, when in 

actuality, they have got the same blower. They have 

got the same energy consumption on the cooling side. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
They have got the same efficiency on the heating side 

for all three models. So we would be forced into more 

basic model testing. That's what we would not like to 

have as manufacturers. 

MR. LEVY: Also address Joef s point 

consistent with this last observation. That the 

additional round of testing would not be affected by 

the provision in section 431.503. That addresses new 

models that come on line. So you may want to consider 

that in determining how to address this point. 

FACILITATOR -A: Sounds like a good 

topic for follow-up, written comments too. 

One more from Michael. Then we'll go to 

Steve. 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Then these comments are 

applying to all gas products then? Furnaces, boilers, 

and water heaters? 

MR. MATTINGLY: We have thought of the 

issue so far in terms of furnaces and boilers. 

MR. MARTIN: I see. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Steve? Proceed. 

MR. TREADO: Just for the record, I'm sure 

everybody here is aware of this, but I want to 

reinforce the fact that what I am going to talk about 

covers all the commercial HVAC equipment, all the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
51 

various classes, including furnaces, boilers, hot 

water heaters, air conditioners, heat pumps. 

We're going to talk about - - I am going to 

try to describe the sampling, the certification, and 

the enforcement provisions. The way those things 

break down, the sampling refers to how to select the 

units for testing and how to determine the performance 

metrics that are going to be used to demonstrate 

compliance with the minimum standards and also any 

ratings or representations which are going to be used 

to describe the performance of covered equipment. 

Certification is the procedure that needs 

to be followed in order to certify to the Department 

of Energy that the covered equipment meets the minimum 

standards. 

Enforcement refers tothe procedures which 

are available in case there is some dispute about the 

actual performance of a piece of covered equipment. 

Specifically, whether it meets the minimum standards. 

It was mentioned earlier that you would 

like to go through the proposed rule basically section 

by section. I don't quite have it broken down that 

way, but it is pretty close. As I am going through, 

I will try to cover each point. Then if you think it 

spills over into another section, we can go ahead and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nea1rgross.com 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
52 

try to cover that. 

As I mentioned, certification procedures, 

there's not a lot of change here from what has been in 

place for the previous residential consumer type 

products. It consists of a compliance statement, 

which is intended to be a one-time submittal. 

I had a chance briefly to look through the 

two sets of written comments from GAMA and ARI this 

morning just as the meeting has been going on. I 

noted that there was a comment in there about whether 

you needed to submit a compliance statement for each 

new product when that comes about. We may need to 

clear that little bit. 

I don't believe it's the Department's 

intention to do that. I believe the compliance 

statement is more an institutional or corporate 

indication to the Department Energy that they are 

aware of the procedures and the standards, and the 

products that are covered, and that they intend to 

follow the regulations. So it is basically just a 

notification to the Department, a one-time submittal. 

In contrast, the certification report 

needs to be submitted to the Department for each basic 

model that is covered. Now that can be done either 

directly or via a third party. But the Department has 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
been pretty consistent in wanting to receive and have 

on file an actual certification report. 

I noted there were some comments along the 

lines of, well if it's published in a directory, 

should that be able to substitute. I guess that's 

something the Department can consider, but they have 

been fairly consistent, as I mentioned, in wanting to 

have something on file here at the Department. 

This certification report includes the 

energy performance in the metric that is appropriate 

for each class of equipment. That is described in the 

rules. It is based on the DOE test procedure or the 

calculation procedure which itself has to be validated 

using the DOE test procedure. Everything comes back 

to measurements at some point. 

There are some differences in the 

requirements forthe calculationprocedure alternative 

energy determination method, AEDM, depending upon 

whether a particular manufacturer is a participant in 

voluntary independent certification program VICP. 

There is a little more leeway given to 

manufacturers who are participating in an approved 

voluntary independent certification industry 

certification program. We will describe a little 

later what would be required to obtain approval for a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
54 

particular industry program. 

Any questions on sort of these general 

topics? 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson from York 

International. I guess we're really asking as 

manufacturers if a submittal to ARI and CSA, GAMA, a 

listing in those appropriate directories, if that 

constitutes compliance with what the DOE is requesting 

as far as the certification report. 

In other words, it will be a substantial 

amount of work to go through all the models, families, 

that we have currently listed once again to submit to 

another agency to comply with this program when we 

have already got it listed. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Any thoughts to that 

from the Chair? 

MR. LEVY: Let's just turn it around. Let 

me ask this question. Is it the intent that these 

directories would be submitted to the Department as a 

certification report? 

MR. WILSON: I am asking if that would be 

acceptable, is what I'm asking. Would that constitute 

a certification report for each basic model? 

MR. LEVY: I think that is something that 

we can address. I think the Department would probably 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
be satisfied as long as it gets the information. 

What I'm asking is whether or not that's 

what you are advocating the Department allow, is that 

for the associations to submit their directories. 

MR. WILSON: Yes, it is. That is exactly 

what I'm asking. 

FACILITATOR RABA: We had one comment from 

Michael Martin first, then Joe. 

MR. MARTIN: It does seem to make sense. 

Those directories should be submitted to DOE. 

Otherwise, you don't have anything on file. I think 

as you look further into this, you need to look at 

whether you are talking about the printed directory or 

the electronic directory as to what you would be 

accepting. 

MR. LEVY: What is the difference, Michael 

or if somebody else can address it? 

MR. MARTIN: The printed directory comes 

out twice a year, but the electronic directory -- 

we're talking about ARI, for instance, the electronic 

directory is updated more often. So it is more up-todate than the printed directory. 

If you are in a position to accept this 

electronically, you would have much more up-to-date 

data. However, if you don't have the facilities to do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
56 

it, then you know what electronic stuff is when you 

don't know what to do with it. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Interesting point. 

Thank you. 

First, Joe Mattingly, then Mark Menzer. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

We would hope that you try to do this the same way as 

is done for NAECA-covered products, where we give you 

the directory. Of course we have a commercial boiler 

certification program in place right now. We almost 

have one in place for water heaters. That's coming 

very soon. We have to think hard now about one for 

furnaces . 

But we would certainly submit the printed 

directories to you, and electronic versions, we would 

give you everything that we've come to give the 

California Energy Commission for residential products. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. Mark, then 

Charlie. 

MR. MENZER: Thank you. Mark Menzer from 

ARI. We would hope that submittal of a certification 

directory would suffice to meet this. But let me be 

clear that for the electronic directory, which is 

available on the Web, it is updated instantaneously, 

daily, more often than daily. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
57 

A submittal there of course is kind of a 

passive submittal because you have it, you have access 

to it. So it would not be a physical submittal of 

anything, but rather, you would always have access as 

everybody who is on the Web does, you would have 

access to our directory with the latest data at any 

time you wanted to. So it kind of redefines the word 

submittal. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Electronics makes an 

interesting world, doesn't it? 

Charlie Stephens? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Energy. I have one question first, probably of Joe or 

from Steve. It seems to me that from my use of the 

GAMA directory, that what you would be submitting is 

a lot more than basic models there. I mean you 

actually have every model listed, complete with 

inputs. 

So I guess I am wondering if we go with 

this notion of a different definition of a basic 

model, we are going to end up with certifications for 

much more than that the directory becomes the 

certification. 

The other question is, that's fine for the 

people who are participating in your directory. What 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
about the manufacturers whose equipment are not listed 

in your directory and don't participate in your 

program? 

FACILITATOR RABA: Good point, Charlie. 

Thank you. 

Any comments further? Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes, I sense the basic model 

discussion is as to what has to be tested. But the 

actual model number is what is useful in the file. I 

don't sense that there is a problem there. I see 

Steve nodding his head side to side, which I think 

means he agrees with me. 

MR. WILSON: I agree. The definition has 

to do with testing after the individual product goes 

into testing certification and production. Listing 

the basic models is not a problem because we have to 

do that anyway. 

But it does get more complicated, the 

testing aspect, when you are verifying the testing 

such as GAMA does on furnaces and you have a list of 

basic models that includes the same unit with four or 

five different inputs. 

MR. LEVY: Just to clarify. The proposed 

rule would require the certification report that each 

model be identified, not just each basic model, but 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
each model number in effect. I take it, and I think 

GAMA and ARI you responded, I take it that's the 

information that Charlie was referring to that's in 

your certification reports, each model, not just each 

basic model? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

These directories are not produced just for the 

purposes of complying with DOE requirements or CEC 

requirements. This is for public consumption. It has 

got to make sense to the public. So of course we 

don1 t just list basic models. We list all the models. 

MR. STEPHENS : Yes, this is Charlie 

Stephens. The reason I asked is because it says up 

there on this slide, certification report for each 

basic model. It doesn't say each model. So I guess 

I am trying to make sure here what we are talking 

about. 

MR. LEVY: Just to cut to the quick. That 

does not accurately state what's in the rule, I mean 

or totally state. Let's put it that way. The rule 

calls for each model. 

MR. STEPHENS: Each model, okay. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Would you care to 

comment? 

MR. TREADO: I have a comment that I would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
60 

probably advise the Department to take into 

consideration along with everything else. The fact 

that what they have now or what they are asking for 

now is a piece of paper that basically lists all of 

the individual models, rather than one basic model, at 

a point in time, and for each new basic model which is 

introduced, they would receive a report. 

Perhaps the disadvantage of the electronic 

version of the database is that the Department would 

have to proactively query this and keep records 

somehow as this changed in time since it is a dynamic 

document. Those would be some tradeoffs that they 

would have to look at. 

I can see the difficulties for the 

manufacturers, of trying to handle additional 

paperwork. Maybe there is some compromise, where the 

VICP might be able to consolidate. Since the industry 

directories are including all the individual models, 

they might be able to consolidate those down to the 

basic models. That's the correspondence that the 

Department, I believe, is trying to maintain, so that 

an actual model can be related back to a test which 

was done on a basic model. 

MR. MARTIN: I guess I want to disagree 

with what you just said, in that what DOE should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
61 

maintaining is a list of every model. That is what 

would come from the trade associations, rather than 

just the basic model. 

MR. LEVY: Can I ask a question here of 

the industry people? Are the directories in any way 

organized in terms of the basic model definitions that 

exist? For example, on the appliance side, are models 

that would constitute a single basic model grouped 

together in these directories? 

MR. MENZER: Mark Menzer from ARI . No, 

they are not. Unnecessarily organized that way. 

MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock from DOE. 

Just to follow up on what Mark just said though. In 

the ARI directory, there are little asterisks in the 

column that indicates which are the tested basic 

models. That in itself identifies those that have 

been tested. So it is a very easy thing to be done. 

I have not looked at GAMA for that, but it 

could be, I assume, added to theirs if it isn't 

already. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. Further 

comments or statements for discussion? 

MR. STEPHENS : One other thing. I do have 

a question. I would just like to hear from DOE. This 

is Charlie Stephens. What do you prefer or is there 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
62 

a legal issue involved in having paper, and a signed 

piece of paper with a directory or a periodic 

submission like once a year, once a quarter, once 

semi-annually, whatever, of an update, of a formal 

update of all the added models in the previous six 

months or the previous year, or all of the models that 

are currently certified as of some particular time, or 

I mean in terms of meeting you might say the legal 

requirements of a manufacturer to literally certifying 

that all of these models do comply, do you have a 

standard position on how that's done? 

MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. From 

the NAECA residential products, the reason for this 

compliance statement is that what the company is 

certifying is that they understand the law and that 

they are testing and complying with the efficiency and 

reporting requirements of the law. That is why we say 

that's a corporate thing which is specified one time 

only. 

I don't want to get into saying is it 

legal or what other do we need, but there is a 

precedent there for a process that's been set up and 

has worked fairly effectively for us. 

MR. LEVY: But to address the question. 

I think the way the rules are set up now, a model or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
basic model at least can't be distributed unless a 

certification report has been submitted with respect 

to that basic model. 

MR. STEPHENS: Basic model, not a model. 

MR. LEVY: Yes. That is correct. 

MR. STEPHENS: Basic versus model. I am 

going to have to go back and read some of this stuff, 

and just see how it parses out. 

MR. LEVY: Yes. I think that when -- I 

haven't really focused real closely on this issue, but 

I do believe the same is probably true with regard to 

a new model. So there is general provision which sort 

of addresses what manufacturers have to do initially. 

Then after that, you look at the new model language, 

and that doesn't -- it's not real clear on the time, 

but when a new model is introduced, even if it is part 

of an existing basic model, you have to submit a 

certification report with respect to that new model. 

The timing is not specified on that. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GZUW.. 

I think the laws and regulations are pretty clear that 

regardless of the paperwork, every model, basic model 

or derivative model, had better darn cite comply with 

the law with the applicable standard. I think that is 

quite clear. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
So whether you send in a certification 

report or committed perjury or whatever, if you get 

found that you are not in compliance with the law, to 

me it's no excuse to say I didn't understand the law 

or didn't sign a piece of paper or whatever. I think 

it is pretty clear what the requirements are. 

FACILITATOR RABA: So should we move on 

then? 

MR. NASSERI: Let's move on to the test 

basic models. 

MR. TREADO: Yes. The next items is 

generally the category of testing and how that relates 

to basic models. 

We have talked quite a bit about basic 

models. Everything in terms of both ratings and the 

validation of any computer model used to determine the 

performance all comes back with a DOE test procedure. 

The units that are tested must be representative, 

meaning typical for that class. It needs to be a 

randomly selected. 

Now again, I notice there was a comment 

about what to do when you only have one or two units. 

Well, if you only have one or two units, you randomly 

select from them. That's about as random as you can 

be in that case. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
another comment about just what were industry 

standards for accuracy. The Department was hoping the 

industry might shed some light on that. 

It was intentionally vague because we 

didn't want to set something up that was either 

incorrect or otherwise not applicable. But certainly, 

the industry has expectations for the accuracy for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

these measurements. 

The reason this phrase came up, to be 

frank, is that once you get into this whole business 

of approving the voluntary industry certification 

program, it is conceivable that new programs might 

spring up, which people who haven't been doing this 

be£ ore and may not have the competence to really carry 

65 

What to do about more or less a prototype 

of a new product, what you need to certify before you 

can sell. That's something the Department will have 

to try to consider if there is a need to be more 

specific about testing such a unit. 

The measurements need to be done within 

industry standards for accuracy. I know that that was 

out the measurements. So they are hoping to have a 

qualitative means of being able to identify those 

sorts of shortcomings compared to the industry 

standard. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
66 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly, GAMA. One 

thing we just want to be sure that you didn't mean, 

unless you did, with our certification programs that 

exist now, we have certain tolerances. But we didn't 

read this as having anything to do with tolerances. 

MR. TREADO: No. This is not a tolerance 

issue, this is strictly a measurement issue. 

MR. MENZER: Mark Menzer from ARI . You 

are concerned about the accuracy of measurements both 

at the manufacturer and an independent third party 

testing house? Is that correct? 

MR. TREADO: Yes. This would be any 

measurements which were conducted either to determine 

a rating or to perform model validation. 

MR. MENZER: Yet they are testing against 

a standard that has accuracy tolerances within that. 

So you want to make sure that they are staying within 

those tolerances? 

MR. TREADO: Yes. Certainly that is an 

indication of an industry standard if it's for 

accuracy, if it's actually stated in the test 

procedure itself. 

MR. MENZER: And most of the major third 

party testers are themselves certified through 

laboratory certification groups. Would you take those 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
types of certifications as being a stamp of approval 

that they do have good correlation and accuracy 

procedures for testing? 

MR. TREADO: I think the Department would 

consider that as a positive indication. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Go ahead, Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. If standards for 

accuracy doesn't mean tolerances, what does it mean? 

MR. TREADO: Well, I think the specific 

issue with tolerances is that you may be able to make 

the measurement very accurately. But then when you 

compare it to either a rating or a standard, you allow 

some leeway based upon manufacturing tolerances, in 

addition to measurement on certainty. 

Whereas accuracy, strictly speaking, is 

how close are you to getting the right answer. 

Tolerance is once you have this answer, how close is 

it? When is it considered to be acceptable? 

MR. MARTIN: We're talking of testing for 

certification rather than for enforcement, I take it? 

MR. TREADO: Yes. 

You need to test a sufficient number of 

units. It is not specified. We have some flexibility 

in terms of selecting a sufficient number of units to 

get a mean efficiency which is statistically valid and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nea1rgross.com 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
68 

accurate if you are a manufacturer who is 

participating in a VICP. 

So there are no strict statistical methods 

specified to achieve this, but whatever methods are 

used need to be statistically valid and accurate. The 

basic rating is a simple mean efficiency. 

I believe records need to be maintained so 

that if any questions come up, the methods that were 

used come up with the ratings can be evaluated a 

little bit. 

If you are not a participant in the VICP, 

then there is a specified DOE sampling plan which is 

similar to what's in place now for residential 

products. am going describe that next, but 

there are any more questions on these? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Steve, one thing. Joe 

Mattingly from GAMA. I would just note in the 

discussions as you talk about a manufacturer has 

determined the efficiency, the basic model heater from 

testing or AEDM, we assume that it would be acceptable 

for a VICP participant, for example, to rely on a 

third party to do the testing. 

MR. TREADO: I believe that is totally 

acceptable, and we'll probably need to make a little 

change in that to indicate -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. MATTINGLY: The manufacturer test or 

have tested. 

MR. TREADO: On their behalf. 

MR. LEVY: I take it -- a question I have 

is that what you would say is that a manufacturer, 

whether they are participating in the voluntary 

program or not, should be able to have third parties, 

labs, for example, do tests on their behalf. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Exactly. Yes. 

MR. LEVY: Are there any other comments on 

the testing part? I just want to make sure we cover 

those. Yes? 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson, York 

International. I want some clarification on the 

testing that you are going to allow, because in our 

case, we have had the qualifying agencies, ARI, CSA, 

come in and review our methods, test, and also in some 

instances qualified technicians so that they are 

certified through these agencies to do testing for 

those agencies. Then when they come in to do their 

basic certification of the product, they not only test 

one unit, but accept the rest of the data that the 

manufacturer supplies based upon the fact that they 

looked at our equipment and our testing procedures, 

and our programs, that verify efficiencies. They 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
70 

accept that data from us. That's part of what they do 

today. 

So they may not go in and test five units. 

They may only test one unit and accept the data for 

the rest of them from the manufacturer. Would that be 

acceptable to DOE? 

MR. LEVY: Well, the way the rule is 

written, the manufacturer certifies to DOE that its 

products comply. That certification must be based on 

either testing or calculation methods that Steve 

referred to. 

There provision this rule for 

recognizing the certification by a third party. Now 

if the manufacturer feels that or believes that it can 

make the certification based on the activities that it 

is engaged in, then that is perfectly proper. 

Whatever methods it uses, there are general criteria 

in the rule concerning those methods, but they are not 

highly specific. In other words, whatever methods the 

manufacturer uses to satisfy itself that its methods 

are sound it can continue to use. But those methods 

have to satisfy the general criteria that are in the 

rule. 

I want to come back briefly before we go 

to the next subject. I took a look at the proposed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
rule with regard to the issue that was raised earlier 

about exactly what has to be included in certification 

reports. The way the rule is set up, the proposed 

rule, when manufacturers initially certify compliance 

under the rule, they have to certify compliance of all 

the basic models that they are distributing. Subsumed 

under that is a certification report or certification 

reports that identify each model that the manufacturer 

is distributing. 

Thereafter, if the manufacturer 

distributes any new model, not just basic model, but 

any new model, before distributing that model, it must 

submit a certification report to the Department that 

identifies that model and its efficiency. So that is 

the way the proposed rule is structured. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Ed, this is Joe Mattingly. 

I think it says before or concurrent with 

distribution. 

MR. LEVY: Okay, that's correct. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Let's go left to right. 

Mark? 

MR. MENZER: Mark Menzer. So then based 

upon your understanding, would you still accept the 

directory, either electronic then, the 

submittal in lieu of the manufacturer's submittal for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
each of those models? 

MR. LEVY: Well, all I can say is itf s 

been done before. We understand that that's what you 

are advocating. When we issue the final rule, we will 

focus on that question and respond to it. 

MR. MENZER: Thank you. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Charlie? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. It seems 

to me then that the manufacturer is going to be in a 

position where no matter whether they test and certify 

under a VICP or not, they are going to have to, before 

distributing a product, submit paperwork or some sort 

of certification to DOE no matter what month it is or 

what week it is, and that an annual or quarterly or 

whatever is technically not going to do it unless that 

meets the manufacturerls requirements for their 

distribution or sales schedule for any particular new 

models. Am I right about that? 

MR. LEVY: There are so many points 

embedded in what you just said, I am having trouble 

responding to it. But just looking at the rule, it 

does, as Joe pointed out, before or concurrent with 

distribution, the manufacturer has to submit a 

certification report concerning that product. 

Now how that might fit in with the timing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
73 

of the issuance of directories, it's difficult to 

address. I would say also that taking another look at 

the rule, it does contemplate that the certification 

report could be submitted on behalf of the 

manufacturer by a representative. So that would allow 

a manufacturer to have let's say a trade association 

or other similar -- or other organization submit a 

certification report on its behalf. 

MR. STEPHENS : I guess - - let me give you 

an example so you will understand all those points 

that were in my statement. The GAMA directory comes 

out in April and October. It is officially published 

in April and October, twice a year. If a manufacturer 

brings out 17 new models in June, and those models are 

not listed in the April directory, then it seems to me 

that before they distribute that model, they are going 

to have to certify to DOE. Am I correct? 

MR. LEVY: That is what the proposed rule 

calls for, yes. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Go ahead. 

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin. It might be 

helpful to explain what happens in California on this. 

We get certification updates from ARI and 

GAMA every two months. They are staggered so we're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
not buried by them all at once. However, 

manufacturers, individual manufacturers, if they have 

an urgent need, have the ability to submit something 

for themselves. So it can be handled that way. 

In our case, the crisis comes when 

somebody wants to install something in a building and 

the building official won't let them do it because 

it's not listed on a certification. But if there are 

urgent things, the individual manufacturer doesn't 

have to wait for this every two month update. 

Accepting data from qualified voluntary 

industry certification programs every couple of months 

electronically should be certainly something you 

should look into. It has great possibilities. 

MR. LEVY: All I would say is that the 

exchange that I had with Charlie describes what is in 

the rule. If the manufacturers have a problem with 

that, I hope they will address it in their written 

comments. If they feel that that's not satisfactory 

or that there is some better way to do it, we would 

like to hear about that. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Further comments from 

the floor? Discussion? 

MR. TREADO: It occurs to me, along those 

lines, that I would ask the manufacturers, when you do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
come up with a new model and determine its rating, 

what the frequency for submittal to the industry 

certification program? Is that done before you begin 

to distribute that product? If so, maybe at that time 

either DOE could be copied or the VICP could submit a 

copy of that or somehow notify DOE. 

MR. MENZER: Mark Menzer, ARI. Let me 

again state that in our program for our products, no 

product can be sold or distributed until we have the 

data at ARI, the data at ARI, and in fact it has been 

put onto our primenet web-based directory. 

So while printed directories can be six 

months out of date, and while submittals on diskette 

electronically can be as much as two months out of 

date, the electronic web directory is always in date, 

and anybody who is trying to distribute a product 

covered by our programs, and is a member of our 

program, that does not have their equipment listed, is 

in violation of our program. It very rarely happens. 

MR. LEVY: Joe, does GAMA operate the same 

way with its programs? 

MR. MATTINGLY: This is Joe Mattingly with 

GAMA . So far we have of course the printed 

directories. Then we have the monthly updates. We 

are not on the Web yet, but some day maybe. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
76 

I'll tell you, I sit here and listen to 

what Mark is saying. Why donr t we get -- let's be 

members of the modern age. There is absolutely no 

excuse not to take full advantage of the Internet for 

this. I hope we do someday, have the same kind of 

program ARI does, because it just makes complete 

sense. 

MR. LEVY: I would raise the question also 

as to whether anybody here would see any problem if 

the Department were to accept something such as 

posting on the ARI website or such as the monthly 

electronic versions that GAMA has available, whether 

anybody would see any problem with the Department 

accepting that as a valid means of manufacturers 

providing the certification report. 

You don't have to answer now, but people 

can address it in written comments. 

MR. MARTIN: I think it's important that 

the data is actually submitted to DOE. DOE management 

is looking into this question about electronic 

databases and has set up an advisory subcommittee to 

its advisory committee to talk about that. 

I foresee before very long being able to 

combine a great number of these things. But it needs 

to be available at DOE. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. HODGES: This is John Hodges, ARI 

general counsel. I think that it is important that we 

be in the modern age. We are in a new millennium. 

Mike, your last remark was so last-millennium. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. MARTIN: Try that again. 

MR. HODGES: I just think that we have to 

work out a methodology. The methodology should be 

able to be worked out. It seems to me to be pretty 

obvious that if it's available, you folks have got it. 

It's delivered. It's on your desk. DOE should be 

able to review that in the same way that it can review 

something else that's actually been delivered in 

another fashion. If it is not going to review it, 

whether it's on paper or in some other method or 

electronic, there is no way of course for DOE to do 

it. 

I think again, it makes modern sense. It 

makes imminent sense. We are in a new era here. 

We7 re in a new millennium. I think that the idea of - 

- it is a virtual delivery. You've got it. If you 

want a piece of paper that says we hereby deliver it 

and any future versions are hereby delivered, the law 

and common sense certainly has to accommodate this. 

MR. MARTIN: I think we are in the same 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
78 

millennium, though I must admit that I have spent most 

of my life in a different millennium, as have you. 

But I don't see any problem with having 

the entire ARI database as of a particular date as in 

DOE computer. It is thereby submitted. It would be 

much easier to do that than it is to get into the file 

room. Yes, we are in the same millennium. I am 

looking forward to the date when we can have 

California tied in with this somewhat too. 

MR. HODGES: But I think that it is 

updated instantaneously. I would think, would hope 

that the arrangements could be made so that we don't 

have to redeliver every second. If you don't have to 

redeliver and update every moment that a delivery is 

made, what's the point, because the most up-to-date 

one will always be more up-to-date than the one that 

was physically submitted. So I am not quite sure what 

the issue is. 

MR. MENZER: Furthermore, it can be 

downloaded and stored electronically. You can print 

out a copy and have a paper copy. You can do anything 

you want at any moment in time. 

MR. LEVY: One thing that the proposed 

rule does provide -- somebody made a comment that made 

me think of this. That is, that the manufacturer must 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
79 

in its one-time client statement authorize a third 

to submit data its behalf. I think that 

would probably be - - I haven' t heard anybody object to 

that. So that provides somewhat of a link as the 

rules are set up now. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens. I would 

add too two things. One is that the new millennium is 

proving to be much more up-to-date in many ways than 

the way. we used to do things, but it's also proven to 

be much less reliable. The data that you get -- I 

have to tell you, a lot of what I find is fairly 

abysmal in its accuracy. It's so easily corrupted 

that it's not always the most accurate data there is. 

Even if it was accurate when it was keyed in, the 

document that it was keyed is from is accurate, what 

shows up on a website or a database is not always the 

same as what went in. ARI1s directory, I think, has 

been subject to quite a bit of that here recently in 

fact. 

It will get corrected eventually, provided 

somebody is actually looking at the data. But the 

other thing is, we keep talking as though the VICPs 

are the only people in the game. The fact is, DOE 

must have some other procedure for the people who 

don't participate in those things. So whether you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
allow the VICPs to do this electronically or not still 

doesn't give DOE the entire picture of what it needs 

to cover in this rule. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Sounds like a lot of 

strong views on both sides, equally valid. The 

Department will have to take a look at this, both the 

written comments and the transcript, to weigh these 

issues back and forth, certainly. 

MR. LEVY: Does ARI have anything to say - 

- unfortunately Mark just got up for a few moments -- 

about its database and its reliability? 

MR. MARTIN: I could have some comments 

about the reliability. We have been working with ARI. 

We have been accepting their data electronically and 

renewing our approval each year. The ARI one has not 

been renewed as of August due to difficulties that we 

had. 

Now they are improving what they have all 

the time. They are still providing stuff and they are 

working diligently towards it. 

We are forever getting into the business 

of as soon as you get used to some computer program, 

somebody comes along and tells you there is a better 

one, and the transition is always a mess. So the ARI 

program and the GAMA submittals too have had problems, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TWNSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
81 

but we're working through these things, but by no 

means are they perfect. 

I have a list of some of the shortcomings 

of the most recent submittal, which are really 

irrelevant. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly. Mike, 

let s share now. I think the problem - - you perceived 

problems with the way we present data maybe sometimes, 

but you all have problems with your programs. Because 

your program isn't compatible with ours doesn't make 

ours all bad and yours all good. 

MR. MARTIN: There is nothing that's all 

good. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Again, I hear some 

strong thoughts on both sides, something that has to 

be taken a really hard look at as the proceeding goes 

along. Please submit written comments on this. We'll 

have to roll up our sleeves on that one, the 

Department is. 

So anything further on that? I think 

we've heard quite a bit. Did you want to invite ARI, 

for Mark to say anything else, Counselor? 

MR. LEVY : He just walked out. Maybe when 

we reconvene. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay, fine. Last 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
chance. Charlie? 

MR. STEPHENS: I just wanted to add that 

what Joe said is very much true. I think it sort of 

makes my point that one characteristic of the new 

millennium is that nothing is compatible with 

everything else for very long. So this is not a very 

simple issue to resolve. Even if you have resolved it 

for a year or two, it's going to come back to haunt 

you on a pretty regular basis. 

MR. MENZER: Mark Menzer from ARI. I 

understand, and I'm sorry I missed it, but there was 

a question, comment about reliability of the database. 

I assume that means reliability in terms of it being - 

- the web being up, the server working and the program 

being accessible. Accuracy. 

Well, you know, there's over 50,000 

entries in that database. The policing mechanism for 

our program is one that seems to work very well. The 

best way of policing is competitors snitching, if you 

will, on competitors. When one goes to make a sale 

and finds its competitor there with a piece of 

inf ormation that they don' t think is accurate, you can 

bet that that information gets back to us right away 

and then we can go ahead and verify whether something 

is accurate or not. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
I could not tell you what the accuracy is 

of what's on there, but if it's not 100 percent, it's 

very, very close to it. I don't think accuracy of 

what's on there should have to be a concern. 

Further, I understand that some of the 

discussion had to do with problems that we may have 

had in transferring this data in the past. I will 

assure you at DOE that that problem has been one of an 

interface type of problem, that data was not received 

in a format that we had agreed to. So there was some 

-- in California, yes, so there were some problems, 

which have been resolved, I think to California's 

satisfaction. 

But it never was the accuracy of our data 

in question. It was more of were we supplying, 

displaying in the right format at the right time, and 

doing it exactly in the way that CEC had requested it, 

in a way that we had agreed that we would try to 

provide it to them. 

Again, I think those problems are worked 

out, but had nothing to do with the accuracy of our 

database. 

MR. NASSERI : As I am quietly sitting here 

and listening to this database and presentation of the 

data, directory via electronically and availability, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
84 

and as I see that the California Energy Commission and 

Oregon Department of Energy, Charlie Stephens, that 

they are having -- the people who use this, ARI, and 

they are having some problem with whether they are the 

numbers, this is something that in the new millennium, 

as everybody mentioned, that everybody is using 

electronic data availability and how convenient and 

accurate and fast, whatever, we can get our process 

done via e-mail and electronic means. 

Obviously this is something the 

Government, DOE at this point has to look into. We 

are looking forward to see your comments related to 

this issue. Also the problems that some of the users 

had so far. My concern is that sometimes when you put 

new data in a computer or update your directory or the 

number, whoever the operator is might have some 

inaccuracy of numbers and would be basically corrected 

later on or whoever uses it. I think at this point, 

we should basically leap into this further. 1/11 be 

looking forward to your comments on using this. 

Yes, Joe? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly, from GAMA. 

I think the Advisory Committee, DOE Advisory 

Committee, does have a subcommittee that has been set 

up for electronic data submission. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
85 

MR. MENZER: Michael Martin has chaired. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Congratulations, Mike. 

I hope DOE attends these subcommittee 

meetings because there will be some interesting 

discussion. All this I think will come up during 

those subcommittee meetings. 

MR. NASSERI: We will look into this very 

closely. Michael Martin is chairing that subcommittee 

as far as the Advisory Committee. Obviously whatever 

comes up with that subcommittee would affect our NOPR, 

final rule. 

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin here again. 

I did learn this morning that Carl Adams and Mike 

Raymond have been given the task of working with us on 

this, and Linda Graves will be involved also. So we 

have some individuals to talk to, some DOE people. 

MR. NASSERI: Okay. Any other questions 

concerning this issue? If not, we are ready to go to 

voluntary industry certification program, VICP. 

Steve? 

MR. TREADO: I'm sure everybody is 

familiar with the existing programs. One thing that 

the proposed rule provides is that to be accepted, it 

must be approved by the Department of Energy. There 

are some requirements which I will go over which they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
86 

need to meet. 

As a result of a manufacturer 

participating in the VICP, they have less stringent 

requirements for sampling and for approval of their 

alternative energy determination method, efficiency 

determination method. 

One thing that is critical of VICP is that 

they conduct verification testing. That is the basis 

for being a little less stringent in the requirements 

for certification. 

I have got a couple of slides here that 

try to summarize the requirements for a VICP to be 

approved by the Department. The VICP must submit 

documentation that they meet these requirements to the 

Department. They just have published procedures for 

how the actual program operates and what the 

requirements are for the manufactures. This must be 

published so that everybody knows how the program 

works. 

One key ingredient is that the 

participants the program must report for all 

covered models. That means they couldn't just report 

those that they felt would meet the standards and 

somehow omit others. The ratings must be published by 

the VICP. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
87 

The VICP must conduct independent, random 

verification testing. The testing must meet industry 

standards for accuracy. The program must have an 

appropriate standard for rating verification. That 

means not only are they going to test accurately, but 

they must have a standard for determining whether the 

rating which they received from the manufacturer is 

actually correct. 

MR. NASSERI: Joe? 

MR. MATTINGLY: One, I hope, pretty minor 

comment. You talked about independent. I think you 

have definitions for independent laboratory and 

independent laboratory personnel in the regulations. 

In GAMA's existing program for commercial boilers, we 

don't use ITS for something like that. We actually 

have an employee or employees who go to the 

manufacturer's facility and do the testing. The 

manufacturer has to accept that rating determined at 

that time. 

GAMA, we consider ourselves independent. 

We have no corporate relationship with any 

manufacturer, but we do collect dues from these very 

same companies. So we hope when you mean having no 

financial ties with the manufacturers, the definition 

for independent, that that applies to us too, because 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
like I say, we don't have any corporate relationship 

with any manufacturer. 

MR. LEVY: What about GAMA's board? I 

assume it has a board of directors. How are they 

selected? Who generally serves on it? 

MR. MATTINGLY: We have an annual election 

of board directors. A few members of the board of 

directors are elected in that way. The other 

representatives to our board of directors are chairmen 

of our 16 different product divisions. 

But there would be -- it would be 

impossible for anyone manufacturer to be able to 

influence the board directors, matter they 

were the chairman. As a matter of fact, not only 

that, but issues of certification never are presented 

to the board of directors. It is a totally separate 

program. 

MR. LEVY: I take it from your comment 

that the people on the board tend to be associated 

with manufacturers or many of them are? 

MR. MATTINGLY: No. They are all 

representative manufacturers? 

The HI, Hydronics Institute Division now 

at GAMA, they do have their own Executive Committee. 

They act as kind of their own trade association under 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
GAMA'S umbrella, just like all our product divisions 

do. You know, a GAMA employee does do the testing, 

but again, we are not influenced by any one 

manufacturer. We just have no, like I say, financial 

ties in the normal sense of the word, meaning 

corporate relationship. I think that's what you 

intend there. 

MR. STEPHENS: Can I ask a quick question 

about that? Joe, just in simple terms, what then 

becomes the difference between the ITS kind of testing 

that you normally do and the testing that the GAMA 

employee does aside from the fact that itf s a GAMA 

person and not an ITS person? 

MR. MATTINGLY : Well, under the ITS 

programs, that's verification testing. Under the HI 

program, there is verification testing too, but the 

initial rating is one that's determined by the GAMA 

employee. 

So, for example, if a manufacturer has 

tested a product and then per our rules of the game, 

the GAMA employee comes and does their testing and 

finds a certain rating, then the manufacturer has to 

accept that rating. So in other words, it isn't just 

verification testing. It's the manufacturer doesn't 

even put up the first rating. We determine what the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
90 

rating is. 

MR. STEPHENS: But it's the same test, 

using the same instruments, the same levels of 

accuracy for measuring temperature and flow and all 

that sort of thing? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Well, the GAMAemployee is 

an experienced person. He would ensure that the test 

conditions are correct and the equipment meets what we 

say, industry standards for accuracy. 

MR. STEPHENS: Then after that, it becomes 

a matter of verification testing within the program? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Yes. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Thank you. 

MR. TREADO: The new slide for the 

continuation of the requirements for a VICP to become 

approved. There must be procedures for re-rating or 

delisting equipment which is found to be improperly 

rated. There should be some penalties and/or 

incentives which will promote accurate ratings. The 

VICP must provide written records to the manufacturers 

of the results of their verification testing. Also, 

the results of the verification testing must be 

provided to the Department of Energy. 

There is a more complete description of 

what DOE is looking for here. I noted that there were 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
91 

some specific comments about that. Let me just 

characterize this clause as being developed as part of 

DOE'S concern that if it were the case that 

manufacturers were consistently overrating, they 

wanted to see the extent to which that was occurring. 

Let me just summarize it that way. I know 1/11 

probably get some comments on that, so I would like to 

hear more discussion. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

In our NAECA-covered programs, an annual report is 

produced by ITS. It shows results by test number, not 

model number. Frankly, we make this available to the 

participants in the program. We don't really want to 

put model numbers in there for competitors, because it 

compares ratings with actual measured test results. 

But we would assume that because of your 

purpose of this request, as you have described it, we 

would say that you probably don't need to have a 

report that has each model number listed in the report 

that the manufacturers claim versus the test, ITS or 

whatever test measurement. But you just want to have 

sufficient information able determine 

there is significant over rating going on? 

MR. TREADO: I believe that's what the 

Department is concerned about. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. LEVY: Our proposed rule doesn' t call 

for model numbers necessarily, but it does call for 

sort of a test by test or sort of model by model 

report, but it doesn't necessarily call for 

identification of the model. It does call for 

sufficient identification, either for the report to 

include the minimum standard for that unit being 

tested, for that model being tested or sufficient 

description so that the Department could determine 

what the standard is, because that is part of what the 

Department is interested in. I don't know if that 

kind of data is included in the report that you are 

referring to, but it would be a necessary part of any 

report under the proposed rule. 

MR. MATTINGLY: It would be obvious in the 

report. One of the problems is the test results are 

the property of the manufacturer. That's why we canr t 

just give it out. Now if later, DOE wanted the 

results of a particular test, we would have to go to 

the manufacturer and say we need your authorization to 

do this. 

Frankly, if DOE made such a request, the 

manufacturer has got a problem. I would think the 

manufacturer would have to comply, for practical 

purposes. But we wouldnf t then be providing. I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
we have an understanding, we wouldn' t be providing 

model numbers and test results to comply with this 

requirement. 

MR. LEVY: When you say test results -- 

MR. MATTINGLY: Well, we would be showing 

you test numbers with the claimed rating and the 

measured results from the verification testing. It 

just wouldn't be identifying a model number. 

MR. LEVY: I think that would probably 

satisfy the proposed rule so long as it also enabled 

DOE to easily identify what the standard is, what the 

required level is for that model. 

MR. MATTINGLY: It would. 

MR. NASSERI : I have a question or concern 

that when we go to let s say enforcement , and there is 

a report by a competitor industry which are reporting 

on a model of certain equipment, non-compliant , how 

are we able to go ahead and look at that model and 

find out what is -- if VICP has that. 

So I am trying to say, what is our means 

of getting there to that model? 

MR. MATTINGLY: I think the first step you 

ought to take would be to come to the relevant 

certification program and request information. The 

certification program would have to respond in some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
fashion. It may be to say, look, we need to get the 

authorization from the manufacturer to release this to 

you. So be it. But that would be a wise first step. 

MR. NASSERI : The reason I say that is 

because my experience in the past, they always refer 

to a model of certain boilers or furnaces or whatever, 

which are not -- I'm not saying there was such a 

thing, but just an example. It's not making the 

minimum or meeting the minimum. 

MR. MATTINGLY: You would come to the 

certification program and say we've got a report on 

this model. We want test data for this model. Have 

you had verification tests on this model? When? We 

want the results. Then we have to deal with it. 

MR. LEVY: Actually, the way the proposed 

rule is set up, if there were an enforcement situation 

or an investigation involving enforcement, the 

Department would look to the manufacturer to get the 

information. It is the manufacturer that is obligated 

to provide it. In fact, the proposed rule requires 

that where a certification program does verification 

testing, it has to provide that information, the 

result, the test results to the manufacturer. Then it 

would be up to DOE to obtain those results from the 

manufacturer. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
I think the proposed rule makes pretty 

clear that the manufacturer would be obligated to 

provide them. 

MR. NASSERI: This was related to Joe's, 

but in the NAECA products, the way we have -- we had 

a program which we are basically having the 

certification and compliance of the equipment that's 

reported to DOE in a directory that we have. If 

somebody claimed a certain model and that on our list 

of a model is not making the minimum standard, then 

very easily and simply we can go and find out first of 

all, if they have a record for that model. If we do, 

what is their report. 

This way, I'm trying to make sure that 

when we get to this type of activities, we can somehow 

go to the VICPs or we have to go directly to 

manufacturers. We can always go direct to 

manufacturers. We have authority to do that if we get 

to that enforcement phase. But the other option is, 

is there any sufficient data or any record from VICP 

such as ARI and GAMA or HI program that we can go to 

and determine if such a model is meeting the standard 

or not meeting the standard. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Well, of course the first 

thing you would have, you would have the directory, so 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
you would know what the claimed rating was. But then 

if you came to us and said that there has been a 

report that the claimed rating is inaccurate, we want 

test data from you. Then as I said before, we can't 

just release it to you. It is the manufacturer' s 

property. We would get authorization from the 

manufacturer to do that. 

So I think we are on the same page. In a 

way it's either go to the manufacturer directly or you 

go through us or both. But we can' t give it to you 

unless the manufacturer agrees. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Michael Martin has been 

waiting very patiently. 

MR. MTIN: Yes. On that particular 

point, Cyrus, I would suggest that you want to go to 

the manufacturer, because one of your requirements is 

that the data is available to him. So he has got it. 

He doesn't have to worry about authorization. 

From a practical point of view, I have had 

informal phone calls from folks at Intertech. They do 

some of their own policing. That has taken care of a 

lot of our concerns. 

The question I was waiting to bring up was 

what I understand is is about verification testing 

results to DOE. That if Intertech, let's say, tests 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
97 

a model and the odds of it coming out exactly as rated 

are pretty slim. If it's better, that's no problem, 

but if it's worse, it has to be -- the way currently 

these programs are, it has to be outside of a 

tolerance before there's a required re-rating. 

So I presume that what you are looking at 

is to find out statistically whether what's actually 

on the market is significantly less than the formal 

rating. When you have got that data, what are you 

going to do with it? If, for instance, you find out 

that a program consistently comes up with efficiency 

levels that are three percent less than what it 

claimed, which is a purely fictitious number for a 

purely fictitious non-existent organization that I 

haven't named. 

MR. LEVY: Well, I mean we did address 

that point in the NOPR. I guess the basic answer is 

it depends. But it might be a situation that could 

result in enforcement. It might be a situation that 

would cause us to reevaluate the operation of the 

voluntary program. There is a third possibility that 

we stated. I don't remember what it is, but I just 

remembered that there are three. 

But basically, it's information that the 

Department would then evaluate to decide what action 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
would be called for. 

MR. MARTIN: No dramatic action. This is 

just information collecting. 

MR. LEVY: Yes, as the proposed rule 

described. 

MR. MARTIN: That was just a question. It 

wasn't a complaint for anybody who feels threatened by 

it. 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson, York 

International. I am kind of jumping a few pages ahead 

here I guess. But there was a comment that within one 

percent of the average for all basic models. It 

seemed like to me that we have a five percent window 

now, and now we' re going to say year one, here's a 

hypothetical, I'm three percent low, and that's okay. 

You're two, I'm three percent low. It's starting to 

get a little fuzzy whether that's okay or not. You're 

three, I'm three percent low and now it's not okay. 

The model has to be redefined as to what its 

efficiency level is. 

That is one of the manufacturing concerns, 

is that technically we're still within the guidelines, 

but now you are saying that the efficiency that we are 

reporting is no longer any good after two or three 

years. If it's five percent, it's five percent. If 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
we fall within the five percent range on a statistical 

basis, then we're good. That's the way it has always 

been as far as the agencies, and GAMA and ARI has 

considered that to comply. 

They haven't asked us to go re-rate 

equipment. If we state 80 percent efficiency, we come 

in at 78, that's a compliance. Now if you are going 

to try to make that band narrower, to one percent, or 

to bring it in more in line, then that's going to 

cause the manufacturers a problem down the road as 

tubing wears. There's tolerances on how the equipment 

goes together. Falling within a five percent band 

range is acceptable for manufacturers, but a one 

percent, even a three percent would not be. 

MR. TREADO: I just wanted to clarify. I 

think you are confusing two things. The five percent 

and one percent average is just for the validating 

AEDM. The other five percent that you are mentioning, 

and you won't find anywhere in the NOPR. That is the 

tolerance that VICP allows in their determination of 

whether a rating is accurate or not. 

It only ties back to VICP when you talk 

about having an appropriate standard for rating 

verification. Again, we're not specific on a number 

there. But it ties back in to verification testing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
100 

results at DOE. It was just being discussed by Ed as 

to what DOE might do if it finds that. 

Basically the issue is if there is a 

tolerance there for measurement, and manufacturing -- 

an uncertainty in manufacturing variability, then 

basically sometimes you will come up high and 

sometimes you will come up low, because it is sort of 

a random thing. But if it turned out that everything 

was always coming up low, that might be a concern to 

the Department. 

The issue of the five percent and the one 

percent, which applies only to AEDM, is that you have 

to validate an AEDM using measured data according to 

the DOE test procedure. If you are in a VICP, you 

only need to validate that using one measured point. 

I£ you are not in VICP, you need to use three. 

Then each point needs to be -- each 

individual model that you test needs to be within five 

percent of your -- or let me put it this way. The 

calculated value needs to be within five percent of 

your measurement for each individual point. But if 

you test three, for example, then your average 

variability or average difference between the 

calculation and the measurement has to be one percent. 

That is because we don't want to have a model that's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
consistently over or under predicting, as the case may 

be. 

MR. LEVY: But those numbers affect 

whether you can use the alternative method. That is 

the need, to show that your method of calculating 

efficiency is an accurate method. So you compare the 

results that you get from calculations to actual test 

results. That is what Steve is describing. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

Steve, that paragraph there really was difficult for 

us to understand. I think it needs to be -- a little 

more work needs to be done there regardless whether 

you can explain it today. I'm sure you can, but itf s 

not clear. 

Because a VICP participant only has to use 

one basic model to validate the AEDM. Yet that last 

sentence of that paragraph reads "in addition, the 

predicted efficiency calculated for the tested basic 

model must on average be within one percent." Then 

you say heck, I only tested one. If five percent is 

okay -- well, it says one percent. 

MR. LEVY: The intent was that if you only 

tested one, then you would have to meet the one 

percent criteria. The participant in a VICP could 

test more than one. They are required to test one, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
but they could test two. They could test three. It's 

just that one is a minimum number. 

So the percentages -- well, whatever 

number you test, that is the limitation you have to 

meet. Then if you test several, well, no one could be 

more than five percent. Maybe that needs to be 

clarified. Well, maybe that is a problem. But that 

is the intent. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Suppose you tested two and 

one was just within five percent. What does the 

second one have to be? 

MR. LEVY: Well, it has to be within five 

percent also. Then the average has to be within one 

percent. 

To take an example. If you tested two, 

one was five percent below, well, then in order to 

achieve the one percent tolerance, I guess the other 

would have to be say no less than four percent above 

or three and a half, you know, to get to that average 

of one percent. 

Am I right? 

MR. TREADO: The idea is that if you are 

using a model and you are not getting the right 

answer, and we are defining the right answer here as 

being a measured point, basically the model has some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
103 

assumptions that are built in that may not be 

sufficient to actually capture what is occurring. 

There are other processes that are going on. You end 

up being consistently high or low, then you are going 

to end up having to make an adjustment, basically 

calibrate your model to the measurements. That is the 

intent. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Michael Martin? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. I had great problems 

putting my notes together because of all these 

tolerances. There are several different things we are 

talking about. The first one, which was actually on 

the previous slide, was talking about the tolerance 

that the trade associations have. It is a five 

percent with ARI. I believe that wording is also in 

ARI standard 210 as part of the test method that any 

unit has to be within that. 

For residential furnaces with GAMA, it is 

five percent. With the water heaters, they reduced it 

to three percent. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Three-and-a-half. 

MR. MARTIN: Three-and-a-half? 

MR. MATTINGLY: I think it is. 

MR. MARTIN: Excuse me. I need to check 

that. I was under the impression it was three. But 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
104 

it was reduced recently. For the boiler test method, 

the 221 13, we have been arguing with the 221 

Subcommittee about a two percent tolerance. I 

understand for the new heat pump pool heater program 

it's zero. 

So I think you need to look at these 

things individually rather than lumping them all 

together. 

Now as far as -- maybe I should stop for 

Ed to respond to that before I bring the other point 

UP. 

MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. Steve 

made the reference, and I think we're starting to get 

confused again. The testing that GAMA or ARI or those 

are doing in the program is a verification test to say 

that the product continues to be within compliance. 

It's sort of like if there was a challenge and DOE 

would be doing it, we have a five percent. NAECA, for 

the residential products, stipulates that you must 

specify that you meet or exceed the standard by some 

level. 

That is what -- we're trying to simplify 

it here because people seem to look at that. When we 

say we want a 95 percent confidence level that you 

meet or exceed the standard, they take that, well, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
got five percent tolerance. We've seen that happen a 

number of times. What it says is is that if your test 

data says you have an average value, that value is a 

one-sided tolerance. You must meet or exceed the 

standard level. That is not the same as the 

verification testing where we have a more lenient five 

percent deviation. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Good point. 

MR. MATTINGLY: First of all, I think we 

are way off the point here. But I would agree that 

for basic certification testing, you cannot test 

better than the mean. There is no tolerance in 

certification testing. 

Now for verification testing, there are 

tolerances in the various programs. But that is not 

what this is all about. To me, that's not even a 

subject for today's conversation. We are talking 

about these percentages for validating AEDM. It is a 

different subject altogether. 

MR. MARTIN: That was my second point that 

I was about to make. 

MR. MATTINGLY: I will just reiterate. I 

just think that this was very hard to understand as 

written. 

I think in the preamble to the final rule, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
106 

maybe it wouldn't hurt to give a couple of examples in 

there of how this would be applied. It might be 

helpful to the public. 

MR. TREADO: Well we can certainly clear 

up the language, but whether the concept causes a 

problem, I guess is a separate issue. I think Ed 

explained, and I have it up here. I had a separate 

slide on that. Basically you compare the measured 

results using the DOE test procedure. Again, the 

measured results have to come from the DOE test 

procedure. 

Each basic model tested, the calculated 

result must agree to the measurement within five 

percent. Fox the average of all the ones that you 

test, and if it's one, it's just that one, within one 

percent, i. e. , must not consistently over or under 

predict. Again, one percent. 

Let me just mention one other thing about 

the AEDM, which is that you have to maintain written 

documentation, but if you participate in VICP, you 

don' t need to get approval from DOE for the AEDM. If 

you don't participate in the VICP, then the proposed 

rule states that you must get approval for it. 

The approval basically consisted of 

determining whether you have used valid principles and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the results appear to be reasonable. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay. Michael first, 

then Ed. 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. I feel a little 

uncertain as to what I'm seeing here. But what I 

understand is you can either test or you have to test 

something, and then you can come up with a computer 

calculation. I haven't figured out why you should be 

allowed to use a computer calculation that comes up 

with higher values than the testing does. 

It seems like this is a shortcut and 

should be at least as accurate as the testing. But I 

do kind of read it that way, that you test this thing 

out, and then you are allowed to use a computer 

program on other things, and you can be five percent - 

- claiming five percent more efficient than it really 

tests out to be. 

Do I get that right? My comments oppose 

that. 

MR. LEVY: Why don' t you put up the prior 

slide, Steve, and go through that again. 

MR. TREADO: I think what was just said 

could conceivably occur. In other words, he is saying 

that if you test it, but then you don't use the test 

as the basis for your rating, you use the test just to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
108 

validate the model and the model is off by as much as 

five percent on that one point, then you could use the 

model to rate. 

On the other hand, your overall model has 

to be more accurate than that. So you might be off it 

at some point. But I think that is a valid point as 

to whether or not the five percent is excessive. 

Obviously the purpose here of the model is to reduce 

the amount of testing. 

MR. MARTIN: But the testing is the 

preferred method as far as DOE is concerned. It 

should be able to reduce the amount of testing without 

degrading the accuracy of the information. 

MR. LEVY: The proposed rule does not 

state a preference for one method or the other. 

MR. MARTIN: NO, but it gives you an 

alternative. Okay, I do understand it right. So my 

comments opposing it are correctly understood. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Charlie Stephens? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I think 

the example that I was able to read made this whole 

thing make a lot more sense. The notion that a model 

might more accurately predict one level of efficiency 

or the group of technologies that are used to achieve 

one level of performance versus a lower or higher 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
level of performance. 

The one percent requirement for the 

average of all basic models is, at least in part, 

meant to ensure that the model accurately reflects 

what you might get in test results at both ends of a 

range such as that, where the model wouldn't 

consistently under-predict the performance of a high 

efficiency model, and consistently over-predict the 

performance of a lower-efficiency model. So that when 

you look across the entire range of models, the 

accuracy of the model is actually held within one 

percent. 

Once I read that, it made sense to me that 

that's a useful, a very useful check to have on a 

model. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Further comments? 

Let's go over here first to Mark, then back to 

Michael. 

MR. MENZER: Mark Menzer. I would like to 

make this point because all of this speaks to how 

manufacturers could play with the numbers to try to 

over-rate their equipment. Of course then ultimately 

we do a validation test that has to be within five 

percent. 

Let me tell you, our experience has been 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
that those manufacturers who try to eat into that five 

percent tolerance, who try to rate their systems at 

99, 98, 97 percent of true ratings, ultimately run 

into problems. They ultimately fail tests. In these 

voluntary independent certification programs, the 

failure -- the penalty for failure is great, with 

additional tests and all kinds of expenses that are 

involved there. 

So while there are all kinds of ways that 

one might be able to try to fiddle with the numbers, 

ultimately in these kinds of verification tests, they 

end up paying the piper. 

I will volunteer in telling you that in 

our major programs, the ratio of tested -- of 

validation tests to what is claimed is about 100 

percent. On average, they are 100 percent and 

sometimes greater, sometimes 101, 102 percent, 

sometimes they even go down to 99 percent. But those 

who fiddle with the numbers and will try to take 

advantage of the tolerance are caught. The numbers, 

the statistics catch up to them. 

FACILITATOR RABA: First Michael, then 

Charlie. 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Actually, you do have 

in ARI a program for coil manufacturers. It's a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
computer one, I believe. How does that compare? Did 

that work out all right? Did they have a tolerance or 

do you test them ever? 

MR. MENZER: We do test them. We've got 

22 programs, and I can't tell you how any particular 

one goes off hand. 

MR. TREADO: That particular program was 

somewhat the model for what we did with this AEDM 

procedures that they have there. The tolerances are 

similar. 

MR. MARTIN: One other question. When you 

talk about one percent and five percent, is that a 

plus or minus? 

MR. TREADO: Yes. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens again. It 

seems to me that for a VICP that has a good program, 

then this provision is essentially irrelevant one way 

or the other. But once again, I have to point out 

that not every manufacturer is a participant in the 

VICP program. They have to follow these same 

procedures. They can use the same models or similar 

models, or their own models for that matter, but there 

still has to be something in this regulation that 

applies to people who aren't in a program that does 

such wonderful things as Mark suggests. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. TREAD0 : The additional requirement on 

a non-VICP participant is that they have to validate 

using the minimum of three. But you are right, they 

still can use that without being subject to 

verification testing. 

MR. MARTIN: Just to follow up what 

Charlie said. One of the things we talk about, ARI 

covers by far the bulk of air conditioners. But when 

you come to looking at the number of manufacturers, 

there are way, way, way, way, way more manufacturers 

who are not within these programs than there are 

within them. 

It is hard to tell just how many of them 

there are. It's easy to count numbers in an ARI 

directory, but based on the data we have, MI cover 

about half the manufacturers on tease products. 

Hydronics Institute, about a third. There is no 

program at all for furnaces and water heaters or hot 

water storage tanks that we haven't talked about 

today. 

So there are a lot more manufacturers 

outside. Hopefully this proposal you have will 

persuade them that it's to their interest to join 

these trade association programs. 

MR. LEVY: Just a couple of points that I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
113 

would like to make. If they give rise to further 

comments, so much the better. 

First, the proposed regulations would 

cover all manufacturers. They address both the 

situation of manufacturers that participate in these 

programs and those that do not. I think that Steve 

has some slides that we haven't gotten to yet that 

address the non-participant specifically. 

But second, I would want to reemphasize 

that what we have been talking about here are methods 

to determine whether a calculation method is valid. 

Whether or not a calculation method for determining 

efficiency can be used. That is what these criteria 

are about. 

It does not relate directly to any 

standards that the voluntary programs might have for 

determining whether or not a test validates an 

efficiency rating. There is, I suppose, an indirect 

relationship in the sense that regardless of the 

criteria that we have for any method for calculating 

compliance, manufacturers that participate in such 

programs are going to have to pass those verification 

tests. So that probably provides a further check. 

These criteria though apply also to other 

manufacturers. So that s why we need to have them in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
any event. They are a little more stringent for nonparticipants, precisely because they are not subject 

to verification testing. 

MR. TREADO: I have three more slides. I 

think I probably should do them. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Okay. Let me just 

pause for a second here. Interesting point of order 

that Pollock brings up, in that we are expecting 

callers this afternoon on this subject and some other 

ones that are going to be coming up, and would like to 

get some sense of the group if we should continue on 

now or break for lunch after Steve1 s presentation, and 

then when the people call in, continue on, hear their 

statements and comments too. Even though they are not 

here, they will be here orally and electronically. 

We would like to know the sense, if we can 

finish this part up in a few minutes, 10-15 minutes, 

or if we should take a break and come back. 

Ed, you want to say something? 

MR. POLLOCK: Yes. My comment was that if 

we can finish up, I donr t want to hold people to after 

lunch, but if this is going to extend, then I think as 

a courtesy, it would be good to take a break now and 

permit those who want to call in that were just 

concerned about this sampling and testing issues and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
115 

not about the test procedures this morning, that they 

could participate. 

MR. MARTIN: I think we ought to be here 

at the time these guys are going to call in rather 

than at the lunch break. If they call in and find we 

have all gone to lunch, I don't think they will get a 

very good -- 

MR. LEVY: What time are you anticipating 

the calls in? 

MR. POLLOCK: Well, the schedule we had 

set up said we would be back from lunch at 1:30. 

MR. MARTIN: So let's go have some lunch. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Why don't we do that 

then, because in deference to Steve, if you don't 

mind, finish your presentation up then, give you a 

break too. Then when we come back, probably at 1:30 

to start, and take any calls that come in and continue 

this. 

Is everybody happy with that? Thank you. 

We are recessed until 1:30. 

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 

the record at 12 :38 p.m. for lunch, and 

went back on the record at 1:38 p.m.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TFWNSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
FACILITATOR RABA: Gentlemen, if you will 

take your seats, we'll restart the program. 

(Pause. ) 

I'd like to welcome George Kusterer from 

Bock Water Heaters who made it in today, a brave soul, 

but still we may still get some call-ins today and 

we'll be aware of them and we'll try to make some 

accommodations to folks who couldn't make it, but 

would still like to participate. 

MR. MARTIN: We donr t have any yet though. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Sir? 

MR. MARTIN: We don't have any yet? 

FACILITATOR RABA: Not so far, the one 

that we expected to call it, the gentleman is here 

now. 

MR. KUSTERER: I just wanted to see Mike's 

bright shiny face. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. MARTIN: Well, thank you. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Before we get started, 

Steve is going to finish up his presentation. I'd 

like to ask for any general comments on the voluntary 

industry certification programs, VICP comments in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
117 

general? Anybody from the floor? 

MR. MARTIN: I have a number of specific 

ones, but maybe if we let him finish his presentation 

and you'll let me come back to that, I would -- these 

issues are all interrelated. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Fine. Back to you, 

Steve. 

MR. TREADO: Well, these are some of the 

differences for the non-VICP participants which I 

guess right now, the furnaces. They must use the DOE 

sampling plan and the confidence limit procedure which 

is a little more specific. It's very similar to 

what's in there now for the residential appliances. 

Testing must be conducted at an 

independent laboratory or under the supervision of 

independent personnel. So it could be tested in-house 

by outside personnel. And there's a definition in 

there of what would constitute an independent 

personnel. And the reason for this is that there's no 

verification testing for non-VICP participants, so the 

Department feels that it's justified to be a little 

more stringent up front since there's no after the 

fact verification. 

The sampling plan is the typical thing 

that you've seen before for energy efficiency. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
Whichever is the less favorable of either the mean of 

the sample or the lower 95 percent confidence limit 

divided by .95. Conversely, for energy usage it's the 

upper confidence limit divided by 1.05. 

Sample size would have to be a minimum of 

two to do this. I don't believe there's any other 

limitations on the number of units in the sample. And 

of course, they must be representative of the basic 

model, must be selected randomly, must be tested using 

the daily test procedure. 

Comments or questions on that? 

MR. NASSERI: I presume that nobody here 

is wondering if this applies to -- any comment on a 

non-VICP participants. I see that Frank Stanonik just 

joined us. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Welcome. 

MR. TREADO: The last item is on 

enforcement. The regulations for enforcement for the 

commercial products, in general, are pretty similar to 

what's in place in Section 430 with some significant 

specific differences, primarily related to the number 

of samples and a simplification in the method for 

determining the performance. 

Everything up front as far as obtaining 

samples for testing and all that is very similar to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
119 

what's in 430. What's different here is that the 

initial sample size is just two units and this was as 

a result of the comments that we received at the other 

workshops. 

And these two units would be measured and 

their efficiencies would just be averaged. If the 

manufacturer was satisfied that that number was 

representative, which probably means that that number 

meets the minimum standard, then at that point the 

enforcement would be completed. However, if for some 

reason the mean was below the minimum standard they 

could request to test an additional two units, a 

maximum of four. 

We will take the mean performance of the 

four and if that met the standard, actually I believe 

it has to meet 95 percent of the standard. Now this 

is a simplification of what's in the 430 enforcement 

section where there's a double sided confidence limit 

approach that uses -- has upper and lower control 

limits which are basically plus or minus 5 percent 

the energy performance standard. It's a little more 

complicated than that because it also relates back to 

the standard deviation of the measure. But this is a 

simplification of that. This is not linked at all to 

any tolerance in verification testing. This is a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
separate item here. 

Enforcement again only applies in this 

case to determining whether a particular product 

meetings the minimum standard. It's not a case of 

trying to determine whether it is performing up to its 

rating. 

Now as far as exceptions, if a sample of 

two is impractical, either because the unit is very 

large or available only in small quantities, then 

exceptions can be requested to the Department of 

Energy. So only a single unit would be tested. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

Steve, somebody just said there I think it would be 

helpful if that phrase were put into the regulation 

too and that is where the sales volume is low or where 

it's available only in small quantities, understanding 

that the manufacturer has to justify this exception, 

but that would be a ground in addition to a large 

product or unusual testing requirement. 

MR. TREADO: Of course, that exposes the 

manufacturer to some degree if we test only one and 

we're off the normal, then that's one of the reasons. 

That's the justification for having -- to meet only 95 

percent of the standard because we're always dealing 

with some uncertainty and in doing this determination 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the Department is trying to make sure they don't 

unfairly find product to be out of requirements. 

Any other comments on enforcement? 

FACILITATOR RABA: Go ahead, Joe. 

MR. MATTINGLY : Well, since you did 

enforcement all in one fell swoop, we had a couple of 

comments in this area. 

Looking at Section 431.503, you already 

mentioned the compliance statement as a one time 

requirement. Thank you very much. 

In paragraph c(1) under that section, 

"discontinued modelsw you mentioned that a model is 

discontinued when its production has ceased and is no 

longer being distributed. You could have a situation 

where for complicated commercial products where the 

manufacturer only produces it in response to a special 

order, for example. 

And so he may still be advertising it for 

sale in a catalog something, but fact, he's not 

producing or distributing it. So you might want to 

just something to that paragraph to say that a model 

is discontinued when its production has ceased and it 

is no longer being distributed and the manufacturer is 

longer advertising the model for sale. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Other comments? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
122 

MR. NASSERI: Joe, are you finished? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Again, if you're talking 

about all enforcement now we have just a couple of 

other comments to make in that area. 

You had a requirement for the manufacturer 

to keep on hand all units in a batch before -- until 

the testing is complete. We just wondered if that is 

really necessary, especially if we' re dealing with 

products that aren' t sold in a lot of quantity anyway. 

Those units perhaps could be sold. 

MR. TREADO: That's something the 

Department will have to consider. I saw that in your 

comments That's a hold over from the residential. I 

think one of the reasons for that, from the 

residential, was that it was possible that additional 

samples would be needed for doing the two double 

sample approach. 

But the maximum here is four so we're not 

tying up a huge number. And that's the manufacturer' s 

option so they're only providing two. Well, you're 

selecting those two from a larger group. I don' t know 

what the Department thinks about that. We haven't had 

a chance to address that. 

MR. NASSERI: Any other comments? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Yeah, one other. You had 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
-- in enforcement you want to -- if you get a product 

that's obviously defective, you're allowing the 

manufacturer to say okay, that one shouldn't be 

counted. That's a defective product. Let's go on to 

one that looks like it's supposed to look like, 

according to the manufacturer' s design. And you ' ve 

got in here that a test unit is defective if its found 

to be inoperative because it fails to operate 

according to the manufacturer' s design and 

installation instructions. 

And we just think you ought to expand that 

a little bit to cover the situation where you had a 

commercial water heater whose -- it's a lemon because 

its insulation has got big voids in the insulation 

beyond some percentage of the tank service area and I 

don' t know what the exact language is, but if you 

could -- in other words, if it operates, it will 

operate and leave it operate according to the 

manufacturer's instructions, except that it will lose 

a lot of energy because it's -- 

MR. LEVY: So it's considered defective. 

MR. MATTINGLY : In other words, it's 

clearly something terrible has happened in the 

manufacturing process when you've got big insulation 

voids. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
124 

FACILITATOR RABA: Was there a reference 

to a paragraph to that? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Itt s paragraph (a) (3) 

under 431.506. 

FACILITATOR RABA: 431.506(a) (3). Thank 

you. 

MR. LEVY: Do you have any percentage that 

would be a rule of thumb on that? 

MR. MATTINGLY: We will. 

MR. STANONIK: We're still trying to 

figure what would be the right number for a commercial 

product. 

MR. TREADO: How would you determine that? 

Do you have to take it apart? 

MR. STANONIK: Yeah. 

MR. TREADO: So you'd have to test it 

first and if it came up low, you'd have to dismantle 

it and find out that there actually was a void. 

MR. STANONIK: With the -- 

MR. LEVY: Name and organization? 

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with GAMA. 

The reason -- the way this came to mind when we were 

looking at this was with electric water heaters, with 

electric commercial water heaters that's all you can 

do is insulate them. There really isn't much else you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
can do and so with the kind of efficiency requirement 

that exists for commercial electric water heaters, if 

there is a significant void, beyond what you might 

consider representative of normal production, okay, 

it's going to fail badly because we're talking about 

a standby loss for a vessel that's holding 50, 80 or 

100 gallons of water that1 s probably no more than 100 

watt light bulb, not a lot of loss, okay? 

So if there's a big hole in the 

insulation, you're going to see it in the test result 

and the next thing you do is peel off the jacket and 

you can see what it looks like. We do that in our 

residential program. 

FACILITATORRABA: Clarification, that was 

MR. MATTINGLY: (aI(3). 

MR. LEVY: It does say (a)(3) in here. 

That's probably a typo. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Go ahead, Mark. 

MR. MENZER: Yeah, I would just tell you 

in our program we had defective -- we speak to 

defective products as well. The onus is always on the 

manufacturer to -- first of all, these are failures 

that are not at 95 or 94 or 93 percent of rated, of 

ratings, but usually they' re quite low and therer s 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
obviously something wrong with the unit. 

The onus is always on the manufacturer to 

show us what's wrong with the unit and also to prove 

to us that this was a one time mistake, this was not 

a systematic mistake, so in that example there are not 

tens or hundreds of water heaters out there with 

defective insulation, but it's just a one time -- it's 

quite a burden to the manufacturer to show that to us, 

but that's what we call a defective unit. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. 

MR. LEVY: Question, Joe, did you have any 

reaction to that formulation or gloss on delineating 

what's a defective unit? 

MR. MATTINGLY : You mean that's not 

systematic? 

MR. LEVY: Yeah, the kind of approach that 

Mark just suggested. That's something that maybe we 

could incorporate into the regulation. I'm asking if 

you have a reaction on that or if you don't want to 

just react on the spot you could address it in your 

comments. It would be helpful to know what you think. 

MR. STANONIK: Well, Frank Stanonik again. 

In the program we run for residential, in fact, it may 

not be as quite spelled out as ARI' s, but do apply the 

same criteria. If we have what we call a lemon and we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
go pick out a new sample and we get another lemon, 

okay, then the questions start to ask, well, wait a 

minute, what is representative of the production and 

what's the outlier? And so we do have a policy in 

place that the manufacturer is going to be required to 

make -- satisfy the program that what was 

characterized as inoperative or a lemon, if you will, 

is truly that and not as Mark said, there's some kind 

of systematic problem here that has been uncovered. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: I have notes on the opposite 

side of that particular issue and we noted that the 

Department authorizes substitution of replacement 

issue unit for testing if the unit is found to be 

defective. 

If the unit is defective -- if such a unit 

is inoperative -- I think it's inoperative rather than 

-- I guess that is the word, inoperable. I'm not sure 

which it should be. Or it's found to be in 

noncompliance due to failure of the unit to operate 

according to the manufacturer's design and operating 

instructions and we feel that second phrase should be 

deleted. 

If the unit is inoperable, it's reasonable 

to allow a replacement unit to be substituted. If on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the other hand the unit is operable, but does not 

operate according to the manufacturer's design or 

operating instructions it should be tested because 

consumers will not use inoperable appliances, 

obviously, but they may well use appliances that 

operate incorrectly and in order to help insure that 

malfunctioning units are not purchases by consumers, 

they should be subject to testing. 

I did hear from -- since writing that, 

from Mark that they have some way of compromise on 

that situation. But it does seem to me and I have a 

very good chance of buying a water heater that has a 

big void in the insulation and if that's what I'm 

buying that's what ought to be tested. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Can you keep that in 

your written comments until we get notes from the 

record for the proper phraseology. 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. As I talk to Mark, I 

may want to bend it a little. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Sure. Charlie? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Yeah, we 

may want to have some further discussions on this. We 

don't tear the water heaters apart, mind you, but we 

do take their pictures with infrared equipment and we 

can pretty much attest, we've got hundreds if not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
129 

thousands of pictures of these things, electric and 

gas water heaters, mostly electric. 

There is a certain level of flaw in the 

insulation generally. None of them are perfect. Many 

are close to perfect. Quite a number, actually, have 

some thin spots, you might say, in the insulation and 

once you get on that slope of trying to decide what is 

a major defect and what is kind of the run of the mill 

every once in a while we get some funky gas bubble 

aggregation or something and it doesn't do quite 

perfectly -- it's going to be very difficult for DOE 

to define this, especially if you get off to define it 

for every single product type which could lead you 

into every different kind of manufacturing process 

that could lead to different kinds of defects. 

One of the -- I hesitate to call it a 

defect, but in refrigerant charged equipment it's rare 

when the refrigerant charge put in at the factory is 

right. And in fact, in California, 80 percent of them 

are wrong in the field, but it's hard for the factory 

to give a right charge because the climate it goes to 

is different in every case, the line set that connects 

the indoor and the outdoor unit is different. 

It's almost impossible to do the right 

charge and yet, they're tested in a certain way with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
a perfect charge and that's a whole different type of 

product. It might require a whole different 

definition of what a defect is and what's defective 

and what isn't. And I think that it's a pretty 

complicated road you embark on when you start looking 

at that issue and I don't know that you have that much 

time, but we would be willing to discuss it. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Well, you could. This is 

Joe Mattingly from GAMA. You could maybe have a line 

there that puts the burden of proof on the 

manufacturer and says unless the manufacturer 

establishes that the test unit is not representative 

production. 

FACILITATOR RABA: What we're set to say, 

excuse me for interrupting here, but that if the unit 

is tested at the manufacturer's plant under ideal 

conditions, that's fine. Once it goes out the door 

there's no control over it. So maybe it has got to be 

some other thought to that too 

Mike had his hand up. 

MR. MARTIN: No, I'd like you to continue 

on this subject. I have another one related to the 

overhead -- another overhead. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Further comments? 

MR. STEPHENS: Just one addition. It 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
131 

sounded to me that GAMA1s kind of response to this was 

in effect an enlargement of the sample size. I mean 

you can argue over whether the first one should be 

dropped out of the sample or not, but it sounds like 

if you' re going after another batch to test, well, you 

know, you've just doubled the sample size, essentially 

and you may find that that first one is an outlier and 

maybe there is a statistical way to define whether the 

one you've thought was defective or think is defective 

is an outlier because it's beyond the variance of the 

sample size that you subsequently pick, but maybe 

there is a statistical method of getting at this and 

I might recommend that it at least be examined on a 

statistical basis to see if there isn't some way of 

mathematically getting this a little closer just 

because what you1 re looking for is a standard. You' re 

looking to see if something meets a number, a standard 

or a test value, performance value. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Noted for the record. 

Thank you. 

MR. TREADO: There is an ASTM procedure 

for identifying outliers. I wouldn't have great 

confidence based on a test of two. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Right. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, and the only reason 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
132 

I said that is because Frank sort of intimated that 

the sample size was going to get bigger here and it 

wouldn't be two, it might be four, six, whatever it 

took to determine that it is an outlier, but again, if 

you have an outlier, maybe that's what you do. Maybe 

that's what you go through. Is you get enough of a 

sample that you can statistically use that method and 

conclude that it is an outlier. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Anything else? 

MR. MARTIN: On the sampling question, 

this is an item where I would appreciate your advice. 

It's one where we have argued amongst the staff as to 

what we should do and we generally support the OE 

sampling provision for certification by non-VICP 

participants. 

The section reads, "In addition, you must 

test a sufficient number of units of the basic model 

and the efficiency rating of the basic model must be 

determined such that any rated value of energy 

efficiency is not greater than the lower of the mean 

of the sample or the lower 95 percent confidence limit 

of the true mean divided by 0.95 and any represented 

value of energy usage is no less than the greater of 

the mean of the sample or the upper 95 percent 

confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05." 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
So this wording makes it clear that the 

represented value of energy efficiency may be either 

the mean of the sample or some other lower value. 

Thus, if the mean of a sample is 10.0 SEER, the 

represented value may never be greater than 10 SEER. 

And under some circumstances must be lower than 10 

SEER. And this is a widely misunderstood provision 

and I have argued with people as to what this says and 

somebody brought this up. I forget who. I think it 

was Ed. 

I wonder whether this additional safeguard 

here is really worth the trouble of having or whether 

it would be better to drop it out all together. The 

clearest way of getting rid of this misconception . 

would be not to include it at all. But I wonder 

whether you, the staff or anybody else, feels that 

this 95 percent confidence level of the true mean 

divided by 0.95 actually adds anything of 

significance. 

MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock. I know that 

it's hard for people to understand, but we've been 

talking about units that deviate slightly or not 

really completely defective. Charlie Stephenstalked 

about the insulation in the water heater. What this 

does is specifies a tolerance on that type of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
134 

deviation. It's not a very hard statistical test to 

apply to evaluate whether your sample meets that and 

if you have a very close tolerance, consistency in the 

product, then you only have to test a few. If it's 

very much of a deviation that does raise the number of 

tests, then it's a pretty well understood 

representation. 

MR. MARTIN: I guess I'm at odds with you. 

As far as the people I talked to, it is not at all 

well understand and of course, it's not in the 

people's interest to understand it because it says 

something they don't want to know. But the other 

aspect of this also, we talk about an outlier, so if 

you have this wide outlier and we're talking about a 

10 SEER unit and you have a 9 and an 11, but the fact 

is that things don't get better by chance. 

It's not a random scattering here. They 

only get worse. And the mean of the sample would seem 

to give all the protection that you need. That's the 

argument in that favor. 

The other aspect related to that one is 

that the enforcement provisions should include a 

requirement that in an enforcement action the 

manufacturer must provide written proof that the 

provision quoted about related to certification has 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
been met. 

In practice, this would entail providing 

test reports for each unit of the sample upon which 

certification was based. Without such a requirement, 

this whole provision becomes meaningless. In the 

NAECA regulations, for instance, DOE'S authority in 

enforcement is spelled out, but it doesn't -- it says 

the manufacturer has to do this, but it doesn't have 

any way of checking whether they actually do and it 

seems like for this to be meaningful, particularly if 

the certification and the enforcement tolerances are 

different, DOE needs to have this authority to do it. 

MR. LEVY: Authority to do what? 

MR. MARTIN: That in an enforcement 

provision, that the manufacturer should provide 

written proof that the provisions for certification 

sampling have been met. 

MR. LEVY: The regulation here and the 

proposed rule pretty closely parallels what's in part 

430 and I think it contemplates that the Department 

upon beginning to examine whether or not a product is 

in compliance would obtain exactly that kind of data 

fromthe manufacturer. Certainly, the rule authorizes 

the Department to obtain it and it requires the 

manufacturer to provide it. I guess I don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
understand what the issue is. 

MR. MARTIN: Well, I need to read this 

again and see if I can find that it does authorize the 

Department to obtain it. If I find it, 1/11 let you 

know. If I don't find it, 1/11 let you know too. 

MR. LEVY: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: A question along those 

lines -- Charlie Stephens. 

Ed, when you were talking about the 

variance and the sample size climbing, do you have 

anywhere in here what kind of relationship between 

variance and sample size you contemplate? 

MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock. There was a 

paper that was done by DOE before I came to work here 

at DOE that we can provide copies of that shows a 

table, does show the deviation and the numbers of 

tests to be done. 

MR. STEPHENS: So is that what you would 

require in an enforcement arrangement? 

MR. POLLOCK: Well, if you remember -- 

this is not enforcement we're talking about. We're 

talking about certification, but the certification 

puts the burden on the manufacturer. They know what 

kind of variations they're getting, at least they 

should and it's up to them to certify that they meet 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
or exceed the standard by that 95 percent or whatever 

the confidence level is. 

When we get into certification that's a 

different issue, but one of the things that Michael 

just raised was whether we had authority to ask for 

that test data that was used as the basis. We believe 

we do. We are and have in the past looked at some of 

those numbers when there's been values that have been 

questionable. 

And we are looking very closely at the 

fact that whether they indeed did per the 

specifications of the regulation. If they have not, 

then they are in violation of the regulation. And 

that puts them in a very different position than just 

coming up with something where there was a 

certification test later on that showed they were 5 

percent up. If they had the test data and they didnr t 

apply it correctly in reporting the value, that's an 

act which has got other repercussions to it. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay, I was looking at the 

enforcement page and just considering that the 

enforcement is more lax than that. 

MR. POLLOCK: Yes. 

MR. STEPHENS: And in fact, I'm wondering 

-- in fact, that's another question. How does DOE use 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the enforcement provisions to assure itself that the 

product as manufactured that each unit manufactured 

meets the standard if in the enforcement provision the 

mean is okay as long as it's 95 percent of the 

standard? 

It seems to me that reasonable assurance 

that each product manufactured meets the standard 

means that the mean should be at the standard. Am I 

wrong about that? 

MR. TREADO: I can answer that a little 

bit. The problem with strictly that is that if the 

mean performance of the product was exactly the 

standard, you'd have a 50 percent chance of finding 

it, making the wrong decision. It has a 50 percent 

chance of being on either side of the standard. 

So the Department is trying to bend over 

backwards a little bit to make sure that a product is 

not falsely found to be out of compliance which does, 

as you've identified, increased the risk to the 

consumer that they will receive a unit which is not 

performing up to the standard. 

And it's a simplified way of applying 

what's in Section 430 now which is -- uses also a 95 

percent competence when it applies it against a 95 

percent of mean. So it's -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
139 

MR. POLLOCK: Are you saying those are the 

same? 

MR. TREADO: It's not exactly the same, 

but in the end it comes out to be about the same. 

It's another approach at minimizing the risk of 

falsely finding a product to be out of compliance. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: I find it hard to figure out 

how -- if you test two 10 SEER air conditioners and 

they come out with 9.5 each and the average is 9.5, 

you can be given reasonable assurance that they comply 

with the 10 and that will be the thrust of one of our 

comments here. 

Because we recognize that although the 

statute says all units shall comply, it doesn't make 

any sense to suggest that all units are going to be 

tested to see if they comply. And your preamble says 

that you have to have reasonable assurance and we 

rather like that terminology that everything complies. 

As long as you test a sample and they all fail, and 

then claim that the unit is in compliance, we find 

rather hard to swallow. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Go ahead. 

MR. POLLOCK: If this was the case and we 

were just talking about certification, I agree with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
140 

you. we feel that in any compliance or enforcement 

action the first avenue of inspection is the test data 

or the methodology that was used for certifying the 

product initially. 

If you find in an enforcement action that 

two tested at the .95 or 9.5 value, I would hope that 

that -- I would expect that that would show up in 

examining the test data that the original 

certification was made on and if we found that those 

were in 9.5 value, that's a criminal act because they 

have certified something that was false. They did not 

have the statistical basis for certifying that they 

met or exceeded. 

MR. MARTIN: I think from our testing 

experience we have come across a number of occasions. 

We tested units which are not subject to this, 

recently, and I was convinced that the design as 

originally manufactured complied, but that due to a 

quality control problem, by the time we actually 

tested on an enforcement action we had lost 

compliance. 

So I think it's quite possible that the 

initial certification would comply with the law. It's 

not a criminal act. And yet what's being sold would 

fail to comply. I think that does happen in a number 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
of occasions. You make 10,000 or something and then 

something slips. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Charlie Stephens. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, or you 

change suppliers of a component and it slips. It 

happens quite a lot. Not only that, but I'm presuming 

if this thing is in an enforcement action it didn't' 

get there by its sterling performance in the 

marketplace. It got there because somebody is 

questioning the actual performance of the unit versus 

its rated value. And I would think that if the 

enforcement found it to be at 97 percent -- SEER 9.7 

in this case. I don't want to pick on air 

conditioning. It's just that 10 is a nice round 

number. 

Then you know this would not be a 

surprising thing if it was in an enforcement action. 

And the fact that you would then say well, it's 9.7, 

so it's within 95 percent, just like they said it was 

when they brought to enforcement because it wasn't 10. 

I guess I'm having trouble figuring out why you would 

decide then that you have reasonable assurance that 

all the other ones might be 10. 

MR. TREADO: I'll respond to that by 

saying you' re right. We do not have reasonable 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
assurance that true mean performance is 10. What we 

do have, we have to turn that around. We're not sure 

that it's not 10 because it's not low enough that we 

can't be sure that we just got a couple that were on 

the down side of the curve. And that is the way it 

boils down. We don't want -- the way it's set up 

right now, just like the current enforcement action, 

you err on the side of not finding a false negative. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephensagain. It 

seems to me you do that in certification. I mean -- 

MR. TREADO: If we do, it's more strict 

because the certification you have to use the mean or 

if you're not a VICP participant then you have to also 

compare that to the confidence limit approach. 

MR. STEPHENS : Which you sort of suggested 

is essentially the same as 95 percent of the mean? 

MR. TREADO: No, that's more stringent -- 

that again, the 95 percent of the mean is the 

enforcement. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. 

MR. TREADO: For certification, you use 

the 95 percent confidence limit which is the less 

favorable number. 

MR. STEPHENS: Divided by .95 or 1-05? 

MR. TREADO: Divided by the divisor which 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
tends to reduce that effect somewhat. It mitigates 

the negative penalty. But what happens here is you 

can have a case where, if you use your 10 SEER, if 

that's the standard and one measures 10 and the other 

measures 12, you might not meet the standard because 

your standard deviation is so high it's going to pull 

you down, your adjustment for the very go of the two 

unit measurements is going to actually pull you below. 

MR. LEVY: Let me just add. What he's 

saying is that if you have that kind of variation, you 

will not be able to meet the criterion of having 95 

percent confidence that the total population, that the 

mean of the total population is 10 or higher. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes, except I think at that 

point you're going to trigger Frank's concern about 

having an outlier. 

MR. LEVY: That may be. We're just 

describing what is in the rules, responding to your 

hypothesis that the certification standard was the 

same as the enforcement standard. 

MR. STEPHENS: NO -- 

MR. TREADO: Outliers don't really come 

into play so much for certification. That's for 

enforcement where you have a limited sample size. 

You have an unlimited sample size for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
certification. 

MR. STEPHENS: But I think what we're 

talking about here is the sample size that's already 

bigger than two. How did it get to enforcement? 

There's a sample that delivered results somewhere that 

are less than what its certified value is. 

So now you have one sample that suggests 

to someone that its actual performance is lower than 

its rated performance and now you add two more in the 

enforcement procedure and in both cases if you end up 

at 9.7, somebody says hey, they're not 10, we've got 

a sample here that we think shows that it deserves to 

go into an enforcement action. 

You do some testing of two samples and 

sure enough it comes in at 9.7. I don't think we're 

talking about a sample of 2 in enforcement. We' re 

talking about some other sample when in addition to 

enforcement adds up to less than 10. That's how we 

got there. 

MR. LEVY: The complaint that triggers 

that enforcement action may or may not be based on the 

test of a product and we wouldn't characterize that as 

a sample that would be considered during the 

enforcement process. Whatever information we get 

would trigger DOE action. Now one possibility as Ed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
suggested was that we get information that suggests 

possible noncompliance, the first thing we'll do is 

look at the testing that the manufacturer has done. 

The testing that it's done is a basis for its 

certification and any other testing and it's possible 

that DOE might stop there that information 

indicates that the product is in compliance. 

We would only move on to further testing 

and further enforcement process if there's some 

grounds for doing that. 

FACILITATOR RABA: I saw Frank wanted to 

make a comment before. 

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik from GAMA. 

One of the aspects that's been missing from this 

discussion is recognition that your measurement tool 

your test is not absolutely precise either. So if, in 

fact, there is a number below the expected rating or 

expectedvalue or declared value, whatever, one cannot 

just really say that's entirely because of some 

deficiencies in the product. 

The fact is that the test procedures have 

tolerances and if you took a real look at it, the 

result of that test, the manufacturer could have the 

option to say well, let's test it at another lab that 

has the same equipment and let's see what result we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
146 

get there. I mean in our certification programs, at 

least the ones in GINA, to this point we have actually 

artificially set up a test lab to be, if you will, the 

benchmark. 

But it's neither worse or better, 

necessarily, than any other test facility that has the 

necessary equipment to do any of the prescribed test 

procedures. It's just in these kind of programs, it's 

a little easier if you say okay, this -- we're going 

to make this lab the one that is the arbitrator, if 

you will, and so you've got to recognize that the 

tolerance that's being discussed her is, in fact, 

acknowledging that some of the cause of the result may 

be just how the test procedure came out that day at 

that test procedure and had nothing with the 

product, that particular product. 

I mean with all deference to NIST, I mean 

NIST, nonetheless, is still an agency that the 

government said this is going to be the -- used to be 

National Bureau of Standards, but that's probably 

because they had all the money and resources available 

to have those measurements as close to perfect as they 

could be, but even they have tolerances. 

FACILITATOR RAE3A: Before we go on, are 

there any call ins on this discussion at this time? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
Not so far. First Charlie, and then Michael. 

MR. STEPHENS: I just want to let him 

know, but again, I wouldn' t attach a probability, any 

greater probability that the test is high or delivers 

a high result than a low result. Then I'd begin to 

worry about the test procedure. But on the other hand 

if the test procedure delivers a high answer in terms 

of efficiency, I wouldn' t think the manufacturer would 

be quick to retest, if it's 1 point high. 

MR. STANONIK: My point is if it delivers 

a result that's low, you can't just say oh, then it 

must be because this product has a problem. 

MR. STEPHENS: True, I wouldn't. 

MR. STANONIK: Okay. 

FACILITATOR RABA: I think what I heard 

too is that there is a very established set of 

procedures that the Department would go through before 

they got to that conclusion. 

Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes, where did that 5 percent 

value come from? I mean why wasn't it 10 percent or 

2 percent or 1 percent? 

MR. TREADO: The 5 percent value basically 

is a simplification of what's in the enforcement for 

the residential in Section 430 where upper and lower 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
control limits are defined which are plus or minus 5 

percent of the energy performance standard and the 

mean of the sample is compared to those values and 

again, it's not a case where you're bound to be in 

compliance if you are at least at 95 percent. You're 

not bound to be out of compliance and again, it's 

because of the uncertainty. And let me state again -- 

MR. MARTIN: I understand -- 

MR. TREADO: The enforcement just use the 

mean and not the 95 percent and the actual mean of the 

performance energy efficiency of the product was 

exactly equal to the standard. By definition with a 

normal distribution half are going to be better and 

half are going to be worse, so you would be willing to 

take the risk that you would be wrong 50 percent of 

the time in saying that it didn't meet the standard 

and that's why there's a little bit of tolerance in 

there, but I also understand your point very clearly. 

MR. MARTIN: That 5 percent, for instance, 

on enforcement is -- Frank does better on his water 

heaters than 5 percent. He does better on his 

tolerance that we've been arguing about a 2 percent in 

the standard and Joe and I were questioning whether it 

was 3 or 3.5 percent, but here we've got this -- for 

the people who choose not to go in Frank Stanonik's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
program, they have a wider tolerance than those kinds 

who choose to go in it. 

MR. LEVY: That's not correct. For nonVICP participants, he's saying you have a greater 

tolerance and we'll address your assumption -- 

MR. TREADO: Only in the sense of 

enforcement. 

MR. LEVY: No, we' re talking about when 

you see -- they're confusing enforcement in certain 

cases. 

MR. MARTIN: No, I'm talking just 

enforcement. 

MR. LEVY: Oh, okay, then there's no 

difference. 

MR. MARTIN: There's no difference in your 

regs, but when Frank does it, he has a standard level 

that his 5 percent is 3 or 3.5 -- 

MR. LEVY: But understand in the DOE -- in 

the proposed rule, there is no difference with regard 

to the enforcement criterion for firms that do or do 

not participate in these voluntary certification 

programs. 

MR. MARTIN: But don't you think that 

anybody who chooses not to be part of Frank's program 

should meet the same, at least the same tolerance 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
150 

requirements that Frank puts on his people? 

MR. LEVY: You mean for enforcement 

purposes? 

MR. MARTIN: For enforcement, yes. Let's 

talk enforcement for the moment. I mean that would be 

logical. 

MR. LEVY: Well, I don't know if it is or 

not because you still have the problem that -- the 

risk that the Department is trying to avoid of finding 

people out of compliance who are not out of 

compliance. 

MR. MARTIN: But you don't seem to be 

worrying about finding people as being in compliance 

who are out of compliance. 

Maybe it's because there's more of them 

guys than there are of us guys. 

MR. LEVY: Maybe because we don't find 

people in compliance per se. We deal with situations 

where there's an allegation that somebody is not 

complying. That's the judgment that we have to make. 

MR. STANONIK: Mike, we'll do our best to 

make sure the marketability of Frank's seal of 

approval is so great that everybody will want to be in 

my program. 

(Laughter.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. MARTIN: That is one of my goals, 

personally, and I think the Commission's goal too, to 

make -- to do everything we can to make people want to 

join your programs. 

FACILITATOR -A: Can we hear from 

someone different in the back? Brad Hollomon? 

MR. HOLLOMON: Does it help any to think 

in terms of how it is that the police have radar guns 

on the highway. When they're charged with enforcement 

they're not necessarily in a 60 mile an hour zone 

setting the radar gun at 61. They set it for perhaps 

10 miles over, they set it at 70. The reason they're 

not doing this with any kind of implication that going 

65 miles an hours is legal. 

It's only done as a practical and policy 

matter they set it at 70 because that way when they go 

into court they have a solid case and nobody is going 

to question their instrument and that they don't have 

a de minimis argument of some sort that could be 

applied as well. 

It seems to me that that's really -- where 

they have said that is not really a technical 

question. 

MR. LEVY: To come back to the question 

though actually the analog to Frank's program is not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
152 

the enforcement criteria, it's the criteria for 

testing as a basis for certification. That's what the 

comparison should be and there the criteria for 

nonparticipants in his program is stricter than the 

criteria that his program has. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Further comments? 

Anybody else who hasn't spoken? 

George? 

MR. KUSTERER: George Kusterer with Bock 

Water Heaters. 

I just have a problem with this 

enforcement issue especially with the noncompliance or 

the nonvoluntary program. Fine, somebody brings a 

product to market. They don't comply. They are not 

in the voluntary program. They're in the nonvoluntary 

program. We're dealing with enforcement. What 

enforcement? 

I mean what long arm of the law like this 

gentleman said about radar, you know, you set radar 

and unfortunately if you get caught, the enforcement 

is there. You're going to get a ticket. You're going 

to get locked up, whatever the case may be. What is 

DOE going to do about noncompliance? I mean you're 

going to send out the DOE police and tell them they 

can't sell their product? What are we doing? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nea1rgross.com 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
153 

MR. LEVY: Well, that' s been set forth in 

Part 430 for a long time and -- 

MR. KUSTERER: I understand that. 

MR. LEVY: And it's basically adopted or 

proposed here for commercial products. 

MR. KUSTERER: Right. 

MR. LEVY: There are various things that 

can happen if the Department concludes that a product 

is in noncompliance. One thing is that the product, 

it might have to be taken off the market 

MR. KUSTERER: Okay. 

MR. LEVY: There are possible penalties 

that can be assessed. It just depends on the 

circumstances. 

MR. STANONIK: It would be DOE. 

MR. KUSTERER: Yeah, it would be DOE. I 

understand. 

MR. MATTINGLY: For the commercial 

enforcement. 

MR. KUSTERER: Right. 

MR. MATTINGLY: For enforcement of minimum 

standards, yes. 

MR. LEVY: Correct. Does that answer your 

quest ion? 

MR. KUSTERER: Not entirely, but I don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
want to belabor the situation. It1 s for another time. 

I just don't want to prolong it. 

FACILITATOR RABA: One more and then we 

should move on, perhaps. Go ahead. 

MR. TREADO: Those are all the slides I 

have. 

MR. MARTIN: I have a few pieces that are 

left over. When somebody talks on the subject I kind 

of picked them up here. There is a question about 

this DOE police situation. 

Section 431.506 (a) reads in part, "upon 

receiving information in writing concerning the energy 

performance of a particular commercial HVAC and WH 

product sold by a manufacturer or private labeler 

which indicates the product may not be in compliance 

with the applicable energy performance standards, the 

Secretary may conduct a review of test records" which 

I think refers to one of the things you were saying. 

"The Secretary may then conduct enforcement testing of 

that equipment." 

The implication is that DOE may not check 

records or conduct testing unless it receives a 

written complaint and that's not in the public 

interest. We urge the wording be changed to indicate 

that if the Secretary receives a written complaint, he 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
or she shall take action stated and that the Secretary 

may take the action stated under any circumstances. 

DOE here has a responsibility to insure 

that consumers are protected frommisleading claims of 

manufacturers, particularly those who are outside the 

formal VICP programs. 

It's our experience that there are entire 

groups of manufacturers that got caught up in a spiral 

of exaggerated claims in order not to lose their share 

of the business. Some of these go back a very long 

way. 

Where there is widespreadexaggeration, no 

company will issue a formal complaint since no company 

wishes to open itself for examination. For example, 

we did not get any formal complaints before we started 

testing electric commercial water heaters several 

years ago and we found 100 percent noncompliance. So 

we are suggesting that you should not limit yourself. 

Two things here. 

First that instead of saying you may do 

something or if you get a complaint you should say 

that you will do something. And the other one is that 

you should indicate that you may do something even 

without a formal complaint. That we'll have in our 

written requirements. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
156 

There's a similar one that says 

431.506 (a) (1) that states "the Secretary may not take 

any enforcement action until after the manufacturer 

has been offered the opportunity to meet the 

Department to verify compliance with the applicable 

efficiency standard." And this restriction to the 

Secretary's action should be deleted since it hinders 

his ability to protect the interest of the consumer. 

These are things that have carried over from 430. I 

keep hearing you mentioning 430 and it's not in 

today's agenda, but there's a lot of things that we 

find unacceptable in 430. 

MR. LEVY: These provisions are carried 

over -- 

MR. MARTIN: You didn' t make them up. You 

picked them from -- 

MR. LEVY: Minor modifications from part 

Does anybody else have any comments on the 

points that Michael just made? 

MR. KUSTERER: No. Basically, that's what 

I was alluding to and I thank my colleague for -- 

MR. LEVY: You agree with what he just 

said? 

MR. KUSTERER: Yeah. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
157 

MR. HODGES : This is John Hodges from ARI . 

I do take exception to Mr. Martin's statement about we 

being able to act, as I understand, without giving any 

opportunity for the manufacturer to be heard. It 

seems to me that raises substantial due process issue 

of DOE being able to act against a manufacturer 

without an opportunity for being heard. 

MR. LEVY: Other comments? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

Yeah, I mean you can imagine a manufacturer who just 

wants to do mischief against another manufacturer and 

harass them and so the concept of credible information 

ought to be implicit in there. 

And second of all, if an agency counsel, 

frankly, I don't think you're going to really want to 

limit your discretion. You certainly are not going to 

put that in your own regulations. 

MR. LEVY: I don't follow your point. 

MR. MATTINGLY: In other words, "you shall 

act" instead of "we may act". You're going to want to 

retain that discretion, I'm sure. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Further comments? 

Charlie? 

MR. STEPHENS : Charlie Stephens. I don' t 

know that putting "shall" in there is necessarily 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
158 

limiting discretion. The fact is there's -- you I re 

not really specifying all the things that you could 

do. Some of it could be very minor. You could 

contact a manufacturer and that could be it, but at 

least you did that much. 

As for whether or not DOE can act without 

the manufacturers being allowed to speak up, it's 

possible that DOE'S ability to direct testing at NIST 

or something along those lines before confronting the 

manufacturer might prevent a situation that Joe was 

referring to where somebody was trying to do mischief, 

DOE goes out, does some testing and says hey, this is 

in compliance. 

There's no problem here. And that's the 

end of it. So I don't -- just like Joe says I don't 

think DOE necessarily has to close off its options, 

but neither do I think they should be restricted from 

doing the smart thing and the circumstance to verify 

where there's something that they need to do in 

particular or not. 

That in itself is a response and I'm not 

sure written directive has to generate that response. 

DOE may find this on their own and want to act on 

their own to determine if there really is a problem 

worth pursuing. And I don't think that should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
159 

closed off simply because you didn't get a written 

complaint from somewhere outside the Agency. 

FACILITATOR RABA: While there' s a bit of 

quiet, I want to say thank you to Steve for his 

presentation. 

MR. MATTINGLY: I don't know if this is 

thank you time. Thank you, Steve. We only had one 

other comment worth a darn. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. MARTIN: What about the ones that I've 

brought up? 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. MATTINGLY: Other than to say that we 

think DOE did a very good job on this regulation. I 

mean that sincerely. We were very pleased. 

On Section 431.505, the certification 

report. I think this is probably just in the nature 

of a misprint. You've got furnaces having to report 

minimum thermal efficiency where I think you really 

just mean thermal efficiency. And like for water 

heaters you're saying report maximum standby laws 

where I think you really just mean report your standby 

laws. In other words, you're taking the language of 

the standard and sort of putting it in there in the 

certification report inappropriately. That's all. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
160 

MR. NASSERI : Your re going to give us your 

comments in writing. 

FACILITATOR RABA: First, Michael again, 

then over to Mark. 

MR. MARTIN: Okay. We particularly 

support the concept in 431.483(b) that DOE should 

approve VICPs that meet the 13 criteria only for a 

limited period of time. And there should be periodic 

renewal of approval. This should be done annually 

because the control of manufacturing companies is 

changing at a fast rate. As companies change, so do 

the controlling bodies of VICPs. The draft language 

states the approval be in effect for 5 years unless 

material changes occurred in the program. If no 

material changes occur in the program it would be very 

little burden on a VICP to obtain renewal of approval 

annually. 

The alternative to annual renewal is to 

have DOE revoke approval whenever it believes a VICP 

is no longer in conformance and this would be -- my 

original notes said this would be an administrative 

nightmare, but my reviewer changed it to say it would 

be administratively more difficult, but it's certainly 

-- it would be setting battle lines. 

Failure to reapprove because of lack of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
161 

performance would be much easier and it would lead to 

a cooperative spirit between the VICP trying to 

correct its shortcomings and DOE. So we recommend 

that instead of 5 years, 12 months which is what we 

have had with agreements with GAMA and ARI related to 

provision of data in California. 

We strongly support 12 of the 13 

conditions for approval of VICPs set out in Section 

431.4 (a) (4) . DOE'S delegating significant portion of 

its enforcement authority to the private sector 

organization and must be sure that these quality 

programs, these are quality programs that form well 

and my notes said that we should insure that the 

conditions don't get watered down and I'm most 

encouraged to find that nobody has made any such 

suggestions that they should be watered down. 

However, condition No. 5 we feel should be 

changed to require that an independent lab conducts 

the tests. VICPs that base their ratings on testing 

in the manufacturers' plants should not be allowed to 

be approved by VICPs by DOE, even if the tests are 

under supervision of an independent lab personnel. 

Through our experience over 20 years of 

enforcement testing, confirmed in discussion with 

knowledgeable people in the industry, we put much more 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
162 

credibility on the claims of ARI, GAMA and AHAM who 

emphasize that all testing is done at the program's 

independent lab than those where testing is done at 

manufacturers' plants. Our experience has shown that 

the products of labs that use this procedure are 

noticeably less reliable than the products of those 

who test in an independent lab. 

And then we suggest a fourteenth 

condition. Approve VICPs, must have a provision that 

allows manufacturers to challenge the claims of their 

competitors. ARI staff and members have repeatedly 

through the last 25 years emphasized that their 

products within their certification program are 

generally reliably rated and insisted it is largely 

because the manufacturers check on each other products 

and use the ARI and the GAMA challenge processes and 

we heard this again from Mark today. 

We've been convinced by ARI and GAMA staff 

and members that this is a valuable provision for 

those certification programs that have it and that the 

performance is noticeably improved by it as you will 

note from written comments we've previously submitted 

about some other programs. 

That's all I have on that subject. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Any points need to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
repeated that no one heard? 

Mark, you're up next, please. Thank you, 

Michael. 

MR. MENZER: Thank you. We do have a 

short statement. If you would indulge me, I'd like to 

go through it. A few of the points we've covered 

already. Some of them may be new, but I will try to 

be brief. 

I think you know that ARI is a great 

association representing 90 percent of the market in 

domestic air conditioning and commercial refrigeration 

equipment and we represent over 200 companies 

employing about 150,000 men and women in the U.S. Our 

credentials in this area, we've provided management of 

certification programs for various products since 1958 

and we're a world leader in this area. 

We think that the current system of 

voluntary industry certification has worked well for 

many decades and therefore we believe that existing 

industry certification programs for the air 

conditioning equipment covered under EPACT have proven 

that manufacturers' self-certification of ratings 

followed up by verification tests and with industry 

enforcement protects the customers and is adequate to 

assure appropriate ratings. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
We are very much in support of much of 

this proposed rule, but we wish to seek clarification 

and comment on a few critical points. 

We also support most of the criteria for 

voluntary independent certification programs that are 

spelled out in this proposed rule. Most of those 

criteria are consistent with the policies that govern 

our own program. 

Nevertheless, we're concerned with one 

proposed requirement and reading from the rule this is 

the one where "a participating manufacturer be 

expelled from a VICP if it does not comply with such 

requirements" and that is requirements of taking care 

of equipment that falls below the minimums. 

First of a, it's our experience that 

this rarely happens that equipment falls below the 

minimums, but it's also our experience that it's 

easier to discipline a manufacturer that's in the 

program rather than remove him from the program. And 

further, we don't think that it's a good precedent to 

have DOE determine who should or should not be in an 

industry program. 

Again, we certainly think that we should 

be taking action, but expelling them from a program is 

not anything we think is appropriate. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
165 

FACILITATOR RABA: Mark, excuse me, help 

me out, where is that citation? 4410. Thank you. 

MR. MENZER: ARI is concerned with the 

proposed requirements that the VICP provide summary 

data that would show the results of verification 

testing on each basic model. We believe that this 

requirement is rather intrusive and we believe that 

the existing data provided to DOE is part of the 

requirements under NAECA should suffice. And again, 

as was pointed out earlier, we would have to go back 

to a manufacturer to get their permission to release 

data, specific test data to DOE. 

We should emphasize that competitive 

factors work to insure compliance. Manufacturers that 

are found to be noncompliant with EPCA are provided a 

letter from ARI noting that noncompliance. In our 

statement, we had written that in turn the ARI reports 

that noncompliance to DOE. That's not quite correct. 

What we do is we provide the hold over the directory 

showing what systems have been re-rated or have been 

obsoleted. 

With regard to re-rating, the disincentive 

for being out of compliance with claimed ratings are 

significant, including costs for additional testing, 

fines and penalties imposed by our ARI program. So 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
it's a very costly thing to be out of compliance with 

claimed ratings and as a result there are very low 

numbers of re-rated models in our directors and very 

few enforcement actions that we've had to take over 

the years. 

Furthermore, purchasers use our 

directories to select products that meet their needs. 

Manufacturers are well aware of this and they want to 

do whatever possible to avoid the stigma of any 

re-rating requirements or any bad publicity that might 

result from not meeting the regulated efficiency 

standards. 

Additionally, we question requirement for 

manufacturers that participate in a voluntary, 

independent certification program, but also submit 

compliance statements to DOE. Since the VICP will 

need to be eventually approved by DOE and the 

manufacturers' ratings will be verified through the 

VICP, such an effort appears duplicative. ARI 

directories alone should suffice for certification 

reports. 

ARI also wishes to emphasize that 

nonparticipants should assure compliance in the 

accuracy of efficiency representations through 

independent laboratories, by independent testing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
personnel. We do believe there's a sufficient number 

of laboratories and independent testing personnel out 

there capable of providing the service to non-VICP 

manufacturers . We don' t think this is going to place 

any undue burden on manufacturers and we suggest that 

this requirement not be modified or omitted by DOE in 

the proposed rule. 

We believe that DOE recognition of a VICP 

should not require re-approval unless there is a major 

change in the program. You've listed some criteria 

there and we think that unless we have a major change 

that affects some of those criteria we should not ask 

for re-approval. 

Along those lines, each year we do through 

an audit by the Standard Council of Canada. It1 s a 

very rigorous review and we have past that year after 

year and assuming we continue to pass it, we can 

continue to claim ourselves as a certification 

organization that is capable of performing energy 

performance verification and we want to suggest that 

in an effort of standardization that DOE accept the 

findings of the SCC in lieu of a separate approval 

process that you might go through. 

In answer to a claim that this is not a 

burdensome thing I will tell you it takes us a few 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
weeks to fill out the paperwork and prepare for one of 

these annual audits and it's several man-weeks of work 

to go through. 

Thank you for listening. Those are our 

comments . 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you, very 

comprehensive. Many issues here, many topics. 

Comments? 

MR. LEVY: Follow-up questions. First of 

all with regard to discipline of manufacturers and the 

issue of expulsion from the program, what kind of 

actions are you referring to when you talk about the 

program taking disciplinary action? 

MR. MENZER: Manufacturers who fail a 

test, who have ratings that don't stand up, of course 

have to re-rate the equipment. If they're below a 

federal minimum, they have to obsolete their 

equipment, take it off the market. And we look for 

proof that and proof that if it's a re-rating that 

they change all of their literature. 

They also are subject to penalty tests. 

That is we go along -- I guess our philosophy is we 

believe you until you give us reasons not to believe 

you. And when you have failed the test and we 

suddenly question your ability to rate products, in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the following year we would require many more 

verification tests from you. These are expensive and 

they pile up and cost them a lot of money. 

Interestingly, we also send letters to the CEO of the 

company, now matter how large a company it is, to let 

them know that their company is failing tests and 

usually the people who rate the equipment hear about 

them. 

We found this to be a very effective way 

of keeping ratings in line. 

MR. LEVY: What would happen if a 

manufacturer failed a test and refused to re-rate a 

product? 

MR. MENZER: Never happened. 

MR. LEVY: Well, how would you deal with 

it? 

(Pause. ) 

MR. MENZER: As I'm reminded, that would 

be a violation of our program and it has not happened. 

However, we could expel them from the program and 

maybe would do so. But we don't think it should be a 

government edict, I guess I mean to say to have to 

expel them from the program. 

MR. LEVY: You had also mentioned that DOE 

should not -- your earlier comment, should not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
discipline manufacturers. I don't think there's 

anything in the proposed rule that contemplates that. 

What the proposed rule sets out are features that 

would have to exist in the program. It would be up to 

the operator of the program to take action. 

But the other thing I would say and I'd 

like to hear your response to this is that I think the 

intent of this provision is not that a manufacturer be 

expelled from the program simply because it is found 

to have a failing product, but rather to deal with 

situations where a manufacturer under the program 

refuses to take basic actions that are required. 

For example, refuses to re-rate products 

where that's called for or refuses to obsolete 

products where that is called for. Or, to give you 

another example, what action would take if a 

manufacturer for some reason declined to provide 

reports on its products? They're suppose to report 

the efficiency of every product. And what would you 

do if a manufacturer just declined to do that, said 

no, we're only going to give you the efficiency 

ratings on A, B and C products, but D, E and F, we 

don' t want to give you. What would you do about that? 

MR. MENZER: We would have to remove them 

from the program. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
MR. LEVY: Okay. 

MR. HODGES: Again, that is a matter of 

internal governance and decision by the IR program. 

We're very nervous about the government telling a 

private organization who can and who cannot 

participate as a member of that certification program. 

We think we have very effective disciplinary tools 

which have been going on for many, many, many years 

without the government setting the criteria upon which 

they would have to be expelled from that program. 

MR. LEVY: Are those criteria specified in 

the rule? 

MR. CAULSON: 69604 in the approval 

criteria. 

(Pause. ) 

It says "the program must also provided 

that a participating" - - I'm sorry, the third column. 

Very bottom, right hand corner of that page. 

FACILITATOR RABA: 604. 

MR. CAULSON: The last sentence of the 

third column. The program must also provide that a 

participating manufacturer will be expelled from the 

VICP if it does not comply with such requirements. 

Actually, we weren't totally sure when we started what 

such requirements, what you meant by that. We weren't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
172 

sure what that modified. 

MR. LEVY: It modifies the preceding 

sentence. 

FACILITATOR RABA : Can we hear from 

Charlie Stephens first and then Michael? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. There is 

a different level of DOE interest here, it seems to me 

and another way to solve this. It seems to me that 

what DOE is interested is only those non-compliance 

factors with a manufacturer where it leads to an 

inappropriate rating for some piece of equipment or 

line of equipment. 

And it seems to me that DOE could simply 

decline to accept the ratings of that equipment, even 

if they came from ARI1s directory or whatever other 

channel they come to DOE from. It seems to me DOE has 

the discretion to just force that manufacturer to deal 

directly with the Department for those products where 

they're not in compliance. And they might be in 

compliance with five other product lines that they 

certify through ARI and might not be a problem. 

And again, I would tend to side with the 

ARI folks about why kick a manufacturer out of a 

program if he's got some -- he's holding on to 

something in one product line out of five, you have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
the option it seems to me of declining to accept the 

results from that directory or that program if that 

manufacturer is found to not be complying with the 

program's rules that would affect its rating. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, it's getting late in 

the day and my mind is not as clear as it was, but I 

had read this as indicating that this was one of the 

13 conditions that ARI or GAMA would have to comply 

with and that part of the complying is to indicate as 

much as did that if people do certain things they'll 

get chucked out. I didn't see this as being that in 

any way DOE would say chuck out York International. 

But it was just part of your getting 

approved as an agency here and I think you already, 

through your answers done what they've asked you to 

do. 

MR. MENZER: Well, we read this as a - - we 

read this as a mandate and while as I've told you it 

could, it is likely to be the final outcome of such a 

hypothetical situation. We would want to use our 

discretion to do what made sense in that situation. 

MR. LEVY: To just read it in context I 

think that the way Michael described it is exactly 

what' s intended here. Not only that, but I think it's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
what it says, because this is a description of 

requirements that the program must meet and there' s 

nothing in here about the Department giving a 

directive to any of these programs to take any action 

against the participant, but this is a requirement as 

to the kinds of provisions that has to be in, sort of 

the program' s ground rules and what it says is that if 

a model fails testing conducted by the program, the 

manufacturer has to remove it from production, if it' s 

not in compliance, or correctly re-rate it. 

And that the program must provide that if 

a manufacturer doesn't comply with those requirements 

it would be expelled. And that seems very fundamental 

that if a manufacturer is not applying those basic 

rating requirements, how could it participate in the 

program. 

Now one suggestion was made that well 

maybe there ought to be other sanctions if a 

manufacturer is complying with the program with regard 

to most of its products, not with others and if that' s 

what somebody wants to advocate, well, we'd like to 

hear it. We're in a comment process and this isn't 

written in stone. It's hard to see how someone could 

continue to participate in a program when they're 

flouting one of the basic rules or tenets of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
program. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes, just to clarify. It 

seems to me that the goal here is to protect the 

integrity and I think it's the goal of DOE and the 

VICP to protect the integrity of the relationship 

between the VICP and DOE and the data that the VICP is 

submitting and I'm not sure that kicking a 

manufacturer out of an organization necessarily is 

needed to protect the integrity of a particular line 

of data. 

I have seen a couple of manufacturers on 

occasion hold on for dear life to a claim on a 

particular product line, even in the face of everybody 

else's skepticism and I'm not sure that again kicking 

them out of the organization is necessary to protect 

what we're all interested in here in these provisions. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Steve, go ahead. 

MR. WILSON: Steve Wilson, York 

International. Noncompliance occurs to the point of 

a manufacturer not wishing to remove it or re-rate it. 

Removing it from the listing will essentially get it 

thrown out of the building codes when the inspector 

comes in to look at it, so if it's not rated, not 

approved, they would be able to sell it. They 

essentially take it out of production by not listing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
176 

it. So just killing a listing alone, in an of itself 

could be enough to get the manufacturer upset enough 

to either re-rate it and/or take it off the market. 

FACILITATOR RABA: George, do you have a 

comment? 

MR. KUSTERER: Not on this particular 

subject. George Kusterer with Bock Water Heaters. I 

just wanted to clarify something that my colleague Mr. 

Mike Martin had mentioned in Article 431484. It would 

be No. 5, "an independent laboratory conducts the 

tests or independent laboratory personnel supervise 

the tests." Again, we're dealing with commercial 

equipment. 

This could be extremely burdensome as far 

as shipping a major appliance which is basically built 

for spec or built maybe four or five times a year for 

specifications. It has to be built. It is tested. 

It is disassembled. It is sent to an independent 

laboratory. It has to be reassembled, tested, 

disassembled and then sent to the job site and I think 

it's a tremendous burden on a manufacturer. And I see 

nothing wrong with an independent laboratory personnel 

supervising the testing and I believe Mr. Martin wants 

that stricken. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Did I hear that before? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
177 

MR. MARTIN: I didn't say a word. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Joe. 

MR. MOSHER: Joe Mattingly, GAMA. Thank 

you, George. We were going to make the same comment 

here in a few minutes. 

As I mentioned before in the commercial 

boiler efficiency program, certification program that 

GAMA has under its HI division, again an employee goes 

to the manufacturer's plant and conducts the test 

after assuring himself that all the test conditions 

are proper and the equipment is proper and all that 

sort of thing to guarantee some accuracy of testing. 

And as George said, some of this equipment 

is just too complicated and large, or whatever, small 

sales, blame it, whatever, to justify having to send 

it to another location to do it. 

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with GAMA. 

Just a couple other points on this, these criteria. 

First of all, getting back to this discussion about 

whether -- what's described in No. 10, whether the 

criteria should specifically require that the program 

must provide to expel participating manufacturers. I 

don't know if it intended it or not, but perhaps the 

way to resolve that is to change the words to say the 

program must provide sanctions to insure that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
participating manufacturers will comply with such 

requirements, such requirements being what happens 

when you fail. 

Personally, I mean, in that discussion, at 

least from GAIVLA's perspective, we also have a 

responsibility to all the other participants and so, 

in fact, if there is truly a failure and the product 

isn't complying, then we have an obligation to all the 

other participants who are complying to make sure that 

manufacturer takes the right steps. 

I guess if you put sanctions, the programs 

can figure out what sanctions they are and when you 

review it, you can determine whether you're satisfied 

those are tough enough sanctions or not, but in our 

program, the programs we run right now, the sanction 

is if you don't -- when push comes to shove, if you 

don't comply, you're violating your license agreement 

and you' re not in the program. Not that this model's 

not in the program, you're not in the program, Mr. 

Manufacturer. 

If we change it to sanctions, maybe we 

can, somebody can find some other effective stick. 

But the other point that Mike had raised and I didn't 

want it to be lost completely was this issue about 

your approval being good for five years and why not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
have it, approval every twelve months and that 

wouldn't be difficult, wouldn't be a burden. Well, 

the only way that's not going to be difficult and not 

be a burden is in fact if we submit to the same 

paperwork every 12 months in which case I'll just be 

loading up, I guess, my -- attack by e-mail. 

I'll send it to Cyrus or somebody every 

twelve months and he'll say oh, that's what I got 

twelve months ago and either he'll spend the time, God 

forbid, reading it again or he'll just say oh, it's 

the same and we'll just do a little exercise in 

practicing our mouth clicking or something. 

The fact is within the context of this, 

you have a 5-year approval that's good for 5 years, 

but you are going to get every year, a report, if you 

will, a report card on how well the laboratory is 

doing and whether it's explicitly stated there or not, 

we've certainly looked at that as DOE having the 

opportunity if they don't like the report card, that 

they're going to raise questions that may result in 

the approval not being good for the full five years. 

So I think what Mike is concerned about is 

really addressed by this requirement that the program 

is going to give an annual summary of the results of 

the verification because that will tell you a lot 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
180 

about what's going on and how the program is running. 

But to require annual renewal of the actual approval 

of program, I think, would be unnecessarilyburdensome 

and just would be a meaningless exercise. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Counselor? 

MR. LEVY: On that point, I want to ask a 

question of Mark. Are you suggesting, were you 

suggesting in your statement that DOE should not 

require any re-approval, not even every five years? 

MR. MENZER: We would make two 

suggestions. Number one, is that you should only -- 

we should only have re-approval when -- or we should 

notify you when a major change has been made to the 

program, such that - - a major change being one that 

would somehow impact on the 13 criteria here. 

The second suggest was that we already go 

through an annual audit by the Standard Council of 

Canada who has interests very similar to your own and 

that you might somehow recognize their audit as an 

approval process. 

MR. LEVY: What's the answer to my 

question? So you're basically saying -- 

MR. MENZER: Yes. 

MR. LEVY: That we should not require reapproval every five years? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
181 

MR. MENZER: You should not require a 

separate independent approval every five years. 

MR. LEVY: Okay. I had another question 

coming back to the notion of the report and I think 

the way Frank characterized it that's essentially what 

the proposed rule said is that we would look at these 

annual reports and then evaluate whether any action is 

appropriate and possible actions would include review 

of the voluntary program. 

In your statement, you make the statement 

that existing data provided as part of existing 

requirements under NAECA should suffice, but what are 

you referring to? I think you said that in your 

statement. 

In other words, you indicated that ARI had 

a problem with DOE'S getting an annual report of the 

results of verification testing and you said that the 

type of data, I presume then is already provided under 

NAECA should suffice. What are you referring to? 

MR. MENZER: The whole list, the whole 

data base of certified values along with within that 

list of those units that have been de-rated or taken 

off the market because they're in noncompliance. 

MR. LEVY: How is that report intrusive? 

I guess that wasn't self-evident. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
182 

MR. MENZER: Well, we understand what 

you're looking for is a list of what actual 

verification test results were compared to actual. 

MR. LEVY: Correct. 

MR. MENZER: And I think that -- we think 

that knowing which units passed and failed should be 

enough. We have certain criteria. We have a 95 

percent law and knowing which units pass that or fail 

that we think should be enough. It should meet the 

needs of DOE. 

MR. LEVY: Let me ask you one question. 

Approximately how many verification tests does ARI 

perform each year? 

I mean how many different units are 

tested, approximately? 

MR. MENZER: About 600 or 700. 

MR. LEVY: What this would call for is 

basically to report the results of those 600 or 700 

lines? 

MR. MENZER: Right. 

MR. LEVY: Okay. 

MR. MENZER: Again, I think to me, DOE'S 

requirement -- DOE really needs to know which units 

pass, which units fail and beyond that -- 

MR. LEVY: Well, we don't know that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
without knowing which ones were tested and I presume 

that the directory does not indicate which ones were 

tested. 

We've got the directory and it hadn' t been 

re-rated so we wouldn't know which of the others had 

passed the test and also actually the information is 

more than which ones passed, but what were your test 

values on the basis of which they passed, we wouldn't 

know that either. 

MR. MENZER: Well, you do know that -- at 

95 percent of the rated value or greater. 

MR. LEVY: Correct. Well, that's what we 

would know if we did know which ones were tested. 

MR. MENZER: Are you asking then -- the 

information that you're asking for is a list of what 

units were tested in the prior year, is that the 

information you're looking for? 

MR. LEVY: In essence. As we discussed 

earlier, the model numbers wouldn't have to be 

identified, but that's what essentially what it calls 

for is just a list of the results -- 

MR. MENZER: Well, that's not the same 

thing. Are you looking for a list of the units that 

were tested? 

MR. LEVY: Yes. No. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
for 

184 

MR. TREADO: No, what we1 re really looking 

the results, but it's for each of the units that 

were tested and it doesn't happen to have the model 

number. It just has to say -- 

MR. MENZER: And not in terms of 

pass/fail, but you want to know what the actual test 

results were. 

MR. TREADO: Right, right. 

MR. MENZER: That was the information that 

we felt was intrusive on the program. 

MR. LEVY: The test result, the rating and 

any kind -- either the applicable standard for 

sufficient description such as Charlie just mentioned, 

so we can know what the standard was for that product 

or that applied in that test. Okay. We understand 

your position. 

MR. NASSERI: Anything else, Ed? 

MR. LEVY: Well, I had another question 

concerning your statement with regard to the 

availability of independent test facilities. 

Do I take it that your comments only 

concern ARI products, air conditioners and heat pumps? 

MR. MENZER: They do. 

MR. LEVY: How many independent test labs 

are there for those products, roughly -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
185 

MR. MENZER: Interesting you should ask 

because we're actually in a process of going out there 

and looking ourselves because we -- we're interested 

to know as well. 

We do know of four or five that are - - we 

think would meet our criteria. Four or five may not 

seem like that many. The fact that one or two had 

been doing most of the work for the last two years 

would suggest that this four or five would give enough 

capacity to do all the testing that would be required. 

MR. LEVY: I don1 t have any more 

questions. Thank you. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Any other comments on 

this topic, on these topics and the statements at this 

time? 

Yes, Michael? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes, on this last point, itf s 

our experience that there are -- that we're aware of 

four or five and we certainly have the impression that 

there's no problem in getting testing done and 

especially if you allow it to be supervised in the 

manufacturer's plant, the testing agents, his 

personnel. And in theory, these are already being 

tested. 

They're supposed to be tested for sale in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
186 

California today, so if everybody is complying with 

the law, then it's already being done. Just where the 

testing happens, we don' t know and whether it - - who' s 

actually doing the testing, we don't know that either. 

It does look as though it's not a problem about 

getting the capacity to do this. 

MR. LEVY: 1/11 address this to you, 

Michael, and anybody else. Did anybody have any 

comments on the capacity for testing the other 

products we're concerned with here, furnaces, boilers, 

water heaters? 

MR. MARTIN: My comments apply to all of 

these. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Am I hearing that while 

there are these four or five independent laboratories 

per se that wouldn't this testing also come into play 

from agents of those laboratories or ARI to go witness 

test at the manufacturer' s plant which would add to 

that? Is that the same thing? Did I hear that? 

MR. MARTIN: Well, to mention a particular 

name, what used to be ADA Labs is now CSA 

International. They regularly sent people out to 

people's labs to do testing. I believe under 

Underwriters Lab also do oil fired equipment and I see 

George agree here. So that is going on right now. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
And they operate out of Cleveland, Los Angeles and 

Toronto. So there's three labs there and they do that 

routine -- so I don't think you need to concern 

yourself on that. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Further comments? 

MR. MARTIN: One question. Something we 

haven't talked about at all is how water storage 

tanks. What's going to happen with those? Do they 

fit into the certification and enforcement program at 

all? 

MR. LEVY: Well, to the extent that they 

are regulated, there are standards for them so they 

would be covered by the certification and enforcement 

requirements. 

MR. MARTIN: Okay, so if Wilbur is 

manufacturing these tanks which I believe he is or his 

company is -- 

MR. HOLLOMON: Not me, personally. 

(Laughter.) 

MR. LEVY: Well not today anyway. 

MR. MARTIN: He would still have the 

certification requirement and none of the overheads 

mentioned that at all and enforcement requirements? 

MR. NASSERI : Are you talking about hot 

water storage tanks? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
188 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. 

MR. NASSERI : The requirements are they 

have insulation. That's all they have, the 

requirements. What is it 12-R? 

MR. MARTIN: Okay. 

MR. HOLLOMON: 12.5. 

MR. MARTIN: Well, we haven' t talked about 

the test methods and so on. We were talking just on 

furnaces, but we've talked about certification and 

they are included in the certification and the 

enforcement requirements, correct? 

MR. HOLLOMON: Yes. 

MR. MARTIN: Good. 

MR. STEPHENS: They' re not explicitly 

included in a lot of places where you do name other 

appliances. 

MR. LEVY: I would appreciate it if you 

would identify those where it would appear that 

they're a gap because they're included within the 

broad definition of HVAC and WH products, that's the 

term we use. So any time that term is used, that 

product - - 

MR. STEPHENS: WAS fits too. 

MR. LEVY: What? 

MR. STEPHENS: WAS fits too, water 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
storage. 

MR. STANONIK: But not WC. 

MR. STEPHENS: Not WC. 

MR. LEVY: Actually, I wanted to ask 

another question and come back -- 

MR. POLLOCK: I was just going to ask for 

comment on that. In the unfired -- as was just been 

stated here, is a design spec. It's not a performance 

spec, so it isn't something that really gets covered 

under a test procedure per se and it is going to have 

to be treated somewhat differently fromthe tolerances 

that we were talking about here. 

So comments, because we are talking about 

certification and enforcement in the part today, the 

intent was to cover all the products that are included 

in EPCA or in EPACT and theref ore if you have thoughts 

on how these criteria or whatever criteria we should 

apply to the unfired tanks, I certainly would 

appreciate your insight on that. 

MR. MARTIN: Are aware of anybody who's 

actually listing these things, doing any kind of 

program? 

MR. LEVY: You mean the unfired? 

MR. MARTIN: Yes. It's something I have 

absolutely no data on whatever. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
190 

MR. NASSERI: It probably falls under 

GAMA's program. Do you have it in a report? 

MR. STANONIK: The specific category of 

unfired storage tanks is not presently within what we 

are trying to set up for commercial water heaters, but 

certainly the publication of this document may create 

the impetus, they're easy enough to add, let's put it 

that way. 

MR. STEPHENS : They' re kind of in a hole. 

Those of us who kind of specify these things or gauge 

the performance of them or count on the performance of 

them have a tough time sometimes figuring out what 

we ' re buying. 

FACILITATOR RABA: I believe we have a 

comment over here. 

MR. LEVY: I just wanted to come back 

briefly to the issue that we talked about earlier 

concerning the sanctions and compliance with voluntary 

programs and what happens when a manufacturer doesn't. 

One thing that struck me is that maybe a little 

clarification is in order. 

There are two different kinds of issues. 

One is what happens when a product gets tested and is 

found not to be in conformance with the applicable 

rating and I don' t -- that's not really what I thought 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
191 

was at issue. The real question is -- and then most 

of the programs have steps that manufacturers are then 

required to take. And I didn't hear anybody express 

any problems with the criteria that we had concerning 

what a program would have to provide in that regard. 

But the real issue concerns what happens 

in a situation where the program directs a certain 

action by a manufacturer and it then doesnl t comply 

and that was really the focal point of the provision 

that we had. And I think some of the comments people 

made were very useful and provide some useful thoughts 

on that. 

But that's really what was at issue when 

we were talking about this question of or the 

provision in the proposed rule that programs should 

provide for expulsion of the manufacturers, not what 

happens when a product is found not to comply, but 

rather what happens when a program is found not to 

comply and the program directs action and then the 

manufacturer doesn't carry out that action. 

That's really what that expulsion 

provision, quote unquote, focused on. And as I said, 

I think we got some useful comments on that which we 

can take into account. If anybody has anything 

further to say on that in their written comments, we'd 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
192 

like to hear it. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Thank you. I think 

George, did you have something? 

MR. KUSTERER: Yes, George Kusterer of 

Bock Water Heaters. With regard to storage tanks, 

unfortunately, they're like me, they' re stupid, 

inanimate objects that can't think for themselves. 

(Laughter. ) 

And that's why Frank Stanonik is with me 

to prompt me all the time. 

MR. STANONIK: But George, your animate. 

MR. KUSTERER: Yeah, that's true. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. KUSTERER: But with regard to storage 

tanks as far as performance goes, there is no 

performance on a storage tank. Water in, water out. 

It's basically very simple. The performance lies in 

the heat source, what's heating the water. So if we 

have a storage tank and we're insulating it properly 

there is really no efficiency rating. There is, you 

know, I mean a cup of water is a cup of water so I 

again -- I don't think it's even applicable in this 

standard. 

As far as rating them, okay, it's got 

insulation, water in, water out, works for me. So I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
don't think we have to spend a whole heck of a lot of 

time and emphasis and money on this particular 

project. That's my own opinion. 

FACILITATOR RABA: Charlie? Thank you, 

George. 

MR. STEPHENS : Yes, Charlie Stephens. 

That would be good, George, but sometimes they're not 

insulated or they're not insulated like they claim 

they're insulated or we don't know how insulated they 

are and then water in, but maybe not so much BTU out. 

MR. KUSTERER: Don' t I look like an honest 

person, Charlie? I mean would I lie to you? 

MR. STEPHENS: Nothing personal, George. 

MR. KUSTERER: Would I lie to you? 

MR. STEPHENS: I've just been shopping. 

MR. KUSTERER: But again, as far as -- 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. KUSTERER: Again, as far as 

performance goes, you're really not going to be able 

to do too much time, spend too much time with regard 

to setting up standards on performance of an inanimate 

object. But again, I do agree with you, if it has X 

amount of insulation, then so be it. But as far as 

going, sending a 500 gallon storage tank out to be 

tested, I think is a little -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
194 

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, we do it, actually. 

MR. KUSTERER: I know you do. 

MR. STEPHENS: We just test the loss. 

MR. KUSTERER: We just shipped 300 to your 

beautiful stadium. 

MR. STEPHENS: We use a lot of them. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. MARTIN: Are you going to tell us 

again how we get the transcript, so we can save this 

last exchange here? And whether it's copyrighted or 

not? 

FACILITATOR RABA: You can get the 

transcript from the reporter after today's hearing. 

I'm sure he'll welcome anyone who would like to 

purchase a copy. It should be available in two weeks. 

MR. KUSTERER : Please don't use that 

against me, Michael. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. MARTIN: Well, you've been calling me 

your colleague all afternoon. 

MR. KUSTERER: That1 s because I respect 

and admire you, sir. 

MR. MARTIN: Let1 s go buy each other a 

beer afterwards. 

MR. NASSERI: Okay, we are finished with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
our discussion of the last item in the agenda. 

Anything else before we make a final statement and we 

call it quits for today? Any final comments about the 

workshop today or public hearing? 

MR. MARTIN: I think you did a great job 

and I thank you for it. 

MR. NASSERI : Thank you very much. I just 

wanted to say a few words and then I'll let Ed Pollock 

say anything if he wants to, any closing remarks. We 

appreciate your participation with all the weather and 

other difficulties, especially the ones who traveled 

here from long distances. We have listened to your 

comments to you made today and will be very, very 

productive for our position going toward the final 

rule. 

Actually, February 28th is the closing of 

the comment period for this notice and I hope we get 

the written comments from everybody present here or 

whoever is not here and will send us comments. And as 

somebody mentioned, the transcript of this workshop 

will be available in two weeks. 

MR. MATTINGLY: I'm sorry, go ahead. 

MR. NASSERI: Two weeks and you can 

purchase that from the court reporter, contact him and 

see what the procedure is to purchase that for your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
reading. 

Again, we have a Freedom of Information 

reading room in DOE, if anybody has access with local 

here, they can always come and read it or you can buy 

the transcripts. 

Again, after the 28th of next month, we 

will basically look at your comments at whoever sends 

in comments and also the transcript and evaluate it 

and we will pursue to go to a final rule on test 

procedures for commercial furnaces and compliance 

enforcement for commercial air conditioning and water 

heating appliances. 

Joe? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. 

If we made certain comments either in a statement 

we've already provided you or during the workshop 

here, we don't have to repeat those in our written 

comments, do we? 

MR. NASSERI : You have your choice. In 

past, sometimes you did. If you prefer to have this 

as part of your comments -- 

MR. MATTINGLY: I mean it ' s easy to do so, 

but is it worthwhile? 

MR. POLLOCK: I'd like to comment on that. 

My feeling that actually it's better if you don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
unless you have a different way of looking at it or 

phrasing it that might clarify things because it just 

means that we have to filter through that much more 

comment to try to make sure we cover everything. 

MR. NASSERI: Not, at this point I would 

like to turn the board to Ed Pollock, Director of 

Office -- what's the name of the office now? 

MR. POLLOCK: Research and Standards, 

Cyrus . 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. NASSERI: He'll give us some final 

words. 

MR. POLLOCK: I just want to repeat Cyrus' 

thanks to all of you for participating today and help 

us to pull this together. I think we made a good 

start here. There are a few issues as we discuss this 

afternoon which we still need your help on clarifying 

and finalizing something that works for everybody and 

that minimizes the burden on the manufacturers , but 

still gives us assurances that the numbers that are 

being reported and used by those people who are 

purchasing the products are getting what they' re 

paying for. 

Also, I want to thank the staff, my staff 

for the effort that they made in pulling this together 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
198 

considering that we've been shut for two days here at 

the government. There were a lot of last minute 

preparations. I especially want to recognize Brenda 

and her activities this morning in getting us up and 

running, and Cyrus, who was here yesterday, trying to 

make final decisions with me on whether or not we 

would cancel this or try to pull it together and I 

think we made a good decision. I hope you all agree 

with us. 

Thanks again. 

MR. KUSTERER: Just one more comment. 

George from Bock Water Heaters. DOE'S choice of 

moderators has again been outstanding and in the past. 

It was a pleasure working with him. Thank you. 

(Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the public 

hearing was concluded.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF
This is to 

matter of: 

Before : 

Date : 

Place: 

represents the 

aforementioned 

typewriting. 

CERTIFICATE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

199 

certify that the foregoing transcript in the 

PUBLIC HEARING 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

JANUARY 27, 2000 

full and complete proceedings of the 

matter, as reported and reduced to 

www.nealrgross.com 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02FF