### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 1 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Forrestal Building Washington, D.C. 20585

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:00 a.m.

R eported by: Natalia Thomas, Capital Reporting Company

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 F ACILITATOR 3 N eil Eisner, Navigant Consulting 4 5 P ARTICIPANTS 6 K arim Amrane, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 7 R efrigeration Institute (AHRI) 8 V iktor Anderson, CRM 9 T imothy Ballo, Earthjustice 10 L aura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy 11 J eff Bauman, National Comfort Products 12 R odney Beever, United CoolAir Corporation 13 A lex Boesenberg, National Electric Manufacturers 14 A ssociation 15 B rice Bowley, GE Appliances 16 D an Bramblett, Estes Services 17 B rian Buynacek, Emerson 18 N ia Crowder, SF Environment Commission 19 M ary Dane, Traulsen 20 L aura Degitz, Navigant 21 J im del Toro, Carrier Corporation 22 P aul Doppel, Mitsubishi Electric

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 M ark Fly, AAON Heating & Cooling Products 3 J eremiah Freeman, New West Tech 4 L uke Hall-Jordan, EPA 5 G eoffrey Halley, SJI Consultants 6 P antelis Hatzikaziakis, Lennox International 7 B ruce Helft, California Energy Commission 8 B ruce Hierlmeier, Zero Zone, Inc 9 C harles Hon, True 10 J ill Hootman, Trane 11 L arry Howington, Commercial Refrigeration 12 M arshall Hunt, Pacific Gas & Electric Company 13 D iane Jakobs, Rheem Heating and Cooling 14 T om Johnson, Daikin McQuay 15 A thar Khan, United CoolAir Corporation 16 J eff Kleiss, Lochinvar 17 M ichael Kojak, UL LLC 18 D ominic Kolandayan, Daikin AC 19 S tephen Kowalski, Ingersoll Rand-Trane North America 20 B ill Larson, Norlake, Inc 21 I yabo Lawal, An 22 P aul Lin, Regal-Beloit Corporation

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 4 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 B ijou Lulla, fSource Energy 3 S teven Ly, SoCalGas 4 J ohn Mandyck, UTC Climate, Controls & Security 5 A ris Marantan, Navigant 6 J ohn McLaughlin, McQuay International 7 D avid Mecadon, National Comfort Products 8 M ark Menzer, Intertek 9 K aren Meyers, Rheem Manufacturing Company 10 P eter Molvie, Cleaver-Brooks Product Development 11 W ahid Mohamed, Saudi Diyar Consultants 12 J ohn Morris, Continental Refrigerator 13 V ince Mucciola, National Comfort Products 14 F rank Myers, PVI 15 J eff Newel, Hill Phoenix Systems Division 16 K ent Peterson, P2S Engineering 17 J ay Perkins, MEUS 18 M ark Rabbia, Carrier Corporation 19 D avid Ransom, McDermott Will & Emery 20 D oug Reed, ASHRAE 21 W es Roan, Bard Manufacturing Company 22 C arl Roberts, Zero Zone, Inc

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 5 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 J ohn Sabelli, Consulting Engineer 3 H arvey Sachs, ACEEE 4 J ason Sands, The Delfield Company 5 T ony Scardomp, MC Law School 6 S tephen Schaefer, Hoshizaki America 7 R onald Shebik, Hussmann Corporation 8 J udd Smith, OnSpeX 9 F rank Stanonik, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 10 R efrigeration Institute (AHRI) 11 L ouis Starr, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 12 ( NEEA) 13 P hillip Stephens, HTP Advanced Heating and Water 14 S ystems 15 P eter Strait, California Energy Commission 16 M vuala Suami, NRCAN 17 J ohn Sutphen Cleaver-Brooks Product Development 18 R usty Tharp, Goodman Air Conditioning and Heating 19 E ric Truskoski, Bradford White Corporation 20 T om Walsh, Daikin McQuay 21 K evin Washington, Illinois Tool Works 22 C ollin Weber, Navigant

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 6 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 A ndrew Welch, Johnson Controls 3 R obert Whitwell, Carrier 4 K evin Washington, Illinois Tool Works 5 M ichael Woodford, AHRI 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 7 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. EISNER: Nobody is to leave this 3 a fternoon until we go over the schedule and the rooms 4 w here we're going to be meeting because some people 5 s aid they needed to know those hotel rooms. So don't 6 l et me leave and don't any of you leave before we 7 f inish that. 8 Now, we're starting early. And Geoffrey is 9 j ust raising a suggestion. Do we want to go to lunch 10 a t about 11:00 or do you still want to go regular time 11 t o lunch? 12 MALE SPEAKER: Both. 13 MR. EISNER: Both? 14 That takes care of that. Anybody disagree? 15 I 'll use my judgment. 16 All right. We're starting off this morning 17 w ith your pass/fail -- pass whatever -- validation 18 s ystem at DOE. And do you guys want to start off with 19 s ome introduction to the issue? 20 MS. BARHYDT: First, just to recap yesterday, 21 s o it looks like we have agreement on which products 22 a re going to be able to use an AEDM. Everybody's in

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 8 1 a greement that there should not be preapproval. We 2 h ave agreement on the categories within each product 3 t ype as to what sort of testing needs to be done to 4 s ubstantiate the AEDM. 5 And I believe those numbers were on the 6 s lides that Ashley did. So then the last issue that we 7 r esolved yesterday was the tolerances for the 8 m anufacturer testing used to substantiate, validate. 9 W e were tossing around some words and we thought maybe 10 a uthenticate might be a little more clear as to what it 11 i s that the manufacturer's doing. 12 We're trying to come up with a word that 13 m akes sense to everyone, since there was some 14 t erminology question yesterday. You can sit over here. 15 T here's a lot more room. And so the tolerances, I 16 b elieve, for everything were one-sided, 5 percent for 17 a ll products and equipment. 18 So then the question becomes, what happens 19 w hen DOE tests? But I would like to present it as 20 p ossibly more broad than that. We're going to talk 21 a bout independent certification programs at the end. 22 B ut our thought is that whatever the DOE number is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 9 1 w ould be the number that would also apply to an 2 i ndustry certification program that, if a third party 3 i s doing the checking, that that number ought to be the 4 s ame regardless of who that third party is. 5 And so we can talk about that in more detail 6 a s well. But if people want to kind of go in thinking 7 a long those lines -- Harvey's already gearing up. 8 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Just for 9 c larification. The number refers not to tolerance band 10 i n this case, but the number of samples to be tested. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Both. 12 MR. SACHS: Aha. So the ambiguity was 13 i ntentional. 14 MS. BARHYDT: The numbers -- 15 MR. SACHS: Right. Thank you. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So -- and the -- I've got 17 s lides on this. Because we're kind of -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: You do or don't? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Don't. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So on the original proposal -- 22 g oodness, it's been a while since we did the original

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 10 1 p roposal. We had proposed a variety of different 2 c onsequences. One was, if you fail -- if one test is 3 o utside of tolerance, if people -- I'm going to just 4 u se the word habitually -- are off on their ratings, 5 w hat the consequences of that might be. 6 And so rather than jumping into all of it at 7 o nce -- I can also imagine that those are tied in your 8 m inds though; whether the consequences might affect 9 w hat tolerance you're comfortable with. So would 10 p eople prefer to talk about the tolerance, then the 11 c onsequences, and then revisit the tolerance, or do you 12 w ant to talk about the consequences first and then work 13 o ut tolerances? 14 What makes the most sense to you? 15 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, Traulson. It would 16 p robably be better to talk about the tolerances first 17 b ecause then we could decide what the enforcement 18 s hould be. Do we know how big of a stick we need? 19 T hank you. 20 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 21 N ational. I just want you to clarify -- we're talking 22 a bout -- we're still talking about AEDMs? And this is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 11 1 t olerances for whether you'd invalidate an AEDM, not 2 i nvalidate it for -- I think -- I just -- there's 3 o bviously some cross there. But I just want to be 4 c lear that I am understanding what we're -- yeah. 5 MS. BARHYDT: So what we're talking about is 6 i f DOE does a test -- and whether it's one test of 7 m ultiple tests, that's a separate conversation. But -- 8 s o DOE does testing. And it is more than some 9 p ercentage off from whatever the rating that you have 10 a ssigned. And then what happens as a result of that? 11 But it is that -- it's how far DOE's testing 12 i s from the number that you have rated the product at. 13 A nd it -- our assumption is that's one-sided as well. 14 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. And that's -- 15 MR. SHEBIK: Laura, it's Ron Shebik of 16 H ussman. So you're -- okay. So we're going beyond 17 s ubstantiation. So now, you're discussing, like, 18 v alidation and enforcement? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 20 MR. SHEBIK: Would that be correct? 21 MS. BARHYDT: That is correct. 22 MR. SHEBIK: Thank you. Thank you.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 12 1 FEMALE SPEAKER: Of the AEDM? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Of the ratings. Of the rating. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we're at the point now, I 5 t hink, from yesterday that you guys have all the tools 6 y ou need to come up with ratings. You -- at the end of 7 t he day, you know, how many units you need to test, you 8 k now, the types of simulations you may use at the 9 o utset, you know, how close your test data needs to be 10 t o the number being spit out. 11 And you know that from that number being spit 12 o ut all the way down to the standard level, you may 13 c ertify anything in between conservatively. Right? So 14 w e've got -- 15 MR. SHEBIK: Right. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- we've got that taken care 17 o f. You now you have a rating for some subset -- some 18 s et of models in your product offering. We'll assume 19 i t's all of them. Now, what happens from there? 20 Y ou've certified your ratings. Everything's fine. 21 W hat happens from there? 22 If a third-party test is done and that test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 13 1 f inds results that are different than what's been 2 c ertified as the rating, we are talking about how 3 d ifferent, how many tests need to be done, what are the 4 c onsiderations around that test? This is if DOE were 5 t o test, if an independent -- like Laura was saying, if 6 a n independent certification program were to test. 7 I mean, that's what we're talking about. 8 W hat actually -- what is the process to invalidate a 9 r ating? 10 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 11 N ational. I guess I also want to get clarification in 12 s ome senses that if -- okay. We have Product X that 13 w as -- has a rating. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 15 MR. BAUMAN: Are we also reporting whether 16 t hat rating was determined -- and I don't think I 17 r ecall seeing this, but -- where that rating was -- in 18 o ur submittals whether it was determined for an -- 19 u sing an AEDM versus a full testing? 20 MS. BARHYDT: The current certification 21 r equirements do include that. 22 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. So then, when you find

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 14 1 t hat, if it was rated on an AEDM in addition to 2 d ecertifying the product, let's say, you would 3 d ecertify the AEDM or -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: That's -- 5 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. That's what we're -- 6 r ight. Okay. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's a consequence to 8 u s. But first, we have to decide how do you invalidate 9 a rating. 10 MR. BAUMAN: Right. What's outside the 11 a cceptable limit? Yeah. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: What is acceptable? And then 13 i t's a consequence. Should it just be that you need to 14 r erate it? Should it just be that you need to retest 15 b ased on certification tests? Should it be that the 16 A EDM is invalid? I mean, there are a bunch of options 17 o n the table. 18 MR. BAUMAN: Right. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: But at that point, that's a 20 c onsequence. But first, we need to get to the point of 21 w hat is -- what is an invalid reading. 22 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 15 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yep. 2 MR. STEPHENS: I think one of the big things 3 t hat all the manufacturers are going to be concerned 4 a bout is the possibility that it is a defective sample 5 t hat was selected. As much as we hate to admit it, 6 s ometimes something does happen. And sometimes the 7 t est setup isn't correct. We had one instance where a 8 t hird- party lab inadvertently switched the supply and 9 r eturn water lines. So of course the efficiency was 10 w ay off. 11 MR. EISNER: Are we getting off the issue, 12 t hough, of where we should start? We're -- those are 13 a ll relative in terms of which one we -- which issue we 14 s tart with. 15 MR. THARP: I think so. 16 MR. EISNER: Okay. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, I think they're all 18 i ssues on the table. We have to start somewhere. 19 R ight? So I mean, if we want to start around tolerance, 20 w e can start around tolerance. If we want to -- 21 MS. BARHYDT: Why don't we start with the 22 a ssumption of we have a valid test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 16 1 MS. HOOTMAN: We're -- okay. This is Jill 2 f rom Trane. We're assuming we have a valid test. So 3 i t is not a defective test. It is not a defective 4 u nit. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Correct. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So if we have a valid test, 8 t he test procedure was done correctly, the unit's not 9 d efective; we have a valid test, what is a tested 10 v alue? What is that tolerance that the tested value 11 n eeds to be around? 12 MS. BARHYDT: Is there any reason why it 13 s houldn't be the same as what you use to actually 14 v alidate, substantiate, authenticate -- whatever word - 15

- your AEDM? 16 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 17 W ell, I think the answer to that is, yes, there are 18 r easons. And the biggest one would be that, as we 19 d iscussed yesterday, if I've -- whatever I've done to 20 v alidate my AEDM, most likely it's been at a single 21 t est facility. And in addition to all the, let's say, 22 e ngineering knowledge and any experience I have about

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 17 1 m y product, I also have that information about my test 2 f acility. 3 In this situation, you now have introduced 4 t he other test lab and that -- you know, whether we 5 d ecide to do it or not. But that is a reason that you 6 s hould have or could have a different tolerance. 7 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Dominic Kolandayan, Daikin. 8 W hatever we decide on the tolerance, I'd like to make a 9 s uggestion that we keep the variability as low as 10 p ossible. So can we use the same test facility for the 11 e nforcement testing? So let's say -- I'll use VICP 12 ( ph) -- use as a test facility for the certification 13 p rogram. Can we -- can DOE use the same lab for the 14 e nforcement testing? Thank you. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is an option on the 16 t able. Currently, I think DOE uses many of the same 17 f acilities that everyone in the room uses. I mean, 18 i t's not a secret which third-party test labs test your 19 e quipment. We're not using anything different. Now, is 20 i t the identical on that you may have tested in? We 21 d on't know that. 22 But, you know, there's not, like, a wide

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 18 1 v ariety of labs out there doing testing of your 2 e quipment. So it's not -- this isn't, like 3 MS. BARHYDT: The labs we use are used by the 4 s ame -- by the same ones that the manufacturers use. 5 N ow, whether any individual lab is exactly the lab that 6 y ou're company uses, that may or may not be the case. 7 MR. EISNER: Were you suggesting it should be 8 o r were you just suggesting it should be one of the 9 l abs -- 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: He's suggesting it should be. 11 MR. KOLANDAYAN: It should be. 12 MR. EISNER: -- that companies use? It 13 s hould be the same one? 14 MR. ASHFORD: Well, by default, if you test 15 a nd you're in-house -- right -- we always test at a 16 t hird- party facility. There are -- we do have 17 e xisting regs that allow us to test in-house under 18 s pecific circumstances where we cannot test at a third19 p arty facility. But we're always going to move to a 20 t hird- party facility. 21 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. And is the IER 22 i n any of our discussions here or is that a separate

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 19 1 i ssue somebody worked on somewhere? Because the 2 t olerances are different for IER and AER (ph). 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- okay. I think you 4 w ould point them out here. And to the extent, you 5 k now, they should be in consideration here. Obviously, 6 t hat's still an open issue and an open rule that the 7 d epartment hasn't made a determination on. But I don't 8 t hink -- since we know it's an open issue and we know 9 w e're facing that open issue in the next couple issues, 10 i t doesn't hurt to keep that in mind and point out the 11 d ifferences, where they may be applicable. 12 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. 13 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussman. I'm 14 n ot trying to stray from the topic too much. But since 15 y ou're speaking about third-party testing -- third16 p arty facilities, one thing I'm going to point out -- 17 a nd I think others had the same concern -- is if you do 18 t est at a third party that you're not familiar with or 19 e ven if you are familiar with, you're going to have -- 20 b e allowed to have your personnel on hand to at least 21 w itness the test. 22 We have tested at third-party facilities in

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 20 1 t he past. And without having our people on hand, 2 t here's never -- there's not always a guarantee that 3 t he test will be conducted at the proper setting. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why is that? 5 MR. SHEBIK: Why -- yeah, why is that? We 6 h ave found that very small -- what may seem like small, 7 m inor details affect the outcome of the test results. 8 W hether -- you know, looking at commercial 9 r efrigerator, how you place your test simulators -- and 10 a gain, this should be based off ASHRAE standards, too, 11 a s well as how you set your evaporator temperature of 12 y our commercial refrigerator. 13 If you're off by a hair or you're slightly 14 o ff, if you don't have the proper airflow -- there's 15 j ust a variety of things that if they're not set up 16 r ight, they could cause a -- could cause a conflict or 17 c ould give you a result that is different from what you 18 w ould normally expect. 19 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 20 N ational. I want to concur with Ron on that. And we've 21 h ad -- and we understand labs do test a multitude. And 22 y ou guys regulate a multitude of products. I think the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 21 1 m anufacturers understand and have interpreted the -- 2 y ou know, the laws for the products that they're 3 t esting to make sure that they're meeting what those 4 r equirements are. 5 And sometimes -- and we've had similar 6 e xperiences, too, that you get variations that are -- 7 y ou know, they either just did something wrong -- 8 b ecause again, there are so many tests that the labs do 9 f or different products. They might not know your 10 p roduct category as well or the details of that as well 11 a s -- and it's -- you know, that's obviously -- you 12 k now, you'll -- don't go and tell them what you're 13 d oing. 14 But you tell them, "Hey, what about" -- you 15 k now, explain a part of it and what the -- or discuss 16 i t as far as how something should be said and for a 17 s pecific product category. And I've seen that across 18 m ultiple product categories that we deal with. 19 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp of Goodman. I'll 20 s omewhat pile on that the -- well, I answered your 21 q uestion -- was, is there any reason that tolerances 22 s hould be different? And if everything else is the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 22 1 s ame, then the tolerances should be -- would be okay to 2 b e the same also. 3 But the things like being able to be present 4 a t the laboratory -- and we also have seen several 5 s etup issues, just things like air sampler locations 6 a nd whether -- you know, how far is the air sampler 7 f rom the coil, how much of the coil face area is 8 c overed by the sampler. Things of that nature can make 9 a pretty significant difference. 10 You know, just -- I've seen as much as 2 11 p ercent difference just by where samplers are located 12 a nd how you're sampling, with no changes whatsoever. 13 A nd so that's pretty significant. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: The -- 15 MR. EISNER: Should we be approaching this 16 f rom we want tolerances to be the same and here are all 17 t he conditions and they're going to have to be the 18 s ame, or should we be approaching them, we should have 19 t hese conditions and they'll determine what the 20 t olerance is -- or depending on the conditions? Is it 21 e asier to approach it the first way? 22 MALE SPEAKER: We can start that way.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 23 1 MR. EISNER: And should we have somebody 2 w riting down the conditions that would go with that? 3 I 'll turn the screen so we can see which ones we want 4 t o end up with. 5 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. There are 6 d ifferent conditions, I think, for every different 7 p roduct. One of the options that's been suggested is 8 h aving manufacturers present so that then they can 9 a ddress those -- or at least have the option to be 10 p resent so they can address those concerns. If we 11 d on't have someone present, we're going to greatly 12 i ncrease the potential for there being challenges to 13 w hatever results come out. 14 MR. EISNER: I understand that. What I'm 15 a sking is, should we then say, "All right, we all 16 a gree, first, that the tolerance should be the same, 17 b ut under that situation, here are the conditions: the 18 m anufacturer has to be present, for example, or you 19 h ave to use the same testing laboratory that the 20 c ompany used for the first round of tests?" Should we 21 s tart off with the assumption that tolerances should be 22 t he same?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 24 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can't do it that way. 2 MR. EISNER: What? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well -- 4 MR. SACHS: We need to go backwards. 5 MR. EISNER: Backwards? Meaning what? 6 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I think that what 7 I 'm hearing is that it will be much more comfort, with 8 t he idea of talking about tolerances, if we understand 9 t he conditions, that failing a test and having exposure 10 t o decertification is a substantial risk to a 11 m anufacturer with serious consequences. 12 And for that reason, if I were a 13 m anufacturer, what I'm hearing is, I would feel very 14 d ifferently about this process depending on whether or 15 n ot I was allowed to witness that test to assure that 16 t he setup was proper and that there was not a defective 17 p roduct that had been shipped inadvertently. 18 So I think we need to discuss the list before 19 w e can discuss what the tolerance band is. 20 MR. EISNER: Well, what I'm suggesting maybe 21 i s indirectly getting us there. If we all think that 22 i t's reasonable to start with the tolerance should be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 25 1 t he same, let's then see if we can agree on the 2 c onditions that go along with that. You know, that's 3 w hat I mentioned before going back -- 4 MR. SACHS: I think that if you explicitly 5 a dded the end of that, revisit what we thought the 6 t olerance ought to be -- 7 MR. EISNER: Sure. If we can't -- 8 MR. SACHS: -- then -- 9 MR. EISNER: -- agree to the conditions, we 10 c an't agree to the tolerance. 11 MR. SACHS: Then you may find it more 12 a cceptable. 13 MR. EISNER: Yeah. Yes? 14 MR. STANONIK: I'm Frank Stanonik at AHRI. 15 N eil, I agree that that's a good place to start from 16 b ut I think that -- and Harvey was kind of saying -- I 17 t hink that it also needs to be -- we can do that, but 18 t here needs to be an acknowledgement that we still may 19 e nd up with some situations where it won't be. 20 And I'll just give you one example because 21 i t's pretty, I think, easy to grab onto. And we don't 22 t alk about it much, but if you're making a commercial

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 26 1 w ater heater, you have two criteria. You have the 2 t hermal efficiency, how well you heat the water, and 3 t he standby loss. When you talk about electric 4 c ommercial storage water heaters, the only thing you 5 m easure is the standby loss. 6 And the requirement today -- the requirement 7 t oday is so small, it's less than, like, a -- if you're 8 t alking about a 50-gallon commercial electric storage 9 w ater heater, it's less than a 100-watt light bulb -- 10 i s your standby loss in an hour. All right. Well, so 11 y ou're talking about something in the tens of watts and 12 a 5 percent tolerance on that test is -- just doesn't 13 f it. 14 In our program, we apply a 10 percent 15 t olerance. And that's still a very difficult test, 16 s imply because it's not -- you know, it's a combination 17 o f the test procedure and your instrumentation. And 18 y ou're trying to now measure relatively a very small 19 q uantity of energy. 20 And so I think -- and not being an expert in 21 t he refrigeration side of things -- I've heard some 22 t hings say that there still may be again reasons that,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 27 1 y ou know -- a manufacturer in his facility, he might, 2 y ou know, apply that 5 percent AEDM validation 3 t olerance to the standby loss, again, because he kind 4 o f -- not kind of -- they do know what they're doing 5 t here. They do know their lab. 6 But when we get into verification testing, 7 t here's -- I'm convinced there will be circumstances 8 w here 5 might be a good, common number for a lot of 9 p roducts, if not a universal number. 10 MR. EISNER: Well, I think, again, the first 11 t hing that could go on the list is exceptions will be 12 p rovided. You can get an exemption for a unique 13 s ituation or you could list the exceptions in the rule 14 i f you've got -- if you make the case. Now, of course 15 t he DOE has to say they're willing to work with that or 16 t hey have the resources to work with that. 17 But I think -- again, I'm -- what I'm hearing 18 i s, let's start and see what has to be on the list. 19 MR. HALLEY: Geoff Halley with ABMIA (ph). 20 F rom my experience in the boiler industry, in this -- 21 o ur segment of the marketplace, I think that 22 c ircumstances will dictate but the majority of testing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 28 1 w ill have to be done in the manufacturer's facility 2 b ecause of the capabilities of all the facilities in 3 t erms of fuel flows and that sort of thing. So I -- 4 MR. EISNER: And these are the things I'd 5 l ike to start -- 6 MR. HALLEY: Right. 7 MR. EISNER: -- putting up on the screen. 8 A nd we can say -- 9 MR. HALLEY: Right. 10 MR. EISNER: -- "Hey, this is too cumbersome 11 a system in the end and we have to go back and start 12 o ver," or we could say, "Hey, we can keep it to a 13 r easonable list of conditions that the agency can work 14 w ith." 15 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. I 16 t hink it's important to note that when you're talking 17 b oilers and commercial HVAC units, I mean, some of 18 t hese units are as big as this room. 19 FEMALE SPEAKER: Bigger. 20 MS. MEYERS: Or bigger. And, you know, 5 21 p ercent is not very much, especially as these are 22 a ssembled and then trucked down our wonderful U.S.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29 1 interstate highways and stuff, you know, and 2 t hen put into some type of lab where somebody who's not 3 r eally familiar with running the test has to run it. 4 S o, you know, we -- I mean, that's the issue that us, 5 a s manufacturers, are struggling with when you're not 6 a llowed to witness or be there and you've only got 5 7 p ercent. 8 I mean, it's a pretty small number. 9 MR. EISNER: You're going to keep the list? 10 MS. BARHYDT: So what do we have on the list? 11 MR. EISNER: All right. Well, I mean, I 12 t hink the first thing is, a basic rule would be that if 13 t he tolerance is the same -- 14 MS. BARHYDT: Whoops, I can't type. 15 MR. EISNER: -- and same as for the test for 16 t he AEDM. Is that correct? 17 MS. HOOTMAN: We have a basic problem. We 18 a lready have industry certification programs that are 19 n ot that. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: So why don't we start with 22 w hat are your industry certification program tolerances

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 30 1 i n terms of the metric, the product, what the tolerance 2 i s? And then from there, we can discuss -- 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. Also I want to say that 4 e ven if we say for unitary small, it's a 5 percent on 5 E ER, that does not constitute a failure right there. 6 Y ou have the choices after that. You have lots of 7 t hings that -- 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: And all that's on the table 9 h ere, right? So I mean, what we're talking about now 10 i s, assuming the test is done correctly, what is an 11 i nvalid reading and should that be different than what 12 y ou guys are currently using through your industry 13 p rograms to determine an invalid reading now? I get 14 t hat there's a process, whether it be, you know, 15 m anufacturers are on site or a contention process or a 16 d efect process. We'll get to that. 17 But I think at first, it's what really is an 18 i nvalid reading. And from what I understand of the 19 i ndustry programs -- 20 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- you guys are testing at 22 t hird-party labs. You're not testing, for the most

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 31 1 p art, in your own facilities. They're the same third2 p arty labs that -- they're around the table and on the 3 p hone -- that we use. 4 MR. STANONIK: Let's actually -- Frank 5 S tanonik with AHRI. Let's -- as we have this 6 d iscussion, I would suggest that we acknowledge that, 7 o kay, there's a segment of the commercial products that 8 I 'm going to say -- it's reasonable to consider them 9 t ruckable, if that's a good word, and that they are 10 t ested at a third-party agency. 11 Okay? So there's that segment that is 12 t ested, let's say, off the manufacturer's site. 13 T here's a whole nother segment that the only way you're 14 g oing to reasonably test them is at -- where they got 15 m ade. And so -- but I'm saying, you know, maybe just 16 c reate those two categories first and we can first talk 17 a bout, okay, tolerances for products that can be easily 18 o r reasonably crated and shipped someplace to be tested 19 a nd that's one set of circumstances. 20 And you have this whole other group of 21 p roducts where, when you want to test it, you're going 22 t o -- you know, whoever's going to test it is going to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 32 1 h ave to go there. The unit's going to be set up and 2 t hen it'll be tested because it's the only reasonable 3 t hing. And even then, there's -- reasonable becomes a 4 l ittle foggy because we have the whole question of you 5 m ade the manufacturer make one -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 7 MR. STANONIK: -- which is not like he made a 8 $ 5 piece of whatever. 9 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. To get this off, for 10 y our request, there are two industry standards that I 11 k now of for the commercial refrigeration. One is the 12 E nergy Star program -- requires 5.0 percent -- is the 13 m ost they will allow overage. In our Canada is the 14 s ame number. If you're more than 5 percent -- and 15 t hat's a hard 5 percent, not 5.499 percent -- 5 percent 16 o ver you're rated, it's a failure. 17 There's only one other industry program. 18 T hat's the AHRI program, which only one company right 19 n ow is using. Frank should be able to speak to that. 20 MR. STANONIK: What was the question? I'm 21 s orry? 22 MR. HON: What's the tolerance rating on your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 33 1 c ommercial refrigeration? 2 MR. STANONIK: I did talk to the office 3 d uring the -- yesterday during lunch. We traded 4 v oicemails. It's 5 percent. 5 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen, Cleaver6 B rooks. For all of our products, they're tested at our 7 f acility. There's no third-party testing lab that can 8 h andle the majority of our products. Our low-pressure 9 s team -- really, there's no third-party certification 10 p rogram that can handle that. 11 AHRI only covers cast-iron boilers and their 12

- - for their steam and the large condensing. They 13 r eally don't have the capacity to handle our larger 14 u nits. Also, there's a safety issue involved with 15 s ending our products to third-party facilities. You 16 n eed professional technicians to set up combustion. 17 A nd it's definitely a danger issue. 18 Without having qualified personnel setting up 19 y our product, could lead to definitely bodily harm 20 a nd/or death, according to our warning. So I think 21 t here'd be a huge issue if we're forced to use third22 p arty facilities. A) they don't exist for the majority

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 34 1 o f our product, and B) they can't really handle our 2 e quipment. 3 Frank, you might want to respond, but -- 4 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. My 5 s uggestion was not to suggest -- well, not to say that 6 i t had to be done either way but to acknowledge that in 7 s ome cases, there -- you know, the idea of saying, 8 " This has to be tested in third-party," is just 9 u nworkable. 10 MR. EISNER: Does DOE -- 11 MR. STANONIK: So there's no suggestion that 12 e verything has to be at a third party. 13 MS. BARHYDT: So let's take a step back. The 14 a ssumption that we were starting with was that we had a 15 v alid test. So clearly, we found some facility where 16 w e could test it, whether it was the manufacturer's 17 f acility or a third-party facility. So if we go back 18 t o our original assumption of we have a valid test, 19 t hen we were able to obtain the product and we were 20 a ble to test it. 21 And maybe we obtained it from the 22 m anufacturer and tested it at the manufacturer's lab.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35 1 T he question that we were discussing was, what is the 2 a ppropriate tolerance to determine that it was a valid 3 r ating? 4 MR. EISNER: And do I assume, along with 5 t his, goes the concept that the next issue or one of 6 t he next issues we would address is, what if it's not a 7 v alid test or how do we determine it's not a valid 8 t est? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yep. 10 MR. EISNER: Okay. Is everybody then in 11 a greement with that approach? 12 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen, Cleaver13 B rooks. We've applied for waivers on the testing 14 r equirement. Until we know the status of those 15 w aivers, we can't come up with a reasonable tolerance 16 t o the -- either AEDM or the validation testing just 17 b ecause we feel that there's no one capable of actually 18 d oing the test as in the rules. And so we wouldn't 19 k now an applicable tolerance to apply. 20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Could 21 I propose that we take a similar approach as we did 22 y esterday and go through each category --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 2 MR. STEPHENS: -- with the percentages -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yep. 4 MR. STEPHENS: -- identify things like Frank 5 m entioned with the standby loss testing? 6 MR. EISNER: So you're thinking we may end up 7 w ith different percentages for particular categories? 8 A nd what would be the justification? 9 MALE SPEAKER: Because (inaudible) industry. 10 MR. EISNER: Why -- explain to me, a non11 t echnical person, why the same tolerance wouldn't apply 12 a t the next stage? I'm not saying I disagree with you. 13 I don't know enough to understand why it would be 14 d ifferent. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Because at this point, it's 16 n ot just statistical determination. When we're 17 v alidating the AEDM, we -- the DOE has acknowledged 18 t hat we can do this through statistics. And we can 19 j ust adjust the mean and the tolerance by nominal 20 s hifts. When we get to individual testing for 21 v alidation to meet the performance of the Department of 22

- - for the Department of Energy, then physics become

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 37 1 i nvolved. 2 With the standby loss test, specifically from 3 m y industry for storage tank water heaters, just normal 4 a ir currents due to ventilation requirements inside the 5 l aboratory affect the standby loss. These very small 6 a ir currents in this room right now, with the doors 7 o pening and closing, change values in the standby loss. 8 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 9 D oes -- is the test -- does the test standard have air 10 c urrent -- air flow specification? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: It should. 12 MR. STEPHENS: It's not addressed in that 13 t est. 14 MR. HON: Then maybe the test needs to be 15 c orrected. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: DOE has an open rule for 17 w ater heater test procedure right now. 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 19 COURT REPORTER: That mic is not working. 20 S orry. 21 MR. EISNER: The mic is not working. 22 COURT REPORTER: The mic is not working.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 38 1 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI 2 I ndustries. AHRI, who has been doing this kind of 3 t esting for many years, decades, and works with the 4 s ame laboratory with the same people for many, many 5 y ears -- we have a standing group -- a laboratory 6 l iaison committee that periodically goes to the 7 l aboratory. 8 Because with the volume of units that we have 9 c oming through, we continue to find areas that need to 10 b e refined to assure that the results are repeatable 11 a nd similar to those that the manufacturer got. Some 12 o f the things have been mentioned here, air currents, 13 h umidity, how long a unit soaks in before it -- in the 14 e nvironment that it's in, if it's been stored in a cold 15 o r a hot warehouse, how long it has to stay. 16 And there are pages and pages of these issues 17 t hat we instruct beyond the test protocol. Here are 18 t he additional things that have to be done. And in 19 s ome cases, the issues are training of the employees. 20 W e currently have an issue in water heaters -- oil21 f ired water heaters where we have relaxed our 22 r equirement where you can't visit the facility while

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 39 1 t he test is being run. 2 Well, for a period of time, AHRI is allowing 3 a manufacturer to accompany the product to assure that 4 t he unit is set up properly, that the adjustments are 5 m ade properly that are specified in the installation 6 i nstructions, and that the unit is being run properly. 7 T he reason it's temporary is the hope is that the test 8 l aboratory technicians can be trained. 9 We've been assured of low turnover so that 10 t hat training can stay there. But this is an ongoing 11 s ituation, where it takes -- in order to comply with 12 t he tolerances that AHRI has, we have an ongoing 13 r equirement to keep the laboratory up to date. So the 14 t hought that you can take a test standard and just go 15 a nywhere and get the same results is incorrect. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So just to get the 17 b all moving, why don't we start with what is the AHRI 18 p rogram today, as it exists today? What are the 19 t olerances? What are the exclusions? What are the -- 20 w hat is the process by product? 21 MR. STANONIK: Which one you want to start 22 w ith?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 40 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Pick one. 2 MR. STANONIK: Okay. Well, let's start with 3 c ommercial boilers. It's a simple 5 percent. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Five percent. 5 MR. STANONIK: For commercial water heaters, 6 i t's 5 percent on the thermal efficiency, 10 percent on 7 t he standby loss; commercial A.C., it's -- air cold. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. Unitary small? 9 MR. STANONIK: Oh, no. We're doing 10 c ommercial - - you're right. Go ahead and -- you're 11 r ight. You're right. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Unitary small is 5 percent on 13 E ER. 14 MR. THARP: Correction. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: On SEER? 16 MR. THARP: Unitary small is 10 percent on 17 E ER this year. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: On SEER, the less than 65 19 t hrough phase? 20 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, you're right, Rusty. 21 Y ep. 22 MR. THARP: It's 10 percent on EER and 5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 41 1 p ercent on SEER. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 4 MR. THARP: Correct. Five percent on HSP. 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Five percent on HS -- yeah. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 7 MR. THARP: And actually, I'm going to throw 8 i n that one of the reasons those tolerances are as they 9 a re is there are some within AHRI who would like those 10 t olerances to be higher but others believe that -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can't measure -- 12 MR. THARP: -- DOE would not like them to be 13 h igher. So that's why we keep them there. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Measure -- we have measure 15 p roblems all over the place. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Okay. Can you keep 17 g oing? So 65 to 135? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Unitary large is 5 percent on 19 E ER, 10 percent on IER. Same -- what -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sorry. I use our terms but 21 t hat's fine. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, those are all the same

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 42 1 p rogram. Then on -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Very large, so over -- 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Same. Some of those can't be 4 m easured in a lab. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Some of those can't be tested 7 i n a lab -- 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I have them down below; 9 r ight? But I'll -- 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, I was going to say -- and 11 t hen on all of those, there's 5 percent NCOP. And then 12 d o you have commercial -- you probably do somewhere but 13 I 'm not seeing it -- furnaces? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Nope. Keep going. I'll add 15 i t. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Because they're contained in 17 t hose unitary products. So it's a dual test. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: And, yes, 5 percent. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Some of those also can't be 22 t ested in --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 43 1 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 2 V RF is the same as unitary large. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So 5 percent? 4 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Uh-huh. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 7 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell from 8 C arrier. Ashley, can you just confirm what the largest 9

- - what the upper limit for the commercial furnaces 10 p rogram is for AHRI -- I mean, sorry, for DOE? 11 MS. HOOTMAN: None. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: There isn't one. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: There isn't one. 225,000 BTUs 14 a nd bigger and that was the problem. 15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. That's what I thought. 16 T hanks. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: As in one had to be tested at 18 m y facility. And even then, it's an outdoor test. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oops. I -- so PTACs and 20 S PVUs, are they the same? 21 MR. STANONIK: I think they are. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: There's no --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 44 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, they don't have IER. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 3 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: It's been three years since -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: There is no program for 6 C RACs, as I know -- Computer Room Air Conditioners. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: Now you got it right. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Seems like it would be the 9 s ame but we don't know. 10 MR. STANONIK: Well, let's start there. 11 Y eah. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's a different metric. 13 I t's, like, COP; right? 14 MS. HOOTMAN: It's COP. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Commercial water heaters? 16 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, that was done. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, I do. You're right. 18 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, I know we put them in 19 t hat 5 percent on thermal efficiency, 10 percent on -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Got it. 21 MR. STANONIK: -- standby loss. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: And then obviously, unfired -

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 45 1

- regardless of what we believe is the test procedure 2 i ssues with that, which we can deal with later, unfired 3 h ot water storage tanks -- the R value? 4 MR. STANONIK: We currently don't -- Frank 5 S tanonik with AHRI. I mean, we currently don't have a 6 p rogram because we don't think they need to be tested. 7 B ut -- 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I got it. Great. Are there 9 a ny others in this list? We haven't gotten -- 10 r efrigeration equipment. 11 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Ashley, can you add 10 12 p ercent IER for VRF, please? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 14 MR. KOLANDAYAN: And Frank, what was the 15 c ommercial pump water heater? 16 MR. WHITWELL: Should just clarify that 17 c ommercial furnaces, the metric is thermal efficiency. 18 MR. HON: Refrigeration, Frank said the AHRI 19 i s 5 percent. Energy Star is 5 percent. In Canada, 20 t heir part of certification (inaudible). 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. And I didn't spell 22 t hat right at all.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 46 1 MR. HON: Those are hard (inaudible). 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So this is single 3 u nit of a given model tested value compared to rated 4 v alue. 5 MR. BAUMAN: They're all one-sided 6 t olerances? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: One-sided tolerances. 8 C orrect. 9 MR. EISNER: And is everybody in agreement 10 t hat 5 percent passes or does it have to be less than 5 11 p ercent to pass? I heard some disagreement. 12 MS. MEYER: Well, this is Karen with Rheem 13 a gain. It's not necessarily on a single test to pass 14 o r fail because there could be reasons that, you know - 15

- I mean, if you fail on one test, it doesn't mean you 16 a utomatically fail. It could be a defective unit. You 17 c ould request a second test. 18 MR. EISNER: But what does failure even on 19 o ne test mean? Is it less than 5 or 5? 20 MS. MEYER: It takes you to the second step. 21 I mean, if you -- 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Talk about process.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 47 1 MS. MEYER: Okay. Let's talk about process. 2 I t's a good -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So first of all, there 4

- - let's assume we have a valid test. Are there any 5 o nes I missed that cannot be tested at a third-party 6 l ab that are not under the not-able-to-be-tested-at-a7 t hird-party- lab-facility? 8 MR. SACHS: Excuse me, please? This is 9 H arvey. I was not ready to accept 5 percent. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, sorry. Go ahead. 11 MR. SACHS: I want to go on the record -- and 12 I recognize it's not popular. But a one-sided 0 13 p ercent puts the incentives on the industry to resolve 14 t he problems with different interpretations at the test 15 l abs, to resolve the problems with instrumentation. 16 A nd I think it's a concept to resolve the problems with 17 i mprecise specifications of the test conditions. 18 And I think it's a goal that's worth keeping 19 i n mind because of its advantages. Its short-term 20 d isadvantage is that it's a 5 percent improvement in 21 t he -- or it's tightening of the stringency of the test 22 a s applied. But it would be a move toward conformance

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 48 1 w ith the word of the law as it was written. 2 So I just want to keep that one in play even 3 t hough I may get stoned for it. 4 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 5 N ational. I think, Harvey, I understand and I -- and as 6 w e see this -- or I see it as a manufacturer of 7 m ultiple product categories. The 5 percent, I think, 8 w ith all the concerns about testing -- and we're going 9 t o -- obviously going to get that. But in a sense, the 10 5 percent almost becomes negligible about where your 11 S EER rating is, your EER. It's almost negligible as 12 f ar as what that is. 13 I mean, you're going to overrate it if you -- 14 b ecause you determine what that tolerance is, the 15 m anufacturer. And that gives us the flexibility to 16 s ay, "Hey, we think testing of this one is actually 20 17 p ercent variation. So I'm going to determine how much 18 I 'm going to underrate it." But the 5 percent really 19 a lmost becomes nothing. That becomes what you can't 20 f igure out that you might have not considered. 21 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. Jeff, 22 t hank you. That's very helpful. What I guess we're --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 49 1 I 'm saying then is let's legitimize what we're doing. 2 MR. BAUMAN: And I guess my feeling is that 5 3 p ercent is pretty darn legitimate for all the 4 v ariations we have here. 5 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 6 Q uestion of the DOE. There are standards written right 7 n ow on a lot of these units with a number attached to 8 t hem. Will you allow the 5 percent variance above that 9 n umber? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: What do you mean? 11 MR. HON: There are hard numbers saying, 12 " Okay, this unit shall not use more than many kilowatts 13 i n a 24- hour period." Do we have the authority within 14 t his group to put a 5 percent variance into that number 15 o f do we have to then -- 16 MR. STANONIK: Who requires that number be on 17 t he equipment? 18 MS. BARHYDT: He's talking about the 19 s tandard. 20 MR. EISNER: The standard itself. 21 MR. STANONIK: Oh, okay. So it should be -- 22 MS. BARHYDT: So the standard is the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 50 1 s tandard. We're talking about an AEDM, though. 2 MR. STANONIK: Right. 3 MS. BARHYDT: This isn't the -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, you're not -- it's your 5 r ating; you're not -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: Well -- but we're talking about 7

- - 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, we can't change the 9 s tandard. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: What we are doing is 12 c omparing your rating to -- 13 MS. BARHYDT: To -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- whether it's a valid 15 r ating or whether you comply with the standard. 16 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. But to 17 t hat point, okay, the obligation is that the model's 18 r ating has to be accurate. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 20 MR. STANONIK: Okay? That -- I would 21 m aintain that acknowledges that -- that doesn't mean 22 t hat every single unit you produce of that model is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 51 1 g oing to be spot on the rating. That's an 2 i mpossibility. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 4 MR. RIVEST: This is Michael Rivest. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: And -- 6 MR. RIVEST: I'd like to go beyond that. I - 7

- what a 5 percent tolerance here means is not that 8 t hat unit performs at 5 percent below the standard. It 9

- - there are statistics involved here. And what we're 10 s aying is that, because of the variabilities and the 11 u ncertainties, it's inconclusive what the rating of 12 t hat product is. 13 And to have 100 percent certainty would, you 14 k now, force people to overdesign by 20 percent. And 15 r emember, there's a next step to this process, which 16 b rings statistics and the confidence intervals. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 18 MR. RIVEST: So 5 percent -- just Harvey, to 19 b e sure, if you understand here is that saying that, 20 y ou know, 5 percent is not saying that we know for a 21 f act that unit can produce 5 percent too much energy. 22 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, Mike. This is Harvey.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 52 1 I disagree and we're pre-shadowing some of the issues 2 a bout statistical distributions and the variance within 3 p roducts. If I have a Gaussian rather than a Poisson 4 d istribution -- or a log-normal distribution, if it is 5 G aussian, an unskewed bell curve, and I'm using 5 6 p ercent, that roughly means that 5 percent of the 7 p roducts that come off the line, or a 1 in 20 chance, 8 w ould have, in the case of the example yesterday, a 9 p erformance of less than 9.5 if the minimum legal was 10 1 0. 11 That's a real set of products. Now, the 12 m anufacturer finds ways to control the variance that's 13 i nherent in the lab, if the industry finds way to 14 c ontrol the standardization of the rating conditions, 15 a s Charlie's mentioned, if people assign their 16 v ariability and they accept some risk that a product 17 w ill fail, whether that's 5 percent -- a 1 in 20 chance 18 o r a 1 in 100 chance, these all have effective 19 s olutions that are allowed by one-sided tolerance. 20 And one of the goals, I suspect, of the 21 i ndustry is to steepen up that thing to reduce the 22 v ariance of that product. It's part of general search

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 53 1 f or quality. Yeah, I don't expect Charleston to be able 2 t o control Regal-Beloit on motors, but there are a lot 3 o f approaches that can be done that are in everyone's 4 i nterest. 5 MR. RIVEST: Harvey, I entirely agree with 6 w hat you're saying. I'm just saying -- what I'm 7 t elling you is that if the result of testing is 5 8 p ercent below the rating, it can't be concluded that 9 t hat unit consumes more energy than the standard 10 b ecause there are just too many uncertainties in the 11 m easurement. 12 Is -- now, I'd like to add something to that. 13 I f it were to turn out that a program over a period, 14 s ay, of a year, you would plot the distribution of test 15 r esults and spot on, everybody was always at 5 percent 16 l ess, I would conclude that the tolerance of 5 percent 17 w as unnecessary. 18 But if I were to observe a distribution of -5 19 p ercent to +5 or +10, then, you know, we can learn from 20 t hat. And maybe that's something that a program could 21 l ook at or should be looking at. Because we wouldn't 22 p eople to have the precision to design exactly to that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 54 1 t olerance. 2 MR. SACHS: Which, I believe, is what's 3 c alled Six Sigma. And so we're doing this sort of an 4 a cademic research exercise, the two of us. And that's 5 p robably not a good idea. But I'm trying to suggest 6 t hat the one- sided tolerance gives you enormous 7 f reedom to improve quality while trying to wring out 8 s ome costs. And I think it is a benefit, not only to 9 t he country, but to the manufacturers. 10 And one piece of that is, are we setting the 11 a llowable performance on a test, in the case of 12 y esterday's model, a 9.5 or a 10? That's all we're 13 t alking about. 14 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 15 N ational. I was looking at the math a little different, 16 H arvey. Is it -- you're talking about 5 percent being 17 1 out of 20 units. But actually, it's because the 18 n umber we're talking about, 5 percent, is the number 19 y ou're rated at. 20 So it could be 100 percent of those products 21 u se -- if you're 10 kilowatts allowed a day, 100 22 p ercent of those products could be 9.8 and so they're 5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 55 1 p ercent below what the standard that you have to meet 2 i s. But it could be 100 percent of its products. 3 W here, actually in our case, what we're looking at is, 4 o ne of those products that I produce any day is going 5 t o be the low -- might -- it has to be at least within 6 t hat 5 percent or that could be the unit that DOE's 7 g oing to pick out. 8 And that's going to be the one unit out of 9 1 000 or whatever are produced in a year that DOE's 10 g oing to test and do a valid test one and it's going to 11 b e more than 5 percent off of what that number is. 12 T hat could be any unit that I produce ever. So I don't 13 t hink it really even goes to as much the manufacturing 14 p rocess as what -- you know, how close you are to the 15 n umber, not how many units are going to fail. 16 MR. SACHS: Jeff, I think we'd -- Harvey 17 a gain. I think we'd agree that we're really talking 18 a bout what Rusty has been calling the offsets we use in 19 o ur design. And I've given my position. It's not going 20 t o hold up a negotiating process. So I'm giving away 21 m y position as a moral authority and a good boy scout. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can we move to process,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 56 1 H arvey? 2 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry? 3 MR. ASHFORD: Can we move -- 4 MR. TRUSKOSKI: I just want to note -- this 5 i s Eric Truskoski from Bradford White -- that there are 6 s ome large commercial water heaters that cannot be 7 t ested at a third-party lab. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 9 MR. SACHS: Yes, ma'am. Permission granted. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. Okay. Process. 11 S o we talked partially about the process. A single 12 u nit, a tested value is compared to the rated value. 13 T he one- sided tolerance is listed with the applicable 14 m etric. It'll be tested at a third-party lab unless it 15 c annot be tested, in which case the department has the 16 d iscretion to request testing at a manufacturer's 17 f acility, process- wise. 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. What 19 i s the difference between commercial package boilers 20 a nd commercial boilers up at the top? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Same thing. 22 MR. MYERS: Okay. And if you're looking what

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 57 1 i s currently used by the industry, we mentioned it 2 b efore but I still it on the screen, and that is 3 u nfired storage tanks. And I think either that needs 4 t o be in paren as your recommendation or remove it 5 b ecause removing it is what the current requirement is. 6 N ow, you can leave unfired storage tanks. It's 7 s omething that has to be dealt with. 8 But I'm saying there is no value in any of 9 t he third-party programs. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So we're talking 11 a bout DOE's regs and we're negotiating DOE's regs. Do 12 y ou want me to remove a tolerance altogether from what 13 m ay be DOE's regs? 14 MR. MYERS: No. I -- if what you have on the 15 s creen is supposed to represent what the current 16 i ndustry practice is in third-party programs, there is 17 n o value. If you want to put that up as DOE's 18 s uggestion for values, okay, but that would be an 19 a nomaly in that list. 20 MS. BARHYDT: So I think Ashley started with 21 w hat is current industry practice for the ones that 22 h ave it and then filled in a few gaps, like the R

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 58 1 v alue. But I think that that is intended to be a 2 s tarting point for a DOE program. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 4 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. If 5 i t's going to stay, I would recommend increasing it 6 p ossibly up to the 10 percent because it's the R value 7 t hat is the predominant factor in the standby loss. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's exactly what you do. 9 I t's just an insulation test. I'm sorry? Yeah, I can 10 h ear you from there. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm a mom. 12 MR. STARR: Can you hear me? Okay. Well, on 13 y our unified storage tank -- just a thought -- you 14 m ight consider putting that as a U value because 15 t here's actually some other things you can do in some 16 f ilms and some other things you can do if you have -- 17 i n the future that may not really be reflected in 18 i nsulation value, but it has a -- it's part of an 19 a ssembly. So just a thought. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Until we go through a rule to 21 c hange the metric, I don't -- I mean, as part of that, 22 w e'd consider changing it at that time. So right now

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 59 1 t he metric is our value. Okay. Process-wise? 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman from Trane. I 3 w ant to ask one question. Is part of the process 4 s election of actual models? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. 7 MR. KOLANDAYAN: This is Dominic Kolandayan. 8 I 'd like to offer a suggestion that the regs should 9 a llow manufacturers to be present at the lab for setup. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: For all single-unit -- so 11 w e're not talking about enforcement testing. We're not 12 t alking about -- this is just for a single-unit spot 13 c heck. You think that you need to be present on site - 14

- 15 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Yes. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and the third-party labs 17 a gree with us? 18 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Yes. 19 MS. MEYERS: Yes. 20 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Yes. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: The third-party labs agree 22 t hat you need someone on site?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 60 1 MS. MEYERS: Commercial HVAC, yes. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: For commercial, absolutely. 3 MS. MEYERS: We need our choice. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah, this is Paul Doppel with 5 M itsubishi. 6 MS. MEYERS: Or send us -- 7 MR. DOPPEL: VRF already has that. But, you 8 k now, I think -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: You do. 10 MR. DOPPEL: -- the others need that. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is correct. 12 MR. DOPPEL: I think the others need that 13 a lso. 14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Are you there all the time 15 w hen you do -- I assume you do a lot of third-party 16 t esting. We have to do out here -- we have, I think -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have SCA right there. 18 MR. CYMBALSKY: So you guys are always there 19 w hen you run every single test for your tests that the 20 t hird party -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: And you guys can't run a test 22 w ithout them being there.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 61 1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Always? Every single time? 2 I want that on the record. 3 MR. EISNER: Yes. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: We have a choice within the HRI 5 p rogram of whether we will witness or not. 6 MR. EISNER: You want the rule to be -- 7 MS. HOOTMAN: So when the unit is selected, 8 w e tell them whether we are going to be there or not. 9 MR. EISNER: So you want the rule -- 10 MS. HOOTMAN: So in honestly -- 11 MR. EISNER: So you may be there -- 12 MS. HOOTMAN: -- no, John, we're not there 13 e very single time. You know, we make a choice about 14 w hich ones we do want to be there for or that need 15 f actory setup, such that the programming of it or 16 w hatever needs a factory technician there just to even 17 s et it up. 18 MR. EISNER: I think the issue here is 19 w hether you want the rule to say the company may be 20 t here or the company must be there. Because then you 21 h ave to go. 22 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah, for VRF -- this is Paul

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 62 1 D oppel with Mitsubishi. For VRF, it is a requirement 2 f or the company to be there. 3 MR. EISNER: But if -- do you want it to be a 4 r equirement for everybody or do you want it to be up to 5 t he company whether it's there? 6 MR. DOPPEL: Company choice, yeah. 7 MR. EISNER: So then you want to say -- 8 MR. DOPPEL: It should be an option. 9 MR. EISNER: -- except for VRF? 10 MS. BARHYDT: So let me make this a little 11 b it easier. DOE tests a lot of products. We are not 12 c omfortable with manufacturers being there if we're not 13 t here. And we do not have the resources to be there 14 e very single time. It is a non-starter for the DOE for 15 a first spot check. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So let me -- let me make this a 17 l ittle bit easier. DOE tests a lot of products. We 18 a re not comfortable with manufacturers being there if 19 w e're not there, and we do not have the resources to be 20 t here every single time. It is a nonstarter for the 21 D OE for the first spot-check. 22 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Dominic Kolandayan, Daikin.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 63 1 I want to clarify, this is not a -- the manufacturer is 2 n ot there to witness the test. The manufacturer is 3 t here to just do a setup checkup. So basically -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: You're talking about one part 5 o f it. 6 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Okay. 7 MS. BARHYDT: And I don't agree with you on 8 a ll of it. 9 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Okay. 10 MS. BARHYDT: There's a witness. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I guess let's talk about 12 i t a little bit longer, so 13 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Okay. I was under the 14 i mpression that, you know, when -- witness meaning the 15 m anufacturer is there, even during the data logging and 16 v erifying that the data is correct -- okay. 17 MR. THARP: Actually, if I can, real fast, 18 t he spot-check we're talking about is a -- the first 19 s tep of an enforcement test? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not -- no. 21 MR. THARP: No? 22 MALE SPEAKER: No.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 64 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's what I was going to 2

- - let's take a step back for a second. What we do 3 c urrently is we pull products from market, or from a 4 m anufacturer, wherever, we pull products, we have them 5 t ested at a third-party facility. 6 The Department's not there, the 7 m anufacturer's not there. We rely on the fact that 8 t hese are third- party labs. They should have the 9 e xpertise to run our test procedures. If our test 10 p rocedures are not explicit enough, they need to be 11 r evised. 12 If a unit were to -- "fail" is not the right 13 w ord. If a unit were to potentially perform outside 14 t he tolerances we've discussed there, we would initiate 15 a discussion with the manufacturer and say, "Hey, it 16 l ooks like there's a problem." 17 There can be a number of problems. It can be 18 a manufacturing issue. It can be a testing issue. It 19 c an be a number of different things. At that point, 20 y ou can say, "You tested my unit wrong." If we agree 21 w ith you, we will retest. We can talk about you being 22 o n-site at that point.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 65 1 I don't think it's reasonable to assume that, 2 f or the 800 products plus I tested last year, someone 3 n eeded to be on-site to accurately test every single 4 o ne of those for a single spot-check. This is not 5 e nforcement. We're not talking about noncompliance. 6 W e're not talking about penalties at this point. 7 MR. EISNER: What happens if you don't agree 8 w ith the company that the test was performed 9 i mproperly? 10 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. 11 MR. EISNER: Wait, can I get an answer -- 12 MS. MEYERS: Oh, yeah. Sorry. 13 MR. EISNER: -- to this question first? 14 You said if we don't -- if we agree -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think it comes down to what 16 t he test procedure says. If the test procedure -- 17 MR. EISNER: But I'm -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- is clear and it's being 19 d one wrong, then it's being done wrong. If the test 20 p rocedure is being interpreted in different ways, a lot 21 o f times, we've given deference to the manufacturer. 22 MR. EISNER: But if you don't agree with the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 66 1 m anufacturer, what is the next step in the process? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think -- I think it's 3 a 4 5 MS. BARHYDT: It depends. They're -- part of 6 t his is, at this point, we're talking about a potential 7 r ating issue. And it would depend on whether or not 8 t hat rating issue led to a belief that there was a 9 n oncompliance with the standard. 10 And I think that those are two different 11 t hings that people need to think about in different 12 w ays. One is, is there a ratings issue, or are we 13 t alking about distribution of a noncompliant product? 14 B ecause it does have different consequences, and -- in 15 b oth cases. 16 What the next step is, is -- there would be a 17 n ext step in the process, but it's not a mandatory next 18 s tep. Obviously, there's always prosecutorial 19 d iscretion as to whether or not -- if we think that 20 t here's potential noncompliance, is it a good case for 21 u s, so to speak? We -- just because the next step in 22 t he process is enforcement testing doesn't mean that a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 67 1 h undred percent of the time, we're going to move to 2 t hat next step. 3 So I don't think that -- I don't want to talk 4 a bout it in terms of, "Oh, well, if we disagree, the 5 n ext step is enforcement testing," because that makes 6 i t sound like it's an absolute, and it's not. 7 DR. SACHS: Laura? This is Harvey, and I 8 w ant to walk through a chain. With a lot of the -- 9 s ome of the commercial products, the larger ones made 10 i n smaller volumes in particular, there may be warranty 11 r equirements that say this cannot be activated, started 12 u p, without a factory-authorized agent on-site to do 13 t he on-site commissioning. 14 MS. BARHYDT: And I believe our position has 15 b een in the past that if the actual equipment requires 16 f actory installation, our view is that whatever 17 p ersonnel would ordinarily be there for installation 18 s hould be at the test site. 19 DR. SACHS: Okay. Now, I think some people 20 h ave taken -- 21 MS. BARHYDT: But not everything has that 22 r equirement.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 68 1 DR. SACHS: Please let me walk through my 2 c hain. So I think we've already agreed that there's one 3 p roduct for what we've been generically -- one kind of 4 p roduct for which -- what we have generically been 5 r eferring to as witness test -- does involve inherently 6 m anufacturers on-site. 7 So the question is how broad -- not whether 8 o r not, but how broad should that class be, as 9 s omething that we are trying to establish in the 10 n egotiations? My own instinct is to like openness. My 11 o wn concern is that any gap between the manufacturer's 12 i ntent and the manufacturer's instruction is going to 13 b e propagated through the local installing techs and 14 l ead to a gap between the as-designed and the field15 i nstalled performance. 16 Now, I think the manufacturers would argue 17 t hat they're shipping product that'll work and not 18 a lways accommodating the creativity of the installing 19 t echnician in deviating from the intention of the 20 m anufacturer. It's a serious industry issue. So I 21 t hink there's a lot of room for philosophical 22 d isagreement. I don't have an answer, but I think one

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 69 1 p ossible compromise is allowing the manufacturer 2 r epresentative to be available. 3 But if that's the case, you guys have to hire 4 a local PE to document what's going on so you can 5 r eview it even if you don't have the resources to 6 t ravel. I think there's a legitimate case. I don't 7 k now how to resolve it, but I want to try to think 8 a bout it in all of its dimensions. 9 I worry that Joe Six-Pack is going to -- no 10 m atter what these fine people tell Joe Six-Pack to do 11 w hen he's putting that rooftop up there, he's still 12 g oing to drop it three feet, and he's still going to 13 w ire closely the air inlet. 14 And we've got some problems that are bigger 15 t han this room, but they do get coalesced around the 16 q uestion of whether I can make sure my product is 17 i nstalled properly in the third-party test. 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I -- 19 H arvey, I completely concur. We spent a good bit of 20 t ime here over the last hour talking about all of the 21 i ssues that impact products, including training. I'll 22 w ait until Laura's available.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 70 1 We spent a good bit of time talking about all 2 o f the things that impact testing, training of the test 3 t echnician. We talked about the fact that the 4 l aboratories that currently do this testing 5 e xclusively, day-in and day-out, still require annual 6 a nd sometimes multiannual monitoring, and AHRI finds 7 p roblems, even with that level of expertise, in 8 a pplying the standard, where we have to make sure that 9 t he methodology used in applying that standard is 10 c onsistent, where there's inadequate training. They 11 d on't know how to make normal adjustments that are 12 c alled for. 13 And then to say that we're going to have 14 t ests with the kind of consequences, Laura, that you 15 a re indicating we will have and not that -- not to 16 a llow what AHRI does for most of the commercial 17 e quipment, and that is to have the person on-site, 18 d oesn't seem reasonable. 19 I think if there's going to be a requirement 20 w ith this kind of consequence, we have to allow the 21 m anufacturer to be present, and if that means there has 22 t o be additional staffing from DOE, then it would seem

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 71 1 t hat's a reasonable solution. 2 MR. EISNER: Laura, why do you feel if you're 3 n ot there, the company cannot be there? What's the 4 r eason for that? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why does the company feel 6 l ike -- why does the company feel like they need to be 7 t here if DOE is there? Why can't we both not be there? 8 MS. MEYERS: I'll address that. This is 9 K aren with Rheem. 10 MR. EISNER: I've heard a lot -- no, can I -- 11 c an I first get the answer to my question? I've heard 12 a lot of reasons why the company wants to be there. I 13 h aven't heard why you don't want the company there if 14 y ou're not there. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Answer? 16 MS. BARHYDT: Do you want to answer it? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not really, but since you 18 a sked. 19 I mean, I think from the Department's 20 p erspective, it's a check-and-balance system. Right? 21 I have been on-site for testing. 22 I'm not saying the test labs do everything a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 72 1 h undred percent right, I'm not saying that the 2 m anufacturers do everything a hundred percent right, 3 a nd I'm not saying the Department does everything a 4 h undred percent right, but I do think that there may be 5 r easons when the Department's interpretation or what's 6 e xplicit in the test procedure or what's being asked to 7 b e done is a little bit beyond the bounds of what's 8 a ctually in there. 9 MR. EISNER: What's being asked to be done by 10 t he company that is present? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: To the test lab. And we have 12

- - 13 MR. EISNER: To the test -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- no way of checking that or 15 n o way of balancing that if we're not there. That's 16 n ot to say they aren't the experts. That's not to say 17 t hat there aren't specific things in their design and 18 n uances. 19 But I guess the point is, you know, if there 20 a re all these specific nuances such that an actual 21 e ngineer from your facility needs to be there for a 22 t est in a lab that this is supposed to be their

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 73 1 e xpertise with our test procedures, I mean, I don't 2 t hink it's reasonable, to Harvey's point, that, you 3 k now -- an engineer from your lab does not go 4 c ommission every single one of your units. 5 MR. EISNER: Well, let me ask for a response 6 t o the question. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, yeah, and that's a 8 d ifferent bucket, in my opinion, but every single one 9 o f them. You know, it goes both ways. 10 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. 11 B ut we do -- 12 MR. EISNER: We -- let me keep things in 13 o rder here, because we had somebody else who also 14 w anted to speak. 15 MR. WHITWELL: Oh, yeah. I apologize. 16 MR. EISNER: But let me, before we get to 17 y ou, ask are there ways that companies can address this 18 c oncern? For example, if you thought about, would 19 t here be a very, very limited number of tests where you 20 h ave to be there or should be there and DOE could meet 21 t hat with their staffing? 22 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 74 1 MS. MEYERS: This is -- 2 MR. BAUMAN: And I just want to -- and, 3 a gain, we're talking about spot-checking, which would 4 o nly lead to the manufacturer being notified that DOE 5 t ested -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 7 MR. BAUMAN: -- and a spot-check. And I'm 8 n ot sure how we'd not -- I mean, DOE can kind of do 9 w hatever they want to, as long as they're not going to 10 b e -- there's not -- you're not taking action against 11 u s based on that. And that sounds like what we're 12 t alking about as a first step towards anything. 13 I think then the question gets to be should 14 t here be, now, an automatic second step? Then this is 15 w here we started talking about if -- you know, does 16 t hat -- whatever that second step is, is it an 17 a utomatic second step that if you patent -- you know, 18 i f DOE found noncompliance on a spot-check, there's -- 19 s hould there be an automatic appeal process or whatever 20 y ou want to call it that the manufacturer then gets to 21 d o its second test, you know, regardless of whether -- 22 y ou know, of anything else about DOE deciding that the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 75 1 t est did not comply with the standards? 2 MS. BARHYDT: The reality is, we test a whole 3 l ot of products without us present, without the 4 m anufacturer present, relying on the expertise of the 5 t est lab, and we get the results, and you never hear 6 a bout it. It was within the tolerance, and that's the 7 e nd of it. 8 MR. EISNER: Right. But what Jeff is saying 9 i s they don't hear about that, then they don't need to 10 b e present at the test. 11 FEMALE SPEAKER: Right. 12 MR. EISNER: But when they do hear about it 13 a nd they get a bad result for the company, can they ask 14 f or and get a second test with both sides present? 15 MS. BARHYDT: So that was the part -- 16 MR. EISNER: Is that a small -- 17 MS. BARHYDT: -- we have not even gotten to. 18 T hus far, a lot of people at the table are insisting on 19 b eing present for that first test. 20 MR. EISNER: And is anybody insisting on 21 b eing present for the first test, if you only have -- 22 i f you have the right to demand another test, where you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 76 1 g et dinged, whatever it is that ding means? 2 MS. HOOTMAN: We're now up to more expense. 3 MR. EISNER: We're what? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: We're now up to more expense. 5 COURT REPORTER: Use the mic, please. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Now I've got to provide another 7 w hole unit. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: At who? Who is paying for 9 t hat unit? We pay for the product to initially test 10 i t, and we pay for the test, but if there's a second 11 t est -- 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Why are you spending my tax 13 d ollars that way if the first test could have been done 14 c orrectly? Why are you paying for another one? 15 MR. EISNER: Because they say they don't have 16 t he resources to be at every test. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, I mean, if the test lab 18 d id the test lab wrong -- 19 MR. EISNER: Can I finish? 20 MR. KOJAK: Well, this is Mike Kojak with UL. 21 I just wanted to say something here. UL doesn't feel 22 t hat we need the presence of all the manufacturers for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 77 1 a ll the testing. The only -- the only things that we 2 h ave seen in the past that have been hiccups is with 3 v ery high- efficiency HVAC units that require some 4 m anipulation of the test unit in order to run the test 5 p roperly. 6 If the manufacturer's unaware that we're 7 p erforming these tests, and let's say there's a series 8 o f DIP switches or some programming that needs to be 9 d one to the test unit to force the variable-speed 10 m otors to high and low speeds to perform a proper test, 11 t hat's where the struggle comes in with the third-party 12 t est unaware of the manufacturer. 13 If that type of information is not supplied 14 t o the DOE when the rating was given, the third-party 15 l abs then struggle with figuring out how to do that 16 b ecause that is different for every major manufacturer. 17 So and if we are doing a spot-check and the 18 D OE doesn't want the manufacturer to know, that's 19 a nother issue we have to figure out. Either that's 20 i nformation that's supplied to the DOE when the rating 21 i s given, or we should, as a third-party lab, have the 22 r ight to call a manufacturer to ask them how to set

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78 1 t heir unit properly with program or DIP switches to 2 p roperly test the high- efficiency units. 3 MR. STARR: I just wanted to add here, I 4 s pent a number of years commissioning, and part of 5 t hat's startup of equipment, so anytime you start up -- 6 v arious pieces of equipment around this room, I've been 7 t here just to actually witness the startup. 8 There's certain pieces of equipment in which 9 t hey do require a factory startup, a lot of times, 10 r eally big boilers that could potentially blow up the 11 p lace, and there's a strict specification that they 12 n eed to have factory startup. 13 But a lot of the others stuff, equipment air 14 h andlers in particular, the startup can be done by 15 f actory or can be done by someone else. And I think 16 t he test procedure should reflect that and how it 17 a ctually might be started up in the field. 18 And the other thing is the other reason you 19 d on't want to have -- you want to have both the -- when 20 I went to factory test, I was always there, because a 21 l ot of times, you know, particularly the manufacturers 22 c an look at the piece of equipment and check things

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 79 1 o ut, start tweaking things to make -- in order to 2 a ffect the performance. 3 And you kind of know -- you want to know -- 4 t he Department of Energy would want to be there to make 5 s ure that, you know, things are -- you know, that 6 e verybody's playing by the same set of rules in terms 7 o f legitimately you're looking at a piece of equipment. 8 So my thought would be, is that if the -- 9 w hen you get looking at the given pieces of equipment, 10 i f it does actually require factory-authorized startup, 11 a nd maybe the boiler guys can talk about that, I think 12 i t's on larger boilers where it specifically requires 13 s omeone from the factory as part of you buying the 14 p iece of equipment, then there might be discussion on 15 t hat. 16 But the other stuff, where anybody can start 17 i t up, from any mechanical contractor, then it seems 18 l ike that's how it's going to be installed in the 19 a ctual field, and that's how the energy use is going to 20 b e experienced by the general public and lauded that 21 w ay. So that's just my suggestion. 22 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 80 1 I ndustries. When we're talking about residential, you 2 c ited the large number of tests that you have conducted 3 a t a third-party lab. When we're talking about 4 r esidential smaller equipment, the test procedures are 5 m uch simpler to work with. 6 When you have the wide variety of products 7 t hat you have in commercial, you do have many more 8 v ariables. To your specific question, Ashley, about do 9 w e have to be there for the first test because of 10 c onsequences, the first question I would ask if I were 11 c alled with a failure is, "I don't know how you tested 12 t hat unit." 13 And your answer would be, "Well, we tested it 14 i n a third-party lab according to the test standard." 15 I would still not know whether that test was conducted 16 c orrectly and would want to have a retest with me 17 p resent. If your answer is that you will provide that 18 o pportunity, then I don't need to be there for your 19 f irst test. I don't need -- 20 MR. EISNER: I think -- 21 MR. MYERS: -- to hear about it -- 22 MR. EISNER: I think that's --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 81 1 MR. MYERS: -- if you check something -- and 2 s o -- 3 MR. EISNER: I think that's what we're -- 4 MS. HOOTMAN: Retest with us in there. 5 MR. MYERS: -- to that specific question -- 6 MS. HOOTMAN: No, it is not what she's 7 s aying. 8 MR. MYERS: Pardon? 9 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm just correcting Neil. 10 T hat's not what she's saying. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's not what I'm saying. 12 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 13 j ust wanted to ask you a question about that comment. 14 I f the DOE sends a test unit to a third-party lab and 15 t here is a failure and they call up the manufacturer, 16 a nd the manufacturer says, "Well, maybe it wasn't set 17 u p correctly," and you want to have another test, and 18 s o everybody flies out to the third-party lab to test 19 i t again, and it fails, and it finds (sic) out to be a 20 m anufacturer's defect, then does the manufacturer pay 21 f or all the testing and everyone's travel to the test 22 f acility?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 82 1 MR. MYERS: We haven't gotten to manufacturer 2 d efect or how that would impact anything. There's a 3 s pecific procedure in the AHRI program how that's 4 h andled, but we haven't gotten to that here. I'm just 5 c urious, to Ashley or Laura's response to if there was 6 a failure, and I asked for a retest with me being 7 p resent to monitor -- don't have to touch the equipment 8 a s long as it's been installed according to the 9 i nstructions, which about 95 percent of my companies' 10 p roduct require a factory-authorized startup, someone 11 w ho's been trained by my company to go out and start 12 t he equipment up. 13 So if it's been properly installed according 14 t o the manufacturer's instructions, then I would 15 q uestion, has that test been run correctly? Because 16 I 've seen so many tests -- we train a lot of laboratory 17 e xperts. UL, we've trained a lot of UL's technicians 18 w hen they've come to our facility in how to test our 19 s ize and our type equipment. 20 Same thing with Intertek. We've helped train 21 s ome of their technicians. So I would be very curious 22 a s to, you know, what would be the response of DOE if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 83 1 y ou had one of these tests where we were not present 2 a nd there was a failure? Would we have the option to 3 s ay, "We are" -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- 5 MR. MYERS: "We looked at our data. We say 6 t his thing operates fine. You have had a third-party 7 t est run it. That makes the third-party test, in my 8 v iew, very suspect. Would you rerun the test and allow 9 u s to be there?" 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm the lawyer, not an 11 e ngineer. What does it mean that you've trained them 12 t o test your product? 13 MR. MYERS: What are the nuances? How do you 14 h andle the equipment when you're setting it up, when 15 y ou're operating it, when you're running the test? 16 W here do you make the connections? Have those 17 c onnections been made properly? You know, things like 18 t hat. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill Hootman from 20 T rane. When we have witnessed our own tests through 21 A HRI at these third-party labs, when this is part of 22 o ur public record and part of our comments that we made

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 84 1 o n AEDM, we have witnessed air sampler trees that were 2 n ot correct. We have witnessed mixers that were not 3 c orrect, and thermocouples that were not placed 4 c orrectly; therefore, measurements were wrong. 5 We have witnessed not a break-in in our 6 s croll compressors. Break-in time must be done on 7 s croll compressors. We have witnessed errors in 8 p sychometrics, wet-bulb measurements. So this is the 9 k ind of nuances he's talking about. We stop them, say, 10 " No, you didn't measure that correctly. This is what 11 y ou need to do. This is how ASHRAE standard" whatever 12 i s, and we tell them to change that. 13 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. 14 MR. EISNER: Excuse me. Excuse me a second. 15 I 've got a -- for a while, I've had a note here. 16 S tephen Schaefer wants to talk. Stephen? 17 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. This is Stephen Schaefer 18 w ith Hoshizaki America. And we'd also like to say that 19 w e've gone through witness testing of a third-party 20 t esting and have seen errors at different times. And 21 t he biggest help for us is, in this process, we'd like 22 t o at least be there to visually inspect the unit when

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 85 1 i t is shipped, because this is a really large unit for 2 c ommercial refrigerators, and anything can happen in 3 s hipping. 4 The other thing is, as the other people have 5 s tated, errors in setting up thermocouples, you know, a 6 b ad thermocouple, they're -- it's not just a plug the 7 u nit in and test it. There's many steps that take -- 8 f or the process of setting up a commercial refrigerator 9 f or this test. It usually takes about two days. 10 So if the wood is not at the right density -- 11 t here's many things that could go wrong that we'd just 12 l ike to see -- hey, for the first time, we'd like to 13 s ee what this test facility is doing with our unit, 14 j ust to make sure that everything is done correctly in 15 c ase something does happen during the test. 16 MR. EISNER: Okay. You had a comment? 17 MR. KOJAK: Yes. A couple things. Somebody 18 a sked if we came to every test. I -- we don't go to 19 e very test for setup, but we probably talk to the lab 20 o n every test. They call us, they ask us questions. 21 W e give some instructions on how the unit should be set 22 u p if it's a fairly simple unit to test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 86 1 The other issue is I don't sell distributor 2 p roducts, so for DOE to obtain a unit from me, they 3 h ave to come to me to get it, because I build to order, 4 a nd I know that there are several other industries in 5 t his room that does that. So it's not like I don't 6 h ave skin in the game. I -- if DOE was supposed to be 7 p aying me for that, I'm missing out on something, so 8 S o, you know, typically, if I got asked by DOE, I would 9 b uild a unit and ship it to them, because I felt like 10 t hat was a requirement that's being asked of me. 11 MR. EISNER: That's a question I had. I feel 12 a little better that you're asking the same question, 13 w hich is how do you test equipment that the 14 m anufacturer has to install without going through the 15 m anufacturer? 16 MS. BARHYDT: Have we done any that had 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 18 MS. BARHYDT: We did? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. I don't know what all 21 w e've bought. So we buy the first unit, and we test 22 i t. So it's not -- and all of that is done at

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 87 1 D epartment expense. So it's not that the manufacturer 2 i s providing that first unit on request. 3 MR. EISNER: Even though the manufacturer's 4 s aying they don't sell it unless they install it. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: There are some products that 6 t hey're saying they build to order. In those cases, 7 t here are some that we can still order. There are 8 o thers that -- you know, obviously we haven't tested 9 a ll of your equipment. I think it's fair to say that 10 w e've tested -- with the exception of one product type, 11 w e've tested the rest in this room. And if you haven't 12 h eard from us -- 13 MR. EISNER: I've heard DOE say they don't 14 h ave the resources to be at every test. I've heard 15 i ndustry say they need to be at every test to make sure 16 i t's done right. And the issue -- and somebody, again, 17 r efocused us on it a few minutes ago -- is, is there a 18 w ay to fix this problem? 19 If DOE is saying -- well, let me just throw 20 o ut numbers, and I'll make them up. They do a thousand 21 t ests a year. Two hundred and fifty have a problem. 22 T he other 750 don't have a problem. Nobody needs to be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 88 1 t here. DOE doesn't need to be there, and there was no 2 r eason for the company to be there from an enforcement 3 o r compliance perspective because DOE says everything 4 w as fine in that test. 5 Out of the 250, you come in, and you meet 6 w ith them, and you point out a certain number of 7 t hings. And, again, I'm making numbers up. Let's 8 a ssume 125 of them, they say, "Okay. You've made your 9 p oint. We'll throw the test results out." That leaves 10 a fraction left, 125 tests. 11 And what I'm asking is if you had an absolute 12 r ight to demand a retest, would that solve your 13 p roblem? DOE has to throw the first test out. You and 14 D OE go to 125. I'm assuming DOE would have the 15 r esources to do it. You would save the money of not 16 g oing to 700 and -- you know, 800 of these tests, 17 b ecause you didn't need to be there, because DOE wasn't 18 g oing to do anything with the results. Why -- is that 19 a n option? 20 MS. HOOTMAN: It's an option. I'd also like 21 t o make a point that if the third-party testing labs 22 w ould use video, webinar, and electronic means whereby

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 89 1 w e could be seeing this, witnessing as it is happening, 2 w e wouldn't have to physically be there as well. 3 MR. EISNER: That -- 4 MS. HOOTMAN: So there are tools and 5 t echniques. 6 MR. EISNER: That's another option. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: They do have them, because when 8 w e do our own pay-for tests, we use those, but they're 9 n ot always used in the third-party testing. So I 10 a gree, Mike. I know you have them. 11 MR. KOJAK: You know, this is Mike Kojak with 12 U L. I just wanted to make a comment about, you know, 13 s ome of the third-party labs have contracts with AHRI 14 t o test small and large unitary, and some of them 15 d on't, and some of them, their expertise is R&D 16 t esting, which involves a lot of work with the 17 m anufacturers and very detailed setups with lots of 18 e xtra instrumentation and very detailed tests and 19 m anipulation of the units, changing out components and 20 r etesting. And some of those tests can last from a 21 w eek up to three months for one unit. 22 And some of the third-party test labs that do

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 90 1 h ave the contracts, they have to test a lot of volume 2 v ery quickly. So it's not always in their best 3 i nterest to be very thorough with setups, because they 4 h ave to test a high volume to keep their profitability 5 u p high. 6 So, you know, when all the comments were made 7 a bout all the third-party test labs have issues with 8 s etups and instrumentations, that's not an accurate 9 s tatement for all the third-party test labs. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Also, part of the process with 11 A HRI is -- I believe was stated a little bit before -- 12 i s that they let us know ahead of time when a unit is 13 g oing in. So we have a call from the lab that says, 14 " At two a.m. on the third shift, your unit is going in 15 t he lab." We have an engineer on the phone with a cell 16 p hone that sits there and waits for the phone call and 17 h as a discussion with the lab. 18 MR. EISNER: But this is a test the lab -- 19 MS. HOOTMAN: So this -- 20 MR. EISNER: -- was doing at your request, 21 n ot DOE's. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: No, this is AHRI independent

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 91 1 t esting. 2 MR. EISNER: But it's got nothing to do with 3 D OE. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: Correct. 5 MR. EISNER: What I want to just -- what -- 6 MS. HOOTMAN: We're talking about process. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- 8 MR. EISNER: I want to focus on tests that 9 D OE asks for without your knowledge. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, it would be the same 11 t hing. It's a one to one. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: So I don't get a call right now 13 w hen DOE's testing my unit. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Would middle ground be if the 15 l ab feels that they don't have the information they 16 n eed on the first test, that they contact DOE, who will 17 t hen also contact the manufacturer. The three of us 18 w ill talk, on the phone, not physically there, before 19 t he test is done for them to get any additional 20 i nformation they may need. Would that help alleviate 21 s ome of these concerns? In other words, you would 22 s till be able to talk to the lab, but DOE would be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 92 1 p resent. 2 MR. KOJAK: Would the lab be able to furnish 3 p ictures of setup and instrumentation lists and 4 i nformation of the manufacturer so they feel more 5 s ecure that we're actually using the proper 6 i nstrumentation -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 8 MR. KOJAK: -- and the proper -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't have an issue with 10 t hat. 11 MR. KOJAK: -- evidence of the setup and 12 t hings like that? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, and that's something we 14 d o by default anyway. We would give you all that 15 i nformation after the first test anyway. But if you 16 w anted to do it -- if you had an issue -- this isn't 17 f or every test. This would be if you had an issue 18 t esting, it would be up to the third-party labs to say, 19 " I cannot test this unit without either additional 20 i nformation or additional instructions," or, "I have 21 t wo sets of different instructions that were shipped 22 w ith the unit. I need clarification," or whatever.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 93 1 The three of us, all three parties involved, 2 w ould be having that discussion. 3 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak again. I just 4 h ave a question. What about if the third-party labs 5 s ees like an anomaly in the unit and they suspect it's 6 d efective? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Come to the DOE. 8 MR. KOJAK: Okay. Does that also go to the 9 m anufacturer? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: We would -- that's the next 11 d iscussion. 12 MR. KOJAK: Okay. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Let's get to one that's not 14 d efective first. 15 MR. STEM: This is Mike with Intertek. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, you're already doing 17 t hat, right? Hi, Mike. 18 MR. STEM: Hey. Just real quick, there are 19 s ome products that are impossible for us to test 20 w ithout the manufacturers. I do think those products 21 a re in the minority, but there are some. So there 22 n eeds to be provisions for that.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 94 1 Going a little further, the majority of the 2 p roject -- products, we can test, document the setup, 3 d ocument the instrumentation -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Mike Stem, Intertek. 5 MR. STEM: Sorry. What was that? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sorry. They asked me who you 7 w ere. You're not very loud. 8 MR. STEM: All right. So, anyway, we can -- 9 w e can test the majority of the products without much 10 a dditional instructions, obviously. The installation 11 m anual, as long as they are complete and thorough, for 12 t he standard single-speed systems, not an issue. 13 Now, as long as you have provisions for the 14 o ne- off products that we do need actual on-site 15 i nvolvement, you know, I would feel comfortable. So -- 16 a nd that's basically all I wanted to put in right now. 17 MR. EISNER: Can you give us a percentage of 18 t he ones that you have to have the manufacturer there 19 f or? 20 MR. STEM: I mean, basically, it's anything 21 t hat -- I mean, you know the products that require the 22 f actory installation technicians, so I mean, if it's

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 95 1 g ot a PID controller, if it's got modulating components 2 t hat have to be tuned to get the unit to operate, that 3 i s some manufacturer-specific information that the 4 m ajority of the technicians do not -- that they're not 5 p rivy to that information. 6 Somebody mentioned about training Intertek 7 s taff, UL staff. We try to send our technicians to as 8 m any manufacturer training classes as we can to get 9 w ell- educated and well-versed with all of the control 10 a lgorithms, the nuances of wiring, refrigerant piping, 11 t he different ways different manufacturers do things, 12 b ut at the end of the day, there are a lot of different 13 v ariations. 14 So we can't necessarily claim that we are 15 e xperts on your equipment. We try to be experts on our 16 t esting facilities, how they operate, how they run. We 17 t ry to be experts on the test standards and try to make 18 s ure that we follow the ASHRAE guidelines, Method of 19 T est guidelines, to the letter of the law. 20 Sometimes we're successful, sometimes we are 21 n ot. Like Ashley said, we're not a hundred percent all 22 t he time either, so -- but I do think we're getting

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 96 1 s idetracked on the minority, not the majority. 2 MR. EISNER: I'm just trying to get a handle 3 o n what the minority is. Is it 1 percent of the tests 4 o f this kind of equipment, 5 percent, 20 percent? 5 DR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I think that 6 a sking that snapshot question of what the percentage is 7 t oday is not as helpful as thinking about trends in the 8 i ndustry toward greater precision, greater complexity 9 o f the products that we're starting to see, even from 10 m y remote view, a lot more modulating compressors, 11 v ariable speed fans on the air handlers and on the 12 c ondensers we're seeing in order to get better 13 p erformance and evolution towards smarter and more 14 c omplicated products. 15 And if I look at some offshore markets, you 16 w ould get the idea that a hundred percent of the 17 p roducts, or nearly so, have modulated compressors in 18 s ome commercial classes. So I think we're trying to 19 s et up a system that's going to work for the next 20 d ecade or two -- 21 MR. EISNER: I would disagree, but are we 22 s etting up a system that DOE will not have the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 97 1 r esources to handle in the direction we're -- the way 2 w e're going? 3 DR. SACHS: The -- this is a much larger 4 q uestion, which some people have even framed as the 5 f uture of standards, and it's not our place. There are 6 t wo things I will say. We will support, in the 7 c ongressional process, in the appropriations process, 8 t he -- get -- trying to get the appropriate resources 9 f or this part of DOE's activities so it can be done 10 f airly. And we also are following with great eagerness 11 o ther efforts to characterize equipments that are 12 u nderway in other venues. So it's -- 13 MR. EISNER: But in terms of setting up a 14 f uture program, can you set up a future program that is 15 d ependent on Congress providing additional resources? 16 DR. SACHS: We're -- all of this is part of 17 t he larger policy framework we're operating in, and 18 i t's no secret that all of us would like to get an 19 e nvironment that enables people to comply and innovate. 20 MR. EISNER: And with technology constantly 21 i mproving, are there ways DOE could monitor a test 22 r emotely through videoconferencing techniques?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 98 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can we check out this process 2 f or a second? 3 MS. MEYERS: So, Ashley, this is Karen. My 4 q uestion to that -- okay. So let's say the laboratory 5 d oes not request the additional information. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I haven't gotten to 7 t hat bullet yet. 8 MR. KLEISS: Can we preface that section as 9 s pot-check? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. Sure. Good? 11 MS. MEYERS: So I'm just still struggling 12 w ith the inefficiency of this process versus notifying 13 t he manufacturer when you are going to spot-check a 14 c ommercial unit. This is not a residential unit. 15 T hese are highly complex units that are typically -- 16 a re ordered based upon a specifying engineer's 17 r equirements. 18 So I'm trying to understand what the issue is 19 f rom DOE's perspective of not notifying the 20 m anufacturer when you are going to spot-check one of 21 t hese units, given the complexity of them, and allow 22 t hem to, at the very least, video witness the test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 99 1 I'm struggling with why this is such an issue 2 f or the Department when this is not a residential unit, 3 i t's not a plug-in unit. It even requires typically, 4 i n most states, special licenses to even be able to 5 i nstall. Many cases, it requires a manufacturer setup. 6 And yet, it seems to me that DOE is ignoring 7 t hese -- some very -- some of these are safety issues. 8 A nd I'm struggling with trying to understand why you 9 w ill not allow a manufacturer to be notified and at 10 l east video witness a spot-check of one of these highly 11 c omplex units. 12 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. You'd - 13

- Ashley, you'd said that -- I think it was Ashley -- 14 t hat you tested 800 units last year doing spot-checks. 15 O f those 800, can you tell us how many -- what 16 p ercentage actually failed? That might help us -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have no idea off the top of 18 m y head. 19 MR. KLEISS: -- wrap our heads around the 20 e fficiency or inefficiency of the process. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's really low. It's very 22 l ow.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 100 1 MR. STANONIK: Well -- Frank Stanonik, AHRI. 2 J eff, I think the bigger question is how many of those 3 w ere commercial products? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Enough to be relevant -- 5 MR. STANONIK: The point -- okay, but -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- to the discussion. 7 MR. STANONIK: But -- I mean, but the point 8 i s, you know, if we're talking about residential 9 p roducts where, you know, again, now we're talking 10 a bout things built in the millions of units per year, 11 w here you can go anywhere and grab one, it's a whole 12 d ifferent circumstance. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're not just talking -- I 14 d on't know what the percentage is off the top of my 15 h ead, but there was enough across the spectrum. 16 MALE SPEAKER: But it wasn't 800. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: It was not all -- 18 MS. MEYERS: It seems like if DOE is going to 19 m ake public the results of any type of testing, they 20 w ould make public the fact that they're going to do the 21 t est before the results are known. I mean, why can I 22 n ot make -- this, to me, should be public -- you make

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 101 1 t he results public afterwards. Why can't you let me 2 k now beforehand? I just cannot -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: We do not -- we have not made 4 a ny results public yet. 5 MS. MEYERS: Well -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: And you seemingly don't want 7 u s to. 8 MS. MEYERS: Well, I thought you said they 9 w ere going to be. 10 MR. EISNER: But there's a whole process they 11 w ere talking about that you would go through before 12 t hey would make a decision to make it public -- 13 MS. MEYERS: I mean, if -- 14 MR. EISNER: -- you would have a chance. 15 MS. MEYERS: If I could maybe get an answer 16 t o what the Department's concerns are regarding 17 a llowing a manufacturer to witness a test, maybe we 18 c ould then address those concerns. But it's so -- 19 MS. BARHYDT: So, Karen, I have a question. 20 W hen you say to witness the test, is this a viewing, 21 l iterally witness, or is this an interactive process 22 t hat you're envisioning?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 102 1 MS. MEYERS: Well, one would think if 2 s omething is being done wrong, we'd be able to point 3 t hat out. I mean, why -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: Does wrong mean not in 5 a ccordance with the test procedure, or just -- or does 6 w rong mean not the way you would have done it yourself? 7 MS. MEYERS: It means two things: not in 8 a ccordance with the manufacturer's instructions. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 10 MS. MEYERS: And not in accordance with the 11 t est procedure. 12 MS. BARHYDT: And not in accordance with the 13 m anufacturer's instructions being something that is 14 p ublished as opposed to the person who's watching? 15 MS. MEYERS: The 16 MS. BARHYDT: I'm just -- I'm literally -- 17 MS. MEYERS: It -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: -- trying to make sure -- 19 MS. MEYERS: The manufacturer's -- 20 MS. BARHYDT: -- that we're all on the same 21 p age. 22 MS. MEYERS: -- installation and operating

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 103 1 i nstructions are shipped with the unit. 2 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 3 MS. MEYERS: Or they're available online. 4 T hey're available both ways. We make them available 5 b oth ways. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: But I will say right now, in 7 t he AHRI program, we have the ability through what our 8

- - how we list those units with them in what's called a 9 n ote section to give them specific instructions on how 10 t o set up the AHRI test for our unit. Those 11 i nstructions right now are not published in the public 12 e nvironment, because they have nothing to do with how a 13 b uilding owner actually uses our equipment, partly 14 b ecause the test standard has nothing to do with how an 15 a ctual unit is used. 16 So, you know, that -- I mean, that's kind of 17 w here we're at. So -- but I understand, through these 18 m any public workshops, that we would have to somehow 19 m ake those now in our IOMs, literally, a section that 20 s ays, "Mr. Building Owner, ignore this part. This is 21 a ll about how DOE's going to use it for setting up an 22 A HRI test."

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 104 1 MR. STANONIK: But -- 2 MS. HOOTMAN: They'll love that. 3 MR. STANONIK: But the -- okay. But there's 4 a distinction here that was made, and I don't think 5 w e've all appreciated. Okay? We really have two 6 i ssues. One of them is the manufacturer needs some 7 a ssurance the equipment was set up correctly. You 8 h aven't taken data point one yet. Okay? Before that 9 h appens, the manufacturer has to be comfortable or have 10 t he knowledge the unit's been set up properly. Okay? 11 If we get past that point, okay, my own 12 t heory here, not -- and I'll probably get corrected, 13 b ut my idea would be that if we could acknowledge some 14 w ay that the manufacturer has some ability to get some 15 c onfirmation that it's been set up properly, then the 16 i ssue of, in fact, running the test and perhaps getting 17 a nomalous results or whatever, I would say that could - 18

- that can be resolved by reviewing the data. 19 Now, you might -- again, certain products, 20 y ou'll still probably want to be there. Okay? But for 21 a whole larger category of products, if the 22 m anufacturer's comfortable it's been set up right, then

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 105 1 t he question of, okay, you get the results and 2 s omething just doesn't look right can, in many cases, 3 b e discerned by looking at the data, and you can point 4 o ut that either something was measuring inaccurately 5 o r, in some cases, you could say, "Oh, wait a minute. 6 S omething was off on this particular unit." You know, 7 a s an example, I'll just use a water heater. Well, 8 w ait a minute, you know, I mean, look at the baffles, 9 b ecause that number -- that -- you know, that CO2 10 n umber just can't be, or something like that. 11 But I think -- I think there should be 12 c ertainly more flexibility in giving the manufacturer 13 t he opportunity to confirm this thing's set up right. 14 MR. STEM: This is Mike with Intertek again, 15 a nd I believe that onus falls back on the test labs. 16 W e -- it's going to be our responsibility to provide 17 a mple documentation, photos, video, redundant 18 i nstrumentation, whatever means necessary to be able 19 t o, with empirical data, support the results, and, you 20 k now, if we're not able to do that, then, you know, I 21 t hink you have the right to question that, and we have 22 t o prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, so

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 106 1 MR. EISNER: Could we take a break at this 2 t ime? I want to talk to a couple people about some of 3 t he concerns that are being raised. Ten minutes? 4 (Off the record.) 5 MR. EISNER: All right. Thank you all for 6 y our patience. Well, I had some offline discussions. 7 I 'm going to start penalizing everybody who keeps 8 t alking. 9 MALE SPEAKER: Hi, Neil. 10 MR. EISNER: All right. You guys will each 11 p ay for one test -- give the DOE one free test now when 12 t hey ask for it. All right. Ashley's added to the 13 s creen up here, and I asked her to explain what she's 14 a dded. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So based on the discussions, 16 b ased on some of DOE's initial positions, I kind of 17 c ame up with a process for discussion. So the first 18 w ould be -- this is for single unit spot-checks only, 19 v erification. DOE selects a single unit for test. We 20 s elect it from retail, or we contact you. 21 We would then test at a third-party lab or at 22 t he manufacturer's lab, depending on the category,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 107 1 w ithout DOE or the manufacturer on-site. And then 2 t here's unless -- if the model is specifically required 3 t o be only installed by a factory-trained installer, 4 t hen we would talk about DOE and the -- then the DOE 5 a nd the manufacturer would be on-site. 6 The laboratory may request from the 7 D epartment additional information on test setup, 8 i nstallation, or testing instructions as they feel 9 n ecessary. If the request is -- if the lab requests 10 t his, DOE will immediately contact the manufacturer. 11 DOE, the manufacturer, and the lab will have 12 a conversation on the phone to discuss any additional 13 d etails of the testing, and additional test 14 i nstructions could be given at that time that were 15 a greed upon by the Department and the manufacturer. So 16 w e both have to agree. 17 If a unit falls outside the tolerance -- 18 t hat's a single unit compared to the rated value 19 e valuated per the tolerances above, DOE will just 20 i nitiate a discussion with the manufacturer. At that 21 t ime, we will show all test setup, the pictures, the 22 t est data that was had, the conditions, any of the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 108 1 n otes. Everything we have will be turned over to you. 2 You may present any and all claims at this 3 t ime. If there's an additional testing issue, if 4 t here's a result issue, if there's a manufacturing 5 i ssue, you can present it all. There's no 6 p redetermined outcome, repercussions, or anything at 7 t his point. 8 We may initiate a discussion about if 9 r etesting needs to occur as well as if we both need to 10 b e present at that time. Thoughts? 11 MR. SMITH: Hello. This is Judd Smith from 12 C SA. Bullet point -- on bullet point number 4, these 13 a re templates that are online already at the DOE, 14 r ight? Can the manufacturers have input into those 15 t emplates? 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. They're public. 17 MR. SMITH: Right. So they can have input to 18 t hat. So when we do give them the report, they have 19 w hat they want? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. If there is 21 s omething missing from those templates that they'd like 22 t o see -- and I'm not sure if they're all online right

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 109 1 n ow, but I will double-check that and make sure they 2 a re if they are not. 3 But, yeah, absolutely. Send us feedback, 4 s end us -- if there's not enough pictures. We've 5 s pecifically asked for certain types of documentation 6 f rom the labs. I think many of the labs will say it's 7 m ore documentation than they're -- typically provide 8 f or most of the tests they run. At least, we get a lot 9 o f complaints about it. 10 MR. SMITH: I like it, though. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 12 MR. EISNER: By the way, just a reminder to 13 e verybody, they're having trouble with the recordings. 14 R emember to turn your mic on. Remember to keep it 15 c lose to you when you're talking. 16 Any other thoughts? Yes? 17 MR. STANONIK: Ashley, one other thing that 18 c ame out of the discussion that I think I'm going to 19 p ut out here, and, again, at the risk of being 20 c orrected, is that -- let's see. It would probably be 21

- - yeah, let's say it's the third bullet point. I 22 w ould suggest that if the model is listed in a VICP --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 110 1 o r in a program, okay, that the test lab should check 2 i f there are any special installation notes. And I'm 3 n ot sure what we call that, Jill, but 4 MR. WHITWELL: An operation. 5 MR. STANONIK: Pardon me? 6 MR. WHITWELL: Installation -- 7 FEMALE SPEAKER: And operation. 8 MR. STANONIK: That are on record with the 9 p rogram. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Could DOE not be the one to 11 c heck with you? 12 MR. STANONIK: Sure. Yeah. I mean, yeah. 13 Y eah. I -- yeah, that's fine. My point would be that 14 s omeone -- that, again, listening to what Jill was 15 s aying before, I mean, we do have those notes about, 16 w ait a minute, you know, when you have this model, you 17 n eed to do this or that or whatever, and it's not part 18 o f the installation instructions, but it is critical to 19 a proper setup. 20 FEMALE SPEAKER: Test setup. 21 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, test setup. 22 MR. KOJAK: This --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 111 1 MR. STANONIK: Test setup. Right. 2 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. If 3 t he third-party test lab that the DOE is commissioning 4 t o do the test is not the AHRI program owner for small 5 a nd large unitary, do they have access to those notes? 6 MR. STANONIK: That's what I'm saying is 7 t hat, you know, whoever it is, whether it's the third 8 p arty or DOE, if DOE asks for it, yeah, we would say, 9 " Okay. Wait a minute. For" -- again, we'd go back and 10 c heck and say, "For this model, yeah. Here's 11 a dditional information regarding the proper setup for 12 t esting." 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is there a reason that 14 i nformation can't be given to DOE as part of the 15 c ertification process? 16 MR. STANONIK: Oh, as part of the 17 c ertification process? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: I'd really like one upload of 19 f iles. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I get that part. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay? So whether I upload a 22 f ile with a lot of detailed information about how to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 112 1 s et it up, run it for a test setup, whether that goes 2 t o my VICP and they pass it to you, I really don't care 3 h ow that circle goes. But I only want the information 4 i n one place, because of the errors that happen when 5 y ou try to transpose it to other places. 6 So our literature process is kind of outside 7 o f all of that, because it has to do with what our 8 c ustomers actually want. I would like to try to keep 9 i t out of the literature process and keep it in one 10 u pload. Whether that -- like I said, whether that gets 11 p assed to one or the other through a database, I'm okay 12 w ith. 13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 14 w ould -- I would propose that if these specific units 15 a re a member of the VICP, that test -- the Department 16 n ot do testing, but just request the current test 17 r eport from the VICP, whoever that is, and do a 18 d ocument -- 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think that's later, 20 r ight? We're trying to come up -- I mean, to the extent 21 w e get to a verification program where we all agree, 22 w hich I think is on the table and is a goal of the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 113 1 D epartment, to get to a verification program that we 2 f ind out we can work together, utilize, et cetera. 3 But this is, okay, in absence of that, and 4 f or those that don't participate, what do we do? So it 5 s eems like I can say -- I can ask for the information, 6 o r a manufacturer can submit additional details as part 7 o f the cert process, but there has to be a process for 8 t hose that are not an AHRI member. 9 MR. EISNER: Stephen Schaefer wanted to have 10 a -- submit a comment. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 12 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. I had a question. When 13 w e're going through the certification process and 14 e verything with the third party, how are we sure that 15 t hey have actual experience with this particular test. 16 What we've had going with one or another lab, 17 s ometimes there's a learning curve of how to actually 18 s et up the test. That's why we'd like to be present, 19 e specially if they're asking for help at the offset. 20 I t'd definitely help on the speed and accuracy of 21 s etting up the test if somebody could be there just to 22 a nswer questions.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 114 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Up to you. How do you show 2 y ou have competency in running a test first? 3 MR. KOJAK: For UL, we are ISO 17025 4 a ccredited to conduct those tests, where we have 5 o utside auditors that come to our lab to witness the 6 t esting and to verify that the setups and our training 7 a nd our documentation for the equipment used, the 8 p rocedure for the testing, the standards, everything is 9 u p to the standard to accredit us, you know, for the 10 I SO 17025 accreditation for the testing. 11 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I have 12 a suggestion related to what's now I think the fourth 13 b ullet, and because they're -- that's putting the -- 14 s eeking out any special instructions for conducting 15 s etting up the unit to conduct the test. That's at the 16 d iscretion of the laboratory technician. And this also 17 m ight address what Jill was bringing out up about 18 w anting to send the documentation one time and making 19 s ure the right information is put out there. 20 Could manufacturers, when they submit the 21 r atings of the product on the DOE template, in a -- 22 p rovide additional information as far as special test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 115 1 s etup instructions, and if we need to on that template, 2 s ay, you know, Test Instructions 1, and then apply that 3 t o whatever set of products; Test Instructions 2, and 4 a pply that to the other set of products? That would 5 t hen automatically be provided to the test lab, and you 6 d on't have to rely on the judgment of a technician -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. 8 MR. KLEISS: -- as far as assessing that. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: My additional -- sorry. 10 MR. JOHNSON: Ashley -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm trying to capture it 12 c orrectly here. I'm not -- anyway, I'm getting there. 13 MR. JOHNSON: Ashley, just a quick 14 c larification. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 16 MR. JOHNSON: Tom Johnson with Daikin McQuay. 17 I n the second bullet, the model is specifically 18 r equired to be installed? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Set up. 20 MR. JOHNSON: Is that the right word? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Set up. 22 MR. JOHNSON: Set up. It's either start up,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 116 1 c ommissioned, or set up. 2 MR. STARR: I think startup is the correct 3 w ord. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: If the model is specifically 5 r equired to be installed by a commissioned whatever? 6 MR. STARR: I think startup's the right word, 7 b ecause commissioned means something else. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 9 MR. CYMBALSKY: So is there a length of time 10 f or that startup? Are you saying that the guy stays 11 t here for the whole test or just for the what I call 12 s etup? 13 MR. SUTPHEN: I have -- the startup's usually 14

- - that's indicated in the manufacturer's things, 15 w hether it needs to be started up by a factory 16 r epresentative. That's usually what that means. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So say it is required 18 t o be -- 19 MALE SPEAKER: Turning the key? 20 MR. SUTPHEN: Well, there's a lot more than 21 t urning it, but, yeah. Making sure the stuff -- yeah. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: My additional information --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 117 1 MS. HOOTMAN: John, this is Jill. I can see 2 i n the future where they would have to stay for, and 3 t hat would be IER calculations, and specifically when 4 y ou're talking about variable-speed equipment, we're 5 g oing to have to be specifically down to a certain 6 h ertz being dialed in, and so they would have to stay 7 t o see each one of those four setups be done and that 8 y ou're getting the equipment dialed in to the correct 9 h ertz in order to get that. 10 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's what I want to get to. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 12 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's exactly right here. 13 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel with 14 M itsubishi. Ashley, if under that second bullet, if 15 y ou could put another sub-bullets that says if VRF -- 16 f or VRF systems, follow procedures in the 10 CFR, 17 b ecause we already have authorization to have 18 m anufacturer present. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Does that work? 20 MR. DOPPEL: Thank you. 21 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. I'd 22 a lso like to throw out if a test is conducted without a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 118 1 m anufacturer representative on-site, then the tolerance 2 s hould be increased to 10 percent. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Why? Nonstarter for DOE. 4 MS. MEYERS: Because they will not be done 5 c orrectly. 6 MS. BARHYDT: That's what the -- 7 MS. MEYERS: We have -- well, let me -- and 8 l et me tell you why I say this. We've been doing this 9 i n the AHRI program for over ten years. It's -- these 10 t ests are very, very complex. And even with us there, 11 t he majority of the time, there are issues. So there 12 i s -- I have -- there is no way you're not going to 13 h ave issues with this. I mean, it's -- we've proven 14 t hat. It cannot be done. 15 And so I'm not going to sign up for a program 16 w here the manufacturer cannot -- on a commercial piece 17 o f equipment -- this is what we're talking about. This 18 i s not, you know, residential equipment. It's very 19 c omplex without being present, because it's going to be 20 d one incorrectly. We have data that shows that these - 21

- that these are very complicated tests. 22 MS. BARHYDT: So one of the things you just

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 119 1 s aid was that even if you're present, they can't do the 2 t est, right? 3 MS. HOOTMAN: We're having to show them how 4 t o do it, yes. They've attached ductwork that's wrong. 5 T hey've attached thermocouples wrong. They've attached 6 d uctwork that has caused airflow feedback. I mean, I 7 c an go on and on and on. And I was part of the public 8 r ecord showing some of that. We are having to monitor 9 i n the unitary large program -- I'm part of the 10 c ertification committee, the compliance committee, and 11 w e're having to monitor that many. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So the way this would 13 w ork -- the way Ashley has it written up there, they 14 w ould take lots of photographs. I would assume that 15 t he photographs would show if they connected the 16 d uctwork in the wrong way. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: If they can physically get to 18 t hat. We are talking about units that are very large, 19 a nd so getting a photograph of some of this gets hard, 20 b ecause we are now to the walls of the test cell. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So Karen had also suggested 22 v ideo. Are you saying that video won't work either?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 120 1 FEMALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible) a compromise. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, it's a compromise. I 3 m ight be able to be there. 4 MR. STARR: I have a suggestion. You know, I 5 d on't like to necessarily suggest this, but it may be a 6 q uestion of the testing laboratories and their ability 7 t o handle that. Perhaps maybe requiring a laboratory 8 t o have a certain ISO standard in order to -- in other 9 w ords, somebody needs to -- 10 MS. HOOTMAN: We do that. 11 MS. BARHYDT: We already do. 12 MR. STARR: Oh, okay. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: We already do. 14 MR. STARR: Well, does UL have a problem? Is 15 w hat she talking happening with UL Laboratories? I 16 m ean that's what I'm trying to understand. Are we 17 t alking about one laboratory that it got tested at, or 18 i s this just every time? Because Michael here says 19 t hat they have no problem doing it. I hear it a couple 20 t imes. And then I hear other people saying, no, we 21 c an't really test that equipment. I'm trying to figure 22 o ut is it there are five labs; four can do it right,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 121 1 a nd only one can't? 2 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 3 w ould say over 90 percent of all of the testing that UL 4 d oes is RND testing for the major OEM manufacturers, 5 a nd not -- it's very rare that we have engineers on 6 s ite to witness the install, because the time that we 7 i nvest in the installation process is a lot longer than 8 I think some of the other third-party labs take, 9 b ecause of -- since we do so much R&D testing, we add 10 s o much extra instrumentation over and above the 11 s tandard, and asked to do things outside of the 12 s tandard. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: We've been doing that here. 14 A nd we've been doing it to the standard. 15 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, but it's -- I think -- what 16 i t sounds like to me what you guys keep bring up is 17 t hat corners are being cut in the AHRI program for 18 v olume reasons for the speed of getting things in and 19 o ut of their test chambers. You know that's some of 20 t he issues that we don't see at UL because we are not 21 b eing required to test high volumes of units at a set 22 p rice.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 122 1 MS. HOOTMAN: No. I'm not saying that at 2 a ll. I'm not saying that the corners are being cut. 3 MR. KOJAK: Well, if you are saying that 4 t hermal couples weren't connected properly, that is a 5 b asic thing that every laboratory should know how to 6 d o. Building duct work is a basic function that every 7 l aboratory should know how to do. 8 MS. MEYERS: How do you connect that on 9 r esidential versus how you do it on -- you know, a 60- 10 t on piece of equipment is not necessarily the same way. 11 A nd, if the technician is not versed in that, it could 12 b ecome an issue. 13 FEMALE SPEAKER: And they do it -- 14 MS. HOOTMAN: And they do it infrequently. 15 S o it's then the next technician, and then the next 16 t echnician. 17 MR. STARR: Well it's -- 18 MS. HOOTMAN: A 60-ton piece of equipment is 19 p robably only tested -- right now under Unitary Large - 20

- I'm just using rough numbers -- I think there is 21 a round 150 to 200 check tests done. On those larger -- 22 p hysically larger -- and they are literally two truck

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 123 1 l oads, the size of this room, taller than this room. 2 Y ou know there's probably only a few of those being 3 d one out of that 150 to 200; maybe 10, maybe 15 of 4 t hose are being done. 5 They cost $100,000. They are expensive. You 6 w on't be buying them off the street. In fact, in order 7 t o get one of those with AHRI static, you will have to 8 c ome to me to get that, because it will not be able to 9 b e bought off the street, to get the static capability 10 f or an AHRI test. 11 MR. KOJAK: I can only speak about what we 12 d o. We can only test up to a 30-ton commercial at our 13 f acilities. 14 MS. HOFFMAN: That's -- you see, I thought 15 y ou - - that's when I said I don't think you have the 16 c apability to actually do this. There is only one test 17 l ab independently that can test this product. 18 MR. KOJAK: Yeah. Well, it sounds like there 19

- - that, you know, there could be some training issues 20 t hen if that's a repeated issue of things not being 21 d one properly with a certain size unit over and over 22 a gain.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 124 1 MR. STEM: This is Mike Stem with Intertek. 2 A nd I think the underlying issue is every room is 3 d esigned for specific capabilities, specific features, 4 n ot necessarily to cover every single type of 5 c onfiguration for commercial equipment. So, you know, 6 i f you have a different configuration, an L-shaped coil 7 t hat's, you know, a horizontal discharge trying to 8 g oing in an over/under room, that's an issue. But, to 9 K aren's point about increasing a tolerance, if duct 10 w ork is not connected right, if things are not done in 11 a ccordance to the standard, again that -- you don't 12 n eed a tolerance because that's an invalid test. It 13 d oesn't count anyway. 14 MR. EISNER: Stephen Schaefer has a question 15 o r a comment. 16 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. We've gone through 17 t esting at numerous different labs, whether it be 18 I ntertek or UL, and it does go from technician to 19 t echnician. And, on the last five years, we have been, 20 t hrough the AHRI program, have been able to be there 21 f or witness testing, to assist with any questions that 22 m ight come up. And there have been questions with our

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 125 1 i ce machine. And we see also with commercial 2 r efrigerators, this is not just a simple set-up where 3 y ou plug the unit in. There's a loading test that you 4 h ave to have. There's the opening of the doors. So 5 w e'd just like to make sure that, if these technicians 6 d o not do this on a daily basis, those questions that 7 w ill be there; we'd like to be there to help. That's 8 t he main thing is to help answer questions for that 9 s et-up. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I guess my perspective of 11 t his is, if the lab has questions, this provides a 12 p rocess to allow the lab to ask the Department, along 13 w ith the manufacturer, all three on the phone at the 14 s ame time, those questions. If they need to ask you 15 q uestions while they are testing, they need to contact 16 D OE. Is there an issue there that this doesn't 17 a lleviate? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. Let's say they did put 19 t he duct work on wrong; how will they know they put the 20 d uct work on wrong? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. I mean, that's an 22 a side; right? I mean you would need to see pictures,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 126 1 y ou would need to see a video, you would need to see 2 t hat it was done wrong. You can make any claim you 3 w ant and we can invalidate the test. If they did it 4 w rong, they did it wrong. Mike's absolutely right. If 5 t hey did something wrong, not in accordance with the 6 t est procedure, it's an invalid test off the table. 7 I t's not a tolerance thing at that point. It's just 8 n ot a valid test. 9 MS. HOFFMAN: I wonder even with electronic 10 m eans, videos, pictures, et cetera, if we will get 11 e nough information without being there to see it? I 12 d on't know. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. 14 MR. MYERS: Yeah. This is Frank Myers, PVI 15 I ndustries. The -- I'll wait -- this is Frank Myers, 16 P VI Industries. The idea that if the lab needs 17 i nformation, then they'll ask, and that makes 18 e verything okay; we are concerned that a good lab, a 19 q uality lab, an ISO 17025 certified lab, doesn't have 20 t he skill set. They don't run the tests often enough. 21 T hese are huge, complex pieces of equipment that it 22 s ounds simple; they just set up and run it according to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127 1 t he test. Anybody can do that. That's not the case. 2 S o we are saying they can ask questions. I want to see 3 w hat they do, because as a number of us have said 4 r epeatedly, with people that work with it more 5 f requently that we are there with, we catch things. We 6 s ee data unfolding before us as it -- that doesn't make 7 s ense. What's wrong because the data is unfolding that 8 w ay? We may want to run a zero test and make sure that 9 t he inlet and outlet temperature on a temperature rise, 10 t hat they are reading in fact zero; there is no 11 t emperature rise across it. We have seen cases where 12 t here's three degrees, which might make several percent 13 d ifference in the outcome with the unit not being 14 e nergized. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think -- I mean, the basic 16 O EM position of the Department is that these third17 p arty labs that are accredited, that have within their 18 s cope the ability to run the DOE test procedure, can 19 r un the DOE test procedure correctly when provided with 20 t he correct information. It sounds to me like you guys 21 a re saying that is impossible; that they still cannot. 22 Y et, you are using these labs for your third-party

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 128 1 v erification program. 2 MR. EISNER: With Whitman. 3 MALE SPEAKER: And we have the opportunity to 4 w itness the test. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: At times. But you already 6 s aid that sometimes they don't go there. 7 MR. RIVEST: Neil, Mike Rivest. Is it 8 p ossible maybe to try and break this down between 9 p roducts where this process would be appropriate, and 10 p roducts for which there might have to be a different 11 p rocess? 12 MR. BAUMAN: Can I ask sort of related to 13 t hat, Mike, is a thing that occurred to me -- it was 14 k ind of mentioned earlier -- was manufacturers have 15 c oncerns that their particular product could be tested, 16 a nd to make sure this is how you run the test on my 17 p roduct, or basically what your lab procedures should 18 b e for running that test. That might be a little bit 19 d ifferent manufacture, or there are certain concerns 20 y ou want to make sure as far as manufacture that the 21 t est was set up a certain way. I obviously can't 22 d ocument 100 percent, you know, everything. But if we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 129 1 a re talking about that, you could go back and look at 2 v ideos or look at pictures of things, could the 3 m anufacturers be allowed, maybe not in your 4 i nstallation manual, but provide all the labs with a 5 l ab manual for testing my product that says as long as 6 t hat's within the scope of the test, and you know, and 7 t he lab has reviewed it and said, yeah, this matches 8 t he ASHRAE test or whatever we have to do, that that's 9 h ow they would run the test? 10 MR. KLEISS: I think that's covered in the 11 t hird bullet, second sub-bullet. And I would suggest 12 t hat with that addition of that second sub-bullet that 13 w e could probably remove the previous sub-bullet 14 r egarding getting the test instructions from AHRI. 15 MR. EISNER: Let's go back to the suggestion 16 t hat Mike made. If it is a limited number of pieces of 17 e quipment that are going to need attendance at the site 18 a nd DOE can afford to send people to that limited 19 n umber of tests, that may be a way to resolve this 20 p articular problem. If it's too many tests, too many 21 p ieces of equipment, then it wouldn't solve anything. 22 MR. ARMSTRONG: But, I guess from my point of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 130 1 v iew; aren't those the same equipment we are talking 2 a bout that either can't be tested in a third-party lab, 3 i n which case we are testing out your site anyway, or 4 h ave to be installed by a factory-trained, in which 5 c ase we have agreed to do DOE and manufacture witness 6 t esting and BRFs. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: I don't have a requirement on 8 t hese for factory-trained. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So which ones are we talking 10 a bout? I mean, what are the products we are talking 11 a bout? 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Everything in Unitary Large, 13 a nd specifically anything that has variable speed, 14 v ariable air volume, variable . . . 15 MR. STARR: I would -- 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. So it could be 65 -- it 17 c ould be at 65. More likely right now, currently, it's 18 m ore likely in the upper sizes, but I'm not saying in 19 t he future it wouldn't be at 65,000 BTUs to . . . 20 MR. STARR: It seems though, if it doesn't 21 h ave a factory-required start-up, how is it going to be 22 i nstalled out on the other four million buildings it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 131 1 g ets installed on? 2 MS. HOOTMAN: This is -- in order to get that 3 s pecific test at that specific static -- the buildings 4 d on't care about that AHRI static. They don't care 5 a bout making sure that the hertz is exactly right. 6 MALE SPEAKER: No. It's test-specific. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. These are test-specific 8 p arameters. 9 MR. HUNT: This is Charlie Hunt. I have a 10 q uestion. If it's this crazy a test, where's the 11 p rocedural corrections? Are we making procedural 12 c orrections, because -- 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. As we speak, AHRI 340, 14 3 60 test standard is being changed, but the Department 15 i s rather slow in adopting those new changes. So I 16 e nvision a time where there will be a lag in that. 17 MR. EISNER: So how many tests are we talking 18 a bout that DOE would have to -- 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: One thing to help with that 20 p rocess would be to have DOE involved in that revision 21 p rocess. 22 MR. EISNER: All right. I go back to my

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 132 1 q uestion. What number of tests are we talking about 2 t hat would have to be an exception to the general rule? 3 MS. MEYERS: Another thing that could help in 4 t his, to your point, Ashley, is if DOE would just 5 r ecognize the VICP Programs, and then we would not be 6 h aving these issues either. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well we are still trying to 8 d iscuss the lab's capabilities that you guys seem to be 9 u sing as well. 10 MR. SACHS: If I could chime in and think 11 a bout 12 Neil's question for a second, as I understood 13 i t? I see at least three classes of products for which 14 I 'm hearing discomfort from manufacturers about not 15 h aving permission to be there: too big is one category, 16 a nd certainly Laura has addressed that by saying we are 17 d oing it on your site; too complex, which is an area 18 w hich I think is going to be increasingly common; but 19 t he other one is too infrequently tested. This set 20 h ere includes a number of niche products, which bluntly 21 t he production labs, the certification labs, as opposed 22 t o the R&D support labs, you don't see very often.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 133 1 A nd, in those cases, I think the manufacturers 2 l egitimately worried that a production oriented lab 3 m ight miss something in trying to get the product moved 4 t hrough the process efficiently. So those are at least 5 t hree classes, as a partial response to how many of 6 t hese things might have manufacturer sensitivities 7 a bout not being there even on the initial test. 8 MR. EISNER: And does DOE have a sense as to 9 h ow many tests it would conduct in giving the area of 10 t hese types of devices? 11 MS. BARHYDT: That varies. 12 MR. EISNER: Well, what would be the maximum? 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's all project dependent. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 15 MR. CYMBALSKY: We wouldn't give a number. 16 MR. EISNER: Well, what I'm trying to get at 17 h ere is, is the number going to be so great that you 18 w ouldn't have the resources to go to them? If you are 19 o nly -- you know you are conducting about 800 tests a 20 y ear, as I understand it, and that includes commercial 21 a nd residential, what percentage is going to be 22 c ommercial; what percentage is going to be the big

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 134 1 e quipment when you think of everything else? 2 MS. BARHYDT: It really varies, Neil. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: There is no way to answer 4 t hat. 5 MR. EISNER: So there could be 800 in any 6 g iven year? You only do 800 tests; so there wouldn't 7 b e 800? 8 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well there could be 2000 10 t ests. 11 MR. EISNER: I'm asking what the maximum 12 c ould be in a given year. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So the number actually 14 t hroughout was we tested 800 last year. That was based 15 o n the resources last year. 16 MR. EISNER: So if -- 17 MS. BARHYDT: If the amount of money goes up, 18 t he number of tests go up. The distribution varies 19 d ramatically from year to year. Initially, I think the 20 v ery first year, we didn't test any commercial 21 p roducts. And that number has been going up every year. 22 S o it's really very difficult for us to say how many

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 135 1 d ifferent units of a commercial product would be tested 2 i n a given year. 3 MR. EISNER: We are talking about a limited 4 s ubset, and I think we are trying to get a handle on 5 r esources here in terms of whether it can be addressed 6 b y your attendance. And you don't -- is there a way 7 y ou could limit it so that you do all the testing you 8 h ave to do, but still be able to go to these? 9 MS. BARHYDT: I think the Department is 10 u ncomfortable with saying we are not going to test 11 b ecause we don't have the resources to go. We don't 12 w ant to put a cap on what our testing capability is 13 b ased on our ability to be present, when we think that 14 l abs ought to be able to do the test. We think that 15 t his is only a spot check. This is only the very first 16 t est. To limit our ability to conduct these tests just 17 d oesn't make any sense. 18 MR. EISNER: I'm not saying limit the number 19 o f tests you conduct, but that does raise the other 20 q uestion, which is, do the labs have a limit on the 21 n umber of tests they can conduct? Does that make 22 s ense?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 136 1 MS BARHYDT: I know there are capacity 2 i ssues. 3 MR. EISNER: Right. Does that -- all I'm 4 t rying to get at, and what I'm hearing here is, is 5 t here a small number of tests that you would be 6 c onducting so small that you'd be able to go? Not that 7 i t would limit you in being able to do the testing you 8 w ant, but if you had to focus resources anywhere, you 9 c ould focus on that, between laboratory capacity and -- 10 MS. BARHYDT: Are we talking across all 11 c ommercial, or are we talking about limiting it to only 12 c ertain? 13 MR. EISNER: Well, Harvey threw out, you 14 k now, a limit that he saw there. If it limited to 15 t hose three kinds of equipment, could you cover them by 16 a ttending, if the company said we have to be there? 17 I'm not trying to put you on a spot with a 18 n umber, but everything is limiting. 19 MS. BARHYDT: Right. No. So -- 20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Do you want me to take it? 21 MS. BARHYDT: Go ahead. 22 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137 1 FEMALE SPEAKER: He has the money. 2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah. So it's my -- not 3 r eally my money -- so it's not about -- it's not just 4 a bout how much money we have in a budget to test 5 e quipment. There's also -- in the Government, there's 6 p rogram direction money, which I don't see. I don't 7 e ven know how much it is. 8 In the program direction money there are 9 t ravel restrictions on federal employees, and it's 10 g etting worse and worse in some respects. We don't 11 k now what that number is from year to year. So it's not 12 l ike, sure, I have five million dollars to test 13 e quipment; and, oh, by the way, you have no travel 14 b udget. That doesn't do us any good. So we can't go 15 t here physically. 16 So for us to put a number on, you know, how 17 m any of these things we can witness a year; we can't. 18 I t's impossible. So all I can say is we do the budget 19 i n a way that makes sense from year to year. And so, 20 y ou know -- but I think I want to go back point of our 21 g oing in position is that these labs are accredited per 22 I SO or whatever standards there are. They are also

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 138 1 b eing used by this verification program. My 2 u nderstanding was that meant there was some level of 3 t rust that these guys could run a test. 4 Now, I know it doesn't work for everything, 5 b ut that's our going in position is that these guys are 6 g ood; they can do it, as opposed to, I don't think they 7 c an do it. Because if we didn't think they could do 8 i t, I would have built that lab that was $16 million 9 d ollars in West Virginia and have my own government 10 l ab, but I didn't, because we have third-party labs 11 t hat we thought could do it in the private sector. So 12 t hat's the direction we went. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. We see where we stand 14 o n this. That's -- 15 MR. SHEBIK: Excuse me. This is Ron Shebik 16 o f Hussman. It seems like -- I'm hearing I believe 17 t his was John on the phone, but it sounds like John and 18 A shley have full confidence in these third-party labs 19 a nd their ability to do the test based on their 20 a ccreditations. I'm just curious, if some of the 21 m anufacturers have issue or they feel more comfortable 22 w ith them being present, at least to witness how the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 139 1 s et-up is being done; what is DOE's opposition? I 2 m ean, do you feel -- I mean, if you have confidence in 3 t he third-party labs, their ability to run a test, 4 t heir accreditation -- I mean, do you feel that the 5 t hird-party lab would be influenced by the manufacturer 6 b eing there? 7 MALE SPEAKER: Mmm-hmm. 8 MR. SHEBIK: I mean it seemed like if the 9 s ame time -- 10 MS. BARHYDT: I think the manufacturers 11 w ouldn't want to be there, if they didn't think that 12 t hey were going to influence that test. 13 MR. SHEBIK: I'm sorry. Was that Ashley? 14 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, we want it done 15 p roperly too. 16 MR. SHEBIK: Right. 17 MS. BARHYDT: You want to be there because 18 y ou want to have input into the test. 19 MR. SHEBIK: It's not -- I'm sorry -- 20 MR. KLEISS: The word influence -- 21 FEMALE SPEAKER: That it's read properly. 22 FEMALE SPEAKER: It's a $100,000 unit.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 140 1 MR. KLEISS: The word influence a test -- 2 MR. SHEBIK: Not necessarily have the input 3 i n the test, but just -- 4 MR. KLEISS: -- does not necessarily mean to 5 d efeat the intention of the test. 6 MS. BARHYDT: No. And did not intend that. 7 MR. KLEISS: Right. Okay. 8 MR. SHEBIK: Yeah. I must -- I can't speak 9 f or everybody, but I don't think it's necessarily to 10 h ave an influence on a test; it's reassurance that the 11 t est is being done properly, so if there is something 12 a t the end, the test result, there is a problem, at 13 l east you can say, okay, my person was there. He saw 14 h ow it was set up. Do we have a problem, or do we not 15 h ave a problem? Whereas, if no one is there, every time 16 D OE is going to have -- or let's say every time you 17 c ome back to the manufacturer and say, hey, we have an 18 i ssue with the test result, obviously the manufacturer 19 i s going to say, well, there's no credibility because 20 w e weren't there. 21 So, by having the manufacturer there, it 22 w ould seems like it would save time for everybody.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 141 1 MS. BARHYDT: So I can also tell you from 2 e xperience that we have on a few occasions had the 3 m anufacturer there, and even if the manufacturer is 4 t here, it does not necessarily mean that the 5 m anufacturer will agree that the test was done entirely 6 c orrectly. So it doesn't actually necessarily save 7 t ime in the long run. 8 But I think the -- my concern listening to 9 t his is that industry has no confidence in the third10 p arty labs to be able to do the test properly. And I 11 h ave to say that gives me a great deal of discomfort 12 w ith the idea of having an industry program do the 13 t esting either. It's just, if the lab can't test, then 14 l ab has a problem. It shouldn't -- the manufacturer 15 s hould not have to be there to make sure they connect 16 d uct work right; that they connect thermal couples 17 r ight. I can tell you that the Department has very 18 e xacting standards of what we expect of the lab. If 19 t he lab gives us a test report and we look at the 20 p ictures and we say, you didn't connect the duct work 21 r ight; we are going to make the lab do it again. 22 T hat's not an issue of everybody needed to be present.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 142 1 T hat's an issue of the lab didn't do it right and we 2 a re going to make the lab do it over. And we can sit 3 d own and we can discuss with you and you can say we 4 t hink they did this, this and this wrong, and if they 5 d id it wrong, they are going to do it over. It's not - 6

- this isn't a "we are going to cram this test down 7 y our throat" kind of an issue. This is an initial spot 8 c heck, just a scan of what's going on in the industry, 9 t he general performance. This is just the very tip of 10 t he iceberg. 11 MR. EISNER: Can I ask the testing people w 12 h o are here to address the concern about whether they 13 c an be influenced unduly by a company's presence at the 14 l ab? 15 FEMALE SPEAKER: What's the word? 16 MR. EISNER: No. You used influence, but you 17 k now there can be a positive influence. They were 18 g oing about to connect something wrong. 19 FEMALE SPEAKER: Right. 20 MR. EISNER: I'm saying improperly influence. 21 MALE SPEAKER: Mike? 22 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 143 1 w ould say our lab staff would not be influenced by the 2 m anufacturers being present, because they are well 3 v ersed of what they can and cannot do per the 4 s tandards. And if they were asked to do anything 5 o utside of what the standard calls out for, we would 6 s ay, no. Because, you know, for one, they are not our 7 c ustomer. Our customer would be the DOE, and they 8 w ould be requesting us to do it per the standard only 9 a nd not to what the manufacturer is asking us to skew 10 f rom the standard. 11 MR. EISNER: Does anybody else want to speak 12 o n that? 13 MR. SMITH: Yeah. Judd Smith from CSA. 14 T here is also a possibility of interpretation errors. 15 T he standards aren't always -- 16 MR. EISNER: Turn your microphone up. 17 MR. SMITH: We've had problems with 18 i nterpretation errors between manufacturer, between the 19 l ab and between DOE; so that discussion can go on for 20 h ours. 21 MR. EISNER: Let me ask another question. Is 22 t here room for compromise with the following? The

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 144 1 l aboratory decides how they are going to do it, how 2 t hey are going to install it. They then make a record 3 o f every change they made at the request of the company 4 r epresentative who was there. And why not? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from DOE. I 6 m ean to his point, there are interpretations being made 7 o f the test procedure right now that DOE would not 8 a gree with. And I want to -- just as Karen wants to 9 m ake sure it's a valid test with her equipment and her 10 s et-up, I want to make sure it's a valid test with my 11 t est procedure. 12 MR. EISNER: No, but I'm saying -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that being said, I think 14 t here needs to be some level of confidence on both 15 p arties. I'm willing not to be there for the 16 i nterpretations of my test procedure, but I get the 17 r ight to say you did it wrong, retest, as do you in 18 t his process. I don't need to be there to look at 19 p ictures, look at a video, look at results; something 20 i s going on. I get to sit down and say let's have this 21 c onversation. If we get to a point where a lab, like 22 w hen Mike said variable speed equipment, I need

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 145 1 a dditional instruction. That's when he would say, 2 A shley, I need additional instruction from the 3 m anufacturer. At that point, I would say, "Hey, Joe. 4 W e have an issue. We are trying to test your variable 5 s peed unit. We can't do it. The lab can't do it." 6 A nd if you tell me, Ashley, I can't physically write 7 t hese instructions on the phone, we need to have a 8 c onversation about going down there. We will do that, 9 b efore testing. 10 But at the same time, there's no point in 11 e very single model I spot-check, that both of us need 12 t o be on site just to have confidence that an initial 13 t est was done correctly. When we set up procedures 14 t hat basically have no repercussion but allow you to 15 c ontest exactly what you are doing now in your industry 16 p rogram. 17 MR. EISNER: What I'm hearing is -- 18 FEMALE SPEAKER: You have the option. 19 MR. EISNER: What I'm hearing is I'm hearing 20 c oncern on both sides -- 21 FEMALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible). 22 MR. EISNER: Can I speak? I'm hearing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146 1 c oncerns on both sides. I understand the confidence 2 y ou had that what you write can be done right. I'm 3 h earing on the other side that they have concerns that 4 p eople won't understand the complex equipment. You are 5 s aying that the laboratories can say I know how to test 6 i t. They are questioning whether the laboratory really 7 i s going to know what questions to ask without them 8 b eing present saying you are doing this wrong. So I'm 9 s aying you keep a record of what was changed as a 10 r esult of the company's presence there. Perhaps the 11 t est doesn't go until you approve those changes. 12 T hat's another way we could look at it. I don't know 13 w hat this is going to mean in terms of timing and cost, 14 b ut I'm hearing both sides with problems, and we are 15 t rying to get a solution to those problems. 16 MR. STARR: I have a thought. I went to a 17 1 00- ton unit testing and we had a lot of problems. 18 I t's a very big unit to test, and it was kind of -- I 19 d on't know if they test that big anymore, but it was 20 p art of a specification for jobs that they test the 21 p erformance of the air handler at design. 22 But one of the things we did is we tested it,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 147 1 a nd when we started having problems or it seemed like 2 t he results were coming out, we would usually call the 3 m anufacturer. The manufacturer happened to be there, 4 b ut if you did a test and it looked like there were 5 p roblems with it, would there be the option to keep 6 t hat equipment in the factory and have the manufacturer 7 t hen come out? It'd have to be done within a day or 8 t wo, but I bet they'd be willing to fly out. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Just jumping back. You said in 10 t he factory; do you mean in the laboratory? 11 MR. STARR: Laboratory. Sorry. Sorry. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. I just wondered. 13 MR. STARR: But I mean, in other words, if it 14 l ooks like things are going sideways with air handling 15 e quipment and they are willing to come out and look at 16 i t, it keeps you from having to take all the equipment 17 b ack out of the test laboratory and put another unit 18 i n. It saves a whole bunch of time. I don't know if 19 t hat would be possible, but I think they could be in 20 t here in two days, re-run the whole test, and it could 21 b e both people witnessing it, if it looks like things 22 a re going sideways.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 148 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, to me, that's what -- 2 i f the laboratory requests additional information 3 b ecause they are having problems, that's part of that 4 p rocess the three of us will discuss. 5 MR. STARR: Well, part of the -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, to me, just because a 7 u nit isn't performing correctly isn't an automatic 8 i ndication that the test was done wrong. Now, that 9 b eing said, it's one indicator that something is wrong. 10 O ne of those components is definitely is the test being 11 d one correctly? 12 MR. STARR: Yeah. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: But, yes, I mean, this puts 14 t he onus partially on the lab to say I need help. I 15 n eed help from the Department; whether it's an 16 i nterpretation issue. I need help from the 17 m anufacturer to test their equipment because it's too 18 c omplex, period. Or, I'm trying to run this unit and I 19 j ust can't get what I expected. 20 MR. STARR: A lot of times there are 21 s ubtleties that are happening, and the technician knows 22 i t's not right, but he doesn't know what to do.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 2 MR. STARR: Like, something may be closed or 3 n ot open or -- you know, and the manufacturer will know 4 w hat it is right away and they can fix it. But 5 o therwise, he'll just run a test and say it didn't 6 p ass, so there's ability to kind of -- I don't know. 7 I t's just there are certain things that happen that can 8 b e substantial enough that they see it later. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 10 MR. STARR: And you could, you know, within 11 t he same process probably fix it up. It just -- what 12 i t does is it cuts out the whole re-bringing the thing 13 b ack out - - the equipment back out to the test factory 14 o r the test -- the testing place. And I don't know. I 15 g uess that's more of how they test the -- how long they 16 c an keep a piece of equipment in the test lab and all 17 t hat. 18 Maybe, Mike, you can talk about -- I mean, 19 a ssuming you run stuff and you have problems with it; 20 w hat happens when you start to see problems? Do you 21 c all them up? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Mmm-hmm. That's me.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 150 1 MR. KLEISS: I think that what you are 2 t alking about though -- this is Jeff -- I think that 3 w hat you are talking about is covered in the first 4 s entence on the fourth bullet. 5 MR. STARR: Well, the only difference is that 6 i t happened right away instead of like a month later. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, but you call me in an 8 e mergency and it's, you know, second shift, and I'm 9 t rying to find somebody. My engineer now is halfway 10 a cross the world in a design center in Asia. I'm not 11 g oing to be there in a day. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think -- I mean, to me, 13 t hat's a specific thing. There may be some simple 14 t hings that you can relay over the phone, and it 15 d oesn't require someone being there. And they can be 16 f ixed and we can move on. If we have decided that 17 s omebody needs to be on site, then we would work with 18 y ou. I mean, it's not like we are just going to say, 19 o h, you lose your opportunity; go forth. I mean, we'll 20 t alk with the lab. We don't want, at the end of the 21 d ay, to get all the way through this process and say, 22 o h, invalid test; let's retest. That is not our goal.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 151 1 W e are trying to put as many checks and balances in 2 t his without us being on site for every single spot 3 c heck. That's not reasonable for the Department. 4 MR. STARR: Okay. 5 FEMALE SPEAKER: And I agree, Ashley, but if 6 y ou are taking the -- 7 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik. 8 FEMALE SPEAKER: Go ahead. 9 MR. SHEBIK: I'm sorry. This is Ron Shebik 10 o f Hussman. I just want to address Ashley and also 11 s omething that Mike Kojak said. 12 You know, Mike is representing UL, and Mike 13 s aid that DOE is his customer. He's not -- they are 14 n ot going to be influenced by the manufacturer being 15 t here. I'm assuming Intertek will take the same stand. 16 S o, with that being said, why can't just -- I mean, we 17 c an put this thing to rest; just let the manufacturer 18 h ave the option, if they want they to be present, let 19 t hem be present. If they don't want to be present, 20 t hey don't have to be present. If both labs feel 21 s trongly that they are not going to be influenced 22 b ecause DOE is their customer, then so be it. And then

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 152 1 w e can move forward with this. I mean, this -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I could say the same thing to 3 y ou, Ron. 4 MR. SHEBIK: I mean, manufacturers have to 5 h ave -- you have to establish some trust and some 6 c onfidence in who's testing their product. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: As do you. 8 MR. SHEBIK: I mean, we at Hussman, we test 9 o ur own products on site. We have our own lab. We 10 t est our own products. Now, we are looking at 11 p ossibilities of going outside and using other labs 12 b ecause of the volume of work we want to get done. And 13 b y doing that we'll establish some confidence with 14 o ther labs. We'll establish some trust with other 15 l abs. But I think a lot of people feel confident in 16 e ither being there witnessing or testing in-house -- 17 o r, you know, or wherever helps them with their comfort 18 l evel. 19 So it's like, I guess if UL and Intertek feel 20 t hat the customer is not going to -- I'm sorry -- the 21 m anufacturer is not going to influence what goes on, I 22 g uess I'm not seeing what the problem is?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 153 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: I agree. 2 MALE SPEAKER: Ninety percent of the 3 ( inaudible) I don't think would say -- well, not to say 4 a nything (inaudible). 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm just -- I don't think 6 t his is -- I mean -- I'm just going to -- I mean, this 7 i s -- I'm not going to say this is a hard line for the 8 D epartment, that we won't give, but I think you can see 9 b y the number of the things we have built into this, by 10 t he lack of, you know, repercussions by us having those 11 d iscussions with you, by us involving you in as much of 12 t he process that we are willing to give and give and 13 g ive. But one hard line potentially for us is that we 14 c annot be on site at that test all the time. And I 15 t hink you need to give, too. 16 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr at Northwest 17 E nergy Efficiency Alliance. I don't like the idea of 18 j ust one party being at a test. I mean, the basic of a 19 l ot of things in construction is third-party. And, you 20 k now, there's another subset of people out there, and 21 t hat's the people that put these equipments on their 22 b uilding and the public in general, and they have an

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 154 1 i nterest in this matter too. So, you know, just the 2 n ature of it, I prefer that things be third-party. If 3 o ne party can't be there, then I'd prefer no parties. 4 B ut, you know, we can't just have one party that has 5 t he equipment and another party that's not going to be 6 s ure of the test procedure. We need to have one, both 7 o r none. I'm sorry. We need both or none. 8 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon, True 9 M anufacturing. I am frustrated because this is a step 10 i n a process. This is not public information that 11 w ould be released. This is not the final say in the 12 p roject. It has no legal standing as far as jeopardy 13 o f losing your listing on your product at this time. 14 F or any of those steps, then go further down in the 15 p ages and we'll discover the secondary process, of 16 w hich we do have options to fight. So I don't know 17 w hat the exposure limit is on industry here other than 18 i nformational to the Department. 19 MR. STARR: I mean, essentially, aren't we 20 j ust talking about larger than 20-ton equipment? 21 T hat's what we are -- 20 and 60 ton -- so over 240,000. 22 S o we are talking about two equipment classes I think

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 155 1 i s the major concern. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. I mean, you have CRE 3 m anufacturers. She was talking about anything over 65. 4 I mean, the reality is, if the test lab has 5 a n issue with testing, we are going to contact you. 6 T hey are going to contact us. We are going to contact 7 y ou. You are going to know about it. And, if it's 8 d etermined as part of that process that we need to be 9 o n site, we will figure it out. It's not that we are 10 j ust going to jump and make a determination that it's 11 o ut of tolerance just because. I mean, this process 12 d oesn't allow for that. 13 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 14 N ational. As Charlie said, this is -- you know this 15 p art of it is really not holding anybody to anything in 16 a sense. It's kind of just a preliminary. To me the 17 p iece of that -- I don't know if you give it enough -- 18 D OE -- or you want to get a little more understanding 19

- - is it an automatic appeals process, or can it be an 20 a utomatic appeals process? It does include that? I 21 d on't think -- I didn't read it that way. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, okay. Well, I can change

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 156 1 i t, but if a unit is outside our tolerance, right, 2 w e'll have a discussion with you. And if you say 3 t here's an issue with set-up, test conditions, test 4 r esults -- oh, I'm not on the last bullet -- sorry. 5 We're missing a bullet. It may be more 6 ( inaudible), but the intent was there. 7 MS. MEYERS: So let's continue talking about 8 p rocess. You fail a spot check. What is the next 9 a ction from DOE? Do you automatically then go into 10 e nforcement testing? 11 MS. BARHYDT: So are you saying that after 12 y ou have reviewed the results, after re-testing is 13 d one, after everything up there has already been 14 c ompleted and at the end of the day you really truly 15 h ave fallen outside of tolerance? 16 MS. MEYERS: No. I'm saying that, you pull a 17 u nit for test and it fails; what is the process today 18 t hat DOE must go through after a spot check? Today, 19 w hat do you do? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Today we contact the 21 m anufacturer. 22 MS. MEYERS: Yeah. So you -- and how do you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 157 1 d o that? 2 MS. BARHYDT: We email the test results to 3 t he manufacturer. 4 MS. MEYERS: And who contacts the 5 m anufacturer? What -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: I do. My office does. 7 MS. MEYERS: Oh, okay. So the Office of 8 G eneral Counsel contacts the manufacturer saying that 9 y ou have failed the test. 10 MS. BARHYDT: And, to date, the only time 11 t hat we've ever done that is when it fell outside of 12 t olerance and below minimum, not outside of the rating. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Standards. 14 MS. MEYERS: So, under this process, would 15 t hat same -- under this, would that -- do you see that 16 s till - - that process being the same? 17 MS. BARHYDT: Except that this already has 18 b uilt in that some certain types of equipment would 19 h ave the manufacturer on site for testing. I mean, 20 t his provides a lot more than what our current process 21 d oes. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: For manufacturer involvement.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 158 1 MS. BARHYDT: For the manufacturer. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: This pretty much allows you 3 w ith us to talk at the test lab. This allows you in 4 c ertain cases to be on site. This provides a process 5 f or you to contest the test, and it provides a process 6 f or us to retest if needed. 7 MS. MEYERS: All before you go into 8 e nforcement testing? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Yeah. This is 10 v erification. Spot check only. 11 MS. MEYERS: And we have to still hold the 12 f ive percent tolerance of the industry program, which 13 h as completely different verification processes -- 14 r ules? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's the proposal as 16 w ritten. 17 MS. MEYERS: I just can't agree to it. I'm 18 s orry. 19 MR. EISNER: What would you add to it? 20 MS. MEYERS: Well, you know, again, we are 21 t alking about commercial equipment. I'm looking at 22 e quipment that's covered by this working group. It is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 159 1 h ighly complex, the set-up procedures are multiple 2 p ages long, and to have to not be able to see how 3 t hat's being done and have to stay within a five 4 p ercent tolerance I think is a completely unreasonable 5 r equest. Well, it -- 6 MR. KLEISS: Aren't we agreeing to the 7 t olerance of -- 8 MR. EISNER: People, we need to have some 9 m icrophones. 10 MS. MEYERS: Pardon me? 11 MR. EISNER: We need to have some microphones 12 f or people to speak. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: It says the tolerances on the 14 t op of the page, correct. So some are five, some are 15 1 0. It depends on the measure. 16 MS. MEYERS: Yeah. So it's the AHRI 17 t olerances, but not the AHRI verification process? So 18 t his is completely -- this is not the same thing at 19 a ll. 20 MR. KLEISS: Can we assess tolerance or -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can we assess like, yeah, how 22 c lose we are in the room with other people? Would that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 160 1 b e all? 2 MR. EISNER: how many would object to the 3 p roposal that's on the table? 4 MR. RIVEST: Can we just -- Mike Rivest -- 5 w hat is different about this? Because the way I read 6 t his -- and Ashley can clarify it if that's the intent 7

- - that opportunity to witness testing is there. It 8 j ust doesn't come immediately. It comes after concerns 9 a re raised. So it seems to me it does include what you 10 a re looking for. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- 12 MR. RIVEST: Is it a rewording of the last 13 b ullet that would satisfy you? 14 MS. MEYERS: So a couple things. So a couple 15 t hings. And, Jill, you may need to jump in since you 16 a re the engineer here. You know, often if a unit is 17 s et up wrong, you are going to have to scrap that piece 18 o f equipment. Sometimes the set-up can't be corrected 19 i f they, you know, cut holes wrong or whatever. So, 20 y ou know, that could be scrapping a $50,000 piece of 21 e quipment. So there is that issue. A lot of times 22 i t's hard to tell on a commercial piece of equipment,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 161 1 y ou know, unless you are there to see it, if it was in 2 f act, you know, done correctly or not. 3 So, from a manufacturer, they get a call from 4 D OE saying that you have failed a spot check. Now, you 5 k now, that's a big deal for a manufacturer. That has 6 t he, you know, the inconsequent -- the worst case 7 s cenario has a chance to financially affect a 8 m anufacturer's sales. So can you prove, from the test 9 r esults and from the photographs, whether it was done 10 c orrectly or not; yes or no? I don't know. 11 And so here's this unwillingness for us to be 12 t here. Be put tape across our mouth if you have to. 13 A t least let us record how it's being done. Because 14 t he consequences of an incorrect set-up, of which we 15 h ave knowledge with the AHRI program. It's not an 16 u ncommon issue for these large commercial units to be 17 s et up or tested incorrectly. 18 MR. RIVEST: Karen, Mike Rivest. So I don't 19 r ead it this way. I mean, I read -- the way I read 20 t his, that third bullet, if a unit is outside the 21 t olerance -- the word "fail" doesn't appear here, and 22 t hat's intentional; right?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 162 1 MS. MEYERS: Right. 2 MR. RIVEST: So if it's outside the tolerance 3 D OE will initiate a discussion, and as part of that 4 d iscussion a decision will be made to retest the unit. 5 A determination of failure doesn't come until you've 6 h ad an opportunity. That's, you know, potentially the 7 s ame opportunity you have within the voluntary program. 8 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I think 9 t here's some framing issues here that have been, to 10 s ome extent, unspoken. And I don't mean to take one 11 s ide or the other, because my goal is energy savings; 12 b ut, Laura, the stress is very different when you say 13 t here are three parties involved from when you think of 14 t he testing lab, as I think industry does, as being an 15 a gent of DOE, an extension of DOE. DOE has written 16 t hat contract. So when they ask for the ability to be 17 t here and you say I can't be, their logical response is 18 y ou are. You are there by extension of your contract 19 w ith that testing lab, and we are asking you to be 20 t here also. Whether the argument has any merit or not, 21 t he question of that framing I think is part of the 22 g ulf between Karen and Jill and you on this issue.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 163 1 And the second thing I -- oh, please, 2 r espond. 3 MS. BARHYDT: If we were using the AHRI lab, 4 w ould the reaction be any different? 5 MS. MEYERS: No. 6 MR. SACHS: The second thing is we are all 7 t rying to put an adult into -- as Thomas Jefferson 8 s aid, we are trying to put an adult into the same coat 9 h e wore as a child. And all of these testing methods 10 w ere set up decades ago on the assumption you were 11 t rying to measure energy in as electricity and cold air 12 o ut or hot water out, and these are relatively simple. 13 A nd we've gotten into equipment now, which is a great 14 d eal more complex. And we've worked actively with ACCA 15 o n quality installation, and for this stuff it's much 16 m ore complex than the residential. 17 So that I find myself sympathizing with the 18 d esire to be in the -- to have the right to be in the 19 r oom. And the final reason for that, for my thinking, 20 a gain trying to think like a manufacturer, is when I 21 g et a letter from the Office of the General Counsel, 22 i t's likely to be taken very seriously in the executive

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 164 1 b oard room. It's not quite the same as getting a 2 l etter from Michael or Ashley, on the testing side, 3 s aying, "I've got a discrepancy." And that's going to 4 c ause some hard -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: (Inaudible). 6 MR. SACHS: But that's going to cause some 7 h eartburn, but what I'm trying to do is just trying to 8 t hink about the people who are going to be involved in 9 t his flow while feeling very strongly that your 10 i nterest and my interest is the integrity of the 11 p rocess. So I don't know if that helps at all, but I 12 w anted to get it off my chest. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean -- go ahead. 14 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 15 j ust wanted to ask a question. The DOE stated that 16 t hey have been testing commercial HVAC products in the 17 l ast couple years. Has anybody at this table, have 18 t hey ever heard of any of their units that have been, 19 y ou know, possibly tested that failed? 20 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think anyone at this 21 t able is going to want to speak to that. 22 MR. KOJAK: Because my point is if -- if they

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 165 1 h ave already been doing it and there's never been a 2 p roblem so far? I mean, I understand your reluctance, 3 b ut you know, maybe there is? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, to Karen's point, I 5 t hink that DOE shares the concern that we get a valid 6 t est if we are going to go to a situation where we 7 t hink that a next step needs to be taken. Our hope is 8 t hat we never get there ever. The reality is that's 9 j ust not the case. 10 So what that last bullet -- and maybe the 11 w ords need to be changed -- is that before we ever get 12 t o a next step that the manufacturer has had a chance 13 t o present all its claims about anything that was done 14 w ith the testing, DOE has had a chance to have that 15 d iscussion with you, we've come to a determination that 16 e ither retesting needs to be done or that there's no 17 r etesting that needs to be done, and if retesting needs 18 t o be done for something that's outside of tolerance, 19 b oth people will find a way to be present and move 20 f orward before any determination is made. 21 What we are trying to prevent from the 22 D epartment's perspective is that every single unit that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 166 1 I spot check realizing that, you know, 90 percent plus 2 o f them may very well just pass, that we all need to be 3 t here then. We are not preventing you from being 4 i nvolved. We are just saying we are reserving that to 5 i f a unit is outside of tolerance, if there is an 6 a ctual issue that needs discussing. 7 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. So the 8 r etest, does that include -- could that include either 9 r etesting the original unit, or testing a second sample 10 d epending on what is found during the evaluation? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 12 MR. BAUMAN: I guess -- this is Jeff Bauman 13 f rom National again -- I know in the wording on that, I 14 g uess my question is that it may -- is it at the 15 m anufacturer's -- I'll say the manufacturer's 16 d iscretion -- if we -- if you look at the test and it's 17 w ithin the test standard, we can still have concerns 18 t here within the test standard, but we don't know 19 w hether they did something, or it might even be 20 s omething that they documented. To me, kind of the 21 b ullet on that is it automatic that the manufacturer 22 w ould be -- have the option of appealing and running a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 167 1 s econd test, or is that just if you can convince the 2 D OE that it was outside of what the test standard is, 3 a nd what's included in the test standard? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, I don't know. It's not 5 s pecific, and maybe that's something we should 6 c onsider, and we could consider. I guess the question 7 b ack to you would be if it falls into one of those 8 b uckets already, where either a manufacturer has been 9 o n site, we've tested it at a lab -- we've tested it at 10 t heir own facility, or, you know, during the set-up 11 p rocess the lab said, hey, I needed problems, and we 12 f ound a way, the DOE, and -- in other words, during 13 t hat initial test if we found that the manufacturer was 14 o n site, it would seem to then that should alleviate 15 t he need for retesting to have them on site. 16 MR. BAUMAN: Yeah, if they were on site for 17 t he first test. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. Okay. 19 MR. BAUMAN: But they should have the 20 o ption of -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: If not -- 22 MR. BAUMAN: -- dependent on -- it should be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 168 1 t he manufacturers that consent the first one; then the 2 s econd one if it wasn't on site, then they get to be on 3 s ite. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hold on. Okay. 5 MALE SPEAKER: Who will give (inaudible)? 6 MR. BAUMAN: Sorry? What was that again? 7 MR. EISNER: It would be a mandatory retest, 8 i f the manufacturer wants it and were not on site for 9 t he original test. 10 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. One 11 t hing that sounds -- seems obvious to me at this point 12 i s we, as manufacturers, have a significant concern 13 o ver some of the test procedures as they stand today, 14 a nd it's already been commented that some of these 15 p rocedures are in processes being revised. And I think 16 w e all should take steps to escalate that as quickly as 17 p ossible so that DOE has a test procedure that we are 18 c omfortable with -- that everybody is comfortable with 19

- - let me rephrase that -- so that, you know, you get 20 p articipation of all interested parties and address 21 t hese test procedure issues. And there's things in the 22 U nitary Small AHRI program that we are presently

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 169 1 o perating under, and we've added some significant 2 m easures to where we feel have better accuracy in the 3 o perations manual; for example, the secondary capacity 4 c hecks. 5 We've asked that for AHRI programs there are 6 a dditional things that the laboratory does for 7 v erifying that the secondary checks are correct and 8 a dequate, and we believe that we are seeing some good 9 p rocesses, some good improvements in the testing 10 a ccuracy through those set-ups. But of course, that's 11 n ot part of the DOE test procedure. That's some 12 a dditional above and beyond things that AHRI is 13 r equiring. 14 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. One 15 o ther thing that -- well, it's not specific there, but 16 I think I certainly want to put forth here. One of the 17 b ullets specifically does say that before the test, if 18 t he product is in a program, the DOE would consult to 19 s ee if there are notes for the installation or 20 w hatever. It seems to me that if that's going to 21 h appen, one of the questions that could also be -- or 22 s ome of the information that could also be included was

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 170 1 i n fact whether -- again, because it has been mentioned 2 o ur program allows the option -- the information that 3 c ould be included is whether or not in fact the 4 m anufacturer was present when the program ran their 5 v erification test. Not that it's a 100 percent 6 s olution, okay, but if the information comes back that 7 t hat manufacturer was present because they felt they 8 n eeded to be there -- they are not going to do it 9 b ecause they like doing it because they don't have 10 a nything to do; okay? But if they were there because 11 t hey felt they needed to be there, then, to me, that is 12

- - that information becomes an immediate flag to DOE 13 t hat there is some, for lack of a better word, some 14 e xtra attention required to make sure you've got the 15 r ight set-up, and the test is run properly. 16 Now, how -- you know what -- I guess we can 17 t alk about how you follow through with that, but that - 18

- again, that becomes part of the consideration. And, 19 t he other -- well, I'll save the other part. But, you 20 k now, everyone is obviously concerned about their 21 p roducts, and there's clearly some models that need 22 t his, okay, but there's other products that our program

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 171 1 t ests frequently -- I won't say daily, but frequently 2

- - and again, they may be -- well, there are 3 s ubcategories of the commercial products where the 4 t ests are not that difficult. The equipment is still 5 n ot quite that sophisticated, and we don't -- you know, 6 w e don't need that -- no one feels they need to be 7 t here to watch that test. 8 But again, in terms of that bullet, it says 9 a ny additional -- regarding tests, you know, will be 10 p rovided. It seems to me that part of that is, okay, 11 w hen that program, if they did test that model or unit 12 o f that model, was the manufacturer present? That's a 13 s ignificant input. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm willing to -- this is Jill 15 H ootman from Trane -- I'm willing to, shall I say, 16 p ossibly table some of this in light of talking about 17 e ventually VICPs. Since witness testing is part of the 18 V ICP, it may still come back around to this discussion. 19 MR. EISNER: Do you have a problem with this 20 n ow that we couldn't go back and address as a result of 21 t hat discussion? Can we focus on this and finish this, 22 a s it's written now?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 172 1 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm 90 percent there. 2 MR. EISNER: And what do you need for the 3 r est of the 10 percent? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: I really hate the idea that you 5 w ould waste essentially a test, a unit, a lot of time 6 o n my part to essentially -- or on the manufacturer's 7 p art to say that, you know, it was not a test done 8 c orrectly. We have now scrapped a unit. We have now, 9 y ou know, spent days in our plant making it, sending it 10 t o you, at a great expense, and yet we are going to 11 s till turn around and tell you that it was . . . so 12 t hat's where I just find it kind of wasteful all the 13 w ay around. 14 MR. CYMBALSKY: But isn't it more time wasted 15 o n the 95 percent of the stuff that doesn't have an 16 i ssue that you are going to go to? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: On both of our parts. 18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Both of our parts. So that's 19 d ouble money. 20 MS. HOOTMAN: I didn't say -- all I want is 21 t he option to be there. I'm not saying that every 22 s ingle one of those I'm going to be in there that 95

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 173 1 p ercent. 2 MR. EISNER: Any other comments? 3 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. There 4 w as a proposal floated during the break that DOE would 5 a lert the manufacturer if there was a failure; do 6 w hatever of this is appropriate, as it comes up, and 7 t hen if there is a failure, during the discussion with 8 t he manufacturer, the manufacturer would have the 9 o ption to say, I don't know exactly what occurred, but 10 I have confidence in my equipment that something was 11 w rong. I wasn't there to see what was not set up 12 r ight. I wasn't there to see how the test was run, and 13 t hen have that test be re-run with DOE and -- 14 MS. BARHYDT: That's the last bullet point. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's exactly what it says. 16 MALE SPEAKER: I've looked at it but, yeah, 17 t hat's the last bullet. 18 FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, that's the last 19 b ullet. 20 MR. MYERS: The key here is we request can do 21 i t; we don't have to define what the issue is. Because 22

- -

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 174 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what it says. 2 MS. EISNER: Okay. What Ashley added at the 3 e nd, the very last bullet. 4 MR. MYERS: Okay. 5 MR. KOKAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. Can 6 i t be an option that the manufacturer supply a list to 7 t he DOE of the units that they might want to witness, 8 a nd the units that, you know, you don't really want to 9 w itness, before this moves on? Because I understand 10 t here's some really complicated units you are going to 11 w ant to see. So can that list be provided to the DOE so 12 t hey know off- hand which types of units that you are 13 g oing to want to, you know, go and see for sure for the 14 t est? 15 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Dominic Kolandayan with 16 D aikin. I think the last sentence that Ashley just 17 a dded doesn't give you an option. It says that if DOE 18 a nd the manufacturer agrees. What if DOE doesn't 19 a gree? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: There's two parts. That's in 21 a different unit. The sentence before that says, "If a 22 m anufacturer was not previously unsafe for the initial

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175 1

- - it should say test -- a manufacturer can request a 2 r etest automatically, and DOE and the manufacturer can 3 b e on site," period. 4 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Thank you. Yeah. 5 MR. EISNER: All right. Any objections to 6 t he language that's on this screen? 7 MALE SPEAKER: If she could make the 8 a djustments and changes that we've talked about. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's already there. That's 10 w hat it says. I read off the thing. 11 MALE SPEAKER: We've got Jeremiah over there - 12

- 13 MALE SPEAKER: It's too small for some of our 14 e yes. 15 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 16 Y ou know we've talked about the notes -- the testing 17 n otes from AHRI. Would other manufacturers object if 18 w e made that the operations manual for that; that that 19 w ould be included? 20 MS. HOOTMAN: Those are specific to a unit. 21 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. But, well -- well, there 22 a re things in the OM.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 176 1 MS. HOOTMAN: These are things that are very 2 s pecific to units. 3 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: In order to -- 5 MR. DOPPEL: And I'm saying this -- 6 MS. HOOTMAN: -- set it at the test 7 c onditions. 8 MR. DOPPEL: I'm saying this in addition to 9 t he notes, the Operations Manual. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Giving the Operations Manual to 11 t he DOE, is that what you are saying? 12 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, I don't have any problem 14 w ith that. 15 MR. DOPPEL: It's publicly available. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: It's publicly available. 17 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. Okay. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: It's right on the website. 19 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. 20 MALE SPEAKER: It's not the Operations 21 M anual. It's supplemental information for the lab. 22 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 177 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. The notes section is the 2 s upplemental information. 3 MR. DOPPEL: Right. But I want to make sure 4 t hat the Operations Manual was also included in that, 5 b ecause sometimes there are things in there that are 6 a ppropriate for testing that we don't necessarily think 7 a bout. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 9 MR. EISNER: Anything to add? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So Jeff had suggested earlier 11 t o get rid of the first bullet because he believes that 12 a ny information that is needed, whether it be part of 13 a n industry program or not part of an industry program, 14 w ould be subsumed by the second bullet; that it would 15 j ust be submitted to the Department directly, whether 16 i t be by AHRI or the manufacturer. 17 Do you guys agree that the first bullet is 18 n ot needed? And we will take any additional 19 i nformation regarding test -- that upper testing. It's 20 j ust a matter of whether it comes from AHRI directly to 21 u s, or you guys want to give it to us. We don't care 22 t he avenue.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 178 1 MR. EISNER: No objections to her deleting 2 i t? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. 4 MR. EISNER: I thought you guys wanted to go 5 t o lunch? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Testy. 7 MR. KLEISS: What does the first bullet do 8 f or us? What does the first bullet do for us that the 9 s econd bullet doesn't? 10 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. The 11 f irst bullet establishes there is some documented 12 a dditional information. I read that third bullet, that 13 a ll of a sudden I got called in, and I found out my 14 u nit is being tested, and then, click, I -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, no, no, no, no. The 16 s econd -- right under what's highlighted. 17 MR. EISNER: This everybody -- others are 18 s aying takes care of this. 19 MR. STANONIK: Okay. But the one under it 20 s ays, "Any additional information that is provided 21 r egarding test set-up or testing, as part of DOE 22 C ertification Program, will also be provided to the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 179 1 l aboratory." Where is that information coming from? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: You -- 3 MR. STANONIK: From the manufacturer? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Or the manufacturer. 5 MR. STANONIK: Pardon me? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: It can come from you or the 7 m anufacturer. We don't specify. 8 MS. BARHYDT: That way if they are member of 9 A HRI, we get it from you; if they are a non-member of 10 A HRI, we get -- it makes it clear that will accept it 11 f rom anyone. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: If you -- 13 MR. DOPPEL: Let me try and explain the point 14 a gain, because I obviously missed it. 15 MR. KLEISS: Frank, if I may -- Jeff, 16 L ochinvar -- this was written in response to my 17 r ecommendation that manufacturers would write 18 p roactively special test set-up instructions that are 19 n eeded to comply with the test procedures for their 20 p roduct, and submit that proactively when we submit our 21 r atings to the Department of Energy, so that this list 22 w ould be in the hands of the testing agency, and not be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 180 1 s omething that would be incumbent upon the individual 2 c onducting the test to request that information. But 3 i t would be specific instructions written by the 4 m anufacturers for the purposes of testing the product 5 a ccording to the standards. 6 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. So 7 m aybe the first bullet point needs to be modified to 8 s ay that; that information will be provided on how -- 9 o n set-up instructions, special set-up instructions, 10 w ill be provided to DOE through the certification 11 p rocess. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I just modify this 13 o ne? Any additional -- actually, that has . . . 14 MS. HOOTMAN: And I guess I want to -- 15 MR. WHITWELL: The second bullet there was 16 s aying that that data then would be provided to the 17 l aboratory, which is required -- which is important. 18 B ut the first bullet, I think what's missing now is the 19 f act that this data will be provided to DOE through the 20 c ertification process; right? 21 MS. HOOTMAN: And so not to repeat for each 22 m anufacturer, part of that data might in fact be the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 181 1 O M, Paul; so we want them to follow all the extra 2 d etails in the OM. So not making every manufacturer 3 h ave to submit the AHRI OMs. It should be the AHRI OMs 4 p lus any additional unique data needed for those units 5 t o be run in a test set-up. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Will be provided . . . 7 MS BARHYDT: If someone is not a member of 8 t he AHRI Program, should DOE be testing in accordance 9 w ith the AHRI OM? 10 MALE SPEAKER: No. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Then why should DOE be testing 12 i n accordance with the OM for AHRI members? 13 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm just saying that I'm going 14 t o -- 15 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel with 16 M itsubishi. The OM provides additional information for 17 t esting. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: It should be in our test 19 p rocedure, if you need it. 20 MR. DOPPEL: But, it's like -- it's like -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: If it's your model OM; that's 22 d ifferent. If it's a program OM; it should be part of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 182 1 o ur test procedure. 2 MR. DOPPEL: It's like special notes though 3 f or testing. 4 MR. WHITWELL: Well, okay. 5 MR. DOPPEL: That's -- I think that's -- I 6 t hink that's very different. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Maybe we are not talking about 8 t he same thing when we say OM. Could you just clarify 9 w hat you mean when you say OM? 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Sure. The AHRI Operations 11 M anual for each section in AHRI. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: So, you know, it might say -- 14 I 'm trying to pull up one here -- 15 MR. DOPPEL: Well, it goes through the -- 16 t his is Paul Doppel -- it goes through the selection 17 p rocess. It establishes the criteria for selection. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: That's going to be another part 19 o f it. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's off the table. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: That's going to be a part of -- 22 MALE SPEAKER: Right. We are talking about

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 183 1 d etails that I don't think matter here. 2 MR. DOPPEL: Well, they asked what was in the 3 O M. I'm telling them what's in the OM. But then it 4 g oes down and it'll -- it will also talk about various 5 c riteria. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is just test set-up and 7 t esting, period. There is no selection. There is no - 8

- I mean . . . 9 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. I 10 m ean there is one clear-cut example where the OM may be 11 d ifferent than the specifications of the DOE test 12 p rocedure, but be the DOE test procedure. What I'm 13 t alking about is, based on experience and everything 14 e lse, we, in our test programs, may in fact require for 15 s ome parameters to be measured with a tighter tolerance 16 t han what the DOE test procedure specifies. It depends 17 o n the product, okay? And we may have done that simply 18 b ecause (a) things evolve; and (b) we find out that, in 19 f act, then we have less, because we also have 20 d iscussions with manufacturers when products don't 21 p ass. Nobody likes that. 22 And so, in some cases, we have had to have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 184 1 o ur test facilities invest to in fact make their test 2 c ell or their set-up in fact be a little more precise 3 t han the range of what's allowed by the DOE test 4 p rocedures. And so actually in that case, Laura, I 5 g uess I'd change the answer where you said, should DOE 6 f ollow AHRI's OM? 7 In my specific example, I would say it might 8 b e wise to do that, again, just to try and -- when 9 t here are situations where the test reads indicate 10 p ossibly a bad rating, then you focus on what are the 11 p roblems and not talking about whether it was a good or 12 a ccurate test or whatever. 13 MR. MUCCIOLA: This is Vince from National 14 C omfort Products. Where do we allow them to get the 15 i nformation that we want the compressor to be run in 16 f or 72 hours? 17 MS. HOOTMAN: That's exactly what I was going 18 t o say. 19 MR. MUCCIOLA: I mean, that's the detail that 20 I think we are trying to get across is, you know, the 21 m anufacturer, the compressor manufacturer, says, look, 22 r un it in for 72 hours before you test. Where do we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 185 1 a llow DOE to get that information from; either the 2 m anufacturer or from AHRI? But if it's nobody that's 3 i n AHRI, how do you get that information. 4 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. The 5 i nformation that's in that sub-bullet is the -- that is 6 t he direction that the manufacturer should supply the 7 i nformation that goes beyond what is required or part 8 o f the test standard, the information that is needed to 9 p roperly operate the unit. And, if there is a 10 p articular warm-up time, a burn-in time, things need to 11 b e adjusted a certain way; that is not part of the 12 n ormal operational methodology. Whether they want to 13 r eference particular sections of AHRI's OM, whatever, 14 t o say only do it on third Thursdays of the month; that 15 i s something that the manufacturer could write and 16 s ubmit. The inclusion or requiring this is a blanket 17 s tatement for all products is not part of what's on the 18 b oard. It's not necessary. 19 I think we need to wrap this up and move 20 f orward. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. And I will say, I did 22 a dd one caveat. I do want to point it out. You can't

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 186 1 a dd additional instructions that are not in accordance 2 w ith our test procedures. So we have specifically 3 a ddressed break-ins. We did it as part of the rule4 m aking process. It was subject to notice and comment. 5 I t allows you to have an optional break-in for most 6 c ommercial HVAC products of up to 20 hours. And we 7 w ill use it, and you have to state it. And that was 8 p art of the rule-making process. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. We 10 n eed to increase the tolerance allowable on standby 11 l oss of commercial water heaters. 12 MR. MYERS: I have a quick question. This is 13 F rank Myers, PVI. A quick question to Ashley, I 14 b elieve. What do you mean in that remaining bullet 15 w here you just modified where it says ". . . to DOE 16 t hrough the certification process"? What does that 17 m ean? 18 MS. ARMSTRING: The data you have to submit 19 t o the Department to certify. Right now, you guys do 20 n ot have to do that. That's why we are here; right? 21 Y ou guys do not have to do that until the end of the 22 y ear, and then as part of this process, we are hoping

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 187 1 t o come up with a process and/or what needs to be 2 s ubmitted. This will be submitted as part of the 3 p rocess, either by yourselves, or by a third-party 4 r epresentative of your choice, like AHRI. 5 MR. WHITWELL: So that will be added to the 6 t emplate? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, it can be. Or you can 8

- - we can also find a way that it's just another -- a 9 P DF or something. It gets -- it just gets sent to an 10 S QL database that we have access to. Yeah? 11 MR. MYERS: If we are providing -- this is 12 F rank Myers again -- if we are providing this 13 i nformation on units selected for testing, and that's 14 s omething we could do, trying to do the level of detail 15 t hat would give you everything for every possibility on 16 e very unit that we have as a part of our data 17 s ubmission for certification; I think that's onerous 18 a nd not necessary. 19 MS. BARHYDT: Let's table that given that at 20 t his point we don't know exactly what level of 21 i nformation you are going to be providing information. 22 W e haven't dealt with certification yet.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 188 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Or the template and exactly 2 w hat's in the information or not, and how much we have 3 t o upload and all that. So, yeah, I agree. 4 MR. MYERS: Again, I'm a bit confused 5 b ecause, before those two words were put in, or that 6 s tring through the certification process, it was we 7 w ere able to provide DOE and the lab with additional 8 i nformation unique to the product selected. And by 9 a dding in certification process, we don't even know 10 w hat combination of components you are putting together 11 i n order to run this test. 12 So I'm not sure what I would write up in 13 a dvance for that. So, if it's trying to get better 14 i nformation to you to do a better job on the test; 15 t hat's one thing. But, to do something in advance for 16 a ll products by model number would be extremely 17 d ifficult. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: If you are talking about 19 b ecause you custom build to order, we are not going to 20 g et past DOE selecting your unit for testing without us 21 c ontacting you. That's the reality. Right? I mean, 22 i t's -- I'm not going to go to Lowes and buy your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 189 1 c ustom build to order and then go looking for a manual 2 o n how to test it. So the reality of the situation is 3 o ur discussions will begin a lot earlier for your 4 p roducts than they would for something that I can find 5 a t a distributor's site or something else. 6 I don't think that needs to be explicit. 7 I t's just not practical to say that I'm not going to 8 f ind your unit, period. 9 MR. MYERS: Mmm-hmm. We just need to be 10 c areful as we are crafting the language here that we 11 d on't say the only way we can provide that information 12 i s through this method. We should have something where 13 w e're talking about the custom manufactured units; that 14 t hat's the point for that equivalent that you would 15 p rovide additional information, as opposed to through 16 t he certification process. 17 MR. EISNER: Anything else? 18 MS. BARHYDT: (Inaudible). 19 MR. EISNER: Microphone. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I understand your issue 21 a nd we can make sure that we can make sure that we 22 c raft regulatory text that addresses that.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 190 1 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Dominic Kolandayan with 2 D aikin. It sounds like bullet number two is you can 3 s ubmit some information through the certification 4 p rocess, but that bullet also says that you can provide 5 a dditional information at the request, when the 6 l aboratory needs additional information for set-up, 7 s uch as compressor speeds, which do not have to be on 8 t he certification. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. 10 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Thank you. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, and that information that 12 D ominic just talked about, does that have to be in 13 a ccordance with the DOE test procedure, because those 14 a re unit specific things? I mean, I don't know how you 15 a re going to tell me whether that -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: It would be a violation of 17 t he DOE's test procedure, but it doesn't seem like -- 18 f or the ones he's talking about, we don't necessarily 19 h ave specific provisions -- 20 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. That's what I -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- that are unit specific; 22 r ight?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, in other words, I'm 3 t alking about our test says you have to test at this 4 s tatic or this air flow, and you specifically write a 5 m anual that has different numbers in it. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Oh. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not okay; right? But if it's 8 a dditional specifications that are beyond the DOE test 9 p rocedure, and more specific, that are unit specific, 10 a bsolutely. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. Anything else on these 12 l ast bullets with respect to the whole screen? Anybody 13 w ant to say anything else? 14 Does anybody object to this as it's been 15 r ewritten? 16 So we have consensus. We can go off to 17 l unch. Come back at -- come back in five minutes. 18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Give yourself a big hand. 19 MR. EISNER: I'm sorry. I can't hear you. 20 MR. SACHS: Sorry. What are the discussions 21 t his afternoon? 22 MR. EISNER: We have some other issues

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 192 1 r emaining, don't we? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, we've now just 3 d etermined what is an invalid reading; so what happens? 4 MS. BARHYDT: The process and VICPs. 5 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) 6 MR. EISNER: All right. I think we've got, 7 L aura said, two more issues that we've got to cover 8 t his afternoon. 9 MS. BARHYDT: We may not make it to both. 10 MR. EISNER: Do you want to start us off on 11 t he first one? 12 MS. BARHYDT: Sure. 13 So I think we've gotten up to the point where 14 w e have done a test and maybe there's been retesting, 15 b ut at any rate, we've made it through -- all the way 16 t hrough having one test that maybe everyone is not 17 h appy with, but everyone is somewhat comfortable with 18 a s a valid test. And it is still outside of tolerance. 19 A nd then the issue is then what happens? 20 So I think that that is a different question, 21 a nd I would prefer to initially just talk about its 22 o utside of the tolerance. And what does that mean in

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 193 1 t he context of the AEDM? Does that mean that the AEDM 2 i s invalid? Does it mean that that particular rating 3 i s invalid? That's the question. 4 MR. KLEISS: May I suggest that we discuss 5 t he next meeting before we launch into the next topic 6 o r is that -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 8 MR. EISNER: We can do that. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Quick win. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: We may agree on that. 11 MR. EISNER: Does everybody know the dates of 12 t he next meeting, or would they like us to go through 13 t hem again? Go through them. Okay. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Jeremiah, help, please. 15 E veryone wants to know who you are. The infamous. And 16 j ust, if you guys have alternates that are coming to 17 t he meetings, just make sure you email him and let him 18 k now in advance of the meeting just who's switching 19 o ut. It's not an issue, just so we know. 20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Just sending it to the 21 g eneric ASRAC mailbox that you've been doing is fine. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. That's just so we can

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 194 1 m ake sure they're on the list and security. 2 MR. EISNER: Where did they go? Twenty-ninth 3 a nd 30th of this month is going to be uptown in 4 H arvey's offices. He's going to get out specifics on 5 i t. We will probably start at 10:15 because we 6 u nderstand there's going to be a fire drill, evacuation 7 o f the building, practice type thing. So we'll 8 p robably start at 10:15; is that correct? 9 MS. BARHYDT: It sounded like it would be 10 1 0:15. It may be 10:30 for actually starting, but 11 g etting into the building, probably around 10:15. 12 MR. STANONIK: We try to let our guests be 13 p art of the fire drill, I mean -- 14 MS. BARHYDT: Well, he offered, but I told 15 h im maybe we could all just show up a little bit later. 16 MR. HON: Excuse me. Logistically, which 17 a irport do we fly to, Reagan? 18 MS. BARHYDT: Reagan. Same one. 19 MR. HON: And then you'll send out hotel 20 i nformation and things like that? 21 MR. STANONIK: Harvey will. I know we look 22 a like, but Harvey will.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 195 1 MR. HON: Okay. So -- 2 MR. EISNER: Some people have suggested if -- 3 f or example, some people yesterday staying at Crystal 4 C ity, you might want to stay in the Crystal City area 5 a nd just take the subway a few more stops to get to 6 w here his building is. 7 MR. KOJAK: Do we have his address? 8 MR. STANONIK: It's on 11th Street. The 9 N ational Press Building. 10 MR. EISNER: National Press Building is where 11 i t is. 12 MR. HON: Do we know what time it ends? 13 MR. EISNER: I think we've agreed the times 14 f or the first day of the two day meetings is 10:00 15 u ntil 6:00 on the first day, and 8:00 to 3:00 on the 16 s econd day, but we will start the first one for this 17 m eeting at 10:15. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Uh-huh. 19 MR. EISNER: And go to 6:15. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 21 MR. MYERS: Would you repeat the date again? 22 MR. EISNER: The date of the next meeting is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 196 1 t he 29th and the 30th of May. 2 MS. BARHYDT: I will be one week away. Yes. 3 I 'm going to wait to see what the topics are cued up. 4 M e and the little boy may have a discussion before 5 t hat. My four-year-old already runs the house. She's 6 l ike a little me, so. It's coming full circle. My 7 p arents just left. 8 MR. EISNER: Okay. Any questions on the next 9 m eeting? Are they all set? 10 MR. BAUMAN: We'll set the agenda at the end 11 o f this meeting. 12 MR. EISNER: We will get you -- 13 MS. BARHYDT: I'm pretty sure I can tell you 14 w hat it's going to be, but -- 15 MR. EISNER: According to my notes, the next 16 m eeting is the 10th and 11th of June. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: And we're still working on 18 l ocations for that one. 19 MR. EISNER: Okay. The 28th of June, our 20 p rogress report is due to DOE, so the prior meeting 21 w e're going to have to decide where we are, whether 22 w e're making enough progress to keep going, those sorts

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 197 1 o f things. The next meeting is -- 2 MS. BARHYDT: It's not until July; right? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So it's May 29th and 30th, 4 a nd then June 10th and 11th. It's probably here, but 5 w e don't -- we're not positive. We'll let you know as 6 s oon as we do, and we'll send that out via email. 7 W e'll know before the 29th and 30th. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Why don't we just send out the 9 l ist and the location? We'll just send out the whole 10 l ist and the locations to the blast. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're still finalizing a few 12 l ocations. 13 MR. KLEISS: I have a question about the 14 p rogress report. Is that -- who is making it to whom? 15 D oes it involve us? 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think that's actually -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think there's two. One is, 18 N eil and I had -- I had asked Neil a very similar 19 q uestion outside because AEDMs is something that needs 20 t o move quickly. So I think we decided that -- or at 21 l east Neil suggested that the department could take a 22 f irst shot at writing up the consensus as agreed upon

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 198 1 t he last two days. It would be circulated for you guys 2 t o review after Neil approves it. And then if that's 3 w hat is okay, that can go ahead and go to ASRAC to move 4 t hat process of AEDM forward while you continue the 5 n egotiations of the scope of everything else. 6 Does that seem reasonable, just to get that 7 o ne moving? 8 MR. EISNER: Does anybody disagree with the 9 i dea of sending the first part forward as a separate 10 p ackage so they can begin working on that? It would 11 a lso give you a hard copy. That was the thing I 12 t hought most important. Give you a hard copy of what 13 t hey're working from in DOE in front of you while we 14 n egotiate the rest. 15 Remember, all what we did in the last two 16 d ays was an add on to what DOE originally intended 17 b ecause you felt you needed that. So again, the report 18 g oes nowhere until we take a vote on it. And, you 19 k now, we can decide whether we want minority reports on 20 i t or whether we -- right now, it looks like we're able 21 t o report a unanimous position here with no minority 22 r eports necessary. But, you know, you still have the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 199 1 r ight to come back and say, "Well, I don't like the way 2 y ou wrote it up. You added words I didn't see before I 3 d on't agree should be there." 4 Yes. 5 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. Is -- does 6 a nyone on the committee have any interest? I thought I 7 h eard earlier that there was some desire to have AEDM 8 a s one path for checking equipment and the other was 9 n ot just for verification, but also the initial look 10 f or validating that you could do -- use the industry 11 V ICP program -- 12 MS. BARHYDT: Separate. They're separate 13 i ssues. 14 MR. MYERS: I know that DOE has said they're 15 a separate issue. I just was curious if everyone 16 a round the table felt they were separate issues because 17 t hat's not what I had heard earlier, that there was 18 c onsensus on that item. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think I understand 20 t he question. 21 MS. BARHYDT: He wants to hold the consensus 22 o f an AEDM package before the VICP.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 200 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 2 MR. MYERS: Thank you. 3 MR. EISNER: Anybody else have a thought on 4 t hat? As I understand it from talking to Ashley, it's 5 g oing to go forward, the AEDM, and if they like it, 6 i t's going to go back to Ashley and others in DOE to 7 s tart working on a rulemaking document. That doesn't 8 m ean, as I understand, that there isn't time as the 9 n egotiations go on for us to say, wait a second, and 10 l ook back on that. Hopefully, Ashley will be back in 11 t he room listening by then with -- 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: It depends on how they're 13 g oing. 14 MS. BARHYDT: I'll keep tabs. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay. 16 MR. MYERS: This is Frank again. There was 17 o ne other issue, only AEDM directly that was discussed 18 p reviously and was postponed, but we never brought it 19 b ack up. And that was the time needed to -- for the 20 i ndustry to respond. Right now, the rule says 21 e verything's got to be done by the end of the year, and 22 t hat's not adequate time. So I think there probably

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 201 1 s hould be some discussion. 2 MS. BARHYDT: So that's part of 3 c ertification, and we have not gotten there yet. 4 MR. MYERS: The -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the first thing we heard 6 w as, you need AEDMs. Your regs for AEDMs that are 7 w orking regs up and as fast as possible. And from 8 t hen, once you know you have them, you can determine a 9 t ime frame. 10 MS. BARHYDT: For certification. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we're trying to deal with 12 t he first as fast as we can. And the process through - 13

- the fastest way we can do that is to get something 14 o ut for you guys to review quickly to get it to ASRAC 15 a nd to go ahead and start writing a proposal. 16 MR. MYERS: Sure. I don't agree with that. 17 B ut at the end of the day, are we going to forward this 18 c ommittee's recommendation on when the AEDM and the 19 r eporting should be completed because right now the 20 r ule is unless it's changed, it's the end of this year? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the AEDM recommendation 22 w ould go forward as soon as possible. You would

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202 1 c ontinue negotiations around the rest of the scope, 2 w hich includes certification, includes verification 3 p rograms, it includes enforcement testing, it includes 4 m any of those types of things. They will continue as 5 y ou reach consensus on those other issues, they can 6 a lso keep going -- it's going to be a separate rule, 7 b ut it's not going to hold up AEDMs in the process. 8 MR. MYERS: Okay. So it's the department's 9 e xpectation that if we do what you're proposing, that 10 t he AEDM requirements will come out as a revision to 11 t he -- or with the current AEDM rule and there will be 12 n o change at that time. When that rule is published as 13 a final rule, there won't be any change from the 14 D ecember 31 got to report by date. 15 MS. BARHYDT: That's a separate rule. 16 MR. MYERS: Pardon? 17 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's a separate rule. The 18 A EDM is completely separate. It doesn't -- the date of 19 y our certification is not relevant to that AEDM. 20 MR. MYERS: Okay. 21 MR. EISNER: And let me stress, as I 22 u nderstand the progress report that's due the end of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 203 1 J une, it's not necessarily going to have rulemaking 2 l anguage in it. It's going to talk about the progress 3 w e've made, we've resolved the following issues, we 4 s till have the remaining to do, we think we can make 5 t he end of August deadline or we think we might need 6 t ime, it will be that kind of thing. 7 Okay. The next meeting I have is the 1st and 8 2 nd of July. Now, we're on a Monday, Tuesday schedule 9 h ere because of the July 4th weekend coming up. Same 10 t hing with late starting time and then an early 11 s tarting time, second day. Do we know where that one's 12 g oing to be? 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we have July 1st. We have 14 a room for the 1st and we're working on getting a room 15 f or the 2nd in the same location, our building up the 16 s treet. L'Enfant Plaza. 17 MR. EISNER: And the next meeting is July 18 1 7th and 18th. Now, we're back on a Wednesday and a 19 T hursday. Do we know where that is going to be? 20 MS. BARHYDT: I think all of them are 21 s pecified up there that -- where we have room for sure 22 a nd where we're not sure.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 204 1 MR. EISNER: Okay. I didn't realize that was 2 u p there. 3 MS. BARHYDT: We just put it up. Sorry. 4 MR. EISNER: The next meeting is the 31st and 5 t he 1st of July. Again, a Wednesday, Thursday. And 6 t hen we have two meetings set up in August, the 7th and 7 8 th, which are Wednesday and a Thursday, the 26th and 8 t he 27th, which are a Monday and a Tuesday. And then 9 t he DOE final report is due the last day of the -- the 10 l ast Friday of the month, the 30th of the month. We 11 d id add a meeting in September on the -- just a one day 12 m eeting -- well, I don't know if it was intended to be 13 a one or two day meeting on September 26th. Probably a 14 t wo-day meeting. 15 MS. BARHYDT: I think we had talked about one 16 d ay unless, as we get closer to time, we discover that 17 w e're going to need a longer meeting. 18 MR. EISNER: Yes. I think if we come to the 19 e nd of August and we're in very, very good shape and 20 A SRAC agrees we can get -- ASRAC and the department 21 a gree they can give us more time, so sometime in July 22 o r early August we're going to have to start thinking

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205 1 a bout whether we're going to need more dates in 2 S eptember to finish this project up quickly. Any 3 q uestions? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: That will be in an email blast 5 a s well? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. We're going to send it 7 o ut and we'll have all the locations filled in. 8 MR. EISNER: Okay. Let's go back to the 9 s ubstance. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're going to go to what 11 h appens if we determine that a unit is outside of 12 t olerance, in other words, the reading has been 13 d etermined to be invalid based on one test. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Do we need to test the second 15 o ne? You've had an opportunity to possibly even be 16 t here. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. I mean, we've gotten 18 t hrough the retest process. At this point we agree 19 t hat there's an invalid reading. 20 MR. HON: Testing the same unit? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yup. It's been a single unit 22 t ested, unless we both agree another unit needs to be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 206 1 t ested, which is in there. 2 MR. THARP: This is Rusty. Just to make 3 s ure, we've tested one single unit -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: We've tested a single unit. 5 MR. THARP: -- and you agree that one unit is 6 l ess than 95 percent? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Or the 10 percent or 8 w hatever the applicable tolerance that we agreed. 9 MR. THARP: Load to tolerance. I would 10 s uggest that more tests would need to be done. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Even if it's just a reading? 12 I f we're talking about the possibility of saying that 13 t he AEDM is not valid? I think there's a couple of 14 i ssues. Right. So we've come up with one test that's 15 o utside of tolerance. We've gone through the 16 p rocedures. We've said the lab's done it correctly. 17 Y ou agree the setup was done correctly. We agree our 18 t est procedure's done correctly. We're all at the 19 p oint where we have a test result that shows that the 20 r eading coming out of the AEDM, there's -- it's outside 21 o f tolerance. 22 The options on the table are; rerate. How

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 207 1 s hould that rerating be done? Rerate that specific 2 m odel, period. Are there any issues -- larger issues 3 w ith the AEDM? Or we just say that's up to you guys? 4 Y ou guys take care of your AEDM, but the rating needs 5 t o change -- be recertified to the department based on 6 s omething. What is that something? It could be based 7 o n that one test. It could be -- one idea would be you 8 n ow have to rate that model based on certification 9 t esting which requires you to do another test. You can 10 d o it at your own facility, but you have to do another 11 t est. 12 In other words, we have invalidated the AEDM 13 p rocess for coming up with that rating for just that 14 m odel. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 16 t hink at that point we would consider removing that 17 m odel from the AEDM, or reviewing the AEDM -- 18 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ron Shebik with 19 H ussmann. Can you guys hear me? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yup. 21 MR. SHEBIK: Thank you. Just make sure I 22 w asn't muted. Okay. So the step we're at right now is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 208 1 a fter one test; is that correct? One test that shows 2 t hat there's a problem? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: One test. 4 MR. SHEBIK: If that's the case, how do you 5 k now the product being tested is not, say, a lemon? 6 H ow do you know it's not a problem? I mean, we're 7 s aying the AEDM is wrong, but how do we know the 8 p roduct isn't bad? I don't know if we can make a 9 d ecision based on one test. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So on the last bullet point 11 b efore lunchtime, we said that the retest request can 12 i nclude another unit of the same model. So if the 13 m anufacturer believed that the first unit tested was 14 d efective, wasn't working -- functioning properly, 15 t here is the option to have a second unit tested as 16 p art of that retest. So unless there are two in a row 17 t hat are defective, then presumably we have at least 18 o ne functioning unit that's been tested. 19 MR. SHEBIK: Okay. I just wanted to clarify 20 t hat. Thank you. 21 MR. THARP: This is Rusty. VICP process that 22 w e've discussed. The manufacturer at that point has

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209 1 t he option of either rerating through the test data or 2 t esting more samples. And to me -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Or obsolete. 4 MR. THARP: Or obsolete that one model. And 5 t o me that seems like a reasonable approach for this. 6 MS. BARHYDT: I think you stated three 7 o ptions. Can you just restate those? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: So rerating based upon -- 9 MR. THARP: Rerating based on test data. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: On the DOE test data. 11 D iscontinuing the model. Additional manufacturer 12 t esting. Rerating based on a combination of DOE and 13 m anufacturer testing at that point? 14 MR. THARP: Yeah. At that point it would be 15 b ased on testing. But again, if -- assuming if you had 16 a 95 percent tolerance, say, the DOE came in at 92 17 p ercent, it's feasible that the next unit would come in 18 a t 105 percent. And that two unit sample might then 19 v alidate the original rating. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to say rerate 21 b ased on testing including the DOE test data you would 22 h ave to use.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 210 1 MR. THARP: Correct. 2 MR. HON: I don't think those would 3 n ecessarily be reiterated. 4 MR. THARP: Right. Depending on the -- 5 MS. BARHYDT: It may be that the number 6 u ltimately doesn't change. It's a re-evaluation of the 7 r ating. 8 MR. STANONIK: You know, let's just say that 9 i n that last case, determination of compliance will be 10 b ased on all test results, DOE's and manufacturer's. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we don't -- I mean, 12 c ompliance for us is compliance with the standard. 13 MR. STANONIK: I'm sorry? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So compliance with -- 15 MR. STANONIK: I'm sorry. Verify -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think you want to use 17 t hat word. 18 MR. STANONIK: I'm sorry. Verification of 19 t he rating will be determined based on all test 20 r esults. I think that's what Rusty said. 21 MR. STARR: This is a question I have. It 22 s eems like at some point wouldn't DOE want to review

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211 1 t he AEDM to see if it's a legitimate characterization 2 o f the equipment? I mean, that seems like a -- no. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Ashley is vehemently shaking 4 h er head no behind you. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I would like to look -- my 6 p ersonal opinion is, I would just prefer to rely on the 7 t est data. If they need to tweak their AEDM, if they 8 d ecide to tweak their AEDM, that is up to them. That 9 i s the responsibility of them. 10 MR. STARR: No. I was just more thinking of 11 t he test output rather than, you know, to actually see 12 i f it's modeling the correct operation, but just to see 13 h ow the different models and how their test results are 14 f alling out and kind of looking more at the -- the 15 s tatistics rather than the performance parameters. 16 T hat's what I was kind of getting at. In other words, 17 y ou can choose how you set up your rating based upon 18 w here the models fall in terms of the distribution of 19 t he ratings of the equipment that they tested. I'm 20 g uessing they probably tested more than two. 21 MR. STANONIK: This is Frank Stanonik with 22 A HRI. I mean, to the point you raised, and to be clear,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 212 1 t his is not something DOE would do. But as an operator 2 o f a certification program and to some degree and 3 c ertainly in these cases acting as the manufacturer's, 4 l et's say, agent in reporting and stuff, and so in a 5 s ense we're also standing behind their AEDM to some 6 d egree. 7 If we saw that result, okay, I would tell you 8 t hat when we make our unit model selections for the 9 n ext test year, it's going to be influenced by that 10 b ecause in fact -- you know, again, we're also kind of 11 p utting our name that, yes, these are valid AEDMs and 12 t hese ratings are accurate. 13 MR. STARR: I'm thinking more about the 14 p eople that are in your program is what I was thinking 15 a bout. I mean, I think there are -- but they're not 16 A HRI. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: If they're not in AHRI, I would 18 s till -- I mean, anybody I would think is going to take 19 a ny of that data back and keep refining their own 20 m odels. That's just a natural practice. So I think, I 21 m ean, you're going to do that. Also, obviously if 22 y ou're getting at this point letters from the general

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 213 1 c ouncil, even if you're not in AHRI, I think you will 2 d o something about it. 3 MR. STARR: It will be self-poised. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. 5 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I suspect 6 t hat if DOE found a model and went through all of the 7 s teps and whatever monikerring or communication was 8 a llowed and required, that if the AEDM selection that 9 h ad to change effected other products that were 10 s imilarly chosen and would have ratings that were 11 s imilarly out of quilter, that although there's only 12 o ne unit tested, there may well be -- the manufacturer 13 m ay well change the rating on multiple units; one 14 m andated by what we're putting up here and the others 15 o ut of prudence by the manufacturer because they 16 r ecognize -- this pointed out a flaw in the AEDM. I 17 k now that I would if this occurred. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Is that something you want to 19 l eave to the manufacturer, or is that something that 20 s hould be required? 21 MR. MYERS: It might be worthwhile to remind 22 t he reader of the rule that they should consider any

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 214 1 o ther models that might be affected with the deficiency 2 o f the AEDM that resulted in. But I suspect DOE, just 3 m y guess, that you would focus much like Mr. Stanonik 4 i s saying, the AHRI program, you've got to know if you 5 h ave a failure. Anything in that zone is going to be 6 s ubject to an early test the next time something's 7 s elected. I believe that's likely to be the same kind 8 o f occurrences with DOE because it's pointed out a 9 d eficiency that was supposed to have been corrected and 10 y ou validate that it was with subsequent tests. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So did I capture the three 12 o ptions accurately here? 13 MR. KLEISS: I just want to clarify. 14 R erating based on DOE test data only. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 16 MR. KLEISS: If we're talking about ratings 17 o f a basic model, we've got to have statistical data in 18 o rder to do that rating. What does that mean? 19 MS. BARHYDT: I think that that probably is 20 n ot actually possible. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Technically, we're writing 22 t he regs now.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 215 1 MS. BARHYDT: Well, that's true. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Anything is possible. If you 3 d on't distinguish between -- so mine is, this is a 4 r erate single unit test, DOE run test, DOE data only. 5 T his is not a rewrite on one test. There are no 6 s tatistics involved. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Are you comfortable with that? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Option three -- 9 MS. BARHYDT: Is that your option? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Option three is the 11 c ertification -- 12 MS. BARHYDT: To do more testing. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- testing route. You do 14 m ore testing at your experience and your option, and 15 y ou can then change your rating based on any test data 16 y ou have as well as the DOE test. So there are two 17 d istinct things. 18 MR. STARR: It seems to me that if you 19 h ave an AEDM, it seems like there should be required 20 a dditional testing to confirm the validity of the AEDM, 21 e specially if you're using a cross multiple categories 22 o f equipment. It seems like at least that should be a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 216 1 r equirement, that there be more statistical backup for 2 t hat validating the 3 A EDM. 4 I mean, we were talking about the number of 5 m odels yesterday. Well, maybe this is showing then for 6 a particular manufacturer that they need more models. 7 T his is a minimum number now. So maybe that minimum 8 n umber should be decreasing if your model's not 9 a ccurately reflecting performance of the equipment. 10 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think the reason we don't - 11

- John Cymbalsky, DOE. So the only way this kicks in 12 i s if they're going to lower the number? So think 13 a bout how this actually came to be, right. They rated 14 t oo high. So it's only in one direction. So I think it 15 p rotects what we're trying to protect which is -- so I 16 t hink we're okay with that. 17 MS. BARHYDT: And by definition, it's outside 18 t he tolerance, so it's a fairly significant reduction 19 i n the rating. 20 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we're thinking they're 21 g oing to want to retest if they want to keep the rating 22 a t that initial level. So this is going to make them

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 217 1 l ower the rating. 2 MR. STARR: I see. I got it. 3 MR. DOPPEL: Paul with Mitsubishi. It seems 4 t hat there should be a differentiation, maybe two 5 d ifferent paths if one -- if this model that was tested 6 b y DOE was -- the ratings were formed purely on the 7 A EDM, then that should be one path. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's all we're talking 9 a bout. 10 MR. DOPPEL: But if it was one of the units 11 t hat was tested to help formulate the AEDM, that that 12 m ay be should be a different path. 13 MS. BARHYDT: I believe we had proposed 14 s omething like that in the original proposal, but 15 t hat's open to discussion. 16 MR. STANONIK: This is Frank Stanonik with 17 A HRI. I think I get some of the -- I'll say the 18 c onceptual concern here. But when you get to this 19 c ircumstance, and again, I emphasize, you've had all 20 t he discussions and the bottom line was, this model 21 d idn't hit the rating. It wasn't inside the tolerance - 22

- or this unit. The fact is that when you look at,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 218 1 o kay, so why didn't it make it? 2 Okay. Is it possible your AEDM was faulty? 3 Y es. But it's also possible that particular model, 4 t hat unit just ended up because of -- you know, we're 5 n ot in a perfect world -- ended up being produced not 6 t o the design. Whether it was a component that was 7 j ust way off of what you normally get from your 8 s upplier, or whether it was, you know, I needed to have 9 t his much heat exchange or this much coil and I didn't. 10 So we've got to accept that sometimes it 11 f ails not because of the AEDM was wrong, but just that 12 o ne was built wrong. 13 MR. THARP: Option No. 3 takes care of that. 14 MR. STANONIK: Exactly. Yeah. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. 16 MS. BARHYDT: Go ahead. 17 MR. STEPHENS: I was thinking under the third 18 b ullet point there that we would have the option of, if 19 t he statistical validation proves the model is 20 a cceptable, then we maintain the ratings. If it 21 d oesn't, then we have more options we need to evaluate 22 s uch as pulling the unit out of the AEDM or reviewing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 219 1 o ur AEDM to possibly redefine that and update that. 2 MR. STANONIK: Phillip, why do you keep 3 s aying pulling it out of the AEDM? What does that 4 m ean? I mean, if it's been rated based on the AEDM, 5 y ou're either going to have to rerate it or you 6 d iscontinue the model. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. You discontinue the 8 m odel. 9 MR. STEPHENS: That's it. If the general 10 p urpose of the AEDM is so that manufacturers don't have 11 a n inordinate amount of testing to do for every new 12 p roduce releases; right? 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Or literally the one ofs. We 14 j ust can't. 15 MR. STANONIK: I mean, for all the models, 16 y eah. 17 MR. STEPHENS: Right. So if there happens to 18 b e proven that a design didn't fit the AEDM when the 19 m anufacturer thought it was, then it is possible that 20 t hat design just simply doesn't fit the AEDM. It 21 p ossibly needs to have another AEDM to characterize the 22

- -

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 220 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: But I don't think I'm in the 2 p osition to tell you that. In other words, I think you 3 a re in the position to make that decision based on your 4 r isk. You better believe that the department will more 5 t han likely pull another unit in the near future that's 6 s imilar. And I think that in and of itself, you know, 7 w hile that's not going to be written in stone, but I 8 t hink that in and of itself as well as that seems to be 9 w hat AHRI does as well, I don't want to get into the 10 b usiness of, A, requesting and AEDM, although Laura 11 d oes have the authority requested if she really needs 12 t o; B, taking the time to go through and try to figure 13 o ut what's wrong. 14 I just think that's -- I mean, just like with 15 s ubstantiation. That's on you. You have to weigh your 16 r isk with your AEDM tolerances, your over 17 m anufacturing, how you're rating, whatever you want to 18 d o, that's up to you. But once we get to this point, 19 w e've all come to the table and agreed we have a 20 r atings issue. And at that point in time, which avenue 21 y ou take and what you decide to rerate, the scope of 22 y our rerate in terms of additional models is up to you,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 221 1 b ut at the very least we have to deal with this one. 2 I mean, to me, this leaves the flexibility to 3 t he manufacturer to weigh their risk with the 4 a pplicability to other models that may be effected 5 v ersus which option they want to take in terms of 6 a dditional testing or just a rerate based on one test, 7 t he DOE test only, or just taking the model altogether 8 o ff. Now, I think that covers the basis. Now, whether 9 t he wording needs to be changed, that's open. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: One thing I want to ask on the 11 f irst one. Since we're doing this on a lot of custom 12 b uilt products that have never been built before and 13 o bviously relying on our statistical modeling for those 14 r atings, let's say we had one that we've agreed is now 15 a 92 percent failure, at the 92 percent rate. What if 16 I would like to rerate that at 90 percent of it. Can I 17 s till go downwards? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can always go down of the 19 s tandard. 20 MS. HOOTMAN: And I realize this is all not 21 b elow the minimums, but anyway. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll get to that. Notice I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 222 1 d id not put anything -- 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. I realize. We were 3 c ontexting that around that. Okay. I just wanted to 4 m ake sure it didn't have to come down to just the test 5 d ata only. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: Because that says DOE test data 8 o nly based on. And you can always -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's your upper bound. But 10 I 'll go there and make that explicit. 11 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. Just a 12 c larification on my point. If you go to bullet No. 3, 13 a dditional manufacture testing. If the unit that DOE 14 t ests did not have any testing and was just purely 15 b ased on the AEDM, there's no additional manufacturing 16 a vailable -- testing available. If it was tested to 17 h elp formulate the AEDM, then that test should be 18 a vailable to do an averaging or something like that. 19 T hat's -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, that's true. But you 21 w ould elect to do more testing. I mean, three of the 22 w ay I look at it --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 223 1 MR. DOPPEL: Well, I know. More testing, but 2 t hat test should also be allowed. 3 MR. KLEISS: So are you saying -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, as far as we're 5 c oncerned, you have to use our test data. And then 6 f rom there, if you have your own, if you have AHRIs, if 7 y ou have -- if you want to do more, it's up to you. 8 B ut you have to maintain all the documentation. 9 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. So the additional 10 m anufacture's testing could be either preexisting test 11 d ata or newly generated test data? 12 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm going to ask if -- 13 s hould the manufacturer be required to do additional 14 t esting, or should you be able to rely on that 15 p reexisting test data? 16 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp. I would say if a 17 m anufacturer has existing test data or that specific 18 m odel, then they should be able to use that prior data. 19 A nd if they want to do additional testing, if they have 20 o ne sample, then there's the DOE sample, and if the 21 m anufacturer wants to run one more sample to base it 22 o ff of three, then that should be okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 224 1 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel. Was that - 2

- when you say existing, does that have to be -- I 3 m ean, it has to be documented. Does it mean any 4 t esting or -- 5 MR. THARP: Any testing previously done. 6 MS. BARHYDT: To the DOE test procedure. 7 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 8 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with U-haul. 9 T hat's what I wanted to bring up is you keep saying old 10 t est data that you might have, but is that to the AHRI 11 t est standard, or are you talking about old -- DOE 12 o nly. Okay. 13 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Dominic, Daikin. I'd like 14 t o make a suggestion to Laura's question. I think it 15 s hould be left to the manufacturer's discretion 16 t otally, whether we want to do additional testing, old 17 t est data because we know what the risk is, so it's 18 b etter that we assess what the risk is and we decide 19 w hether we want to do additional or use existing. 20 T hanks. 21 MS. BARHYDT: Sounds good. That was easy. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do we have consensus?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 225 1 MR. WHITWELL: Bob from Carrier. Just so 2 c larification again just to go back. The first -- the 3 l ast bullet in the prior section that we talked about 4 b efore lunch, the last sentence there about retests 5 r equests can include another unit. So this would be a 6 c ase perhaps where we've identified that there is a 7 m anufacturing defect in the unit, it was not made 8 c orrectly and we request another test; correct? Or are 9 w e talking about that now when we're getting down in 10 t his current -- this third bullet in the new language? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: My favorite term, defect. 12 MR. WHITWELL: Defect, I mean, like -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. So what it says 14 t here is that DOE and the manufacturer can agree in 15 t hat last step that another sample is needed. If we 16 b oth agree that another sample is needed for the 17 r etest, it will be a different unit. If we've gotten 18 p ast that point, you can still use -- I mean, if you 19 p ick option three here, you can still pick -- I mean, 20 y ou can't test the same unit. So you would have to 21 p ick an additional unit to test. 22 So by default, you know, you have two

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 226 1 o pportunities there. One, it's something that you have 2 t o get the department to agree to. The second one, you 3 c an always test more units and add them to your sample 4 i n your statistics. 5 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. 6 MR. EISNER: Rodney Beever wants to talk. 7 R odney. Rodney, are you there? Okay. Anybody else 8 h ave anything they want to raise? 9 MR. KLEISS: Jeff, Lochinvar. Just in terms 10 o f what's written on the screen, we probably should put 11 i t in print, the manufacturer has the option of, and 12 t hen or, or. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. Okay. 14 MR. KLEISS: The second thing is, as I'm 15 l ooking at this and thinking about, you know, I want 16 t his to have teeth for people that aren't in a VICP. 17 A nd as Ashley said, that you better believe that we're 18 g oing to, you know, pick some more units that are 19 s imilar to that soon, but we haven't written it in 20 s tone. Why not write it in stone? Should there be 21 a dditional testing of products -- 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can't do it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 227 1 MR. KLEISS: -- from that manufacturer as a 2 c onsequence of a failed test? 3 MS. BARHYDT: DOE testing is always going to 4 b e subject to resource availability. So for us to put 5 s omething in the regulations that mandated us to do 6 a dditional testing, it just doesn't make sense as a -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: But you better believe from a 8 p ractical standpoint -- 9 MS. BARHYDT: Right. Exactly. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- we're going to do it if we 11 c an. 12 MR. KLEISS: Okay. Not everybody that would 13 b e subject to this or that I want to feel the threat of 14 t his has heard that. And unless it's in the federal 15 r egister then -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can do that. I mean, we 17 c an write preamble language that suggests that there 18 w ill be a strong possibility. We just can't promise in 19 r ed text that we will always. I'll put a note here. 20 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. Ashley, one 21 o ther issue, and I'll put it out as a question and 22 w ithhold my personal opinion. But do we want to put a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 228 1 c eiling on how many additional tests could be done? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: We don't have one now right 3 f or if they take the testing route. 4 MR. STANONIK: Here's my concern. That -- 5 o kay. So the manufacturer -- first of all, again, we've 6 g ot this situation where that test unit didn't hit the 7 t olerance. That's serious, okay. And the manufacturer 8 s ays, "I want to run more tests," okay. That could be 9 a pretty long time. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what the last sentence 11 w as trying to -- 12 MS. BARHYDT: So we haven't filled in -- 13 MR. STANONIK: I'm sorry. I missed the X. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: I didn't put in the X, but I 15 p ut in the process needs to be completed by. In other 16 w ords, this isn't an endless do loop. 17 MR. EISNER: I think Jeff wanted -- didn't 18 J eff also ask for "or is" after the first two 19 s emicolons. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I put semicolons, but 21 I haven't gotten there yet. Sorry. Thank you for 22 r eminding me.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 229 1 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. Just 2 a point of clarification. So back up to the 3 c onversation we had before lunch. And if we fail a 4 t est, it's been said that the manufacturer has the 5 o ption to request a retest. Ashley, you made a comment 6 a few minutes ago that says, you know, if DOE agrees to 7 t hat retest. So are you saying that even though we may 8 r equest a retest, we may not get it? 9 MS. BARHYDT: I think what -- 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I said on another unit. 11 MS. BARHYDT: The second unit is the DOE 12 a greement part. The ability to request a retest is not 13 s ubject to DOE. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Which is what that says. If 15 a manufacturer was not previously on-site for the 16 i nitial test, a manufacturer can request a retest 17 a utomatically, and DOE and the manufacturer can be on18 s ite. If the retest request can include another -- 19 t hat doesn't sound right. But basically another unit 20 h as to be agreed upon by DOE and the manufacturer, 21 w hether it's a separate unit. The retest is automatic. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Retest to that existing unit.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 230 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Existing unit. 2 MS. MEYERS: Okay. Did everyone understand 3 t hat because I didn't understand that the first time 4 a round. 5 MR. STANONIK: Karen, I think in the first 6 c ase, it's clearly you're just -- you're not 7 c omfortable they ran the test right, you know, and 8 y ou've, let's say, went through all the discussions and 9 i t still doesn't seem right. And you're saying, okay, 10 w ait a minute. You know, test it again. Test that one 11 a gain. And so that's saying if you ask for that, 12 t hey're just going to go do it. 13 On the other hand, if you say -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is that okay? 15 MR. STANONIK: -- okay, well, I have concerns 16 a bout the test of the first unit, but I want you to 17 t est another unit. And I can understand that because 18 y ou say, wait a minute, you're going to have to explain 19 t hat to me. Why this bad result on unit A needs me to 20 t est unit B at that stage, okay, at that stage. 21 Obviously, when we get into the next stage 22 w here every option's been exercised and you still came

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 231 1 b ack and came back at 92 percent, and you go, okay, now 2 w e got to go to the next -- now we are going to test 3 m ore units or take your medicine and here's your new 4 r ating. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is that more clear? 6 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussman. When 7 y ou're referring to another unit, is that -- do you 8 m ean another unit of the same nomenclature -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 10 MR. SHEBIK: -- in model? Okay. 11 MR. BAUMAN: Your certain point at the 12 b ottom, Ashley, is really rerating and recertifying 13 b ased on additional -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 15 MR. BAUMAN: By rerating -- 16 MS. BARHYDT: Would everyone agree that, A -- 17 I 'm going to say rerate, but it's not so much that I'm 18 e xpecting the number to change, but that a new 19 r epresentation should be made to the department with 20 r egard to that model basically acknowledging that we've 21 c ompleted our additional testing, we've done whatever, 22 a nd we are recertifying it in accordance with AEDM

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 232 1 b ecause our additional test data showed our AEDM 2 u ltimately was within tolerance? Or we are rerating 3 a nd based upon test data now instead of based on an 4 A EDM? Would everyone agree that that is -- Jeff, you 5 l ook puzzled. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think it matters. 7 MR. BAUMAN: Can I just -- I think what 8 y ou're saying is that if that model doesn't test, it's 9 n ot part of the AEDM -- it's not part of the AEDM. We 10 d on't have a fourth option in there that says I can 11 s till rate on an AEDM. I either have to test it on 12 y our one test, my multiple tests or take it out. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: You got it. 14 MR. BAUMAN: I can't rate that on an AEDM 15 a gain. 16 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So what I'm thinking of 17 i s, is more mechanical issue of -- at this point in 18 t ime, DOE has a certification that the manufacturer has 19 f iled with us saying, "We did not test; we rated this 20 i n accordance with an AEDM." 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: You would have to revise 22 t hat.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 233 1 MS. BARHYDT: DOE did a test, and we have now 2 d etermined it was invalid. And our expectation is that 3 t he manufacturer would file something new saying, we've 4 d one one of these three things. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: We need another option in our 8

- - that's what you're getting at. This process should 9 b e done in. What's reasonable? I put X up there. I 10 w asn't going to with a -- 11 MR. KLEISS: Jeff, Lochinvar. Sixty. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: What did you say? 13 MR. KLEISS: My bid's 60. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. In unitary large for the 15 v ery large rooftops, we have 90 days. That's just to 16 s upply it, not to test it. Just to supply it. 17 MR. STANONIK: I think there either has to be 18

- - the duration or the time period either has to be 19 d riven by the extremely, the very large, the one ofs or 20 y ou have two criteria. One criteria being for the 21 s tuff that -- for lack of a better word -- I don't make 22 i t until you order it, and then it may take me how long

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 234 1 t o build it. And then the other criteria for, to 2 w hatever extent this fits, readily orderable commercial 3 e quipment. I don't know. Maybe it's a better 4 d escription for that. But the rooftops that you sell 5 i n significant volume that -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you going to go to -- I 7 m ean, but for those, are you really going to pick 8 o ption three? 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Possibly. 10 MR. STANONIK: Oh, you might. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Done it. 12 MR. CYMBALSKY: Can we have a different 13 o ption? So if we choose option one and two -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thirty days. 15 MR. STANONIK: I mean, actually, then if you 16 w anted to lay the process -- 17 MS. HOOTMAN: On options one and two, I think 18 a reasonable time is within 14 days. We will report 19 b ack to you what we're going to do. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: I mean, that's a report. 22 T hat's a, you know, whatever you want to say something

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 235 1 g ets filed, I don't care. A decision gets made. Yeah, 2 1 4 working days don't you think is reasonable? I mean, 3 t hat's what we do right now; isn't it? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: How about 15. Just make it 5 t hree weeks. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: It should be completed for 8 o ption one and two in -- I mean, if you decide within 9 1 5 working days to discontinue the model, you don't 10 n eed 60 more days to discontinue the model. 11 MR. STANONIK: Right. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Just another probably 30 to 13 t ake it out of stuff, you know. I mean, you're going 14 t o have to take it out of literature, take it out of -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I mean, to complete 16 t he process, but I mean to -- so say, maybe we have a 17 d ifferent, you know, maybe option one and two. 18 MR. STANONIK: For the sake of discussion, I 19 w ould say if retesting is selected, that retesting for 20

- - again, what I'm going to call inventoried units -- 21 a gain, maybe that's the wrong word -- but the stuff 22 t hat you can order readily easily, I would say that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 236 1 a dditional testing should be completed within 45 days, 2 j ust to points of discussion. And then for the one 3 o fs, you know, built to order stuff, what 90 days or 4 l onger, 120? Or longer. 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. What we have in ULE 6 r ight now is the participant shall have a second sample 7 o f the same model or combination, combination being 8 s plit systems, available within 60 calendar days for 9 s ystems 65,000 to 250,000, less than 250,000, and then 10 9 0 calendar days for systems 250 to 760,000. And then 11 9 0 days -- I mean, that's stretching it. And that's 12 j ust to have available. 13 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen, Clever 14 B rooks. I suggest that for one ofs, at least 180 days. 15 Y ou got to take into consideration if this unit fails, 16 m anufacturers are going to want to do some sort of 17 i nvestigation as to why that unit failed. There's 18 g oing to have to be some sort of engineering analysis 19 a s to that design. Does it fit with the other designs 20 i n that model? 21 If there is a difference, there's going to 22 h ave to be some engineering changes taking place at the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 237 1 m anufacturing level. And then a new unit being built. 2 S ome of our products are 14-, 15-week lead time units, 3 t hen it has to get shipped, it has to get installed, it 4 c ould take another three weeks. Then the test setup 5 a nd then retesting it could -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: So I actually think you've 7 r aised an interesting issue which is that I think -- 8 w hat I was envisioning with this was, it was building 9 a nd testing the same thing that we had previously 10 t ested as opposed to reengineering it because if you 11 r eengineer it, then DOE's original test isn't a test of 12 t he same thing anymore to be combined for the certified 13 r ating. So -- 14 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. If at this stage, you 15 s till have not determined in fact when it's rated 16 c orrectly or not, so that second test has to be a unit 17 o f the same model. 18 MR. HON: I have a question here. If the 19 f irst unit fails, you presently own it. Is it -- how 20 c ould we get that unit back because we made need it for 21 a nalysis? Would it be purchase it back from you? 22 MS. BARHYDT: I'll have to set you up as a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 238 1 v endor in our system. I don't think we can. I will 2 l ook into that and we can maybe talk about that at the 3 n ext meeting, but I don't think that you can. 4 MR. HON: Because we would like to get it 5 b ack for full analysis. 6 MS. BARHYDT: I understand that. 7 MR. HON: That's why I'm asking this question 8 b ecause eventually you're going to have a piece of 9 e quipment, either you have to pay to dispose of or sell 10 i t in an open market situation or selling it to us. 11 MR. WHITWELL: We won't do that. Charles 12 r aises an important question because that's good 13 i nformation for us to understand what happened with 14 t hat particular unit. And it could help us to improve 15 o ur AEDM. It could help us to improve our design, our 16 m anufacturing process, many things. 17 MS. BARHYDT: We can look into it, but at 18 t his time I'm not aware of a way for us to do that. 19 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. I would highly 20 e ncourage it because there's three advantages. Number 21 o ne is we need the unit back to find out what happened. 22 N o. 2, you've invested a lot of money in a unit that is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 239 1 n ow shown deficient. We're going to -- we're 2 d efinitely going to be spending more money after the 3 f act anyway. 4 So you're benefiting because you're going to 5 r ecoup some of your original expenditure because you're 6 g oing to dedicate a lot more time into this program at 7 t hat point. So your cost of that particular item is 8 v ery high and growing by the day. Why wouldn't you 9 r eturn it back to you at a reasonable -- at purchase 10 p rice? 11 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 12 A nother thing that we have to consider, too, is that a 13 l ot of components we put into our systems are 14 p urchased. And I've had experience in the past before 15 w here a test failure resulted in a compressor that was 16 a ctually sold to us that was not performing as it 17 s hould have, but was not told to us. So it was only 18 t hrough additional analysis that we made the 19 d etermination that we actually had been sold a 20 d efective product, a defective component. 21 MS. BARHYDT: I'm persuaded of the value. It 22 i s a government regulation issue that I'm going to have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 240 1 t o consult with other people about. 2 MR. EISNER: That said, where do we stand on 3 t his? 4 MR. STANONIK: Since it was still up there, I 5 t hink what I was corrected on is that -- on that last 6 l ine, it should be perhaps 60, 90. Inventory unit 60, 7 b uilt to order 90. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Speaking unitary HVAC? 9 MR. STANONIK: And the other -- 10 MR. EISNER: Turn on your mic. 11 MS. MEYERS: So that 60, 90, that's in the 12 A HRI program is to have the unit available, it's not 13 r eally to complete the testing. So -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're doing that testing in 15 y our facility. 16 MS. MEYERS: Pardon me? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're doing the testing in 18 y our facility. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: The second test? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. Wherever you want. 21 MS. MEYERS: But even, I've got to open up a 22 l ab to do that.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 241 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I'm not saying that 2 t hat doesn't mean that the time still needs to be 3 c hanged, but I'm just saying that you're not physically 4 s hipping that unit -- well, unless you want to. 5 MS. MEYERS: I ship because my lab is not 6 n ecessarily at the same place. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: At this point it's all on 8 y ou. It's at your discretion. 9 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. One thing I 10 w ant to point out so we don't lose sight of it, okay, 11 b uilt to order, it requires longer. But the other part 12 o f this to recognize is in fact the built to order also 13 a round made all that frequently, so the -- if you will, 14 I 'm like putting on Harvey's hat right now -- the risk 15 t hat there are misrated models, units out in the field 16 i s just not as great with those products because you 17 w ish you could sell more of them. I mean, that's why 18 t hey're built to order. And so the fact that you're 19 a llowing a little more time to figure out, is it rated 20 p roperly or not, isn't really a major effect in the 21 m arket. 22 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers on that 90

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 242 1 d ays on build to order. I don't have the situation 2 r ight now, but I have had suppliers of critical parts 3 w hich would disenable me from building some of these 4 u nits with 12 week lead time which is more than that, 5 s o. 6 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen. I 7 c oncur. I think especially for large equipment, there 8 n eeds to be at least 180 days just to get purchase 9 p arts in and put the unit through the shop and ship it 10 t o a facility for testing. 11 MR. MYERS: Yeah. A number of pieces of 12 e quipment on these have to be custom-built for us, so 13 w e get the request for what's desired by the customer, 14 w e engineer what they're going to get and then we 15 s ubcontract it out with different control manufacturers 16 t o build these pieces of equipment, and those kinds of 17 p roviders are generally long lead. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm not exactly sure how we 19 w ould craft this into regulatory text, but how about if 20 w ithin that 15 working days, the manufacturer 21 i dentified for DOE the time period they need to be able 22 t o have the tests -- not just have the unit built and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 243 1 r eady to go, but we commit to having it done by this 2 d ate? 3 MR. MYERS: Yeah. We already have the 4 b uilding material for this unit, so we can determine 5 w hat the time to get all of the components in. 6 MS. BARHYDT: And is there a not to exceed 7 d ay that everybody would be comfortable with? 8 MR. MYERS: 180. 9 MS. BARHYDT: 180? 10 MR. MYERS: Yeah. Not to exceed 180, but we 11 h ave to inform you -- 12 MS. BARHYDT: For having the testing done as 13 w ell? 14 MR. MYERS: I -- 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Remember, the testing is not, 16 c ould it be in our lab, but it would be also dependent 17 o n whatever labs you have contracted with, and, you 18 k now, when is their next time, too. So some of that is 19 u nder our control, some of that is not under our 20 c ontrol. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So this is your ability to test 22 w herever you want to test, so it's not what we have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 244 1 c ontracted. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: What if I said, I want you to 3 g o ahead and put it -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, if you -- if you're 5 c hoosing to have it tested there. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. I understand. 8 MR. MYERS: It would be better if we were 9 t alking about how quickly we can get it to -- make it 10 a vailable to a test facility. Then once we give you 11 t hat date, then we can say, all right, test facility, 12 p lan on having this unit there by this date so that you 13 c an begin testing as soon as possible. 14 And if they're -- if there's one lab that 15 d oes this particular piece of equipment and we're 16 u nable to do it at our facility, so that's our only 17 c hoice, we made it available, and then as quickly as 18 t heir schedule can get it in, it would be tested. So 19 r egulate us for what we have control over. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Would this cover it? 21 MS. MEYERS: Maybe if you put, this process 22 s hould not exceed 180 days instead of must not just in

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 245 1 c ase it's got to take 190. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Or just in case a plant burns 3 d own. And don't laugh. I've had a supplier that was 4 t hat way. 5 MR. MYERS: That's reasonable. 6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff, Lochinvar. I've got to 7 t hrow stones at this. If I've got the Cymbalsky 1000 8 a nd it failed the test -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Likely. 10 MR. KLEISS: -- and I decide -- 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's called physics. 12 MR. KLEISS: So I discontinue it and next 13 w eek I release the Cymbalsky 1001 with the same 14 r atings. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: It happens all the time. 16 MR. STANONIK: Keep in mind, Jeff, hopefully 17 w e're in the stage where we now have certification 18 r eporting requirements that we can all live with. 19 Y ou're going to have to provide certification 20 i nformation for that new model. 21 MS. BARHYDT: I'm going to make Jeff's 22 a rgument for him. But I have an AEDM.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 246 1 MR. CYMBALSKY: And I can't wait to test it. 2 MR. KOJAK: To play devil's advocate. What 3 h appens if, again, it fails and then they pull and they 4 c ome out with the third version with the same rating? 5 MR. MYERS: It's my understanding these 6 f ailures are -- this is Frank Myers, PVI -- that these 7 w ill be made public record so that everybody can see 8 t hat there has been a failure. If I were a competitor 9 o f this manufacturer and I saw such shenanigans going 10 o n and had evidence from DOE that there was a failure, 11 I would be reporting that errant manufacturer left and 12 r ight to DOE, probably even getting one of their pieces 13 o f equipment and testing to provide them evidence of 14 t his kind of shenanigans. 15 MS. MEYERS: Within AHRI there are 16 s ignificant penalties if you repeatedly fail, and your 17 c ompetitors are informed of that and you have increased 18 t esting requirements, there's -- you can go through the 19 l ist. 20 But I mean, repeated failures, I mean, you 21 g et the big Scarlet A on you and everyone knows that. 22 A nd then we use that against our competitors all the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 247 1 t ime in the marketplace. So I mean, it's a big deal if 2 y ou fail a test. 3 MR. STANONIK: And I don't know if this is in 4 t he plan here, but I'm in agreement with all of this, 5 b ut I think at some point we should discuss that if a 6 p articular manufacturer with DOE doing the testing, I'm 7 j ust going to make up a number here. Let's say they 8 h ad five instances, five different models using the 9 s ame AEDM where you got to that stage where, wait a 10 m inute, something's got to be rated. 11 To me, at some point, there's enough data 12 b uilding that DOE in fact says, wait a minute. Now, 13 w e're not talking about rerating models. We're talking 14 a bout something's wrong with the AEDM because -- and I 15 d on't know what the number is, but clearly at some 16 p oint it's not just a question of, okay, this 17 p articular model came down the production line and 18 s omething went out of my QC. There's at some point an 19 i ndication an error was made in the AEDM. 20 MR. CYMBALSKY: So do you want to -- John 21 C ymbalsky. Do you want to suggest that if a company's 22 m odel fails a certain number of times, their AEDM is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 248 1 p ulled? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: They cannot use the AEDM. 3 MR. CYMBALSKY: They cannot use the AEDM? 4 W e're fine with that, but we're leaving it up to you 5 s ince you suggested it. 6 MR. STANONIK: John, I was just suggesting I 7 t hink the working group needs to discuss it, but I 8 d on't want to derail the current discussion, but I 9 w ould rather have a discussion within the working group 10 t han kind of say, oh, we forgot all about it. 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think it's a good point, 12 a nd we're kind of leaving it up to you all to -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: We cannot propose something 14 l ike that. 15 MR. HON: There's a couple questions here. 16 N umber one is, because we -- several of us will be 17 d eveloping multiple AEDMs programs, even though the 18 g eneral category is broader than what we would work 19 w ith, say, glass stored refrigerators, we will have 20 m ultiple AEDMs within that bracket because of different 21 d esign criteria built into them. And then is only that 22 A EDM disqualified, or are all of our AEDMs

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 249 1 d isqualified? 2 MR. CYMBALSKY: I don't even know if we'll 3 k now which one you used, will we? We don't know if 4 i t's AEDM one, two, three, four. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Laura can know. 6 MR. HON: That's questions that need to be 7 c larified. 8 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah. 9 MR. HON: Because it makes it possible for 10 p eople to generate huge amounts of AEDMs with only two 11 d ata points. And then every time you look at one, it's 12 a different AEDM. 13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. Again, DOE 14 h as suggested, and I understand and agree with their 15 p osition, they don't want to get into reviewing the 16 A EDM. We've not yet talked about the penalty phase. I 17 d on't know if that's a part of what we'll do. But my 18 r ecollection is there is a fair amount of latitude in 19 h ow DOE applies penalties. If there's good 20 c ooperation, it can be -- I'll euphemize and say a slap 21 o n the hands, slap on the wrist. But if there's 22 r ecalcitrance and denial and I'm not going to fix it,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 250 1 t here are some huge fines that can be levied, and I 2 w ould think that would be the place rather than going 3 a fter the AEDM. If this manufacturer has shown 4 t hemselves to be that kind of a manufacturer, there are 5 t he financial implications, the financial burdens that 6 c an be pressed upon them by DOE. 7 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. 8 O ne other comment is, if we have multiple instances, 9 I 'm thinking that my management's going to be all over 10 m e before DOE comes to talk to us about, what are you 11 d oing, how are you rating your products and how come 12 w e're having these problems. 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's what DOE hopes. 14 T hat's what we're trying to do here. 15 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. I want to be 16 c lear to Charlie's point. I was specifically saying, 17 i t's the same AEDM. But again, to me at some point it 18 b ecomes a question not of what happened in your 19 p roduction, but what happened in your model. You know, 20 s o it's the same AEDM. 21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I was just doing it 22 b ecause I think that people can play a secondary game

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 251 1 w ith multiple AEDMs, everybody shielding the majority 2 o f your product from review under a single AEDM. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So let's say hypothetically 4 w e've got a company that tries to shelter themselves in 5 t hat way. They have to have the test data underlying 6 e ach AEDM. And so if you are trying to gain the system 7 w ith your AEDMs, you're also increasing your test 8 b urden. So -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: And at some point, we'll just 10 s ay, "Let us have all your test data." 11 MR. HON: But that's what I'm looking at 12 b ecause it is possible to do this, but it would come 13 w ith a lot of pain -- potential pain if they get caught 14 o ften enough. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 16 t hink one of the bullet points we had on one of the 17 p revious slides was that we could reuse the same test 18 d ata for multiple AEDMs under certain categories. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I guess that brings up a 20 d ifferent question. If one of the failures -- failure 21 i s not a good word. But if we determine the rating is 22 i nvalid for one of the units that you use to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 252 1 s ubstantiate an AEDM, should you have to have a new 2 u nit? A new model. I'm sorry. For your package. 3 B ecause your package is no longer valid. 4 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. A true AEDM will be 5 m odified on a continual basis. Every time you test a 6 u nit that would fall within a AEDM scope, you should be 7 a pplying it into your AEDM to verify the variances and 8 u pdate your AEDM to get you more refined every time you 9 d o it. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't disagree with you. 11 A nd I'm sure that's the practice of every single person 12 i n the room. But what if it's not? Do we need to be 13 e xplicit about that? Because if you guys are already 14 d oing it, then you've taken care of it. There's no 15 i ssue. But if there's not, do we need to be explicit? 16 I n other words, for those that don't have verification, 17 f or those that may not continually always update, for 18 t hose who just test the bare minimum and then from 19 t here use an Excel spreadsheet? Do we need provisions? 20 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 21 Y ou know, to me one of the concerns about continually 22 u pdating your AEDM is that it could cause some of your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 253 1 s ystems to fall outside, and then you would have to 2 h ave a means to rerate those so that they are back 3 w ithin the AEDM. And, you know, right now with AHRI, 4 y ou just don't go in there, rerate something for no 5 r eason. 6 So, you know, we have to think about that, 7 t oo. You know, what are you going to do if your system 8 s uddenly is outside of what it was when the AEDM was 9 o riginally done? 10 MS. BARHYDT: I have a function question 11 b ecause I don't know really know how you use your AEDMs 12 o r how difficult it is to run an AEDM for something. 13 I f you have additional data points and you're tweaking 14 y our AEDM and always continually improving it, do you 15 t hen rerun it for, say, your six models or whatever to 16 s ee whether or not those -- your tweaks have impacted 17 t hose six that were your substantiation package? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Sometimes. Sometimes. And so 19 P aul's point is on this, is Jill a trained -- Paul's 20 p oint is correct. So let me just give a scenario. We 21 d evelop a product in 2005. We are test models, we've 22 d one our simulation. Now, it's gone through many years

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 254 1 o f obviously testing through AHRI and we've had 2 m ultiple more new tests. We've redone the simulation 3 p roduct every single time. We now have revisions on 4 s imulations programs. 5 So it's got revision control and all that 6 k ind of stuff and we're now in multiple revisions. 7 Y eah. At some points we are going back and checking 8 o ur data and checking all the other models that might 9 h ave been based on that. And right now, even if I find 10 l iterally a typo or something that I found that we did 11 h uman input error, I have to go back to AHRI to kind of 12 p lea that case and get them to help me change my -- I 13 c an't go in and physically change my human error. 14 So, you know, I mean, it's a system that 15 d oesn't really even allow us to do that. But, yeah, we 16 a re -- I would say we're doing it. Now, it's a good 17 p oint, Ashley, I don't quite have an answer right now, 18 b ut it's a good point because somebody who is maybe 19 l ess sophisticated and, like I said, kind of using more 20 o f a broad brush kind of program, I don't know. I 21 d on't know what -- I do feel like you should have a way 22 t o do that, but I don't want those of us that keep

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 255 1 c ontinually doing it have to go rerated on just that 2 o ne unit. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think you would have 4 t o, right? I mean -- this is Ashley from DOE. To the 5 e xtent you are continually testing products, you just 6 a re building more of a base of your test data at least 7 i n my opinion. So putting a provision in there that if 8 y ou just tested the bare minimum and one of those 9 p roves to be invalid, that you need at least -- you 10 n eed to maintain a minimum number of valid tests 11 a lways, period. And if you do that on a continual 12 b asis, great. But if you don't, then that will trigger 13 a n additional test. 14 And so for those of you in the room, which I 15 a ssume is everyone, you're going to continually 16 v alidate. There's no issue. You may have additional 17 v erification tests. I mean, you're just building your 18 t est back up. You go nowhere near the minimum. But for 19 s omeone who is at the minimum, which could in some 20 c ases be two units, in one of the two underlying their 21 w hole simulation and all of their ratings is invalid, 22 t hen they would be triggered -- so the key here would

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 256 1 b e you would have to maintain a minimum -- the minimum 2 a mount, and they would have to be valid tests always. 3 Does that seem reasonable? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: I think so, yeah. 5 MR. STANONIK: So, Ashley, in your example 6 w here you've only got two. So what you're really 7 s aying is that -- well, what's going to happen is not 8 o ne of your - - let me call them data points -- your 9 h ard data points, one of them will be a new model, 10 r ight, because if, again, we went through all this and 11 w e couldn't validate that reading, you know, we went 12 t hrough every -- you know, all the steps, and at the 13 e nd of the day it was, sorry, this rating is 14 i naccurate, it's really saying you're going to have to 15 p ut a new model in there as your hard data point. 16 MR. KLEISS: Jeff, Lochinvar. If -- would it 17 b e reasonable to say that if a manufacturer has within 18 a five year period three units that fail to meet the 19 r atings that are published, that that manufacturer is 20 n ot allowed to use AED 21 MS. HOOTMAN: That puts the management, the 22 c hanging, the updating, the validation -- or sorry,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 257 1 s ubstantiation of the AEDM on the shoulders of the 2 m anufacturer and allows flexibility. 3 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, Goodman. I think 4 p ercentage would be better than a specific number. 5 MS. MEYERS: Jeffrey, you're referring to 6 p eople that are not in a VICP? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I didn't think at this point 8 w e're distinguishing because we haven't defined what a 9 V ICP is. That's for later; right? So at this point it 10 w ould just be. Period, this is the minimum base 11 r equirements. 12 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: I do agree with Rusty, that a 14 p ercentage makes a lot more sense than -- 15 MR. MYERS: PVI Industries. I would much 16 r ather see an escalation of fines with somehow 17 p ercentages or numbers rather than you cannot use an 18 A EDM, force that manufacturer to revise their AEDM. 19 T he reason for that is many manufacturers would simply 20 b e unable to continue to do business. They wouldn't 21 h ave a chance to correct their act if they hit that 22 t hree because they would be out of business unable to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 258 1 c omply with, practically speaking, DOE's requirements 2 w ithout an AEDM. And if their product line doesn't fit 3 n icely within an existing VICP program, that would be 4 t he third strike. You're not out of an AEDM; you're 5 o ut of business. But if it were a escalating fine, 6 e ven if it were a horrific fine, at least that gives an 7 o pportunity to -- rather than spend more money on 8 f ines, spend it on a better AEDM. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 10 t hink I may have concerns with just simply going with a 11 p ercentage because smaller manufacturers with fewer 12 p roducts in each product line, the percentage can be 13 o ut of quilter. It's a much larger percentage for one 14 f ailure out of five than it is one out of 20. 15 MR. KLEISS: Jeff, Lochinvar. In response to 16 t he comments about fines versus AEDM, if you have one 17 f ailure, you need a high motivation to have 18 c onservative ratings. If you have two failures, you've 19 g ot very strong motivation to have conservative 20 r atings. And of course, fines could do a similar 21 t hing. But I'm just looking for ways to keep primarily 22 t o your question, Karen, primarily to nonparticipants

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 259 1 i n VICPs where there is validation I think it's highly 2 u nlikely that you would have repeated failures. But in 3 g eneral, I want to make - - try and keep the players 4 h onest. 5 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen. I think 6 t he fines might be a good idea. I find it hard to 7 j ustify monetary penalty if someone might fail their 8 r ating but still be well above the standard, so they're 9 i n compliance with the government regulations, they 10 m ight just be fibbing on their rating. I think they 11 s hould maybe lower it to the minimum standard and then 12 t hey can't tout that sales literature, but by all 13 p ractical purposes, they're within the law. 14 MS. BARHYDT: To borrow your phrase, fibbing 15 o n ratings, would not be a lawful activity. 16 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. But on this 17 q uestion, I think Ashley said it. It only is 18 r easonable to be -- it's a percentage of the models 19 t hat are rated using that specific AEDM as using Jeff's 20 t hree. I mean, foreseeably, for whatever number of 21 r easons, maybe an AEDM, I've only listed five models, 22 o r I've used for five models of some unique special

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 260 1 d esign I have, okay. 2 Personally, if two of those failed, I 3 w ouldn't feel real good about that AEDM. On the other 4 h and, if, you know, what I think we would all hope, I 5 h ave an AEDM that I'm applying, let's say, to a hundred 6 m odels. Well, if three of those failed, I'm still not 7

- - I'm not at all convinced my AEDM's bad. But you 8 k now, if -- again, whatever my percentage might be, but 9 i f some percentage of those failed, again, now it gets 10 t o me where we say kind of the tipping point, says, 11 o kay, wait a minute. You know, bad production process, 12 b ad components, whatever. This is an issue, your 13 m odel's -- something foggy's on your model. 14 So I think -- because the AEDM is set up, the 15 m anufacturers are going to decide how many models he's 16 g oing to include in the AEDM based on what he's willing 17 t o do to substantiate it, based on what he's willing to 18 d o as far as he goes to the market and all those 19 t hings. And so this issue of at what point does 20 p otentially DOE say, "Sorry, you can't use that AEDM 21 a nymore." I think it has to be based on a percentage. 22 T here's no single one number.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 261 1 MR. HON: This is Charlie. I have a 2 q uestion. I heard two different things here. You're 3 s aying a single AEDM and he said you could not use 4 A EDMs, plural, which means all of them. That's a big, 5 b ig difference. 6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff, Lochinvar. I mean, I'm 7 l ooking at it from our perspective. The way that we 8 w ould be applying this I expect is that we would have 9 m ultiple different AEDMs for each different product 10 f amily. We got -- we talked -- I'm on. And if a 11 s imilar manufacturer to us has three different failures 12 f rom three different AEDMs in a five-year period, 13 t here's something wrong with how that manufacturer is 14 u sing AED 15 F EMALE SPEAKER. And it doesn't matter if they're coming 16 f rom one or multiple, but something needs to change. 17 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff from National. It 18 s eems to me we're somewhat overcomplicating this and 19 r eally asking -- I mean, we talked previously about 20 s elf- regulating. And if we do a bad AEDM and somebody 21 s ays that you're going to get a call from the corner 22 o ffice and you get products that are bad as far as the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 262 1 e ngineering. 2 But I think kind of going back to the simple 3 n otion that if you don't pass the -- you're off by the 4 p ercentage, you have to rerate your product to drop it, 5 b asically however you do that rerating on that 6 p articular product, if that product was used to model 7 y our AEDM, that AEDM is invalid anymore because you 8 b ased it on a faulty premise. 9 But other than that, I think it should go 10 b ack to the manufacturer to -- you know, again, with 11 D OE having the option to be able to look at many models 12 a nd look at that manufacturer closer as opposed to 13 s aying, this percentage -- you know, and how do those 14 p ercentages work out to somebody that's had multiple 15 A EDMs versus one AEDM and, you know, all those other 16 c onsiderations. They're just all over the place. 17 MS. BARHYDT: But so DOE goes back and does 18 m ore testing, and every single thing we test, very 19 c onsistently, every single thing we test is overrated, 20 s hould there not be some additional consequence? 21 MR. BAUMAN: Well, yeah. I think that goes 22 t o those products. You're getting multiple products,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 263 1 w hether they were rated by an AEDM or whether they were 2 r ated by testing and they're not meeting with the 3 s tandard -- or they're outside with the certification, 4 t hen you have the option as we talked previously that 5 f ines or other penalties. 6 That doesn't necessarily -- the kind of one 7 b ad apple comes to me is that, you know, was that -- so 8 e very product in there, you know, should that become 9 i nvalid if it was a model that was on the AEDM and not 10 n ecessarily one that was used to develop it. And you 11 h aving to go into our -- and again, you back and you 12 t ry to -- you pull up an AEDM or you just kind of 13 f ormulate and you go back to try to -- somebody else in 14 o ur company trying to explain how to -- how you figured 15

- - you know, how that was all figured out and how the 16 c alculations were applied to, it seems like that's 17 g oing to be a lot of challenge for somebody, DOE and 18 u s, to try to explain it to you exactly how sometimes 19 i t works. 20 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr. A couple of 21 t hings. One, it does seem like if there's starting to 22 b e a pattern of abusive AEDMs, there needs to be some

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 264 1 k ind of -- some way of handling that. And the other 2 t hing, too, is, is ratings that are over -- above the 3 m inimum but still are used for incentive programs or 4 a lso where a lot of times utilities are awarding 5 r ebates based upon those. So if the minimum is ten and 6 y ou're producing a 12 for an incentive program, it's 7 r eally 11.9. In my mind, that's pretty bad, too. 8 So there's not really -- it's just as bad as 9 n ot meeting the minimum as one that's overstating its 10 p erformance for utility incentives as well. And, you 11 k now, that also goes back to reflecting, yesterday, 12 r emember we talked about the refrigerator cases and how 13 t here's 36 different types and we're going to end up 14 w ith 16 now. And so the question is, how well do those 15 A EDMs really reflect the performance of it? 16 So it kind of goes to the question of what 17 w e're talking about right now to some extent. And 18 t hat's why if you're using an AEDM for a whole bunch of 19 e quipment classes that don't really reflect it 20 a ccurately, you know, that's kind of why the -- it 21 s eems like there needs to be some way to handle that. 22 MR. EISNER: It looks like Ashley's putting

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 265 1 u p some ideas on the board with Xs in there. We're 2 g etting recommendations all over the place on this. 3 W e've got to start narrowing it down. 4 MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman. One 5 o f the things that in the AHRI program for products 6 r ated with ARM, if one combination fails, the second 7 s ample or that first sample the manufacturer chooses to 8 r erate, then all combinations of that specific model 9 a re derated the same percentage. Maybe something 10 s imilar could be done if you have multiple failures 11 f rom an AEDM. So if you have an AEDM, one model fails 12 a t 92, you select another model and it fails at 91, 13 t hen everything with that AEDM is derated by eight or 9 14 p ercent. 15 MR. EISNER: Let's look at what Ashley's put 16 u p here. 17 First sentence. Does anybody have a problem 18 w ith it? "All models used to substantiate, 19 a uthenticate the AEDM must present a valid test." 20 A nybody have a problem? 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. When you're -- I guess 22 a ll models used to substantiate an AEDM. When you're

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 266 1 i n development, you're going to use a lot of different 2 t hings to build that up. And so it may not all be from 3 a valid test, especially when we come down do 4 c omponents and how we're using component, engines and 5 d atabases. 6 MS. BARHYDT: These are -- I think she's just 7 r eferring to the two percent category. So the ones 8 t hat ultimately are part of your substantiation package 9 h ave to be a valid test. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: So the models, that's fine. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is that better? 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 13 MS. BARHYDT: My question is a wording issue 14 o f a valid test. Presumably at the time that test was 15 d one, it was a valid test. It's that subsequent 16 t esting -- 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. Test standards have 18 c hanged. 19 MS. BARHYDT: -- it invalidated the rating; 20 i t didn't necessarily invalidate the test. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. And also test standards 22 m ight have changed from the time the initial one was

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 267 1 d one. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know how else to say 3 i t. 4 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. How 5 a bout valid and current. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Uhn-uhn. You would have to go 7 b ack and test, and then you're -- 8 MR. EISNER: Just do it? Is the language now 9 o kay? 10 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 11 t hink we had just mentioned that manufacturers will be 12 u pdating their AEDM on an ongoing basis. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Then you would automatically 14 m eet this requirement. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Right. So when we update our 16 A EDM, are we expected to provide all of the data to the 17 d epartment every time? 18 MS. BARHYDT: You're never. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're never expected to 20 p rovide -- I mean, what we've agreed here, unless we 21 a sk for it. But if we ask for it and your minimum 22 r equirements with a model that we've determined has an

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 268 1 i nvalid rating, we have an issue. But if you're 2 c onstantly doing it, then you would just make your 3 p ackage is -- it's just the documentation. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 5 J ust to be clear on the labs that do the testing, is 6 t here any requirement for them to be third party 7 c ertified? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: What does that mean? What do 9 y ou mean? 10 MR. DOPPEL: Well, for Energy Star ratings, 11 t he lab has to have a third party. 12 MS. BARHYDT: DOE does not have that 13 r equirement. 14 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. 15 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen. Is it 16 y ou're updating your AEDM based on more testing? I'm 17 a ssuming you're also allowed to update your ratings 18 l isted on the -- 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're required to if they're 20 l ess efficient. 21 MR. SUTPHEN: If they're more. Let's say -- 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. You can update it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 269 1 MR. SUTPHEN: -- you do your minimum two 2 t ests, so you want to be conservative on all your 3 r atings, so you pass. But then as you do more testing, 4 y ou realize that you might have been too conservative. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. You can rerate 6 a t any time, every day if you'd like. 7 MR. SUTPHEN: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. EISNER: So any objections to the first 9 s entence? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think you want to do 11 t hat, but -- 12 MR. EISNER: Hearing no objections, let's go 13 o n to the second sentence. Parentheses, if DOE testing 14 s hows an invalid rating for one of the models that is 15 p art of the minimum substantiation requirements, a new 16 m odel must be tested. Any objections? Yes. You don't 17 g et a vote, but we'll listen to you. 18 MR. MYERS: As I was saying before, that is 19 d raconian, especially for a small manufacturer. 20 P erhaps he's only got one single line of products, then 21 i f he can't use the AEDM, he has to test every model. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: No one is talking about that.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 270 1 MS. BARHYDT: It's not saying that he can't 2 u se the AEDM. It's just saying that he has to test 3 a nother model as part of his substantiation package, 4 n ot the one that we determine was -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're not talking about the 6 s econd bullet. We're still on the first bullet. 7 MS. BARHYDT: First bullet. 8 MR. MYERS: Oh. I thought you said second. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Second sentence, first bullet. 10 MR. MYERS: Sorry. Sorry. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. 12 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. So 13 t hat -- that's kind of what the point I was making 14 b efore about a valid test. That if the test is one of 15 t hose that has established the AEDM, that there would 16 n eed to be a different path, and that's kind of what 17 t his says. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is what that says. 19 MS. BARHYDT: So do you like that? 20 MR. EISNER: Remember, you're not held to 21 w hat you say. 22 MR. DOPPEL: Well, everyone else kind of shot

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 271 1 t hat down, though, when I said that. But this clearly 2 i s -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's better when I typed it. 4 MR. EISNER: We can put your name in there 5 t emporarily if you want. 6 MR. DOPPEL: No, thank you. 7 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff. I guess I have a 8 q uestion on it. So the second case we talk about, 9 a gain, one of the models that was part of the 10 s ubstantiation. So basically the AEDM -- you have to 11 r ecertify the AEDM. Can that be -- and I think we're 12 l eaving this open to, okay, if a manufacturer has a 13 t est from another model that falls in that AEDM and 14 t hat one he actually tested, he could just resubmit. I 15 d on't know if that's a good thing. He could just 16 r esubmit based on another actual test that he had done 17 t hat was within that AEDM. If that makes sense. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: If you take one of the two 19 p athways to get yourself to a valid rating, you're 20 o kay. 21 MR. BAUMAN: Are we talking about validating 22 t he AEDM or validating a rating for a particular model?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 272 1 I 'm talking about -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: They're one in the same 3 t hing. 4 MR. BAUMAN: Well, one of those two models I 5 u sed, say there's 50 models, and I didn't do this, 6 s omebody else did this. Charlie did. Somebody used -- 7 t he manufacturer is not in this room -- used -- had an 8 A EDM that covered 20 models, and they used two models 9 t o certify that AEDM. He happens to have test data on 10 a nother model, a third model, that he didn't submit as 11 p art of it, but now he's gone and you've decertified 12 h is AEDM based on one of those points, now he can just 13 c ome back in and give you the test data on that other 14 m odel and pick up from there. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yup. 16 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. 17 MR. EISNER: Okay. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the key here is, if I look 19 a t this slide, and let's say I make products covering 20 e verything here. So 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16. I 21 h ave only tested 16 models, period. And from there I 22 h ave applied an AEDM to a hundred. One of those 16 DOE

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 273 1 h as made a determination is invalid. I need to test 2 s omething else. That's what it means. 3 Do we agree? 4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel. To me it would 5 s eem that if the average of the unit that was tested 6 a nd the DOE test falls within the AEDM, then it should 7 n ot be retested. Only if the average of the two tests 8 f alls without -- outside. 9 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp. If the manufacturer 10 t akes option three -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. You're getting it 12 b ack to a valid rating. It's only in the case when you 13 h ave a complete invalid rating. If you've opted for 14 p athway three for additional testing of your own or you 15 h ave additional testing from somewhere else and you've 16 b een able to pile that up together to come up with a 17 n ew valid rating, you're good to go, but you need to 18 m aintain all those records. That's it. 19 MR. EISNER: Time's up. You can't say 20 a nything. 21 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel. Can we see that 22 w riting again?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 274 1 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. I think everyone's in 2 a greement, it's just a question of wording. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is the key. 4 MR. CYMBALSKY: You've already made a valid 5 r ating. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: You've brought that invalid 7 r ating back to being valid again. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Right. But what he's saying is 9 i n that second sentence it says a new model must be 10 t ested, and he's saying I did additional testing and 11 s ort of revalidated the same model. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: It doesn't even meet this. 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. He didn't get there 14 y et. He's already satisfied with the page above this. 15 MR. EISNER: Are you using a microphone? 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think I'm talking loud 17 e nough. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, I'm happy to change 19 t he wording to whatever we need to do, but in my 20 o pinion, if you -- as long as they're valid, they're 21 v alid. 22 MR. CYMBALSKY: So Paul did option three

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 275 1 a bove, and by testing an additional unit, he took the 2 a verage of the two and he made the rating valid. So 3 t hat second sentence doesn't apply to him anymore. 4 T hat's -- you're not invalid, you're valid. 5 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff again. Aren't we 6 j ust saying that if DOE testing shows invalid, you have 7 t o recertify the AEDM? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think so. I mean, 9 n ot by -- kind of. But if I use this terminology, what 10 d oes that really mean? I mean, this is what it 11 a ctually means. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Does everyone understand 13 c onceptually what we're talking about because we can 14 m assage the language? Everybody doesn't have to sit 15 h ere through the agonizing -- 16 MR. DOPPEL: Hold up. Let me -- but it seems 17 t hat it's confused, though, because, again, to get the 18 v alid rating, I did additional testing. Okay. So 19 t hat's good. But then it goes back and says that if 20 D OE testing shows an invalid rating, which it already 21 d id which is why I retested, then it says then I have 22 t o pick a new model. But it seems like that should

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 276 1 s ay, if additional testing shows an invalid rating. 2 MR. THARP: If all testing for that model. 3 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. 4 MR. STANONIK: I think we need -- Frank 5 S tanonik. I think we need to be clear here. A lot of 6 t his process we're talking about test results that 7 i ndicate the rating may not be accurate, but there's 8 o nly one point at which you determine whether the 9 r ating is valid or not, and that's either when the 10 m anufacturer says, "Okay, I'm rerating," or you've done 11 a ll these extra tests and you do the averaging, 12 w hatever else, and you get to that decision point. 13 But one test doesn't necessarily -- shouldn't 14 b e interpreted as invalid rating. At best, it's an 15 i ndication that the rating may not be accurate. We've 16 b een spending all this time talking about what are 17 t hose next steps to get to the definitive point that 18 y ou can say, okay, either the rating is correct or it's 19 n ot. 20 And so I think when you see here when it 21 s ays, you know, it is not a valid rating, we've been 22 t hrough all the points and it's -- you know, there

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 277 1 i sn't any more that can be done for that model. Its 2 r ating is wrong, and that's the point where now you've 3 g ot to -- to support your AEDM, you have to come up 4 w ith a new anchor I'll call it, a new data point, which 5 i s a new model because your other model was rated 6 w rong. 7 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel. Okay. So the 8 p oint three before says that you can use -- 9 MS. BARHYDT: Paul, real quick. 10 MR. DOPPEL: -- any testing to show that. 11 B ut now you're saying new testing. 12 MR. STANONIK: No. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I don't think you can 14 d o it like this. 15 MS. BARHYDT: This won't work either. 16 MR. STANONIK: The previous -- the previous 17 b ullet point, okay, you've got other testing, so you do 18 t hat other testing. And when you're done with all 19 t hat, when you've provided all the other tests that 20 e xist or you've run additional tests, at that point you 21 m ake -- you know, the numbers tell you either the 22 r ating was in fact accurate or it's not. If they tell

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 278 1 y ou the rating was accurate, we're not even talking 2 a bout this whole next thing. If it tells you -- 3 MR. DOPPEL: Well, I agree with what Frank 4 w as saying, but that doesn't say what Frank was saying. 5 T o me what this should say is that if you've done the 6 o ther procedure and you're still outside, then you 7 c an't use that base model anymore. 8 MR. EISNER: Well, suggestions change new to 9 a dditional. 10 MR. DOPPEL: Change DOE to additional. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the only -- it's really if 12 y ou discontinue the model; right? 13 MR. DOPPEL: Well, then say that there. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, because if you keep 15 t esting and testing -- 16 MR. DOPPEL: That's basically what it is. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and you can't come up with 18 a valid rating, you're left with no option but to 19 d iscontinue the model. 20 MR. DOPPEL: I mean, that's really what it 21 s hould say. If that test unit is one of the base 22 m odels for substantiation requirements and it has to be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 279 1 d iscontinued, then you have to do a new test to 2 r esubstantiate the AEDM. I think that's -- I would 3 a gree to that. But that's not what that says up there. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So I think we should 5 j ust take that out. 6 MR. DOPPEL: Just type in what Ashley and I 7 j ust said. Frank Stanonik gave it a try. You're 8 s aying that it has to be obsolete; right? Is that what 9 I 'm hearing? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, the reality of 11 t he situation is if you can't do initial -- additional 12 t esting on additional units to come up with a valid 13 r ating, your only option at that point is to 14 d iscontinue. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Valid meaning not meeting the 16 f ederal minimums? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. Everything else is 18 v alid. That's what Jeff just asked me. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, but you're -- 20 MR. STANONIK: Okay. Ashley, let's call that 21 a n acceptable rerate, okay, because that's where I was 22 g etting tripped, okay, because if -- and I think of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 280 1 t his very simply, okay. Let's just use linear 2 i nterpolation. Let's say my AEDM is this very nice 3 l inear interpolation, and I've got, you know, my two 4 e nd points that I've tested, all right. And let's say 5 m y high efficiency end point, if that one fails, okay, 6 I may end up rerating it at the new numbers. I haven't 7 m ade it obsolete. But that certainly should no longer 8 b e my end point of my linear interpolation AEDM. 9 MR. EISNER: So fix it? 10 MR. WHITWELL: Or possibly change it to 11 d iscontinue or rerate. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Well, Frank, if my end point 13 h as moved, why could it not still be part of my AEDM 14 a nd I just need to revise my AEDM? 15 MR. STANONIK: Oh, it could be, but then your 16

- - then you've reiterated a lot of models, again, 17 b ecause -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: I agree. 19 MR. STANONIK: Again, I'm just thinking of 20 t his, you know, simple linear interpolation thing, and 21 i f it went from this to this, that's possible. But I 22 t hink, you know, in terms of what we are talking about,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 281 1 a t least what we were talking about, the idea was, 2 o kay, I need a new upper point to validate -- continue 3 t o validate my AEDM. Or to support my SS. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. So -- 5 MR. EISNER: Does this get us there? 6 MR. THARP: Rusty with Goodman. I think what 7

- - if -- if a manufacturer bases their AEDM on model A 8 a nd model B, that first bullet point addresses if model 9 A or model B is tested by DOE and fails. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 11 MR. THARP: What happens if they also rate 12 m odel C, D, and E off of that, and model C fails; what 13 h appens to AEDM then? 14 MR. STANONIK: Nothing. 15 MR. THARP: Nothing at all? 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what the second bullet 17 i s supposed to -- 18 MR. THARP: Okay. So the first bullet is 19 o nly addressing if model A or model B is tested? Thank 20 y ou. 21 MR. EISNER: We okay? We've got no 22 d isagreement with the first bullet? Second bullet.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 282 1 F orget the percent, do you agree that it should be a 2 p ercent if manufacturers' certified models are found to 3 h ave invalid ratings? Manufacturer may not certify 4 u sing an AEDM for any models going forward. So do we 5 a gree we should use a percentage to make this 6 d etermination? 7 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I do 8 n ot. I believe a tiered approach should be made for a 9 n umber of products. 10 MR. STANONIK: What approach? 11 MR. STEPHENS: A tiered approach for the 12 n umber of products in an AEDM. If they are below a 13 c ertain number, I think the number should be used. If 14 i t's above a certain number of models, I think a 15 p ercentage should be used. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you suggest a -- 17 MR. THARP: This is Rusty. I believe that -- 18 A HRI people help -- correct me. I think if you get 19 a bove 10 percent failure, then you're in really bad 20 w ater with AHRI; is that correct? 21 MALE SPEAKER: You already have (inaudible). 22 MR. THARP: But 10 percent is a value that if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 283 1 y ou get above 10 percent, that's when you're in mental 2 m ode. 3 MALE SPEAKER: Right. 4 MS. BARHYDT: You're on the spot, Frank. 5 MR. EISNER: You guys have to come to the 6 m icrophone. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So if it's 10 percent, then 8 i t would say, if 10 percent of a manufacturer's 9 c ertified models are found to have invalid ratings, a 10 m anufacturer may not certify, use an AEDM for any 11 m odels going forward. 12 MR. MUCCIOLA: This is Vince with National 13 C omfort. We already agreed with AHRI that there was a 14 w eighted average. If you had a hundred models and you 15 f ailed three, you may not get interested in that. So 16 t hey came up with a weighted average when we went into 17 t he penalty mode that you only had four items in your 18 p roduct line -- 19 MR. STANONIK: We actually did what Phillip 20 s uggested which is, if -- and I don't remember the 21 e xact numbers, but I think it was something on the 22 o rder of if you only, let's say, encompassed ten models

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 284 1 i n this case and AEDM, then it was I think actually 2 o ne. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can you provide that? 4 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. 5 MR. EISNER: Can we just stop for a second. 6 W e're losing some people. Do we want to go ahead, or 7 d o we want to stop for the day? We said we would stop 8 a t 3:00 and continue this without Ashley in two weeks. 9 O r do we want to try to resolve this today with the 10 l imited number of people? 11 MALE SPEAKER: I'm willing to let you go 12 a head. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. Let's continue. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, it seems like it's 15 c entering around, does Frank have that information 16 a vailable. 17 MR. STANONIK: I have it available, yeah, but 18

- - and I'll send you the actual criteria. My memory 19 s ays it's -- if you have less than ten models, it's 20 o ne. If it's more than ten, it's 10 percent. But I'll 21 g et you the exact -- it's something along those lines. 22 MR. EISNER: Is everybody in agreement that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 285 1 t hat would be a good model to use? 2 MR. MYERS: I would certainly want to -- this 3 i s Frank Myers, PVI. I would certainly want to take a 4 l ook at it. That was set up with a completely 5 d ifferent set of criteria where the manufacturers were 6 i n control, were able to be there for every test. You 7 k now, we have a group that evaluates the laboratory's 8 p erformance. 9 The criteria that AHRI uses to establish that 10 p enalty mode I think would be a really strong and 11 i nappropriately strong way to do it here. There needs 12 t o be more flexibility. The other thing is this is 13 l ooking at a percentage with the end result. You can't 14 c ertify by using any AEDM, and again, I vehemently 15 d isagree with that. That's catastrophic. Something 16 m ore like if you hit some threshold, you have to have - 17

- any ratings that are used to validate the AEDM have 18 t o be by an independent third party would be a much 19 b etter, more appropriate -- you know, where now we can 20 d o our own validation testing of the AEDM, have a third 21 p arty do the testing to validate even if you have to do 22 t hird party for all of your validation.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 286 1 MR. EISNER: Anybody have thoughts on the 2 t hird party concept? 3 Frank? 4 MR. THARP: Rusty with Goodman. I think the 5

- - we wouldn't want to say not certify using any AEDM, 6 b ut only AEDMs for the given product class or 7 s ubstantiation class that was used for. And then along 8 t he lines of the penalties and stuff. 9 The way AHRI works is you progress into -- 10 a fter a certain percentage of samples or number of 11 s amples, you go into a double selection mode before you 12 g et into that final, we call it internally the death 13 p enalty or penalty mode, so maybe something of that 14 n ature where you go back and select two more samples 15 a nd test those before you get to a point of 16 c atastrophic failure. 17 MR. MYERS: And if there's any -- I don't 18 d isagree with what you're saying, but certainly if 19 w e're going to say you can't use an AEDM for that 20 f amily of products, then is there -- can we write in 21 s ome way to regain the grace of using that? Is there 22 s ome more stringent verification we can do to, once

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 287 1 a gain, begin using it? 2 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. I 3 a gree with that because it would be a big blow to never 4 b e able to do an AEDM just before. I mean, it would be 5 d ifferent if you thought somebody was cheating on 6 p urpose, but if somebody is just a real horrible 7 m athematician or they haven't used the right data set, 8 y ou know, there has to be a way that we can redeem 9 o urselves and go back to using an AEDM, and I would 10 l ike to see that in there. And maybe we don't have 11 e nough time left to discuss it at this meeting. 12 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. One point on 13 t hat, okay. So we're talking about not being able to 14 u se an AEDM. What that means is that the manufacturer 15 i n this case would have to do testing for each of those 16 m odels. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yup. 18 MR. STANONIK: And to Frank Myers' point 19 w here he was saying before, well, maybe we should just 20 h ave a monetary penalty. I would say the requirement 21 i s that, okay, you no longer have options, you have to 22 d o testing. That's a pretty significant monetary

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 288 1 p enalty with one little relief which says, okay, if you 2 c an do all this testing in your facility, if you've got 3 t he time, resources and everything else, then in fact - 4

- well, it may save you some money. It's going to 5 c ertainly affect you in other places because resources 6 a re limited, time is limited. 7 So if you're going to have to be setting 8 a side let's say two months to do all these testing 9 b ecause you still want to make and sell products, then 10 y ou obviously can't do a lot of other stuff. But, you 11 k now, it is -- I guess I always say ultimately it is 12 g oing to be a financial penalty. 13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers again. You 14 w ere talking about two months or three months and costs 15 m oney. With a number of us manufacturers, we have -- 16 w e're a small company, engineer and build to order. We 17 h ave a wide variety of products that -- and AEDM makes 18 i t manageable where we can comply because remember, 19 i t's basic models, which is they have to be essentially 20 t he same efficiency. So we might have hundreds of 21 b asic models within what appears to be a fairly small 22 f amily because of this essentially identical

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 289 1 r equirement, so now we're faced with testing basically 2 h undreds of models. 3 Remember, our equipment is very large. And 4 s o it is a show stopper, a game stopper, a business put 5 o ut, the business is no more. So we have to be very 6 c areful with how we use this. And there should be some 7 w ay to redeem beyond individually testing every basic 8 m odel. If we were going to do that I would say we need 9 t o set up some kind of a basic model group rule where 10 w e can reestablish ourselves within a basic model group 11 b ecause basic models is a nonstarter for testing. 12 MR. STANONIK: Keep in mind -- excuse me, but 13 t he Ashley DOE definition of basic model is that it has 14 d ifferent efficiency, okay. It has a different 15 e fficiency rating or performance rating. 16 So one of the options in this case would be 17 t hat you could decide, okay, I'm just going to rate 18 t hem all the same efficiency and call them the same 19 b asic model. Not that I agree that's a good solution, 20 b ut at the moment it would be a solution within DOE 21 r egs. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I specifically -- you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 290 1 k now, it's going to be based on how you certify them. 2 I realize we haven't gotten to the concept of, you 3 k now, groupings, product classes, families, basic model 4 g roups, et cetera. But if you certify them a specific 5 w ay, we're basing these percentages on how you certify 6 t hem. 7 I have no doubt that the next meeting we will 8 e nter into how they should be certified, but the 9 r eality is, if you certify less than ten models and 10 y ou're using an AEDM, what this says is if one model is 11 f ound to have an invalid reading, you may not use an 12 A EDM for any of the models that are a part of that same 13 s ubstantiation class. However, if you certify more 14 t han ten, then it has to be 10 percent. I don't know 15 i f that's reasonable or not, but that is my translation 16 o f Frank's program to DOE words. 17 MR. MYERS: Right. This is Frank Myers, PCI 18 I ndustries. That to me is draconian and there's going 19 t o be something other -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Let it go. 21 MR. EISNER: Would it be -- 22 MR. MYERS: I'm okay with the concept that if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 291 1 y ou're bad, you have to have some penalty, do more, but 2 w hat this says converting -- as you say converting to 3 r eal world language, if you have ten models and one is 4 o ut of compliance, you're out of business in that line. 5 S o we need something other than you can't use an AEDM, 6 p eriod, for any of your models that are in that 7 s ubstantiation. 8 MR. EISNER: What can we say, 20 percent? 25 9 p ercent? 10 MR. MYERS: I would propose rather than going 11 t o a different percent, let's settle on a percent, 12 w hatever the number is, ten, 20, whatever, but that it 13 c auses us to do something other than you can't use an 14 A EDM. You have to do all of your validation with a 15 t hird party which is very expensive and manufacturers 16 w ould work hard not to have that happen. 17 MS. BARHYDT: So you mentioned that a minute 18 a go, and I'm not sure I understand the idea there 19 b ecause you did -- let's make this easy. You had one 20 s ubstantiation class, two models. You tested your two 21 m odels, you tested them in-house. You built your AEDM 22 o ff of that. And we tested a model that was not part

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 292 1 o f your substantiation package and it failed. How 2 w ould doing third party testing impact your AEDM? 3 MR. MYERS: You would have to revise your 4 A EDM so that when the third party tested, it would be 5 s upported. It wasn't supported when you were doing it 6 b efore. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: What do you mean third party 8 t ested? 9 MR. MYERS: Pardon? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: What do you mean third party 11 t ested? 12 MR. MYERS: Not your own testing. 13 I ndependent laboratory -- 14 MS. BARHYDT: Of what? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Of what? 16 MR. MYERS: Of your substantiation. You 17 w ould create a new AEDM -- if you met this penalty 18 r equirement, you would have to generate a new AEDM that 19 c overed -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: There's no such thing. 21 MR. MYERS: -- that area, and rather than 22 s ubstantiate that yourself, you have to get it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 293 1 s ubstantiated by -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: There is no such thing -- do 3 y ou want to substantiate their AEDM? 4 MR. WHITWELL: No. It's -- I think maybe 5 w hat he's saying is that it would perhaps eliminate the 6 q uestion of whether the in-house testing was valid or 7 n ot. 8 MR. MYERS: Right. 9 MR. WHITWELL: It wouldn't solve the problem 10 o f whether the AEDM was developed correctly -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what we're getting at, 12 r ight? 13 MR. WHITWELL: -- but it would answer the 14 q uestion perhaps about whether the basic testing was 15 o kay or not. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So let's say you had it third 17 p arty tested, the exact same two models. If your AEDM 18 i s not a good predictor of performance, you may get 19 e xactly the same two model data points going into your 20 A EDM, and that doesn't have any impact on what's coming 21 o ut of your 22 A EDM.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 294 1 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 2 t hink we can make a lot of progress if we change 3 s ubstantiation class to basic model group so we're not 4 o ut an entire product class, but say it's a family 5 n ame. Say -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's for next week. 7 MS. BARHYDT: We'll be dealing with that next 8 t ime. 9 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. I mean, just 10 o ne thing because, I mean, I was asked what AHRI's 11 c riteria are for I think putting people on probation, 12 a nd we're talking about, you know, at what point do you 13 s ay, sorry, you lost your license to do AEDM, okay. I 14 w ould suggest for purposes of discussion at this point, 15 I 'd certainly be more comfortable putting in rather 16 t han whatever we have there. My suggestion would be 17 t hree or one-third, whichever is greater. Either three 18 o r one-third of all models included in the AEDM 19 w hichever is greater. So basically, if I had ten and I 20 h ave three failures, that to me raises suspicion about 21 A EDM. If I've got a hundred, then it's one-third. 22 MR. EISNER: I think we've gotten to a point

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 295 1

- - 2 MS. HOOTMAN: You would be testing 30? 3 MR. STANONIK: I'm not testing. I'm saying 4 t hat if I saw -- 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, they would have to test 6 t hat 30 to say that they found that they had invalid 7 r atings, and you never get there. And in all honesty, 8 I 'm going to tell you I've got 200,000 models. 9 MR. STANONIK: All right. See, it simulated 10 d iscussion. It simulated discussion. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: And I'm just at the top level. 12 I 'm not even to the trillion that Carrier and I would - 13

- 14 MR. EISNER: We're pretty close to not having 15 t wo people to vote negative, so I think it's time to 16 b reak up. 17 MS. DANE: Can I make a request on this? Can 18 w e just -- I know this is, like, a really rough 19 d ocument. Can you send it out and mark it as a rough 20 d ocument so we don't have to wait for two weeks? 21 MR. EISNER: I think what we're going to get, 22 i f we had finished this, we would have gotten a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 296 1 c omplete document polished for everything. I think -- 2 i s Ashley still here? 3 MS. BARHYDT: Actually, I think -- 4 MR. EISNER: We can send -- the process that 5 A shley described, we can send a package through me then 6 t o everybody else with all of the other issues plus the 7 r ough language for this one. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Another possibility -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. I can't send it out 10 t onight because I want to take the stuff in the 11 P owerPoint out and put it all in one place. But it 12 d oesn't necessarily have to be two weeks either. 13 MS. BARHYDT: We're also going to be setting 14 u p a share point site, and so at that point it will be 15 m uch easier to share documents. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, give us a couple 17 d ays, at least. 18 MR. EISNER: We should talk about what 19 m aterial we need for the next meeting, like, agendas, 20 i ssues, stuff like that. Maybe we should get whoever 21 e lse you think is necessary because I would like a copy 22 o f all of these as soon as we can get them so I can --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 297 1 w hen I see the draft, I know what it was based on and I 2 c an figure it out, but let's talk. 3 (Whereupon, 3:02 p.m., the Appliance 4 Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 5 Committee Meeting was concluded.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capital Reporting Company Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 2 I, NATALIA THOMAS, the Court Reporter before whom 3 the foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby certify 4 that the proceeding was recorded by me; that the 5 proceeding was thereafter reduced to typewriting under 6 my direction; that said transcript is a true and 7 accurate record of the proceeding; that I am neither 8 related to nor employed by any of the parties to this 9 proceeding; and, further, that I have no financial 10 interest in this proceeding. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NATALIA THOMAS Digital Court Reporter



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitaIReportingCompany.com © 

### 2013 298

### Capital Reporting Company Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION 2 I, MIRANDA PENNACHI, hereby certify that I am 3 not the Court Reporter who reported the following 4 proceeding and that I have typed the transcript of this 5 proceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and 6 recordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a 7 true, correct and complete transcription of said 8 proceeding. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

# 5 

# l/1jJL Date MIRA N DA PENNACHI Transcriptionist

(866) 448

- DEPO 

### www.CapitaIReportingCompany.com © 

### 2013 299

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 300 1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION 2 I, KATHY ZEVE, hereby certify that I am not 3 t he Court Reporter who reported the following 4 p roceeding and that I have typed the transcript of this 5 p roceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and 6 r ecordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a 7 t rue, correct and complete transcription of said 8 p roceeding. 9 10 11 12 13

_ ______________ ________________________ 14 D ate KATHY ZEVE Transcriptionist 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 301 1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION 2 I, MARY YOUNG, hereby certify that I am not 3 t he Court Reporter who reported the following 4 p roceeding and that I have typed the transcript of this 5 p roceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and 6 r ecordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a 7 t rue, correct and complete transcription of said 8 p roceeding. 9 10 11 12

_ ______________ ________________________ 13 D ate MARY YOUNG Transcriptionist 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 302 1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION 2 I, PATRICIA DESTAJO, hereby certify that I am 3 n ot the Court Reporter who reported the following 4 p roceeding and that I have typed the transcript of this 5 p roceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and 6 r ecordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a 7 t rue, correct and complete transcription of said 8 p roceeding. 9 10 11

_ ______________ ________________________ 12 D ate PATRICIA DESTAJO Transcriptionist 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 1

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 $ $100,000 123:5 139:22 $16 138:8 $5 32:8 $50,000 160:20

+ +10 53:19 +5 53:19 0 0 47:12 1 1 52:7,17,18 54:17 96:3 115:2 10 26:14 40:6,16,22 41:19 44:19 45:11 52:10 54:12,21 58:6 117:16 118:2 123:3 159:15 172:3 206:7 272:20 282:19,22 283:1,7,8 284:20 290:14 10:00 195:14 10:15 194:5,8,10,11 195:17 10:30 194:10 100 51:13 52:18 54:20,21 55:2 128:22 146:17 170:5 1000 1:7 55:9 245:7 1001 245:13

100-watt 26:9 105 209:18 10th 196:16 197:4 11.9 264:7 11:00 7:10 11th 195:8 196:16 197:4 12 242:4 264:6 272:20 120 236:4 125 88:8,10,14 135 41:17 14 234:18 235:2 237:2 272:20 15 1:11 123:3 235:4,9 242:20 150 122:21 123:3 15-week 237:2 16 264:14 272:20,21,22 17025 114:3,10 126:19 17th 203:18 180 236:14 242:8 243:8,9,10 244:22 18th 203:18 190 245:1 1st 203:7,13,14 204:5 2 2 22:10 115:3 238:22 272:20 20 48:16 51:14 52:7,17 54:17 96:4 154:21 186:6 258:14 272:8 291:8,12 200 122:21 123:3 200,000 295:8 2000 134:9 2005 253:21 2013 1:11 20585 1:9 20-ton 154:20 225,000 43:13 24 49:13 240,000 154:21 25 291:8 250 88:5 236:10 250,000 236:9 26th 204:7,13 27th 204:8 28th 196:19 29th 196:1 197:3,7 2nd 203:8,15 3 3 218:13 222:12 3:00 195:15 284:8 3:02 297:3 30 235:12 295:2,6 30th 194:3 196:1 197:3,7 204:10 30-ton 123:12 31 202:14 31st 204:4 340 131:13 36 264:13 360 131:14 4 4 108:12 272:20 45 236:1 4th 203:9 5 5 8:16 26:12 27:2,8 28:20 29:6 30:4 32:14,15 33:4 40:3,6,12,22 41:18 42:11,19 43:3 44:19 45:19 46:10,19 47:9,20 48:7,10,18 49:2,8,14 51:7,8,18,20,21 52:5,6,17 53:7,15,16,18 54:16,18,22 55:6,11 96:4 5.0 32:12 5.499 32:15 50 272:5 50-gallon 26:8 6 6 272:20 6:00 195:15 6:15 195:19 60 122:9 154:21 233:13 235:10 236:8 240:6,11 60-ton 122:18 65 40:18 41:17 130:16,17 155:3 65,000 130:19 236:9

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 2

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 7 700 88:16 72 184:16,22 750 87:22 760,000 236:10 7th 204:6 8 8 272:20 8:00 1:12 195:15 800 65:2 88:16 99:14,15 100:16 133:19 134:5,6,7,14 8th 204:7 9 9 265:13 9.5 52:9 54:12 9.8 54:22 90 121:3 166:1 172:1 221:16 233:15 236:3,10,11 240:6,7,11 241:22 91 265:12 92 209:16 221:15 231:1 265:12 95 82:9 172:15,22 206:6 209:16 A A.C 40:7 a.m 1:12 90:14 AAON 3:2 18:21 ability 103:7 104:14 120:6 127:18 135:13,16 138:19 139:3 149:6 162:16 229:12 243:21 able 7:22 22:3 32:19 34:19,20 53:1 91:22 92:2 99:4 102:2 105:18,20 120:3 123:8 124:20 135:8,14 136:6,7 141:10 159:2 188:7 198:20 223:14,18 242:21 262:11 273:16 285:6 287:4,13 ABMIA 27:19 absence 113:3 absolute 67:6 88:11 absolutely 60:2 108:16,20 109:3 115:7 126:4 190:9 191:10 269:5 abusive 263:22 AC 3:18 academic 54:4 ACCA 163:14 accept 47:9 52:16 179:10 218:10 acceptable 14:11,12 25:12 218:20 279:21 access 111:5 187:10 accommodating 68:18 accompany 39:3 accordance 102:5,8,10,12 124:11 126:5 181:8,12 186:1 190:13 231:22 232:20 according 33:20 80:14 82:8,13 126:22 180:5 196:15 accredit 114:9 accreditation 114:10 139:4 accreditations 138:20 accredited 114:4 127:17 137:21 accuracy 113:20 169:2,10 accurate 50:18 90:8 184:12 212:12 276:7,15 277:22 278:1 298:7 accurately 65:3 214:12 216:9 264:20 ACEEE 5:3 acknowledge 31:6 34:6 104:13 acknowledged 36:17 acknowledgement 25:18 acknowledges 50:21 acknowledging 231:20

across 21:17 100:15 127:11 136:10 150:10 161:12 184:20 act 257:21 acting 212:3 action 74:10 156:9 activated 67:11 actively 163:14 activities 97:9 activity 259:15 actual 59:4 67:15 72:20 79:19 94:14 103:15 113:15 166:6 271:16 284:18 actually 13:8 16:13 31:4 35:17 41:7 48:16 54:17 55:3 58:15 63:17 72:8 78:7,17 79:10 92:5 99:16 103:13 112:8 113:17 123:16 134:13 141:6 180:13 184:4 194:10 197:16 211:11 214:20 216:13 234:15 237:6 239:16,19 271:14 275:11 283:19 284:1 296:3 add 42:14 45:11 53:12 78:3 121:9 158:19 177:9 185:22 186:1 198:16 204:11 226:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 3

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 added 25:5 106:12,14 169:1 174:2,17 187:5 199:2 adding 188:9 addition 14:1 16:21 129:12 176:8 additional 38:18 70:22 91:19 92:19,20 94:10 97:15 98:5 107:7,12,13 108:3 111:11 113:6 114:22 115:9 116:22 145:1,2 148:2 169:6,12 171:9 177:18 178:12,20 180:13 181:4,16 186:1 188:7 189:15 190:5,6 191:8 209:11 215:20 220:22 221:6 222:13,15 223:9,13,19 224:16,19 225:21 226:21 227:6 228:1 231:13,21 232:1 236:1 239:18 253:13 255:13,16 262:20 273:14,15 274:10 275:1,18 276:1 277:20 278:9,10 279:11,12 address 23:9,10 35:6 71:8 73:17 101:18 114:17 142:12 151:10 168:20 171:20 195:7 addressed 37:12 132:16 135:5 186:3 addresses 189:22 281:8 addressing 281:19 adequate 169:8 200:22 adjust 36:19 adjusted 185:11 adjustments 39:4 70:11 175:8 admit 15:5 adopting 131:15 adult 163:7,8 advance 188:13,15 193:18 Advanced 5:13 advantages 47:19 238:20 Advisory 1:4 297:4 advocate 246:2 AED 256:20 261:14 AEDM 7:22 8:4 11:1 12:1 13:19 14:1,3,16 16:15,20 27:2 29:16 35:16 36:17 50:1 84:1 193:1 198:4 199:7,22 200:5,17 201:18,21 202:10,11,18,19 206:13,20 207:3,4,12,17 208:7 211:1,7,8 212:5 213:8,16 214:2 215:19,20 216:3 217:7,11 218:2,11,22 219:1,3,4,10,18, 20,21 220:10,16 222:15,17 231:22 232:1,4,9,11,14, 20 238:15 245:22 247:9,14,19,22 248:2,3,22 249:4,12,16 250:3,17,20 251:2,6 252:1,4,6,7,8,22 253:3,8,12,14 257:1,18 258:2,4,8,16 259:19,21 260:3,5,14,16,20 261:3,20 262:7,15 263:1,9,12 264:18 265:11,13,19,22 267:12,16 268:16 269:21 270:2,15 271:10,11,13,17, 22 272:8,9,12,22 273:6 275:7 277:3 279:2 280:2,8,13,14 281:3,7,13 282:4,12 283:10 284:1 285:14,17,20 286:5,19 287:4,9,14 288:17 290:10,12

291:5,14,21 292:2,4,17,18 293:3,10,17,20,2 2 294:13,18,21 AEDMs 10:22 197:19 201:6 202:7 212:11 248:17,20,22 249:10 251:1,7,18 253:11 261:4,9,12 262:15 263:22 264:15 286:6 AEDM's 260:7 AER 19:2 affect 10:8 20:7 37:5 79:2 161:7 288:5 affected 214:1 afford 129:18 afternoon 7:3 191:21 192:8 afterwards 101:1 against 74:10 246:22 agency 28:13 31:10 179:22 agenda 196:10 agendas 296:19 agent 67:12 162:15 212:4 ago 87:17 163:10 229:6 291:18 agonizing 275:15 agreed 68:2 107:15 130:5 195:13 197:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 4

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 206:8 220:19 221:14 229:20 267:20 283:13 agreeing 159:6 agreement

7:21 8:1,2 35:11 46:9 229:12 247:4 274:2 284:22 Aha 9:12 ahead 40:10 47:10 90:12 136:21 151:8 164:13 198:3 201:15 218:16 244:3 284:6,12 AHRI 2:7 5:10 6:5 16:16 25:14 31:5 32:18 33:11 34:4 38:2 39:2,12,17 41:9 43:10 45:5,18 50:16 70:6,16 82:3 83:21 89:13 90:11,22 100:1 103:7,10,22 111:4 113:8 118:9 121:17 123:7,10 124:20 129:14 131:4,13 159:16,17 161:15 163:3 168:22 169:5,12,14 175:17 177:16,20 178:10 179:9,10 181:3,8,9,12 182:10,11 183:9 185:2,3 187:4 211:22 212:16,17 213:1 214:4 217:17 220:9 224:10 240:12 246:15 253:3 254:1,11 265:5 282:18,20 283:13 285:9 286:9 AHRIs 223:6 AHRI's 184:6 185:13 294:10 air 5:18 22:5,6 37:4,6,9,10 38:12 40:7 44:6 69:13 78:13 84:1 96:11 130:14 146:21 147:14 163:11 191:4 Air-Conditioning 2:6 5:9 airflow 20:14 119:6 airport 194:17 alert 173:5 Alex 2:13 algorithms 95:10 alike 194:22 alleviate 91:20 125:17 167:14 Alliance 5:11 153:17 allow 18:17 32:13 49:8 59:9 70:16,20 83:8 98:21 99:9 125:12 145:14 155:12 184:14 185:1 254:15 allowable 54:11 186:10 allowed 19:20 24:15 29:6 52:19 54:21 129:3 184:3 213:8 223:2 256:20 268:17 allowing 39:2 69:1 101:17 241:19 allows 158:2,3 170:2 186:5 257:2 already 9:7 29:18 60:7 68:2 93:16 108:13 117:17 120:11,13 128:5 156:13 157:17 165:1 167:8 168:14 175:9 196:5 243:3 252:13 274:4,14 275:20 282:21 283:13 alternates 193:16 altogether 57:12 221:7 am 11:4 154:9 298:7 299:2 300:2 301:2 302:2 ambiguity 9:12 America 3:19 5:6 84:18 amount 134:17 219:11 249:18 256:2 amounts 249:10 ample 105:17 Amrane 2:6 analysis 236:18 237:21 238:5 239:18 anchor 277:4

and/or 33:20 187:1 Anderson 2:8 Andrew 6:2 annual 70:5 anomalous 104:17 anomaly 57:19 93:5 answer 16:17 65:11 68:22 71:11,15,16 80:13,17 101:15 113:22 125:8 134:3 184:5 254:17 293:13 answered 21:20 anybody 7:14 75:20 79:16 127:1 143:11 155:15 164:17 191:12,14 198:8 200:3 212:18 226:7 265:17,20 286:1 anymore 146:19 237:12 260:21 262:7 275:3 278:7 anyone 164:20 179:11 199:6 anything 12:13 17:19 74:12,22 82:2 85:2 88:18 94:20 108:6 129:21 130:13 143:4 153:4 155:3,15 165:13 170:10 177:9 189:17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 5

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191:11,13 214:5 215:2 222:1 226:8 273:20 anytime 78:5 anyway 92:14,15 94:8 115:12 124:13 130:3 221:21 239:3 anywhere 39:15 100:11 136:8 apologize 73:15 appeal 74:19 appealing 166:22 appeals 155:19,20 appear 161:21 appears 288:21 apple 263:7 Appliance 1:3 297:3 Appliances 2:15 applicability 221:4 applicable 19:11 35:19 56:13 206:8 applied 35:13 47:22 263:16 272:22 applies 249:19 apply 9:1 26:14 27:2 35:19 36:11 115:2,4 275:3 applying 70:8,9 252:7 260:5 261:8 appreciated 104:5 approach 22:21 35:11,21 209:5 282:8,10,11

approaches 53:3 approaching 22:15,18 appropriate 35:2 97:8 128:9 173:6 177:6 285:19 appropriations 97:7 approve 146:11 approves 198:2 area 22:7 132:17 133:9 195:4 292:21 areas 38:9 aren't 72:16,17 130:1 143:15 154:19 159:6 226:16 275:5 argue 68:16 argument 162:20 245:22 Aris 4:5 ARM 265:6 ARMSTRING 186:18 ARMSTRONG 9:18,20 12:2,4,16 13:14 14:7,12,19 15:1,17 16:5,7 17:15 18:10 19:3 20:4 22:14 24:1,3 29:21 30:8,21 35:9 36:1,3 37:11,16 39:16 40:1,4,15,18 41:3,6,11,16,20 42:2,5,8,14,18,2 0 43:3,6,12,19,22 44:2,5,8,12,15,1 7,20,22 45:8,13,21 46:2,7,22 47:3,10 49:10 50:4,8,11,14,19 51:3,5,17 55:22 56:8,10,21 57:10 58:3,8,11,20 59:5,10,16,21 60:9,11,17,21 63:11,20 64:1 65:15,18 66:2 71:5,15,17 72:11,14 73:7 74:6 76:8,17 81:11 83:4,10 86:17,19 87:5 91:7,10,14 92:7,9,13 93:7,10,13,16 94:4,6 98:1,6,10 99:17,21 100:4,6,13,17 101:3,6 106:15 108:16,20 109:11 110:10 111:13,20 112:19 113:11 114:1 115:7,9,11,15,19 ,21 116:4,8,17,22 117:19 125:10,21 127:15 128:5 129:22 130:9 131:19 132:7 134:3,9 138:13 144:5,13 148:1,6,13 149:1,9,22 150:12 152:2,7

153:1,5 155:2,22 157:13,22 158:2,9,15 159:13,21 160:11 164:5,13 165:4 166:11 167:4,18,21 168:4 172:17 173:15 174:1,20 175:9 177:10 178:3,6,15 179:2,4,6,12 180:12 181:6,18,21 182:20 183:6 185:21 187:7 188:18 190:9,16,21 191:2,7 192:2 193:7,10,14,22 196:17 197:3,11,17 199:19 200:1,12 201:5,11,21 205:10,17,21 206:4,7,11 207:20 208:3 209:3,8,10,20 210:11,14,16 211:5 214:11,15,21 215:2,8,10,13 217:8 220:1 221:18,22 222:6,9,20 223:4 224:22 225:11,13 226:13,22 227:7,10,16 228:2,10,14,20 229:10,14 230:1,14 231:5,9,14 232:6,13,21

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 6

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 233:5,7 234:6,14,20 235:4,7,15 240:14,17,20 241:1,7 244:20 245:9,15 248:2,13 249:5 251:9,19 252:10 255:3 257:7,13 266:11 267:2,13,19 268:8,19,22 269:5,10,22 270:5,18 271:3,18 272:2,15,18 273:11 274:3,6,12,18 275:8 277:13 278:11,14,17 279:4,10,17 281:4,10,16 282:16 283:7 284:3,14 287:17 289:22 290:20 292:7,10,15,20 293:2,11 294:6 296:9,16 as-designed 68:14 ASHFORD 18:14 56:3 Ashley 8:6 43:8 45:11 57:20 80:8 82:5 95:21 98:3 99:13 109:17 115:10,13 117:14 119:13 132:4 138:18 139:13 144:5 145:2,6 151:5,10 160:6 164:2 174:2,16 186:13 200:4,6,10 211:3 226:17 227:20 229:5 231:12 254:17 255:4 256:5 259:17 279:6,20 284:8 289:13 296:2,5 Ashley's 106:12 264:22 265:15 ASHRAE 4:20 20:10 84:11 95:18 129:8 Asia 150:10 aside 125:22 288:8 ASRAC 193:21 198:3 201:14 204:20 assembled 28:22 assembly 58:19 assess 159:20,21 224:18 assessing 115:8 assign 52:15 assigned 11:10 assist 124:21 Association 2:14 assume 12:18 35:4 47:4 60:15 65:1 88:8 119:14 255:15 assuming 16:2 30:10 88:14 149:19 151:15 209:15 268:17 assumption 11:13 15:22 23:21 34:14,18 163:10 assurance 104:7 assure 24:15 38:10 39:3 assured 39:9

Athar 3:15 attached 49:7 119:4,5 attendance 129:17 135:6 attending 136:16 attention 170:14 auditors 114:5 August 203:5 204:6,19,22 authenticate 8:10 16:14 265:19 authority 49:13 55:21 220:11 authorization 117:17 automatic 74:14,17,19 148:7 155:19,20 166:21 229:21 automatically 46:16 115:5 156:9 175:2 229:17 267:13 availability 227:4 available 69:2,22 103:3,4 176:15,16 222:16,18 236:8,12 240:12 244:10,17 284:16,17 avenue 1:7 177:22 220:20 average 273:5,7 275:2 283:14,16 averaging 222:18 276:11

awarding 264:4 aware 238:18 away 55:20 149:4 150:6 196:2 B backup 216:1 backward s 24:4,5 bad 75:13 85:6 184:10 208:8 230:19 260:7,11,12 261:20,22 263:7 264:7,8 282:19 291:1 baffles 105:8 balances 151:1 balancing 72:15 ball 39:17 Ballo 2:9 band 9:9 24:19 Bard 4:21 bare 252:18 255:8 Barhydt 2:10 7:20 9:11,14,16,19,21 11:5,19,21 12:3 13:20 14:4 15:21 16:6,12 18:3 29:10,14,20 30:20 32:6 34:13 49:18,22 50:3,6,10,13 57:20 62:10,16 63:4,7,10 66:5 67:14,21 71:16 75:2,15,17 86:16,18,20 101:19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 7

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 102:4,9,12,16,18 ,20 103:2 118:3,6,22 119:12,21 120:11 133:11,14 134:2,8,13,17 135:9 136:1,10,19,21 139:10,14,17 140:6 141:1 147:9,12 156:11,20 157:2,6,10,17 158:1 163:3 164:20 173:14 179:8 181:7,11 182:7,12 187:19 189:18,20 192:4,9,12 193:9 194:9,14,18 195:18,20 196:2,13 197:2,8 199:12,21 200:14 201:2,10 202:15 203:20 204:3,15 205:6,14 208:10 209:6 210:5 211:3 213:18 214:19 215:1,7,9,12 216:17 217:13 218:16 223:12 224:6,21 227:3,9 228:12 229:9,11 231:16 232:16 233:1,6 237:6,22 238:6,17 239:21 242:18 243:6,9,12,21 244:4,7 245:21 251:3 253:10 259:14 262:17 266:6,13,19 267:18 268:12 270:1,7,9,19 274:1,8 275:12 277:9,15 280:12,18 283:4 291:17 292:14 293:16 294:7 296:3,8,13 base 223:21 255:6 257:10 278:7,21 based 14:15 20:10 74:11 98:16 106:15,16 134:14 135:13 138:19 183:13 205:13 207:5,6,8 208:9 209:8,9,12,15,21 210:10,19 211:17 214:14 215:15 219:4 220:3 221:6 222:8,15 231:13 232:3 254:9 260:16,17,21 262:8 264:5 268:16 271:16 272:12 290:1 297:1 bases 281:7 basic 29:12,17 122:5,6 127:15 153:18 214:17 288:19,21 289:7,9,10,11,13 ,19 290:3 293:14 294:3 basically 63:3 94:16,20 128:17 145:14 229:19 231:20 262:5 271:10 278:16 289:1 294:19 basing 290:5

basis 125:6 221:8 252:5 255:12 267:12 Bauman 2:11 10:20 11:14 13:10,15,22 14:5,10,18 20:19 46:5 48:4 49:2 54:14 73:22 74:2,7 128:12 155:13 166:12 167:16,19,22 168:6 196:10 231:11,15 232:7,14 261:17 262:21 271:7,21 272:4 275:5 become 36:22 122:12 263:8 becomes 8:18 32:3 48:10,19 170:12,18 250:18 Beever 2:12 226:6 beforehand 101:2 begin 189:3 198:10 244:13 287:1 behind 211:4 212:5 belief 66:8 believe 8:5,16 41:10 45:1 54:2 67:14 90:11 105:15 138:16 169:8 186:14 214:7 217:13 220:4 226:17 227:7 282:8,17 believed 208:13

believes 177:11 bell 52:5 benefit 54:8 benefiting 239:4 best 90:2 276:14 bet 147:8 better 10:16 86:12 96:12 169:2 170:13 188:13,14 220:4 224:18 226:17 227:7 233:21 234:3 244:8 257:4 258:8 266:11 271:3 285:19 beyond 11:16 38:17 51:6 72:7 105:22 169:12 185:7 191:8 289:7 bid's 233:13 bigger 28:19,20 43:14 69:14 100:2 biggest 16:18 84:21 Bijou 4:2 Bill 3:20 bit 62:11,17 63:12 69:19 70:1 72:7 90:11 128:18 188:4 194:15 blanket 185:16 blast 197:10 205:4 blow 78:10 287:3 bluntly 132:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 8

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 board 164:1 185:18 265:1 Bob 43:7 73:10 166:7 180:6 225:1 250:7 bodily 33:19 Boesenberg 2:13 boiler 27:20 79:11 boilers 28:17 33:11 40:3 56:19,20 78:10 79:12 borrow 259:14 bottom 217:20 231:12 bought 86:21 123:9 bound 222:9 bounds 72:7 Bowley 2:15 boy 55:21 196:4 bracket 248:20 Bradford 5:19 56:5 Bramblett 2:16 break 106:1 128:8 173:4 295:16 break-in 84:5,6 186:5 break-ins 186:3 BRFs 130:6 Brian 2:17 Brice 2:15 bring 121:16 224:9 bringing 114:17 brings 51:16 251:19 broad 8:20 68:7,8 254:20 broader 248:18 Brooks 33:6 35:13 236:14 brought 200:18 274:6 Bruce 3:7,8 brush 254:20 BTUs 43:13 130:19 bucket 73:8 buckets 167:8 budget 137:4,14,18 build 86:3,9 87:6 188:19 189:1 234:1 242:1,16 266:2 288:16 building 1:8 103:13,20 122:6 153:22 194:7,11 195:6,9,10 203:15 237:8 242:3 243:4 247:12 255:6,17 buildings 130:22 131:3 built 100:10 138:8 153:9 157:18 218:12 221:12 236:3 237:1 240:7 241:11,12,18 242:22 248:21 291:21 bulb 26:9 bullet 98:7 108:12 109:21 114:13 115:17 117:14 129:11 150:4 156:4,5 160:13 161:20 165:10 166:21 171:8 173:14,17,19 174:3 177:11,14,17 178:7,8,9,11,12 180:7,15,18 186:14 190:2,4 208:10 218:18 222:12 225:3,10 251:16 270:6,7,9 277:17 281:8,16,18,22 bullets 169:17 191:12 bunch 14:16 147:18 264:18 burden 251:8 burdens 250:5 burn-in 185:10 burns 245:2 business 220:10 257:20,22 258:5 289:4,5 291:4 buy 86:21 188:22 buying 79:13 123:6 Buynacek 2:17 C calculations 117:3 263:16 calendar 236:8,10 Californi a 3:7 5:15 Canada 32:13

45:19 cap 135:12 capabilities 28:2 124:3 132:8 capability 123:9,16 135:12 capable 35:17 capacity 33:13 136:1,9 169:3 Capital 1:20 capture 115:11 214:11 care 7:14 12:16 112:2 131:4 177:21 178:18 207:4 218:13 235:1 252:14 careful 189:10 289:6 Carl 4:22 Carrier 2:21 4:18 6:3 43:8 73:10 166:7 180:6 225:1 250:7 295:12 case 9:10 18:6 27:14 52:8 54:11 55:3 56:15 66:20 69:3,6 85:15 127:1 130:3,5 161:6 165:9 184:4 208:4 210:9 225:6 230:6 245:1,2 254:12 271:8 273:12 284:1 287:15 289:16 cases 34:7 38:19 66:15 87:6 99:5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 9

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 105:2,5 127:11 133:1 158:4 183:22 212:3 255:20 264:12 cast-iron 33:11 catastrophic 285:15 286:16 catch 127:5 categories 8:2 21:18 31:16 36:7 48:7 215:21 251:18 category 21:10,17 35:22 104:21 106:22 132:15 248:18 266:7 caught 251:13 cause 20:16 164:4,6 252:22 caused 119:6 causes 291:13 caveat 185:22 ceiling 228:1 cell 90:15 119:20 184:2 center 150:10 centering 284:15 cert 113:7 certain 78:8 88:6 104:19 109:5 117:5 120:8 123:21 128:19,21 136:12 149:7 157:18 158:4 185:11 231:11 247:22 251:18 282:13,14 286:10 certainly 105:12 132:16 169:16 212:3 280:7 285:2,3 286:18 288:5 294:15 certainty 51:13 CERTIFICATE 298:1 299:1 300:1 301:1 302:1 certification 8:21 9:2 13:6,20 14:15 17:12 29:18,22 33:9 45:20 111:15,17 113:13 119:10 132:21 178:22 180:10,20 186:16 187:17,22 188:6,9 189:16 190:3,8 201:3,10 202:2,19 207:8 212:2 215:11 232:18 245:17,19 263:3 certified 12:20 13:2 126:19 237:12 268:7 282:2 283:9 290:8 certify 12:13 186:19 272:9 282:3 283:10 285:14 286:5 290:1,4,5,9,13 298:3 299:2 300:2 301:2 302:2 cetera 113:2 126:10 290:4 CFR 117:16 chain 67:8 68:2

challenge 263:17 challenges 23:12 chambers 121:19 chance 52:7,17,18 101:14 161:7 165:12,14 257:21 change 37:7 50:8 58:21 84:12 144:3 155:22 184:5 202:12,13 207:5 210:6 213:9,13 215:15 231:18 254:12,13 261:16 274:18 278:8,10 280:10 294:2 changed 131:14 146:9 165:11 201:20 221:9 241:3 266:18,22 changes 22:12 131:15 146:11 175:8 236:22 changing 58:22 89:19 256:22 characterization 211:1 characterize 97:11 219:21 Charles 3:9 238:11 Charleston 53:1 Charlie 32:9 37:8 49:5 131:9 154:8 155:14 238:19 250:21 252:4 261:1 272:6 Charlie's 52:15

250:16 cheating 287:5 check 59:13 62:15 78:22 81:1 98:1 110:1,11 111:10 122:21 135:15 142:8 151:3 156:8,18 158:10 161:4 166:1check-andbalance 71:20 checking 9:3 72:14 199:8 254:7,8 checks 151:1 169:4,7 checkup 63:3 chest 164:12 child 163:9 chime 132:10 choice 60:3 61:4,13 62:6 187:4 244:17 choices 30:6 choose 211:17 234:13 chooses 265:7 choosing 244:5 chosen 213:10 circle 112:3 196:6 circulated 198:1 circumstance 100:12 217:19 circumstances 18:18 27:7,22 31:19 cited 80:2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 10

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 City 195:4 claim 95:14 126:2 claims 108:2 165:13 clarification 9:9 13:11 92:22 115:14 222:12 225:2 229:2 clarified 249:7 clarify 10:21 45:16 63:1 160:6 182:8 208:19 214:13 class 68:8 286:6,7 290:13 291:20 294:3,4 classes 95:8 96:18 132:13 133:5 154:22 264:19 290:3 clear 8:10 11:4 65:18 179:10 211:22 231:5 250:16 268:5 276:5 clear-cut 183:10 clearly 34:15 170:21 230:6 247:15 271:1 Cleaver 33:5 35:12 Cleaver-Brooks 4:10 5:17 Clever 236:13 click 178:14 Climate 4:4 close 12:9 55:14 109:15 159:22 295:14 closed 149:2

closely 69:13 closer 204:16 262:12 closing 37:7 CO2 105:9 coalesced 69:15 coat 163:8 coil 22:7 124:6 218:9 cold 38:14 40:7 163:11 Collin 5:22 combination 26:16 188:10 209:12 236:7 265:6 combinations 265:8 combined 237:12 combustion 33:16 comes 65:15 77:11 160:8 170:6 173:6 177:20 250:10 263:7 comfort 2:11 4:7,13 24:7 152:17 184:14 283:13 comfortable 10:9 62:12,18 94:15 104:9,22 138:21 168:18 192:17 215:7 230:7 243:7 294:15 coming 38:9 147:2 179:1 193:16 196:6 203:9 206:20 207:13 261:15 293:20

comment 81:13 85:16 89:12 113:10 124:15 186:4 229:5 250:8 commented 168:14 comments 83:22 90:6 173:2 258:16 commercial 3:11 20:8,12 25:22 26:4,8 28:17 31:7 32:11 33:1 40:3,5,7,10 42:12 43:9 44:15 45:15,17 56:6,19,20 60:1,2 67:9 70:16 80:7 85:2,8 96:18 98:14 100:3 118:16 123:12 124:5 125:1 133:20,22 134:20 135:1 136:11 158:21 160:22 161:16 164:16 171:3 186:6,11 234:2 commission 2:18 3:7 5:15 73:4 commissioned 116:1,5,7 commissioning 67:13 78:4 111:3 commit 243:1 committee 1:4 38:6 119:10 199:6 297:5 committee's

201:18 common 27:8 132:18 communication 213:7 companies 18:12 73:17 82:9 company 1:20 3:12 4:9,21 5:4 18:6 23:20 32:18 61:19,20 62:2,5,6 65:8 71:3,5,6,12,13 72:10 75:13 82:11 88:2 136:16 144:3 251:4 263:14 288:16 company's 142:13 146:10 247:21 compared 46:3 56:12 107:18 comparing 50:12 competency

114:2 competitor 246:8 competitors 246:17,22 complaints 109:9 complete 94:11 235:15 240:13 273:13 296:1 299:7 300:7 301:7 302:7 completed 156:14 201:19 228:15 231:21 235:7 236:1 completely 69:19 158:13 159:4,18

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 11

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202:18 285:4 complex 98:15 99:11 118:10,19 126:21 132:17 146:4 148:18 159:1 163:14,16 complexity 96:8 98:21 compliance 88:3 119:10 210:9,12,14 259:9 291:4 complicated 96:14 118:21 174:10 comply 39:11 50:15 75:1 97:19 179:19 258:1 288:18 component 218:6 239:20 266:4 components 89:19 95:1 148:10 188:10 239:13 243:5 260:12 266:4 compressor 184:15,21 190:7 239:15 compressors 84:6,7 96:10,17 compromise 69:1 120:1,2 143:22 Computer 44:6 concept 35:5 47:16 286:2 290:2,22 conceptual 217:18 conceptually 275:13 concern 19:17 68:11 73:18 141:8 142:12 145:20 155:1 165:5 168:12 217:18 228:4 concerned 15:3 126:18 170:20 223:5 concerns 23:10 48:8 91:21 101:16,18 106:3 128:15,19 146:1,3 160:8 166:17 230:15 252:21 258:10 conclude 53:16 concluded 53:8 297:5 concur 20:20 69:19 242:7 condensers 96:12 condensing 33:12 Conditioners 44:6 Conditioning 5:18 conditions 22:17,19,20 23:2,6,17 24:9 25:2,9 28:13 47:17 52:14 107:22 156:3 176:7 conduct 114:4,15 133:9 135:16,19,21 conducted 20:3 80:2,15 117:22 conducting 114:14 133:19 136:6 180:2 confidence 51:16 138:18 139:2 141:9 144:14 145:12 146:1 152:6,13 173:10 confident 152:15 configuration 124:5,6 confirm 43:8 105:13 215:20 confirmation 104:15 conflict 20:16 conformance 47:22 confused 188:4 275:17 Congress 97:15 congressional 97:7 connect 122:8 141:15,16,20 142:18 connected 119:15 122:4 124:10 connections 83:16,17 consensus 191:16 197:22 199:18,21 202:5 224:22 consent 168:1 consequence 14:7,13,20 70:20 227:2 262:20 consequences 10:2,5,8,11,12 24:11 66:14 70:14 80:10 161:14 conservative 258:18,19 269:2,4 conservatively 12:13 consider 31:8 58:14,22 167:6 207:16 213:22 239:12 consideration 19:5 170:18 236:15 considerations 13:4 262:16 considered 48:20 consistent 70:10 consistently 262:19 constantly 97:20 268:2 constitute 30:5 construction 153:19 consult 169:18 240:1 Consultants 3:5 4:11 Consulting 2:3 5:2 consumes 53:9 contact 91:16,17 106:20 107:10 125:15 155:5,6 156:20 contacting 188:21 contacts 157:4,8 contained 42:16 contention 30:15 contest 145:15 158:5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 12

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 context 193:1 contexting 222:3 Continental 4:12 continual 252:5 255:11 continually 252:17,21 253:14 255:1,5,15 continue 38:9 156:7 198:4 202:1,4 257:20 281:2 284:8,13 contract 162:16,18 contracted 243:17 244:1 contractor 79:17 contracts 89:13 90:1 control 52:12,14 53:2 95:9 242:15 243:19,20 244:19 254:5 285:6 controller 95:1 Controls 4:4 6:2 conversation 11:7 107:12 144:21 145:8 229:3 converting 291:2 convince 167:1 convinced 27:7 260:7 CoolAir 2:12 3:15 Cooling 3:2,13 cooperation 249:20 COP 44:13,14

copy 198:11,12 296:21 corner 261:21 corners 121:17 122:2 Corporation 2:12,21 3:15,22 4:18 5:7,19 correct 11:20,21 15:7 16:5,6 29:16 41:4 42:5 44:2 46:8 50:19 51:3 60:11 63:16 74:6 84:2,3 91:4 116:2 117:8 127:20 159:14 169:7 194:8 208:1 210:1 211:12 225:8,13 231:14 253:20 257:21 276:18 281:10 282:18,20 299:7 300:7 301:7 302:7 corrected 37:15 104:12 109:20 160:18 214:9 240:5 correcting 81:9 Correction 40:14 corrections 131:11,12 correctly 16:8 30:10 76:14 80:16 81:17 82:15 84:4,10 85:14 104:7 115:12 118:5 127:19 141:6 145:13 148:7,11 161:2,10 172:8 206:16,17,18 225:8 237:16 293:10 cost 123:5 146:13 239:7 costs 54:8 288:14 council 213:1 Counsel 157:8 163:21 count 124:13 country 54:9 couple 19:9 85:17 106:2 120:19 160:14 164:17 206:13 248:15 263:20 296:16 couples 122:4 141:16 course 15:9 27:14 169:10 258:20 Court 37:19,22 76:5 298:1,2,15 299:3,5 300:3,5 301:3,5 302:3,5 cover 124:4 136:15 192:7 244:20 covered 22:8 129:10 150:3 158:22 272:8 292:19 covering 272:19 covers 33:11 221:8 CRACs 44:6 craft 189:22 242:19 crafting 189:10

cram 142:6 crated 31:18 crazy 131:10 CRE 155:2 create 31:16 292:17 creativity 68:18 credibility 140:19 criteria 26:1 182:17 183:5 233:20 234:1 248:21 284:18 285:5,9 294:11 critical 110:18 242:2 CRM 2:8 cross 11:3 215:21 Crowder 2:18 Crystal 195:3,4 CSA 108:12 143:13 cued 196:3 cumbersome 28:10 curious 82:5,21 138:20 199:15 current 13:20 37:10 57:5,15,21 112:16 157:20 202:11 225:10 248:8 267:5 currently 17:16 30:12 38:20 45:4,5 57:1 64:3 70:4 130:17 currents 37:4,6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 13

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 38:12 curve 52:5 113:17 custom 188:19 189:1,13 221:11 custom-built 242:12 customer 143:7 151:13,22 152:20 242:13 customers 112:8 cut 121:17 122:2 160:19 cuts 149:12 Cymbalsky 60:14,18 61:1 116:9 117:10,12 133:13,15 136:20,22 137:2 172:14,18 191:18 193:20 197:16 202:17 203:13 216:10,11,20 234:12 245:7,11,13 246:1 247:20,21 248:3,11 249:2,8 250:13 274:4,13,16,22 D D.C 1:9 Daikin 3:14,18 5:20 17:7 62:22 115:16 174:16 190:2 224:13 daily 125:6 171:1 Dan 2:16 Dane 2:19 10:15 287:2 295:17 danger 33:17

darn 49:3 data 12:9 63:15,16 83:5 104:8,18 105:3,19 107:22 118:20 127:6,7 180:16,19,22 181:4 186:18 187:16 209:1,9,10,21 211:7 212:19 214:14,17 215:4,15 222:5,7 223:5,11,15,17,1 8 224:10,17 232:1,3 247:11 249:11 251:5,10,18 253:13 254:8 255:6 256:8,9,15 267:16 272:9,13 277:4 287:7 293:19 database 112:11 187:10 databases 266:5 date 39:13 157:10 195:21,22 202:14,18 243:2 244:11,12 299:13 300:14 301:13 302:12 dates 193:11 205:1 David 4:7,19 day 12:7 54:21 55:4 95:12 147:7 150:11,21 156:14 195:14,15,16 201:17 203:11 204:9,11,13,16 239:8 243:7 256:13 269:6 284:7 day-in 70:5 day-out 70:5 days 85:9 147:20 172:9 198:1,16 233:15 234:14,18 235:2,9,10 236:1,3,8,10,11, 14 242:1,8,20 244:22 296:17 deadline 203:5 deal 21:18 45:2 141:11 161:5 163:14 201:11 221:1 247:1 dealing 294:7 dealt 57:7 187:22 death 33:20 286:12 decade 96:20 decades 38:3 163:10 December

202:14 decertification 24:10 decertified 272:11 decertify 14:3 decertifying 14:2 decide 10:17 14:8 17:5,8 196:21 198:19 211:8 220:21 224:18 235:8 245:10 260:15 289:17 decided 150:16 197:20 decides 144:1

deciding 74:22 decision 101:12 162:4 208:9 220:3 235:1 276:12 decreasing 216:8 dedicate 239:6 default 18:14 92:14 225:22 defeat 140:5 defect 30:16 81:20 82:2 225:7,11,12 defective 15:4 16:3,9 24:16 46:16 93:6,14 208:14,17 239:20 deference 65:21 deficiency 214:1,9 deficient 239:1 define 173:21 defined 257:8 definitely 33:17,19 113:20 148:10 239:2 definition 216:17 289:13 definitive 276:17 Degitz 2:20 degree 212:2,6 degrees 127:12 del 2:21 deleting 178:1 Delfield 5:4 demand 75:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 14

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 88:12 denial 249:22 density 85:10 department 1:1,6 2:10 19:7 36:21,22 56:15 72:3 79:4 87:1 99:2 107:7,15 112:15 113:1 125:12 127:16 131:14 135:9 141:17 148:15 151:3 153:8 154:18 177:15 179:21 186:19 197:21 204:20 207:5 220:4 226:2 231:19 267:17 department's 64:6 71:19 72:5 101:16 165:22 202:8 depend 66:7 dependent 97:15 133:13 167:22 243:16 depending 22:20 24:14 106:22 166:10 210:4 depends 66:5 159:15 183:16 200:12 derail 248:8 derated 265:9,13 described 296:5 description 234:4 design 53:22 55:19 72:17 146:21 150:10 218:6 219:18,20 236:19 238:15 248:21 260:1 designed 124:3 designs 236:19 desire 163:18 199:7 desired 242:13 DESTAJO 302:2,12 detail 9:5 184:19 187:14 detailed 89:17,18 111:22 details 20:7 21:10 107:13 113:6 181:2 183:1 determination 19:7 36:16 155:10 162:5 165:15,20 210:9 239:19 273:1 282:6 determine 22:19 30:13 35:2,7 48:14,17 201:8 205:11 243:4 251:21 270:4 276:8 determined 13:16,18 155:8 192:3 205:13 210:19 233:2 237:15 267:22 develop 253:21 263:10 developed 293:10 developing 248:17 development 4:10 5:17 266:1 deviating 68:19 devices 133:10 devil's 246:2 dialed 117:6,8 Diane 3:13 dictate 27:22 difference 22:9,11 56:19 127:13 150:5 236:21 261:5 differences 19:11 different 10:1 13:1,3 17:6,19 19:2 20:17 21:9,22 23:6 30:11 36:7,14 44:12 47:14 54:15 64:19 65:20 66:10,11,14 73:8 77:16 84:20 92:21 95:11,12 100:12 124:6,17 128:10,19 135:1 158:13 160:5 162:12 163:4 174:21 181:22 182:6 183:11 191:5 192:20 211:13 217:5,12 225:17 234:12 235:17 242:15 247:8 248:20 249:12 251:20 261:2,9,11,12 264:13 266:1 270:16 285:5 287:5 289:14 291:11 differentiation 217:4

differently 24:14 difficult 26:15 134:22 171:4 188:17 253:12 Digital 298:15 dimensions 69:8 ding 76:1 dinged 76:1 DIP 77:8 78:1 direction 97:1 137:6,8 138:12 185:6 216:14 298:6 directly 177:15,20 200:17 disadvantage 47:20 disagree 7:14 36:12 52:1 67:4 96:21 198:8 252:10 285:15 286:18 disagreement 46:11 68:22 281:22 discerned 105:3 discharge 124:7 discomfort 132:14 141:11 discontinue 219:6,7 235:9,10 245:12 278:12,19 279:14 280:11 discontinued 279:1 Discontinuing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 15

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209:11 discover 154:15 204:16 discrepancy 164:3 discretion 56:16 66:19 114:16 166:16 224:15 241:8 discuss 21:15 24:18,19 30:2 107:12 132:8 142:3 148:4 193:4 247:5 248:7 287:11 discussed 16:19 64:14 200:17 208:22 discussing 11:17 35:1 166:6 discussion 31:6 64:15 79:14 90:17 93:2,11 100:6 106:17 107:20 108:8 109:18 143:19 156:2 162:3,4 165:15 171:18,21 173:7 196:4 201:1 217:15 235:18 236:2 248:8,9 294:14 295:10 discussions 18:22 106:6,15 153:11 183:20 189:3 191:20 217:20 230:8 disenable 242:3 dispose 238:9 disqualified 248:22 249:1 distinct 215:17 distinction 104:4 distinguish 215:3 distinguishing 257:8 distribution 52:4 53:14,18 66:13 134:18 211:18 distributions 52:2 distributor 86:1 distributor's 189:5 Division 4:15 Diyar 4:11 document 69:4 94:2,3 112:18 128:22 200:7 295:19,20 296:1 documentation 105:17 109:5,7 114:7,18 223:8 268:3 documented 166:20 178:11 224:3 documents 296:15 DOE 7:18 8:19,22 11:6,8 13:4 17:13,16 27:15 34:10 36:17 37:16 41:12 43:10 49:6 58:2 62:11,14,17,21 70:22 71:7 73:20 74:4,8,18,22 77:14,18,20 81:14 82:22 86:2,6,8 87:13,19 88:1,3,13,14,17 91:3,9,16,22 93:7 96:22 97:21 99:6 100:18 106:11,19 107:1,4,10,11,19 108:13 110:10 111:3,8,14 114:21 118:3 125:16 127:18,19 129:18 130:5 131:18,20 132:4 133:8 140:16 143:7,19 144:5,7 151:13,22 155:18 156:9,18 161:4 162:3,15 164:15 165:5,14 167:2,12 168:17 169:11,18 170:12 173:4,13 174:7,11,17,18 175:2 176:11 178:21 180:10,19 181:8,11 183:11,12,16 184:3,5 185:1 186:15 188:7,20 190:13 191:8 196:20 198:13,16 199:14 200:6 204:9 209:10,12,16,21 210:22 212:1 213:6 214:2,8,14 215:4,16 216:11 217:6 221:7 222:7,13 223:20 224:6,11 225:14 227:3 229:6,11,13,17,2 0 232:18 233:1

242:21 246:10,12 247:6,12 249:13,19 250:6,10,13 255:4 260:20 262:11,17 263:17 268:12 269:13 272:22 273:6 275:6,20 278:10 281:9 289:13,20 290:16 DOE's 11:11 55:6,9 57:11,13,17 90:21 91:13 97:9 98:19 103:21 106:16 139:1 190:17 210:10 237:11 258:1 dollars 76:13 137:12 138:9 Dominic 3:18 17:7 59:7 62:22 174:15 190:1,12 224:13 done 8:3 12:22 13:3 16:8,19 28:1 30:10 34:6 38:18 44:16 53:3 65:19 72:7,9 76:13 77:9 78:14,15 84:6 85:14 86:16,22 87:16 91:19 97:9 102:2,6 117:7 118:4,14,20 122:21 123:3,4,21 124:10 126:2 139:1,14 140:11

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 16

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 141:5 145:13 146:2 147:7 148:8,11 152:12 156:13 157:11 159:3 161:2,9,13 165:13,16,17,18 172:7 183:17 192:14 200:21 206:10,16,17,18 207:1 224:5 228:1 231:21 233:4,9 234:11 243:1,12 253:9,22 265:10 266:15 267:1 271:16 276:10 277:1,18 278:5 doors 37:6 125:4 Doppel 2:22 43:1,4 60:4,7,10,12 61:22 62:1,6,8 117:13,20 175:15,21 176:3,5,8,12,15, 17,19,22 177:3 179:13 181:15,20 182:2,5,15,16 183:2 217:3,10 222:11 223:1,9 224:1,7 239:11 252:20 268:4,10,14 270:12,22 271:6 272:16 273:4,21 275:16 276:3 277:7,10 278:3,10,13,16,2 0 279:6 double 172:19 286:11 double-check 109:1 doubt 105:22 290:7 Doug 4:20 downwards 221:17 DR 67:7,19 68:1 96:5 97:3,16 draconian 269:19 290:18 draft 297:1 dramatically 134:19 drill 194:6,13 driven 233:19 drop 69:12 262:4 dual 42:17 duct 122:6 124:9 125:19,20 141:16,20 ductwork 119:4,6,16 due 37:4 196:20 202:22 204:9 duration 233:18 during 33:3 63:15 85:15 166:10 167:10,12 173:4,7 E eagerness 97:10 earlier 128:14 177:10 189:3 199:7,17 early 7:8 203:10 204:22 214:6 Earthjustice 2:9

easier 22:21 62:11,17 296:15 easily 31:17 235:22 easy 25:21 224:21 291:19 educated 95:9 EER 30:5 40:13,17,22 41:19 48:11 effect 241:20 effected 213:9 221:4 effective 52:18 efficiency 5:11 15:9 26:2 40:6 44:19 45:17 77:3 78:2 99:20 153:17 280:5 288:20 289:14,15,18 efficient 268:20 efficiently 133:4 efforts 97:11 eight 265:13 Eisner 2:3 7:2,13 15:11,16 18:7,12 22:15 23:1,14 24:2,5,20 25:7,9,13 27:10 28:4,7,10 29:9,11,15 34:10 35:4,10 36:6,10 37:21 46:9,18 49:20 61:3,6,9,11,18 62:3,7,9 65:7,11,13,17,22 71:2,10 72:9,13 73:5,12,16

75:8,12,16,20 76:3,15,19 80:20,22 81:3 84:14 85:16 86:11 87:3,13 89:3,6 90:18,20 91:2,5,8 94:17 96:2,21 97:13,20 101:10,14 106:1,5,10 109:12 113:9 124:14 126:13 128:2 129:15 131:17,22 133:8,12,16 134:5,11,16 135:3,18 136:3,13 142:11,16,20 143:11,16,21 144:12 145:17,19,22 158:19 159:8,11 160:2 168:7 171:19 172:2 173:2 174:2 175:5 177:9 178:1,4,17 189:17,19 191:11,19,22 192:6,10 193:8,11 194:2 195:2,10,13,19,2 2 196:8,12,15,19 198:8 200:3,15 202:21 203:17 204:1,4,18 205:8 226:6 228:17 240:2,10 264:22 265:15 267:8 269:8,12 270:11,20 271:4 272:17 273:19 274:15 278:8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 17

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 280:9 281:5,21 283:5 284:5,13,22 286:1 290:21 291:8 294:22 295:14,21 296:4,18 either 21:7 34:6 35:16 57:3 77:19 92:19 95:22 105:4 115:22 119:22 130:2 132:6 141:13 152:16 165:16 166:8 167:8 185:1 187:3 209:1 219:5 223:10 232:11 233:17,18 238:9 276:9,18 277:15,21 294:17 296:12 elect 222:21 electric 2:13,22 3:12 26:3,8 electricity 163:11 electronic 88:22 126:9 eliminate 293:5 else 21:22 73:13 74:22 78:15 116:7 134:1 143:11 183:14 189:5,17 191:11,13 198:5 200:3 226:7 263:13 267:2 270:22 272:6 273:2,15 276:12 279:17 288:3 296:6,21 email 157:2 193:17 197:6 205:4 emergency 150:8 Emerson 2:17 Emery 4:19 emphasize 217:19 empirical 105:19 employed 298:8 employees 38:19 137:9 enables 97:19 encompassed 283:22 encourage 238:20 endless 228:16 energized 127:14 energy 1:1,6 2:10 3:7 4:2 5:11,15 26:19 32:12 36:22 45:19 51:21 53:9 79:4,19 153:17 162:11 163:11 179:21 268:10 enforcement 10:17 11:18 17:11,14 59:11 63:19 65:5 66:22 67:5 88:2 156:10 158:8 202:3 engineer 5:2 72:21 73:3 83:11 90:15 150:9 160:16 242:14 288:16 engineering 4:16 16:22 236:18,22 262:1 engineers 121:5 engineer's 98:16 engines 266:4 enormous 54:6 enter 290:8 entire 294:4 entirely 53:5 141:5 environment 2:18 38:14 97:19 103:12 envision 131:16 envisioning 101:22 237:8 EPA 3:4 equipment 8:17 17:19 18:2 34:2 45:10 49:17 67:15 70:17 78:5,6,8,13,22 79:7,9,14 80:4 82:7,12,19 83:14 86:13 87:9 95:15 96:4 103:13 104:7 114:7 117:4,8 118:17,18 120:21 122:10,18 124:5 126:21 129:17,21 130:1 134:1 136:15 137:5,13 144:9,22 146:4 147:6,15,16 148:17 149:13,16 154:5,20,22 157:18 158:21,22 160:18,21,22 163:13 171:4 173:10 199:8 211:2,19 215:22

216:9 234:3 238:9 242:7,12,16 244:15 246:13 264:19 289:3 equipments 97:11 153:21 equivalent 189:14 Eric 5:19 56:5 errant 246:11 error 247:19 254:11,13 errors 84:7,20 85:5 112:4 143:14,18 escalate 168:16 escalating 258:5 escalation 257:16 especially 28:21 113:19 215:21 242:7 266:3 269:19 essentially 154:19 172:5,6 288:19,22 establish 68:9 152:5,13,14 285:9 established 270:15 establishes 178:11 182:17 Estes 2:16 et 113:2 126:10 290:4 euphemize 249:20 evacuation 194:6 evaluate 218:21

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 18

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 evaluated 107:19 evaluates 285:7 evaluation 166:10 evaporator 20:11 eventually 171:17 238:8 everybody 35:10 46:9 53:15 62:4 81:18 106:7 109:13 140:9,22 141:22 168:18 178:17 193:11 227:12 243:7 246:7 251:1 275:14 284:22 296:6 everybody's 7:22 79:6 everyone 8:13 17:17 170:20 192:16,17 193:15 199:15 230:2 231:16 232:4 246:21 255:15 270:22 275:12 everyone's 53:3 81:21 274:1 everything 8:16 21:22 34:12 67:21 71:22 72:2,3 85:14 88:3 108:1 113:14 114:8 126:18 128:22 130:12 134:1 136:18 138:4 156:13 183:13 187:15 198:5 265:13 272:20 279:17 288:3 296:1

everything's 12:20 200:21 evidence 92:11 246:10,13 evolution 96:13 evolve 183:18 exact 283:21 284:21 293:17 exacting 141:18 exactly 18:5 53:22 58:8 117:12 131:5 145:15 173:9,15 184:17 187:20 188:1 218:14 227:9 242:18 263:18 293:19 example 23:18 25:20 52:8 73:18 105:7 169:3 183:10 184:7 195:3 256:5 exceed 243:6,10 244:22 Excel 252:19 except 62:9 157:17 exception 87:10 132:2 exceptions 27:11,13 exchange 218:9 exclusions 39:19 exclusively 70:5 excuse 47:8 84:14 138:15 194:16 289:12 executive 163:22 exemption 27:12 exercise 54:4 exercised 230:22 exist 33:22 277:20 existing 18:17 223:17 224:2,19 229:22 230:1 258:3 exists 39:18 expect 20:18 53:1 141:18 261:8 expectation 202:9 233:2 expected 148:19 267:16,19 expecting 231:18 expenditure 239:5 expense 76:2,4 87:1 172:10 expensive 123:5 291:15 experience 16:22 27:20 113:15 141:2 183:13 215:14 239:14 experienced 79:20 experiences 21:6 expert 26:20 expertise 64:9 70:7 73:1 75:4 89:15 experts 72:16 82:17 95:15,17 explain 21:15 36:10 106:13 179:13 230:18 263:14,18 explicit 64:10 72:6 189:6 222:10 252:13,15 explicitly 25:4 exposure 24:9 154:17 extension 162:15,18 extent 19:4 112:20 162:10 234:2 255:5 264:17 extra 89:18 121:10 170:14 181:1 276:11 extremely 188:16 233:19 eyes 175:14 F face 22:7 faced 289:1 FACILITATOR 2:2 facilities 17:17 19:16,22 28:2 31:1 33:15,22 95:16 123:13 184:1 facility 16:21 17:2,10,12 18:16,19,20 27:1 28:1 33:7 34:15,17 38:22 43:18 56:17 64:5 72:21 81:22 82:18 85:13 167:10 207:10 240:15,18 242:10 244:10,11,16 288:2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 19

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 facing 19:9 fact 51:21 64:7 70:3 100:20 104:16 123:6 127:10 161:2 170:1,3 180:19,22 183:14,19 184:1,2 212:10 217:22 237:15 239:3 241:12,18 247:12 277:22 288:3 factor 58:7 factory 61:15,16 67:16 78:9,12,15,20 79:13 94:22 116:15 147:6,10 149:13factoryauthorized 67:12 79:10 82:10 factory-required 130:21 factory-trained 107:3 130:4,8 fail 10:2 46:14,15,16 52:17 55:15 64:12 156:8 161:21 229:3 246:16 247:2 256:18 259:7 failed 99:16 157:9 161:4 164:19 227:2 236:17 245:8 260:2,6,9 283:15 292:1 failing 24:9 fails 81:19 156:17 218:11 236:15 237:19 246:3 247:22 265:6,11,12 280:5 281:9,12 failure 30:5 32:16 46:18 80:11 81:15 82:6 83:2 162:5 173:5,7 214:5 221:15 239:15 246:8,10 251:20 258:14,17 282:19 286:16 failures 246:6,20 251:20 258:18 259:2 261:11 265:10 294:20 fair 87:9 249:18 fairly 85:22 97:10 216:18 288:21 fall 211:18 252:6 253:1 fallen 156:15 falling 211:14 falls 105:15 107:17 167:7 271:13 273:6,8 familiar 19:18,19 29:3 families 290:3 family 261:10 286:20 288:22 294:4 fans 96:11 fast 63:17 201:7,12 fastest 201:13 faulty 218:2 262:8 favorite 225:11 feasible 209:17 features 124:3 federal 1:4 137:9 227:14 279:16 297:4 feedback 109:3 119:6 feel 24:13 35:17 71:2,5,6 76:21 86:11 92:4 94:15 107:8 138:21 139:2,4 151:20 152:15,19 169:2 227:13 254:21 260:3 feeling 49:2 164:9 feels 91:15 171:6 feet 69:12 fell 157:11 felt 86:9 170:7,11 198:17 199:16 FEMALE 12:1 28:19 75:11 110:7,20 120:1 122:13 137:1 139:21,22 142:15,19 145:18,21 151:5,8 173:18 261:15 fewer 258:11 fibbing 259:10,14 field 68:14 78:17 79:19 241:15 fifty 87:21 fight 154:16 figure 48:20 77:19 120:21 155:9 220:12 241:19 297:2 figured 263:14,15 figuring 77:15 file 111:22 233:3 filed 232:19 235:1 files 111:19 filled 57:22 205:7 228:12 films 58:16 final 154:11 163:19 202:13 204:9 286:12 finalizing 197:11 financial 250:5 288:12 298:9 financially 161:7 finds 13:1 52:12,13 70:6 81:19 fine 12:20 41:21 69:10 83:6 88:4 110:13 193:21 248:4 258:5,6 266:10 fines 250:1 257:16 258:8,16,20 259:6 263:5 finish 7:7 76:19 171:21 205:2 finished 295:22 fire 194:6,13 fired 38:21 first 7:20 10:12,16 14:8,20 22:21 23:16,20 27:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 20

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29:12 30:17 31:16 47:3 62:15,21 63:18 65:13 71:11 74:12 75:19,21 76:13 80:9,10,19 85:12 86:21 87:2 88:13 91:16 92:15 93:14 106:17 114:2 134:20 135:15 150:3 167:17 168:1 177:11,17 178:7,8,11 180:7,18 192:11 195:14,15,16 197:22 198:9 201:5,12 208:13 221:11 225:2 228:5,18 230:3,5,16 237:19 265:7,17 269:8 270:6,7,9 281:8,18,22 fit 26:13 219:18,20 236:19 258:2 fits 234:2 five 40:4 41:4,5 120:22 124:19 137:12 158:12 159:3,14 191:17 247:8 256:18 258:14 259:21,22 five-year 261:12 fix 87:18 149:4,11 249:22 280:9 fixed 150:16 flag 170:12 flaw 213:16 flexibility 48:15 105:12 221:2 257:2 285:12

flies 81:18 floated 173:4 flow 37:10 164:9 191:4 flows 28:3 fly 3:2 18:21 147:8 194:17 focus 91:8 136:8,9 171:21 184:10 214:3 foggy 32:4 foggy's 260:13 force 51:14 77:9 257:18 forced 33:21 foregoing 298:3 foregoing/ attached 299:6 300:6 301:6 302:6 foreseeably 259:20 Forget 282:1 forgot 248:10 formed 217:6 formulate 217:11 222:17 263:13 Forrestal 1:8 forth 150:19 169:16 forward 152:1 165:20 185:20 198:4,9 200:5 201:17,22 282:4 283:11 fourth 114:12 150:4 232:10 four-year-old 196:5 fraction 88:10 frame 201:9 framed 97:4 framework

97:17 framing 162:9,21 Frank 4:14 5:9 16:16 25:14 31:4 32:19 34:3,4 36:4 37:18 38:1 45:4,14,18 50:16 56:18 69:18 79:22 100:1 126:14,15 169:14 173:3 178:10 179:15 183:9 186:13 187:12 199:5 200:16 211:21 213:5 217:16 227:20 241:9,22 246:6 249:13 250:15 257:12 259:16 276:4 278:3,4 279:7 280:12 283:4 284:15 285:3 286:3 287:12,18 288:13 290:17 294:9 Frank's 290:16 free 106:11 freedom 54:7 Freeman 3:3 frequently 127:5 171:1 241:13 Friday 204:10 front 198:13 frustrated 154:9

fSource 4:2 fuel 28:3 full 13:19 138:18 196:6 238:5 function 122:6 253:10 functioning 208:14,18 furnaces 42:13 43:9 45:17 furnish 92:2 future 58:17 97:5,14 117:2 130:19 220:5 G gain 251:6 game 86:6 250:22 289:4 gap 68:11,14 gaps 57:22 Gas 3:12 Gaussian 52:3,5 GE 2:15 gearing 9:7 general 52:22 79:20 132:2 142:9 153:22 157:8 163:21 212:22 219:9 248:18 259:3 generally 242:17 generate 249:10 292:18 generated 223:11 generic 193:21

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 21

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 generically 68:3,4 Geoff 27:19 Geoffrey 3:5 7:8 gets 74:13,20 112:10 119:19 131:1 187:9 235:1 260:9 getting 15:11 24:21 95:22 104:16 115:12 117:8 119:19 121:18 129:14 137:10 164:1 194:11 203:14 211:16 212:22 225:9 233:8 246:12 262:22 265:2 273:11 279:22 293:11 given 46:3 55:19 65:21 77:14,21 79:9 98:21 107:14 111:14 134:6,12 135:2 187:19 286:6 gives 48:15 54:6 141:11,19 258:6 giving 55:20 105:12 133:9 176:10 glass 248:19 goal 47:18 112:22 150:22 162:11 goals 52:20 gone 84:19 124:16 206:15 253:22 272:11 Goodman 5:18 19:12 21:19 168:10 257:3 265:4 281:6 286:4 goodness 9:22 gotten 45:9 75:17 82:1,4 98:6 163:13 192:13 201:3 205:17 225:17 228:21 290:2 294:22 295:22 government 137:5 138:9 239:22 259:9 grab 25:21 100:11 grace 286:21 granted 56:9 great 45:8 97:10 133:17 141:11 163:13 172:10 241:16 255:12 greater 96:8 294:17,19 greatly 23:11 ground 91:14 group 31:20 38:5 49:14 158:22 248:7,9 285:7 289:9,10 294:3 groupings 290:3 groups 290:4 growing 239:8 guarantee 20:2 guess 13:11 48:22 49:2 63:11 72:19 125:10 129:22 149:15 152:19,22 166:12,14 167:6 170:16 180:14 184:5 214:3

251:19 265:21 271:7 288:11 guessing 211:20 guests 194:12 guidelines 95:18,19 gulf 162:22 guy 116:10 guys 7:18 12:5 20:22 30:12,21 60:18,21 69:3 79:11 106:10 121:16 127:20 132:8 138:3,5 177:17,21 178:4 186:19,21 193:16 198:1 201:14 207:3,4,19 252:13 283:5 H habitual ly 10:4 hair 20:13 halfway 150:9 Halley 3:5 27:19 28:6,9 Hall-Jordan 3:4 hand 19:20 20:1 174:12 191:18 230:13 260:4 handle 33:8,10,13 34:1 83:14 96:2 97:1 120:7 135:4 264:21 handled 82:4 handler 146:21 handlers 78:14 96:11

handling 147:14 264:1 hands 179:22 249:21 happen 15:6 85:2,15 112:4 149:7 169:21 256:7 291:16 happened 147:3 150:6 238:13,21 250:18,19 happens 8:18 11:10 12:19,21 65:7 104:9 149:20 192:3,19 205:11 219:17 245:15 246:3 272:9 281:11,13 happy 192:17 274:18 hard 32:15 46:1 49:11 119:19 153:7,13 160:22 164:4 198:11,12 256:9,15 259:6 291:16 harm 33:19 Harvey 5:3 9:8 24:6 25:16 47:9 48:5,21 51:18,22 53:5 54:16 55:16 56:1 67:7 69:19 96:5 136:13 162:8 194:21,22 Harvey's 9:7 73:2 194:4 241:14 hat 241:14 hate 15:5 172:4 Hatzikaziakis 3:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 22

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 haven't 45:9 71:13 82:1,4 87:8,11 98:6 104:8 187:22 226:19 228:12,21 257:8 280:6 287:7 290:2 having 20:1 23:8 24:9 33:18 93:2 109:13 119:3,8,11 132:6,15 140:21 141:12 147:1,16 148:3 153:10 192:16 243:1,12 244:12 250:12 262:11 263:11 295:14 head 99:18 100:15 211:4 heads 99:19 hear 58:10,12 75:5,9,12 80:21 120:19,20 191:19 207:19 heard 26:21 46:11 71:10,11,13 87:12,13,14 164:18 199:7,17 201:5 227:14 261:2 hearing 24:7,13 27:17 132:14 136:4 138:16 145:17,19,22 146:3,14 269:12 279:9 heartburn 164:7 heat 26:2 218:9 heater 26:1,9 37:17 45:15 105:7

heaters 26:4 37:3 38:20,21 40:5 44:15 56:6 186:11 Heating 2:6 3:2,13 5:9,13,18 held 270:20 Helft 3:7 he'll 149:5 Hello 108:11 help 84:21 91:20 99:16 113:19,20 125:7,8 131:19 132:3 148:14,15,16 193:14 217:11 222:17 238:14,15 254:12 282:18 helped 82:20 helpful 48:22 96:7 helps 152:17 164:11 hereby 298:3 299:2 300:2 301:2 302:2 here's 111:10 161:11 228:4 231:3 hertz 117:6,9 131:5 he's 18:10 49:18 69:11,12 84:9 151:13 190:18 194:4 260:15,16,17 269:20 272:11 274:8,10,14 293:5

hey 21:14 28:10,12 48:16 64:15 85:12 93:18 140:17 145:3 167:11 Hi 93:17 106:9 hiccups 77:2 Hierlmeier 3:8 high 77:3,10 78:2 90:4,5 121:21 216:14 239:8 258:17 280:5 higher 41:10,13 highlighted 178:16 highly 98:15 99:10 159:1 238:19 259:1 highways 29:1 Hill 4:15 hire 69:3 hit 217:21 228:6 257:21 285:16 ho 142:12 HOFFMAN 123:14 126:9 hold 55:20 158:11 168:4 199:21 202:7 275:16 holding 155:15 holes 160:19 Hon 3:9 32:9,22 37:8,14 45:18 46:1 49:5,11 154:8 194:16,19 195:1,12 205:20 210:2 237:18 238:4,7,19

248:15 249:6,9 250:21 251:11 252:4 261:1 honest 259:4 honestly 61:10 honesty 295:7 Hootman 3:10 16:1 29:17 30:3 40:8,12,20 41:2,5,14,18,22 42:3,6,10,16,19, 21 43:5,11,13,17 44:1,4,7,14 59:2,6 60:2 61:4,7,10,12 76:2,4,6,12 81:4,6,9 83:19 88:20 89:4,7 90:10,19,22 91:4,6,12 103:6 104:2 111:18,21 117:1,11 119:3,17 120:2,10,13 121:13 122:1,14,18 125:18 130:7,12,16 131:2,7,13 150:7 171:14,15 172:1,4,20 175:20 176:1,4,6,10,13, 16,18 177:1,8 180:14,21 181:13 182:10,13,18,21 184:17 188:1 190:11,20 191:1,6 205:4 212:17 213:4 219:7,13

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 23

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 221:10,20 222:2,7 229:22 233:12,14 234:9,11,17,21 235:6,12 236:5 240:8,19 243:15 244:2,6 245:2 253:18 256:4,21 265:21 266:10,12,17,21 267:6 295:2,5,11 hope 39:7 165:7 260:4 hopefully 200:10 245:16 hopes 250:13 hoping 186:22 horizontal 124:7 horrible 287:6 horrific 258:6 Hoshizaki 5:6 84:18 hot 38:15 45:3 163:12 hotel 7:5 194:19 hour 26:10 49:13 69:20 hours 143:20 184:16,22 186:6 house 196:5 Howington 3:11 HRI 61:4 HS 41:5 HSP 41:4 HTP 5:13 14:22 35:20 58:4 112:13 186:9 207:15 251:15 258:9 267:4,10 282:7 294:1 huge 33:21 126:21 249:10 250:1 human 254:11,13 humidity 38:13 hundred 67:1 72:1,2,4 87:21 95:21 96:16 260:5 272:22 283:14 294:21 hundreds 288:20 289:2 Hunt 3:12 131:9 hurt 19:10 Hussman 11:16 19:13 138:16 151:10 152:8 231:6 Hussmann 5:7 207:19 HVAC 28:17 60:1 77:3 164:16 186:6 240:8 hypothetically 251:3 I ice 125:1 iceberg 142:10 I'd 17:8 28:4 51:6 53:12 59:8 88:20 111:18 117:21 154:3 184:5 224:13 294:15 idea 24:8 34:7 54:5 96:16 99:17 104:13 126:16 141:12 153:17 172:4 198:9

207:7 259:6 281:1 291:18 ideas 265:1 identical 17:20 288:22 identified 225:6 242:21 identify 36:4 IER 18:21 19:2 41:19 44:1 45:12 117:3 ignore 103:20 ignoring 99:6 I'll 7:15 17:11 21:19 23:3 25:20 42:9,14 69:21 71:8 87:20 104:12 105:7 126:15 166:15 170:19 200:14 217:17 222:10 227:19,21 237:22 249:20 277:4 284:18,20 Illinois 5:21 6:4 I'm 10:3 19:13,16 23:14 24:7,13,20 25:14 27:7,17 31:8,15 32:20 36:12 41:7 42:13 48:17,18 49:1 51:22 52:5 53:6 54:5 55:20 56:2 57:8 58:9,11 65:17 71:22 72:1,3 74:7 81:9,11 82:4 83:10 86:7 88:7,11,14 96:2 98:11,18 99:1,8 102:16 106:7 108:22 109:18 110:2 111:6 112:11 115:11,12 118:15 119:9 120:16,21 122:1,2,20 130:18 132:14 133:16 134:11 135:18 136:3,4,17 138:16,20 139:13,19 142:20 144:12,15 145:17,19,22 146:2,8,14 148:18 150:8,10 151:9,15 152:20,22 153:5,6,7 154:7 156:4,16 158:17,21 164:7 171:14,15 172:1,21,22 176:5,8 181:13 182:14 183:3,12 188:4,12,22 189:7 191:2,19 196:3,13 209:20 210:13,15,18 211:19 212:13 220:1 223:12 226:14 228:13 231:17 232:16 235:20 238:7,18 239:21,22 241:1,3,14 242:18 245:21 247:4,6 249:22 250:9 251:11 252:2,11 258:21 260:5,6,7 261:6,10 268:16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 24

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 272:1 274:16,18 276:10 279:9 280:19 284:11 289:17 290:22 291:18 295:3,8,11,12 imagine 10:7 immediate 170:12 immediately 107:10 160:8 impact 69:21 70:2 82:2 292:2 293:20 impacted 253:16 implications 250:5 important 28:16 180:17 198:12 238:12 impossibility 51:2 impossible 93:19 127:21 137:18 imprecise 47:17 impression 63:14 improperly 65:9 142:20 improve 54:7 238:14,15 improvement 47:20 improvements 169:9 improving 97:21 253:14 inaccurate 256:14 inaccurately 105:4 inadequate 70:10 inadvertently 15:8 24:17 inappropriately 285:11 inaudible 36:9 45:20 46:1 120:1 145:21 153:3,4 156:6 164:5 168:5 189:18 282:21 Inc 3:8,20 4:22 incentive 264:3,6 incentives 47:13 264:10 include 13:21 155:20 160:9 166:8 208:12 225:5 229:18 260:16 included 167:3 169:22 170:3 175:19 177:4 294:18 includes 132:20 133:20 202:2,3 including 69:21 209:21 inclusion 185:16 inconclusive 51:11 inconsequent 161:6 incorrect 39:15 161:14 incorrectly 118:20 161:17 increase 23:12 186:10 increased 118:2 246:17 increasing 58:5 124:9 251:7 increasingly 132:18 incumbent 180:1 Independence 1:7 independent 8:21 13:5,6 90:22 285:18 292:13 independently 123:17 indicate 184:9 276:7 indicated 116:14 indicating 70:15 indication 148:8 247:19 276:15 indicator 148:9 indirectly 24:21 individual 18:5 36:20 180:1 individually 289:7 industries 38:2 80:1 86:4 126:15,16 257:15 290:18 industry 9:2 27:20 29:18,22 30:12,19 32:10,17 36:9 37:3 47:13 52:13,21 57:1,16,21 68:20 87:15 96:8 141:9,12 142:8 145:15 154:17 158:12 162:14 177:13 199:10 200:20 inefficiency 98:12 99:20

infamous 193:15 influence 139:12,20 140:1,10 142:16,17,20 152:21 influenced 139:5 142:13 143:1 151:14,21 212:9 inform 243:11 information 17:1 77:13,20 91:15,20 92:4,15,20 95:3,5 98:5 107:7 111:11,14,22 112:3 113:5 114:19,22 116:22 126:11,17 127:20 148:2 154:10 169:22 170:2,6,12 176:21 177:2,12,19 178:12,20 179:1 180:2,8 181:16 184:15 185:1,3,5,7,8 187:13,21 188:2,8,14 189:11,15 190:3,5,6,11 194:20 238:13 245:20 284:15 informational 154:18 informed 246:17 infrequently 122:14 132:19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 25

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 Ingersoll 3:19 inherent 52:13 inherently 68:5 in-house 18:15,17 152:16 291:21 293:6 initial 106:16 133:7 142:7 145:12 167:13 174:22 199:9 216:22 229:16 266:22 279:11 initially 76:9 134:19 192:21 initiate 64:14 107:20 108:8 162:3 inlet 69:13 127:9 innovate 97:19 inordinate 219:11 input 108:14,17 139:18 140:2 171:13 254:11 inside 37:4 217:21 insisting 75:18,20 inspect 84:22 install 86:14 87:4 99:5 121:6 144:2 installation 39:5 67:16,17 94:10,22 102:22 107:8 110:2,6,18 121:7 129:4 163:15 169:19 installed 68:15 69:17 79:18 82:8,13 107:3 115:18 116:5 130:4,22 131:1 237:3

installer 107:3 installing 68:13,18 instance 15:7 instances 247:8 250:8 instead 150:6 232:3 244:22 instinct 68:10 Institute 2:7 5:10 instruct 38:17 instruction 68:12 145:1,2 instructions 39:6 82:9,14 85:21 92:20,21 94:10 102:8,13 103:1,9,11 107:8,14 110:18 114:14 115:1,2,3 129:14 145:7 179:18 180:3,9 186:1 instrumentation 26:17 47:15 89:18 92:3,6 94:3 105:18 121:10 instrumentations 90:8 insulation 58:9,18 integrity 164:10 intend 140:6 intended 58:1 198:16 204:12 intent 68:12 156:6 160:6 intention 68:19 140:5 intentional 9:13 161:22 interactive 101:21 interest 53:4 90:3 154:1 164:10 199:6 298:10 interested 168:20 283:15 interesting 237:7 internally 286:12 International 3:6 4:6 interpolation 280:2,3,8,20 interpretation 72:5 143:14,18 148:16 interpretations 47:14 144:6,16 interpreted 21:1 65:20 276:14 interstate 29:1 Intertek 4:8 82:20 93:15 94:4 95:6 105:14 124:1,18 151:15 152:19 intervals 51:16 introduced 17:3 introduction 7:19 invalid 14:16,21 30:11,13,18 124:12 126:6 150:22 192:3 193:2,3 205:13,19 233:2 251:22 255:9,21 262:7 263:9 268:1 269:14 273:1,13 274:6

275:4,6,20 276:1,14 282:3 283:9 290:11 295:6 invalidate 11:1,2 13:8 14:8 126:3 266:20 invalidated 207:12 266:19 inventoried 235:20 Inventory 240:6 invest 121:7 184:1 invested 238:22 investigation 236:17 involve 68:5 197:15 involved 33:14 37:1 51:9 93:1 131:20 162:13 164:8 166:4 215:6 involvement 94:15 157:22 involves 89:16 involving 153:11 IOMs 103:19 isn't 15:7 18:2 43:12,13 50:3 92:16 142:6 148:7 172:14 200:8 208:8 228:16 235:3 237:11 241:20 277:1 ISO 114:3,10 120:8 126:19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 26

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137:22 issue 7:19 8:6 15:11,13 19:1,6,8,9 29:4 33:14,17,21 35:5 38:20 61:18 64:18 66:7,8,12 68:20 77:19 86:1 87:16 92:9,16,17 94:12 98:18 99:1 104:16 108:3,4,5 122:12 123:20 124:2,8 125:16 138:21 140:18 141:22 142:1,7 145:4 148:16 155:5 156:3 160:21 161:16 162:22 166:6 172:16 173:21 189:20 192:19 193:19 199:15 200:17 220:20 227:21 232:17 237:7 239:22 252:15 255:16 260:12,19 266:13 268:1 issues 15:18 19:9 22:5 35:6 38:16,19 45:2 52:1 69:21 90:7 99:7 104:6 118:11,13 121:20 123:19 132:6 136:2 162:9 168:21 191:22 192:7 199:13,16 202:5 203:3 206:14 207:2 296:6,20 It'd 113:20 147:7 item 199:18 239:7 items 283:17 it'll 32:2 56:14 183:4 it's 9:22 11:6,11,15 12:19 14:13 16:20 17:18 18:2 19:8 21:11 24:22 25:21 26:7,9,16 28:16 29:8 30:4,17 31:8 32:2,16 33:4,17 35:6,7 36:15 37:12 38:14 39:7 40:3,6,7,22 42:17 43:18 44:4,12,13,14 46:13 47:2,12,16,18,20 ,21 48:11 50:4,14 51:11 52:22 54:17 55:10,19 57:6 58:5,6,9,18 62:5 65:1,18,19 66:2,17 67:6 68:20 71:20 73:2 79:12,18 82:8,13 85:6,22 86:5,22 87:1,9,16 88:20 90:2 91:2,11 93:5 94:20,22 95:1 97:5,12,18 99:3,21 100:11 101:18 104:15,22 105:16 109:6,21 110:17 111:7 115:22 118:9,13,18,19 120:2 121:5,15 122:15,17 126:6,7 129:20 130:17 131:6,10 134:22 137:2,3,9,11,18 139:19,21,22 140:9,10 141:13 142:5 144:9,10 146:18 148:9,15,17,22 149:7 150:8,18 152:19 155:7,9,10,16 159:16 160:22 161:13,15 162:2 163:15,22 164:1 166:16 167:4 168:14 169:15 170:5 171:22 175:9,13 176:15,16,18,20, 21 177:19 181:20,21,22 182:2 185:2,18 187:8 188:13,22 189:7 191:7,14 193:19 195:8 196:6,14 197:2,3,4 200:4,6 201:20 202:6,7,8 203:1,2 205:21 206:11,20 208:6 209:17 210:6 211:1,12 212:9 214:8 216:14,17,18 218:3 219:4 223:7 224:17 226:1 227:14 229:4,21 230:6 231:17 232:8,9 234:3 237:15 240:12 241:7,8 243:22 245:1,11 246:5 247:1,16 248:11 249:4,11 250:17,20 252:12 253:22 254:5,14,16,18

256:14 258:13 259:1,18 264:6,8 266:15 268:3 270:1,2 271:3 273:12 274:2 275:17 276:14,18,22 277:22 278:11 282:14 283:7 284:14,19,20,21 288:4,19 290:1 293:4 294:4,21 295:15 I've 9:16 16:19 21:17 22:10 26:21 55:19 71:10,11 76:6 78:6 82:16 84:15 87:13,14 164:3 173:16 239:14 240:21 245:3,6,7 259:21,22 280:3,4 294:21 295:8 Iyabo 3:21 J Jakobs 3:13 Jason 5:4 Jay 4:17 Jeff 2:11 3:16 4:15 10:20 13:10 20:19 23:5 48:4,21 54:14 55:16 73:22 75:8 99:12 100:2 114:11 150:2 155:13 166:12 177:10 179:15 185:4 226:9 228:17,18 232:4 233:11 245:6,16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 27

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 256:16 258:15 261:6,17 271:7 275:5 279:18 Jefferson 163:7 Jeffrey 257:5 Jeff's 245:21 259:19 jeopardy 154:12 Jeremiah 3:3 175:11 193:14 Jill 3:10 16:1 59:2 83:19 110:3,14 114:17 117:1 160:15 162:22 171:14 253:19 Jim 2:21 job 188:14 jobs 146:20 Joe 69:9,10 145:3 John 4:4,6,12 5:2,17 33:5 35:12 61:12 117:1 138:17 216:11 236:13 242:6 247:20 248:6 259:5 268:15 Johnson 3:14 6:2 115:10,13,16,20, 22 Judd 5:8 108:11 143:13 judgment 7:15 115:6 July 197:2 203:8,9,13,17 204:5,21 jump 155:10 160:15 jumping 10:6 147:9 June 196:16,19 197:4 203:1 justification 36:8 justify 259:7 K Karen 4:9 28:15 46:12 65:10 71:9 98:3 101:19 117:21 119:21 144:8 161:18 162:22 229:1 230:5 258:22 Karen's 124:9 165:4 Karim 2:6 KATHY 300:2,14 Kent 4:16 Kevin 5:21 6:4 key 116:19 173:20 255:22 272:18 274:3 Khan 3:15 kicks 216:11 kilowatts 49:12 54:21 kinds 136:15 242:16 Kleiss 3:16 23:5 98:8 99:12,19 114:11 115:8 129:10 139:20 140:1,4,7 150:1 159:6,20 178:7 179:15 185:4 193:4 197:13 214:13,16 223:3 226:9,14 227:1,12 233:11,13 245:6,10,12 256:16 258:15 261:6 knowledge 16:22 91:9 104:10 161:15 known 100:21 Kojak 3:17 76:20 81:12 84:13 85:17 89:11 92:2,8,11 93:3,8,12 110:22 111:2 114:3 121:2,15 122:3 123:11,18 142:22 151:11 164:14,22 174:5 195:7 224:8 246:2 KOKAK 174:5 Kolandayan 3:18 17:7 18:11 45:11,14 59:7,15,18,20 62:22 63:6,9,13 174:15 175:4 190:1,10 224:13 Kowalski 3:19 L lab 15:8 17:4,13 18:5 27:5 29:2 33:7 34:22 42:4,7 47:6 52:13 56:7,14 59:9 72:11,22 73:3 75:5 76:17,18 77:21 80:3,14 81:14,18 85:19

90:13,15,17,18 91:15,22 92:2 106:21,22 107:9,11 110:1 111:3 113:16 114:5 115:5 123:17 125:11,12 126:16,18,19 128:17 129:5,7 130:2 133:2 138:8,10 139:5 141:13,14,18,19, 21 142:1,2,14 143:1,19 144:21 145:5 148:14 149:16 150:20 152:9 155:4 158:3 162:14,19 163:3 167:9,11 176:21 188:7 240:22 241:5 243:16 244:14 268:11 lab-facility 47:7 laboratories 70:4 120:6,15 146:5 laboratory 22:4 23:19 37:5 38:4,5,7 39:8,13 82:16 98:4 107:6 114:16 120:7,17 122:5,7 136:9 144:1 146:6 147:10,11,17 148:2 169:6 179:1 180:17 190:6 292:13 laboratory's 285:7 labs 17:18 18:1,3,9 20:21 21:8 30:22 31:2 47:15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 28

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 59:16,21 64:8 71:22 77:15 83:21 88:21 89:13,22 90:7,9 92:18 93:4 105:15 109:6 120:22 121:8 124:17 127:17,22 129:4 132:21,22 135:14,20 137:21 138:10,18 139:3 141:10 151:20 152:11,14,15 243:17 268:5 lab's 132:8 206:16 lack 153:10 170:13 233:21 lag 131:16 language 175:6 189:10 203:2 225:10 227:17 267:8 275:14 291:3 296:7 large 33:12 41:18 42:2 43:2 56:6 80:2 85:1 89:14 111:5 119:9,18 122:19 130:12 161:16 233:14,15,19 242:7 289:3 larger 33:13 67:9 79:12 97:3,17 104:21 122:21,22 154:20 207:2 258:13 largest 43:8 Larry 3:11 Larson 3:20 last 8:6 65:2 69:20 89:20 99:14 124:19 134:14,15 156:4 160:12 164:17 165:10 173:14,17,18 174:3,16 191:12 198:1,15 204:9,10 208:10 210:9 225:3,4,15 228:10 240:5 late 203:10 later 45:2 112:19 149:8 150:6 194:15 257:9 latitude 249:18 lauded 79:20 laugh 245:3 launch 193:5 Laura 2:10,20 11:15 13:5 67:7 70:14 71:2 132:16 162:12 184:4 192:7 220:10 249:5 Laura's 69:22 82:5 224:14 law 5:5 48:1 95:19 259:13 Lawal 3:21 lawful 259:15 laws 21:2 lawyer 83:10 lay 234:16 lead 33:19 68:14 74:4 237:2 242:4,17 learn 53:19

learning 113:17 least 19:20 23:9 55:5 84:22 98:22 99:10 109:8 132:13 133:4 138:22 140:13 161:13 197:21 208:17 215:22 221:1 236:14 242:8 255:6,9 258:6 281:1 296:17 leave 7:2,6 57:6 213:19 leaves 88:9 221:2 leaving 248:4,12 271:12 led 66:8 legal 52:9 154:12 legitimate 49:3 69:6 211:1 legitimately 79:7 133:2 legitimize 49:1 lemon 208:5 L'Enfant 203:16 length 116:9 Lennox 3:6 less 26:7,9 40:18 46:10,19 52:9 53:16 183:19 206:6 236:9 254:19 268:20 284:19 290:9 let's 14:2 16:21 17:11 25:1 27:18 31:4,5,12 34:13 40:2 44:10 47:1,4 49:1 63:11 64:2 77:7 88:7 93:13 98:4 109:20,21 125:18 129:15 140:16 144:20 150:22 156:7 187:19 205:8 210:8 212:4 221:14 230:8 247:7 251:3 260:5 265:15 268:21 269:12 272:19 279:20 280:1,2,4 283:22 284:13 288:8 291:11,19 293:16 297:2 letter 95:19 163:21 164:2 letters 212:22 level 12:12 70:7 138:2 144:14 152:18 187:14,20 216:22 237:1 295:11 levied 250:1 liaison 38:6 license 294:13 licenses 99:4 light 26:9 171:16 likely 16:20 130:17,18 163:22 214:7 220:5 245:9 limit 14:11 43:9 135:7,16,18,20 136:7,14 154:17 limited 73:19 129:16,18 135:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 29

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 136:14 284:10 288:6 limiting 136:11,18 Lin 3:22 line 52:7 153:7,13 217:20 240:6 247:17 258:2,12 269:20 283:18 291:4 linear 280:1,3,8,20 lines 9:7 15:9 284:21 286:8 list 24:18 27:11,13,18 28:13 29:9,10 45:9 57:19 103:8 174:6,11 179:21 194:1 197:9,10 246:19 listed 56:13 109:22 259:21 268:18 listen 269:17 listening 110:14 141:8 200:11 listing 154:13 lists 92:3 literally 101:21 102:16 103:19 122:22 219:13 254:10 literature 112:6,9 235:14 259:12 little 8:10 32:4 54:15 62:10,17 63:12 72:7 86:12 90:11 94:1 128:18 155:18 184:2 194:15 196:4,6 241:19 288:1

live 245:18 LLC 3:17 Load 206:9 loading 125:3 loads 123:1 local 68:13 69:4 located 22:11 location 197:9 203:15 locations 22:5 196:18 197:10,12 205:7 Lochinvar 3:16 99:12 114:11 179:16 185:4 226:9 233:11 245:6 256:16 258:15 261:6 logging 63:15 logical 162:17 Logistically 194:16 log-normal 52:4 long 38:13,15 74:9 82:8 94:11,13 129:5 141:7 149:15 159:2 228:9 233:22 242:17 274:20 longer 63:12 121:7 204:17 236:4 241:11 252:3 280:7 287:21 loop 228:16 lose 150:19 241:10 losing 154:13 284:6 loss 26:3,5,10 27:3 36:5 37:2,5,7 40:7 44:21 58:7 186:11 lost 294:13 lot 8:15 27:8 49:7 53:2 60:15 62:11,17 65:20 67:8 68:21 71:10,12 75:3,18 78:9,13,21 82:16,17 89:16 90:1 95:12 96:10 109:8 111:22 116:20 121:7 146:17 148:20 152:15 153:19 157:20 160:21 172:5 189:3 221:11 238:22 239:6,13 251:13 257:14 263:17 264:4 266:1 276:5 280:16 288:10 294:2 lots 30:6 89:17 119:14 loud 94:7 274:16 Louis 5:11 153:16 263:20 love 104:2 low 17:9 39:9 55:5 77:10 99:21,22 lower 216:12 217:1 259:11 Lowes 188:22 low-pressure 33:8 L-shaped 124:6 Luke 3:4 Lulla 4:2 lunch 7:9,11 33:3 178:5 191:17 192:5 225:4 229:3 lunchtime 208:11 Ly 4:3 M ma'am 56:9 machine 125:1 mailbox 193:21 main 125:8 maintain 50:21 218:20 223:8 255:10 256:1 273:18 major 77:16 121:4 155:1 241:20 majority 27:22 33:8,22 94:1,9 95:4 96:1 118:11 251:1 MALE 7:12 22:22 36:9 63:22 100:16 106:9 116:19 128:3 131:6 139:7 142:21 153:2 168:5 173:16 175:7,11,13 176:20 181:10 182:22 282:21 283:3 284:11 manageable 288:18 management 256:21 management's 250:9 mandated 213:14

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 30

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 227:5 mandatory 66:17 168:7 Mandyck 4:4 manipulation 77:4 89:19 manual 94:11 129:4,5 169:3 175:18 176:9,10,21 177:4 182:11 189:1 191:5 manufacture 128:19,20 130:5 222:13 manufactured 189:13 manufacturer 8:8 23:18 24:11,13 27:1 32:5 34:22 38:11 39:3 48:6,15 52:12 63:1,2,15 64:4,15 65:21 66:1 68:20 69:1 70:21 74:4,20 75:4 77:12,16,18,22 81:15,16,20 82:1 86:14,15 87:1 91:17 92:4 93:9 94:18 95:8 98:13,20 99:5,9 101:17 104:6,9,14 105:12 107:1,5,10,11,15 ,20 113:6 117:18 118:1,16 125:13 133:6 139:5 140:17,18,21 141:3,5,14 143:9,18 145:3 147:3,6 148:17 149:3 151:14,17 152:21 156:21 157:3,5,8,19,22 158:1 161:3,5 163:20 165:12 166:21 167:8,13 168:8 170:4,7 171:12 173:5,8 174:6,18,22 175:1,2 177:16 179:3,4,7 180:22 181:2 184:21 185:2,6,15 208:13,22 209:11,13 213:12,15,19 216:6 219:19 221:3 223:13,17,21 225:14 226:11 227:1 228:5,7 229:4,15,16,17,2 0 232:18 233:3 242:20 246:9,11 247:6 250:3,4 256:17,19 257:2,18 261:11,13 262:10,12 265:7 269:19 271:12 272:7 273:9 276:10 281:7 282:3 283:10 287:14 manufacturers 15:3 18:4 21:1 23:8 29:5 30:15 54:9 59:9 62:12,18 68:6,16 72:2 76:22 78:21 89:17 93:20 95:11 108:14 114:20 121:4 128:14 129:3 132:14 133:1 138:21 139:10 143:2 152:4 155:3 168:1,12 175:17 179:17 180:4 183:20 219:10 236:16 242:15 257:19 258:11 260:15 267:11 282:2 285:5 288:15 291:15 manufacturer's 8:11 28:1 31:12 34:16,22 56:16 64:7 68:11,12 77:6 81:20 82:14 87:3 102:8,13,19 104:22 106:22 116:14 161:8 166:15 172:6 210:10 212:3 224:15 283:8 Manufacturers 2:13manufacturerspecific 95:3 manufacture's 223:10 manufacturing 4:9,21 37:8 49:5 55:13 64:18 108:4 154:9 220:17 222:15 225:7 237:1 238:16 Marantan 4:5 mark 3:2 4:8,18 18:21 295:19 market 64:3 238:10 241:21

260:18 marketplace 27:21 247:1 markets 96:15 Marshall 3:12 Mary 2:19 10:15 287:2 301:2,13 massage 275:14 matches 129:7 material 243:4 296:19 math 54:15 mathematician 287:7 matter 69:10 154:1 177:20 183:1 261:15 matters 232:6 maximum 133:12 134:11 may 1:11 12:8,12 17:20 18:6 19:11 20:6 25:11,18 26:22 36:6 48:3 57:13 58:17 61:11,19 67:10 72:4 91:20 107:6 108:2,8 120:5 127:8 129:19 149:2 150:13 156:5 160:15 166:2,14 171:2,18 179:15 183:10,14,17 192:9 193:4,10 194:10 196:1,4 197:3 210:5 213:12,13 217:12 221:4

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 31

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 229:7,8 233:22 252:17 255:16 258:10 266:2 276:7,15 280:6 282:3 283:10,15 288:4 290:11 293:18 maybe 8:9 24:20 31:15 34:21 37:14 53:20 79:11 81:16 101:15,17 120:7 123:3 128:8 129:3 149:18 165:3,10 167:5 180:7 182:7 192:14,16 194:15 216:5,7 217:4 234:3 235:16,17,21 238:2 244:21 254:18 259:11,21 265:9 286:13 287:10,19 293:4 296:20 MC 5:5 McDermott 4:19 McLaughlin 4:6 McQuay 3:14 4:6 5:20 115:16 mean 13:7 14:16 15:17,19 17:17 28:17 29:4,8,11 30:9 36:19 43:10 45:5 46:15,19,21 48:13 49:10 50:21 58:21 66:22 71:19 73:1 74:8 76:17 83:11 93:16 94:20,21,22 100:7,21 101:13 102:3,4,6 103:16 105:8 110:12,15 112:20 118:13 119:6 120:16 125:21,22 127:15 130:10 139:2,4,8,14 140:4 141:4 144:6 146:13 147:10,13 148:1,6,13 149:18 150:12,18,19 151:16 152:1,4,8 153:6,18 154:19 155:2,4,11 157:19 161:19 162:10 164:13 165:2,4 182:9 183:8,10 184:19 186:14,17 188:21 190:14 192:22 193:1,2 194:13 200:8 205:17 208:6 210:11 211:2,22 212:15,18,21 214:18 216:4 219:4,15 220:14 221:2 222:20,21 223:4 224:3 225:12,18,19 227:16 231:8 234:7,15,21 235:2,8,13,15,16 236:11 241:2,17 246:20 247:1 254:14 255:4,17 259:20 261:6,19 267:20 268:8,9 274:18 275:8,10 278:14,20 279:10 287:4 292:7,10 294:9,10 296:16

meaning 24:5 63:14 279:15 means 51:7 52:6 70:21 76:1 88:22 102:7 105:18 116:7,16 126:10 253:2 261:4 273:2 275:11 287:14 meant 138:2 measure 26:5,18 41:11,14 84:10 159:15 163:11 measured 42:4 183:15 measurement 53:11 measurements 84:4,8 measures 169:2 measuring 105:4 Mecadon 4:7 mechanical 79:17 232:17 medicine 231:3 meet 36:21 55:1 73:20 88:5 256:18 267:14 274:12 meeting 1:4 7:4 21:3 193:5,12,18 195:17,22 196:9,11,16,20 197:1 203:7,17 204:4,11,12,13,1 4,17 238:3 263:2 264:9 279:15 287:11 290:7 296:19 297:5

meetings 193:17 195:14 204:6 member 112:15 113:8 179:8 181:7 members 181:12 memory 284:18 mental 283:1 mentioned 25:3 36:5 38:12 52:15 57:1 95:6 128:14 170:1 267:11 291:17 Menzer 4:8 merit 162:20 met 292:17 method 95:18 189:12 methodology 70:9 185:12 methods 163:9 metric 30:1 44:12 45:17 56:14 58:21 59:1 MEUS 4:17 MEYER 46:12,20 47:1 Meyers 4:9 28:15,20 59:19 60:1,3,6 65:10,12 71:8 74:1 98:3,11 100:18 101:5,8,13,15 102:1,7,10,15,17 ,19,22 103:3 117:21 118:4,7 122:8 132:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 32

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 156:7,16,22 157:4,7,14 158:7,11,17,20 159:10,16 160:14 162:1 163:5 229:1 230:2 240:11,16,21 241:5 244:21 246:15 257:5 mic 37:19,21,22 76:5 109:14 240:10 Michael 3:17 6:5 51:4 120:18 164:2 microphone 143:16 189:19 274:15 283:6 microphones 159:9,11 middle 91:14 Mike 51:22 76:20 81:12 84:13 89:10,11 93:3,15,17 94:4 105:14 111:2 121:2 124:1 128:7,13 129:16 142:21,22 144:22 149:18 151:11,12 160:4 161:18 164:14 174:5 224:8 Mike's 126:4 million 130:22 137:12 138:8 millions 100:10 mind 19:10 47:19 245:16 264:7 289:12 minds 10:8

mine 215:3 minimum 52:9 157:12 216:7 252:18 255:8,10,18,19 256:1 257:10 259:11 264:3,5,9 267:21 269:1,15 minimums 221:21 279:16 minor 20:7 minority 93:21 96:1,3 198:19,21 minute 105:5,8 110:16 111:9 230:10,18 247:10,12 260:11 291:17 minutes 87:17 106:3 191:17 229:6 MIRANDA 299:2,13 misrated 241:15 miss 133:3 missed 47:5 179:14 228:13 missing 86:7 108:21 156:5 180:18 Mitsubishi 2:22 43:1 60:5 62:1 117:14 175:15 181:16 217:3 222:11 239:11 252:20 268:4 270:12 mixers 84:2 Mmm-hmm 139:7 149:22 189:9 mode 283:2,17 285:10 286:11,13 model 46:3 50:22 54:12 107:2 109:22 110:16 111:10 115:17 116:4 145:11 171:11,12 181:21 188:16 207:2,8,14,17 208:12 209:4,11 212:8 213:6 214:17 217:5,20 218:3,19 219:6,8 221:7 223:18 231:10,20 232:8 235:9,10 236:7,20 237:17 245:20 247:17,22 250:19 252:2 256:9,15 260:13 262:6 263:9 265:8,11,12 267:22 269:16,21 270:3 271:13,22 272:10,14 274:9,11 275:22 276:2 277:1,5 278:7,12,19 281:7,8,9,12,19 285:1 289:8,9,10,13,19 290:3,10 291:22 293:19 294:3 modeling 211:12 221:13 models 12:18 59:4 170:21 211:13,18

212:20 214:1 216:5,6 219:15 220:22 221:4 241:15 247:8,13 253:15,21 254:8 259:18,21,22 260:6,15 262:11 265:18,22 266:10 269:14 271:9 272:4,5,8,21 278:22 280:16 282:2,4,14 283:9,11,14,22 284:19 287:16 288:19,21 289:2,11 290:9,12 291:3,6,20,21 293:17 294:18 295:8 model's 50:17 216:8 260:13 modified 180:7 186:15 252:5 modify 180:12 modulated 96:17 modulating 95:1 96:10 Mohamed 4:11 Molvie 4:10 mom 58:11 moment 289:20 Monday 203:8 204:8 monetary

259:7 287:20,22 money 88:15 134:17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 33

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137:1,3,4,6,8 172:19 238:22 239:2 258:7 288:4,15 monikerring 213:7 monitor 82:7 97:21 119:8,11 monitoring 70:6 month 150:6 185:14 194:3 204:10 months 89:21 288:8,14 moral 55:21 morning 7:16 Morris 4:12 motivation 258:17,19 motors 53:2 77:10 mouth 161:12 move 18:19 47:22 55:22 56:3 67:1 150:16 152:1 165:19 185:19 197:20 198:3 moved 133:3 280:13 moves 174:9 moving 39:17 198:7 Mucciola 4:13 184:13,19 283:12 multiannual 70:6 multiple 11:7 21:18 48:7 159:1 213:13 215:21 232:12 248:17,20 250:8 251:1,18 254:2,6 261:9,16 262:14,22 265:10 multitude 20:21,22 muted 207:22 Mvuala 5:16 Myers 4:14 37:18 38:1 56:18,22 57:14 69:18 79:22 80:21 81:1,5,8 82:1 83:5,13 126:14,15 173:3,20 174:4 186:12,13 187:11,12 188:4 189:9 195:21 199:5,14 200:2,16 201:4,16 202:8,16,20 213:5,21 241:22 242:11 243:3,8,10,14 244:8 245:5 246:5,6 249:13 257:12,15 269:18 270:8,10 285:2,3 286:17 287:18 288:13 290:17,22 291:10 292:3,9,12,16,21 293:8 myself 163:17 N narrowin g 265:3 Natalia 1:19 298:2,15 National 2:11,13 4:7,13 10:21 13:11 20:20 48:5 54:15 155:14 166:13 184:13 195:9,10 261:17 283:12 natural 212:20 nature 22:8 154:2 286:14 Navigant 2:3,20 4:5 5:22 NCOP 42:11 nearly 96:17 necessarily 46:13 95:14 120:5 122:10 124:4 140:2,4,9 141:4,6 177:6 190:18 203:1 210:3 241:6 263:6,10 266:20 276:13 296:12 necessary 105:18 107:9 185:18 187:18 198:22 296:21 NEEA 5:12 negative 295:15 negligible 48:10,11 negotiate 198:14 negotiating 55:20 57:11 negotiations 68:10 198:5 200:9 202:1 Neil 2:3 25:15 81:9 106:9 128:7 134:2 197:18,21 198:2 Neil's 132:12 neither 298:7 Newel 4:15 newly 223:11 Nia 2:18 nice 280:2 nicely 258:3 niche 132:20 Ninety 153:2 nobody 7:2 87:22 183:21 185:2 nomenclature 231:8 nominal 36:19 non 36:10 noncompliance 65:5 66:9,20 74:18 noncompliant 66:13 none 43:11 154:7 non-member 179:9 nonparticipants 258:22 nonstarter 62:20 289:11 non-starter 62:14 Nonstarter 118:3 Nope 42:14 nor 298:8 Norlake 3:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 34

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 normal 37:3 70:11 185:12 normally 20:18 218:7 North 3:19 Northwest 5:11 153:16not-able-to-betested-at-a 47:6 note 28:16 56:4 84:15 103:9 227:19 notes 108:1 110:2,15 111:5 169:19 175:16,17 176:9 177:1 182:2 196:15 299:5 300:5 301:5 302:5 nother 31:13 nothing 48:19 91:2 103:12,14 281:14,15 notice 186:4 221:22 notified 74:4 99:9 notifying 98:12,19 notion 262:3 nowhere 198:18 255:18 NRCAN 5:16 nuances 72:18,20 83:13 84:9 95:10 numerous 124:17 O object 160:2 175:17 191:14 objections 175:5 178:1 269:8,12,16 obligation 50:17 obsolete 209:3,4 279:8 280:7 obtain 34:19 86:2 obtained 34:21 obvious 168:11 obviously 11:3 19:5 21:11 44:22 48:9 66:18 87:8 94:10 128:21 140:18 170:20 179:14 212:21 221:13 230:21 254:1 288:10 occasions 141:2 occur 108:9 occurred 128:13 173:9 213:17 occurrences 214:8 OEM 121:4 127:16 offer 59:8 offered 194:14 offering 12:18 office 33:2 157:6,7 163:21 261:22 offices 194:4 offline 106:6 offset 113:19 offsets 55:18 offshore 96:15 ofs 219:13 233:19 236:3,14 oh 40:9 44:17

47:10 49:21 65:12 67:4 73:15 105:5 111:16 120:12 137:13 150:19,22 155:22 156:4 157:7 163:1 191:6 234:10 244:4 248:10 270:8 280:15 oil 38:20 old 224:9,11,16 OM 175:22 181:1,2,9,12,16, 21,22 182:8,9 183:3,10 184:6 185:13 OMs 181:3 onerous 187:17 ones 18:4 23:3 47:5 57:21 61:14 67:9 94:18 130:9 190:18 266:7 one's 203:11 one-sided 8:16 11:13 46:5,7 47:12 52:19 one-third 294:17,18,21 ongoing 39:10,12 267:12 online 103:3 108:13,22 on-site 64:22 65:3 67:12,13 68:6 70:17 71:21 94:14 107:1,5 118:1 229:15 OnSpeX 5:8 onto 25:21

onus 105:15 148:14 Oops 43:19 open 19:6,8,9 37:16 149:3 217:15 221:9 238:10 240:21 271:12 opening 37:7 125:4 openness 68:10 operate 95:2,16 185:9 operates 83:6 operating 83:15 97:17 102:22 169:1 operation 110:4,7 211:12 operational 185:12 operations 169:3 175:18 176:9,10,20 177:4 182:10 operator 212:1 opinion 73:8 211:6 227:22 255:7 274:20 opportunities 226:1 opportunity 80:18 105:13 128:3 150:19 160:7 162:6,7 205:15 258:7 opposed 102:14 132:21 138:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 35

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 189:15 237:10 262:12 opposition 139:1 opted 273:13 option 17:15 23:9 62:8 83:2 88:19,20 89:6 145:18 147:5 151:18 166:22 167:20 170:2 172:21 173:9 174:6,17 208:15 209:1 215:8,9,10,14 218:13,18 221:5 225:19 226:11 229:5 232:10 233:7 234:8,13 235:8,17 262:11 263:4 273:10 274:22 278:18 279:13 optional 186:5 options 14:16 23:7 154:16 206:22 209:7 214:12 218:21 234:17 287:21 289:16 option's 230:22 order 39:11 73:13 77:4 79:1 86:3 87:6,7 96:12 117:9 120:8 123:6 131:2 176:4 188:11,19 189:1 214:18 233:22 235:22 236:3 240:7 241:11,12,18 242:1 283:22 288:16 orderable 234:2 ordered 98:16 ordinarily 67:17 oriented 133:2 original 9:21,22 34:18 166:9 168:9 209:19 217:14 237:11 239:5 originally 198:16 253:9 others 19:17 41:10 45:9 60:10,12 78:13 87:8 178:17 200:6 213:14 otherwise 149:5 ought 9:3 25:6 135:14 ourselves 287:9 289:10 outcome 20:7 108:6 127:13 outdoor 43:18 outlet 127:9 output 211:11 outset 12:9 outside 10:3 14:10 64:13 107:17 112:6 114:5 121:11 143:5 152:11 156:1,15 157:11,12 161:20 162:2 165:18 166:5 167:2 192:18,22 197:19 205:11 206:15,20 216:17 253:1,8 263:3 273:8 278:6

over/under 124:8 overage 32:13 overcomplicating 261:18 overdesign 51:14 overrate 48:13 overrated 262:19 overstating 264:9 owner 103:13,20 111:4 P p.m 297:3 P2S 4:16 Pacific 3:12 package 56:19 198:10 199:22 252:2,3 253:17 266:8 268:3 270:3 292:1 296:5 page 102:21 159:14 274:14 pages 38:16 154:15 159:2 pain 251:13 Pantelis 3:6 parameters 131:8 183:15 211:15 Pardon 81:8 110:5 159:10 179:5 202:16 240:16 292:9 paren 57:4 Parentheses 269:13 parents 196:7

partial 133:5 partially 56:11 148:14 participant 236:6 PARTICIPANTS 2:5 participate 113:4 participation 168:20 particular 36:7 67:10 78:14 105:6 113:15 128:15 129:20 185:10,13 193:2 216:6 218:3 238:14 239:7 244:15 247:6,17 262:6 271:22 particularly 78:21 parties 93:1 144:15 154:3 162:13 168:20 298:8 partly 103:13 party 9:2,4 15:8 18:16,19,20 19:16,18 31:2 33:22 34:12 60:20 64:8 111:8 113:14 127:17 141:10 153:18 154:3,4,5 268:6,11 285:18,21,22 286:2 291:15 292:2,4,7,10 293:17 pass 7:17 46:11,13 112:2 149:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 36

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 166:2 183:21 262:3 269:3 pass/fail 7:17 passed 112:11 passes 46:10 past 20:1 67:15 77:2 104:11 188:20 225:18 239:14 patent 74:17 path 199:8 217:7,12 270:16 paths 217:5 pathway 273:14 pathways 271:19 patience 106:6 PATRICIA 302:2,12 pattern 263:22 Paul 2:22 3:22 43:1 60:4 61:22 117:13 175:15 181:1,15 182:16 217:3 222:11 224:1 239:11 252:20 268:4 270:12 273:4,21 274:22 277:7,9 Paul's 253:19 pay 76:9,10 81:20 106:11 238:9 pay-for 89:8 paying 76:8,14 86:7 PCI 290:17 PDF 187:9 PE 69:4 penalizing 106:7 penalties 65:6 246:16 249:19 263:5 286:8 penalty 249:16 259:7 283:17 285:10 286:13 287:20 288:1,12 291:1 292:17 PENNACHI 299:2,13 people 7:4 9:6 10:3,10 20:1 38:4 51:14 52:15 53:22 66:11 67:19 69:10 75:18 85:4 97:4,19 106:2 120:20 127:4 129:18 142:11 146:4 147:21 152:15 153:20,21 159:8,12,22 164:8 165:19 195:2,3 212:14 226:16 240:1 249:10 250:22 257:6 282:18 284:6,10 294:11 295:15 per 100:10 107:19 137:21 143:3,8 percent 8:16 22:11 26:12,14 27:2 28:21 29:7 30:4 32:12,14,15 33:4 40:3,4,6,12,16,2 2 41:1,4,5,18,19 42:11,19 43:3 44:19 45:12,19 46:10,11 47:9,13,20 48:7,10,17,18 49:3,8,14 51:7,8,13,14,18, 20,21 52:6,17 53:8,15,16,19 54:16,18,20,22 55:1,2,6,11 58:6 67:1 72:1,2,4 82:9 95:21 96:3,4,16 118:2 121:3 127:12 128:22 153:2 158:12 159:4 166:1 170:5 172:1,3,15 173:1 206:6,7 209:16,17,18 221:15,16 231:1 265:14 266:7 282:1,2,19,22 283:1,7,8 284:20 290:14 291:8,9,11 percentage 11:9 94:17 96:6 99:16 100:14 133:21,22 257:4,14 258:11,12,13 259:18 260:8,9,21 262:4,13 265:9 282:5,15 285:13 286:10 percentages 36:2,7 257:17 262:14 290:5 perfect 218:5 perform 64:13 77:10 performance 36:21 52:9 54:11 68:15 79:2 96:13 142:9 146:21

211:15 216:9 264:10,15 285:8 289:15 293:18 performed 65:8 performing 77:7 148:7 239:16 performs 51:8 perhaps 104:16 120:7 146:10 225:6 240:6 269:20 293:5,14 period 39:2 49:13 53:13 148:18 175:3 183:7 189:8 207:2 233:18 242:21 255:11 256:18 257:10 261:12 272:21 291:6 periodically 38:6 Perkins 4:17 permission 56:9 132:15 person 36:11 70:17 102:14 140:13 252:11 personal 211:6 227:22 Personally 260:2 personnel 19:20 33:18 67:17 perspective 71:20 88:3 98:19 125:10 165:22 261:7 persuaded 239:21 Peter 4:10 5:15 Peterson 4:16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 37

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 ph 17:12 19:2 27:19 phase 40:19 249:16 Phillip 5:13 14:22 35:20 58:4 112:13 186:9 207:15 218:15 219:2 251:15 258:9 267:4,10 282:7 283:19 294:1 philosophical 68:21 Phoenix 4:15 phone 31:3 90:15,16 91:18 107:12 125:13 138:17 145:7 150:14 photograph 119:19 photographs 119:14,15 161:9 photos 105:17 phrase 259:14 physically 89:2 91:18 119:17 122:22 137:15 145:6 241:3 254:13 physics 36:22 245:11 pick 40:1 55:7 225:19,21 226:18 234:7 272:14 275:22 pictures 92:3 107:21 109:4 125:22 126:10 129:2 141:20 144:19 PID 95:1 piece 32:8 54:10 78:22 79:7,14 118:16 122:10,18 149:16 155:17 160:17,20,22 238:8 244:15 pieces 78:6,8 79:9 126:21 129:16,21 242:11,16 246:12 pile 21:20 273:16 piping 95:10 placed 84:3 places 112:5 288:5 plan 244:12 247:4 plant 172:9 245:2 play 48:2 246:2 250:22 players 259:3 playing 79:6 Plaza 203:16 plea 254:12 please 45:12 47:8 68:1 76:5 163:1 193:14 plot 53:14 plug 85:6 125:3 plug-in 99:3 plural 261:4 plus 65:2 166:1 181:4 296:6 point 12:4 14:19,20 19:4,10,16 36:15 50:17 58:2 64:19,22 65:6 66:6 72:19 73:2 88:6,9,21 100:5,7 102:2 104:8,11 105:3 108:7,12 109:21 110:13 124:9 126:7 129:22 132:4 137:20 144:6,21 145:3,10 164:22 165:4 168:11 173:14 179:13 180:7 185:22 187:20 189:14 192:13 205:18 206:19 207:16 208:10,22 209:13,14 210:22 211:22 212:22 218:18 220:18,20 222:12 225:18 229:2 231:11 232:17 239:7 241:7,10 247:5,11,16,18 248:11 250:16,17 251:9 253:19,20 254:17,18 256:15 257:7,9 260:10,19 270:13 276:8,12,17 277:2,4,8,17,20 279:13 280:5,8,12 281:2,8 286:15 287:12,18 294:12,14,22 296:14

pointed 213:16 214:8 points 236:2 249:11 251:16 253:13 254:7 256:8,9 272:12 276:22 280:4 293:19 Poisson 52:3 policy 97:17 polished 296:1 popular 47:12 position 55:19,21 67:14 127:16 137:21 138:5 198:21 220:2,3 249:15 positions 106:16 positive 142:17 197:5 possibilities 152:11 possibility 15:4 143:14 187:15 206:12 227:18 296:8 possible 17:10 69:1 128:8 147:19 168:17 201:7,22 214:20 215:2 218:2,3 219:19 244:13 249:9 251:12 280:21 possibly 8:20 58:6 164:19 171:16 184:10 205:15 219:1,21 234:9 280:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 38

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 postponed 200:18 potential 23:12 66:6,20 251:13 potentially 64:13 78:10 153:13 162:6 260:20 PowerPoint 296:11 practical 189:7 227:8 259:13 practically 258:1 practice 57:16,21 194:7 212:20 252:11 preamble 227:17 preapproval 8:1 precise 184:2 precision 53:22 96:8 predetermined 108:6 predictor 293:18 predominant 58:7 preexisting 223:10,15 preface 98:8 prefer 10:10 154:2,3 192:21 211:6 preliminary 155:16 premise 262:8 presence 76:22 142:13 146:10 present 8:19 22:3 23:8,10,11,18 59:9,13 70:21 72:10 75:3,4,10,14,19, 21 80:17 82:7 83:1 92:1 108:2,5,10 113:18 117:18 118:19 119:1 135:13 138:22 141:22 143:2 146:8 151:18,19,20 165:13,19 170:4,7 171:12 265:19 presently 168:22 237:19 pre-shadowing 52:1 Press 195:9,10 pressed 250:6 presumably 208:17 266:14 pretty 22:9,13 25:21 29:8 49:3 158:2 196:13 228:9 264:7 287:22 295:14 prevent 165:21 preventing 166:3 previous 129:13 251:17 277:16 previously 174:22 200:18 224:5 229:15 237:9 261:19 263:4 price 121:22 239:10 primarily 258:21,22 print 226:11 prior 196:20 223:18 225:3 private 138:11 privy 95:5 proactively 179:18,20 probably 10:16 42:12 54:5 85:19 104:12,20 109:20 122:19 123:2 129:13 149:11 194:5,8,11 197:4 200:22 204:13 211:20 214:19 226:10 235:12 246:12 probation 294:11 problem 29:17 43:14 64:16 87:18,21,22 88:13 120:14,19 129:20 140:12,14,15 141:14 152:22 165:2 171:19 176:13 208:2,6 265:17,20 293:9 problems 41:15 47:14,15,16 64:17 69:14 70:7 143:17 146:14,15,17 147:1,5 148:3 149:19,20 167:11 184:11 250:12 procedural 131:11 procedure 16:8 26:17 37:17 45:1 65:16,20 72:6 78:16 82:3 102:5,11 114:8 126:6 127:18,19

144:7,11,16 154:6 168:17,21 169:11 181:19 182:1 183:12,16 190:13,17 191:9 224:6 278:6 procedures 64:9,10 73:1 80:4 117:16 128:17 145:13 159:1 168:13,15 179:19 184:4 186:2 206:16 procedure's 206:18 proceeding 298:3,4,5,7,9,10 299:4,5,8 300:4,5,8 301:4,5,8 302:4,5,8 process 13:8 24:14 30:14,15,16 39:20 46:22 47:1 51:15 55:14,20,22 56:10,11,17 59:3 66:1,17,22 74:19 84:21 85:8 90:10 91:6 97:7 98:1,12 99:20 101:10,21 106:17 111:15,17 112:6,9 113:7,13 121:7 125:12 128:9,11 131:20,21 133:4 144:18 148:4 149:11 150:21 153:12 154:10,15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 39

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 155:8,11,19,20 156:8,17 157:14,16,20 158:4,5 159:17 164:11 167:11 180:11,20 182:17 186:4,8,16,22 187:1,3 188:6,9 189:16 190:4 192:4 198:4 201:12 202:7 205:18 207:13 208:21 228:15 233:8 234:16 235:16 238:16 244:21 260:11 276:6 296:4 processes 158:13 168:15 169:9 Process-wise 59:1 produce 50:22 51:21 55:4,12 219:12 produced 55:9 218:5 producing 264:6 product 4:10 5:17 8:2 11:12 12:18 13:12 14:2 17:1 21:10,17,18 23:7 24:17 30:1 33:19 34:1,19 39:3,20 48:7 51:12 52:16,22 66:13 68:3,4,17 69:16 76:9 82:10 83:12 87:10 114:21 123:17 128:15,17 129:5 133:3 135:1 152:6 154:13 169:18 179:20 180:4 183:17 188:8 208:5,8 239:20 251:2 253:21 254:3 258:2,12 261:9 262:4,6 263:8 283:18 286:6 290:3 294:4 production 132:21 133:2 247:17 250:19 260:11 products 2:11 3:2 4:7,13 7:21 8:17 20:22 21:2,9 27:9 31:7,17,21 33:6,8,15 42:17 52:3,7,11 54:20,22 55:2,4 62:11,17 64:3,4 65:2 67:9 69:21 75:3 80:6 86:2 87:5 93:19,20 94:2,9,14,21 96:9,14,17 100:3,9 104:19,21 115:3,4 128:9,10 130:10 132:13,20 134:21 152:9,10 164:16 170:21,22 171:3 183:20 184:14 185:17 186:6 188:16 189:4 213:9 221:12 226:21 237:2 241:16 250:11 255:5 258:12 261:22 262:22 265:5 269:20 272:19 282:9,12 286:20 288:9,17 professional 33:16

profitability 90:4 program 9:2 13:6 17:13 26:14 29:22 32:12,17,18 33:10 39:18 42:1 43:10 44:5 45:6 53:13,20 58:2 61:5 78:1 82:3 97:14 103:7 110:1,9 111:4 112:21 113:1 118:9,15 119:9 121:17 124:20 128:1 137:6,8 138:1 141:12 145:16 158:12 161:15 162:7 168:22 169:18 170:2,4,22 171:11 177:13 178:22 181:8,22 199:11 212:2,14 214:4 239:6 240:12 254:20 258:3 264:6 265:5 290:16 programming 61:15 77:8 programs 8:21 29:18 30:13,19 57:9,16 132:5 169:5 183:14 202:3 248:17 254:4 264:3 progress 196:20,22 197:14 202:22 203:2 286:9 294:2 project 94:2 133:13 154:12 205:2

promise 227:18 propagated 68:13 proper 20:3,14 24:16 77:10 92:5,8 110:19 111:11 properly 39:4,5,6 69:17 77:5 78:1,2 82:13 83:17 104:10,15 122:4 123:21 139:15,21 140:11 141:10 170:15 185:9 208:14 241:20 proposal 9:21 10:1 158:15 160:3 173:4 201:15 217:14 propose 35:21 112:14 248:13 291:10 proposed 10:1 217:13 proposing 202:9 prosecutorial 66:18 protect 216:15 protects 216:15 protocol 38:17 prove 105:22 161:8 proven 118:13 219:18 proves 218:19 255:9 provide 76:6 80:17 105:16 109:7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 40

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 114:22 129:4 188:7 189:11,15 190:4 245:19 246:13 267:16,20 284:3 provided 27:12 115:5 127:19 171:10 174:11 178:20,22 180:8,10,16,19 181:6 277:19 providers 242:17 provides 125:11 157:20 158:4,5 181:16 providing 87:2 97:15 187:11,12,21 provision 255:7 provisions 93:22 94:13 190:19 252:19 prudence 213:15 psychometrics 84:8 PTACs 43:19 public 79:20 83:22 100:19,20,22 101:1,4,12 103:11,18 108:16 119:7 153:22 154:10 246:7 publicly 176:15,16 published 102:14 103:11 202:12 256:19 pull 64:3,4 156:16 182:14 220:5 246:3 263:12 pulled 248:1

pulling 218:22 219:3 pump 45:15 purchase 237:21 239:9 242:8 purchased 239:14 purely 217:6 222:14 purpose 219:10 287:6 purposes 180:4 259:13 294:14 puts 47:13 148:13 256:21 putting 28:7 58:14 69:11 114:13 188:10 212:11 213:14 241:14 255:7 264:22 294:11,15 puzzled 232:5 PVI 4:14 37:18 38:1 56:18 69:18 79:22 126:14,16 173:3 186:13 246:6 257:15 285:3 Q QC 247:18 qualif ied 33:18 quality 53:1 54:7 126:19 163:15 quantity 26:19 question 8:14,18 21:21 32:4,20 35:1 49:6 59:3 65:13 68:7 69:16 71:11 73:6 74:13 80:8,10 81:5,13 82:15 86:11,12 93:4 96:6 97:4 98:4 100:2 101:19 105:1,21 113:12 120:6 124:14 131:10 132:1,12 135:20 143:21 162:21 164:15 166:14 167:6 186:12,13 192:20 193:3 197:13,19 199:20 210:21 224:14 227:21 237:18 238:7,12 247:16 250:18 251:20 253:10 258:22 259:17 261:2 264:14,16 266:13 271:8 274:2 293:6,14 questioning 146:6 questions 85:20 113:22 124:21,22 125:6,8,11,14,15 127:2 146:7 169:21 196:8 205:3 248:15 249:6 quick 93:18 115:13 186:12,13 193:9 277:9 quickly 90:2 168:16 197:20 201:14 205:2 244:9,17 quilter 213:11 258:13 quite 164:1 171:5 254:17 R R&D 89:15 121:9 132:22 Rabbia 4:18 raise 135:19 226:8 raised 106:3 160:9 211:22 237:7 raises 238:12 294:20 raising 7:9 ran 170:4 230:7 Rand-Trane 3:19 range 184:3 Ransom 4:19 rare 121:5 rate 192:15 207:8 221:15 232:11,14 281:11 289:17 rated 11:12 14:1 32:16 46:3 54:19 56:12 107:18 216:13 219:4 232:19 237:15 241:19 247:10 259:19 263:1,2 265:6 277:5 rather 10:6 52:3 131:15 211:11,15 248:9 250:2 257:16,17 258:7 291:10 292:21 294:15 rating 11:9 12:3,17 13:2,9,13,16,17 14:9 32:22 35:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 41

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 48:11 50:5,12,15,18 51:1,11 52:14 53:8 66:7,8 77:14,20 157:12 184:10 193:2 207:4,13 209:19 210:7,19 211:17 213:13 214:18 215:15 216:19,21 217:1,21 220:17 231:4 237:13 246:4 250:11 251:21 256:13 259:8,10 266:19 268:1 269:14 271:19,22 273:12,13,17 274:5,7 275:2,18,20 276:1,7,9,14,15, 18,21 277:2,22 278:1,18 279:13 289:15 ratings 10:4 12:3,6,20 66:12 114:21 179:21 211:19 212:12 213:10 214:16 217:6 218:20 220:20 221:14 245:14 255:21 256:19 258:18,20 259:15 264:2 268:10,17 269:3 282:3 283:9 285:17 295:7 reach 202:5 reaction 163:4 reader 213:22 readily 234:2 235:22 reading 14:21 30:11,13,18 127:10 192:3 205:12,19 206:11,20 256:11 290:11 reads 184:9 ready 47:9 243:1 Reagan 194:17,18 real 52:11 63:17 93:18 260:3 277:9 287:6 291:3 reality 75:2 155:4 165:8 188:21 189:2 279:10 290:9 realize 204:1 221:20 222:2 269:4 290:2 realizing 166:1 really 29:3 30:17 33:9,13 34:1 48:18 55:13,17 58:17 71:17 78:10 85:1 99:21 104:5 111:18 112:2 120:21 134:2,22 137:3 146:6 155:15 156:14 172:4 174:8,10 220:11 231:12 234:7 240:13 241:20 253:11 254:15 256:6,14 261:19 264:7,8,15,19 275:10 278:11,20 282:19 285:10 295:18

reason 16:12 17:5 21:21 24:12 39:7 71:4 78:18 88:2 111:13 163:19 216:10 253:5 257:19 reasonable 24:22 28:13 31:8 32:2,3 35:15 65:1 70:18 71:1 73:2 151:3 198:6 209:5 233:9 234:18 235:2 239:9 245:5 256:3,17 259:18 290:15 reasonably 31:14,18 reasons 16:18 26:22 41:8 46:14 71:12 72:5 121:18 259:21 reassurance 140:10 rebates 264:5 re-bringing 149:12 recalcitrance 249:22 recall 13:17 recap 7:20 recertified 207:5 recertify 271:11 275:7 recertifying 231:12,22 recess 192:5 recognize 47:12 132:5 213:16 241:12 recollection 249:18 recommend 58:5 recommendation 57:4 179:17 201:18,21 recommendations 265:2 record 47:11 61:2 83:22 106:4 110:8 119:8 144:2 146:9 161:13 246:7 298:7 recorded 298:4 recordings 109:13 299:6 300:6 301:6 302:6 records 273:18 recoup 239:5 red 227:19 redeem 287:8 289:7 redefine 219:1 redone 254:2 reduce 52:21 reduced 298:5 reduction 216:18 redundant 105:17 Reed 4:20 reengineer 237:11 reengineering 237:10 reestablish 289:10 re-evaluation

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 42

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 210:6 reference 185:13 referring 68:5 231:7 257:5 266:7 refers 9:9 refined 38:10 252:8 refining 212:19 reflect 78:16 264:15,19 reflected 58:17 reflecting 216:9 264:11 refocused 87:17 refrigerant 95:10 refrigeration 2:7 3:11 5:10 26:21 32:11 33:1 45:10,18 refrigerator 4:12 20:9,12 85:8 264:12 refrigerators 85:2 125:2 248:19 regain 286:21 Regal-Beloit 3:22 53:2 regard 231:20 regarding 101:16 111:11 129:14 171:9 177:19 178:21 regardless 9:4 45:1 74:21 register 227:15 regs 18:17 57:11,13 59:8 201:6,7 214:22 289:21 regular 7:10 regulate 20:22 244:19 regulating 261:20 regulation 239:22 regulations 227:5 259:9 regulatory 189:22 242:19 reiterated 210:3 280:16 related 114:12 128:12 298:8 relative 15:13 relatively 26:18 163:12 relaxed 38:21 relay 150:14 release 245:13 released 154:11 releases 219:12 relevant 100:4 202:19 relief 288:1 reluctance 165:2 rely 64:7 115:6 211:6 223:14 relying 75:4 221:13 remaining 186:14 192:1 203:4 remember 51:15 109:14 198:15 243:15 264:12 270:20 283:20 288:18 289:3

remind 213:21 reminder 109:12 reminding 228:22 remote 96:10 remotely 97:22 remove 57:4,12 129:13 removing 57:5 207:16 repeat 180:21 195:21 repeatable 38:10 repeated 123:20 246:20 259:2 repeatedly 127:4 246:16 repercussion 145:14 repercussions 108:6 153:10 rephrase 168:19 report 108:18 112:17 141:19 196:20 197:14 198:17,21 202:14,22 204:9 234:18,21 reported 1:19 299:3 300:3 301:3 302:3 Reporter 37:19,22 76:5 298:1,2,15 299:3 300:3 301:3 302:3 Reporter's 299:5 300:5 301:5 302:5 reporting 1:20 13:15 201:19 212:4 245:18 246:11 reports 198:19,22 represent 57:15 representation 231:19 representative 69:2 116:16 118:1 144:4 187:4 representing 151:12 request 32:10 46:17 56:16 87:2 90:20 98:5 107:6,9 112:16 144:3 159:5 173:20 175:1 180:2 190:5 208:11 225:8 229:5,8,12,16,18 242:13 295:17 requested 220:11 requesting 143:8 220:10 requests 107:9 148:2 225:5 require 70:5 77:3 78:9 79:10 82:10 94:21 150:15 183:14 required 107:2 115:18 116:5,17 121:21 170:14 180:17 185:7 213:8,20 215:19 223:13 268:19 requirement 26:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 43

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35:14 38:22 39:13 57:5 62:1,4 67:22 70:19 86:10 130:7 216:1 267:14 268:6,13 287:20 289:1 292:18 requirements 13:21 21:4 37:4 67:11 98:17 202:10 245:18 246:18 257:11 258:1 267:22 269:15 278:22 requires 32:12 49:16 67:15 79:12 99:3,5 207:9 241:11 requiring 120:7 169:13 185:16 rerate 14:14 206:22 207:1 209:20 215:4 219:5 220:21,22 221:6,16 231:17 253:2,4 262:4 265:8 269:5 279:21 280:11 rerated 255:1 rerating 207:1 209:1,8,9,12 214:14 231:12,15 232:2 247:13 262:5 276:10 280:6 rerun 83:8 253:15 re-run 147:20 173:13 research 54:4 reserving 166:4 residential 80:1,4 98:14 99:2 100:8 118:18 122:9 133:21 163:16 resolve 47:13,15,16 69:7 129:19 284:9 resolved 8:7 104:18 203:3 resource 227:4 resources 27:16 62:13,19 69:5 76:16 87:14 88:15 97:1,8,15 133:18 134:15 135:5,11 136:8 288:3,5 respect 191:12 respects 137:10 respond 34:3 163:2 200:20 response 73:5 82:5,22 133:5 162:17 179:16 258:15 responsibility 105:16 211:9 rest 87:11 151:17 172:3 198:14 202:1 restate 209:7 restrictions 137:9 resubmit 271:14,16 resubstantiate 279:2 result 11:10 20:17 53:7 75:13 108:4 140:12,18 146:10 171:20

206:19 212:7 230:19 285:13 resulted 214:2 239:15 results 13:1 20:7 23:13 38:10 39:15 53:15 75:5 88:9,18 100:19,21 101:1,4 104:17 105:1,19 144:19 147:2 156:4,12 157:2 161:9 210:10,20 211:13 276:6 retail 106:20 retest 14:14 64:21 80:16 81:4 82:6 88:12 144:17 150:22 158:6 162:4 166:8 168:7 175:2 205:18 208:11,16 216:21 225:17 229:5,7,8,12,16, 18,21,22 retested 273:7 275:21 retesting 89:20 108:9 165:16,17 166:9 167:15 192:14 235:19 237:5 re-testing 156:12 retests 225:4 return 15:9 239:9 reuse 251:17 revalidated 274:11 review 69:5 198:2 201:14 210:22 251:2 reviewed 129:7 156:12 reviewing 104:18 207:17 218:22 249:15 revise 232:21 257:18 280:14 292:3 revised 64:11 168:15 revision 131:20 202:10 254:5 revisions 254:3,6 revisit 10:11 25:5 rewording 160:12 rewrite 215:5 rewritten 191:15 Rheem 3:13 4:9 28:15 46:12 65:10 71:9 117:21 229:1 rid 177:11 rise 127:9,11 risk 24:10 52:16 109:19 220:4,16 221:3 224:17,18 241:14 Rivest 51:4,6,18 53:5 128:7 160:4,12 161:18 162:2 RND 121:4 Roan 4:21 Robert 6:3 Roberts 4:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 44

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 Rodney 2:12 226:6,7 Ron 11:15 19:13 20:20 138:15 151:7,9 152:3 207:18 231:6 Ronald 5:7 rooftop 69:11 rooftops 233:15 234:4 room 8:15 17:17 28:18 37:6 44:6 68:21 69:15 78:6 86:5 87:11 123:1 124:2,8 143:22 159:22 163:19 164:1 200:11 203:14,21 252:12 255:14 272:7 rooms 7:3,5 rough 122:20 295:18,19 296:7 roughly 52:6 round 23:20 route 215:13 228:3 row 208:16 rule 19:6 27:13 29:12 37:16 58:20 61:6,9,19 132:2 186:3 200:20 201:20 202:6,11,12,13,1 5,17 213:22 289:9 rulemaking 200:7 203:1 rule-making 186:8 Rulemaking 1:3 297:4 rules 35:18 79:6 158:14 run 29:3 39:1,6 60:19,21 64:9 77:4 82:15 83:7 95:16 109:8 112:1 126:20,22 127:8,18,19 128:16 129:9 138:3 139:3 141:7 148:18 149:5,19 170:15 173:12 181:5 184:15,22 188:11 215:4 223:21 228:8 253:12 277:20 running 29:3 83:15 104:16 114:2 128:18 166:22 runs 196:5 Rusty 5:18 19:12 21:19 40:20 55:18 168:10 206:2 208:21 210:20 223:16 257:3,13 265:4 273:9 281:6 282:17 286:4 S Sabelli 5:2 Sachs 5:3 9:8,12,15 24:4,6 25:4,8,11 47:8,11 48:21 51:22 54:2 55:16 56:2,9 67:7,19 68:1 96:5 97:3,16 132:10 162:8 163:6 164:6 191:20 safety 33:14 99:7 sake 235:18 sales 161:8 259:12 sample 15:4 166:9 209:18 223:20,21 225:15,16 226:3 236:6 265:7 sampler 22:5,6,8 84:1 samplers 22:11 samples 9:10 209:2 286:10,11,14 sampling 22:12 Sands 5:4 satisfied 274:14 satisfy 160:13 Saudi 4:11 save 88:15 140:22 141:6 170:19 288:4 saves 147:18 savings 162:11 saw 136:14 140:13 212:7 246:9 295:4 SCA 60:17 scan 142:8 Scardomp 5:5 Scarlet 246:21 scenario 161:7 253:20 Schaefer 5:6 84:16,17 113:9,12 124:14,16 schedule 7:3 203:8 244:18 School 5:5 scope 127:18 129:6 198:5 202:1 220:21 252:6 scout 55:21 scrap 160:17 scrapped 172:8 scrapping 160:20 screen 23:3 28:7 57:2,15 106:13 175:6 191:12 226:10 scroll 84:6,7 search 52:22 second 46:17,20 64:2 74:14,16,17,21 75:14 76:10 84:14 98:2 115:17 117:14 129:11,12 132:12 150:8 163:1,6 166:9 167:1 168:2 177:14 178:9,16 180:15 195:16 200:9 203:11 205:14 208:15 226:2,14 229:11 236:6 237:16 240:19 265:6 269:13 270:6,8,9 271:8 274:9 275:3 281:16,22 284:5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 45

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 secondary 154:15 169:3,7 250:22 secret 17:18 97:18 section 98:8 103:9,19 177:1 182:11 225:3 sections 185:13 sector 138:11 secure 92:5 security 4:4 194:1 seeing 13:17 42:13 89:1 96:12 152:22 169:8 seeking 114:14 seem 20:6 70:18,22 132:8 167:14 190:17 198:6 230:9 256:3 263:21 273:5 seemed 139:8 147:1 seemingly 101:6 seems 44:8 79:17 99:6 100:18 113:5 130:20 138:16 140:22 160:9 168:11 169:20 171:10 209:5 210:22 211:2 215:18,19,22 217:3 220:8 261:18 263:16 264:21 275:16,22 284:14 seen 21:17 22:4,10 77:2 82:16 84:20 127:11 SEER 40:15,18 41:1 48:11 sees 93:5 segment 27:21 31:7,11,13 select 106:20 265:12 286:14 selected 15:5 61:7 187:13 188:8 214:7 235:19 selecting 188:20 selection 59:4 182:16,17 183:7 213:8 286:11 selections 212:8 selects 106:19 self 261:20 self-poised 213:3 sell 86:1 87:4 234:4 238:9 241:17 288:9 selling 238:10 semicolons 228:19,20 send 60:6 95:7 109:3,4 114:18 129:18 194:19 197:6,8,9 205:6 284:18 295:19 296:4,5,9 sending 33:15 172:9 193:20 198:9 sends 81:14 sense 8:13 10:14 48:9 127:7 133:8 135:17,22 137:19 155:16 212:5 227:6 257:14 271:17

senses 13:12 sensitivities 133:6 sent 187:9 sentence 150:4 174:16,21 225:4 228:10 265:17 269:9,13 270:9 274:9 275:3 separate 11:7 18:22 198:9 199:12,15,16 202:6,15,17,18 229:21 September 204:11,13 205:2 series 77:7 serious 24:11 68:20 228:7 seriously 163:22 Services 2:16 sets 92:21 setting 20:3 33:18 54:10 83:14 85:5,8 96:22 97:13 103:21 113:21 114:15 288:7 296:13 settle 291:11 setup 15:7 22:5 24:16 59:9 61:15 63:3 85:19 92:3,11 94:2 99:5 107:7,21 110:19,20,21 111:1,11 112:1 115:1 116:12 206:17 237:4 set-up 125:2,9 139:1 144:10 156:3 159:1 160:18 161:14 167:10 170:15 178:21 179:18 180:9 181:5 183:6 184:2 190:6 setups 89:17 90:3,8 114:6 117:7 set-ups 169:10 several 22:4 86:4 127:12 248:16 SF 2:18 shadow 105:22 shaking 211:3 shape 204:19 share 296:14,15 shares 165:5 Shebik 5:7 11:15,20,22 12:15 19:13 20:5 138:15 139:8,13,16,19 140:2,8 151:7,9 152:4,8 207:18,21 208:4,19 231:6,10 shelter 251:4 shenanigans 246:9,14 she's 81:6,10 106:13 196:5 266:6 shielding 251:1 shift 90:14 150:8 shifts 36:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 46

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 ship 86:9 241:5 242:9 shipped 24:17 31:18 85:1 92:21 103:1 237:3 shipping 68:17 85:3 241:4 shop 242:9 short-term 47:19 shot 197:22 270:22 shoulders 257:1 showed 232:1 showing 119:8 216:5 shown 239:1 250:3 shows 118:20 206:19 208:1 269:14 275:6,20 276:1 sic 81:19 sided 54:6 56:13 sides 75:14 145:20 146:1,14 sidetracked 96:1 sideways 147:14,22 sight 241:10 Sigma 54:3 sign 118:15 significant 22:9,13 168:12 169:1 171:13 216:18 234:5 246:16 287:22 similar 21:5 35:21 38:11 197:18 220:6 226:19 258:20 261:11 265:10

similarly 213:10,11 simple 40:3 85:22 125:2 126:22 150:13 163:12 262:2 280:20 simpler 80:5 simply 26:16 183:17 219:20 257:19 258:10 280:1 simulated 295:9,10 simulation 253:22 254:2 255:21 simulations 12:8 254:4 simulators 20:9 single 16:20 46:2,13 50:22 56:11 60:19 61:1,13 62:14,20 65:3,4 73:4,8 106:18,19 107:18 124:4 145:11 151:2 165:22 172:22 205:21 206:3,4 215:4 251:2 252:11 254:3 260:22 261:3 262:18,19 269:20 single-speed 94:12 single-unit 59:10,12 sit 8:14 142:2 144:20 275:14 site 30:15 31:12 59:13,22 67:18 121:6 129:17 130:3 132:17 145:12 150:17 151:2 152:9 153:14 155:9 157:19 158:4 167:9,14,15,16 168:2,3,8 175:3 189:5 229:18 296:14 sits 90:16 situation 17:3 23:17 27:13 39:11 165:6 189:2 228:6 238:10 242:1 279:11 situations 25:19 184:9 six 54:3 253:15,17 Six-Pack 69:9,10 Sixty 233:11 size 82:19 123:1,21 sizes 130:18 SJI 3:5 skew 143:9 skill 126:20 skin 86:6 slap 249:20,21 slide 272:19 slides 8:6 9:17 251:17 slightly 20:13 slow 131:15 small 20:6 26:7,18 29:8 30:4 37:5 40:8,12,16 75:16 89:14 111:4 136:5,6 168:22 175:13 269:19 288:16,21 smaller 67:10 80:4 258:11 smarter 96:13 Smith 5:8 108:11,17 109:10 143:13,17 snapshot 96:6 soaks 38:13 SoCalGas 4:3 sold 239:16,19 solution 71:1 146:15 170:6 289:19,20 solutions 52:19 solve 88:12 129:21 293:9 somebody 19:1 23:1 29:2 73:13 85:17 87:16 95:6 113:21 120:9 150:9,17 254:18 261:20 262:14 263:13,17 272:6 287:5,6 somehow 103:18 257:16 someone 23:11 59:22 65:2 78:15 79:13 82:10 110:14 150:15 181:7 255:19 259:7 someplace 31:18 something's 214:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 47

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 247:10,14 sometime 204:21 somewhat 21:20 192:17 261:18 somewhere 15:18 19:1 42:12 273:15 sophisticated 171:5 254:19 sorry 32:21 37:20 41:20 43:10 47:10 51:22 56:2 58:9 65:12 94:5,6 115:9 139:13,19 147:11 151:9 152:20 154:7 156:4 158:18 168:6 191:19,20 204:3 210:13,15,18 228:13,21 252:2 256:13,22 260:20 270:10 294:13 sort 8:3 28:3 54:3 128:12 236:16,18 274:11 sorts 196:22 sound 67:6 229:19 sounded 194:9 sounds 74:11 121:16 123:18 126:22 127:20 138:17 168:11 190:2 224:21 speak 32:19 66:21 73:14 123:11 131:13 140:8 143:11 145:22 159:12 164:21

SPEAKER

7:12 12:1 22:22 28:19 36:9 63:22 75:11 100:16 106:9 110:7,20 116:19 120:1 122:13 128:3 131:6 137:1 139:7,21,22 142:15,19,21 145:18,21 151:5,8 153:2 168:5 173:16,18 175:7,11,13 176:20 181:10 182:22 261:15 282:21 283:3 284:11 speaking 19:15 240:8 258:1 special 99:4 110:2 114:14,22 179:18 180:9 182:2 259:22 specific 18:18 21:17 72:17,20 80:8 81:5 82:3 103:9 112:14 124:3 131:3 150:13 167:5 169:15 175:20 176:2 180:3 184:7 190:14,19,21 191:9 207:1 223:17 257:4 259:19 265:8 290:4 specifically 37:2 79:12 107:2 109:5 115:17 116:4 117:3,5 130:13 169:17 186:2 191:4 250:16 289:22 specification 37:10 78:11 146:20 specifications 47:17 183:11 191:8 specifics 194:4 specified 39:5 203:21 specifies 183:16 specify 179:7 specifying 98:16 spectrum 100:15 speed 96:11 113:20 121:18 130:13 144:22 145:5 speeds 77:10 190:7 spell 45:21 spend 258:7,8 spending 76:12 239:2 276:16 spent 69:19 70:1 78:4 172:9 spit 12:10,11 split 236:8 spot 51:1 53:15 59:12 62:15 135:15 136:17 142:7 151:2 156:8,18 158:10 161:4 166:1 283:4 spot-check

62:21 63:18 65:4 74:7,18 77:17

98:9,13,20 99:10 145:11 spot-checking 74:3 spot-checks 99:14 106:18 spreadsheet 252:19 SPVUs 43:20 SQL 187:10 SS 281:3 staff 95:7 143:1 staffing 70:22 73:21 stage 36:12 230:20,21 237:14 245:17 247:9 stand 138:13 151:15 168:13 240:2 standard 12:12 37:9 39:14 49:19,20,22 50:1,9,15 51:8 53:9 55:1 66:9 70:8,9 80:14 84:11 94:12 103:14 114:9 120:8 121:11,12,14 124:11 131:14 143:5,8,10 166:17,18 167:2,3 185:8 210:12 221:19 224:11 259:8,11 263:3 standardization

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 48

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 52:14 standards 1:3 20:10 32:10 49:6 75:1 95:17 97:5 114:8 137:22 141:18 143:4,15 157:13 180:5 266:17,21 297:4 standby 26:3,5,10 27:3 36:5 37:2,5,7 40:7 44:21 58:7 186:10 standing 38:5 154:12 212:5 standpoint 227:8 Stanonik 5:9 16:16 25:14 31:4,5 32:7,20 33:2 34:4,11 39:21 40:2,5,9 43:21 44:3,10,16,18,21 45:4,5 49:16,21 50:2,16,20 100:1,5,7 104:1,3 109:17 110:5,8,12,21 111:1,6,16 169:14 178:10,19 179:3,5 183:9 194:12,21 195:8 210:8,13,15,18 211:21 214:3 217:16 218:14 219:2,15 227:20 228:4,13 230:5,15 233:17 234:10,15 235:11,18 237:14 240:4,9 241:9 245:16 247:3 248:6 250:15 256:5 259:16 276:4,5 277:12,16 279:7,20 280:15,19 281:14 282:10 283:19 284:4,17 287:12,18 289:12 294:9 295:3,9 Star 32:12 45:19 268:10 Starr 5:11 58:12 78:3 116:2,6 120:4,12,14 122:17 130:15,20 146:16 147:11,13 148:5,12,20 149:2,10 150:5 151:4 153:16 154:19 210:21 211:10 212:13 213:3 215:18 217:2 263:20 start 7:18 15:12,14,18,19,2 0,21 22:22 23:21 24:22 25:15 27:18 28:5,11 29:21 39:17,21 40:2 44:10 78:5 79:1,16 82:11 106:7 115:22 149:20 192:10 194:5,8 195:16 200:7 201:15 204:22 265:3 started 57:20 67:11 74:15 78:17 116:15 147:1

starting 7:8,16 34:14 58:2 96:9 194:10 203:10,11 263:21 startup 78:5,7,9,12,14 79:10 82:10 116:2,10 start-up 130:21 startup's 116:6,13 state 186:7 stated 85:5 90:11 164:15 209:6 statement

90:9 185:17 states 99:4 static 123:7,9 131:3,4 191:4 statistical 36:16 52:2 214:17 216:1 218:19 221:13 statistics 36:18 51:9,16 211:15 215:6 226:4 status 35:14 stay 38:15 39:10 58:5 117:2,6 159:3 195:4 staying 195:3 stays 116:10 steam 33:9,12 steepen 52:21 Stem 93:15,18 94:4,5,8,20 105:14 124:1 step 34:13 46:20

51:15 63:19 64:2 66:1,16,17,18,21 67:2,5 74:12,14,16,17 154:9 165:7,12 207:22 225:15 Stephen 3:19 5:6 84:16,17 113:9 124:14 Stephens 5:13 14:22 15:2 35:20 36:2,4,15 37:12 58:4 112:13 186:9 207:15 218:15,17 219:9,17 251:15 258:9 267:4,10,15 279:15,19 282:7,11 294:1 steps 85:7 154:14 168:16 213:7 256:12 276:17 Steven 4:3 stick 10:18 stone 220:7 226:20 stoned 48:3 stones 245:7 stop 84:9 284:5,7 stopper 289:4 stops 195:5 storage 26:4,8 37:3 45:3 57:3,6 58:13 stored 38:14 248:19 Strait 5:15 stray 19:14

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 49

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 street 123:6,9 195:8 203:16 stress 162:12 202:21 stretching 236:11 strict 78:11 strike 258:4 string 188:6 stringency 47:21 stringent 286:22 strong 227:18 258:19 285:10,11 strongly 151:21 164:9 struggle 77:11,15 struggling 29:5 98:11 99:1,8 stuff 29:1 78:13 79:16 116:21 149:19 163:15 172:15 212:4 233:21 235:13,21 236:3 254:6 286:8 288:10 296:10,20 Suami 5:16 sub-bullet 129:11,12,13 185:5 sub-bullets 117:15 subcategories 171:3 subcontract 242:15 subject 186:4 214:6 227:4,13 229:13

submission 187:17 submit 113:6,10 114:20 179:20 181:3 185:16 186:18 190:3 272:10 submittals 13:18 submitted 177:15 187:2 subsequent 214:10 266:15 subset 12:17 135:4 153:20 substance 205:9 substantial 24:10 149:8 substantiate 8:4,8 16:14 252:1 260:17 265:18,22 292:22 293:3 substantiated 293:1 substantiation 11:17 220:15 253:17 257:1 266:8 269:15 270:3 271:10 278:22 286:7 290:13 291:7,20 292:1,16 294:3 subsumed 177:14 subtleties 148:21 subway 195:5 successful 95:20 sudden 178:13 suddenly 253:8 suggest 31:6 34:5 54:5 109:22 120:5 129:11 193:4 206:10 236:14 247:21 282:16 294:14 suggested 23:7 119:21 177:10 195:2 197:21 248:5 249:14 283:20 suggesting 18:7,8,10 24:20 248:6 suggestion 7:9 17:9 34:5,11 57:18 59:8 79:21 114:12 120:4 129:15 224:14 294:16 suggestions 278:8 suggests 227:17 supplemental 176:21 177:2 supplied 77:13,20 supplier 218:8 245:3 suppliers 242:2 supply 15:8 174:6 185:6 233:16 support 97:6 105:19 132:22 277:3 281:3 supported 292:5 supposed 57:15 72:22 86:6 214:9 281:17 sure 21:3 25:7 51:19 59:5 69:16 70:8 74:8 79:5 85:14 87:15 92:7

95:18 98:10 102:18 108:22 109:1 110:3,12 113:11,14 114:19 116:21 125:5 127:8 128:16,20 131:5 137:12 141:15 144:9,10 149:1,9 154:6 170:14 174:13 177:3 182:10 188:12 189:21 192:12 193:7,17 194:1 196:13 201:16 203:21,22 206:3 207:21 222:4 242:18 252:11 291:18 suspect 52:20 83:8 93:5 213:5 214:2 suspicion 294:20 Sutphen 5:17 33:5 35:12 116:13,20 236:13 242:6 259:5 268:15,21 269:1,7 SW 1:7 switched 15:8 switches 77:8 78:1 switching 193:18 sympathizing 163:17 system 7:18 28:11 71:20 96:19,22 238:1 251:6 253:7 254:14 systems 4:15 5:14 94:12 117:16 236:8,9,10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 50

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 239:13 253:1 T table 14:17 15:18 17:16 30:8 31:2 75:18 112:22 126:6 160:3 164:17,21 171:16 182:20 187:19 199:16 206:22 220:19 tabs 200:14 taking 74:10 151:6 220:12 221:7 236:22 talk 8:20 9:5 10:10,12,16 25:22 26:3 31:16 33:2 46:22 47:1 63:11 64:21 67:3 79:11 84:16 85:19 91:18,22 106:2 107:4 149:18 150:20 158:3 170:17 183:4 192:21 203:2 226:6 238:2 250:10 271:8 296:18 297:2 talked 56:11 70:3 175:8,16 190:12 204:15 225:3 249:16 261:10,19 263:4 264:12 talking 10:21,22 11:5 13:2,7 24:8 26:8,11 28:16 30:9 49:18 50:1,6 54:13,16,18 55:17 57:10 59:11,12 63:4,18 65:5,6 66:6,13 69:20 70:1 74:3,12,15 80:1,3 84:9 91:6 100:8,9,13 101:11 106:8 109:15 117:4 118:17 119:18 120:15,17 129:1 130:1,9,10 131:17 132:1 135:3 136:10,11 150:2,3 154:20,22 155:3 156:7 158:21 171:16 182:7,22 183:13 184:11 188:18 189:13 190:18 191:3 200:4 206:12 214:16 216:4 217:8 224:11 225:9 244:9 247:13 264:17 269:22 270:5 271:21 272:1 274:16 275:13 276:6,16 278:1 280:22 281:1 287:13 288:14 294:12 taller 123:1 tank 37:3 58:13 tanks 45:3 57:3,6 tape 161:12 tax 76:12 Tech 3:3 technical 36:11 Technically 214:21 technician 61:16 68:19 70:3 114:16 115:6 122:11,15,16 124:18,19 148:21 technicians 33:16 39:8 82:17,21 94:22 95:4,7 125:5 techniques 89:5 97:22 technology 97:20 techs 68:13 teeth 226:16 temperature 20:11 127:9,11 template 114:21 115:1 187:6 188:1 templates 108:13,15,21 temporarily 271:5 temporary

39:7 ten 106:3 118:9 264:5 283:22 284:19,20 290:9,14 291:3,12 294:19 tens 26:11 term 225:11 terminology 8:14 275:9 terms 15:13 28:3 30:1 41:20 67:4 79:6 97:13 135:5 146:13 171:8 211:18 220:22 221:5 226:9 280:22 test 10:2 11:6 12:7,9,22 13:4,5,6 15:7,22 16:2,3,7,8,9,21 17:1,4,10,12,18 18:14,15,17,18 19:18,21 20:3,7,9,21 24:9,15 26:12,15,17 29:3,15 30:10 31:14,21,22 34:15,16,18,20 35:7,8,18 37:2,9,13,14,17 38:17 39:1,7,14 42:17 43:18 45:1 46:13,15,17,19 47:4,14,17,21 53:14 54:11 55:10 58:9 60:19,21 63:2,19 64:9 65:3,8,16,19 67:18 68:5 69:17 70:2 71:22 72:6,11,13,22 73:1 74:21 75:1,2,5,10,14,1 9,21,22 76:9,10,11,13,16 ,17,18 77:4,9,10,12 78:2,16,20 80:4,9,14,15,19 81:14,17,18,21 82:15,18 83:7,8,12,15 85:7,9,13,15,18, 19,20,22 86:13,21 87:14,15 88:4,9,13 89:14,22 90:1,4,7,9,18

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 51

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 91:16,19 92:15,17,19 93:19 94:2,9 95:17,19 97:21 98:22 100:21 101:17,20 102:5,11 103:10,14,22 104:16 105:15 106:11,19,21 107:7,13,21,22 110:1,20,21 111:1,3,4 112:1,15,16 113:15,18,21 114:2,15,22 115:2,3,5 116:11 117:22 119:2,20 120:21 121:19,21 123:10,12,16,17 124:12 125:3 126:3,6,8 127:1,8,18,19 128:4,16,18,21 129:6,8,9,14 131:3,10,14 133:7 134:20 135:10,14,16 137:4,12 138:3,19 139:3,12,18 140:1,3,5,10,11, 12,18 141:5,10,13,19 142:6 144:7,9,10,11,16 145:4,13 146:5,11,18,19,2 0 147:4,17,20 148:8,10,17 149:5,13,14,15,1 6 150:22 152:8,10 153:14,18 154:6 155:4 156:3,17 157:2,9 158:3,5 161:8 165:6 166:16,17,18 167:1,2,3,13,17 168:9,13,17,21 169:11,17 170:5,15 171:7,11 172:5,7 173:12,13 174:14 175:1 176:6 177:19 178:21 179:18,19 180:2 181:5,18 182:1 183:6,11,12,14,1 6 184:1,3,9,12,22 185:8 186:2 188:11,14 189:2 190:13,17 191:3,8 192:14,16,18 205:13,14 206:14,18,19 207:7,9,11 208:1,3,9 209:1,9,10,21 210:10,19 211:7,11,13 212:9 214:6,14 215:4,5,15,16 221:6,7 222:4,7,17 223:2,5,10,11,15 ,17 224:6,10,11,17 225:8,20,21 226:3 227:2 228:6 229:4,16 230:7,10,16,17,2 0 231:2 232:1,3,8,11,12, 19 233:1,16 237:4,11,16 239:15 240:19 243:21,22 244:10,11 245:8 246:1 247:2 251:5,7,10,17 252:5,18 253:21 255:6,13,18 262:18,19 265:19 266:3,9,14,15,17 ,20,21 267:7 269:21 270:2,14 271:13,16 272:9,13 273:1,6 276:6,13 278:21 279:1 285:6 286:15 295:5 tested 9:10 16:9,10 17:20 19:22 31:10,12,18 32:2 33:6 34:8,22 42:6,22 43:17 45:6 46:3 47:5 56:7,12,14,15 64:5,20 65:2 74:5 80:11,13 87:8,10,11 99:14 120:17 122:19 128:15 130:2 132:19 134:14 135:1 146:22 161:17 164:19 167:9 178:14 205:22 206:1,3,4 208:5,13,15,18 211:19,20 213:12 217:5,11 222:16 237:10 244:5,18 255:8 269:16 271:14 272:21 273:5 274:10 280:4 281:9,19 291:20,21,22 292:4,8,11

293:17 testing 8:3,8 11:8,11 13:19 17:11,14 18:1 19:15 21:3 23:19 27:6,22 30:21,22 33:7 35:13,16 36:5,20 38:3 48:8,16 53:7 56:16 59:11 60:16 64:18 66:22 67:5 70:2,4 71:21 77:1 81:21 84:19,20 88:21 89:9,16 91:1,13 92:18 95:16 100:19 107:8,13 108:3 111:12 112:16 114:6,8,10 120:6 121:3,4,9 124:17,21 125:15 129:5 130:3,6 135:7,12 136:7 141:13 142:11 145:9 146:17 149:14 152:6,16 155:5 156:10 157:19 158:8 160:7 162:14,19 163:9 164:2,16 165:14 166:9 169:9 171:17 175:16 177:6,19 178:21 179:22 180:4 181:8,11,17 182:3 183:7 187:13 188:20 202:3 205:20 207:9 209:2,12,13,15,2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 52

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 1 215:12,13,14,20 219:11 221:6 222:13,14,16,21 223:1,10,14,19 224:4,5,16 226:21 227:3,6 228:3 231:21 236:1 237:9 240:13,14,17 242:10 243:12,15 244:13 246:13,18 247:6 254:1 255:5 262:18 263:2 266:16 268:5,16 269:3,13 273:14,15 274:10 275:1,6,18,20 276:1,2 277:10,11,17,18 278:15 279:12 285:20,21 287:15,22 288:2,8 289:1,7,11 292:2,12 293:6,14 295:2,3 tests 8:19 11:7 13:3 14:15 21:8 23:20 60:19 62:11,17 70:14 73:19 77:7 80:2 82:16 83:1,20 87:21 88:10,16 89:8,18,20 91:8 96:3 109:8 114:4 118:10,21 122:21 126:20 129:19,20 131:17 132:1 133:9,19 134:6,10,18 135:16,19,21 136:5 171:1,4,9 206:10 214:10 222:14 228:1,8 232:12 242:22 254:2 255:10,17 256:2 269:2 273:7 276:11 277:19,20 test-specific 131:6,7 Testy 178:6 text 189:22 227:19 242:19 thank 9:15 10:19 11:22 17:14 48:22 56:10 106:5 117:20 175:4 190:10 200:2 207:21 208:20 228:21 269:7 271:6 281:19 Thanks 43:16 224:20 Tharp 5:18 15:15 19:12 21:19 40:14,16,22 41:4,7,12 63:17,21 168:10 206:2,5,9 208:21 209:4,9,14 210:1,4 218:13 223:16 224:5 257:3 265:4 273:9 276:2 281:6,11,15,18 282:17,22 286:4 that'll 68:17 that's 11:7,13,14 13:7 14:4,5,7,19 19:6 21:11 22:13

23:7 25:2,15 26:15 29:4 30:8 31:9,19 32:15,18 41:13,21 43:15 47:18 48:22 51:1 52:11,12,17 53:20 54:4,12 55:8 58:8 64:1 69:3 71:1 72:15,16 73:7 75:6 77:11,18,19,20 78:5 79:18,19,21 80:22 81:3,10,11 82:3 86:10,11 89:6 90:8 92:13 93:10,13 94:16 96:19 103:16 107:18 110:13 111:6 112:19 113:18 114:13,15 116:14,16 117:10,12 118:6 119:4 120:16 121:19 123:14,15,20 124:7,8,12 125:7,21 127:1 129:6,8,10 133:13 138:5,12,14 141:22 142:1 145:1 146:12 148:1,3 149:15,22 150:13 151:3 153:21 154:5,21 158:15,22 159:3 160:3,6 161:5,22 162:6 164:3,6 165:8,18 167:5 169:10,11,20 171:12 172:12,18

173:14,15,17,18 174:1,20 175:6,9 181:21 182:5,6,18,20,21 184:17,19 185:2,5 186:20 187:13,17 188:15,21 189:14 190:20 193:3,22 197:16 198:2 199:17 200:22 201:2 202:15,17,22 206:14 207:3 208:4,18 210:20 211:16 212:20 214:7 215:1 217:8,15 219:9 220:5,7,14,15,18 221:9 222:9,19,20 224:9 228:7,10 230:11 233:8,15 234:21,22 235:3,21 236:11 238:7,12 240:11 241:17 244:16 245:5 249:6,17 250:13,14 251:11 252:11 257:9 261:4 262:14 263:16 264:7,9,18,20 266:10 270:13,16 271:15 273:2,18 275:4,19 276:9 277:2 278:16,20 279:2,3,18,21 280:21 281:16 283:1 285:15 287:22 289:19 290:15 293:11

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 53

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 294:6 themselves 250:4 251:4 theory 104:12 thereafter 298:5 there'd 33:21 therefore 84:4 there's 8:15 11:2 17:22 20:2,14 27:7 30:14 31:7,11,13 32:3,17 33:7,9,14 34:11 35:17 42:11 43:22 51:15 58:15 63:10 64:16 66:18,20 68:2,21 69:6 70:10,19 74:10,18 76:10 77:7 78:8,11 82:2 85:7,11 101:10 104:3 107:2 108:3,4,5 109:4 113:17 116:20 123:2 125:3,4 127:12 137:5 140:19 145:10 149:6 153:20 156:3 162:9 165:1,16 168:21 170:21,22 174:10,20 192:14 194:6 197:17 205:19 206:13,20 208:2 213:11 222:15 223:20 236:17,21 238:20 244:14 246:18 247:11,18 248:15 249:19,21 252:14,15 255:16 260:22 261:13 263:21 264:8,13 272:5 276:7 286:17 290:18 292:20 thermal 26:2 40:6 44:19 45:17 122:4 141:16 thermocouple 85:6 thermocouples 84:3 85:5 119:5 they'd 108:21 147:8 they'll 22:19 104:2 126:17 they're 15:17 20:15 21:2,3 22:17 27:4,15 31:1,2 33:6 42:16 46:5 54:22 66:5 68:17 74:9 85:6 87:6 89:8 95:4 100:20 103:3,4 108:16,22 109:7,13 113:19 114:13 194:1 198:13 199:12,14 200:12 212:15,17 216:12,20 230:12 241:18 242:14 244:14 259:8,13 261:15 262:16 263:2,3 268:19,21 272:2 274:20 they've 82:18 119:4,5 thing's 105:13 third 9:2,4 15:8 18:16,18,20 19:15,18 31:1 33:21 34:12 60:20 64:8 90:14 109:21 111:7 113:14 127:16 129:11 141:9 161:20 178:12 185:14 218:17 225:10 246:4 258:4 268:6,11 272:10 285:18,20,22 286:2 291:15 292:2,4,7,10 293:16 third-party 12:22 17:18 19:15,22 30:22 31:10 33:7,9,15 34:8,17 47:5,7 56:7,14 57:9,16 59:16,21 60:15 64:5 69:17 77:11,14,21 80:3,14 81:14,18 83:6,7,21 84:19 88:21 89:9,13,22 90:7,9 92:18 93:4 106:21 111:3 121:8 127:22 130:2 138:10,18 139:3,5 153:19 154:2 187:3 Thirty 234:14 Thomas 1:19 163:7 298:2,15 thorough 90:3 94:11

thoughts 108:10 109:16 286:1 thousand 87:20 threat 227:13 threshold 285:16 threw 136:13 throat 142:7 throughout 134:14 throw 41:7 87:19 88:9,13 117:22 245:7 Thursday 203:19 204:5,7 Thursdays 185:14 Thus 75:18 tied 10:7 tiered 282:8,11 tightening 47:21 tighter 183:15 Time's 273:19 Timothy 2:9 tip 142:9 tipping 260:10 today 26:6,7 39:18 96:7 156:17,18,20 168:13 284:9 tolerance 9:9 10:3,9,10,11 15:19,20 16:10 17:6,8 22:20 23:16 24:19,22 25:6,10 26:12,15 27:3 29:13 30:1 32:22 35:2,15,19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 54

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36:11,19 48:14 51:7 52:19 53:16 54:1,6 56:13 57:12 75:6 107:17 118:1 124:9,12 126:7 155:11 156:1,15 157:12 158:12 159:4,7,20 161:21 162:2 165:18 166:5 183:15 186:10 192:18,22 205:12 206:8,9,15,21 209:16 216:18 217:21 228:7 232:2 tolerances 8:7,15 10:13,16 11:1 19:2 21:21 22:1,16 23:21 24:8 29:22 31:17 39:12,19 41:8,10 46:6,7 64:14 107:19 159:13,17 220:16 Tom 3:14 5:20 115:16 ton 122:10 146:17 154:21 tonight 296:10 Tony 5:5 Tool 5:21 6:4 tools 12:5 89:4 top 56:20 99:17 100:14 159:14 295:11 topic 19:14 193:5 topics 196:3 Toro 2:21 tossing 8:9 totally 224:16 touch 82:7 tout 259:12 toward 47:22 96:8 towards 74:12 96:13 traded 33:3 train 82:16,20 trained 39:8 82:11,17 83:11 253:19 training 38:19 39:10 69:21 70:2,10 95:6,8 114:6 123:19 Trane 3:10 16:2 59:2 83:20 171:15 transcript 298:6 299:4,6 300:4,6 301:4,6 302:4,6 transcription 299:1,7 300:1,7 301:1,7 302:1,7 Transcriptionist 299:13 300:14 301:13 302:12 translation 290:15 transpose 112:5 Traulsen 2:19 287:2 Traulson 10:15 travel 69:6 81:21 137:9,13 trees 84:1 trends 96:7 tries 251:4 trigger 255:12 triggered 255:22 trillion 295:12 tripped 279:22 trouble 109:13 truck 122:22 truckable 31:9 trucked 28:22 true 3:9 37:8 49:5 154:8 215:1 222:20 252:4 298:6 299:7 300:7 301:7 302:7 truly 156:14 Truskoski 5:19 56:4,5 trust 138:3 152:5,14 try 69:7 95:7,15,17 112:5,8 128:8 179:13 184:8 194:12 220:12 259:3 263:12,13,18 279:7 284:9 trying 8:12 19:14 26:18 54:5,7 68:9 96:2,18 97:8 98:18 99:8 102:18 112:20 115:11 120:16,21 124:7 132:7 133:3,16 135:4 136:4,17 145:4 146:15 148:18 150:9 151:1

163:7,8,11,20 164:7 165:21 182:14 184:20 187:14 188:13 201:11 216:15 228:11 250:14 251:6 263:14 Tuesday 203:8 204:8 tuned 95:2 turn 23:3 53:13 109:14 143:16 172:11 240:10 turned 108:1 turning 116:19,21 turnover 39:9 tweak 211:7,8 tweaking 79:1 253:13 tweaks 253:16 Twenty-ninth 194:2 two-day 204:14 type 8:3 29:2,14 77:13 82:19 87:10 100:19 124:4 194:7 279:6 typed 271:3 299:4 300:4 301:4 302:4 types 12:8 109:5 133:10 157:18 174:12 202:4 264:13 typewriting 298:5 typically 86:8 98:15 99:3 109:7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 55

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 typo 254:10 U U.S 2:10 28:22 U-haul 224:8 Uh-huh 13:14 36:1 43:5 45:13 86:17,19 98:10 115:15 195:18 214:15 240:20 Uhn-uhn 267:6 UL 3:17 76:20,21 81:12 82:17 84:13 89:12 95:7 111:2 114:3 120:14,15 121:2,3,20 124:18 142:22 151:12 152:19 164:14 174:5 ULE 236:5 UL's 82:17 ultimately 210:6 232:2 266:8 288:11 unable 244:16 257:20,22 unanimous 198:21 unaware 77:6,12 uncertainties 51:11 53:10 uncomfortable 135:10 uncommon 161:16 underlying 124:2 251:5 255:20 underrate 48:18 understand 20:21 21:1 23:14 24:8 30:18 36:13 48:5 51:19 98:18 99:8 103:17 120:16 133:20 146:1,4 165:2 174:9 189:20 194:6 199:19 200:4,8 202:22 230:2,3,17 238:6,13 244:7 249:14 275:12 291:18 understanding 11:4 138:2 155:18 246:5 understood 132:12 underway 97:12 unduly 142:13 unfired 44:22 45:2 57:3,6 unfolding 127:6,7 unified 58:13 unique 27:12 181:4 188:8 259:22 unit 16:4 38:13 39:4,6 46:3,16 49:12 50:22 51:8,21 53:9 55:6,8,12 56:12 61:7 64:12,13,20 76:7,9 77:4,9 78:1 80:12 81:14 84:22 85:1,7,13,21,22 86:2,9,21 87:2 89:21 90:12,14 91:13 92:19,22 93:5 95:2 98:14 99:2,3 103:1,10,15 105:6 106:18,19 107:17,18 114:15 123:21 125:3 127:13 139:22 145:5 146:17,18 147:17 148:7,18 156:1,17 160:16 161:20 162:4 165:22 166:5,9 171:11 172:5,8 174:21 175:20 178:14 185:9 187:16 188:20 189:8 190:14,21 191:9 205:11,20,21,22 206:3,4,5 208:12,13,15,18 209:17,18 212:8 213:12 215:4 217:22 218:4,22 220:5 222:13 225:5,7,17,20,21 228:6 229:10,11,19,21, 22 230:1,16,17,19,2 0 231:7,8 236:15,17 237:1,16,19,20 238:14,21,22 240:6,12 241:4 242:9,22 243:4 244:12 252:2,6 255:2 273:5 275:1 278:21 unitary 30:4 40:8,12,16 41:18 42:17 43:2 89:14 111:5 119:9 122:19 130:12 168:22 233:14 240:8 United 2:12 3:15

units 12:7 28:17,18 33:14 38:8 49:7 54:17 55:15 73:4 77:3 78:2 89:19 98:15,21 99:11,14 100:10 103:8 112:14 119:18 121:21 135:1 161:16 164:18 174:7,8,10,12 176:2 181:4 187:13 189:13 213:13 217:10 226:3,18 231:3 235:20 237:2 241:15 242:4 251:22 255:20 256:18 279:12 unit's 16:8 32:1 104:10 universal 27:9 unless 56:14 87:4 107:2 161:1 201:20 204:16 205:22 208:16 227:14 241:4 267:20 unlikely 259:2 unnecessary 53:17 unreasonable 159:4 unsafe 174:22 unskewed 52:5 unspoken 162:10 unwillingness 161:11 unworkable 34:9

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 56

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 update 219:1 252:8,17 267:15 268:17,22 updating 252:22 256:22 267:12 268:16 upload 111:18,21 112:10 188:3 upon 98:16 107:15 180:1 197:22 209:8 211:17 229:20 232:3 250:6 264:5 upper 43:9 130:18 177:19 222:9 281:2 uptown 194:3 usually 85:9 116:13,16 147:2 UTC 4:4 utilities 264:4 utility 264:10 utilize 113:2 V valid 15:22 16:2,7,9 34:15,18 35:2,7 47:4 50:14 55:10 126:8 144:9,10 165:5 192:18 206:13 212:11 252:3 255:10 256:2 265:19 266:3,9,14,15 267:5 270:14 271:19 273:12,17 274:4,7,20,21 275:2,4,18 276:9,21 278:18 279:12,15,18 293:6 validate 8:8 16:14,20 209:19 214:10 255:16 256:11 281:2,3 285:17,21 validating 36:17 199:10 216:2 271:21,22 validation 7:17 11:18 27:2 35:16 36:21 218:19 256:22 259:1 285:20,22 291:14 validity 215:20 value 16:10 45:3 46:3,4 56:12 57:8,17 58:1,6,14,18 59:1 107:18 239:21 282:22 values 37:7 57:18 variabilities 51:10 variability 17:9 52:16 variable 96:11 130:13,14 144:22 145:4 variables 80:8 variable-speed 77:9 117:4 variance 49:8,14 52:2,12,22 variances 252:7 variation 48:17 variations 21:6 49:4 95:13 varies 133:11 134:2,18 variety 10:1 18:1 20:15 80:6 288:17 various 78:6 183:4 vehemently 211:3 285:14 vendor 238:1 ventilation 37:4 venues 97:12 verification 27:6 106:19 112:21 113:1 128:1 138:1 158:10,13 159:17 170:5 199:9 202:2 210:18 252:16 255:17 286:22 verify 114:6 210:15 252:7 verifying 63:16 169:7 versed 122:11 143:3 version 246:4 versus 13:19 98:12 122:9 221:5 258:16 262:15 via 197:6 VICP 17:11 109:22 112:2,15,17 132:5 171:18 199:11,22 208:21 226:16 257:6,9 258:3 VICPs 171:17 192:4 259:1 video 88:22 98:22

99:10 105:17 119:22 126:1 144:19 videoconferencing 97:22 videos 126:10 129:2 view 67:16 83:8 96:10 130:1 viewing 101:20 Viktor 2:8 Vince 4:13 184:13 283:12 violation 190:16 Virginia 138:9 visit 38:22 visually 84:22 voicemails 33:4 volume 38:8 90:1,4 121:18 130:14 152:12 234:5 volumes 67:10 121:21 voluntary 162:7 vote 198:18 269:17 295:15 VRF 43:2 45:12 60:7 61:22 62:1,9 117:15,16 W Wahid 4:11 wait 65:11 69:22 105:5,8 110:16 111:9 126:15 196:3 200:9

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 57

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 230:10,18 246:1 247:9,12 260:11 295:20 waits 90:16 waivers 35:13,15 walk 67:8 68:1 walls 119:20 Walsh 5:20 warehouse 38:15 warm-up 185:10 warning 33:20 warranty 67:10 Washington 1:9 5:21 6:4 wasn't 81:16 88:17 100:16 168:2 173:11,12 207:22 208:14 217:21 233:10 292:5 waste 172:5 wasted 172:14 wasteful 172:12 watch 171:7 watching 102:14 water 5:13 15:9 26:1,2,4,9 37:3,17 38:20,21 40:5 44:15 45:3,15 56:6 105:7 163:12 186:11 282:20 watts 26:11 ways 52:12 65:20 66:12 73:9,17 95:11 97:21 103:4,5 258:21 Weber 5:22

webinar 88:22 website 176:18 we'd 55:16,17 58:22 74:8 84:18,21 85:11,12 102:2 111:9 113:18 125:5,7 Wednesday 1:11 203:18 204:5,7 week 89:21 196:2 242:4 245:13 294:6 weekend 203:9 weeks 235:5 237:4 284:8 295:20 296:12 weigh 220:15 221:3 weighted 283:14,16 Welch 6:2 we'll 12:18 30:16 88:9 150:19 152:13,14 154:15 156:2 194:7 196:10 197:5,6,7,9 205:7 221:22 249:2,17 251:9 269:17 294:7 well-versed 95:9 we're 7:4,8,16 8:12,20 9:17 10:21,22 11:4,5,16 12:4 13:7 14:5 15:12 16:1,2 17:19 18:19 19:9 23:11 30:9 33:21 36:16

40:9 48:8,22 49:1 50:1,6 51:9 52:1 54:3,12,18 55:3,17 57:10,11 59:11 61:12 62:12,19 63:18 65:5,6 66:6 67:1 70:13 72:15 74:3,11 76:2,3,4 77:6 80:1,3 81:3 91:6 92:5 95:20,21,22 96:9,12,18 97:1,2,16,17 100:8,9,13 102:20 103:17 105:20 112:20 113:13 117:4 118:17 119:3,11 156:5 189:13 196:17,21,22 197:5,11 198:20 201:11 203:8,14,18,22 204:17,19,22 205:1,6,10 206:12,18 207:22 208:6 212:5,10 213:14 214:16,21 216:15,16,20 217:8 218:4 221:11 223:4 225:9 226:17 227:10 234:19 239:1 244:15 245:17 247:13 248:4,12 250:12,14 254:6,16 257:8 261:18 264:13,17 265:1 266:4 270:5,6 271:11 275:13 276:6 278:1

284:6 286:19 287:13 288:16 289:1 290:5 293:11 294:3,12 295:14,21 296:13 Wes 4:21 West 3:3 138:9 wet-bulb 84:8 we've 12:14,16 20:20 21:5 35:13 39:9 64:14 65:21 68:2,3 69:14 82:17,20 84:19 86:21 87:10,11 104:5 109:4 113:16 118:8,13 121:13,14 124:16 143:17 157:11 163:13,14 165:15 167:9 169:1,5 175:8,11,16 192:2,6,7,13,15 195:13 203:3 205:17 206:3,4,14,15,16 208:22 214:17 218:10 220:19 221:14 225:6,17 228:5 231:20,21 233:3 249:16 251:4 253:21 254:1,2 265:3 267:20,22 276:15,21 281:21 294:22 whatever 7:17 8:22 11:9 16:14,19 17:8 23:13 32:8 55:9

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 58

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 61:16 67:16 74:9,16,19 76:1 84:11 92:22 104:17 105:18 110:17 115:3 116:5 129:8 137:22 160:19 169:20 173:6 184:12 185:13 206:8 213:7 220:17 231:21 234:2,22 243:17 253:15 259:20 260:8,12 274:19 276:12 291:12 294:16 whatsoever 22:12 Whereas 140:15 whereby 88:22 where's 131:10 Whereupon 192:5 297:3 wherever 64:4 152:17 240:20 243:22 whether 10:8 11:1,6 13:15,18 17:4 18:5 20:8 22:6 24:14 30:14 34:16 50:14,15 52:17 61:5,8,19 62:5 66:7,19 68:7 69:16 74:21 80:15 111:7,21 112:1,10 116:15 124:17 135:5 142:12 146:6 148:15 161:9 162:20 166:19 170:1,3 177:12,15,20 184:11 185:12 190:15 196:21 198:19,20 205:1 218:6,8 221:8 224:16,19 229:21 253:16 263:1 276:8 293:6,10,14 whichever 294:17,19 White 5:19 56:5 Whitman 128:2 Whitwell 6:3 43:7,15 45:16 73:10,15 110:4,6 166:7 180:6,15 182:4 187:5 225:1,12 226:5 238:11 250:7 280:10 293:4,9,13 whoever 111:7 112:17 296:20 whoever's 31:22 whole 31:13,20 32:4 75:2 76:7 100:11 101:10 104:21 116:11 147:18,20 149:12 191:12 197:9 255:21 264:18 278:2 whom 197:14 298:2 Whoops 29:14 who's 29:2 82:11 102:14 152:6 193:18 wide 17:22 80:6 288:17 willing 27:15 144:15 147:8,15 153:12 171:14,15 260:16,17 284:11 win 193:9 wire 69:13 wiring 95:10 wise 56:17 184:8 wish 241:17 withhold 227:22 witness 19:21 24:15 29:6 61:5 63:2,10,14 68:5 78:7 84:19 98:22 99:10 101:17,20,21 114:5 121:6 124:21 128:4 130:5 137:17 138:22 160:7 171:17 174:7,9 witnessed 83:20 84:1,2,5,7 witnessing 89:1 147:21 152:16 wonder 126:9 wondered 147:12 wonderful 28:22 wood 85:10 Woodford 6:5 wording 166:13 221:9 266:13 274:2,19 wore 163:9 work 10:12 27:15,16 28:13 68:17 80:5 89:16 96:19 113:2 117:19 119:13,22 122:6 124:10 125:19,20 127:4 138:4 141:16,20 150:17 152:12 248:18 262:14 277:15 291:16 worked 19:1 163:14 working 37:19,21,22 158:22 196:17 198:10,13 200:7 201:7 203:14 208:14 235:2,9 242:20 248:7,9 works 5:21 6:4 38:3 263:19 286:9 workshops 103:18 world 150:10 218:5 291:3 worried 133:2 worry 69:9 worse 137:10 worst 161:6 worth 47:18 worthwhile 213:21 wrap 99:19 185:19 wring 54:7 wrist 249:21 write 145:6 146:2 179:17 185:15 188:12 191:4 226:20 227:17 286:20 writing 23:2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-15-2013 Page 59

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 197:22 201:15 214:21 273:22 written 48:1 49:6 119:13 158:16 162:15 171:22 179:16 180:3 220:7 226:10,19 wrong 21:7 64:20 65:19 76:18 84:4 85:11 102:2,4,6 119:4,5,16 125:19,20 126:2,4,5 127:7 142:4,5,18 144:17 146:8 148:8,9 160:17,19 173:11 208:7 218:11,12 220:13 235:21 247:14 261:13 277:2,6 wrote 199:2 X Xs 265:1 Y Yep 15:1 35:9 36:3 40:21 yesterday 7:20 8:7,14 12:5 16:19 33:3 35:22 52:8 195:3 216:5 264:11 yesterday's 54:12 yet 98:7 99:6 101:4 104:8 127:22 172:10 187:22 201:3 228:21 249:16 274:14 you'll 21:12 104:20 194:19 YOUNG 301:2,13 yourself 102:6 191:18 271:19 292:22 yourselves 187:3 you've 12:20 27:14 29:6 83:11 88:8 162:5 170:14 193:21 205:15 214:4 217:19 230:8 237:6 238:22 252:14 256:6 258:18 272:11 273:13,15 274:4,6 276:10 277:2,17,19,20 278:5 280:16 288:2 Yup 205:21 207:20 272:15 287:17 Z zero 3:8 4:22 127:8,10 ZEVE 300:2,14 zone 3:8 4:22 214:5