Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

1

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING

 FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

 Department of Energy

 950 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.

 Washington, D.C.

 Thursday, August 8, 2013

 8:09 a.m.

Reported by: Christine Allen,

 Capital Reporting Company
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2 FACILITATOR:

3 Neil Eisner, Navigant Consulting

4

5 PARTICIPANTS:

6 Karim Amrane, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

7 Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

8 Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy

9 Timothy Ballo, EarthJustice

10 Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy

11 Jeff Bauman, National Refrigeration & Air-Conditioning

12 John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy

13 Mary Dane, Traulsen

14 Laura Degitsz, Navigant Consulting

15 Paul L. Doppel, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc.

16 Mark Fly, AAON Heating & Cooling Products

17 John Gorman, CSA Group

18 Charles Hon, True Manufacturing

19 Jill Hootman, Trane

20 Marshall Hunt, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

21 John Hurst, Hex Technologies, Inc.

22 Tom Johnson, Daikin McQuay
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

3

1 PARTICIPANTS:

2 Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar

3 Michael Kojak, Underwriters Laboratories LLC

4 Aris Marantan, Ph.D., U.S. Department of Energy

5 Karen Meyers, Rheem Manufacturing Co.

6 Peter Molvie, Cleaver-Brooks Product Development

7 Frank Myers, PVI Industries, Inc.

8 Michael Rivest, Navigant Consulting

9 Harvey Sachs, American Council for an Energy-Efficient

10 Economy

11 Ronald Shebik, Hussmann Corporation

12 Judd Smith, CSA Group

13 Frank Stanonik, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

14 Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

15 Mike Stem, Intertek

16 Phillip Stephens, Heat Transfer Products

17 Rusty Tharp, Goodman Manufacturing

18 Bill Tritsis, AHRI

19 Collin Weber, Navigant Consulting

20 Robert J. Whitwell, Carrier Corporation

21 Wes Wostal, ClimateMaster

22
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

4

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

2 (8:09 a.m.)

3 MS. BARHYDT: So, are you all ready to go

4 back and talk more about the dates? The compliance

5 dates?

6 MR. KLEISS: Yes. Actually, I think that's

7 something that we should probably wait for everyone to

8 assemble.

9 MS. DANE: Right, we're missing--

10 MS. BARHYDT: We do seem to be missing a lot

11 of people.

12 MS. DANE: A lot of people.

13 MR. KLEISS: Yeah, yeah.

14 MS. MEYERS: There was another wait at the

15 coffee.

16 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, is there? Okay, so there's

17 a line down there.

18 (Pause.)

19 MS. BARHYDT: So Ron said that he was going

20 to try to be on the phone today, but he sent an e-mail

21 this morning and he said that he heard back from

22 several CRE manufacturers, and this is in regards to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

5

1 what we were discussing yesterday. He said, "I heard

2 back from several CRE manufacturers and they are not in

3 favor of the following.

4 "One, witness testing. This was never part

5 of the original agreement and is an unnecessary burden.

6 "Two, cost of testing. The extra cost now

7 being pushed on the manufacturer was never part of the

8 original agreement. DoE is not looking at the

9 interests of the small companies.

10 "And three, two companies are of the opinion

11 that all of the discussion will favor large companies

12 and place unnecessary burdens on smaller companies. In

13 their opinion DoE would be better to step back and redo

14 the analysis since costs have changed as well as the

15 accepted tolerance levels."

16 And I'm not entirely clear of what he means,

17 because we have not been talking about verification

18 until the last few days. So, does anyone have any

19 insight or if Ron is on the phone this early.

20 (Pause.)

21 MS. BARHYDT: Maybe he'll join later.

22 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

6

1 National. I saw some of the e-mails. It follows that

2 they seemed to be jumping ahead, but I think there's an

3 expectation that what we've been talking about is when

4 we were talking about ADMs and things, the decisions we

5 make could carry through to other portions that have

6 similar requirements. And that's one of the things

7 I've been trying to--with our discussions yesterday,

8 was considering the feedback we've heard from other

9 manufacturers previously about the burden on the tests,

10 you know, whether it's witness testing or whatever, and

11 as we talked about yesterday, basically your kind of

12 least burdensome option.

13 I think my opinion, too, is that as we were

14 talking about yesterday when we were finishing up, or

15 later part of the afternoon, in regards to how many

16 tests you're going to have to do in a year, I think

17 that's going to have a real direct effect on--it's a

18 lot different to tell a manufacturer that he's got to

19 do 10 percent of all his products witness testing a

20 year where all he had was the basic models a year

21 versus a fixed number of one, two, five, you know, what

22 that number's going to be, I think is going to be a
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

7

1 major consideration to understand. You know, I think

2 we want to do it by percentage-wise on the numbers, but

3 I think there's going to be a lot of desire on the

4 behalf of the manufacturers, I would think, that would

5 go to other product categories to understand what your

6 maximum exposure could be a year, to be able to budget

7 for that and understand what the costs are going to be.

8 Because it's a new--you know, it's not being paid as a

9 tax for DoE or whatever, but it's a fee manufacturers

10 are going to have to pay to do a witness test or a

11 third party. It's something that they're not exposed

12 to now, so.

13 MS. BARHYDT: So it sounds like it would be--

14 maybe one way to go about this is to, like we did

15 yesterday, talk about what some of the different

16 options are, decide if there are some options that

17 people agree are off the table, but maybe leave some

18 options on each issue while we have more time go by to

19 allow people to do more thinking about what percentage

20 is the right percentage or how we're going to do that.

21 Because I know we've heard that people want more time

22 before we resolve that issue. But if we just wait and
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

8

1 we don't discuss things at all, we're just pushing

2 everything back. But maybe we could at least talk

3 about options, maybe narrow those options down to a few

4 possibilities, keeping in mind that that final number

5 may have an impact on which options end up on the

6 table. Does that sound workable? Or, at the very

7 least, even if we didn't even take anything off the

8 table, at least we could get a lot of options on the

9 table so we all knew what options were available for

10 each different issue. And then once we have the final

11 number we can decide what makes sense in that context.

12 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. For many of

13 the manufacturers in this room and I'm not talking

14 about CRE here, but to the HVAC in particular, some of

15 the boilers and water heaters, there are already things

16 in place. AHRI has a program. So, you know, it's just

17 a question of definitions here. You know, if we go

18 with this basic model group concept or product family

19 concept and there's already something in place. We

20 don't have reinvent the wheel. And that can be done

21 quickly.

22 Now, of course, if we have to define new
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

9

1 definitions, new, you know, how we're going to group

2 those basic models, yeah, it's going to take a long

3 time to do that.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I think part of what I

5 heard yesterday is that there are some manufacturers

6 who--and some of those manufacturers are AHRI members--

7 who don't participate in AHRI's program because they

8 feel like it doesn't fit their business. And so

9 keeping that in mind, I think we want to try and figure

10 out what--and maybe it's a difference of coming up with

11 one number for the build-to-stock and a different

12 number for the engineered- to-order, built-to-order,

13 or--I don't know what the right mix is going to be, but

14 I don't know that--or at least what I'm hearing is the

15 one-size-fits-all probably is not going to work for

16 everyone.

17 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. And

18 even within AHRI we don't have one-size-fits-all

19 either. Okay?

20 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

21 MR. AMRANE: For example, for the CRE

22 products, we have a very--we don't have percentages.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

10

1 It's a minimum of two tests a year. So, again, I mean,

2 so there are distinctions product by product and things

3 of that nature, so.

4 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

5 National. Also, Laura, that I think for CRE--and I

6 agree with Karim--that, you know, the different types

7 of products types are going to have different

8 challenges to coming up with something. CRE has a bit

9 of a head start on some of them because, in addition to

10 the AHRI definitions that are included, there's--I

11 counted 43 equipment classes under DoE's regulations,

12 which would probably be for CRE a well-defined and

13 probably a pretty good starting point for determining

14 whether, you know, you test some from each class or

15 basically how you roll that through, at least for CRE,

16 so.

17 MS. BARHYDT: So are you suggesting one from

18 each of the 43 classes a year?

19 MR. BAUMAN: I didn't say that.

20 MS. BARHYDT: I didn't think so.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. BAUMAN: One of 43 classes each year.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

11

1 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, okay.

2 MR. BAUMAN: That's to be discussed and

3 negotiated obviously.

4 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And I certainly

5 understand that CRE's a little bit different from small

6 unitary. What I don't think I've heard yet is a

7 consensus among the CRE manufacturers on what would

8 work and keep the field level, and I wonder if we could

9 ask you all to do that.

10 I mean, if I can just continue for a second.

11 I've certainly suggested that it would not make me

12 uncomfortable to see this aligned with other programs,

13 even if it means test procedure changes to align the

14 temperatures with NSF. The goal is assurance. It's

15 not a particular formula. So am I off-base in asking

16 for that?

17 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

18 National. Harvey, I think you're right as far as that

19 goes. And I think the challenge is going to be

20 basically a balance between more expensive/witness

21 testing, a higher level of the tests and more

22 reliability, I'll say, to verification as regards to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

12

1 how many you do a year. I think they're going to be

2 directly--because the cost, obviously when you multiply

3 the cost, it's going to go up a year, whether it's a

4 small manufacturer or a large manufacturer. So I think

5 that's going to be the balance there.

6 And as Laura said, some of the feedback we

7 heard from--Ron heard from CRE folks that are not here,

8 but I think they're showing, you know, some more level

9 of alarm I think than even we were kind of hitting on

10 when we discussed yesterday even what the options were.

11 So I think that's something we're going to have to

12 balance out. But I think you're right, we have to

13 figure out something that we want that's going to have

14 that reliability, tests that are going to be--you know,

15 have some teeth behind them, that are going to be

16 reliable and have a sufficient quantity of testing

17 that's going to work economically and going to work

18 reliably that you've got enough products being tested

19 that you have assurance across the product line of

20 models and basic models that are listed.

21 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. Jeff,

22 thank you. I guess I sort of think it's your problem
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

13

1 as an industry to bring a proposal to see if it

2 satisfies the process. And I can't speak for DoE, but

3 I'm sure open- minded about what offers that balance

4 and you guys have a competitive interest in not getting

5 things tilted one way or the other. I'm not sure I

6 need to be present for that conversation. In fact, I

7 hope I'm not.

8 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. We do

9 have a meeting set up among the CRE on the 22nd with

10 NAFM, and we'll probably discuss some of those things.

11 They'll be sending out a notice. Some people probably

12 haven't gotten it yet, but a lot of these issues will

13 be discussed.

14 But the thing is, in our line we already have

15 a very heavily involved third-party lab system for

16 safety and for sanitation, and they're in and out of

17 our building all the time. And I think what we're

18 asking is to be able to leverage those programs to be

19 able to have them look in on our stuff at the same

20 time. When we say non-witness testing, I'm sure we

21 don't mean that we never want anybody to look at our

22 data. I want to stress that that's not what we're
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

14

1 saying. Somebody always looks at our data. What we're

2 saying is we want to be able to leverage, if we're in

3 an Energy Star program or some other program, we want

4 to be able to use those programs to be able to submit

5 our data through them, so they hold our data and send

6 the results to DoE. We don't want to add an extra

7 burden.

8 Now, having said that, we're also interested

9 in the number of tests. As Ron stated, that's going to

10 make a huge difference because within our industry we

11 have very, very diverse product lines, kind of like

12 HVAC, but, I mean, very diverse.

13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It works.

14 MS. DANE: It works, yeah.

15 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. There are a

16 few things going on here.

17 Number one is that the alternate programs we

18 deal with in commercial refrigeration are much more

19 rigid in the way they operate than what we're talking

20 about there in DoE. They demand there aren't going to

21 be product groupings in a general product family where

22 you can list a lot of product under it. Unless it is
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

15

1 physically "identical" on energy consumption it is

2 going to have to be separately listed under those

3 programs. And as such, there's a very high number of

4 items listed compared to--well, I would say we would

5 list one product group for DoE for every two products

6 we would have for Energy Star in Canada.

7 MS. BARHYDT: When say "product group," are

8 you referring to the basic model?

9 MR. HON: Basic models, yes.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

11 MR. HON: Because there are several reasons.

12 Number one is marketing purposes. Because if you don't

13 have it separately listed, you can't put on the

14 sticker, you can't market it that way. And also, when

15 you're not getting the advantage of the label, the

16 Energy Star label, you can take a product that is--

17 well, list the more power consumption or less efficient

18 equipment and have several models which use less

19 equipment with the same basic design under the same

20 basic model and as such reduce your listing burden that

21 way.

22 But in testing burden right now we have to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

16

1 have witness testing done per Energy Star and for

2 Canada. They come into our facilities every six months;

3 we set up several units. They monitor the testing and

4 the results. Those are ongoing programs required by

5 those groups. And those can be leveraged very well

6 because those do include witness testing.

7 MS. BARHYDT: So one of the concerns I have

8 about Energy Star is that that's obviously a small

9 subset of the products you offer. And so would the NSF

10 then cover everything?

11 MR. HON: There's two different answers.

12 Number one is right now--

13 MS. BARHYDT: (Off microphone.)

14 MR. HON: Okay. Energy Star is at the

15 present time, according to Energy Star's data, 62

16 percent of the market is covered under Energy Star

17 labeling. They're in the process of reducing that down

18 to 25 percent, thereabouts, by making the standard much

19 more rigorous. But it will soon catch up--the market

20 will catch up with the standard real quick. I know

21 where it's headed and we will get there because there

22 are a lot of units that will be brought back down below
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

17

1 the new standard.

2 NSF does cover all the unit, basically

3 everything in commercial refrigeration, because of

4 local building codes require an NSF-type listing on the

5 product. The standard is not the same as the DoE

6 standard. The test requirements are different. The

7 testing is different, the conditions are different. So

8 there's a problem there with all the existing data that

9 everybody has--12, 15 years' worth of data--if we shift

10 to an NSF testing process. Some of that testing

11 exists; some of it doesn't have near the same result

12 what you'd be interested in.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Would it be feasible while they

14 were there to do the tests under their test procedure

15 and the same test under the DoE test procedure?

16 MR. HON: It would be no different than

17 having a different third party doing the same tests.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

19 MR. HON: Because they're not the same tests,

20 so you can't just piggyback them on top of each other.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Right. No, I understand that.

22 MR. HON: They have to be run independently.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

18

1 The loading is different. There's a lot of--so you

2 basically start over. So their being there would not

3 be any good because they would just have to stay there

4 longer. The testing burden would just extend it a

5 longer period, therefore, a longer cost. So we don't

6 know that it would do us a lot of good.

7 We also don't know the competency of NSF

8 because that would be a single choice. Right now we

9 have CSA--

10 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

11 MR. HON: --ETL, UL, all in this room. They

12 all do the same projects. Some of them also do

13 listings, but do they have the competencies in the same

14 people, in the same groups? So they would probably be

15 sending in different people anyway.

16 MS. BARHYDT: People anyway.

17 MR. BAUMAN: This Jeff Bauman from National.

18 I think that we may have crossed over the definition of

19 NSF, NSF as an organization, NSF as a food and safety

20 standard, just like UL obviously. So I think when we

21 talk about--I thought when you were talking about NSF,

22 you were talking more about how you test for NSF for
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

19

1 safety versus using NSF as your test for efficiency.

2 MS. BARHYDT: I actually was talking about

3 the organization.

4 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, all right. That's how I

5 would--well, then I would say it wouldn't be--

6 MS. BARHYDT: That doesn't sound like that's

7 a good option.

8 MR. BAUMAN: --used as an organization.

9 You'll be using it and testing it to the NSF-7

10 standard, and that's, I think, kind of part of what

11 Harvey and I we talked about yesterday is the NSF

12 testing it for sanitation is a lot different than an

13 energy test, what you do there. As Charlie said, the

14 package, you know, if you load full packages for--it's

15 a different type of test that you do for the two test

16 types. So, you know, I think as Harvey mentioned, too,

17 previously, as an industry, you know, going back and

18 starting to try to work those divergent test standards

19 for energy and sanitation and safety and things like

20 that, try to bring those together closer is a challenge

21 for our group that ultimately should benefit everybody

22 as we move forward.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

20

1 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon again. In our

2 testing, we cannot--okay, like, right now we have UL

3 safety inspections coming in. That is not the same

4 group that does UL energy testing. They're totally

5 different engineers because of different competencies.

6 And we do not have anybody that I'm aware of that

7 crosses over both those competencies well. There may

8 be a few people that can be trained, cross-trained, but

9 at this time we still have to bring an engineer in from

10 Dallas to our energy review because that's the

11 competent group for that. And the local inspector for

12 the safety is strictly for the safety group. So they

13 do not have the competencies there.

14 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

15 National again. And if we haven't confused enough,

16 Laura, I think the other part of the discussion that

17 we've had in other related areas with NAFM and other

18 agencies is component verification part of it, where

19 you also have, in addition to when you list the model,

20 you go through a full sanitation inspection and file

21 listing and documentation package. And then basically

22 whoever's doing your UL for safety, you basically have
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

21

1 quarterly inspections where they come in and verify.

2 They'll pick a product off the line to make sure that

3 it is being built with proper components and

4 everything, which we think there's some value there to

5 potentially have that considered as part of the energy

6 to make sure that, you know, obviously you're not

7 energy testing every unit off the line, but making sure

8 that the unit that you tested for energy, what you're

9 building is the same thing as what you tested to. And

10 that potentially could, hopefully, relieve some of the

11 burden of the requirements for the quantity of

12 verification testing you feel you need to do here.

13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Just

14 so you don't get lock in that all safety testing, if

15 they're coming in for safety testing, is not capable of

16 doing the efficiency testing. For water heaters and

17 boilers a part of the standard, either for U.S. or

18 Canada, which uses the same test requirement, both of

19 those safety standards include performance testing. So

20 those certification engineers for the safety portion of

21 the product also have the capability of doing the

22 efficiency performance side.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

22

1 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. Now,

2 that testing, though, is not annual audit testing.

3 That is certification of the product initially.

4 MR. MYERS: Right. This is Frank Myers, PVI,

5 again. I was just talking about capability of the test

6 personnel. It does not, in that case, require

7 different personnel in order to have that skill set.

8 So when they come in, if they were also--which they do

9 for us--also do performance testing, the efficiency

10 testing, and standby loss testing, we'd like to have

11 that accepted because they do have that skill set.

12 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. There is a

13 difference. Again, we're getting to the nuances of

14 differences. When we started with our project, due to

15 Canadian law, you didn't have to have the necessary

16 competencies built into the system. So we could have

17 the local inspection group, which was the safety

18 inspection group, do witness testing for our energy

19 efficiency for Canada. UL will not accept that--I

20 mean, Energy Star will not accept that. They require a

21 competency under UL's engineering, so they have to

22 bring in a different group for UL testing. So then we
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

23

1 ended up re-merging files so that we put the Canadian

2 doing energy testing at the same time as the Energy

3 Star group with different competency level; higher than

4 Canada it requires because of that issue. So the local

5 inspector could do it for Canada, but could not do it

6 for Energy Star.

7 MS. BARHYDT: You were going to say

8 something, Jeff?

9 MR. KLEISS: Well, I was just going to add to

10 that. As far as the boilers and water heaters, an

11 Energy Star program is somewhat different than what

12 they were talking about in that you could apply the

13 same testing, same test procedures are used. However,

14 this does cover just a portion of the market. That

15 portion is probably going to change very soon. And

16 also, Energy Star is talking about adding some

17 additional metrics possibly to the testing.

18 Now, you could still take the same data and

19 separate out those additional metrics and use that to

20 qualify. And I would think that that would be

21 something that would be beneficial from the

22 manufacturer's standpoint of reducing the test burden,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

24

1 but, also, it reduces, I guess, in a way the cost of

2 going to higher efficiency products, in a way, in that

3 we wouldn't have to then add on new testing for going

4 into an Energy Star program. So that might help to

5 move the market in that direction, which I think is a

6 good thing.

7 MS. BARHYDT: So the Energy Star does testing

8 throughout the year. Annual?

9 MR. KLEISS: Annual.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Once a year? Twice a year?

11 Twice a year for CRE. Once a year for water heaters.

12 MR. HON: That's dependent on how many units

13 you have to test.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

15 MR. HON: Because we schedule it, saying,

16 okay, we have the capability to handle X-number of

17 units when you're here because we have to have rooms

18 set up for them, all the conditions, all the units

19 established. And we have a number of units that we can

20 test at one time. They have an annual requirement of 10

21 percent of our listed product be tested every year.

22 If we had enough facilities and were willing
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

25

1 to allot those facilities during that week of testing

2 or more, we could do all 10 percent at one time. But

3 we don't have that or we choose not to allot that

4 anyway, so we do two different sets. But you only,

5 legally, have to do 10 percent of your listed product

6 every year.

7 MS. BARHYDT: And that's witness testing?

8 MR. HON: That's witness testing, on-site.

9 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm seeing a nod from Jeff

10 that Energy Star does witness testing for you as well.

11 MR. KLEISS: (Nods yes.)

12 MS. BARHYDT: Is it the same for HVAC?

13 MR. AMRANE: This Karim Amrane with AHRI. I

14 mean, most of these HVAC manufacturers do it through

15 AHRI. It's part of our certification program.

16 MS. BARHYDT: And so it's a third-party lab

17 to begin?

18 MR. AMRANE: Third-party lab. We do the

19 rest.

20 MR. KLEISS: Some of the Energy Star testing,

21 I believe, can be done at manufacturers' facilities.

22 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill Tritsis, AHRI.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

26

1 Yes, it can be for some of the products that are big,

2 commercial products that still are Energy Star. Yes,

3 it can be done as witnessed.

4 MS. BARHYDT: So, this is all very helpful,

5 but I'm not sure how to put it all together.

6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. The two

7 top bullets that seem to be acceptable was testing at

8 third-party lab and testing at manufacturer's facility

9 witnessed. And all of the Energy Star testing falls

10 within those two bullets, so I don't think that we're

11 really stepping off the ranch.

12 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I

13 think there really needs to be a third option there for

14 non- 17025 requirements.

15 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I'm concerned

16 not for our group because we are governed by Energy

17 Star, but there are people in some of these categories

18 that are not governed by Energy Star and, as such,

19 complete witness testing, I think that you should rely

20 on the people who do those if--standards, which is tier

21 3, tier 4 type of operations. They're the ones who are

22 putting their name on the line to certify products.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

27

1 And if they believe that they can certify products as a

2 review process because of the competencies of a lab, I

3 think they ought to be able to do that.

4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi.

5 I'm hearing all this Energy Star testing and so what's

6 the difference between the Energy Star testing and DoE

7 testing? Is there some way that, you know, there can

8 be a compromise test or something? I mean--

9 MR. HON: That's what we're trying to get to

10 is to say the same process can work; it'd just be a

11 larger database. Because right now we have 60-some

12 units which are Energy Star listed on our products. If

13 we had those same units which would be DoE and would

14 not have been Energy Star, we would have merged a lot

15 of them together and probably only had 30 units, base

16 models. But because of the nature of what's going on

17 with Energy Star and you've got--people are rating and

18 buying by the efficiency rating, we want to make it as

19 good as possible, so we're taking the best and listing

20 them as well. That same process can work because the

21 way Energy Star specified it, that it is an optional

22 program. We chose to incur the additional expense of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

28

1 on-site witness testing.

2 The governing bodies who are also allowing us

3 to do other energy testing without the full witness

4 test are the ones who should be able to give you the

5 expertise and give you what the difference is,

6 submitting to a third party versus witness testing.

7 The only difference for us would be the cost of that

8 engineer being on our site for the entire test, which

9 is a two-day test process, because we do all the pre10 work ahead of time. When they walk in, we're ready to

11 turn the test on. They inspect the equipment and we

12 flip the switch and away we go. Then the next day we

13 get the results. But if everything's okay and

14 everything goes forward, then they take the results

15 with them and leave and go and analyze the results to

16 meet this--verify all the different categories of the

17 standard.

18 What we do without that witness testing is we

19 go ahead and test the unit, we sent it to them, the

20 result, they review that result the same way. Other

21 than the fact that they're not there to witness the

22 test operation itself, the review is identical.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

29

1 MS. BARHYDT: And the second--sorry. The

2 second scenario that you--

3 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ronald Shebik from

4 Hussmann. Can you hear me now?

5 MS. BARHYDT: We can hear you, Ron.

6 MR. SHEBIK: Hello?

7 MS. BARHYDT: We can hear you.

8 MR. SHEBIK: Sorry. I've been trying to cut

9 in for the last half-hour here. It seems like we're

10 getting knee-deep in Energy Star. I do want to point

11 out that Energy Star for CRE has no impact on the

12 supermarket cases. We're not covered under Energy

13 Star. So before we get too far along with the Energy

14 Star conversation, that's only going to pertain to

15 self-contained cases. So I just wanted to make sure

16 that's pointed out.

17 The remote supermarket cases, there is no

18 Energy Star classification.

19 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

20 National. Good morning, Ron. And I think also what

21 we're kind of hitting on, Laura, hopefully is giving

22 you a good education--there will be a quiz after this
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

30

1 meeting--is that I think for CRE, you know, we have had

2 some experiences that, although Energy Star again is an

3 option, not--I don't think something necessarily as a

4 lot of people would want to bring that level across the

5 board when you have to list all your products, you

6 know, by regulation. But I think our challenge is, I

7 would say, by the next meetings, 26th, 27th, 28th, is

8 for CRE manufacturers to come back with a

9 recommendation on what- -you know, we think we kind of

10 know what those options are, whether it would be

11 witnessing or whether potentially the (inaudible) level

12 of, you know, just the third-party review.

13 And as you heard from Ron, I guess, you know,

14 the e-mails, there is a lot of concern on that with

15 some of the manufacturers. But I think we should be

16 able to come back with some recommendations by the next

17 meetings, towards the end of the month, for CRE as far

18 as what that should be. As Mary said, there's a

19 meeting with NAFM manufacturers. We can also add a

20 meeting with the AHRI group, with commercial

21 refrigeration manufacturers, and get some additional

22 industry input there, so.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

31

1 MS. BARHYDT: And does that cover the self2 contained and the remotes?

3 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, it would cover--

4 MS. BARHYDT: Those groups cover both?

5 MR. BAUMAN: Correct, yeah.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

7 MR. SHEBIK: Yeah, I think that would cover.

8 I'm sorry, this is Ron from Hussmann again.

9 One thing that would be very helpful before

10 we decide how the program's going to operate, if we

11 knew the number of cases per year that would require

12 verification testing.

13 MR. BAUMAN: Ron, this is Jeff.

14 MR. SHEBIK: If it's two cases per year,

15 that's one thing. If it's 10--go ahead.

16 MR. BAUMAN: What I was trying to say when we

17 come back on the 26th is we would potentially have a

18 recommendation with both points there as, you know,

19 what level of testing it would be and then how much

20 testing per year would be required, a recommendation

21 there. Because as we've talked about, I think they are

22 directly related to each other from the sense of cost
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

32

1 and also from the sense of how reliable you are because

2 I guess, on some levels, if you did a less stringent

3 test, but you did more testing, it might give you a

4 similar kind of confidence level as opposed to a more

5 stringent but less quantity of tests per year. So I

6 think they're directly related and I think that should

7 be part of what CRE comes back with a recommendation on

8 at the next meetings.

9 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with AHRI.

10 I mean, to follow up on you, Jeff, I mean, you can look

11 at what we've done as AHRI. It's already there: how

12 we group products; the number of tests that we're

13 doing, which are, as I said, maximum of two tests per

14 year in the case of CRE products. So there's already

15 something you can look at.

16 MR. HON: Karim, just for my information,

17 because I don't know, do you have any idea--all right,

18 you have a certain number of products listed right now,

19 say a company--I don't know, a company has 50 products

20 listed under your listing in the commercial air21 conditioning system, how many do you think that would

22 entail when they did the final base model listing for
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

33

1 the DoE? Have any idea at all?

2 MR. TRITSIS: Let me answer this, Charlie.

3 Bill Tritsis with AHRI. I heard you earlier mentioning

4 that you are listing 60 products with Energy Star. And

5 you're doing presumably six tests, if I'm correct. I'm

6 not sure how you group your products, but the AHRI

7 Standard 1200 that has been adopted by DoE lists six

8 product families that you can put your products in.

9 Okay. That will have meant, you know, much less than

10 the six tests that you are doing right now. But that's

11 why I'm suggesting that if you look at the six product

12 family lists and adopt this definition, I believe it

13 has been adopted already by DoE, you know, we can have

14 up to two or--depending on what percentage we're

15 talking about.

16 MR. HON: But there's also a difference

17 because with the Energy Star testing of the possible

18 six categories we would not be listing in all of those,

19 so out of our product we're looking at six tests out of

20 our standard. But if we were doing it under the

21 categories that would be coming up now we would

22 probably have to step up to eight tests, but we would
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

34

1 do that just because of the nature of it.

2 But, again, I'm trying to get a parallel

3 where your market is, how many items, because you may

4 be going doubling your number or tripling your number,

5 I don't know. And we're trying to get some comparison

6 because you're requiring 20 percent of the product and

7 that may only be 10 percent as you dilute it by listing

8 different product categories. So I'm trying to get a

9 feel for how it's going to--all these different

10 programs relate, so we can come up with some idea of,

11 okay, 20 percent suddenly, because of the change of

12 listing style, may go to 10 percent. UL requiring,

13 Energy Star requiring 10 percent, maybe the same base

14 number, we just don't know. That's why I'm asking the

15 question.

16 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI, I think today

17 we group product in product families and we test 20

18 percent, roughly, of those product families a year.

19 And I think we could by the next meeting we will have

20 this kind of analysis and that you could see how many

21 of those tests we do and how do it by product family--I

22 mean, by product categories and so on. So we'll get
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

35

1 you that in the next week.

2 MR. HON: Right.

3 MS. BARHYDT: So we talked yesterday a little

4 bit about how products would be selected, whether it be

5 from the manufacturer, supplied by the distributor, off

6 the shelf, off the production line. And I think a

7 question I had, we were talking about build-to-stock

8 and stock units and it's not clear to me why--it seems

9 to me that if those are the products that we're talking

10 about, why we would even need to do off the production

11 line. It seems to me that that would be in stock or we

12 could just substitute another model that was in stock

13 that was comparable.

14 MS. HOOTMAN: Say it again for me, please.

15 MS. BARHYDT: So we're talking about the

16 built- to-stock/in-stock items, so these are things

17 that you have.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: Somewhere.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Somewhere. And it seems to me

20 that we ought to be able to get one that's already

21 boxed up as opposed to off the production line.

22 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill Hootman from
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

36

1 Trane. Yeah, relatively for the packed stock stuff,

2 but, again, you know, that exact model may not be--

3 MS. BARHYDT: The one that's in stock.

4 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, yeah. And, I mean, if

5 you're walking in, again, it might be out in an

6 inventory in some warehouse somewhere else, so it

7 doesn't always necessarily add the manufacturing plant.

8 We have to have some communication about this is what

9 you're looking for and, you know, we would look at

10 where we've got it and say we have it here, here, here,

11 you know, we can tell you where we have it.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

13 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. AHRI has

14 another option, though. And sometimes when we want a

15 specific unit and it's not available, we can have it

16 built. We can witness that unit and manufacturers will

17 have--you know, there will be somebody at the factory

18 who will pick up the components randomly and that unit

19 would be assembled specifically for AHRI testing. So

20 we can do that. We've done that several times.

21 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. In the

22 boiler industry, in particular, we're extremely
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

37

1 seasonal, so it is entirely possible that we could have

2 a stock item that would be in stock 11 months out of

3 the year. But if you came in the wrong month, you might

4 not find much of any stock.

5 MS. BARHYDT: We can figure that stuff out.

6 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We are

7 probably the largest stocker of commercial

8 refrigerators and freezers. If you take our catalogue

9 and go through it, at any given moment 75 percent,

10 approximately, of our catalogue is in a warehouse and

11 can be shipped the next day. Another 25 percent or so

12 may require specialty add- ons and they would be the

13 next runoff. Say that we have Model X with Feature Y

14 stuck on to it, and that's not a standard feature, so

15 it would be the next runoff then, usually 3 to 6 weeks.

16 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

17 National. To throw out another consideration, and that

18 makes two, also, that you mentioned, Laura, is in stock

19 at the manufacturer's location. I mean, one

20 consideration we'd have is if you picked something from

21 stock, it could be a manufacturer's warehouse and you

22 have warehouses all over the place if you're doing--if
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

38

1 we end up, you know, deciding on witness testing at a

2 manufacturer's location, potentially even a lab, rather

3 than bringing a unit from a remote warehouse back in,

4 replacing that with another, it seems like an

5 unnecessary cost for bringing a unit from a remote

6 location in and then we would have to either replace

7 that or, you know, there's some transit and damage

8 potentials. So I think, you know, considering in stock

9 from the manufacturer's location may be another option

10 as opposed to off the production line, just to reduce

11 the waste of--I mean, I understand you want a unit

12 that's--and I think there's, again, a level of

13 component verification that could be part of it, like

14 Karim had mentioned. You know, maybe you're not there

15 watching the guy manufacture it, but you take a built

16 unit and part of that inspection is the components to

17 make sure those components that are in it are what it

18 was supposed to be built with, so it just seems to be a

19 way to reduce that burden and still get that

20 reliability.

21 MS. BARHYDT: So you're suggesting that off

22 the production line could be preferable even to in-
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

39

1 stock because it may not be stock there if there's

2 witness testing. Is that not an issue if there's not

3 witness testing?

4 MR. BAUMAN: I think if you're sending it to

5 a third party, you know, if it's a third-party lab, you

6 know, again, there's logistic issues to consider there.

7 You know, I think manufacturers would still prefer to

8 ship it from their own warehouse so they made sure the

9 right unit got sent over versus having the wrong one

10 sent to the lab, that they can make sure that it's the

11 right unit, you know, the right model being sent over

12 because there's confusions that sometimes happen in

13 model numbers being shipped. But I think it's almost

14 an additional definition between off of the production

15 line and from the manufacturer's inventory, being, you

16 know, in stock at the manufacturer's location. Maybe

17 it's already built, but, you know, I think we all have

18 warehouses where we build, also, before they maybe go

19 out to remote warehouses. So it would be potentially

20 pulled from, you know, that location as opposed to a

21 remote location that, you know, could still be a

22 manufacturer's warehouse.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

40

1 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussmann. I

2 just want to add that, again, for (inaudible 43:13)

3 cases, in most part we do not--there's no stocking, we

4 don't warehouse. We build to order, so in those

5 situations you'd be looking at whatever the lead time

6 is for the case based on the components. So you might

7 be looking at 6, 8, 10 weeks for a case. Anyway, it'd

8 be based on how the order is placed.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So we're talking about

10 the build-to-stock right now. We were going to talk

11 about build-to-order separately.

12 MR. SHEBIK: Okay, sorry. You're cutting

13 out, so I missed parts here.

14 MS. BARHYDT: That's okay.

15 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo with

16 EarthJustice. I had a question. How much lead time

17 will the manufacturer get when a product is, you know,

18 selected for testing or, you know, a basic model

19 presumably would be? Because if you have enough time,

20 you know, unless it's immediate, I guess the idea of

21 taking something out of stock isn't necessarily

22 advantageous of, you know, identify a potential bad
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

41

1 actor. Because if there was a manufacturer that was

2 making stuff that, you know, knowingly was below the

3 standard, they're going to have a fire sale as soon as

4 they find out that the product has been selected for

5 verification testing. So taking one out of stock

6 wouldn't necessarily catch anybody that way.

7 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. This

8 is verification, right? DoE always has the option for

9 the spot-checking.

10 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. The

11 concept of a fire sale in the commercial world is

12 probably quite a bit different than a fire sale in the

13 residential world.

14 MR. BAUMAN: It's real fires for us.

15 (Laughter.)

16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with AHRI.

17 I think, at least in our programs, we select units

18 ahead of time and we inform the manufacturers because,

19 otherwise, if you're trying to do what you're saying

20 here, you're not (inaudible 45:12) good unit to test, I

21 mean, it's very difficult, in particular for commercial

22 products.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

42

1 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill from Trane. So

2 Karim is right. I mean, what AHRI does for us is, you

3 know, tell us ahead of time, around the December

4 timeframe, what our models are. We have a discussion

5 back with them about when we can provide those. And

6 here's the thing: I have near 100 models at this end

7 and I'm spending millions of dollars. I need to spread

8 that expense across a year. I can't have them all sent

9 in one time. Stockholders have a problem with expenses

10 going like that.

11 So, you know, and in all honesty, I enough

12 I'm making. I don't have time to go e making a special

13 one and go test it. My test rooms are full. I don't

14 have-- I'm not doing that kind of stuff. And I just

15 can't imagine anybody that, you know, was kind of doing

16 this that you would have that time and that luxury to

17 go be making a special model for this test and then

18 having time to go pull off and test it and everything.

19 Because you would have had to find a lab to do that and

20 these labs are full all the time. You would have had

21 to schedule a lab to get that if it's not inside your--

22 well, even within ourselves, we have to schedule labs
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

43

1 because there's development testing happening all the

2 time.

3 So there needs to be some warning. I mean,

4 you know, if it's just one unit or two units, this is

5 not a big deal, but we're talking about hundreds.

6 MS. BARHYDT: So maybe the major component

7 list or something like that would make me feel a little

8 better about it. I can imagine companies, not anyone

9 at the table, but I can imagine companies that if they

10 find out that, oh, they're going to test this model,

11 we'll swap out this better motor, this better

12 compressor, and if I don't have enough information

13 about what their norm is, I will never know.

14 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. It's

15 one thing to talk about last time was like the

16 verification of the building material. The

17 manufacturer's nature, I submit some basic component

18 information, what the coil is, what the compressor is.

19 We're allowed optional compressor, so I may use a ZR20 120 and my optional compressor is a ZR-121. And that's

21 listed with AHRI and that information, the basic

22 component information, is checked prior to testing.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

44

1 And we discussed the possibility of using the safety

2 component listing or at least some basic components off

3 of that because that lists everything. All the

4 electrical components really don't affect--you know,

5 pressure switches and things of that nature, we have

6 zero effect on performance. But you could use a safety

7 agency report to verify the components that are in the

8 unit that's being energy audited.

9 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI.

10 That does vary from program to program, though. All

11 programs do not require that kind of a verification of

12 the component level.

13 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. I

14 think, though, that the point--or what I'm taking from

15 it--is there are ways to check our component list. I

16 know ours are in the safety file, a lot of the motors

17 and things that would be energy--would affect the

18 energy drawing (phonetic 49:10). So I don't see a

19 reason why we couldn't check the UL files against

20 whatever model you have.

21 MR. EISNER: Are there differences in

22 manufacturing? If you're trying to make a lot of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

45

1 products quickly and you're cutting corners, even

2 though you've got all the right components in, could

3 pieces be cut a little too short, there's leakage where

4 there shouldn't be leakage affecting the results? And

5 then all of a sudden you've got to produce one for a

6 test, you make sure everything's cut perfectly or

7 everything is--

8 MS. DANE: I speak for my organization and

9 the organization before me that I worked for 20 years,

10 abut our equipment would go down the line and we have

11 final inspection. And so at final inspection they're

12 testing, you know, pressures, they're testing leakage,

13 they're testing, you know, things like that. So we can

14 catch a lot of that all models that go into the boxes.

15 So you would have to define "cut corners" because

16 that's not usually a business practice.

17 MR. EISNER: But again, it may not be usual

18 business practice, but, you know, for example, cars,

19 they're not all made the same. And when they're

20 rushing them out, they do, you know, cut corners and

21 things and they fit pieces that shouldn't have been fit

22 in, but they're more interested in getting the product
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

46

1 off the line and out to the market, hoping nobody will

2 notice the difference in efficiency. You know, the

3 thing doesn't fit as perfectly as it should, you know,

4 the fit and finish.

5 MS. DANE: Right. We're smaller and I don't

6 see mass production as causing something like that.

7 It's like a refrigerator made on Monday is a

8 refrigerator made on Friday. We don't have the same

9 problem as a Friday afternoon car.

10 MR. EISNER: I remember buying a car with the

11 wrong transmission in it. You know, the apology is,

12 oh, this was meant for another vehicle, not this model.

13 How did it get in my car?

14 MS. DANE: That's why you would have UL file

15 the check.

16 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. You

17 know, I don't think there's much likelihood of that.

18 It's not like you cut copper short or if you have

19 leaks. That's a defect. And we all have warranties

20 that we try to keep some kind of control over because

21 our stockholders beat us up about whenever our warranty

22 costs gets very high. And we would be claiming a defect
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

47

1 if we shipped that one and it was leaking refrigerant

2 everywhere and it had no charge when you tried to test

3 it. So I don't think that's a big deal.

4 The big deal is the selection of the

5 component and what the component variance is as far as

6 what affects efficiency. You not, fit and finish and

7 whether it looks nice is kind of another deal, but I

8 don't think there's a whole lot of QC that has to do

9 with workmanship that affects efficiency, at least

10 that's in my product anyway, the way ours are built.

11 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I

12 think the usual problem might be a shift change unit

13 where one shift is leaving, the other one's coming in,

14 and they're not sure what's been done. And that's when

15 things generally get messed up. It's not intentional.

16 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. I think

17 that was a good point to raise, you know, and I think

18 what it goes back to, also, is when we were talking

19 about doing testing and manufacturers being present or

20 whatever. It would end up even if that was just sent

21 to a third party potentially with I'll say non22 conforming components, if they did a third party test
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

48

1 and they found it was enough to send it out of

2 tolerance, the manufacturer would say it was a

3 defective unit anyway if, you know, it was a third

4 party not using that component verification. So I

5 think, yes, there's variations in manufacturing that

6 can affect that. If it was enough to throw it out, I

7 think it would be considered, like I said, a defective

8 unit if it's much off of what the expected values were.

9 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. There

10 are mistakes that happen and a lot of it I think

11 relates around seals, whether it's a polymer seal that

12 is along sort of a weather strip seal that can be

13 stretched and maybe not be actually cut the right

14 length or a silicone seal that's put on something and

15 maybe not applied appropriately. I don't know that you

16 can really tie errors like that which might affect any

17 of us as manufacturers to high run or busy times

18 because you can also have off-season where you have a

19 lower level of-- fewer employees working on the line as

20 we staff up for the different times. And a lot of

21 those are problems in design or work constructions that

22 just haven't been caught or clarified to prevent those
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

49

1 kinds of errors. It's something that I think that all

2 of us as manufacturers struggle against, but you can't

3 necessarily tie that to peak season.

4 Oh, and also, those would not be tied to a

5 part number as far as, you know, you wouldn't check

6 that and say, oh, this fan is this and know that

7 there's a seal problem.

8 MS. BARHYDT: I think the idea of the way

9 AHRI does it actually concerns me a little bit more. I

10 would rather have--I'm picturing the people on the

11 line. And if somebody from AHRI is standing there

12 watching them make this thing, then I the worker am not

13 going to do exactly what I do every single day, just

14 mindlessly doing my job. I'm going to think there are

15 people standing here watching me. I'm going to make

16 sure I do this exactly right.

17 MR. HURST: You're correct, but, believe it

18 or not, that's not what always happens. As a matter of

19 fact, we find that when they're being watched they

20 screw up more.

21 MS. BARHYDT: More.

22 (Laughter.)
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

50

1 MR. HURST: You know, I think the challenge

2 is--

3 MS. BARHYDT: It makes them nervous.

4 MR. HURST: You know, I don't know if you say

5 it facetiously or you mean it. This is John Hurst with

6 Lennox. A lot of the people at this table have large

7 national account customers and we wouldn't be in

8 business very long or our brand wouldn't be worth

9 anything if we habitually cheated.

10 I'm concerned, too, about the bad actor in

11 the industry that maybe imports. I don't know how

12 you're going to pull that inventory. Do you do it at--

13 MS. BARHYDT: That's another topic I wanted

14 to talk about.

15 MR. HURST: Yeah. So, you know, you could

16 show up at the point of import or the distributor.

17 Don't turn on the sirens, you know, so you don't give

18 anybody advance warning that you're coming down the

19 street. But, you know, we own our own distribution and

20 many of our business units, so, you know, you have a

21 bigger, broader array of products to pick from. You

22 might not get exactly what you're looking for, but you
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

51

1 would get a representative sample that, you know, is

2 "out of the box."

3 But I'm concerned with not necessarily what

4 we're doing, but how you're going to maybe pull from

5 somebody that's importing, that may be a bad actor in

6 the marketplace. And I want it to be fair, but, at the

7 same time, you know, I'm concerned with how we would

8 provide you with the product as well.

9 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi.

10 You know, we bring our equipment from the Far East and

11 we're not a bad actor. But, you know, we have--the way

12 the process is done is it's just like unitary

13 equipment, that, you know, everybody gets a list of

14 models and then randomly things are selected. You

15 know, we have to bring three of each kind and then the

16 inspector comes in and picks. I mean, there's no way

17 to game that system. So, you know, it's--

18 MR. HURST: Yeah, Paul, I'm not really

19 referring to--you know, I know a lot of us manufacture

20 offshore. Your company's a reputable company. It's not

21 the Rheems and the Mitsubishis and the Daikins that I'm

22 worried about. It's the Acmes and the ABC and, you
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

52

1 know, they're here today and gone tomorrow. That's

2 more of the type of offshore manufacturer that I'm

3 referring to.

4 MR. DOPPEL: Right. But, you know, again, if

5 the procedures are set up similar to what AHRI does, I

6 think the AHRI process does a good job in randomly

7 selecting what needs to be--you know, what should be

8 brought forth for testing. So I think that process is

9 good and I would be in favor of, you know, extending

10 something similar to that for the Acmes or those kind

11 of people.

12 MR. HURST: If they're participating, right?

13 MR. DOPPEL: Well, no. If they are

14 manufacturing, if they're bringing in, then they would

15 have to participate in the DoE, that's what I'm saying,

16 so if DoE adopted something similar.

17 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. And

18 just another point to make is we all have quality

19 inspectors online almost every day. We have industrial

20 engineers doing time studies, so it's more than norm to

21 have somebody looking over their shoulder watching them

22 build that unit than it is the exception. So, yeah, to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

53

1 address your comment about, you know, they may not be

2 doing it the same way they always do it if somebody's

3 sitting there looking over their shoulder. It may not

4 actually be a correct characterization because you've

5 got those people going up and down the line all the

6 time. It's kind of a normal practice.

7 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. And I

8 understand your concern and if I was outside I'd have

9 the same concern. But what I find in my company, you

10 know, we build a lot of the--especially the smaller

11 products we'll build three units and AHRI will pick

12 one. And because we're providing those units, the way

13 we run our company, those go through as zero-dollar

14 cost units. Our production people are very focused on

15 how many dollars a day they put out. What actually

16 happens is extremely difficult to get them to build

17 them and do it in a timely manner. They are not paying

18 any special attention to it. They don't even want them

19 on the line for the most part. So, you know, getting

20 them built and done and the right schedule takes a lot

21 of effort from the engineering management part and the

22 certification people in the company.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

54

1 So, you know, I think being overly concerned

2 with the fact that we know something is being tagged

3 for this particular application for tests is not always

4 the case. You know, I assume that if you spend a lot

5 effort, you could do that, but I don't think that's

6 happening with the most of the people that are doing

7 it.

8 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi.

9 You know, I would submit that if a company was bad

10 enough an actor, you could have witness there observing

11 production and they could build--they could cheat right

12 under your nose and you wouldn't even know it. The

13 witness wouldn't even know it. So, you know, I don't

14 think anyone around this table is like that.

15 I don't think members of the industry are

16 like that. And, you know, we all are trying to do the

17 best we can for our customers. And like John said, we

18 wouldn't be in business if we continually made products

19 that weren't up to the best standards that we could.

20 And so, you know, to me I'm almost kind of insulted in

21 that, you know, we're having to justify this. Because

22 as manufacturers we're there trying to do the best we
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

55

1 can and no one's intentionally trying to cheat. And if

2 we have to do a standard based on someone--you know,

3 assuming someone's going to cheat, then, you know,

4 that's just--that sheds a very bad light on

5 manufacturers that should not be shed.

6 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. To that

7 point, what we're trying to do is keep those bad actors

8 from doing their thing and I don't think putting

9 additional burden on everybody is necessarily the right

10 step. We do have a challenge process. If someone is

11 out there and is hurting our business because they're

12 making claims that we know to be incorrect, we buy

13 their units, we can run those tests, and provide that

14 data to DoE and have that focus from DoE be on the bad

15 actor as opposed to spreading an undue burden on the

16 vast majority of manufacturers that are not bad actors.

17 So it seems like the challenge process and all that

18 that entails would be the better way to focus the

19 effort.

20 MS. BARHYDT: So I don't have a lot of

21 experience with this, but I have one experience with

22 this. And in that case the units we got that the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

56

1 manufacturer built for us did not perform the same as

2 the units we got off the shelf. And I don't think it

3 was any redesign. I don't think it was any intentional

4 change. I think the people on the line knew that their

5 company's reputation was going to be on the line if

6 these things failed. And they paid a lot more

7 attention and care, and everything that came off the

8 line was just a little bit better than everything that

9 had come off the line before. And that was enough to

10 make the difference in them passing.

11 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I

12 would say that at least from the production employee

13 standpoint, there's not enough that regular production

14 employees can do that would make much more than a

15 percent difference in performance because you're

16 building off of prints. Coils when they're made,

17 engineering typically puts tolerance on them. It may

18 be 16 fins per inch plus or minus half of a fin per

19 inch. And, you know, manufacturers do that, too. You

20 know, we control our incoming material inventory,

21 material planning. All that's very important to the

22 company, so we make sure that we--the absolute most
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

57

1 they could do is within the tolerance.

2 As others have indicated, there's quality

3 assurance checks that are always done, so they may go

4 to the high side of a thin tolerance that's on a print

5 (phonetic 1:04:15), but the compressors are, you know--

6 I think very few of us, except one, make our own

7 compressors. So if you're checking the components that

8 are installed I can't put a different compressor in

9 that's going to be significantly better without AHRI

10 knowing about it. I can't.

11 And the same thing with motors. You know, I

12 have a certain motor, a fan blade or moving system. I

13 tell them about how much airflow is on the condenser

14 and that's measured. So I don't personally see how

15 production employees could make a difference there.

16 MR. EISNER: I mean, I think that's an

17 important point. And I think one thing that should be

18 made clear, you guys have all referred to yourselves

19 as, you know, being in business and not wanting to take

20 a chance. None of you would be here today if your

21 company wasn't willing to spend a lot of money to send

22 you here to help develop these standards. Somebody
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

58

1 made the good point there are some bad actors, and I

2 think that's what Laura's talking about.

3 My experience working in the safety area was

4 I was shocked at some of the things some companies

5 would do. They didn't intentionally do what they did

6 thinking it would cause any harm, but they knew they

7 were cutting corners.

8 And I think that's why it was interesting, I

9 think yesterday, we talked about the idea that maybe we

10 don't--because I think it's a very good point--impose

11 extra requirements on the good guys because there are

12 some bad guys out there. The concept of if you do fail

13 a test of some kind, then you'll have to do more tests

14 in the future is one way to go about this. I don't

15 think anybody is suggesting you guys are bad actors. I

16 think there is a possibility there will always be one

17 there. In my area, and sometimes I'm sure in the energy

18 area, the area I came from the reason we were

19 regulating was because somebody really screwed up. And

20 again, not necessarily intentionally. But now when the

21 government's there coming in to check, people have to

22 be a little bit more careful and it's just the way
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

59

1 people are. I agree with the idea.

2 Again, the same issue in the safety area. Do

3 you want someone looking over your shoulder while

4 you're operating a piece of safety equipment? No,

5 because it sometimes does make people more nervous.

6 These are all the different kinds of things we have to

7 figure out how to address here today. And maybe the

8 solution to everybody's concern is something like more

9 testing for those who fail. We'll set it here. You

10 have a failed test, you'll do more next year. If you

11 have more failed tests, it'll be increasing.

12 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

13 National. I agree with and, you know, it is. We were

14 talking about earlier putting some teeth behind it. In

15 that year if you have a failure, you have to do

16 additional testing.

17 I think on the other side of that, on the

18 reducing the burden for those manufacturers that are

19 not having issues, the, you know, possibility of

20 incorporating component level verification and

21 correlating inspections, again, gets to--giving you

22 some assurance that what's being produced off the line
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

60

1 is going to have that, you know, repetitive--is going

2 to be within those tolerances that you expect.

3 I know when a unit's built, you know, I think

4 pretty much everybody in here when you initially are

5 going to list a product and you send it to your lab to

6 test to figure out what the energy's going to be, your

7 lab guys are going to go over that unit and make sure

8 it was built right. Because, you know, you want to

9 have it basically to understand that it's been built

10 properly and that, you know, you've really gone through

11 that. And it's a lot of times not just a typical unit

12 off the production line. I mean, and that's part of

13 why we built in, you know, that a manufacturer can de14 rate or whatever, that they can, you know--if you know

15 that what you've built is your optimum, you want to

16 have that, making sure that you're going to

17 consistently be able to make that number.

18 And that's, I think, why we came up with the

19 kind of one-sided tolerances where you're talking about

20 something, if it's going below what the standard is,

21 that would--I would not expect that production guys

22 could screw a unit up enough that it's going to still
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

61

1 run, but it's not going to--you know, again, I'd be

2 more concerned about that the unit's not going to hold

3 temperature and I'm going to basically have food

4 spoilage or other issues of that unit get out into the

5 field. Because those holding temperature and things

6 are pretty much directly related to what the energy--

7 you know, how much it's going to be running, percent

8 runtime and things like that that are going to directly

9 affect the efficiency.

10 So, again, I think the possibility of

11 component- level verification, which is already a part

12 of a lot of manufacturers are doing or pretty much

13 everybody for UL or sanitation, you know, it could be

14 considered to be part of this and it would help to give

15 that assurance that everything coming off the line is

16 consistently performing about the same.

17 MR. HURST: Laura, on the example you gave

18 where it didn't meet the standard, was that pulled out

19 of inventory? You tested it and then they re20 manufactured the same product and, lo and behold, it

21 passed?

22 MS. BARHYDT: So this was a high-volume
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

62

1 production product. And under DoE's statistics we test

2 four and then, depending on the standard deviation,

3 it's either indeterminate, passes, or fails.

4 MR. HURST: Okay.

5 MS. BARHYDT: It came out indeterminate after

6 the first four. The first four we pulled off of a

7 truck. The remainder of them they manufactured for us

8 to test, and it was that remainder that didn't perform

9 the same as the first four.

10 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. Did

11 you check the components? Did you do it?

12 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, they were the same.

13 MR. AMRANE: They were the same, huh?

14 MR. HURST: Really? Testing tolerance.

15 MS. BARHYDT: And that's why I think--it was

16 a small company and I think that probably everybody on

17 that line, probably everyone in the company knew that--

18 MR. HURST: What did the company being with--

19 MS. BARHYDT: --DoE was investigating.

20 MR. HURST: --what letter?

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. HURST: No, and I think that's kind of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

63

1 your answer. If you want a custom-built product--you

2 know, look, if you're going to cheat, you're going to

3 cheat. I mean, you could come in and say, you know, we

4 want this--

5 MS. BARHYDT: Well, see, I don't think that

6 they were trying to cheat, I really honestly--

7 MR. HURST: They just had a manufacturing

8 process issue that they fixed.

9 MS. BARHYDT: That they fixed.

10 MR. HURST: That they fixed, right.

11 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi.

12 Years ago, when we changed from R22 to R410(a), you

13 know, there was a big change in the operating pressure

14 of the systems. And one company came out sooner than

15 others and they made a big deal about the fact that

16 they had fewer installation defects than they did with

17 R22. Well, the reason was the installers were scared

18 to death with this new higher operating pressure, so,

19 you know, they were more careful about what they did.

20 So, you know, I mean, those things can happen and it

21 can make a difference.

22 MR. EISNER: Do you guys have other ideas,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

64

1 like requiring extra testing that could help?

2 MS. BARHYDT: Well, actually before we talk

3 about that, when we talked about how to get the units

4 and there was unanimity, I think, about not getting it

5 from a distributor, but where do we get them for

6 imports? Are we going to get those from a distributor?

7 Because if we are, then we can't mark that off the

8 list.

9 MR. HURST: I think you'd have to.

10 MR. THARP: Rusty with Goodman. I would say,

11 yeah, for the import product you don't have a choice

12 except to get it from a distribution.

13 MS. HOOTMAN: Unless you want to be spending

14 lots of time overseas.

15 MS. BARHYDT: If only.

16 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. You going to have the

17 budget for that?

18 MR. HURST: The garden spots.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Trust me, the foreign

20 manufacturers are picky (phonetic 1:12:00).

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. WHITWELL: Hey, Laura, this is Bob
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

65

1 Whitwell. Speaking of--can you hear me?

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

3 MR. WHITWELL: Speaking of imports, I was

4 thinking about our motor option issue and related to

5 imports. So is there a way that the DoE ensures that

6 those motors that are used in those imports, if they're

7 general purpose motors, that they do meet the DoE

8 minimum? I know this is kind of a side question.

9 MS. BARHYDT: So all of the motors that

10 compliant, motors are the only product that have this

11 requirement, they actually have a marking requirement.

12 And it's a CC number, it's a compliance certification

13 number, and we can crosslink that number to our

14 database.

15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. So that would be one of

16 the things that would be checked if an imported product

17 were to be audited.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, and we'd be looking to

19 make sure that it had the CC number on it and that the

20 CC number was a legit number.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, thanks.

22 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. Are all those
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

66

1 motors regulated, though? Because some of them--

2 MS. BARHYDT: He specifically said the

3 general purpose motors.

4 MR. FLY: Oh, the general purpose, okay.

5 MS. BARHYDT: So if we put distributor back

6 on the list--

7 MR. EISNER: Do you want to limit it to

8 foreign manufacturers?

9 MS. BARHYDT: Well, then that's my question.

10 I mean, we can't say that--

11 MS. HOOTMAN: You can't test at a

12 distributor. You're not going to have a testing

13 facility at a distributor.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

15 MS. HOOTMAN: So, I mean, that's under test,

16 but where it comes from or where you get it selected

17 might be the distributor.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there was some discussion

19 yesterday about whether or not where we get the unit

20 should be different depending on whether the testing

21 was being done at a third-party lab or if it was at a

22 satellite manufacturer lab in trying to balance the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

67

1 different level of certainty that DoE has.

2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, and I think it was

3 possibly Bob and I who said strike the supplied-by

4 distributor and retail off-the-shelf. Because in a

5 U.S. manufacturer, if you're going to our U.S.

6 distribution, it's already been sold, so we would have

7 to buy it back from them. That's at an increased cost.

8 Same thing with a retail off-the- shelf.

9 Now, when you're talking about a foreign

10 manufacturer I think your only choice is to select that

11 from the distributor in the U.S.

12 MS. BARHYDT: So what about the products that

13 you import? Are they not coming into your warehouses?

14 MS. MEYERS: Yes and no. But I think it's

15 also very important that it be--if we're going to keep

16 distributor on there, that it be a manufacturer17 authorized distributor. Because when we have--for the

18 people that we sign up for Rheem distributors, we make

19 them handle the units a specific way and do all those

20 other things. So if you get it from some random

21 Internet provider, then we have no idea how these units

22 have been handled or anything like that. So I do think
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

68

1 that's an important point, so thank you.

2 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I

3 think we need to watch that we don't use the

4 "distributor" term like for two different things.

5 Because our Mitsubishi operation, we do distribute to

6 distributors, so that's two levels of distributors. So

7 if we call like one maybe the OEM distributor and the

8 other just a plain distributor, something along those

9 lines.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, you're saying by the time

11 you get to the second level in your case, you're just

12 like--

13 MR. DOPPEL: It's the same, yeah.

14 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, it's an added--

15 MR. DOPPEL: It's the same.

16 MS. HOOTMAN: It's an added--

17 MR. DOPPEL: We'd have to buy it back.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, buy it back. Yeah, okay.

19 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell from

20 Carrier. So in DoE's mind how would that work? If

21 you're going to get a unit from a distributor is this

22 where you would come to the manufacturer and you would
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

69

1 say we want to test--or these are the units that are

2 selected for the verification test program, and they're

3 build-to-stock models. So first we would look to see

4 if we have it in our warehouse. If not, then do we

5 pull our distribution to see if we have a unit in our

6 distribution somewhere or is the DoE going to just go

7 out and dig around and try to find each unit? I would

8 prefer it if it's the former, where DoE comes to the

9 manufacturer and says we have--these units are selected

10 for the verification program. Are they build-to-stock

11 models? If they're build-to-stock models, then do you

12 have them in inventory in your warehouse or are you

13 aware of them being available in a distributor?

14 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I think he's

15 trying to say let's get a priority list. Number one is

16 manufacturer's stock. If it's there, it would be first

17 priority to choose from. Secondly, distributor stock.

18 Thirdly, manufactured build.

19 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, that's part of it. The

20 other thing, Charlie, is I'm just thinking that since

21 the manufacturer's paying for these units and the

22 tests, I'm not sure that I want DoE to go to a
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

70

1 distributor and try to get the unit directly from the

2 distributor without the manufacturer being able to say,

3 yes, that's an authorized distributor, to Karen's

4 point.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Don't your authorized

6 distributors advertise that fact?

7 MR. HURST: (Off microphone.)

8 MS. BARHYDT: I'm a Carrier-authorized

9 distributor.

10 MR. HURST: Yes.

11 MR. WHITWELL: I suppose they would, yes.

12 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Not

13 for some of the smaller manufacturers.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

15 MR. EISNER: If we discussed yesterday that

16 it's more expensive to get it from the distributor, and

17 it doesn't go from the foreign manufacturer directly to

18 the distributor, it goes through the company, why

19 wouldn't we wait until the company just got more from

20 the foreign distributor and limit the distributor to

21 the situation when it comes from the foreign

22 manufacturer directly to the distributor?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

71

1 MS. BARHYDT: So my concern is that we not

2 impose a higher burden on the foreign manufacturers.

3 MR. EISNER: It's not a higher burden. If it

4 never comes through the American manufacturer, the only

5 way you can get it is from the distributor.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Right, but if I am a foreign

7 manufacturer and I'm selling stuff in to the United

8 States, and I the foreign OEM am responsible for its

9 importation, but then it goes to a variety of different

10 distributors, I necessarily am going to have to buy

11 back my units whereas a lot of other manufacturers do

12 not.

13 MR. EISNER: Well, why not simply say in that

14 situation a foreign manufacturer has the option of

15 supplying one directly to the American manufacturer for

16 the testing?

17 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there's not always an

18 American manufacturer on the other end.

19 MR. EISNER: It's just a company selling

20 somebody else's product?

21 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah.

22 MR. EISNER: Well, why doesn't the foreign
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

72

1 manufacturer just send it directly to the place that's

2 going to do the testing?

3 MS. BARHYDT: Would you all be comfortable

4 with that?

5 MR. HURST: No.

6 MS. BARHYDT: I didn't think so.

7 MR. EISNER: It's not worth repeating, I

8 guess.

9 MR. HURST: Well, you wind up with the same

10 scenario you talked about earlier where potentially

11 somebody could--if you knew that the test was coming,

12 you modify your manufacturing process or change

13 componentry to rig the result of the test.

14 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I

15 mean, essentially you have the same situation of an OEM

16 distribution warehouse with, you know, the importers as

17 you do with a Rheem or a Trane or a Carrier on the

18 stock items. I mean, we have stocked items. The only

19 difference is that it may take two hours or less to get

20 from their factory to their warehouse, but it takes us,

21 you know, six weeks or so. So that's the primary

22 difference. It's not like everything comes in and then
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

73

1 suddenly has gone out to our other distributors.

2 MR. LIN: Laura, if I may. This is Paul with

3 Regal-Beloit. I just wanted to go back on that motor

4 question.

5 The Customs officials may understand to look

6 at the general purpose duty motor and look for a CC

7 number if that particular Customs official understood

8 what a general purpose duty motor was.

9 The second point is if it's inside of the

10 equipment, that particular Customs official won't know

11 whether or not that particular motor inside the

12 equipment is a general purpose duty and would have to

13 be checked, whether or not they had to have a CC number

14 on it.

15 MS. BARHYDT: I think the earlier question

16 was would the test lab be checking for that as part of

17 the testing process. I don't remember now who asked

18 the question.

19 MR. WHITWELL: You're right, that's really

20 what my question was.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, Paul, back to what

22 you were talking about. So I think what you were
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

74

1 saying was that your foreign manufactured products come

2 in, they go into one of your warehouses. They may sit

3 there for a while, then they may go to a distributor

4 and sit there for a while, and then eventually filter

5 through the chain. And my concern is for the foreign

6 manufacturer who does not have an American presence and

7 is simply selling the products into the United States

8 and it's going to a variety of distributors, that

9 foreign manufacturer is necessary going to have to buy

10 back units for testing unless we let them ship directly

11 to a lab. Whereas if we get them from you, out of your

12 warehouse, you're not having to buy them back.

13 MR. DOPPEL: Generally speaking, what happens

14 with the AHRI process is that, you know, if they ask

15 for a certain--especially on the one-to-ones, if they

16 ask for a certain model and we don't have any in our

17 stock, but we have a comparable one, then, you know, a

18 change is made and then the new one is randomly

19 selected. You know, if not, then we'd have to say,

20 well, you know, give us 90 days, 120 days, and we would

21 get--

22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so you were raising a
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

75

1 timing issue.

2 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

4 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. So, I mean, we could get

5 the product made available, but it would take--and

6 again, building it and having it shipped, or we could

7 air freight it at your expense.

8 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill. I'm going to

9 have to talk to some people here because we have to be

10 real careful that we're not creating a barrier to

11 trade, so. But I share your concerns, which is why for

12 me the easiest case is to require everyone to buy the

13 unit back because then everybody's treated equally.

14 But I understand your also not wanting to pay the extra

15 costs, so.

16 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. I

17 mean, just speaking for our company, I don't think

18 we've ever had to buy a unit back in order to satisfy

19 models for AHRI testing. I don't remember ever having

20 to do that. I don't know about the other manufacturers,

21 but.

22 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill from Trane.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

76

1 Right, Paul, but I think it's because AHRI, we can

2 usually go back to them and say we have this issue,

3 here is a comparable model and so we'd get a

4 reselection up to the amount that we're already

5 obligated to. So it's that flexibility that you are

6 allowed to have the reselection. If it has to be that

7 exact model, then we're sometimes stuck. Yeah, I think

8 we would be stuck, but AHRI has that flexibility.

9 I like Neil's idea of, you know, for those of

10 us that are being very responsible and doing it, I

11 don't think we need to pay for the fact that there are

12 the bad actors. So requiring more rigorous testing,

13 you know, they go into a penalty mode, whatever you

14 want to call it, and such that they get more rigor on

15 them for the bad actors than for the people who are

16 doing it every day. We don't need to, you know, pay for

17 that bad apple.

18 MS. BARHYDT: So I understand that, but if we

19 don't have strict enough requirements on that first

20 test, we'll never get one that fails. We won't catch

21 the bad actor to impose an additional penalty. If

22 they're able to game whatever system we come up with,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

77

1 then they're not going to be at risk of the higher

2 penalty.

3 MR. HURST: Well, I think you have to show up

4 at the facility then and say what do you have in

5 inventory and you have to test that. Otherwise, you

6 know, we want to test the 1-2-3-4. Don't have any in

7 stock. Going to have to build it. I mean, if you need

8 to get to that level, then I think you have to pick

9 from what's in inventory. And then maybe there's some

10 leniency down the road once you see producers or

11 manufacturers that are behaving, that consistently

12 pass. Then maybe you relax to a different standard.

13 But I think if that's what you're trying to accomplish,

14 I don't know of another way to do it.

15 MR. EISNER: I thought you were also, but

16 maybe in the back-and-forth we've eliminated this test,

17 I thought you were going to do some spot-checking on

18 your own if you bought something in the commercial

19 market.

20 MS. BARHYDT: So actually, no. Somebody said

21 that earlier, too, so I wanted to clarify that. So our

22 idea is that everybody would be in a DoE-approved
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

78

1 verification program and we think that we can come up

2 with some parameters for those so that we can balance

3 all of the different concerns, but everybody would have

4 to be in a verification program. And because everybody

5 would have a certain level of verification going on,

6 DoE could use its resources in other ways. We would

7 still be doing complaints. We would still be doing

8 rulemaking testing and we would still do enforcement

9 testing. So the assessment testing would be limited to

10 investigating problems.

11 MR. EISNER: Okay, so complaints made. What

12 about some kind of a minimum standard where a certain

13 number of tests have to be done on something that's in

14 stock?

15 MS. BARHYDT: That's kind of what I was

16 thinking. Maybe we can come up with some hybrid here

17 where not everything is coming from--

18 MR. EISNER: Right off the assembly line.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Right off the assembly line,

20 but where at least some amount of in-stock items are

21 being tested and in that way reduce the burden.

22 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. I guess
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

79

1 I would like to understand your concern a little bit

2 better. Are you saying, for example, that you're

3 concerned with the way AHRI is doing its verification

4 program, for example, today?

5 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think that DoE would

6 want to adopt exactly what AHRI is doing.

7 MR. AMRANE: Because? Well, I don't know,

8 let's talk about it. I want to know.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Because we are concerned about

10 the issues with having units built for tests.

11 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. To that

12 point and answering or commenting on your question,

13 we'll never catch the bad actors. I've been to a

14 number of annual reports from AHRI and, at least within

15 the commercial programs, just about every year there

16 are annual verification tests that are failed. There's

17 a report on that and they're always looking at that

18 level of failure. And that is with forewarning of, you

19 know, we need a selection of these models. The system,

20 that process works.

21 MR. EISNER: That kind of data in the

22 preamble could also help explain why you're coming out
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

80

1 where you are.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah.

3 MR. AMRANE: Laura, I mean, maybe Bill can

4 elaborate on this, but we don't have 100 percent, you

5 know, tests.

6 MS. BARHYDT: No, I understand that. And I

7 hedged my statement that if the system we come up with

8 is not stringent enough, if it's got too many ways to

9 game the system. So, for example, one of the things

10 that a lot of people are pushing for is to allow the

11 satellite testing with no witness. You don't allow

12 that. So, I mean, there's some balances here where if

13 you're going to allow one, you got to kind of tighten

14 up somewhere else.

15 MR. EISNER: Are your statistics precise

16 enough while still remaining anonymous to indicate that

17 some companies are worse than others, so, therefore, a

18 penalty program would have an effect?

19 MR. AMRANE: Actually we do have--this is

20 Karim with AHRI. We do have a penalty program in our

21 system because that's how--that's the incentive for

22 people not to fail.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

81

1 MR. EISNER: And what's the percentage you

2 could penalize, roughly?

3 MR. AMRANE: Well, maybe Bill can elaborate.

4 MR. TRITSIS: Yes, look, this is Bill

5 Tritsis,

6 AHRI. There is a reason why manufacturers

7 spend the money to join a credible certification

8 program or verification program if you want to call it:

9 to distinguish themselves from the bad actors. Okay?

10 A program like AHRI that has existed for over 60 years,

11 and in the absence of DoE during, you know, a

12 regulatory enforcement, you know, it was AHRI that was

13 doing this very enforcement. Okay? And the

14 manufacturers who join the programs are, again, joining

15 the programs to distinguish themselves. There are

16 certain rules and elements that exist in a credible

17 verification program that have proven themselves in the

18 AHRI system, okay, such as the challenge testing

19 procedure, the ability to do what we call discretionary

20 testing. AHRI has a budget for discretionary testing

21 that's over and above the annual testing, where we go

22 and select units, you know, other distributors, some of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

82

1 the points that you mentioned here.

2 And yes, there are provisions, monetary

3 penalty provisions, or if you want to call it profiling

4 during the continuous annual testing that we have put

5 in place, where we know, you know, what the target,

6 certain products perhaps I might have doubts on. Okay?

7 But yes, there are failure rates in each and every

8 program.

9 MR. EISNER: And there some that are a lot

10 worse than others.

11 MR. TRITSIS: Correct.

12 MR. EISNER: And do you have any data that

13 indicates whether the penalty provision works? Can you

14 see a company here, after the penalties are imposed,

15 they start coming--

16 MR. TRITSIS: Absolutely, because the burden

17 is such, either in monetary penalties or additional

18 testing.

19 MR. EISNER: This could be a good way to

20 balance the budget.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

83

1 mean, I just happened to remember I think the number's

2 like $10,000 per failure once you go over kind of the

3 minimum. So, I mean, that's very stiff.

4 MR. EISNER: What's interesting is this is a

5 voluntary program.

6 MR. DOPPEL: Yes.

7 MR. EISNER: Yours is not a voluntary

8 program.

9 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'll

10 throw in, you know, there's a probation mode and a

11 penalty mode. And internally and (inaudible) very

12 small engineering committee meetings that we've been

13 discussing, we refer to AHRI's penalty mode as the

14 death penalty because you don't want to get there

15 because it is so hard to get out that we feel it's

16 overly burdensome of what AHRI has put on us. So

17 that's what we refer--you know, that's the penalty

18 mode. We don't want to get there because it's

19 basically all testing is done--all testing for any new

20 product has to be done outside your labs.

21 MS. MEYERS: And this is Karen with Rheem.

22 And Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

84

1 failures that you can have that send you into either

2 probation or penalty mode are based upon the number of

3 basic model groups that you have. So, I mean, if

4 you're a small company and only have like two basic

5 model groups, you fail one test, you're in probation.

6 So we scaled it purposely because, you know, A, if you

7 have a ton of them, then, you know, it needs to be a

8 little bit comparable. So, you know, it's a pretty

9 stringent program that we put together. And there's a

10 lot of--it's caused a lot of heartache, but it's been

11 effective.

12 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. Karen

13 used the word "pretty stringent," I would say very

14 stringent. And I just want to reiterate the comment I

15 think Jill made yesterday that we spend millions of

16 dollars on the AHRI certification program and it's

17 pretty substantial. And I guess from what we've

18 discussed so far, my view is that what DoE is proposing

19 is a step below from AHRI has presently.

20 MR. TRITSIS: Laura. That's right. From

21 what I hear so far, in the two days I've been attending

22 these meetings, I mean, what is being discussed as part
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

85

1 of the verification program within DoE is several steps

2 below what we're doing. If we want to up the ante

3 here, I mean, we'd be more than happy to challenge you

4 and, you know, meet some of these conditions that

5 currently exist in our program.

6 And you know we've been reporting to you

7 product failures. Below federal minimums. Okay, it's

8 not a secret. So, not only does within AHRI, those

9 outside of AHRI that haven't been part of our challenge

10 program.

11 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. And I

12 agree with what everyone said here. The one point is

13 what Karen said about having it based on basic model

14 groups. It is very much a different situation for the

15 smaller manufacturers therefore the larger

16 manufacturers. Those penalties are--

17 MS. HOOTMAN: I don't agree with--

18 MR. STEPHENS: Those penalties are just about

19 the death penalty for smaller manufacturers. Having a

20 voluntary organization is one thing, but what we're

21 talking about is establishing a requirement and I could

22 not support having a requirement with that type of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

86

1 impact.

2 MR. EISNER: Again, penalties can be adjusted

3 so that they don't put companies out of business but

4 still hurt.

5 Let's go back to a government program that's

6 voluntary, the Energy Star program. As I understand

7 it, it's a level that's above the regulatory

8 requirement. A company comes in, I assume what they

9 are saying is, "We believe our equipment will qualify

10 for Energy Star." Do we know what percentage fails

11 when they are tested under Energy Star? In other

12 words, don't qualify for programs that they thought

13 they qualified for.

14 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, first of all with Energy

15 Star there's no margin of error, there's no five

16 percent tolerance. So, you have to be there for

17 commercial HVAC. So, Charlie if you're the jump in here

18 I don't know what the rules are--

19 MR. HON: Go ahead.

20 MS. HOOTMAN: For commercial HVAC, so it's

21 not the same as AHRI.

22 MR. EISNER: But again, my standard could be
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

87

1 here for Energy Star, you can have a little bit above

2 and a little bit below, do we even know how many would

3 have failed even with allowance for tolerance?

4 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss with Lochinvar.

5 Again, the Energy Star program, say for boilers the

6 threshold is 85 percent efficiency. If we have a 95

7 percent efficient appliance--

8 MR. EISNER: It would pass.

9 MR. KLEISS: We could be running 10 percent

10 below our rating and still pass. But if we had an 85

11 percent efficient appliance, we would have to hit our

12 number.

13 MR. EISNER: You would have to hit your

14 number. What I'm asking is do we know some that are at

15 88, 89 percent that don't pass the 85? Or do we know

16 some that miss 85 by being as low as 80? So that there

17 is some indication that a government-run program, a

18 voluntary program, companies are still failing. In

19 other words, you will pick up failures.

20 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I

21 believe the EPA makes those statistics available. I

22 think they've done some testing and DoE has been doing
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

88

1 the testing for EPA, too and the CBs are reporting to

2 EPA, so that's available.

3 MR. EISNER: I think now might be a good time

4 for 10, 15 minute break.

5 (Break.)

6 MR. EISNER: All right. Let's get started

7 again.

8 (Pause.)

9 MS. BARHYDT: So I talked to a couple of

10 people during the break and so just to explain a little

11 bit about where we're coming from, there are a lot of

12 variables in a verification program in our view is that

13 we want to come up with a system that gives us a high

14 level of confidence in the results coming out of the

15 testing. But that could be achieved, maybe through a

16 menu system of each individual program picks off of

17 this level for selection, this level for testing, this

18 higher level for some other part of the process.

19 So that as a whole any DoE program provides a

20 certain level of stringency. Maybe different people

21 will tailor in different ways and all that would be

22 reviewed by the Department to make sure that the plan,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

89

1 the program meets that level.

2 It's not so much that we are particularly

3 looking at anyone issue, saying we absolutely want this

4 answer. It's that as a whole we want each individual

5 DoE-approved their fixation program to reach a certain

6 level. And that could be through a balance of

7 different items. And that's why I was thinking, as I

8 said beginning of the meeting that maybe the way to go

9 about this is to come up with different variables. To

10 make sure everybody understands what the range of

11 options is. And then, we can talk about how those

12 combinations might work together to build a system that

13 provided that level of certainty.

14 Jeff you look like you have something to say.

15 MR. KLEISS: Sorry, my face is so telling.

16 Jeff Kleiss with Lochinvar.

17 I think I hear what you're saying, that if

18 we're going to give more latitude, say on product

19 selection, then we want to be tighter or have higher

20 assurances that they're using the specific components

21 or some other area to make sure that there is testing.

22 And I'm scrunching up my face, I guess, just because I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

90

1 believe that for most of the manufacturing processes

2 that you would have the problem of not being able to

3 pick something off the shelf; all of the worst-case

4 scenarios for your assurances exist within the same

5 types of manufacturing processes. I guess is where I'm

6 going.

7 And I'm somewhat skeptical that you're going

8 to be a double to balance them with some of the

9 process.

10 MS. BARHYDT: So little confidence.

11 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from

12 National. I think one of the things that's kind of

13 hitting me, Laura, in understanding the level of DoE's

14 concerns and our concerns, too, in making sure that we

15 weed out people. It seems to be pointing to the fact

16 that the DoE spot checking, which you know, is a

17 different set of rules. You can go and buy a unit off

18 the shelf or whatever, I think what this is sort of

19 pointing to is that, you know, kind of look at this as

20 annual verification versus DoE having a separate

21 program that's still spot checking and giving you that

22 level that what's pulled out of the box is going to do
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

91

1 it and everything else.

2 Obviously none of this stops that, but I

3 think this points to the fact that, you know, with

4 DoE's concerns that we'll need to continue to back this

5 up otherwise I just don't see a way and getting a

6 verification program that gives a level--on its own

7 gives that level that you're concerned about without

8 being a very big burden on manufacturers.

9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. What

10 strikes me is the same thing that manufacturers are up

11 against when we do reliability testing. It's the

12 number of samples required to test to obtain an

13 adequate confidence level. And from the manufacturers

14 position it's improbable that anyone could afford to

15 actually do all that testing to prove your reliability

16 at the required confidence level. But from your

17 perspective are you looking to make sure that every

18 individual manufacturer is good or are you looking at

19 the industry as a whole?

20 I see that because if you're looking at the

21 industry as a whole, then it may not be that difficult

22 for you to have enough data points to identify that on
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

92

1 average the industry is doing well or is doing poorly.

2 It's more of a mathematical calculation.

3 MR. SACHS: This Laura--

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. SACHS: Phillip, I may be missing

6 something but your question confuses me in the confuses

7 me from the perspective that I thought early on we had

8 established the principle that DoE would no longer have

9 tolerance bands but would have a one-sided tolerance

10 limit. We've also, certainly I think, gotten to the

11 point of saying if it's a one off as opposed to what

12 we've been talking about this morning; you only test

13 one because it is the universe. So, it seems to me to

14 a larger extent this burden of statistics has gone away

15 in that you have the choice of making as much headroom

16 as you feel is required for your product to get through

17 all the ambiguities of the test procedure. And you can

18 choose that based on your control of your practices and

19 your gut sense about the capabilities of the lab.

20 So, I don't know why it has to shift from the

21 individual product or even the individual manufacturer

22 to the product classes of whole. I may be
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

93

1 misunderstanding something.

2 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. What I'm

3 trying to do is I'm trying to find somewhere in the

4 middle that we could meet the DoE's objectives without

5 having an intense burden on any of the manufacturers.

6 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. We share

7 that objective, so I'm undoubtedly oversimplifying it,

8 I haven't been in your factory; but it seems to me that

9 this is a risk trade-off that you accepted. What

10 investment do you have to make to be sure if your

11 product is sampled it clears the bar, on a one-sided

12 basis, just like the CRE folks are having to do for

13 Energy Star. I don't--it's not my problem is you

14 decide you have to invest a lot of money to make it a

15 whole lot more efficient. That's your control in your

16 processes. So, I think we set up a system that aims to

17 put the responsibility where it belongs and as a side

18 benefit may give me a little more efficiency than you

19 wanted to.

20 MS. DANE: This is Mary Dane from Traulsen.

21 I think the difference between the Energy Star program

22 and the DoE program is that the DoE program is going to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

94

1 be mandatory, because we have to certify everything

2 before we place it on the market after a certain day.

3 So, I think what companies like Phillip's and

4 mine are trying to do, is we're trying to find a way to

5 beat the requirements and leverage what we're already

6 doing. You know, is there a way that within our test

7 parameters we can add one more step or do one more set

8 of certifications. So, you know, I want to be careful,

9 especially we start talking about tolerances, because a

10 lot of these people at this table believe that we voted

11 on tolerances based on qualifying in AEDM, not across

12 the board for everything we're talking about.

13 So, you know, I just want to say there some

14 different than when we start talking about qualities of

15 20 percent or higher, or more, you know, divided by

16 product families is because of the number of product

17 families and base model units we're talking about here,

18 these numbers are very important to us.

19 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, again. And Mary,

20 thank you. I had forgotten the actual vote was on the

21 AEDMs.

22 I think the principle is broadly applicable
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

95

1 in the benchmark that I want sort of aligns with

2 Laura's in this case. That I'd like to have a level

3 playing field for programs other than trade

4 association, other than AHRI, and I don't want it to be

5 any worse than AHRI's. So, if you can satisfy me with

6 any combination of magic numbers and business practices

7 and ISOs or whatever, that your no worse than AHRI, I'm

8 going to be a happy camper with Laura's or not.

9 MS. DANE: Understood, but right now

10 especially in CRE, a lot of us aren't in the program

11 because of the costs. I know that there is some

12 discussion on, you know, I've heard a lot of

13 manufacturers say about the millions of dollars they're

14 spending to be a part of those programs. CRE is just

15 not--I can't speak for all of the companies at the

16 table because we're small, but I think that would be

17 burdensome. Twenty percent is too high of a number for

18 us. So, we can get close and our testing could be more

19 stringent based on less numbers tested, so I too, would

20 like to see there be more options than just the AHRI

21 program.

22 MR. AMRANE: But Mary, I'm sorry just a
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

96

1 minute Harvey. Mary we don't have 20 percent for CRE

2 products and that's not the way we run our programs.

3 Actually, we have a maximum of (inaudible) here. So,

4 it's not 20 percent, okay.

5 MS. DANE: I'm only going by the numbers so

6 far that your membership's bringing up. As we test 20

7 percent, we press 20 percent. I want to make sure

8 Laura doesn't think, "Oh, that's great. We should just

9 sign up for 20 percent."

10 MR. AMRANE: No. What we test 20 percent is

11 the HVAC, I mean most of the HVAC products are this

12 way. But not CRE.

13 MS. DANE: Okay. So, that's the first time--

14 well, the second time, because Bill did tell me by

15 himself that you do test to units. I heard him tell

16 Charlie, but still the number we're throwing around at

17 this table is that it should be just like AHRI, as

18 stringent as them. And the only number I've heard up

19 to this point is 20 percent.

20 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly. It's 20 percent

21 of the basic model groups

22 MR. AMRANE: Right.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

97

1 MR. FLY: Not basic models. And the basic

2 model groups is probably 5:1 to 10:1 or more. We

3 really don't know.

4 MS. DANE: Have we decided what the number

5 basic models groups is yet? Because I still am looking

6 to do the math calculation based on the number of

7 whatever it is that we decide. I know Ron and said so

8 in the e-mail this morning and I'm saying we don't know

9 what that number is. So, we're kind of negotiating

10 blindly and it makes a difference to both the smaller

11 company and for our diverse product line.

12 So, sweetheart those numbers--

13 MR. TRITSIS: Mary.

14 MS. DANE: I wouldn't push the button so much

15 and say 20 percent is too high.

16 MR. TRITSIS: Bill Tritsis, AHRI.

17 Particularly for CRE in the AHRI program, there's six

18 product families. Twenty percent of six is--you can do

19 the math, up to two tests a year.

20 MR. AMRANE: And to answer your question

21 Mary, we're going to be coming up next weekend at least

22 show how the groupings are within AHRI and the number
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

98

1 of tests that we do for product category.

2 MR. SACHS: Mary, this is Harvey again. It's

3 a little detail, but I did not use the term stringent.

4 The concept that I want to give me assurance is that

5 it's no worse than AHRI at finding intentional

6 subversion of the standards. And that gives you lots

7 of trade-offs between numbers, quality of tests,

8 headroom of the product design, and lots of other

9 things. I'm not smart enough to judge that and I don't

10 think Laura is trained to, but that's the objective

11 that I have. It's not about stringency per se, that's

12 just one way to get to it. I think.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Any other thoughts on the menu

14 mix and match concept. We kind of went off on a

15 tangent.

16 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah we did, so say that again.

17 MS. BARHYDT: So what DoE wants to do is to

18 come up with a framework for parties, whether it's

19 industry groups, test labs, somebody who just wants to

20 go in the business for themselves, and manufacturer,

21 whoever to be able to read to regulations and say,

22 "Okay, I get it. I have to come up with a program to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

99

1 do verification testing that is going to provide some

2 level of reliability, independent, certainty that the

3 results are representative of the products being

4 produced."

5 And that can be achieved in a variety of

6 ways. And there are a lot of different factors and it's

7 not that DoE looks at anyone of these factors and says

8 we absolutely want third-party verification testing in

9 the lab, in a third-party lab.

10 It's that maybe you take the higher level

11 there and you let the foreign manufacturers ship it

12 directly from their facility in a foreign country. But

13 maybe there is a way to do some trade-offs so that when

14 you put it all together, you feel like that you've got

15 a system that works. But maybe another manufacturer

16 chooses to do in-house testing using a third or fourth

17 tier, whatever it is, of the lab but they have all of

18 their units are coming from distributors already out of

19 their control. But, as a whole it needs to reach a

20 certain level and maybe there are different ways to do

21 that. We don't feel like we necessarily have to tell

22 everyone has to do it this way.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

100

1 We think that programs can probably come up

2 with ways to meet that level to the DoE's satisfaction,

3 but also fit their needs.

4 MR. EISNER: This sounds like an if/then

5 table. If you are or if you verify in the following

6 way, then you must do the following. You list the

7 conditions for that. If you choose to verify this way,

8 then you must do the following.

9 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. But in

10 doing this I hope DoE will not start assuming that all

11 manufacturers are bad actors. Because that's the

12 impression that you're giving us today, is that

13 manufacturers are bad actors and we need to do

14 something, you know, that's what I'm saying. I think

15 we need to start from the premise that actually all

16 manufacturers are good actors and most of them

17 participate in voluntary certification programs today

18 because they are good actors.

19 MR. EISNER: And that could be handled in the

20 same way. If the following happens then you must.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: So are you going to line that

22 out and give that to us to look at? Or what?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

101

1 MS. BARHYDT: So--

2 MS. HOOTMAN: I can see the concept. I guess

3 I'd kind of like to see more detail behind the concept.

4 MS. BARHYDT: So that's part of why we've

5 been going through the different questions is to make

6 sure that we have all of the different options on the

7 table. Because, I mean, you all have thrown out ideas

8 that I haven't thought of and certainly you all have,

9 with scenarios that I hadn't thought of. And we need

10 to make sure whatever we come up with addresses all of

11 those.

12 MR. EISNER: Do we want to put a blank chart

13 up? With an "If you..." and then start putting all of

14 the "If you's" in there?

15 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think what they are

16 yet.

17 MR. EISNER: But you want to get the ideas.

18 MS. BARHYDT: I want to get all of the ideas,

19 but not--

20 MR. EISNER: That's what I'm saying.

21 MS. BARHYDT: --figure out the hierarchy of

22 if this then that.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

102

1 MR. EISNER: No, I'm not saying figure out

2 and then you must, I'm saying first get the "If you"

3 and then put in each different way that people can do

4 the testing. In other words, if you are a foreign

5 manufacturer and you want X, and not worry about the

6 then. I'm just trying to figure out how to get the

7 various options up on the chart show we have a starting

8 point, because we've been talking for quite a few hours

9 about this.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm trying to figure out what

12 the conclusion is, too.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

15 Laura is it possible for DoE to have

16 discretion in selecting? Can the regulation provide

17 discretion to DoE for selection of VICP programs that

18 are approved by the Department? So if you're going

19 under a third-party, like an AHRI program that you can

20 establish the acceptance criteria for that program and

21 if you accept that as a reasonable substitute or

22 something in excess of a base program that you would go
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

103

1 with whatever they have. If you accepted it with, to

2 me, with one exception and that is in the selection

3 process you have the option of saying, "No, I'd rather

4 you test this model instead of that."

5 They would normally do that, but if you

6 wanted to intervene you would retain that ability to

7 suggest an alternate model to be tested. And then,

8 have a program for people who are not in that

9 independent, third--let's call it the manufacturers

10 approved program and it would have a set of rules that

11 would be very distinct, but might be quite different

12 than the rules for the VICP.

13 If so, I have a recommendation for that

14 alternate--the manufacturers DoE approved verification

15 program. It would be universal and fairly simple if we

16 could agree on it. That will get all of the

17 participants in the AHRI program, assuming that was

18 deemed to be an acceptable program. Kind of using

19 Harvey's language, at least that.

20 Those who are in that program would have to

21 do anything more than they do today and we would

22 establish a program for those who are not in that type
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

104

1 of DoE accepted VICP verification program.

2 All of that rolls back to do we have to

3 stipulate the exact requirements for an independent

4 VICP program, as opposed to a manufacturers VICP

5 program.

6 MS. BARHYDT: I think we do, because there is

7 right now and industry program, but it seems at least

8 plausible that labs may want to and it seems to me that

9 they would also be independent. And so, I do think we

10 need to set up a framework for any type of party wants

11 to have a DoE approved program.

12 MR. MYERS: Let me make--I won't go through

13 every detail, but let me give you what I was thinking

14 in terms of--and we look that this similarly before on

15 the screen. And that is, for participants in a DoE

16 approved manufacturers verification program, which

17 could also be-- from my perspective, a testing

18 laboratory or somebody else could be responsible for

19 the same program.

20 The model to be tested--or the quantities are

21 below and the models to be tested will be suggested by

22 the manufacturer to DoE, but DoE makes the selection of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

105

1 what needs to be tested. And then, it's based on basic

2 models. If you have one basic model, and this is all

3 in a five-year period, so you divide by five. If you

4 have one model you test five, one per year. If you

5 have two to 25 you test two per year, 26 to 50 you

6 test--note per year, I'm sorry, per five years.

7 Twenty-six to 50 you do 14 and then elevates up to over

8 200, you'd do 30 over five years.

9 And they are selected by you. You know, we

10 could suggest models to you but you would actually be

11 the one, DoE would be the one selecting it.

12 And the reason I wouldn't want to apply that

13 necessarily to the AHRI program, is AHRI might have

14 certain conditions where you would do fewer than that,

15 but they have years of experience in adequately

16 controlling the market. Elsewise I would say let this

17 be the base and if anybody wants to do more, they could

18 do more.

19 (Pause.)

20 MR. MYERS: I'm sorry, there's one other

21 ingredient here. I didn't scroll down quite far

22 enough.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

106

1 And that is, if you have a failure--give me a

2 moment.

3 One failure increases the test burden by 25

4 percent rounded up. Two failures increases the test

5 burden by 100 percent. You have to do twice as much.

6 Three failures increases the test burden by 300

7 percent.

8 So there would be an escalating number of

9 test required. Again, with that--especially if you get

10 to three failures, that would be a crushing number of

11 tests.

12 MR. EISNER: So what's the reaction?

13 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. Again,

14 I haven't done the math, but it appears to me that what

15 you're proposing any way for a similar program like

16 AHRI runs, it's going to be significantly lower number

17 of tests that we do currently.

18 MR. MYERS: It might well. I understand that

19 there are some manufacturers that would under the AHRI

20 tests would be substantially more, but here these are

21 focused by DoE. If they hear any comments from anybody

22 they don't have to do special testing, they can do it
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

107

1 each year. Take whatever they've heard from the

2 industry, whatever additional test data they've got, it

3 can be quite focused.

4 Looking at minimum efficiency products are

5 the most efficient product, I think you could be

6 selective go after anybody who is not doing the testing

7 correctly.

8 But yes, in some cases it would be a

9 substantially lower quantity of tests.

10 MR. EISNER: Other reactions?

11 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI. Again, I

12 think-- of course, will have to discuss with our

13 members, but a proposal like this will probably not

14 fly. At least from our standpoint. I think it has to

15 be at least in the ballpark, I mean, we're talking

16 substantially lower.

17 So we are lowering the bar from what we

18 currently have, which is not really where we want to

19 go.

20 MR. MYERS: I certainly appreciate that.

21 This is Frank Myers, again with PVI.

22 I appreciate that position but where you are
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

108

1 talking about lowering the bar that bar was set for

2 manufacturers who voluntarily participate. And what

3 we're looking at here is some floor that can give DoE

4 and the Advocates confidence that if you have a bad

5 player you can find the bad player.

6 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen Meyers with Rheem.

7 And I guess your proposal, Frank, would not

8 give the assurance that it would accomplish that. You

9 would not be able to find the bad player with your

10 proposal or it would be highly unlikely. If we really

11 want to make sure that only legal products are being

12 distributed in commerce, then the program would need to

13 be a little bit more stringent than what you propose.

14 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen.

15 I would feel better if, you know, and I know

16 Energy Star's not this, but I would feel better if

17 there was some way we could get from either CSA, ETL,

18 and UL the percentage of models that fail the testing

19 that they follow up on. Because, I mean, again we're

20 sitting here blindly. I know we have two

21 representatives in here, but they may not have access

22 to those numbers and maybe it is a call to Energy Star
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

109

1 direct. But, I can't believe that those programs are

2 not exposing bad players and are not taking some kind

3 of action before them.

4 And like I said, people join voluntary

5 programs based on their ability to afford them. So, I

6 just wanted to make sure that when we're talking about

7 a level playing field we don't know that the programs

8 that exist now for, you know, they need to get a hold

9 of their groups and find out what they're doing, how

10 many they're catching, what they're doing about it.

11 Because they couldn't be on a level playing field

12 except dollar and cents wise or, you know, because it's

13 like we've said it's been you're going to find out who

14 is failing and they will be involved in the same

15 program.

16 If we are testing twice a year for some of

17 our programs, maybe we just need to look at those and

18 find out how they're comparing to AHRI.

19 MS. BARHYDT: In DoE's testing there's a huge

20 amount of variability in how many failures there are by

21 the different products. The failure rates are not

22 remotely similar for different products.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

110

1 MR. EISNER: Do you know why? I mean, are

2 there major distinctions that would account for that

3 that could be addressed?

4 MR. HURST: Can you give some detail on that?

5 Not numbers, but do you know product--

6 MS. BARHYDT: I don't really know--

7 MR. HURST: Is it driven by variability or

8 product complexity?

9 MS. BARHYDT: You know, I really don't know.

10 Without really looking at the data, with that

11 in mind because that's not really the way I've been

12 looking at it. It's just that I know the actual rates

13 of what we test and what passes in what fails is very

14 different for different products.

15 MR. HURST: Where does HVAC rate in those?

16 in that continuum of--

17 MR. SACHS: I think there is enough concern

18 about this Laura, that you may want to ask staff to

19 bring us a bit of a summary if HVAC is much worse than

20 set top boxes and toasters.

21 MS. BARHYDT: We don't test set top boxes and

22 toasters.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

111

1 MR. SACHS: Yet.

2 MR. HURST: So we'd be worse.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MS. BARHYDT: You have a much higher rate of

5 failure than toasters.

6 MR. SACHS: You understand what I'm saying.

7 MS. BARHYDT: I do.

8 MR. SACHS: That not even broken out lower

9 than product class still would be--

10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

11 MR. SACHS: Thank you.

12 MR. HURST: The other thing I'd just like to

13 add would--

14 MR. WHITWELL: It would be a lot easier and

15 cheaper to test.

16 MR. HURST: I wanted to add a little bit to

17 what Mary said. We don't participate in a voluntary

18 program because we can afford to, I mean, I can afford

19 a trampoline. I don't have one. So that's not why we

20 do it.

21 But there is a benefit to our contractors.

22 There is a marketing benefit that they know what
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

112

1 they're buying to sell into commerce to their consumers

2 meets the efficiency standards. So, you know, I'm kind

3 of double- sided here, because both commercial

4 refrigeration, as well as commercial HVAC. But there

5 is a marketing benefit that your customers know that

6 you're selling them what you say you're selling them.

7 MR. SACHS: John, this is Harvey. That's

8 very important and it echoes something I was thinking

9 as Karim was speaking. Because there are added

10 benefits of the AHRI program to its participants and

11 members, I haven't been completely convinced that

12 alternative program needs to be a sophisticated. It's

13 offering a legal assurance, like gallons of gasoline,

14 but it's not saying that it's a super gasoline that

15 you'll never bit it by.

16 And so, I'm not sure that saying the AHRI

17 level of sophistication would actually be good for AHRI

18 because it would wipe out the differentiation.

19 MR. AMRANE: Right. And Harvey, this is

20 Karim. I was not saying that what I was saying was is

21 what Frank was proposing is much lower and we, I think,

22 it's not a level playing field.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

113

1 We're not asking that it has to be AHRI, but

2 it has to be at least comparable.

3 MR. SACHS: Thank you. I apologize for

4 confusion, but it happens to me.

5 MR. BALLO: So, this is Tim Ballo from

6 EarthJustice.

7 In thinking about the level of testing that

8 needs to happen, the way I was sort of thinking about

9 this is currently I sort of don't know who the bad

10 actors are. And the principles that are like, is the

11 idea that over the course of a products lifetime, from

12 introduction to market to eventually being

13 discontinued, it would likely be tested at some point.

14 Now that doesn't mean that basic model, it

15 could mean that product family. Between its

16 introduction to discontinuance it would be tested at

17 some point as a starting principle for verification

18 program.

19 Once the program has operated for a year or

20 two, that initial level of testing sort of does to

21 identify bad actors and maybe we can treat new entrants

22 to the market differently if there is a company that
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

114

1 comes in later. But after that first year or two where

2 you sort of have done enough testing to really get a

3 sense of who the bad actors are, the people who have

4 passed their tests then start having a reduced burden.

5 So, short of flipping the presumption, if we

6 took what Frank proposed and maybe for the first year

7 or two of the program it had significantly higher

8 numbers but then maybe did drop out to this level after

9 a year or two for folks who passed their tests. I

10 think I can be okay with that.

11 MR. EISNER: What's your reaction to that

12 Frank?

13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

14 I think it's pretty reasonable to have more

15 early on in less later, but I am very sensitive to, you

16 know, this too many players will be a brand-new program

17 and a lot of testing early on is going to be a huge

18 financial burden from one company's perspective.

19 From my perspective, I would be willing to

20 suffer a higher entry rate if over the long haul we

21 could have a reduced burden. So, I at least, would

22 like to explore further that opportunity, think about
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

115

1 it a little bit more. But it doesn't sound

2 unreasonable as long as that initial burden is not to

3 the point that it drives some people out of business.

4 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. Two notes. One,

5 I would have a concern with it being "too onerous" at

6 the front end as a barrier to entry. Although I

7 suspect in the real world of these product classes'

8 entry is likely to be by established offshore

9 countries. And I don't know how to do that.

10 But I do want to say in support of Tim that

11 we do have a record of advocates supporting this type

12 of feedback, controlled testing intensity. A

13 particular example is something called HERS Rating of

14 new houses in California where that backs down for

15 contractors who consistently show that they are houses

16 are meeting the test requirements. And it drops from

17 an every house builds down to a statistical sampling at

18 rather modest levels.

19 So, we think this is smart industrial

20 practice and something to be encouraged where

21 applicable.

22 MR. EISNER: If there is some concern
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

116

1 especially for small or new entrants are for first-time

2 participation in the program, the numbers might be too

3 high. Could you phase in the numbers over three years,

4 level off at that higher one and then start dropping?

5 MR. SACHS: I think that's an elegant

6 proposal. My gut instinct says sometimes when we've had

7 problems, particularly in niches of the HVAC and I

8 think of a few bad actors in the ground source issue 20

9 years ago. Ground source product line. It's been

10 people who came in like fireworks with a marvelous

11 display and were gone pretty quickly.

12 And for consumer protection, a certain amount

13 of barrier to entry is appropriate even for commercial

14 products. I don't know what the answer is, but I do

15 have concerns about a ramp-up that blesses you with a

16 presumption of innocence completely as you're entering

17 a market where there are consequences, for other

18 manufacturers and your customers.

19 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem.

20 And I actually agree with Harvey, you know,

21 if you are an established player in the market and

22 somebody new comes in, you know, I don't think they
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

117

1 should have an easier qualification time. I mean maybe

2 there is some compromise that we can make, that we

3 could come up with, but--

4 MR. EISNER: Did you also agree with--

5 MS. MEYERS: --do something in the first

6 couple of years to hurt your market, because their

7 certification, qualification tests were easier or less

8 stringent than yours were. I think that's kind of

9 unfair.

10 MR. EISNER: Other comments?

11 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I

12 believe we added qualification, I think, the last time

13 we met or something in there.

14 MS. BARHYDT: We talked about it, but I don't

15 recall if we voted on that issue.

16 MR. AMRANE: I don't think we voted, but it

17 was on the list of things that we discussed.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Was that on the slides,

19 somewhere earlier?

20 It is in there?

21 MR. KOJAK: I don't know about the slide, but

22 it's on the document.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

118

1 MS. BARHYDT: On which document?

2 MR. KOJAK: The one that we talked about the

3 last time, it's in red.

4 MS. BARHYDT: There was a Word document that

5 we were--

6 MR. KOJAK: Yeah. And you were putting it in

7 red the changes and additions, and there was--

8 MS. BARHYDT: I remember that.

9 MR. KOJAK: The VICP approved, DoE would have

10 to validate new entries, but we didn't explain what

11 that was yet.

12 MS. BARHYDT: No.

13 MR. KOJAK: I was assuming that was up to

14 VICP authorized, DoE-VICP program, up to them to come

15 up with those levels of acceptance into their program.

16 Like let's say if there is a new player coming in and

17 he is rated by AEDMs and you have to have two tests to

18 substantiate those AEDMs, those can be put at a strict

19 level of whoever the VICP is, maybe they want to

20 conduct those tests themselves to verify that is

21 correct before they accept that. You know, things like

22 that.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

119

1 You know, we didn't really discuss in detail

2 what that would be, but you know, that was just

3 groundwork for it.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

5 MR. EISNER: Is there any objection to the

6 concept of starting high and then moving low? Assuming

7 we agree on the numbers. I'm just talking the concept.

8 Start high to prove yourself and then drop down low

9 when you're not a bad actor.

10 Nobody objects?

11 MS. DANE: I would say Traulsen would object.

12 MR. EISNER: Say that again?

13 MS. DANE: Traulsen objects.

14 MR. STEPHENS: I guess the question would be

15 how high?

16 MR. HURST: Well, what would the--

17 MR. EISNER: I'm asking concept. I had we

18 still have to agree on the number, but it would be nice

19 to have agreement on something today.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. THARP: Mary, can you say why you're

22 objecting? Does it assume the financial burden?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

120

1 MS. DANE: Again, we're still negotiating

2 blindly. And so, until I know what high means and what

3 that means to the various categories, I would have to

4 object.

5 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. To me what I

6 conceived of as high would be that idea that from time

7 to a level of testing, such that from the time it's

8 introduced to the time it's discontinued, every

9 product-- product defined loosely, would be tested.

10 So, roughly the 20 percent per year if a

11 five- year time window is the normal time on the market

12 for product.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP.

14 I think one of the options we have with

15 saying high is not necessarily the number, of test you

16 run but the acceptance criteria for the initial tests.

17 That's one of the things we have in the AHRI program.

18 We have a different percentage that we test to. So

19 when we first list a product we have to--our

20 qualification test in the residential boiler program is

21 98 percent of what we list. And then, when we're

22 production, it's 95 percent.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

121

1 So, we could do something like that and limit

2 the amount of tests, but gain confidence in the test.

3 MS. BARHYDT: I didn't follow that.

4 MR. STEPHENS: If you list a boiler to 100

5 percent efficiency--

6 MS. BARHYDT: They give you a different

7 tolerance.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Right.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, I understand.

10 MR. MYERS: This Frank Myers, PVI.

11 That would be in the AEDM discussion area

12 where when you're entering a program you use an AEDM or

13 a test.

14 and with the AHRI program, when you enter a

15 product into the program you have a different tolerance

16 level. Many of them have it at 98 percent tolerance to

17 enter the program, but the verification tests are at 95

18 percent.

19 MS. HOOTMAN: Not in HVAC.

20 MR. MYERS: Pardon.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: Not in HVAC.

22 MR. MYERS: How is it done in HVAC?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

122

1 MS. HOOTMAN: It depends on which section

2 you're talking about but like VRF, every single one of

3 your models had to be tested before you got in there.

4 Every single one.

5 Every single basic model group has to be

6 tested in VRF just to get into the program.

7 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar.

8 So, these are different methods of

9 qualification--

10 MR. MYERS: Right.

11 MR. KLEISS: Before we go into verification.

12 But I think there may be useful examples for kind of

13 the thing that--Tim, you're suggesting that we create

14 something of a database where history. And you know,

15 whatever that threshold is whether it is a tighter

16 tolerance with more tests. And I think what Phillip is

17 going for is, you know, saying I would rather swallow

18 the pill of tighter tolerance but to run fewer tests.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Just as an option to give us

20 something to discuss to try to get an agreement on

21 something.

22 MR. EISNER: Others? Comments?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

123

1 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. And I

2 think for ULE it's 100 percent to qualify. You have

3 two tests that meet 100 percent of your rating. There

4 is no averaging, there is no anything. I think for

5 ULE, and I will let somebody who may know about this

6 correct me if I am wrong, but I think qualify you have

7 to have two tests that hit 100 percent of your rating.

8 There is no averaging or anything else just to qualify

9 to be in the program.

10 But I think Rusty is looking at it to

11 confirm. I know is that way with small equipment, I'm

12 not sure about ULE.

13 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly. I know for water

14 source heat pumps you basically have to pre-do your

15 first year's pull. So if you're doing 20 percent, you

16 have to test 20 percent of your basic models before you

17 can enter the program. And they all have to pass,

18 obviously.

19 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. And I

20 was just thinking what we do to qualify our boilers

21 with AHRI, is we have to run two test and we cannot

22 claim any higher efficiency than the average of those
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

124

1 two tests on the model. So, effectively we are running

2 our own tests that without third-party witnessing, but

3 we have a zero tolerance for declaring those.

4 And then we do qualification testing with two

5 percent tolerance and then we do on it testing with a

6 five percent tolerance.

7 MR. EISNER: Are we talking about something

8 where we are saying verification program --to enter the

9 program you must pass X-number in the first year or the

10 first two years and they must meet Y-- whatever we set

11 the standard at, and then your rate of testing

12 subsequently will be established. And if you don't

13 meet a certain percentage in your new established

14 program, your testing rate will go up.

15 Is that what we are talking about here?

16 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill Tritsis with AHRI.

17 What we're talking about is qualification criteria

18 before any participant enters, even enters a program.

19 MR. EISNER: Which is establishes the rate

20 for verification testing.

21 MR. TRITSIS: Is does not establish the rate.

22 MR. EISNER: You are talking about to enter
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

125

1 the AHRI program.

2 MR. TRITSIS: Right.

3 MR. EISNER: Here we are talking about

4 something to establish a verification program. And

5 what I'm hearing is, a program might be to enter the

6 DoE program which requires verification testing, you

7 will do a certain number of verification tests in the

8 first year or two to establish the base for your

9 testing. And that based will then be established for

10 subsequent years. If you go above a certain number of

11 failures it will go up.

12 Is that why people are making these

13 comparisons?

14 MR. KOJAK: Are you talking about for initial

15 certification to the DoE, what the rating is?

16 MS. BARHYDT: No.

17 MR. EISNER: No, to establish your

18 verification level.

19 MS. BARHYDT: I think what people are doing

20 was drawing parallels between AHRI's qualification

21 program in the idea of some higher testing rate for the

22 first few years of the DoE approved verification
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

126

1 program. I think Phillip was suggesting that it might

2 be a more palatable option to have lower tolerances in

3 lieu of more testing, because of the expensive testing.

4 MR. STEPHENS: Or give manufacturers the

5 option. Choose, okay you could do a whole lot of

6 testing or you can decrease the allowable tolerance on

7 that testing and test fewer samples. Either way the

8 Department would be able to have higher confidence in

9 the data.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: So, the DoE run verification

11 program would mean all of us, no matter who we are

12 whether we are in an AHRI program or whatever, would

13 still have that increased burden for their higher level

14 of testing to begin with.

15 Is that what we were saying?

16 MR. STEPHENS: Could you repeat that?

17 MS. HOOTMAN: We would all have to be

18 qualified in the DoE program because you haven't run

19 one before.

20 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

21 MR. EISNER: Or would there be a basis for

22 saying that if you are in a program that is authorized
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

127

1 by DoE, you have an established base which can be used

2 to determine your testing rate.

3 MS. HOOTMAN: Right, I was just questioning,

4 I wasn't trying to be--

5 MR. EISNER: So, if you're a good company you

6 wouldn't the expected to do any more testing than what

7 you're doing now.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. I would

9 recommend that we start off any manufacturer already in

10 a VICP is grandfathered into the DoE's new program.

11 MR. EISNER: And Tim would this meet the

12 kinds of concerns you were addressing?

13 MR. BALLO: Well, as long as, you know, if

14 you're in the program but in the penalty mode at the

15 time, you don't get the--

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. BALLO: I guess it's a question more for

18 the folks who aren't in the program, but who maybe do

19 their own testing.

20 MR. EISNER: That's what I meant by saying

21 your testing rate in the program would determine what

22 your initial testing rate would be in the DoE program.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

128

1 How about some of those who are not in a voluntary

2 program right now?

3 MR. KOJAK: Well, would the Energy Star

4 program qualify for that also because the, you know,

5 some of the people in this room are not part of AHRI,

6 but they're part of other testing requirements from a

7 third-party organization that will probably have a DoE

8 verified program as well.

9 Would they be grandfathered in?

10 MS. BARHYDT: I see a distinction in that the

11 people who were in AHRI's program have the full range

12 of their products being tested, where's the people who

13 are in Energy Star for not having things tested that

14 are down near the standard. E MR. KOJAK: It

15 depends, you know, if they're doing testing for NRCan

16 that is products that are in the Energy Star level

17 necessarily, and you know, they have to be scrutinized

18 at the same type of level.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Can you all present some

20 information next time about the NRCan verification

21 program? Or is there not an NRCan verification

22 program? What exactly is the NRCan thing?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

129

1 MR. HON: NR verification program is, again,

2 the same sort of testing labs. You set up a program

3 and any product that is on a Canadian list, which is

4 accessible on the Internet, has to have been tested by

5 a third-party before it can be sold in Canada. And

6 that is the same criteria as the basic DoE energy

7 levels.

8 MR. AMRANE: But it's only for products sold

9 in Canada, right?

10 MR. HON: That's is correct. Only for

11 products that are sold in Canada.

12 MR. KOJAK: But that doesn't mean it's just

13 the Energy Star level products. That's a range of the

14 different products.

15 MS. DANE: And I think isn't it what we're

16 trying to establish is that we have a system in place

17 where we are looking at our products, and we're

18 following a system and, you know, we're establishing

19 the numbers and that there's verification. I think

20 it's not so much the how many, you know, we can

21 determine that at the end. I think it's the fact that

22 we're in a volunteer program such as Energy Star.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

130

1 Although, it's different from AHRI. I think it should

2 be given some weeks as far as what our qualification

3 level would be.

4 MR. KOJAK: And also with those programs

5 their componentry for when the units are entered in the

6 program they have to a list of materials, of possible

7 materials also if they change suppliers or they are

8 doing something like that. That it has to be listed

9 potential components that, you know, could be in that

10 unit and that's also checked. That's part of the

11 process with the program as well, where they are

12 checking their test data. We checked everything is

13 built the way they say it's going to be built and

14 things like that.

15 So, it's a similar type program where we are

16 auditing them to make sure they are doing everything

17 legit, because our third-party name is on it and we're

18 making sure they're doing things to the level we feel

19 that is worthy of our good name on their product.

20 MR. EISNER: So if DoE were to check out this

21 program and be satisfied that it would provide us, DoE

22 and the whole group, the level of certainty they want;
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

131

1 would that make this approach palatable to those who

2 are not in other programs? Or are there others in

3 addition to this that you would want to consider?

4 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. In our Canada

5 testing right now, we're doing four units a year and if

6 we were in the AHRI program we would be doing two.

7 MR. EISNER: But I'm saying if this is

8 acceptable to DoE, would it make that approach

9 acceptable to those who are not in the AHRI program or

10 something else that's out there?

11 MR. KOJAK: I would say a manufacturer would

12 have to answer that, but I would assume yes.

13 MR. EISNER: Manufacturers?

14 MR. HON: That is good for us, but the

15 question is I do not know the answer for anyone who is

16 not selling in Canada this time.

17 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I didn't

18 hear a good enough description to really understand

19 exactly what you're saying, do manufacturers agree.

20 So, sorry.

21 MR. EISNER: And I'm saying DoE, I think,

22 would- -unless I hear otherwise, would want to look
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

132

1 more at this program, because Laura did not know that

2 much about it. I'm saying assuming it is satisfactory,

3 their level-- their requirements for testing are

4 satisfactory to DoE and they are willing to adopt it,

5 they would get extra credit under the NAFTA agreement

6 and they would have a program that satisfies you guys.

7 The question is, are there those who don't

8 sell a product in Canada we are therefore not allowed

9 to use this as an alternative; is they are either

10 something else for them or would they be willing to

11 live with the DOT startup type of program?

12 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

13 If this is an alternative, I don't see where

14 another manufacturer would be concerned about it. If

15 this was the only path, then that would be different.

16 But if this is--if you're in this program, use it to

17 the greatest extent possible. I would think that would

18 be for someone not in those programs, not able to use

19 it would be of great concern.

20 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, it's just like what you

21 guys were terming the satellite program, which we call

22 the client test program. Yesterday I sent a
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

133

1 description of both: the client test data program, the

2 witness test that you all offered to Ashley yesterday,

3 so she can read all their requirements that we place on

4 the manufacturers test facility. I don't know if she

5 intends to distribute that--

6 MS. BARHYDT: (Off microphone.)

7 MR. KOJAK: Oh you did. Okay. So, if a kind

8 of explains the level of what, you know the scrutiny we

9 put on them, you know, which is the same kind of thing

10 you're mentioning--the level of scrutiny on the people

11 that are in the AHRI program, they would be

12 grandfathered in. So, what they're asking is since

13 they're in a type of scrutiny level that is offered

14 other than a company than AHRI, you know, can that be

15 grandfathered in as well if it meets the same criteria

16 that you're going to be looking at once you read

17 through our literature, you know, to fully understand

18 what we're doing with them in the type of oversight we

19 have on their testing as well.

20 MR. AMRANE: This Karim with AHRI. Just a

21 couple of things, I mean, looking at the slides first

22 of all NRCan is not a voluntary program. By the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

134

1 Canadian regulations every product sold in Canada must

2 be verified, so it's a requirement. However, the NRCan

3 doesn't do any auditing, as far as I'm concerned,

4 there's no set of rules that NRCan requires except that

5 you have to be a CC accredited, I think, as the

6 verifier. Whoever is verifying has to be a CC

7 accredited. Okay.

8 That's at least that's the way I understand

9 it. Maybe Bill you can correct me if I'm wrong, but

10 that's the way at least it works for us.

11 So, yeah correct that slide because it's not

12 a voluntary program.

13 MS. DANE: That's no--that's not true.

14 MR. SMITH: This is Judd Smith. Karim, we

15 actually did some testing for NRCan auditing purposes.

16 MR. HON: We were notified when we had to

17 send in units for that purpose and some of them are

18 still up there.

19 One other possible--can we go truly off the

20 wall and make a secondary system where if you would

21 have your data posted much earlier than the final date

22 that we agree upon, thereby allowing people to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

135

1 scrutinize that data over a certain period of time,

2 could be a reward for people who are not in one of

3 these other programs?

4 MS. BARHYDT: For early certification?

5 MR. HON: Yes.

6 MR. EISNER: Is it worth putting it up there?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Worth putting it up there.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. I think

9 that's an excellent point. I think my question is

10 whether this will be a one-time opportunity to have the

11 DoE program initiated or whether the same paths could

12 be used later?

13 MS. BARHYDT: I think it would only be at the

14 start up, because after that point everyone's going to

15 be in the DoE program.

16 MR. STEPHENS: Okay.

17 MR. EISNER: You're saying it would always be

18 available to a startup company or just start up at this

19 point?

20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, no because if it's a

21 start up then--

22 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure--
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

136

1 MS. BARHYDT: If it's start up there's no way

2 they have a history of participating in a program and

3 as soon as they enter the U.S. market they're going to

4 be required to be in the DoE program. So there won't

5 be any opportunity for that history.

6 Unless I'm missing something.

7 MS. MEYERS: So I have a question. How does

8 participating in an Energy Star verification program

9 give any assurance to the Department that products are

10 meeting federal minimums standards? Don't get it.

11 Because to me, it's two different things. It's two

12 different products for sure.

13 MS. DANE: Right. This is Mary from

14 Traulsen.

15 I think what my purpose is for explaining the

16 Energy Star type of program is saying that, you know,

17 it's true that the ratings are different. What we're

18 saying is that it's a supervised kind of program, much

19 like you're promoting AHRI, I am trying to promote an

20 alternative that we're already in and in order to be in

21 Energy Star we have to certify by submitting data that

22 somebody looks at and to verify by having semiannual
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

137

1 testing of some of the equipment that are in those

2 ranges.

3 You know, we're not saying that it's better

4 than the DoE program that we're proposing. We're

5 asking them to use it as an example to help structure a

6 program that small manufacturers and manufacturers that

7 choose not to be part of AHRI would be able to use.

8 So, I'm not saying it should replace DoE. My

9 assumption is that as they're passing their Version 3

10 of their standard, for our equipment it's said that

11 it's going to go back to whatever the DoE standard is

12 so those numbers will also be similar.

13 So, you know, I think we're just trying to

14 show that we do something already that is like what DoE

15 would like us to do and we would like to have some kind

16 of recognition of that fact.

17 MS. MEYERS: So I could--you know, so if the

18 process--I don't know what the processes, but if the

19 process, you know, it holds up to the stringency then

20 that's okay. But I guess my issue is giving credit. I

21 mean, if you can use that process and do testing to

22 show that your products are meeting federal minimum
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

138

1 standards and still use the same process that's one

2 thing. But to give early credit, to me--the two

3 different products. So I don't know that I would agree

4 with that or argue against.

5 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. the test

6 procedure is the same. The testing done is by third7 party or witness tested by third-party. The energy

8 levels are approximately 25 percent below the federal

9 energy minimums and getting tighter--the new standard

10 will be about 25 percent below. The old ones are even

11 are looser than that. But it's still substantially the

12 same as third-party witnessing, third-party

13 verification of any other program and also has a higher

14 demand as far as testing goes.

15 MR. TRITSIS: Let me--this is Bill Tritsis

16 with AHRI.

17 There are some differences. AHRI is an EPA

18 approved certification body and the difference is 10

19 percent for EPA. 20 percent versus AHRI. Penalty

20 provisions under AHRI for manufacturers who fail;

21 monetary penalties, additional testing, so there's a

22 whole lot of differences. And in terms of the testing
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

139

1 burden for Charlie's particular case he mentioned

2 earlier is his choice to do the additional testing. It

3 is not required by EPA.

4 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. And

5 again, what Charlie is talking about here is Energy

6 Star products. I mean, DoE is not just interested in

7 Energy Star products. There are a lot of products that

8 are not the same efficiency level, they're not the

9 premium products that are qualified as Energy Star.

10 MR. HON: Right.

11 MS. BARHYDT: I'm not a fan of using the

12 Energy Star verification program. I can imagine

13 manufacturers building their Energy Star products in a

14 certain way knowing that they would be so subjected to

15 verification in a way that they deal differently with

16 minimum standards products and as I said, I see that as

17 a big distinction between the Energy Star verification

18 program and the AHRI verification program because the

19 products down by the standard aren't being subjected to

20 verification right now. And I understand that you have

21 a lot of processes in place and you have a lot of

22 checks on your labs. But still, it's not the same
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

140

1 thing as having ongoing verification of the products in

2 that segment of the market.

3 MR. KOJAK: So, I've got for the question.

4 Are you saying that the testing that is being done for

5 the Energy Star products, since they are above the

6 federal minimum, are going to be discounted as being

7 checks and tests for the DoE?

8 MS. BARHYDT: What do you mean discounted?

9 MR. KOJAK: Well, you're making it sound like

10 you're only going to be wanting to see verification

11 testing for the federal minimum.

12 MS. BARHYDT: No, but am saying that to the

13 extent that we're contemplating giving some kind of

14 reduced test burden at the start of a DoE approved

15 verification program. It seems to me that the whole

16 sphere of what would be subjected to the DoE

17 verification program should have already been subjected

18 to a verification program previously. That would be

19 the whole rationale behind giving some kind of reduced

20 test burden is that they've been tested and they've

21 been subjected to some kind of ongoing verification

22 testing. And it's like some portion has been, but not
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

141

1 the whole sphere of products.

2 MS. MEYERS: You could fail--

3 MR. KOJAK: But I don't think that's really

4 what they're talking is that at all. You know, that's

5 not what I've been talking about at all and I don't

6 think really that's what they're talking about either.

7 They're just trying to use that program as an example

8 of, you know, what's being done at their facility. Not

9 that they're going to try to be using those tests for

10 anything other than to show that they're being, you

11 know, they're being tested at the facility at a higher

12 level of energy consumption than just the basic minimum

13 that DoE required.

14 MS. BARHYDT: So the only reason I would

15 consider giving a break so to speak to participants in

16 the AHRI program with a reduced test burden in the very

17 beginning of the DoE program, is because they've

18 already been subjected to a verification program for a

19 long time. And to me that is the only reason they're

20 getting it. They're not getting it because they have

21 other processes in place that they've got--

22 MR. KOJAK: So are you saying that--
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

142

1 MS. BARHYDT: If all of them have ISO

2 certified labs and they have all of these internal

3 processes in place, I'm not giving them a reduction

4 because of that. I'm giving them a reduction because

5 they've had independent verification testing ongoing.

6 MR. EISNER: And if they--

7 MR. KOJAK: The question I have is does AHRI

8 do 100 percent verification of all of the DoE minimum

9 equipment from all of the HVAC manufacturers, all of

10 them or just a portion of them?

11 MS. HOOTMAN: (Off microphone.)

12 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, so if they're not testing

13 all of them either--

14 MS. HOOTMAN: Not in a year--

15 MR. AMRANE: It takes 25 percent, so in five

16 years you've sampled everything.

17 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. So

18 are you saying then that we couldn't even ask for our

19 equipment that we have Energy Star tested and that

20 we've been maintaining under a certification and

21 verification program, that you won't even allow us to

22 exempt that from this extra test burden?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

143

1 MS. BARHYDT: That makes more sense to me.

2 MS. DANE: Okay.

3 MR. EISNER: Let's go--

4 MS. MEYERS: My issue is that you could fail

5 an Energy Star test rating but you're still above the

6 federal minimum. So, that's a whole different thing

7 from Laura's perspective. You're not going to get--if

8 you fail a federal minimum standard, then suddenly

9 you're distributing noncompliant product in commerce.

10 That results in a whole different set of actions from

11 Laura's perspective. So, I think we need to take that

12 into account, I mean, yeah you get a penalty from

13 Energy Star, but you're still not distributing

14 noncompliant equipment. It may not meet the Energy

15 Star, but it still above the federal minimum.

16 So there's a difference to me in a product

17 missing the Energy Star rating but being above the

18 federal minimum versus missing the federal minimum.

19 MR. KOJAK: So does that mean HVAC products

20 that are bombed the federal minimum that the same thing

21 accounts for that? And those actual tests are the same

22 thing. if they are not met--the rating, above the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

144

1 federal minimum but that's the same exact same thing.

2 MS. HOOTMAN: They're still 100 percent

3 tested. Every model we have in a basic model group is

4 100 percent tested eventually in the five-year period.

5 It doesn't care that it's Energy Star, and in fact, I'm

6 not Energy Star and commercial HVAC. But all my models

7 get tested.

8 MR. EISNER: Let me clarify one thing. I

9 thought we agreed that the data in AHRI may indicate

10 that a particular company doesn't qualify for a

11 reduction in the initial testing rate, because they had

12 to many failures. So it could cause them to come in at

13 the high level and it may allow them to come in at the

14 lower level, because they have the data to show what

15 their record is. They have a pre-established record

16 that otherwise has to be done through the DOT

17 verification program, so where grandfathering in both a

18 higher and lower. Am I correct?

19 MR. HON: Charlie Hon--

20 MR. EISNER: The question for those in

21 another program like Energy Star, is whether it is

22 acceptable to take the data from the Energy Star
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

145

1 program to show that you failed in many of the tests

2 when you said you were going to be here, you were here,

3 and therefore you deserve a higher number. Is it

4 appropriate to also say that if you've always met the

5 standard, for example, that you were applying for an

6 Energy Star rating on, that you have a history of

7 showing that you do what you're supposed to do with

8 your product.

9 I don't know the answer to that.

10 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I have a

11 couple of other questions. NRCanada is across the

12 board testing. It is not just the high level units

13 MS. BARHYDT: Is it verification testing or

14 is it just initial testing?

15 MR. HON: Both.

16 MS. BARHYDT: It's both.

17 MR. HON: Yes.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Then that makes more sense to

19 me.

20 MR. HON: Because they're not quite as

21 stringent as Energy Star, but close to it. And it's,

22 again, above what would have been tested under the AHRI
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

146

1 program.

2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. To the

3 best of my knowledge I'm not aware of NRCanada having a

4 verification program on a continuous basis. I am not

5 aware of this.

6 MR. HON: The UL testing that we've been

7 going through requires that.

8 MR. AMRANE: On a regular basis and you have

9 to test a minimum number of units with NRCan?

10 MR. HON: Yes, yes.

11 MR. AMRANE: Where is--okay, I'm not aware of

12 it. I've never heard of it.

13 MR. HON: Well, we're--

14 MS. DANE: We have test houses sitting here,

15 they should be able to verify that.

16 MR. AMRANE: Yes absolutely, they should--

17 MR. SMITH: Judd Smith from CSA. If you go

18 NRCan's website, they'll tell you what the requirements

19 are for minimum testing. They have that.

20 MR. HON: Do you do minimum testing for us?

21 MR. KOJAK: We do the initial certification

22 and some of the verification testing for that.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

147

1 MR. AMRANE: How many verification testings

2 do you do for NRCan a year? Verification testing?

3 Continuously?

4 MR. KOJAK: I don't run the NRCan

5 verification program, so I don't know how to answer

6 that.

7 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We've been

8 having four units a year tested for NRCanada since we

9 enrolled in the program when NRCanada put it in place.

10 MR. EISNER: Other comments? Are we going in

11 the right--

12 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman with

13 National. I just wanted to get one last point.

14 I guess one of the things that's hitting me

15 is we know Energy Star and NRCan are at least with

16 witness testing that you have to do and everything,

17 it's higher than the levels that we're talking about I

18 think so far for DoE, as far as commercial

19 refrigeration equipment.

20 So, I mean, I do Energy Star. I don't need a

21 CRADA because the stuff you're going to want, I already

22 have for that testing. You know, I have witness
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

148

1 testing and have, you know, that level of information

2 so I don't see a need to reduce the requirement,

3 because the manufacturers who are already in that have

4 the data to be able to meet that.

5 MR. BALLO: So--sorry--go ahead.

6 MS. BARHYDT: No--

7 MR. BALLO: So the flipside of the Energy

8 Star only applying to a limited universe of products is

9 if the Canada standards are lower than say than the DoE

10 minimums. I think those should also be exclude also

11 for the same reason they're not representative of the

12 products that are covered by DoE minimum standards.

13 MR. HON: This time they are the same.

14 MS. DANE: And we're talking about a process,

15 so I think the process should still be recognize and

16 consider. At least to the point where you don't exempt

17 the investment we've already made, because we've made

18 investments, too. We want to be able to use our

19 investment in Energy Star.

20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I've been

21 listening to a number of the different people making

22 suggestions and proposals and tried to incorporate as
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

149

1 many of those as I could into something similar to what

2 I had earlier proposed. We would use the grouping of

3 basic models according to the product families.

4 Could you make that a little larger please?

5 A little wider. There we go.

6 We had talked about that earlier, so and then

7 you're going to have to test a minimum of different

8 basic models in order to comply with this.

9 For a participant in a DoE approved third10 party verification program, all product families must

11 be verification tested every five years. DoE retains

12 the right to direct specific products for test

13 selection. For participants in a DoE approved

14 manufacturers verification program, the models that are

15 to be tested are suggested by the manufacturer, but are

16 selected by DoE.

17 Test conducted in compliance with Energy

18 Star, NRCan, or a 17025 third-party laboratory

19 verification programs can be utilized to comply with

20 the following requirements:

21 Initially you would take double the number of

22 tests in the list until one model, at least one model
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

150

1 of each model family has been tested, and the you

2 select them according to the list. So, you double the

3 intensity until you have tested at least one of every

4 model family.

5 If test are conducted at a plus or minus two

6 percent tolerance, then you select models for testing

7 based on that rate. So you have a much tighter

8 tolerance, but you don't have to do the double. You

9 just do that rate.

10 These are the proposed number of tests that

11 have to be conducted. And if you have one failure, you

12 increase the burden by 25 percent. Two failures you

13 increase the--you double the number of tests and three

14 failures you triple the number of tests.

15 MR. HON: I would like to ask that he would

16 change that to a negative tolerance only, because if

17 you're more efficient that's what the DoE is interested

18 in, isn't it? Because if you run plus or minus two

19 percent tolerance, if we de-rate our product just to be

20 on the safe side, that's going to penalize those who

21 re- rate their product.

22 MR. SACHS: The DoE should do nothing but
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

151

1 one- sided tests. End of rant.

2 MR. MYERS: So with this I tried to

3 incorporate a lot of different things where

4 manufacturers do get credit for the tests that are

5 conducted under Energy Star, NRCan. You're not

6 actually using those programs for compliance, but

7 you're using the data that is collected under those

8 programs to comply with the verification test--model

9 selection and requirements, down below.

10 MR. WOSTAL: This is Wes Wostal with

11 ClimateMaster.

12 I apologize. I've been listening and doing

13 other things, but thing I would like to bring up is the

14 two percent tolerance, is that getting within what a

15 test lab is really even capable of doing?

16 You know, to say that you have to be within

17 two percent, I'm wondering if you took two labs or a

18 round robin and you went from one lab to--or even the

19 same lab if you tested a product and then went back to

20 the same lab the test day, the same conditions, I'm

21 wondering if you would be within two percent. I think

22 when you start looking at some of the-- I'm trying to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

152

1 think of the word, not the accuracy but--

2 MR. SACHS: Precision.

3 MR. WOSTAL: Precision, that it's just not

4 there when you--

5 MR. SACHS: Wes, this is Harvey and I

6 appreciate the comment, but I'd like to flip the

7 question. Haven't we resolved that by moving to

8 single-tailed tests, so you can only be two percent

9 lower than the requirement but you can design as much

10 more efficient as you think is necessary to make sure

11 that you meet it. So that you're not within a

12 tolerance band, but have a maximum downside error

13 that's allowable,

14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. The two

15 percent tolerance, the caller is absolutely correct

16 that that's not reasonable for a test laboratory. The

17 variability and tolerance of equipment and so forth,

18 but those tests would be run at five percent. If you

19 choose to lower the number of annual tests you would

20 have to be more conservative on your ratings, such that

21 you could comply with plus/minus two percent.

22 The tradeoff is you don't have to conduct as
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

153

1 many tests each year, you don't have to double the

2 number of tests until all of your products--your model

3 families are covered. So it's voluntary. You don't

4 have to take that two percent choice, but if you do,

5 you're running fewer tests so you'll not be testing as

6 many as quickly, but those that you do run are going to

7 be at a much more conservative rate.

8 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar.

9 I might suggest that we change that plus or

10 minus two percent tolerance to a two-fifths of the

11 program tolerance since some of the things have ten

12 percent tolerance, some of them have five percent

13 tolerance. It's not consistent.

14 MS. BARHYDT: And you're referring to the

15 AEDM tolerances that we worked before? Okay.

16 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'll

17 reiterate what Wes on the phone said, that there's very

18 significant uncertainty in the results of any

19 psychometric testing. I've been thrown around a

20 number, roughly eight percent for a typical

21 psychometric test, so that two percent would be pretty

22 tight.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

154

1 MR. WOSTAL: This is Wes, thank you Rusty.

2 Uncertainty was the word I was looking for.

3 MR. THARP: And I think Karim was possibly

4 going to throw out was there was going to be some

5 discussion on our LEED procedure, I know that will be

6 as we do some 210 and 240 stuff it will be brought out.

7 But that's what the LEED procedure is finding is that

8 there's a fairly large uncertainty in the psychometric

9 testing.

10 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

11 I agree with all that has been said on this

12 topic, I agree that two-fifths make sense because

13 they're not all plus or minus five. But this is a more

14 stringent path and it recognizes that you're going to

15 have to most likely lower your rating to take advantage

16 of this path, but it does give a path if a manufacturer

17 is willing to tighten the tolerances, he doesn't have

18 to run as many tests.

19 MS. HOOTMAN: So Frank I'm having a hard time

20 following this suggestion. For what you're saying, in

21 four participants in a DoE approved third-party

22 verification program, they don't do this double the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

155

1 following unit at least one model? that this only

2 applies to the people who are not in the above?

3 MR. MYERS: No, the intent and maybe the

4 words need to change since it wasn't clear, obviously

5 it needs better language. The concept was that in

6 complying with that last paragraph and the selection

7 quantities, if you ran one of those tests under the

8 Energy Star, you can use that data to comply with one

9 of your tests.

10 If you got it under NRCan or a third-party,

11 17025 verification program, those are deemed adequate

12 to cover your testing down here. So no, you have to

13 run the tests that are shown there, but if you already

14 ran them on those programs you don't have to run them

15 again.

16 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay, so you're saying I ran

17 them on AHRI. I use those very same tests is that what

18 you're saying?

19 MR. MYERS: If you were using AHRI as the

20 entry point.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, I'm just using that as an

22 example, whatever.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

156

1 MR. MYERS: Yeah, If you were in--so there's

2 no confusion, at least in my mind. If you are in the

3 Energy Star program and you had to test Model X and DoE

4 selected Model X, then you could use that data. You

5 wouldn't have to re-run that test.

6 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. But this is not--this is

7 still saying that there is tests required to get into

8 the DoE program versus what she was saying, what Laura

9 was saying. She was willing to say that people who are

10 in AHRI and getting 100 percent of their models tested

11 every five years would be exempted in some shape or

12 form. So you are saying in this proposal that we would

13 have an additional test burden if we're in a VICP?

14 MR. MYERS: I certainly didn't mean to. For

15 participants in a DoE approved third-party verification

16 program, all product families must be verification

17 tested every five years. Stop.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. That's what I was

19 getting at. So when you say stop, then that person

20 doesn't come down here and do double the following and21 -

22 MR. MYERS: That's correct.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

157

1 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay, that's what I'm getting

2 at. So, you do need more words around this that says

3 something like, okay, they're completed. Now for the

4 person who doesn't have that--

5 MR. MYERS: Right, here's what you do.

6 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah.

7 MR. MYERS: That's correct and yes, some

8 additional words in that first sentence would be

9 necessary to clarify that if you're in the DoE approved

10 third-party verification program, the criteria is that

11 you have to test all of your product families every

12 five years.

13 If you're not in one of those programs, you

14 do the following.

15 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes.

16 (Pause.)

17 MR. MYERS: And remember that down below

18 seven, you don't necessarily have to scroll up, but

19 it's the increase if you have failures as a part of

20 that. And that, too, is just for those that are not in

21 the third- party DoE verification program.

22 MS. HOOTMAN: So where would you have it
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

158

1 inserted for participants in a--where would you have

2 this language inserted for the participants in Energy

3 Star and NRCan, et cetera. They could use their test

4 from those for--where would you have that wording

5 inserted?

6 After? Before test conducted? Or where--how

7 would you make that?

8 MR. MYERS: Well, I'm exactly sure what

9 you're asking. What I was attempting to capture here

10 was that if you are already running the Energy Star,

11 NRCan or 17025 third-party laboratory verification

12 program testing and that matches up with the

13 requirement below, you just don't have to do it twice.

14 You can go ahead--it's not like you're getting credit

15 for the program.

16 It's just if you've already run the tests in

17 that year that you need to run, they why would you need

18 to run it again? So, it's just recognizing that that's

19 a path by which you can satisfy the DoE selection of

20 testing requirement.

21 MR. HON: This is going to sound odd because

22 it's probably going to be penalizing my corporation,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

159

1 but testing to the Energy Star levels would probably be

2 as high or a higher level than the DoE would require.

3 And as such, if we would get credit for all of our

4 Energy Star units, we would probably not be testing

5 anything near the standard and that would be a concern

6 as a consumer of products. I would be very concerned

7 about that.

8 MR. MYERS: Could I get you to kind of

9 restate that and get closer to the microphone because I

10 am right here and I still couldn't hear you.

11 MR. HON: I said that if we got full credit

12 for Energy Star and Energy Star may be higher than the

13 DoE minimum requirements, which it could easily work

14 out to be. At that point, DoE would basically be not

15 requiring any additional tests other than Energy Star.

16 Is that correct?

17 MR. MYERS: If the DoE selected product,

18 because DoE and the DoE manufacturer approved

19 verification program, DoE makes the test selection.

20 The manufacturer recommends, but the selection is made

21 by DoE. If those line up with the testing that you

22 have already run under those three programs, you
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

160

1 wouldn't have to run any additional testing. You would

2 have run--it's not like you don't do anything under

3 DoE. You would have already run those tests because

4 you ran them as a part of those three programs.

5 MR. HON: Thank you for clarification.

6 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. It was my

7 understanding that what you mentioned a while ago

8 Laura, was that only those Energy Star products would

9 be grandfathered in.

10 MS. BARHYDT: So if I'm understanding this

11 correctly, it looks to me like it is an entirely

12 different idea than what we had been discussing.

13 And that's fine, I'm not saying that that is

14 a bad thing. I'm just saying it doesn't look to me

15 like it is- -it's addressing the concern but in an

16 entirely different way than what we had been

17 discussing.

18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

19 That's correct. This is not recognizing per

20 se those programs, it's recognizing the validity of the

21 testing those programs produce and if those line up

22 with DoE's requirements for testing, just don't do it
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

161

1 twice. If you've already--if DoE wants Model X to be

2 tested this year and you are texting Model X under one

3 of those three programs, that same test--the testing

4 under those three programs would satisfy DoE.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Is anyone else ready for lunch?

6 I would actually like a little bit of time to mull this

7 over and--

8 MR. EISNER: If you're in the first

9 paragraph, a DOT approved verification program, there

10 are not penalties from DOT to get better compliance.

11 Everything would be under the third-party verification

12 program. The penalties that tester had.

13 Was that what you had intended?

14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. That--what

15 you just described, is the way this reads today if we

16 feel there should be a penalty described so that if a

17 third- party program other than AHRI is doing it, then

18 I would have no problem with putting it in and

19 mimicking something like what AHRI has.

20 MR. EISNER: Okay. Does anybody else have a

21 question they have to get settled so they can think

22 better about this or should we break for lunch?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

162

1 MR. THARP: Yeah, in this table it says

2 before this listing--this is Rusty Tharp with Goodman.

3 If all tests are conducted at a two-fifths of

4 established AEDM tolerance, then this is the rate.

5 What if somebody wants to do testing at the AEDM

6 tolerance? So again, using five percent if--

7 MR. EISNER: You don't double--

8 MR. MYERS: Then you have to double it until

9 you've gone through all of your--until you've tested

10 one of every model family. If that takes you a year,

11 okay. If it takes you five years, okay. And then you

12 revert back, now that you've proven yourself, you

13 revert back to the numbers that are shown there.

14 MR. THARP: Five percent tolerance.

15 MR. MYERS: I'm sorry.

16 MR. THARP: So the tolerance for all of this

17 is two-fifths of the standard AEDM tolerance.

18 MR. MYERS: Only if you choose not to double

19 the initial--the testing rate.

20 MR. THARP: okay. So if you choose to keep

21 the initial--the regular tolerance, then it's double

22 this.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

163

1 MR. MYERS: Until you've gone through them

2 all, then you can drop back to this testing rate.

3 MR. THARP: I understand, thank you. I think

4 I understand.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. EISNER: Okay, let's break for lunch and

7 get back at quarter to one.

8 MR. WHITWELL: Neil, sorry this is Bob

9 Whitwell. One other question.

10 So, as I read this, the first paragraph says

11 that for the DoE approved third-party verification

12 program you must test every product family every five

13 years. Down below the--it's not clear that those rates

14 that are down there below would result in testing each

15 product family every five years. So, it looks like

16 there is different criteria or different testing levels

17 required, is that what you intended Frank?

18 MR. MYERS: Yes, that's correct. The third19 party program will be whatever rate that the third20 party program has defined, but it must be at least once

21 every-- each product family must be tested every five

22 years. The rating below would not necessarily--it
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

164

1 might for some, but it would not necessarily test each

2 model family every five years, but you would have to

3 test at twice that rate until you had, in fact, tested

4 them all. And if you are successful at that then you

5 can drop back to this rate.

6 MR. WHITWELL: So it seems to me that this is

7 saying, if this were to end up being the requirement,

8 that if a manufacturer that's in an approved program

9 would be testing every model every five years, but

10 there could be another manufacturer in the same product

11 category that's not part of a third-party program that

12 would be testing fewer based on DoE's requirement.

13 MR. MYERS: That's a correct statement.

14 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. That doesn't seem right

15 to me but--

16 MR. SACHS: Bob, this is Harvey. And we had

17 a little bit of earlier discussion that AHRI programs

18 do offer market differentiation beyond basic

19 certification. I think that's the point that Karim

20 made.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Yep, I agree Harvey. I guess

22 the heartburn that I have here is that this says that
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

165

1 DoE would require that third-party verification test

2 program to test more. Now, the program may decide

3 they're going to test more, but DoE should not require

4 that. That's my--

5 MR. SACHS: Okay, I misunderstood that and

6 yeah, that I'm certainly comfortable with the position

7 that AHRI or other VICP programs should be allowed to

8 require as much testing beyond the certification

9 testing for DoE as they want to.

10 MR. WHITWELL: Correct. I agree with that.

11 MR. SACHS: I'm only concerned about how to

12 establish that an alternative program is giving the

13 requisite assurance that the products in commerce are

14 meeting the standard. And that is a slightly different

15 objective from the higher objectives that AHRI has,

16 which I certainly applaud.

17 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I think we're saying the

18 same thing. It's just that the wording here--the way

19 that I read it, it says that DoE would require those

20 who are in these programs to test more than those who

21 are not.

22 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

166

1 And I think I agree with Bob here. DoE is

2 now going to say to third-party programs, like AHRI,

3 this is what you need to test every year, which is not

4 really what it should be.

5 MR. EISNER: So would that be satisfied by

6 simply saying that verification testing must be at a

7 minimum according to the table, one through seven?

8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I wouldn't

9 have a problem with that, but the reason I didn't do

10 that Karim is because I think there are some programs

11 with certain--how many models a participant have that

12 the number of tests in the chart, even the--not the

13 double, but just in the chart, would be more than their

14 annual test requirement. If that's not the case, then

15 you wouldn't need the differentiation between the two.

16 But I was wanting to make sure that the requirements in

17 this chart didn't cause someone in the AHRI program to

18 do more testing.

19 And that's the only reason.

20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillips Stephens, HTP. I

21 think we could take those seven items and put it in a

22 table to show the bare minimum the DoE will accept on
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

167

1 an ongoing basis and then the bare minimum for a new

2 entrant into the market for their first products, and

3 then another column for the initial acceptance because

4 this is a brand new product. I think that would answer

5 a lot of the questions that we're seeing here.

6 MS. DEGITSZ: I understand the concept; I

7 don't understand what you want to do--

8 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Frank if you could e9 mail that to me, I'll put that in a chart.

10 MR. EISNER: All right, let's get back about

11 five to one.

12 (Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., a luncheon recess

13 was taken.)

14 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

15 (1:03 p.m.)

16 MR. EISNER: Do you want to start off with

17 the chart? There's some changes that have been made to

18 the substance, and we tried to organize into this chart

19 format, hopefully easier to follow.

20 MR. SACHS: Would you bring the screen this

21 way about 10 feet?

22 MR. EISNER: You've got to look at the one at
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

168

1 the back of the room.

2 MR. SACHS: I did that yesterday.

3 (Off the record discussion.)

4 MR. EISNER: Can you read that?

5 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah.

6 MR. KLEISS: We'll take everything you got.

7 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. This

8 was meant to be, with one exception--I believe on

9 exception-- the same thing that was in the--what was up

10 previously. The one difference that I'm aware of is in

11 the third party verification program there was some

12 concern that you might--we might be requiring, as a

13 base, a higher level of test. My concern was that we

14 might be forcing everybody to do a higher level than

15 they are today. So, adding into that line the

16 requirements for the third party VICP, you must test

17 all product families over five years or you can test at

18 the rate in Table A, which could be the lower rate.

19 MR. AMRANE: Frank, this is Karim, what's

20 repeating? I mean, you must test a product over five

21 years--

22 MR. MYERS: It's--
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

169

1 MR. AMRANE: Every five--

2 MR. MYERS: Every five years you have to do

3 the same thing. That's not meant to be the final

4 words, it was just to remind them when they write that

5 they need to be sure that's covered.

6 MS. DANE: It's Mary from Traulsen. I have a

7 question about participation--on the first line, in the

8 third party verification program, if there's only one

9 at this time, will there be a timeframe allowed for

10 other VIC programs to start up before this option is

11 put in effect or before the DoE goes through accepting?

12 Because, I mean, I'm assuming you're going to have to

13 go through a process to decide who's a VICP and who's

14 not?

15 MS. BARHYDT: We will have to go through a

16 process to issue approvals, and that will require

17 parties to basically apply for the DoE approval. I

18 would prefer to combine those first two categories into

19 simply a participant in a DoE approved verification

20 program. And if an organization like AHRI, who has a

21 certification program and that certification program

22 provides an additional market benefit because they have
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

170

1 more extensive testing or they have additional checks,

2 like the qualification to be a member, then you still

3 have that delineation between the market value that

4 being an AHRI participant and have AHRI certified

5 products relative to the--what I would call the

6 baseline of a participation in just the DoE approved

7 program.

8 To me, there's an added value to the AHRI

9 program that I don't know that we're trying to

10 duplicate in a federal program.

11 MS. DANE: I can agree with what you're

12 saying because to me, the amount of testing that they

13 do does provide a lot of market value. It's kind of

14 how we are all volunteers of Energy Star, those of us

15 who choose to participate, we wouldn't have to test,

16 but we want to be able to tell our customers, hey, look

17 what we did, we spent this extra money.

18 So, I agree that a program that--a voluntary

19 industry program should not necessarily have to match

20 the AHRI requirements for those companies that wish to

21 not use the marketing value of it.

22 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. But at
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

171

1 the same time, we don't want to have too much of a

2 difference between the two because then some could

3 question why would you have to go through so much

4 testing and rigor when on the other hand you will have

5 a DoE program which will be much less--would have much

6 less requirement.

7 So, I think that there needs to be a balance

8 somewhere, and that's what the difficulty is going to

9 be, to find that balance.

10 MS. BARHYDT: I guess that--isn't the closer

11 the federal program is to yours, doesn't that, in a

12 way, devalue your program? The more distinctive your

13 program is from the federal program, it seems like

14 that's your marketing aspect, that's how you say, we

15 have added value because people have gone above and

16 beyond the federal standard for verification.

17 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. I

18 think it depends upon that balance. I mean, I don't

19 think it's--you know, if we're spending millions of

20 dollars in testing for AHRI and another company is able

21 to come in and spend, you know--

22 MS. BARHYDT: Well, right now they're not
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

172

1 required to spend anything, so we're already raising

2 the bar on everybody else.

3 MR. AMRANE: But let's be real, until now

4 there was no DoE database, there was nothing, and there

5 are no requirements in place today for commercial

6 product, even to certify to DoE. So, we are changing

7 the rules of the game in a way and that's why we're

8 saying, well, to such an extent, fine, if there are

9 distinctions between the two programs, but if one is

10 here and one is really at the bottom, I don't think

11 it's going to be fair to everybody.

12 So, I think that will be our concern, that we

13 strike a balance somewhere.

14 MS. BARHYDT: I understand. That makes

15 sense. I don't know where the balance is, but--

16 MR. AMRANE: Yeah, I don't know either.

17 MS. BARHYDT: But we'll keep working on that.

18 MR. MYERS: Laura, this is Frank Myers, PVI.

19 What--could you better describe the change you were

20 proposing earlier, what you said you would like to see?

21 And then, I can't envision that in words.

22 MS. BARHYDT: So, if you--so, I would say the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

173

1 third party verification program should be comparable

2 to what you have there for a manufacturer's

3 verification program, and at least my sense is that

4 that is still less testing than what AHRI members are

5 doing right now. But maybe I'm mistaken there.

6 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. In

7 many cases, that's correct, but the reason I didn't do

8 that initially was that there will certainly be cases

9 where a current AHRI program participant has lots of

10 basic models--keep in mind, the one down at the bottom

11 is all based on basic models, the quantities are based

12 on basic models--so, they could be in the AHRI program

13 and have lots of basic models in only one or two

14 product families, and if the AHRI program is based on

15 product families, they wouldn't have to do as many

16 tests. So, I was trying to be careful not to impose an

17 additional burden on current program participants just

18 because we were using the basic models as the driver.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Can you scroll down to Table A?

20 MR. MYERS: So, if, for example, you--let's

21 just go with that minimum column and let's say you had22 -I'll stretch it, but let's say you had 200 basic
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

174

1 models, that means over five years you'd have to test

2 30 models once you got through your initial

3 certification. And certainly in the--until you got one

4 of every model family tested, you'd be at 60 units

5 every five years.

6 If those basic models were all contained

7 within one or two--let's just, again, take it to the

8 extreme-- all 200 of those basic models were in one

9 model family, you only promoted one thing, but you had

10 a lot of units within that one thing, in the AHRI

11 program you would only have to test the minimum one per

12 year because--in certain programs.

13 If you were, for example, a boiler and you

14 had 200 basic models but they were all just variations

15 of the same thing, so you're only promoting that one

16 model family, then you test--once you're in the

17 program, you have to test one of every model family

18 every year, that's the lowest you can go, where this

19 says you would have to test six every year.

20 So, I was trying not to increase the number.

21 And then on top of that for new market entrants, and

22 until you tested all of your basic--all of your model
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

175

1 families, then you're at double that rate while AHRI

2 has other elements of their program that would more

3 than substitute for that. They require testing of the

4 biggest--in many of their programs--either all of the

5 basic models or the biggest and the smallest of a

6 model-- basic model or a model family, so the

7 requirements there, this would be quite a bit more.

8 Now, in terms of just continuing, if you have

9 a mix where you have lots of model families and not so

10 many basic models, then the AHRI program is

11 significantly more testing, but there are cases where

12 this would be more, and that was--I was trying not to

13 force more testing on a successful program.

14 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. If you

15 did the percent for each of those, the 200 and above

16 would be a minimum of 15 percent of those would be

17 tested. For all other categories, it would be over 20

18 percent of those basic models that would be tested.

19 MR. AMRANE: But Phil, here we're talking

20 over five years, right. AHRI, most of the time, is 20

21 percent in one year.

22 MR. MYERS: Right.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

176

1 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay, this is Jill. The way

2 that you had changed it above, Laura, so, you're saying

3 that in your example you had the person that had over

4 200 and had 30 over five years, they would have to rate

5 in Table A with two-fifths of the established AEDM

6 tolerance?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Or double the rate. That's the

8 proposal up there.

9 MS. HOOTMAN: Including the ones that are in

10 an AHRI program?

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

12 MS. HOOTMAN: I would not be for that.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stevens--

14 MR. MYERS: Excuse me, this is Frank Myers.

15 I certainly wouldn't interpret this that way. If you

16 already have--if you're already in the AHRI program--

17 MS. HOOTMAN: She struck out the stuff at the

18 top.

19 MR. MYERS: Right. And that's one reason I

20 don't think we should necessarily strike out what's at

21 the top. Those products are already going through that

22 review every five years plus they have entry testing to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

177

1 get into that program as opposed to AEDMs, you actually

2 have to test the products from each model family to get

3 in. So, they've already done the--what, down at the

4 bottom --that table was designed so that you doubled it

5 so that you got testing of each one. Well, to get into

6 the AHRI program, you have to test at least one of

7 every basic model family and in some cases more.

8 So, they've already begun that first step.

9 MR. WHITWELL: But Frank, this is Bob

10 Whitwell, you can't have DoE require members of a third

11 party verification program to do more testing than

12 those in the same product category that are not. So,

13 you have to strike that first. AHRI may elect to have

14 their members test more products, that's their

15 prerogative, but you can't have DoE require it.

16 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I tend

17 to agree with you and that's the reason that I modified

18 from what I had before lunch to what you see here so

19 that the third party program could either do what's in

20 Table A as the sampling rate or they could do 20

21 percent. So, it's not requiring them to do more, it

22 gives them two paths to compliance, either doing the 20
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

178

1 percent or follow the chart below.

2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. I mean, there is

3 the assumption that maybe the 20 percent is equivalent

4 to Table A. And by having this "or" and maybe not what

5 you want to say, but at the same time, you know, I

6 don't know. I mean, our programs, even with 10

7 percent, could be more than Table A.

8 So, again, I mean, I'm not sure how to word

9 that column over there, but we need maybe to think

10 about the implication of what it will mean, because you

11 could be less than 20 percent and be much more than

12 Table A.

13 MR. MYERS: Right, that's why in what I had

14 proposed up there that's now struck, is you have to

15 either do 20 percent or you can do Table A. It's the--

16 it would be the choice of the DoE approved third party

17 verification program, so it wouldn't mandate either of

18 those, it would say you could choose which one of those

19 you want.

20 MS. BARHYDT: But so the way that that's

21 written up there, if they didn't do 20 percent, then

22 they are testing at the base rate of Table A, not the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

179

1 double rate --

2 MR. MYERS: Correct.

3 MS. BARHYDT: --and I think the assumption

4 there is that the people in the DoE approved third

5 party verification program have spent at least five

6 years in AHRI's program, but Mike might decide that UL

7 is going to have a third party approved verification

8 program and he doesn't have members who've been in that

9 program for the last five years, but according to that,

10 they would be able to test at the rate of Table A.

11 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. You're

12 correct, but I think your underlying assumption, if I'm

13 reading what you're trying to point out there is that

14 if you're a third party verification program--and maybe

15 we need to say this overtly in the column--you had to

16 test at least one--at least one of every model family

17 in order to get into that program, whichever one it is,

18 and if we need to say that here, that's the big

19 differentiation.

20 So, they can swap. If they want to go from

21 here to there, they don't have to redo the doubling,

22 they can just go by the table because they have already
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

180

1 tested under one of these programs each model family,

2 which is all the double testing required.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Then we're forcing everybody

4 who decides to get into the market of third party

5 verification programs that they have to make an AHRI6 style program.

7 MR. MYERS: I think all we would have to do

8 to cover that point would be to say that as a part of

9 the definition of a third party program, that you have

10 to require testing of each basic model family in order

11 to enter the program. And I think--I'm not certain,

12 because I don't know all the different variations, but

13 I believe that's the case for all of the AHRI programs

14 where you have to test at least one of every basic

15 model to get in.

16 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I

17 don't believe that's correct.

18 MR. MYERS: Okay.

19 MR. FLY: The other thing I was going to ask,

20 I mean, model family is yet to be defined too, right, I

21 mean, I think we're--for the purposes of discussion,

22 we're all kind of saying a basic model family is a
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

181

1 basic model group from an AHRI standpoint, but we

2 haven't negotiated or finished that negotiation. I

3 don't believe that you have to test all your basic

4 model groups to enter a program on all the programs.

5 But, you know, you guys can correct me.

6 MR. TRITSIS: That is correct. For some

7 programs you don't have to test every model represented

8 in model of each product family, but you do have to

9 supply test reports. You know, we tested 20 percent or

10 more, depending on the program, to enter the program,

11 before you enter the program, but you do have to

12 provide test reports for all basic model groups that

13 are listed.

14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. If you

15 can give me just a moment to look back at my original

16 document, I think we can add some fairly simple

17 language to cover that. We allow substitution--that's

18 probably not the right word--acceptance of several

19 third party pieces of data. In lieu of the continuing

20 test we may be able to say that those plus an existing21 -add an existing VICP program to the list of the other

22 three whose data we were accepting and say that data
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

182

1 from those places can be used to show that you've

2 tested at least one basic model family, one of every

3 basic model family.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Can you show us that language?

5 Is that only supposed to be applicable to the new

6 market entrants or program entrants? Or is that

7 generally?

8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Yes,

9 she's at the section down at the bottom of the screen

10 that I was referring to. Perhaps we could reword that

11 to add a fourth group. We have NRCan, Energy Star, and

12 17025 third party lab, and then--to shorten it up, a

13 VICP--that we would accept information from a VICP, and

14 then somehow word into it you can use that information

15 where you have previously tested model families to meet

16 the compliance requirement that you have to have at

17 least one of every model family tested.

18 MS. BARHYDT: So, it looks like if you change

19 that to--if any of the--and I'm guessing here, you all

20 correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying

21 is if any of the basic models selected were tested by

22 Energy Star, NRCan, a 17025 third party laboratory
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

183

1 verification program, would AHRI fall into that? It

2 would--no?

3 MR. MYERS: Or VICP.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. Or VICP.

5 MS. DEGITSZ: But why wouldn't it be a third

6 party--

7 MS. BARHYDT: I think it's not 17025.

8 MR. TRITSIS: I think we need to add to this

9 the 17065. Okay, this is--

10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

11 MR. TRITSIS: --okay, 17065, again, and 17025

12 go hand in hand with 17025 reflecting the laboratory

13 and the qualification of the laboratory, and 17065 is

14 to verification programs, industry verification

15 programs.

16 MS. BARHYDT: And take out laboratory?

17 MS. DANE: Didn't yesterday we discuss that

18 we would do "or" but not "and"?

19 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, I'm just trying to kind

20 of-- I'm--I don't think this exact language is going to

21 last.

22 MS. DANE: I believe one precludes third
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

184

1 party labs from participating, so I want to make sure

2 it's "or".

3 MR. TRITSIS: No, it does not, it should be

4 "and", both of them. They're completely distinct

5 standards that the laboratories, like UL, like CSA have

6 accreditation too, like the 17065.

7 MR. STEPHENS: I downloaded them and read

8 them last night and Bill's correct. So, your lab would

9 be 17025 but the third party that would grant you the

10 17025 would be 17065.

11 MS. MEYERS: So, Laura, we have another

12 proposal. Actually, Rusty has another proposal that

13 we're putting on a memory stick that we would like to

14 propose that may simplify this just a little bit.

15 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

16 (Pause.)

17 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I've

18 got a question with that section there. Would they be

19 able to use the testing that they did to substantiate

20 their AEDM for that as well, since they are doing the

21 testing to substantiate their AEDM and since all the

22 rating is based on the AEDM and the AEDM is found to be
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

185

1 accurate? Does that fall into their testing--would be

2 valid also?

3 MS. BARHYDT: Correct me if my recollection

4 is wrong, but I don't think we had any requirements on

5 the test data that substantiated the AEDM. Was that

6 required to be in a third party lab?

7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no.

8 MS. BARHYDT: No. So, it's not comparable.

9 MR. KOJAK: Okay.

10 (Pause.)

11 MR. THARP: Thank you. I'd like to take this

12 opportunity to thank my publisher, my family. All

13 right, so I try and think of the things we talked about

14 and where we've discussed that there's a different

15 qualification methods people want, different testing

16 locations, ways to select samples, et cetera, trying to

17 find a way that would give a level playing field so

18 that everybody plays under the same rules and would

19 also give an option for those who want a lower audit

20 rate to have a method of getting there.

21 If we started--and these figures would

22 obviously change subject to discussion, but we'd start
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

186

1 with something like a base audit rate of 10 percent.

2 And--10 percent of your basic models per year.

3 MR. SACHS: Is there anything in Column B?

4 MR. THARP: No, there's nothing in Column B.

5 The question was, is there anything in Column B. So,

6 this is the base rate that you start with. It could be

7 10 percent, 20 percent, wherever we choose.

8 And then we can come up with easy, medium, or

9 hard qualification process to get into the program, you

10 can choose your testing location, whether you want it

11 to be your manufacturer's lab, a satellite lab, or a

12 third party, their lab type of thing, you can choose

13 where you get your sample selection from. You can get

14 it of the production line, OM inventory, or off a

15 distribution shelf. You can choose your tolerances

16 that you want, tight tolerance or a standard tolerance.

17 And then there- -a factor that could be based off of

18 the number of years you're in the program and in the

19 past AHRI had a look- back and we sort of didn't like

20 that. We've gotten away from that. But, you know,

21 this could be last year's failure rate, it could be an

22 average failure rate, some of that nature, but
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

187

1 basically with--if you've been in the program longer,

2 with lower failure rates, you have a lower factor. If

3 you have higher failure rates, you have a higher

4 factor. Lower years in the program, higher factor.

5 That type of thing.

6 And what this would do is if we have a base

7 rate of 10 percent--and this is sort of a--the

8 selection there is somewhat of an AHRI process, so if

9 we have a medium qualification difficulty with testing

10 at a third party laboratory with inventory coming out

11 of an OEM lab--or inventory coming from an OEM with

12 standard tolerances, entry level, you're testing at 20

13 percent per year.

14 And then for those who would like to have a

15 lower audit rate, they could have a tighter

16 qualification initially and if they want to test at

17 their own or a satellite lab, they could have things

18 pulled, like Charlie said, he's got tons of inventory,

19 we just have it pulled off the distribution shelf,

20 choose a tighter tolerance, and then he gets to a lower

21 audit rate than the 20 percent.

22 So, something of this nature, I think, might
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

188

1 be able to help us all so we just--and being a geeky

2 engineer, I like formulas and things and spreadsheets.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. THARP: So, I thought this might be a

5 similar but different method of looking at the way that

6 was presented.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: (Off microphone.)

8 MS. BARHYDT: I love it.

9 MR. THARP: And once you get out to--if

10 you're testing--you know, if you've been in the program

11 five years and very low failure rate, you get pretty

12 low--if you have no failures, zero--there's an error in

13 my formula somewhere.

14 MS. BARHYDT: It knew that wasn't realistic.

15 MR. THARP: So, you get down to 5 percent,

16 something like that, you know, depending on what

17 options you choose.

18 MR. FLY: So, can you put an Excel sheet in

19 the Federal Register?

20 MS. BARHYDT: What?

21 MR. FLY: Can you put an Excel sheet in the

22 Federal Register?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

189

1 (Laughter.)

2 MR. SACHS: Yes. This is Harvey, all of the

3 technical support documents are on the web, I think, in

4 the Federal Register.

5 MS. BARHYDT: We publish a link to the--where

6 the TSD is.

7 MR. SACHS: So, I may or may not like this

8 sheet, but it's not precluded, to the best of my

9 knowledge.

10 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Two

11 fundamental issues that are not addressed by this, one

12 is--and I'm really surprised that folks from the AHRI

13 program have not said something, but this is based on

14 basic models and there are definitely programs that do

15 not require 10 percent of the basic models to be tested

16 every year.

17 MS. BARHYDT: My understanding was that that

18 was a base audit rate to be determined with the

19 percentages, what the grouping is, that it's--

20 MR. MYERS: Okay. I had asked--this is Frank

21 Myers, PVI--I had asked the question, on what is that

22 based, and was told that it was basic models. If
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

190

1 that's not basic models, if that's basic model groups,

2 then I'll need to take a closer look on that issue.

3 The other is, it does not address

4 manufacturers of build to order--small manufacturers of

5 build to order that have lots of models, again, if this

6 is based on basic models, have lots of models, but

7 doesn't ship lots of models. We can go for years and

8 not sell basic models. If this is based on basic model

9 families, however we define that, then it becomes more

10 doable.

11 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, and I guess my

12 response goes to, obviously, yeah, the first one would

13 probably be basic model group, not basic models or

14 product family, something, and the second point, this

15 would really be again for our general discussion is not

16 one offs or not engineer to order type products, so

17 that would be a separate class of product that would be

18 handled separately.

19 So, this would be for the more typical higher

20 volume stuff. End of rant.

21 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. Two things. One,

22 on the choose testing location, third party testing at
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

191

1 my location, is that--

2 MR. THARP: We could group it however you

3 want. This is just a--we could make three different

4 options, we could make it just two options, however

5 many options you want. Basically my intent was to show

6 a concept of how to get to a point that everybody might

7 be happy with.

8 So, please don't take each one of these

9 specific items as being hard and fast because, you

10 know, we may want to choose three levels of tolerances

11 or maybe if to make Harvey happy, if I have a zero

12 tolerance option. That would be--

13 MR. SACHS: Yes.

14 MR. THARP: --and then we cut the audit rate

15 in half, right? Again, it's just a general idea and

16 the details of that could be ironed out a little bit.

17 But I just threw some numbers and things in there to

18 sort of get a general idea of what could happen with

19 the various options and, you know, not to say that we

20 couldn't throw in yet another option, because that

21 would give us more opportunities to make more formulas.

22 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. If
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

192

1 we all could get a copy of this to see how you're

2 weighting those different factors so that we could

3 monkey with the numbers and see what makes sense,

4 trying some different scenarios out. I understand the

5 concept and other than the fact that this is

6 significantly complex, made simple only by the fact

7 that you're taking all of these parameters and putting

8 it through a spreadsheet, for somebody to really

9 understand all of the ramifications is going to take

10 them quite a while to know how they should comment on

11 something like that.

12 But having said that, I would like to get a

13 copy of the spreadsheet and just try putting in--

14 plugging in some real world, what if a manufacturer had

15 this mix of things.

16 MR. THARP: We'll distribute as soon as I get

17 my copyright. I'm in a good mood today.

18 MS. BARHYDT: So, generally speaking, do

19 people think this sort of a framework would work where

20 test burden is tied to the other factors going into it?

21 I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads.

22 MR. STEPHENS: I support it. Phillip
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

193

1 Stephens.

2 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs.

3 MS. BARHYDT: And you've been such an

4 outspoken critic. That's real progress.

5 MS. DANE: We'd kind of like to look at it

6 also, but we would have to know how things had come in

7 that are grandfathered would be treated and, you know,

8 maybe just a couple little questions like that, and we

9 could probably work with something like this.

10 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I very much

11 like the creativity both of this and the thoughts that

12 Frank has brought to it. My instinct is that this is

13 an incredible basis for a lot of discussion. I would

14 not be surprised if we wind up with a couple of

15 subsidiary sheets that are specific to, say, CRE or

16 build to order that are enough simpler that can just be

17 presented as tables, but as a framework it's--damn

18 clever, boy.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MR. KLEISS: This is Jeff. Would you--I'm

21 sorry if you explained this before, but would you

22 revisit "choose qualification" what is encompassed in
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

194

1 that?

2 MR. THARP: For example, in the AHRI

3 programs, some programs have 30 percent, some have 20

4 percent, and some have different pass/fail requirements

5 to get into the program. So, if--you know, an easy may

6 be that there's really no additional entry tests and

7 medium may be that you test 10 percent of your basic

8 models, hard maybe you test 20 or 30 percent of your

9 basic models, something along those lines, and then

10 hard, you know, you have to test 30 percent and pass

11 100 percent of your tests at 95 percent or better of

12 rated values.

13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Is

14 that to enter the program? Is that what you're talking

15 about?

16 MR. THARP: Correct. Yeah. That would be

17 based on your entry. And then basically if you--what

18 the formulas would do is if you've been in the program

19 then that sort of goes away once you've got a five-year

20 history put in place.

21 MR. MYERS: So, we already have an entry

22 mechanism, you can either test each basic model and
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

195

1 turn that into DoE--that we've agreed upon, or the

2 AEDM.

3 MR. THARP: That's for certification. And

4 this would be before the verification--

5 MS. HOOTMAN: Verification.

6 MR. THARP: --program. There's a difference7 -

8 MR. MYERS: So, you have to enter

9 verification?

10 MS. BARHYDT: So, to give you an example, I

11 think this is what you're thinking, so--I'm a

12 manufacturer and I want to continue selling after this

13 new rule goes into effect, so I'm going to have to join

14 a verification program. Let's see, do I want to join

15 the CSA, the UL program, the AHRI program? Do I want

16 to make my own program? Well, let's see, AHRI requires

17 me to do some qualification testing to get into their

18 program. If I make my own program, maybe I just won't

19 do any of the initial testing beyond--because I already

20 have all my test data for certification. So, I'm going

21 to make my own program and I'm not going to do any

22 additional testing for my program.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

196

1 Well, that would be easy, but it would impose

2 higher burdens, either in terms of stringency or amount

3 of testing, but maybe if I enter AHRI's program,

4 there's an initial up front cost in terms of

5 qualification, but maybe there are some other options

6 there that work out better for me.

7 So, it means that I can decide which approach

8 I want to take by picking a program that works for me.

9 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI again.

10 I'm having a little trouble distinguishing between data

11 entry and the AEDM entry, which, when we were working

12 on AEDMs, I thought that was to get into the listing

13 and now we want a verify the listing. There is an

14 entry program to get into the AHRI program, that's

15 true, but you can't--if you're in, you have to be in

16 with everything and you can't put a new product on the

17 market until you've gone through their program.

18 So, I thought this was--the AEDM was a

19 substitute for having to test however many you have to

20 test in the AHRI program. When you're going into the

21 DoE program you would test either every basic model or

22 AEDM.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

197

1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so, just to make sure

2 everybody's clear on this, because this is very

3 fundamental, I am a, let's say, new entrant to the

4 market. I want to sell my products in the United

5 States. Every basic model has to be certified to the

6 Department of Energy on a certification report.

7 So, before I can do that, I have to have some

8 test data. I either have to test each basic model or I

9 have to test enough to meet the AEDM requirements and I

10 have to develop my AEDM.

11 From those two methods, I get my

12 certification numbers. What we're talking about is an

13 additional program--so, that's how I get in and I

14 certify my products so I can sell, but I'm also going

15 to have to join a verification program. Each

16 verification program may want to impose a check. So,

17 maybe AHRI says, for this product, we're going to

18 require you to do some additional testing to double

19 check your AEDM, or perhaps for other products, AHRI

20 says, well, for these we don't require additional

21 testing, but we require you to provide us all of that

22 test data that you used as the basis of your
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

198

1 certification and we're going to take a look at that.

2 And what we're saying is that there can be

3 variability in what that requirement is and it may vary

4 for AHRI, it varies by product, it may vary from

5 verification program to verification program, but that

6 would be up to the person running the program as to

7 what they wanted to ask for, but that could have

8 impacts on what other burdens are in the process. Does

9 that make sense?

10 MR. MYERS: I'm hearing it. I'm just

11 thinking of the double work that those that are not in

12 that program would have to do. Because we'd have to do

13 the AEDM to get on the chart where the folks that are

14 in the program just run these tests and then they're in

15 the program.

16 MR. WHITWELL: No, Frank, you're wrong.

17 Those that are in the AHRI program also have to have

18 the AEDM, they have to run the tests to validate the

19 AEDM. Or we have to test every model for developing

20 the rating. No different than those that are not in

21 the program.

22 MR. MYERS: So, when you're filling out--this
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

199

1 is Frank Myers, PVI again--when you're filling out this

2 spreadsheet and you're making your choice as to the

3 stringency, one of the choices, then, is not on the

4 easy, hard--if you're in the AHRI program, that's not

5 necessarily easy, medium, hard, you'd have to look at

6 that program to determine whether it's easy, medium, or

7 hard.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so--

9 MR. WHITWELL: I think that's what Rusty was

10 thinking, yes.

11 MR. MYERS: If that's the case, then I

12 understand and don't really have a problem with that.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, so this wouldn't be each

14 manufacturer doing the spreadsheet, it would be the

15 person setting up the program and applying for DoE

16 approval and then whatever it works out to is what's

17 going to be incorporated into the program. And so, in

18 my mind, this is a tool DoE would use to make sure that

19 the program, as proposed, meets the level that we

20 require.

21 MR. MYERS: Frank Myers, PVI. If we had two22 -if a manufacturer had a small group of products that
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

200

1 were high volume and you wanted to do the hard way in

2 order to keep the test numbers down, you could do that

3 for part of your line and then take the easy way, which

4 required more testing, for a slower moving product.

5 It's not restricting a manufacturer to a single number.

6 MS. HOOTMAN: Single method is what you're

7 saying.

8 MR. MYERS: Yeah, if your number came out on

9 some of your products--

10 MS. HOOTMAN: Single product class, possibly.

11 MR. MYERS: --just because it's on the

12 screen, 4.8, if you had other product families that the

13 number came out to 30, then that's okay, you'd do 30

14 for those and 4.8 for these.

15 MS. BARHYDT: I think that can work. I think

16 that if you're setting up your own program, then you

17 would make sure that for each product class or whatever

18 the different levels are, that you would specify what

19 you were going to use for that and you'd be bound to

20 stick with that.

21 MR. MYERS: Okay.

22 MS. BARHYDT: If you were joining a program,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

201

1 then it would be up to them as to whether they were

2 willing to let you split.

3 So, is everybody okay with the idea of some

4 form of qualification? Because we had started to talk

5 about that a little bit last week.

6 MR. KOJAK: I've got a question. This is

7 Mike Kojak with UL. When you were talking about if the

8 manufacturer wants to start their own DoE approved

9 VICP, they would still have to have oversight from

10 either another--from somebody, right? I mean, it's--

11 because I remember we were talking about it has to be

12 like third party witnessed or something.

13 MS. BARHYDT: There's got to be some level of

14 independence and oversight, yes.

15 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussmann. I

16 mean, we're talking or assuming, I guess, that UL and

17 Intertek and others will have a program, but when will

18 we know for sure that will be a possibility or that

19 will be an option?

20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI.

21 Just to make sure I understand that question. When you

22 say those three laboratories will have a program, you
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

202

1 don't-- if you have a--you can join a third party

2 laboratory's approved verification program, but that

3 doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot have a

4 manufacturer's verification program that utilizes a

5 third party laboratory, but it's not their program,

6 it's your program.

7 So, the question then is, for independent

8 programs, as opposed to the manufacturer using a third

9 party lab, do all of the major labs have that now? Are

10 they--I believe some do.

11 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I know

12 one of DoE's points is--one of the places you want to

13 keep your independence is in unit selection area

14 because you don't want to select your own. I

15 understand that, but, you know, does that need to be

16 another category up here? Or how would that work in a

17 manufacturer who created his own program? Or is that

18 left up to the manufacturer to come up with something

19 for DoE that would be acceptable?

20 MS. BARHYDT: I think there are several

21 additional factors that--I mean, that reflects what

22 we've talked about so far, but there are still more
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

203

1 factors.

2 MR. FLY: So, maybe degree of independence of

3 selection is one of the--

4 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, the actual model for test

5 selection and then--

6 MR. FLY: Because I'm assuming that DoE

7 doesn't want to get in the business of selecting or do

8 you--or is that yet to be decided?

9 MS. BARHYDT: We're not chomping at the bit

10 to do that, but I mean if it's something that we end up

11 in a position where we have to do it, we will fill that

12 role, but it is certainly our preference that we come

13 up with mechanisms to do that without DoE being the one

14 who has to do all the selections.

15 MR. KOJAK: It could be left up to the third

16 party lab that actually has to witness the testing,

17 maybe they can make the selections as well so they know

18 what test they'll be witnessing, like what type of

19 units and things. And they might be able to get that

20 guidance from the DoE or something, just an idea.

21 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

22 Certainly that should be the case for a third party
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

204

1 laboratory verification program. For a manufacturer's

2 verification program, we need to have the opportunity

3 to work with DoE to make those product selections. We

4 would make a recommendation as to what we should do,

5 but then they would--they should approve it as opposed

6 to negotiating with a laboratory that we contract with

7 to do the, either witnessing or oversight. I'd a lot

8 rather do that with DoE than a laboratory I'm

9 contracting with.

10 If I'm using their verification service,

11 that's one thing, but if I'm just using them as a third

12 party witnessing organization, I'd rather have the

13 model selection done with DoE, but that's just for the

14 manufacturer's program.

15 MS. BARHYDT: If you switch back over to the16 - and I don't know, we may have inserted additional

17 slides- -on my print out, it's 33.

18 MS. DEGITSZ: Model Selection for Testing?

19 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, is that Slide 33?

20 MS. DEGITSZ: That's 39.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, well, then we've inserted a

22 lot of slides. Hold on, it's about five slides after
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

205

1 that, maybe six.

2 MS. DEGITSZ: This one?

3 MS. BARHYDT: That one. So, these were some

4 of the things we were thinking about that we might want

5 to see. So, a voluntary verification program, we think

6 it should allow anyone to participate without

7 requirement to join the membership group, and I believe

8 AHRI already does that, you allow people to use your

9 verification program. So, that kind of a set up.

10 That the program should allow DoE input in

11 product selection. I don't know how much we would

12 exercise that, but we would like to have that

13 opportunity. The list of all models in the program, I

14 think that the idea there is that the party running the

15 program should know which models are in the program and

16 if--I mean, I guess it's possible a manufacturer would

17 say I want to test these products in your program and I

18 want these other products to be--and maybe it's on a

19 product class basis, the really large stuff that Jill

20 manufactures, maybe she decides to run her own

21 verification program for it.

22 So, maybe there would be some possibility of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

206

1 that kind of thing. And so, we would want it clear as

2 to which models were in which program.

3 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. At least

4 two of the AHRI programs are like that where they cover

5 everything up to a certain size, but above that size,

6 it's optional whether you participate.

7 MR. AMRANE: Right. But there are other

8 programs where you have to basically certify

9 everything.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Everything.

11 MR. AMRANE: Yep.

12 MS. BARHYDT: So, the main would be just that

13 it needs to be clear to the Department about which

14 program models were in, that way a manufacturer

15 couldn't say, oh, I'm a participant in AHRI and

16 unbeknownst to the Department they actually have

17 certified a variety of other basic models that they

18 aren't actually putting in to the verification program.

19 So, it's just a way for us to check that

20 manufacturers really have all of their models, basic

21 models, in the program.

22 We would want to see the list of models that
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

207

1 are going to be obtained for verification testing, that

2 might be quarterly, semiannually, annually, depending

3 on what basis that plan is set up for, making

4 selections, so that we know which models are actually

5 being tested, and then we would want to see a list of

6 the tested models and the results.

7 Ideally, we would love to have the full test

8 reports, but I think we'll probably get some push back

9 on that one. Bob?

10 MR. WHITWELL: Yes, sorry. Yeah, this is

11 Bob. So, do you want to have a discussion on this now?

12 MS. BARHYDT: So, I'll read all the bullet

13 points and then we'll go back and revisit them.

14 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, great.

15 MS. BARHYDT: We think that the program plan

16 should document the process for procuring the product

17 so that we know how the units are going to be obtained,

18 the testing would obviously be to the applicable DoE

19 test procedure. There would be DoE involvement in the

20 case of test procedure questions including setup and

21 all program failures should be referred to the

22 Department within some specified time interval.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

208

1 So, Bob, it sounded like maybe you wanted to

2 discuss at least one of these points.

3 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, there are two points

4 here, I think. One is providing full test reports.

5 Since DoE is not paying for the report, I think that it

6 would be adequate to provide for the--DAVP to provide

7 the summary of the test results. And then the second

8 to the last, about DoE involvement in the case of test

9 procedure questions, again, since, you know,

10 manufacturers are paying for these tests, I'm not sure

11 that that would be warranted as well.

12 MS. BARHYDT: So, the test procedure

13 questions are interpretations of the DoE test

14 procedure, so irrespective of whether who's paying for

15 it, I mean, it's still an interpretation of the DoE

16 test procedure, so it seems odd to me that the DoE

17 wouldn't have some involvement in that interpretation.

18 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, test procedure

19 questions, okay, I understand that. The clause

20 "including setup", though, I'm not sure--I guess maybe

21 you could define what you meant there.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so, now we're really into
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

209

1 an "actually" type of question, but I'll give this a

2 shot.

3 So, if there's a question about how the

4 ducting is supposed to be set up and whether or not the

5 test procedure specifies that you were supposed to have

6 it set up one way or another way, and I just don't know

7 enough of the specifics, I'm making this up at this

8 point, but those kinds of questions would be questions

9 we would expect to come to DoE.

10 Now, if it's a question about whether or not

11 the settings on--like, how do I achieve the CFM for

12 this particular model, yeah, I would think that DoE is

13 not the expert on your product, and so that's a

14 different issue.

15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. So, these are all

16 questions regarding the test procedure itself.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

18 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. All right. I didn't

19 understand it that way.

20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers at PVI. I

21 have a question to those directly involved with the

22 AHRI program and its administration. Each group does
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

210

1 look at special things like, you know, can you take a

2 unit out of a subzero room and then immediately test it

3 or does it have to set there for X amount of hours

4 before you test it and we give that guidance to the

5 laboratory to make sure that it's consistent. We

6 create a document for that. Is there a concern about

7 providing that document once it's released and we're

8 actually going to use it, providing that to DoE? Or is

9 that felt to be proprietary?

10 MR. TRITSIS: All these documents are

11 currently available on the website, AHRI documents that

12 our participants are asked to adhere to are public

13 documents.

14 MR. MYERS: Thank you.

15 MS. HOOTMAN: Ashley knows about that.

16 MR. MYERS: That's what I thought. I didn't

17 want to presume that, which was the reason I was asking

18 it that way, so at least for that program you have

19 access to--and if there are questions that they feel

20 they need to get guidance from DoE on, they would do

21 that in writing that, but at least after the fact, you

22 could-- soon as it was, here's what we want the lab to
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

211

1 do, could make a copy available.

2 MS. BARHYDT: So, the issue there is that the

3 guidance AHRI provides is not the definitive guidance

4 of the Department, and so while AHRI's labs may be

5 testing that way for AHRI members, there's no guaranty

6 that there will be consistency for non-AHRI members.

7 And so, the-- what we want to do is get to the point

8 where DoE is more involved so that we can issue

9 guidance for the entire industry on the test procedure,

10 so where you find that there is something that requires

11 guidance, we need to address that industry-wide, not

12 just for AHRI members.

13 MR. MYERS: Frank Myers, PVI. I agree that

14 that information does need to get out to other test

15 laboratories and to manufacturers that don't

16 participate in those programs so that everybody is

17 playing by the same--singing to the same song sheet.

18 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I would ask

19 that DoE also involve--quite often DoE references an

20 existing test standard and those test standards, quite

21 often, are in a process whereby there are

22 interpretations written so that everybody can see that
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

212

1 interpretation. ASHRAE does that, so I would ask that

2 the DoE take that into consideration as well. ASHRAE

3 would--I certainly would very much welcome the DoE's

4 input and direction because we don't want to have a

5 conflict in situation here, but definitely get ASHRAE

6 or AHRI, which is--their 1200 standard, in our case--

7 get them involved as well because there could be a

8 difference in what you interpret and what ASHRAE would

9 interpret.

10 MR. AMRANE: I agree. This is Karim with

11 AHRI and I think we have--we have started a process by

12 which DoE would be invited at all meetings when we

13 revise our standards.

14 I have a question about--what do you mean by

15 program failures? Do you mean product that didn't meet

16 the--

17 MS. BARHYDT: That makes it sound like the

18 program failed. So, where a product--well, there would

19 be two scenarios. One is that if the product tested

20 was below the standards, DoE would be notified of that.

21 The other would be if the product was rated with an

22 AEDM and it didn't meet the AEDM criteria that we set
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

213

1 up before when we were talking about AEDMs, we would be

2 notified about that.

3 MR. AMRANE: But this will not be, for

4 example, if a product is above the federal Energy Star

5 product, and that product is tested but it's below--

6 MS. BARHYDT: If it's within the--

7 MR. AMRANE: Within the federal minimum

8 standard, though, but below what the rating was

9 initially listed to with the voluntary program or with

10 DoE for that matter.

11 MS. BARHYDT: So, it would depend on--if it

12 was rated with an AEDM and it was outside the tolerance

13 we set for an AEDM--

14 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And looking at

15 the third bullet from the bottom, testing the

16 applicable DoE test procedure only, I'm quizzical about

17 the last word. If I wanted--

18 MS. BARHYDT: I didn't write this.

19 MR. SACHS: May I recommend that that be

20 struck?

21 MS. BARHYDT: That's fine.

22 MR. THARP: Stricken.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

214

1 MS. HOOTMAN: I mean, I'm putting words there

2 but I think that, you know, these things that we said

3 were communications that we have to the test lab from

4 the programs, which are not part of the test procedure

5 today --

6 MS. BARHYDT: That's actually probably--

7 MS. HOOTMAN: --but we are working on getting

8 them as part of the test procedure, just like Karim

9 said, we're working on reviewing, at least in the case

10 of commercial HVAC, I know we're working on getting

11 those test procedures such that we will incorporate

12 those notes and those guidances into the test

13 procedure.

14 MR. SACHS: Thank you, Jill, for continuing

15 my education, and I mean it. The reason it sort of

16 raised a bit of a hackle is that we have ongoing issues

17 about whether it makes sense for some CRE manufacturers

18 at some times to run their NSFs while they've got the

19 same witness as their running their DoE tests, and they

20 only looked like it might preclude that kind of

21 synergy, and that's what I was wondering about. Thank

22 you.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

215

1 MS. BARHYDT: It's definitely not intended to

2 do that. Go ahead, Bob.

3 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, another example would be

4 in AHRI for new entrants, there are max load/ low load

5 tests that are required as well, so--so that would be

6 another example of where we would test only to the DoE

7 test procedure.

8 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I

9 kind of have a procedural question. Can--you know, you

10 referenced test standards in the DoE regs. Do you have

11 to specify an actual standard and a year, or can it

12 just say the standard and the most recent version since

13 the standards are changing so fast right now?

14 MS. BARHYDT: No, we have to reference a

15 specific version.

16 MR. KOJAK: Okay.

17 (Off the record discussion.)

18 MS. BARHYDT: That's really not productive,

19 Harvey. That's not productive.

20 MR. SACHS: Laura, it was done with a smile

21 of respect. I'm not sure why.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Are there any other issues with
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

216

1 anything on this page?

2 MS. HOOTMAN: I think we're going to get to

3 that in enforcement maybe, I'm not sure, but what

4 constitutes a failure, and I guess I'm getting at--you

5 know, we have processes within AHRI about a defective

6 claim and things like that. So, you know, when is it

7 truly a failure and not something that we've claimed as

8 defective or something? But I'm assuming we're getting

9 there at some point.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, I know I've seen that one

11 of these slides. I'm not sure which one.

12 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay.

13 MS. BARHYDT: So, I actually think Jill is

14 right. I think "only" was intended to limit it to DoE,

15 the DoE test procedure and guidance issued by the

16 Department, and that is to ensure that we have

17 consistency regardless of who's doing the testing.

18 And I understand that "only" is confusing, so

19 if anyone has suggestions on how to clarify that.

20 MR. BALLO: Testing to the applicable DoE

21 test procedure and any applicable DoE guidance

22 interpreting that procedure.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

217

1 (Laughter.)

2 MS. BARHYDT: There --

3 MR. EISNER: Require compliance with your

4 guidance document so that--

5 MS. BARHYDT: Hmm?

6 MR. EISNER: Are you requiring compliance

7 with a guidance document?

8 MS. BARHYDT: Mm-mm.

9 MR. EISNER: What does this mean?

10 Requirements for approving it include--

11 MS. BARHYDT: Where?

12 MR. EISNER: The top line.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, for - so, in their program

14 plan they would agree to only use those documents and

15 not other documents.

16 MR. EISNER: Yeah, I mean, you're requiring

17 compliance with something that is intended to be

18 guidance. Why don't you just say your DoE test

19 procedures?

20 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, that's fine. The real

21 issue is the "and not other stuff" and that's the--

22 that's the difficulty of only --
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

218

1 MS. HOOTMAN: Not guidance by the third party

2 or some other program that has given guidance.

3 MS. BARHYDT: So, go back up to DoE test

4 procedure, delete everything there, and--

5 MR. KOJAK: Shouldn't you add in "and

6 waivers" too?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Well, applicable DoE test

8 procedure actually includes the waiver.

9 MR. KOJAK: Okay.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Because the applicable test

11 procedure for that product is the waiver.

12 MR. KOJAK: Okay.

13 MR. EISNER: All right. Want to take off

14 "potential", first line?

15 MS. BARHYDT: Do you all want to vote? We

16 can actually vote on something?

17 MR. EISNER: Everybody ready to take the

18 "potential" out and agree?

19 MS. HOOTMAN: One last question, this is

20 Jill. Allowance of--I'm not--I agree with this--

21 allowance of DoE input in product selection, but how do

22 you envision that kind of working where the program
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

219

1 would give you the list of what they're selecting and

2 then you're saying yes or add in this? Is it--

3 allowance of DoE input in product selection.

4 MS. BARHYDT: No, I think we're thinking more

5 like we go to the verification program and say, we've

6 been seeing failures across the industry in this

7 particular area. Can you make sure you select

8 something with these features or--

9 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. Okay.

10 MR. FLY: So, you're approving more of a--I

11 mean, there are special cases and then I would assume

12 you would approve a process when you approve the

13 independent test procedure, you know, a process that

14 might not be approved is, I'm going to do a five, ten,

15 15, 20-ton, you know, in that order, kind of deal.

16 MS. BARHYDT: Probably not quite that

17 predictable.

18 MR. EISNER: Do you intend this to still have

19 the "include" in there, that you might not want to add

20 more, or is this supposed to be it?

21 MS. BARHYDT: I think there are more slides.

22 So, it would be "include".
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

220

1 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. What

2 is the difference between the second and fourth dash

3 point?

4 MS. BARHYDT: So, one is making explicit that

5 DoE gets some input and the fourth one is that we

6 actually know what is being tested.

7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Couldn't we combine

8 those?

9 MS. BARHYDT: Will that add clarity?

10 MR. EISNER: The fourth bullet is saying it's

11 got to be provided to DoT.

12 MS. BARHYDT: E.

13 MR. EISNER: DoE.

14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Question withdrawn.

15 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. So,

16 this is for third party verification testing, right,

17 you will have something similar for other--for, like,

18 say a manufacturer approved program or--

19 MS. BARHYDT: So, this would be for anyone

20 who is approved--for us to approve a program,

21 regardless of who's running it, it would have to meet

22 all of these.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

221

1 MR. BALLO: This is Tim. I have a concern

2 about the summary test reports rather than full test

3 reports, and first off, let me say I'm not advocating

4 that all test reports be submitted to DoE. My concern

5 is when it's revising test procedures, I think it would

6 be helpful for the Department to have the ability to

7 request if not full test reports, at least elements of

8 test reports that may demonstrate how an issue has been

9 handled on the ground during testing. There may be,

10 you know, issues of interpretation that are not

11 apparent today that could surface later that--you know,

12 that hasn't been something anyone's even asked about,

13 but, you know, in order to, when we're amending the

14 test procedure to get it right, I think I'd want to

15 preserve the ability for the Department to request at

16 least elements of test reports.

17 MS. BARHYDT: We can always request test

18 reports. This is what they're required to proactively

19 provide.

20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I have a

21 question for Tim, Laura, and the extinguished cadre

22 assembled. It would seem to me that this is an
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

222

1 important concern but would it be appropriate to ask

2 whoever is that program administrator, VICP or other,

3 to issue a summary report on interpretive issues with

4 each standard that have arisen during the prior year?

5 MS. BARHYDT: So, I think Tim was saying that

6 there may be issues that people haven't asked about

7 whereas we want--to the extent that there are questions

8 during testing, DoE wants to know about them when they

9 happen, in which case, we're always compiling lists of

10 all the stuff to fix in the next test procedure

11 rulemaking.

12 MR. BALLO: I guess I was concerned that

13 there's stuff that's not even being questioned now

14 because this is just, oh, this is the way we've done

15 it, and, you know, no one realizes that anyone else

16 might interpret it a different way.

17 But if you do get a question about that or,

18 you know, you at least have the ability to see that it

19 has been done that way.

20 MS. BARHYDT: Do you all think that you'd

21 actually be able to tell that from a test report?

22 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

223

1 think it would be--because of the set-up of the

2 product, that's probably where most of the issues, I

3 would think, would be are and other areas like--as

4 we've talked about this elite process and code testers,

5 what's not documented almost ever is the--in an

6 individual test report is the bank of nozzles used to

7 measure the air flow, how--what diameter--diameters

8 used is usually documented, but the physical

9 arrangement of the nozzles, things of that nature,

10 there may be pictures of the test setup, but it may not

11 tell you the diameter of the sampler and the hole sizes

12 used in the samplers.

13 Those are the types of interpretation things

14 that I would think would be questioned down the road,

15 but that's not in a typical test report. Maybe some

16 documentation of it, but, you know, DoE has asked, and

17 it's a good practice for any lab to take pictures of

18 the setups and things of that nature, but again, some

19 of those you can't really tell the details that may be

20 questioned down the road.

21 And I like the idea of having that detail in

22 every report, but again, because of proprietary
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

224

1 confidential information and the ability and the ease

2 it would provide another manufacturer of copying my

3 product, because mine's so good--got to, sorry--

4 MS. HOOTMAN: (Off microphone.)

5 MR. THARP: --it wouldn't be me if I didn't--

6 that I don't want the details as far as the refrigerant

7 state points and the individual component power

8 consumptions added. You know, I don't mind like a

9 total system power, capacity, efficiency, inlet

10 conditions, outlet conditions, air flow rates, and

11 basic information, but a lot of the details could also12 -would not be good to be published.

13 MR. BALLO: Okay, so, Laura, you said that

14 you can always request--I mean, if that's good enough

15 for you then I'm happy with it.

16 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill Tritsis, AHRI.

17 Laura, one last bullet that you might want to add here

18 is accreditation to ISO 17065 or compliance to

19 provisions of 17065. That will come into play again

20 when you have to deal with who decides whether there's

21 a test failure and will address impartiality issues.

22 As you become more familiar with the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

225

1 provisions of 17065, perhaps if you are not requesting

2 accreditation from the DoE approved verification

3 programs, you will need to, as DoE, create a list of

4 items that adhere to certain elements from that 17065.

5 MS. BARHYDT: So, I'm definitely in agreement

6 with you that we need to come up with that. If we

7 cannot add 17065 here and just table that as an issue

8 generally, because I've got on my to-do list for next

9 week to actually read it.

10 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. Lochinvar. Would

11 somebody please explain to me what the first bullet

12 means?

13 MS. BARHYDT: Potential DoE requirements?

14 MR. KLEISS: No, allowance of all

15 participants without a requirement to join a membership

16 group.

17 MS. BARHYDT: So, that's like AHRI does.

18 They have a verification program but you're not

19 required to be a member of AHRI to participate in that

20 group.

21 MR. THARP: Anybody can use--this is Rusty--

22 anybody can have their product certified through AHRI,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

226

1 whether you're an AHRI member or not. Charles and

2 Mary, even though they're not AHRI members, can have

3 their product certified performance by AHRI. That's

4 what that means. And I'll throw in--

5 MS. HOOTMAN: Membership has a different--I

6 mean, then you would have say in all the test standards

7 and things like that if you were a member, but if you

8 were not a member and all you did was certification,

9 you would just certify the units through it.

10 MR. THARP: There were--in the sheet we had

11 last week, the Microsoft document, Word document titled

12 "Verification Program of Certified Ratings", there are

13 three bullet points that are not up there that I would

14 suggest we should add. One of them is the "allowing

15 challenging testing", I don't think--is that--that's

16 not there, is it?

17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

18 MR. THARP: I would like to have that. So,

19 the allow, thank you, Laura, "allow challenge testing."

20 And then, the last two bullets in all red--

21 MS. BARHYDT: So, there were some concerns

22 last time about the componentry being checked and I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

227

1 like the idea, but there were definitely some concerns

2 expressed about who has that list and how that's

3 provided and how detailed it is.

4 MR. THARP: And the concern still stands

5 because, again, I as a manufacturer don't want that

6 information to become public. That's basically giving

7 somebody else the recipe for my product.

8 But, again, I do like the idea of knowing

9 that those under the verification program are--and this

10 is the check that will make Tim and Harvey happy and

11 DoE in knowing that the product that's being tested is

12 the product that's being distributed in commerce. And

13 so there would have to be some rules as far as what

14 specific information is provided and that would be kept

15 by the VICP as private information.

16 MS. BARHYDT: So, if you all can think about

17 it before next time as to exactly which pieces of

18 information the verifier would need, and also think

19 about if it was a manufacturer-run program, who do you

20 want to provide that to? Do you want to provide it to

21 DoE? I know there's a lot of concerns about providing

22 information to us, but as I've said several times,
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

228

1 confidential business information that you provide to

2 us, we can protect, as long as it is, in fact,

3 confidential business information.

4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. I

5 have two questions on that. One, I'm a little

6 surprised that those folks responsible for the AHRI

7 program have not spoken up on that last item because

8 there are programs within the--groups within the AHRI

9 program that do not require that kind of componentry

10 check against some baseline, some set of drawings, that

11 sort of thing, so I'm a little surprised there's not

12 been comments about that and I would be very concerned

13 as someone who will likely have a manufacturer's DoE

14 approved program how I can do that, how far I have to

15 go, could it be as simple as we'll make sure that our

16 models are all safety certified where you have

17 quarterly inspections and make sure they're built the

18 same way, and let that serve as the componentry check

19 for those models that we have third party safety

20 certified.

21 And the other issue is how does a

22 manufacturer's verification program allow for challenge
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

229

1 testing? I agree with allowing challenge testing where

2 challenge testing can take place, but I don't want to

3 be responsible for somebody challenging me and saying I

4 have to go run my challenge test.

5 So, I don't see how that could be in there

6 and continue to have a manufacturer's verification

7 program approved by DoE.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Is challenge testing similar to

9 when people contact us and say, we think such and such

10 product is not compliant? Then I think DoE can perform

11 that function for the manufacturer run programs. I

12 mean, we investigate all complaints, so I mean, we can

13 do that.

14 MR. MYERS: Okay. This Frank Myers, PVI. I

15 have no problem with that. I support the concept of

16 challenge, I just--if that were placed on the

17 manufacturer I couldn't see how that could work, but if

18 DoE could assume that responsibility, I don't see any

19 problem with that.

20 MR. BALLO: But with DoE assuming

21 responsibility, DoE is also assuming the costs. Am I

22 right?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

230

1 MS. BARHYDT: In challenge testing, yes. We

2 would be, but if we're investigating a complaint than

3 we already have that expense.

4 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. Okay,

5 but right now for the AHRI program how does it work?

6 The challenge test who pays for it? It's the one--

7 depending on who wins, right.

8 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. Right, depending on who

9 wins.

10 MR. THARP: Loser pays.

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Loser pays.

12 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon, then one

13 question. How are you going to control imports as far

14 as verification of componentry, imported products?

15 MS. BARHYDT: Your voice kind of went down a

16 little at the end; I missed the end of your question.

17 MR. HON: Under the last bullet, must be

18 checked before tests. Basically, where proposing using

19 this product safety file to identify the electrical

20 consuming components. How does that work on an

21 imported product?

22 MS. BARHYDT: So the importer is the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

231

1 manufacturer from our perspective. So, we--I mean this

2 goes back to what we're checking it against and I think

3 you're raising the question of who has that information

4 and a think you all probably have a better idea of that

5 than I do. I mean if you're comparing it against the

6 UL safety checklist, then if its foreign manufactured

7 and it is being imported to the U.S., I assume it

8 subject to the same safety standards that your products

9 are being tracked against. So UL would have a file,

10 whether it was foreign manufactured or domestic

11 manufactured.

12 MR. AMRANE: This is--

13 MR. HON: Excuse me. My question comes when

14 say a person goes overseas and buys a product, imports

15 it into the United States, it has some safety mark

16 already on it in the manufacturer is not legally the

17 importer.

18 MS. BARHYDT: And thus, does not have access

19 to that file? That does actually follow, I wasn't

20 sure.

21 MR. HON: Yes.

22 MS. BARHYDT: okay, I don't know. Anyone
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

232

1 have any ideas?

2 MR. AMRANE: I don't have any ideas. On the

3 challenge testing though, I think in my opinion, if a

4 program like the AHRI program has a challenge tested

5 at, I think I would like DoE to recognize that

6 challenge test and I would like DoE to act on this

7 challenge tests because I think it's important. If you

8 go through the expense of doing all this and come back

9 to DoE with some proof that something is wrong, I think

10 that should be considered by DoE.

11 MS. BARHYDT: That we can do. I mean, that

12 is something that requires a regulatory change but this

13 is a rulemaking process and we can do that.

14 So, the request is rather than to require all

15 verification programs to have a challenge testing

16 mechanism is that DoE recognized the results from a

17 challenge to us. Okay.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: So Charlie let me put it in

19 terms and maybe, because I might have the same question

20 and I just want to try to understand what you're

21 saying. So, let's say I went and bought, Paul's not

22 here but, I went and bought product from him and I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

233

1 imported it. It came in as Trane in U.S. Customs. But

2 yet, and so what you're saying is maybe then I don't

3 have access to the UL file and Mitsubishi is a

4 cooperating with me or whatever, and they are not going

5 to give me that UL file. So what we do in that case?

6 Is that what you're saying?

7 MR. HON: Yes.

8 MS. HOOTMAN: And I guess I have the same

9 question and I don't know what to do in that--

10 MR. HON: That's why is asking, because--

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Because there are some

12 contracts out there that I worry about right now.

13 MR. HON: That's why I was just looking at

14 all of the possible ways it could happen. As long as

15 Trane was importing a Trane file, you could still

16 access it at any time.

17 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes.

18 MR. HON: But if you were importing someone

19 else's, say a company that doesn't even really do

20 business in the United States on a regular basis, that

21 becomes more and more cumbersome.

22 MS. HOOTMAN: Right and depending on your
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

234

1 contract with them and how you did this, you may not

2 have in that agreement that you can have access to that

3 because people hold those files, and they should,

4 they're proprietary. Is a lot of proprietary

5 information in them.

6 MR. EISNER: Is that part of or the solution

7 to say future contracts must permit you access to?

8 MR. MYERS: No.

9 MS. HOOTMAN: Maybe so, but when we talk

10 about implementation there may be a problem because we

11 have to go changes contracts.

12 MR. EISNER: No, I am saying new contracts.

13 Let's start with the simple. All new contracts must

14 include a provision.

15 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

16 That would be problematic for a smaller

17 manufacturer who is importing a handful of units from

18 an offshore company that sells to lots of small

19 manufacturers. They would have no interest in us

20 knowing the details of how to build their products and

21 we wouldn't have enough leverage--if we tried to force

22 that into a contract we wouldn't be able to buy the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

235

1 equipment. Where, you know, if you're buying a lot of

2 them, hey, I want to make all this money so I'm willing

3 to give up some of those rights, for a small

4 manufacturer you couldn't.

5 MR. EISNER: If all of the small

6 manufacturers could not buy the equipment under DoE

7 rules unless they had access to the files, wouldn't

8 that change the marketplace with respect to the

9 contract? They don't care; they'll give up all that

10 business?

11 MR. MYERS: Not--that's correct because it

12 may be a worldwide product and where just one customer

13 or five small customers in the United States that might

14 buy that and they would give it up rather than provide

15 that information to us. Yeah, absolutely.

16 MR. EISNER: Do you have any way--

17 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey and am missing

18 something. With respect to that last line which is

19 what we seem to be discussing. If my good buddy Mike

20 is testing some imported product, Mike needs to know

21 what to avoid doing to avoid getting his technician

22 electrocuted. What's the information that--
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

236

1 MR. THARP: This is Rusty. This is

2 concerning-- the reason that information is there is to

3 make sure that the product undergoing verification

4 testing is a product that being distributed in

5 commerce. What we already discussed was that imported

6 products under that situation would have to be acquired

7 basically off-the-shelf.

8 So if that product is off-the-shelf, it is

9 what is being distributed and commerce, so there would

10 not be an issue. Is that correct?

11 MS. BARHYDT: Potentially. If Charlie's

12 importing and he's the importer of record and that's

13 true. It's already going to be here. But if Charlie

14 does it take possession of it and the foreign OEM is

15 the importer, then the foreign OEM is the manufacturer.

16 In which case it is entirely possible that

17 that foreign manufacturer may sign up with a lab in a

18 foreign country that meets all the criteria that we set

19 out for a lab who runs a program and they get it tested

20 somewhere else.

21 MR. THARP: For verification?

22 MS. BARHYDT: For verification. Of course, I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

237

1 guess, and that scenario they have their own file so--

2 MR. THARP: I think that's part of the reason

3 why we said or at least was suggested, I don't know

4 what we agreed to, that any verification testing would

5 be done--

6 MS. BARHYDT: I know. You all wanted it in

7 the United States, but I think we have a problem there.

8 MR. KOJAK: I have a question so I can

9 understand. If equipment's being imported to sell in

10 the United States doesn't have to be certified--the

11 rating, that it meets the minimum rating with the DoE

12 before they can sell it anyways? And don't they have

13 to supply something that explains anything?

14 (Laughter.)

15 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes and yes. We went over that

16 list of things that we had to supply to them, I don't

17 know if it was the last time but anyway one these

18 meetings.

19 But the fact is we were trying to have a

20 document such that you have it at your test lab, you

21 are now going to verify that the fan motor is in fact

22 the fan motor that we said. Those energy consumption
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

238

1 products, those things like fan motors and compressors

2 and all of that are the same. We were saying that we

3 could give you the UL file to do that comparison.

4 Well, when I'm dealing with that foreign

5 manufacturer they're not necessarily going to give me a

6 UL file because of proprietary nature in it and because

7 of the way the agreements are written. They are not

8 necessarily--in his point is very good, there are many

9 times when you're trying to fill a niche area in the

10 U.S., you're not going to make it. You're going to

11 find Mr. Worldwide Manufacturer that makes it somewhere

12 else and you're only buying 10 of them. They're not

13 going to give it to you for 10. They're just not going

14 to give that kind of information.

15 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. That can also

16 happen because if you go to an outside manufacturer to

17 have a model. They do not necessarily have a reason to

18 change the model number before they change components.

19 If they change and motors, they go to an alternate

20 compressor that imported would not necessarily know

21 that unless you had set up a contract that said all

22 changes require notification.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

239

1 So, it's a very difficult question because I

2 don't know the answer. We're not involved in it, but I

3 don't get caught in the middle of this because I have

4 seen this issue happen with the California Energy

5 Commission on a product exactly what we're talking

6 about here.

7 It was brought in by a contract from an

8 offshore manufacturer and when they finally got into

9 the details of it, they could not verify where the

10 product was actually manufactured, any of the

11 components in it. There were some component changes

12 which were allowed within the listing of the product

13 but they failed the CEC audit test because of it. And

14 it was a real mess.

15 And the question came back, "Well, how come

16 you don't have control of your component list?" And

17 basically, the entire case rested on how much detail do

18 you have to go to.

19 MS. BARHYDT: We've seen that as well. Where

20 changing out components has really gotten importers

21 into trouble. Actually, it's gotten the domestic

22 manufacturers into trouble as well.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

240

1 MR. KLEISS: This is Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar.

2 On that same bullet, energy consuming componentry, for

3 boilers and water heaters, a burner would qualify

4 there. And as far as how do you verify that? Most of

5 the burners are custom-made for manufacturers, so you

6 have to pull out a drawing and measure it and make sure

7 that it complies. It's not a simple thing.

8 MS. BARHYDT: So what about if we took the

9 last bullet off, but we made it one of the factors in

10 your nifty little spreadsheet so that where products

11 were purchased off-the-shelf, then obviously there is

12 no level of componentry check needed. If it's coming

13 off the production line, you need to have some kind of

14 component check.

15 Where it's contingent on where you get the

16 units from instead of from an across the board, you

17 have to check components.

18 MR. EISNER: When you're testing this piece

19 of equipment, that you're buying off of the shelf,

20 you're testing its efficiency. You know what it's

21 supposed to achieve because that's what they've told

22 you. This model is supposed to get a 10. Why does the
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

241

1 componentry matter if you test it and it doesn't meet

2 the efficiency standard?

3 It doesn't meet it regardless of what the

4 componentry--

5 MR. KLEISS: I think the concern is the other

6 way around.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Exactly.

8 MR. KLEISS: We would put something on there

9 that is Class A, when the run of the mill stuff that

10 we're selling is Class C.

11 MR. KOJAK: It's off the shelf.

12 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure what you mean by

13 the different classes. They put something in there to

14 make it more efficient? What's the harm?

15 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, but if it's something off16 the- shelf, let's say a manufacturer has to make a 100

17 units and he runs out of the lower-end motor and he has

18 the higher-end motor and he wants to throw them in

19 there, which is actually going to improve the

20 efficiency of it and they end up finishing the run

21 selling it to their mass distributor and they're

22 actually selling equipment that doesn't have the exact
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

242

1 component list but it has a better, more efficient

2 motor in it because that's what they had to use to meet

3 the timeline. They shouldn't be penalized for that,

4 even though the unit's actually more efficient than it

5 should be.

6 Technically you would be dinging them for

7 that. So, I understand what Neil is saying. If it's

8 off-the- shelf, what does it really matter what the

9 component list is because it's either going to pass or

10 it's going to fail. If it's a custom one, then I think

11 then, like an engineered to build or a one-off, then

12 it's probably more important that the bill of materials

13 is correct than a mass produced stock item.

14 MR. EISNER: If you tried to take action

15 against them and they said, "What are you penalizing me

16 for? I didn't have the normal motor, so I put a better

17 one in there."

18 MS. BARHYDT: Right, that's why I was saying

19 it seems to me like that should hinge on what the--

20 MR. EISNER: Efficiency rating is.

21 MS. BARHYDT: Well, it should hinge on where

22 we get the unit from.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

243

1 MR. EISNER: Yeah, it's off-the-shelf.

2 MS. BARHYDT: So, if it's off-the-shelf, I

3 don't see that the component list is an issue.

4 MR. EISNER: If they say I want to do a test

5 and they do a test and they gave you one that had the

6 better motor, that's different.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah.

8 MR. EISNER: But in order to do that, they'd

9 have to give you the information on the componentry.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Well, so I think the issue

11 having a source for that list that was created before

12 they knew the model was selected.

13 MR. SMITH: Can all of this work be done upon

14 failure of unit? The checking of components and stuff?

15 If it passes, there's no issue.

16 MS. BARHYDT: Well, no--

17 MR. SMITH: --failure--then you check all of

18 the components.

19 MS. BARHYDT: So, the issue is--so let's say

20 that we are dealing with a foreign manufacturer who

21 imports into the United States and we contact them and

22 we say or somebody says, "These are the five models
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

244

1 that we want to test." And they say, "Okay, we'll make

2 those for you and we'll ship them to you in the United

3 States and you can test them there." And they arrive

4 and they all pass.

5 And it turns out that none of those five

6 models are what they normally sell.

7 They've substituted components because they

8 built those for test. And it's knowing that what we

9 got for test is what they, in fact, normally sell.

10 MR. EISNER: One of the reasons for not going

11 to off-the-shelf, it's harder--more costly for the

12 manufacturer. If they don't want to provide you with

13 the data, then you say we will always take it off-the14 shelf.

15 MS. BARHYDT: --off-the-shelf. No, I'm fine

16 with that.

17 MR. EISNER: Everybody else fine with that?

18 Anybody see a problem with that?

19 MS. BARHYDT: Does that address all the weird

20 importer scenarios?

21 MR. HON: I do not know. You have to ask the

22 custom manufacturers about that even though they may be
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

245

1 a custom manufacturer, they may make custom purchasing

2 as well.

3 MR. SMITH: Who supplies the drawings? Does

4 the manufacturer supply the drawings or the test lab?

5 MS. BARHYDT: Which drawings?

6 MR. SMITH: The componentry.

7 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, I don't have the

8 answers for how this would work.

9 MR. SMITH: Like a third-party test lab, some

10 products I do EEV testing for, but I don't do the

11 certification work for that. So if I'm doing an EEV

12 test for a product that's not under my certification, I

13 have to request that from another third-party lab.

14 That's going to take weeks or never to happen.

15 MS. BARHYDT: I heard Jill say she needs to

16 think about this some more.

17 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, yeah, I mean as far as

18 the importer whole thing. I had to think through some

19 very weird scenarios. But I don't want to have to

20 supply drawings.

21 Drawings, at least for me anymore is

22 electronic. There's actually no physical printing of
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

246

1 drawings. So that means big huge CAD files that have

2 to get sent to you and I don't even know if you're on

3 the system that we're on and all that kind of stuff.

4 It's not an easy thing.

5 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI.

6 I would have less of a problem with this if

7 there was some kind of generic list of what it was we

8 needed to provide, because I could see someone saying

9 you need every product drawing of everything in that

10 product and you lock that down, and then nothing

11 changes unless you re-run a test. And that would not

12 be practical, so--

13 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So what I had asked was

14 everybody think about in situations where we would need

15 to verify componentry, what pieces of information would

16 we need? And what is the best mechanism to get that to

17 the test lab?

18 MR. EISNER: Why isn't that something you get

19 when you certify the product at the very beginning?

20 MS. BARHYDT: Because they don't want to send

21 me that information.

22 MR. EISNER: No, no. if it's needed at some
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

247

1 time, why wasn't it put on the list that you needed to

2 certify. That's when you get it before the spot

3 checking or the verification testing.

4 You say you need it to be in place

5 beforehand.

6 MS. HOOTMAN: Because they're subject to

7 FOIA. I really don't want to put down all of my

8 compressor model numbers.

9 MR. EISNER: Well, they're not subject to

10 FOIA if they are legitimately confidential business

11 information. I don't think that means you even have to

12 give them to the Agency, the Agency just may need to

13 have access to have to them, which you may have to

14 prove this is what you had in place since the time you

15 certified the product and they have access to it

16 anytime they want to look at it.

17 At least that's my understanding of FOIA.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: In our case we would give it to

19 AHRI now, but it is held confidential between us and

20 AHRI. The energy consuming componentry is.

21 MR. THARP: Well, I think--this is Rusty with

22 Goodman. You commented a few minutes ago Laura, that
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

248

1 maybe we ought to make a list of what these energy

2 consuming componentry is and what should be documented.

3 It's going to be different for each different type of

4 product. So maybe we just ought to table that.

5 I agree with most of the stuff that's there.

6 It's juts if we can go back and think about it we can

7 have a good vote on it at the beginning of the next

8 meeting.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

10 MR. THARP: Which actually, since we have 13

11 minutes left, and we had a pretty good acceptance of

12 the last suggestion. I want to make one more

13 suggestion. I hope my--I think my teammates will be--

14 MS. HOOTMAN: Your batting average--

15 MR. THARP: My batting average is going to be

16 good for the day. I'd like to throw out, if I may, the

17 certification compliance dates. And basically we're

18 going max.

19 The rollout that was scheduled, that we have,

20 I'd like to propose--actually I put it on that disk,

21 your floppy there. It's Book3.xls.

22 So if we wanted to vote on something, you'll
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

249

1 get a unanimous decision from the industry if we choose

2 to vote on this today.

3 MR. WHITWELL: So Rusty are these--

4 (Laughter.)

5 MS. BARHYDT: So as much as I like the idea

6 of getting an unanimous decision today. I was counting

7 the number of people at the table and I really think we

8 shouldn't vote today. We're almost, we're not quite at

9 half, but we're not well-above half of the members on

10 the working group today, so--

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Ron and Bob are on.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Ron and Bob are on, but we're

13 missing a lot of people.

14 (Off the record discussion.)

15 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen with

16 Cleaver- Brooks. Can you hear me?

17 MR. EISNER: Yes, we can hear you.

18 MR. SUTPHEN: can we talk about scheduling a

19 separate boiler webinar or meeting in the near future?

20 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, my understanding is that

21 Ashley was going to send out a Doodle Poll for next

22 week.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

250

1 MR. SUTPHEN: Okay, I'll confirm that Peter's

2 going to attend or I'll attend in his place if he

3 can't.

4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I just

5 wanted to say that I was incorrect for those that heard

6 me, I do agree with the sheet. I didn't see the small

7 print on the list and 10 gallons on the hot water

8 supply boiler. But I am in agreement with that.

9 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ron Shebik with

10 Hussmann. The question I have for the group, whoever's

11 there in the room, is everyone still okay with what's

12 in the list and is DoE okay with what you're seeing so

13 far? Not that we have to vote or anything.

14 MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman.

15 basically these dates are pretty much the max

16 of what everybody had agreed to the last time.

17 The initial list had some of the ones that

18 are 18 and earlier, so those, you know, their initial

19 suggestion was SPVU and CRACs would be at 12 or

20 something like that. And those that were moved to 18,

21 but we basically have something at every three month

22 interval starting with six months.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

251

1 MR. EISNER: And the assumed six month grace

2 period means no enforcement action during the first six

3 months after the rule goes into effect, which is 30

4 days after the AEDM rule is issued.

5 MS. BARHYDT: No, I think it's six months

6 after their six month, nine month, 12 month--

7 MR. EISNER: So for each of the items on the

8 list there will be a six month grace period?

9 MR. THARP: Yes, that's correct.

10 MR. EISNER: You're all right with that?

11 MR. THARP: Yes.

12 MR. SHEBIK: Laura, is DoE okay with what

13 they see?

14 MS. BARHYDT: I'm still reading Ron, give me

15 a second.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. SHEBIK: Sorry.

18 MS. BARHYDT: Is everybody actually okay with

19 this?

20 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. on

21 the 21st we're going to have our industry phone call or

22 the member phone call.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

252

1 MS. BARHYDT: And you would like to talk to

2 them--that's fair.

3 MS. DANE: I would like to reserve that until

4 then.

5 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. One thing we

6 may want to look at is under CRE there are different

7 groups involved. The original 2005 EPACT covered a

8 certain group of information, which has had a lot

9 longer to prepare for that portion. Then the EPACT '09

10 covered other categories and since then, there's even

11 been another piece of legislation that was passed.

12 And so, the problem is that some of us who

13 have been under EPACT '05 have a lot of data, while

14 other people which are much, much, much later in the

15 game playing, may not have the database that we have.

16 And as such, you're going to have a division amongst

17 the groups of who is available for which levels.

18 MR. AMRANE: Charlie, this is Karim with

19 AHRI. Are you advocating for in your case, for example,

20 for an earlier date than 15 months?

21 MR. HON: I believe that it is a doable

22 situation in certain categories within the CRE. But
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

253

1 there are certain other categories I understand

2 completely, are probably not doable even in 15 months.

3 MS. BARHYDT: We're open to that.

4 MR. HON: Okay.

5 MR. EISNER: Open to what?

6 MS. BARHYDT: To dividing CRE by equipment

7 classes into different dates.

8 MR. EISNER: Longer dates than 15 months?

9 MS. BARHYDT: well, ideally sooner.

10 MR. EISNER: Well, if they're sooner they can

11 comply sooner, right?

12 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I would like them to

13 commit to complying sooner.

14 MR. HON: The situation being that we may not

15 wish to comply too early, because there are certain

16 "me, too" type companies who will then potentially take

17 our numbers and try and be very close to our numbers.

18 That's just an opinion on our part. But that's how we

19 would do it as a business.

20 We would not want to put our on six, ten

21 months ahead unless there was some reward purpose.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Any chance HVAC would split up?
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

254

1 Small, large? Very large?

2 MS. HOOTMAN: To us it pretty much goes into

3 one--a lot of that already goes into one AHRI program,

4 so you're still talking about one body of data. So

5 you're description of small, you know, that is all

6 going into one ULE.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah--

8 MR. AMRANE: But about the one less than

9 65,000 BTUs, the three-phase--

10 MS. BARHYDT: The really small.

11 MR. AMRANE: So, I don't know. Maybe it's

12 something we can--

13 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

14 MR. FLY: And we're still all doing this with

15 no definition of product family or how many tests we're

16 going to have do, so--

17 MS. BARHYDT: Right, but this is--

18 MR. FLY: Just had to throw it out.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Right, this is just

20 certification and we do have definitions of basic

21 models now. So, I will also say my expectation is that

22 the date for the verification would not be until after
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

255

1 the 18 months is up. I mean, I think we would get

2 everybody certified, past their six month time period

3 before we would kick in some kind of a verification

4 program.

5 So, my expectation is that timing doesn't

6 have to be aligned.

7 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. And I have a

8 question specific to HVAC and specific to the AEDM. We

9 really haven't talked about, but you know the product

10 class in 65,000 BTUs, the single-phase are the

11 residential, the three-phase are commercial. But all

12 of them have been rated the same before by an ARM, for

13 example.

14 And we're talking about AEDM and now

15 comments, anyway of the AHRI comments, we requested at

16 least for those products that we keep the ARM concept

17 as it exists today.

18 DoE has never responded to those comments and

19 I guess we haven't talked about it, but is it DoE's

20 intent to consider the three-phase product differently

21 from the single-phase product, even though they're

22 really the same.
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

256

1 MS. BARHYDT: That's statutory. They are

2 different.

3 MR. AMRANE: Different in terms of the, I

4 understand that, but in terms of the ARM versus an

5 AEDM.

6 MS. BARHYDT: So the three-phase has always

7 been under an AEDM, by reg not ARMs. ARMs has always

8 been limited to residential, the single-phase.

9 MR. THARP: I have to go back and check, but

10 I think my DoE letter of approval for my ARM included

11 three-phase.

12 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

14 MR. THARP: I think. I'm pretty sure it

15 does, from Michael Raymond. I think, I'll double check

16 and bring in the next meeting.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Please do.

18 MR. SACHS: This begs for another question.

19 I thought that in the beginning we talked about AEDMs

20 subsuming both commercial and residential and the term

21 ARM would be retired.

22 MS. BARHYDT: We didn't discuss that because
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

257

1 that's out of the scope of this working group because

2 we're not talking about anything residential.

3 MR. SACHS. I'm sorry, slap my hand.

4 MR. BARHYDT: That is what we proposed in the

5 AEDM rulemaking initially, but we did receive a lot of

6 comments against that.

7 MR. EISNER: So is the general consensus of

8 those who are still here, that this will work? If

9 anything we may be able to split one or more categories

10 and have some of them do it earlier.

11 MS. BARHYDT: I know CRE wants to have their

12 group meeting and we heard boilers do, too.

13 MR. EISNER: Okay. That's why I'm looking

14 for a general consensus. Nobody seems to have a

15 significant problem in this room.

16 MR. WHITWELL: Sorry, general consensus on

17 what Neil? I got distract--

18 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, Bob--

19 MR. EISNER: What I'm saying is there seems

20 to be a general consensus of those here, which is not

21 enough to take a vote. What is up on the screen will

22 work. There is a possibility that a couple categories
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

258

1 could be split into subcategories, some of which could

2 meet the requirements earlier. But nobody's committing

3 to that. That's just a general consensus that it will

4 work.

5 MR. WHITWELL: Yep, okay. Thanks.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Well, everybody's running from

7 the room. So, we'll see you in--is it two weeks?

8 MR. STEPHENS: Two weeks from Monday.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Two weeks. So there may be a

10 couple of different meetings. One for the HVAC motor

11 issue and one for boilers.

12 MR. THARP: Who is going to drive the motor

13 teleconference? is that something that industry needs

14 to do?

15 MR. WHITWELL: So long.

16 MR. THARP: Who is driving the motor

17 teleconference?

18 MS. BARHYDT: So Ashley sent out a Doodle

19 Poll. I think it has already gone out.

20 MR. WHITWELL: Yes, it's already gone out.

21 I've seen it.

22 MS. BARHYDT: To come up with a date. I
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

259

1 think she was going to reach out to NEMA and kind of

2 clue them in on what's going on.

3 MR. THARP: Okay. Ashley's taking care of

4 it.

5 MS. BARHYDT: And find out who all's going to

6 be there.

7 MR. THARP: Great.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Thank you.

9 (Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the Appliance

10 Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory

11 Committee Meeting was adjourned.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

2 I, CHRISTINE ALLEN, the Court Reporter before 

3 whom the foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby 

4 certify that the proceeding was recorded by me; that 

5 the proceeding was thereafter reduced to typewriting 

6 under 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 

S./Si /1 3 

Digital Court Reporter 

(866) 448 - DEPO 

www.Ca.pitalReportingCompany.com. @ 2013 
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 1

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

$

$10,000 83:2

0

05 252:13

09 252:9

1

1:03 167:15

1:04:15 57:5

1:12:00 64:20

10 6:19 24:20

25:2,5

34:7,12,13 40:7

87:9 88:4 138:18

167:21 178:6

186:1,7 187:7

189:15 194:7

238:12,13

240:22 250:7

10:1 97:2

100 42:6 80:4

106:5 121:4

123:2,3,7 142:8

144:2,4 156:10

194:11 241:16

10--go 31:15

11 37:2

11:52 167:12

12 250:19 251:6

120 43:20 74:20

1200 33:7 212:6

1-2-3-4 77:6

13 248:10

14 105:7

15 17:9 88:4

175:16 219:15

252:20 253:2,8

16 56:18

17025 26:14

149:18 155:11

158:11

182:12,22

183:7,11,12

184:9,10

17065 183:9,11,13

184:6,10

224:18,19

225:1,4,7

18 250:18,20 255:1

2

20 34:6,11,17 45:9

94:15

96:1,4,6,7,9,10,1

9,20 97:15 116:8

120:10

123:15,16

138:19

175:17,20

177:20,22

178:3,11,15,21

181:9 186:7

187:12,21

194:3,8

200 105:8 173:22

174:8,14 175:15

176:4

2005 252:7

2013 1:10

20-ton 219:15

210 154:6

21st 251:21

22nd 13:9

240 154:6

25 16:18 37:11

105:5 106:3

138:8,10 142:15

150:12

26 105:5

26th 30:7 31:17

27th 30:7

28th 30:7

3

3 26:21 37:15

137:9

3:00 259:9

30 27:15 105:8

174:2 176:4

194:3,8,10

200:13 251:3

300 106:6

33 204:17,19

39 204:20

4

4 26:21

4.8 200:12,14

43 10:11,18,22

43:13 40:2

45:12 41:20

49:10 44:18

5

5 188:15

5:1 97:2

50 32:19 105:5,7

6

6 37:15 40:7

60 33:4 81:10

174:4

60-some 27:11

62 16:15

65,000 254:9

255:10

7

75 37:9

8

8 1:10 40:7

8:09 1:11 4:2

80 87:16

85 87:6,10,15,16

88 87:15

89 87:15

9

90 74:20

95 87:6 120:22

121:17 194:11

950 1:7

98 120:21 121:16

A

a.m 1:11 4:2

167:12

AAON 2:16 46:16

53:7 65:22

180:16 202:11

ABC 51:22

ability 81:19 103:6

109:5 221:6,15

222:18 224:1

able 7:6 13:18,19

14:2,4 27:3 28:4

30:16 35:20

60:17 70:2 76:22

90:2 98:21 108:9

126:8 132:18

137:7 146:15
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 2

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

148:4,18 170:16

171:20 179:10

181:20 184:19

188:1 203:19

222:21 234:22

257:9

about--I 18:21

about--what

212:14

absence 81:11

absolute 56:22

absolutely 82:16

89:3 99:8 146:16

152:15 235:15

abut 45:10

accept 22:19,20

102:21 118:21

166:22 182:13

acceptable 26:7

103:18 131:8,9

144:22 202:19

acceptance 102:20

118:15 120:16

167:3 248:11

accepted 5:15

22:11 93:9 103:1

104:1

accepting 169:11

181:22

access 108:21

210:19 231:18

233:3,16 234:2,7

235:7 247:13,15

accessible 129:4

accomplish 77:13

108:8

according 16:15

149:3 150:2

166:7 179:9

account 50:7

110:2 143:12

accounts 143:21

accreditation

184:6 224:18

225:2

accredited 134:5,7

accuracy 152:1

accurate 185:1

260:7

achieve 209:11

240:21

achieved 88:15

99:5

Acmes 51:22

52:10

acquired 236:6

across 12:19 30:4

42:8 94:11

145:11 219:6

240:16

act 232:6

action 109:3

242:14 251:2

actions 143:10

actor 41:1 50:10

51:5,11 54:10

55:15 76:21

119:9

actors 55:7,16

58:1,15 76:12,15

79:13 81:9

100:11,13,16,18

113:10,21 114:3

116:8

actual 94:20

110:12 143:21

203:4 215:11

actually 4:6 19:2

48:13 49:9

53:4,15 64:2

65:11 77:20

80:19 91:15 96:3

100:15 105:10

112:17 116:20

134:15 151:6

161:6 177:1

184:12 203:16

206:16,18 207:4

209:1 210:8

214:6 216:13

218:8,16 220:6

222:21 225:9

231:19

239:10,21

241:19,22 242:4

245:22 248:10

251:18

add 14:6 23:9 24:3

30:19 36:7 37:12

40:2 94:7

111:13,16

181:16,21

182:11 183:8

218:5 219:2,19

220:9 224:17

225:7 226:14

added 68:14,16

112:9 117:12

170:8 171:15

224:8

adding 23:16

168:15

addition 10:9

20:19 131:3

additional

23:17,19 27:22

30:21 39:14 55:9

59:16 76:21

82:17 107:2

138:21 139:2

156:13 157:8

159:15 160:1

169:22 170:1

173:17 194:6

195:22

197:13,18,20

202:21 204:16

additions 118:7

address 53:1 59:7

190:3 211:11

224:21 244:19

addressed 110:3

189:11

addresses 101:10

addressing 127:12

160:15

adequate 91:13

155:11 208:6

adequately 105:15

adhere 210:12

225:4

adjourned 259:11

adjusted 86:2

administration

209:22

administrator

222:2

ADMs 6:4

adopt 33:12 79:6

132:4

adopted 33:7,13

52:16

advance 50:18

advantage 15:15

154:15

advantageous

40:22

advertise 70:6

Advisory 1:4
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 3

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

259:10

advocates 108:4

115:11

advocating 221:3

252:19

AEDM 94:11

121:11,12

153:15

162:4,5,17 176:5

184:20,21,22

185:5 195:2

196:11,18,22

197:9,10,19

198:13,18,19

212:22

213:12,13 251:4

255:8,14 256:5,7

257:5

AEDMs 94:21

118:17,18 177:1

196:12 213:1

256:19

affect 44:17

48:6,16 61:9

affecting 45:4

affects 47:6,9

affect--you 44:4

afford 91:14 109:5

111:18

afternoon 6:15

46:9

against 44:19 49:2

91:11 138:4

228:10 231:2,5,9

242:15 257:6

again--when 199:1

agencies 20:18

agency 44:7

247:12

ago 63:12 116:9

160:7 247:22

agreed 144:9

195:1 237:4

250:16

agreement 5:5,8

119:19 122:20

132:5 225:5

234:2 250:8

agreements 238:7

ahead 6:2

28:10,19 31:15

41:18 42:3 86:19

148:5 215:2

253:21

ahead--it's 158:14

AHRI 2:7 3:14,18

8:12,16

9:6,17,18 10:10

25:13,15,22

30:20 32:9,11

33:3,6 34:16

36:13,19 41:16

42:2 43:21

49:9,11 52:5,6

53:11 57:9 62:10

74:14 75:19

76:1,8 78:22

79:3,6,14 80:20

81:6,10,12,18,20

83:16 84:16,19

85:8,9 86:21

87:20 95:4,7,20

96:17

97:16,17,22 98:5

100:9 102:19

103:17 105:13

106:13,16,19

107:11 109:18

112:10,16,17

113:1 117:11

120:17 121:14

123:21 124:16

125:1 126:12

128:5 130:1

131:6,9

133:11,14,20

136:19 137:7

138:16,17,19,20

139:4,18 141:16

142:7 144:9

145:22 146:2

155:17,19

156:10

161:17,19

164:17

165:7,15,22

166:2,17 169:20

170:4,8,20,22

171:20

173:4,9,12,14

174:10

175:1,10,20

176:10,16

177:6,13

180:5,13 181:1

183:1 186:19

187:8 189:12

194:2 195:15,16

196:14,20

197:17,19

198:4,17 199:4

205:8 206:4,15

209:22 210:11

211:3,5,12

212:6,11 215:4

216:5 220:15

224:16

225:17,19,22

226:1,2,3

228:6,8 230:4,5

232:4 247:19,20

252:19 254:3

255:15

AHRI's 9:7 83:13

95:5 125:20

128:11 179:6

196:3 211:4

a--I 219:10

aims 93:16

air 32:20 75:7

223:7 224:10

Air-Conditioning

2:6,11 3:13

airflow 57:13

alarm 12:9

align 11:13

aligned 11:12

255:6

aligns 95:1

Allen 1:16

260:2,14

allot 25:1,3

allow 7:19

80:10,11,13

142:21 144:13

181:17

205:6,8,10

226:19 228:22

allowable 126:6

152:13

allowance 87:3

218:20,21 219:3

225:14

allowed 43:19 76:6

132:8 165:7

169:9 239:12

allowing 28:2

134:22 226:14

229:1

all's 259:5

already 8:15,19

13:14 32:11,14

33:13 35:20

39:17 61:11 67:6
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 4

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

76:4 94:5 99:18

127:9 136:20

137:14 140:17

141:18 147:21

148:3,17 155:13

158:10,16

159:22 160:3

172:1 176:16,21

177:3,8 179:22

194:21 195:19

205:8 230:3

231:16 236:5,13

254:3 258:19,20

already--if 161:1

also--which 22:8

alternate 14:17

103:7 238:19

alternate--the

103:14

alternative 112:12

132:9,13 136:20

165:12

am 11:15 49:12

71:6,8,10 97:5

114:15 123:6

136:19 140:12

144:18 146:4

159:10 197:3

229:21 234:12

235:17 250:8

260:7

ambiguities 92:17

amending 221:13

American 3:9

71:4,15,18 74:6

among 11:7 13:9

amongst 252:16

amount 76:4 78:20

109:20 116:12

121:2 170:12

196:2 210:3

Amrane 2:6 8:12

9:17,21 25:13,18

32:9 34:16 36:13

41:16 62:10,13

78:22 79:7

80:3,19 81:3

87:20 95:22

96:10,22 97:20

100:9 106:13

107:11 112:19

117:11,16 129:8

133:20 139:4

142:15

146:2,8,11,16

147:1 165:22

168:19 169:1

170:22 172:3,16

175:19 178:2

206:7,11 212:10

213:3,7 220:15

230:4 231:12

232:2 252:18

254:8,11 255:7

256:3

analysis 5:14

34:20

analyze 28:15

And--10 186:2

annual 22:2

24:8,9,20

79:14,16 81:21

82:4 90:20

152:19 166:14

annually 207:2

anonymous 80:16

another--from

201:10

answer 33:2 63:1

89:4 97:20

116:14

131:12,15 145:9

147:5 167:4

239:2

answering 79:12

answers 16:11

245:8

ante 85:2

anybody 13:21

20:6 41:6 42:15

50:18 58:15

105:17 106:21

107:6 161:20

225:21,22

244:18

anymore 245:21

anyone 5:18 43:8

54:14 89:3 91:14

99:7 131:15

161:5 205:6

216:19 220:19

222:15 231:22

anyone's 221:12

anything 8:7 50:9

67:22 103:21

123:4,8 141:10

159:5 160:2

172:1 186:3,5

216:1 237:13

250:13 257:2,9

anytime 247:16

anyway 18:15,16

25:4 40:7 47:10

48:3 237:17

255:15

anyways 237:12

apologize 113:3

151:12

apology 46:11

apparent 221:11

appears 106:14

applaud 165:16

apple 76:17

appliance 1:3

87:7,11 259:9

applicable 94:22

115:21 182:5

207:18 213:16

216:20,21

218:7,10

application 54:3

applied 48:15

applies 155:2

apply 23:12

105:12 169:17

applying 145:5

148:8 199:15

appreciate

107:20,22 152:6

approach 131:1,8

196:7

appropriate

116:13 145:4

222:1

appropriately

48:15

approval 169:17

199:16 256:10

approvals 169:16

approve 204:5

219:12 220:20

approved 102:18

103:10,14

104:11,16 118:9

125:22 138:18

140:14 149:9,13

154:21 156:15

157:9 159:18

161:9 163:11

164:8 169:19
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 5

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

170:6 178:16

179:4,7 201:8

202:2 219:14

220:18 225:2

228:14 229:7

approved--for

220:20

approving 217:10

219:10

approximately

37:10 138:8

area 58:3,17,18

59:2 89:21

121:11 202:13

219:7 238:9

are--and 227:9

areas 20:17 223:3

aren't 14:20 95:10

127:18 139:19

206:18

argue 138:4

Aris 3:4

arisen 222:4

ARM 255:12,16

256:4,10,21

ARMs 256:7

Armstrong 2:8

arrangement

223:9

array 50:21

arrive 244:3

Ashley 2:8 133:2

210:15 249:21

258:18

Ashley's 259:3

ASHRAE

212:1,2,5,8

asked--this 189:20

aspect 171:14

assemble 4:8

assembled 36:19

221:22

assembly 78:18,19

assessment 78:9

association 95:4

assume 54:4 86:8

119:22 131:12

219:11 229:18

231:7

assumed 251:1

assuming 55:3

100:10 103:17

118:13 119:6

132:2 169:12

201:16 203:6

216:8 229:20,21

assumption 137:9

178:3 179:3,12

assurance 11:14

12:19 57:3 59:22

61:15 98:4 108:8

112:13 136:9

165:13

assurances 89:20

90:4

a--the 187:7

attempting 158:9

attend 250:2

attending 84:21

attention 53:18

56:7

at--you 216:4

audit 22:2 185:19

186:1 187:15,21

189:18 191:14

239:13

audited 44:8 65:17

auditing 130:16

134:3,15

August 1:10

authorized 67:17

70:3,5 118:14

126:22

available 8:9

36:15 69:13 75:5

87:21 88:2

135:18 210:11

211:1 252:17

average 92:1

123:22 186:22

248:14,15

averaging 123:4,8

avoid 235:21

aware 20:6 69:13

146:3,5,11

168:10

away 28:12 92:14

186:20 194:19

a--we 191:3

a--where 158:1

a--you 202:1

B

back-and-forth

77:16

backs 115:14

bad 40:22 50:10

51:5,11 54:9

55:4,7,14,16

58:1,12,15

76:12,15,17,21

79:13 81:9

100:11,13

108:4,5,9 109:2

113:9,21 114:3

116:8 119:9

160:14

balance 11:20

12:5,12 13:3

66:22 78:2 82:20

89:6 90:8

171:7,9,18

172:13,15

balances 80:12

Ballo 2:9 40:15

113:5 120:5

127:13,17

148:5,7 216:20

221:1 222:12

224:13 229:20

ballpark 107:15

band 152:12

bands 92:9

bank 223:6

bar 93:11 107:17

108:1 172:2

bare 166:22 167:1

Barhydt 2:10

4:3,10,16,19

5:21 7:13 9:4,20

10:17,20 11:1

15:7,10 16:7,13

17:13,18,21

18:10,16 19:2,6

23:7 24:7,10,14

25:7,9,12,16

26:4 29:1,5,7

31:1,4,6

35:3,15,19

36:3,12 37:5

38:21 40:9,14

43:6 49:8,21

50:3,13 55:20

61:22

62:5,12,15,19
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 6

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

63:5,9 64:2,15

65:2,9,18

66:2,5,9,14,18

67:12 70:5,8,14

71:1,6,17,21

72:3,6 73:15,21

74:22 75:3 76:18

77:20 78:15,19

79:5,9 80:2,6

88:9 90:10

98:13,17

101:1,4,15,18,21

102:13 104:6

109:19

110:6,9,21

111:4,7,10

117:14,18

118:1,4,8,12

119:4 121:3,6,9

125:16,19

126:20

128:10,19 133:6

135:4,7,13,20

136:1 139:11

140:8,12 141:14

142:1 143:1

145:13,16,18

148:6 153:14

160:10 161:5

169:15

171:10,22

172:14,17,22

173:19 176:7,11

178:20 179:3

180:3 182:4,18

183:4,7,10,16,19

184:15 185:3,8

188:8,14,20

189:5,17 192:18

193:3 195:10

197:1 199:8,13

200:15,22

201:13 202:20

203:4,9

204:15,19,21

205:3 206:10,12

207:12,15

208:12,22

209:17 211:2

212:17

213:6,11,18,21

214:6

215:1,14,18,22

216:10,13

217:2,5,8,11,13,

20 218:3,7,10,15

219:4,16,21

220:4,9,12,19

221:17 222:5,20

225:5,13,17

226:21 227:16

229:8

230:1,15,22

231:18,22

232:11

236:11,22 237:6

239:19 240:8

241:7 242:18,21

243:2,7,10,16,19

244:15,19

245:5,7,15

246:13,20 248:9

249:5,12,20

251:5,14,18

252:1

253:3,6,9,12,22

254:7,10,13,17,1

9

256:1,6,13,17,22

257:4,11

258:6,9,18,22

259:5,8

barrier 75:10

115:6 116:13

base 27:15 32:22

34:13 94:17

102:22 105:17

125:8 127:1

168:13 178:22

186:1,6 187:6

189:18

based 40:6,8 55:2

84:2 85:13 92:18

94:11 95:19 97:6

105:1 109:5

125:9 150:7

164:12

173:11,14

184:22 186:17

189:13,22

190:6,8 194:17

baseline 170:6

228:10

basic 6:20 8:18 9:2

12:20

15:8,9,19,20

40:18 43:17,21

44:2 84:3,4

85:13 96:21

97:1,5 105:1,2

113:14 122:5

123:16 129:6

141:12 144:3

149:3,8 164:18

173:10,11,12,13,

18,22 174:6,8,14

175:5,6,10,18

177:7

180:10,14,22

181:1,3,12

182:2,3,21 186:2

189:14,15,22

190:1,6,8,13

194:7,9,22

196:21 197:5,8

206:17,20

224:11 254:20

basic--all 174:22

basically 6:11

10:15 11:20 17:2

18:2 20:21,22

60:9 61:3 83:19

123:14 159:14

169:17 187:1

191:5 194:17

206:8 227:6

230:18 236:7

239:17 248:17

250:15,21

basis 93:12 126:21

146:4,8 167:1

193:13 197:22

205:19 207:3

233:20

batting 248:14,15

Bauman 2:11 5:22

10:4,19,22

11:2,17 18:17

19:4,8 20:14

29:19

31:3,5,13,16

37:16 39:4 41:14

47:16 59:12

90:11 147:12

be--and 205:18

beat 46:21 94:5

be--because 223:1

because--in 174:12

become 224:22

227:6

becomes 190:9

233:21

beforehand 247:5

begin 25:17

126:14

beginning 89:8

141:17 246:19

248:7 256:19

begs 256:18

begun 177:8

behalf 7:4
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 7

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

behaving 77:11

behind 12:15

59:14 101:3

140:19

behold 61:20

be--if 67:15

believe 25:21 27:1

33:12 49:17 86:9

87:21 90:1 94:10

109:1 117:12

168:8 180:13,17

181:3 183:22

202:10 205:7

252:21

belongs 93:17

benchmark 95:1

beneficial 23:21

benefit 19:21

93:18 111:21,22

112:5 169:22

benefits 112:10

best 27:19

54:17,19,22

146:3 189:8

246:16

better 5:13 43:8,11

55:18 56:8 57:9

79:2 108:15,16

137:3 155:5

161:10,22

172:19 194:11

196:6 231:4

242:1,16 243:6

beyond 164:18

165:8 171:16

beyond--because

195:19

be--you 12:14 52:7

bigger 50:21

biggest 175:5

biggest--in 175:4

bill 3:18 25:22

33:3 80:3 81:3,4

83:22 96:14

97:16 124:16

134:9 138:15

224:16 242:12

Bill's 184:8

bit 10:8 11:5 35:4

41:12 49:9 56:8

58:22 79:1 84:8

87:1,2 88:11

108:13 110:19

111:16 112:15

115:1 161:6

164:17 175:7

184:14 191:16

201:5 203:9

214:16

blade 57:12

blank 101:12

blesses 116:15

blindly 97:10

108:20 120:2

board 30:5 94:12

145:12 240:16

Bob 64:22 67:3

68:19 163:8

164:16 166:1

177:9 207:9,11

208:1 215:2

249:11,12

257:18

bodies 28:2

body 138:18 254:4

boiler 36:22

120:20 121:4

174:13 249:19

250:8

boilers 8:15 21:17

23:10 87:5

123:20 240:3

257:12 258:11

bombed 143:20

Book3.xls 248:21

bottom 172:10

173:10 177:4

182:9 213:15

bought 77:18

232:21,22

bound 200:19

box 51:2 90:22

boxed 35:21

boxes 45:14

110:20,21

boy 193:18

brand 50:8 167:4

brand-new 114:16

break 88:4,5,10

141:15 161:22

163:6

bring 13:1 19:20

20:9 22:22 30:4

51:10,15 110:19

151:13 167:20

256:16

bringing 38:3,5

52:14 96:6

broader 50:21

broadly 94:22

broken 111:8

Brooks 249:16

brought 16:22

52:8 154:6

193:12 239:7

BTUs 254:9

255:10

buddy 235:19

budget 7:6 64:17

81:20 82:20

build 39:18 40:4

52:22

53:10,11,16

69:18 77:7 89:12

190:4,5 193:16

234:20 242:11

building 13:17

17:4 21:9 43:16

56:16 75:6

139:13

builds 115:17

build--they 54:11

build-to-order

40:11

build-to-stock

9:11 35:7 40:10

69:3,10,11

built 21:3 22:16

35:16 36:16

38:15,18 39:17

47:10 53:20 56:1

60:3,8,9,13,15

79:10 130:13

228:17 244:8

built-to-order

9:12

bullet 207:12

213:15 220:10

224:17 225:11

226:13 230:17

240:2,9

bullets 26:7,10

226:20

burden 5:5 6:9

14:7 15:20,22

18:4 21:11 23:22
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 8

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

38:19 55:9,15

59:18 71:2,3

78:21 82:16 91:8

92:14 93:5

106:3,5,6

114:4,18,21

115:2 119:22

126:13 139:1

140:14,20

141:16 142:22

150:12 156:13

173:17 192:20

burdens 5:12

196:2 198:8

burdensome 6:12

83:16 95:17

burner 240:3

burners 240:5

business 9:8

45:16,18 50:8,20

54:18 55:11

57:19 86:3 95:6

98:20 115:3

203:7 228:1,3

233:20 235:10

247:10 253:19

busy 48:17

button 97:14

buy 55:12 67:7

68:17,18 71:10

74:9,12 75:12,18

90:17 234:22

235:6,14

buying 27:18

46:10 112:1

235:1 238:12

240:19

buys 231:14

C

CAD 246:1

cadre 221:21

calculation 92:2

97:6

California 115:14

239:4

caller 152:15

camper 95:8

Canada 15:6 16:2

21:18 22:19

23:4,5

129:5,9,11

131:4,16 132:8

134:1 148:9

Canadian 22:15

23:1 129:3 134:1

cannot--okay 20:2

can't--if 196:15

Can--you 215:9

capabilities 92:19

capability 21:21

22:5 24:16

capable 21:15

151:15

capacity 224:9

Capital 1:17

capture 158:9

car 46:9,10,13

care 56:7 144:5

235:9 259:3

careful 58:22

63:19 75:10 94:8

173:16

Carrier 3:20 68:20

72:17

Carrierauthorized 70:8

carry 6:5

cars 45:18

case 22:6 32:14

40:6,7 54:4

55:22 68:11

75:12 95:2 139:1

166:14 180:13

199:11 203:22

207:20 208:8

212:6 214:9

222:9 233:5

236:16 239:17

247:18 252:19

cases 29:12,15,17

31:11,14 40:3

107:8 173:7,8

175:11 177:7

219:11

catalogue 37:8,10

catch 16:19,20

41:6 45:14 76:20

79:13

catching 109:10

categories 7:5

26:17 28:16

33:18,21 34:8,22

120:3 169:18

175:17

252:10,22 253:1

257:9,22

category 98:1

164:11 177:12

202:16

caught 48:22

239:3

cause 58:6 144:12

166:17

caused 84:10

causing 46:6

CBs 88:1

CC 65:12,19,20

73:6,13 134:5,6

CEC 239:13

cents 109:12

certain 32:18

57:12 74:16

78:5,12 81:16

82:6 88:20 89:5

94:2 99:20

105:14 116:12

124:13 125:7,10

135:1 139:14

174:12 180:11

206:5 225:4

252:8,22

253:1,15

certain--especially

74:15

certain--how

166:11

certainly 11:4,11

92:10 101:8

107:20 156:14

165:6,16 173:8

174:3 176:15

203:12,22 212:3

certainty 67:1

89:13 99:2

130:22

CERTIFICATE

260:1

certification 21:20

22:3 25:15 53:22

65:12 81:7 84:16

100:17 117:7

125:15 135:4

138:18 142:20

146:21 164:19

165:8 169:21

174:3 195:3,20

197:6,12 198:1

226:8 245:11,12
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 9

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

248:17 254:20

certifications 94:8

certified 142:2

170:4 197:5

206:17 225:22

226:3,12

228:16,20

247:15 255:2

certified--the

237:10

certify 26:22 27:1

94:1 136:21

172:6 197:14

206:8 226:9

246:19 247:2

260:4

cetera 158:3

185:16

CFM 209:11

chain 74:5

challenge 11:19

19:20 30:6 50:1

55:10,17 81:18

85:3,9 226:19

228:22

229:1,2,4,8,16

230:1,6

232:3,4,6,7,15,1

7

challenges 10:8

challenging

226:15 229:3

chance 57:20

253:22

change 23:15

34:11 47:12 56:4

63:13 72:12

74:18 130:7

150:16 153:9

155:4 172:19

182:18 185:22

232:12 235:8

238:18,19

changed 5:14

63:12 176:2

changes 11:13

118:7 167:17

234:11 238:22

239:11 246:11

changing 172:6

215:13 239:20

characterization

53:4

charge 47:2

Charles 2:18

226:1

Charlie 14:15

19:13 20:1 22:12

26:15 33:2 37:6

69:14,20 86:17

96:16 131:4

138:5 139:5

144:19 145:10

147:7 187:18

211:18 230:12

232:18 236:13

238:15 252:5,18

Charlie's 139:1

236:11

chart 101:12 102:7

166:12,13,17

167:9,17,18

178:1 198:13

cheaper 111:15

cheat 54:11 55:1,3

63:2,3,6

cheated 50:9

check 44:15,19

46:15 49:5 58:21

62:11 130:20

197:16,19

206:19 227:10

228:10,18

240:12,14,17

243:17 256:9,15

checked 43:22

65:16 73:13

130:10,12

226:22 230:18

checking 57:7

73:16 90:16,21

130:12 231:2

243:14 247:3

checklist 231:6

checks 57:3

139:22 140:7

170:1

choice 18:8 64:11

67:10 92:15

139:2 153:4

178:16 199:2

choices 199:3

chomping 203:9

choose 25:3 69:17

92:18 100:7

126:5 137:7

152:19

162:18,20

170:15 178:18

186:7,10,12,15

187:20 188:17

190:22 191:10

193:22 249:1

chooses 99:16

chose 27:22

Christine 1:16

260:2,14

claim 123:22

216:6

claimed 216:7

claiming 46:22

claims 55:12

clarification 160:5

clarified 48:22

clarify 77:21 144:8

157:9 216:19

clarity 220:9

class 10:14 111:9

190:17

200:10,17

205:19 241:9,10

255:10

classes 10:11,18,22

92:22 115:7

241:13 253:7

classification

29:18

clause 208:19

clear 5:16 35:8

57:18 155:4

163:13 197:2

206:1,13

clears 93:11

Cleaver 249:16

Cleaver-Brooks

3:6

clever 193:18

client 132:22

133:1

ClimateMaster

3:21 151:11

close 95:18 145:21

253:17

closer 19:20 159:9

171:10 190:2

clue 259:2

Co 3:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 10

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

code 223:4

codes 17:4

coffee 4:15

coil 43:18

Coils 56:16

collected 151:7

Collin 3:19

column 167:3

173:21 178:9

186:3,4,5

column--you

179:15

combination 95:6

combinations

89:12

combine 169:18

220:7

comes 32:7 51:16

66:16 69:8 70:21

71:4 72:22 86:8

114:1 116:22

231:13

comfortable 72:3

165:6

coming 9:10 10:8

20:3 21:15 33:21

47:13 50:18

58:21 61:15

67:13 72:11

78:17 79:22

82:15 88:11,14

97:21 99:18

118:16

187:10,11

240:12

comment 53:1

84:14 152:6

192:10

commented

247:22

commenting 79:12

comments 106:21

117:10 122:22

147:10 228:12

255:15,18 257:6

commerce 108:12

112:1 143:9

165:13 227:12

236:5,9

commercial 14:18

17:3 26:2 30:20

32:20 37:7

41:11,21 77:18

79:15 86:17,20

112:3,4 116:13

144:6 147:18

172:5 214:10

255:11 256:20

Commission 239:5

commit 253:13

committee 1:4

83:12 259:11

committing 258:2

communication

36:8

communications

214:3

companies

5:9,10,11,12

43:8,9 58:4

80:17 86:3 87:18

94:3 95:15

170:20 253:16

company 1:17

2:20 32:19 51:20

53:9,13,22 54:9

56:22 57:21

62:16,17,18

63:14 70:18,19

71:19 75:17

82:14 84:4 86:8

97:11 113:22

127:5 133:14

135:18 144:10

171:20 233:19

234:18

company--I 32:19

company's 51:20

56:5 114:18

comparable 35:13

74:17 76:3 84:8

113:2 173:1

185:8

compared 15:4

comparing 109:18

231:5

comparison 34:5

238:3

comparisons

125:13

competencies

18:13 20:5,7,13

22:16 27:2

competency 18:7

22:21 23:3

competent 20:11

competitive 13:4

compiling 222:9

complaint 230:2

complaints

78:7,11 229:12

complete 26:19

completed 157:3

completely 112:11

116:16 184:4

253:2

complex 192:6

complexity 110:8

compliance 4:4

65:12 149:17

151:6 161:10

177:22 182:16

217:3,6,17

224:18 248:17

compliant 65:10

229:10

complies 240:7

comply 149:8,19

151:8 152:21

155:8 253:11,15

complying 155:6

253:13

component 20:18

38:13 43:6,17,22

44:2,12,15 47:5

48:4 59:20 61:11

224:7 239:11,16

240:14 242:1,9

243:3

componentry

72:13 130:5

226:22 228:9,18

230:14 240:2,12

241:1,4 243:9

245:6 246:15

247:20 248:2

components 21:3

36:18 38:16,17

40:6 44:2,4,7

45:2 47:22 57:7

62:11 89:20

130:9 230:20

238:18

239:11,20

240:17

243:14,18 244:7

compressor

43:12,18,19,20

57:8 238:20
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 11

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

247:8

compressors

57:5,7 238:1

compromise 27:8

117:2

conceived 120:6

concept 8:18,19

41:11 58:12

98:4,14 101:2,3

119:6,7,17 155:5

167:6 191:6

192:5 229:15

255:16

concern 30:14

53:8,9 59:8 71:1

74:5 79:1 110:17

115:5,22 132:19

159:5 160:15

168:12,13

172:12 210:6

221:1,4 222:1

227:4 241:5

concerned 26:15

50:10 51:3,7

54:1 61:2 79:3,9

91:7 132:14

134:3 159:6

165:11 222:12

228:12

concerning 236:2

concerns 16:7 49:9

75:11 78:3 90:14

91:4 116:15

127:12 226:21

227:1,21

conclusion 102:12

condenser 57:13

conditioning

32:21

conditions 17:7

24:18 85:4 100:7

105:14 151:20

224:10

conduct 118:20

152:22

conducted 149:17

150:5,11 151:5

158:6 162:3

confidence 32:4

88:14 90:10

91:13,16 108:4

121:2 126:8

confidential 224:1

228:1,3

247:10,19

confirm 123:11

250:1

conflict 212:5

conforming 47:22

confused 20:15

confuses 92:6

confusing 216:18

confusion 113:4

156:2

confusions 39:12

consensus 11:7

257:7,14,16,20

258:3

consequences

116:17

conservative

152:20 153:7

consider 39:6

131:3 141:15

148:16 255:20

consideration 7:1

37:17,20 212:2

considered 21:5

48:7 61:14

232:10

considering 6:8

38:8

consistency 211:6

216:17

consistent 153:13

210:5

consistently 60:17

61:16 77:11

115:15

constitutes 216:4

constructions

48:21

Consulting 2:3,14

3:8,19

consumer 116:12

159:6

consumers 112:1

consuming 230:20

240:2 247:20

248:2

consumption

15:1,17 141:12

237:22

consumptions

224:8

contact 229:9

243:21

contained 31:2

174:6

contemplating

140:13

context 8:11

contingent 240:15

continually 54:18

continue 11:10

91:4 195:12

229:6

continuing 175:8

181:19 214:14

continuous 82:4

146:4

Continuously

147:3

continuum 110:16

contract 204:6

234:1,22 235:9

238:21 239:7

contracting 204:9

contractors

111:21 115:15

contracts 233:12

234:7,11,12,13

control 46:20

56:20 92:18

93:15 99:19

230:13 239:16

controlled 115:12

controlling 105:16

conversation 13:6

29:14

convinced 112:11

Cooling 2:16

cooperating 233:4

copper 46:18

copy 192:1,13

211:1

copying 224:2

copyright 192:17

corners 45:1,15,20

58:7

corporation

3:11,20 158:22

correct 31:5 33:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 12

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

49:17 53:4 82:11

83:22 118:21

123:6 129:10

134:9,11 144:18

152:15 156:22

157:7 159:16

160:19 163:18

164:13 165:10

173:7 179:2,12

180:17 181:5,6

182:20 184:8

185:3 194:16

235:11 236:10

242:13 251:9

correctly 107:7

160:11

correlating 59:21

cost 5:6 12:2,3

18:5 24:1 28:7

31:22 38:5 53:14

67:7 196:4

costly 244:11

costs 5:14 7:7

46:22 75:15

95:11 229:21

could--if 72:11

could--you 137:17

Council 3:9

counted 10:11

counting 249:6

countries 115:9

country 99:12

236:18

couple 88:9 117:6

133:21 145:11

193:8,14 257:22

258:10

course 8:22 107:12

113:11 236:22

Court 260:1,2,14

cover 16:10 17:2

23:14 31:1,3,4,7

155:12 180:8

181:17 206:4

covered 16:16

29:12 148:12

153:3 169:5

252:7,10

CRACs 250:19

CRADA 147:21

CRE 4:22 5:2 8:14

9:21 10:8,12,15

11:7 12:7 13:9

24:11 29:11

30:1,8,17

32:7,14 93:12

95:10,14 96:1,12

97:17 193:15

214:17 252:6,22

253:6 257:11

CRE--and 10:5

create 122:13

210:6 225:3

created 202:17

243:11

creating 75:10

creativity 193:11

credible 81:7,16

credit 132:5

137:20 138:2

151:4 158:14

159:3,11

CRE's 11:5

criteria 102:20

120:16 124:17

129:6 133:15

157:10 163:16

212:22 236:18

critic 193:4

crossed 18:18

crosses 20:7

crosslink 65:13

cross-trained 20:8

crushing 106:10

CSA 2:17 3:12

18:9 108:17

146:17 184:5

195:15

cumbersome

233:21

current 173:9,17

currently 85:5

106:17 107:18

113:9 210:11

custom 242:10

244:22 245:1

custom-built 63:1

customer 235:12

customers 50:7

54:17 112:5

116:18 170:16

235:13

custom-made

240:5

Customs 73:5,7,10

233:1

cut 29:8

45:3,6,15,20

46:18 48:13

191:14

cutting 40:12 45:1

58:7

Cymbalsky 2:12

D

D.C 1:8

Daikin 2:22

Daikins 51:21

Dallas 20:10

damage 38:7

Dane 2:13 4:9,12

13:8 14:14 44:13

45:8 46:5,14

93:20 95:9

96:5,13 97:4,14

108:14

119:11,13 120:1

129:15 134:13

136:13 142:17

143:2 146:14

148:14 169:6

170:11

183:17,22 193:5

251:20 252:3

dash 220:2

data 13:22 14:1,5

16:15 17:8 23:18

55:14 79:21

82:12 91:22

107:2 110:10

126:9 130:12

133:1 134:21

135:1 136:21

144:9,14,22

148:4 151:7

155:8 156:4

181:19,22 185:5

195:20 196:10

197:8,22 244:13

252:13 254:4

database 27:11

65:14 122:14

172:4 252:15

data--if 17:9

date 134:21

252:20 254:22

258:22
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 13

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

dates 4:4,5 248:17

250:15 253:7,8

day 28:12 37:11

49:13 52:19

53:15 76:16 94:2

151:20 248:16

days 5:18 74:20

84:21 251:4

de 60:13

deal 14:18 43:5

47:3,4,7 63:15

139:15 219:15

224:20

dealing 238:4

243:20

death 63:18 83:14

85:19

December 42:3

decide 7:16 8:11

31:10 93:14 97:7

165:2 169:13

179:6 196:7

decided 97:4 203:8

decides 180:4

205:20 224:20

deciding 38:1

decision 249:1,6

decisions 6:4

declaring 124:3

decrease 126:6

deemed 103:18

155:11

defect 46:19,22

defective 48:3,7

216:5,8

defects 63:16

define 8:22 45:15

190:9 208:21

defined 120:9

163:20 180:20

definitely 189:14

212:5 215:1

225:5 227:1

definition 18:18

33:12 39:14

180:9 254:15

definitions 8:17

9:1 10:10 254:20

definitive 211:3

Degitsz 2:14 167:6

183:5 204:18,20

205:2

degree 203:2

delete 218:4

delineation 170:3

demand 14:20

138:14

demonstrate 221:8

Department 1:1,6

2:8,10,12 3:4

88:22 102:18

126:8 136:9

197:6 206:13,16

207:22 211:4

216:16 221:6,15

depend 213:11

dependent 24:12

depending 62:2

66:20 181:10

188:16 207:2

230:7,8 233:22

depends 122:1

128:15 171:18

de-rate 150:19

describe 172:19

described

161:15,16

description 131:18

133:1 254:5

deserve 145:3

design 15:19 48:21

98:8 152:9

designed 177:4

desire 7:3

detail 98:3 101:3

104:13 110:4

119:1 223:21

239:17

detailed 227:3

details 191:16

223:19 224:6,11

234:20 239:9

determine

127:2,21 129:21

199:6

determined

189:18

determining 10:13

devalue 171:12

develop 57:22

197:10

developing 198:19

development 3:6

43:1

deviation 62:2

diameter 223:11

diameter--

diameters 223:7

difference 9:10

14:10 22:13 27:6

28:5,7 33:16

46:2 56:10,15

57:15 63:21

72:19,22 93:21

97:10 138:18

143:16 168:10

171:2 195:6

212:8 220:2

differences 22:14

44:21 138:17,22

different 6:18 7:15

8:10 9:11 10:6,7

11:5 16:11

17:6,7,16,17

18:1,15 19:12,15

20:5 22:7,22

23:3,11 25:4

28:16 34:8,9

41:12 48:20 57:8

59:6 66:20 67:1

68:4 71:9 77:12

78:3 85:14

88:20,21 89:7,9

90:17 94:14

99:6,20 101:5,6

102:3 103:11

109:21,22

110:14 120:18

121:6,15 122:8

129:14 130:1

132:15

136:11,12,17

138:3 143:6,10

148:21 149:7

151:3 160:12,16

163:16 165:14

180:12

185:14,15 188:5

191:3 192:2,4

194:4 198:20

200:18 209:14

222:16 241:13

243:6 248:3

252:6 253:7

256:2,3 258:10

different--I 226:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 14

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

differentiation

112:18 164:18

166:15 179:19

differently 113:22

139:15 255:20

difficult 41:21

53:16 91:21

239:1

difficulty 171:8

187:9 217:22

dig 69:7

Digital 260:14

dilute 34:7

dinging 242:6

direct 6:17 109:1

149:12

direction 24:5

212:4 260:6

directly 31:22 32:6

61:6,8

70:1,17,22 71:15

72:1 74:10 99:12

209:21

directly--because

12:2

discontinuance

113:16

discontinued

113:13 120:8

discounted

140:6,8

discretion

102:16,17

discretionary

81:19,20

discuss 8:1 13:10

107:12 119:1

122:20 183:17

208:2 256:22

discussed 11:2

12:10 13:13 44:1

70:15 84:18,22

117:17 185:14

236:5

discussing 5:1

83:13 160:12,17

235:19

discussion 5:11

20:16 42:4 66:18

95:12 121:11

154:5 164:17

168:3 180:21

185:22 190:15

193:13 207:11

215:17 249:14

discussions 6:7

disk 248:20

display 116:11

distinct 103:11

184:4

distinction 128:10

139:17

distinctions 10:2

110:2 172:9

distinctive 171:12

distinguish

81:9,15

distinguishing

196:10

distract 257:17

distribute 68:5

133:5 192:16

distributed 108:12

227:12 236:4,9

distributing

143:9,13

distribution 50:19

64:12 67:6

69:5,6 72:16

186:15 187:19

distributor 35:5

50:16 64:5,6

66:5,12,13,17

67:4,11,16,17

68:4,7,8,21

69:13,17

70:1,2,3,9,16,18,

20,22 71:5 74:3

241:21

distributors 67:18

68:6 70:6 71:10

73:1 74:8 81:22

99:18

divergent 19:18

diverse 14:11,12

97:11

divide 105:3

divided 94:15

dividing 253:6

division 252:16

doable 190:10

252:21 253:2

document 117:22

118:1,4 181:16

207:16 210:6,7

217:4,7 226:11

237:20

documentation

20:21 223:16

documented

223:5,8 248:2

documents 189:3

210:10,11,13

217:14,15

DoE 5:8,13 7:9

13:2 14:6,20

15:5 17:5,15

27:6,13

33:1,7,13 41:8

52:15,16 55:14

62:19 65:5,7

67:1 69:6,8,22

78:6 79:5 81:11

84:18 85:1 87:22

88:19 90:16,20

92:8 93:22 98:17

99:7 100:10

102:15,17

103:14

104:1,11,15,22

105:11 106:21

108:3 118:9

125:6,15,22

126:10,18

127:1,22 128:7

129:6 130:20,21

131:8,21 132:4

135:11,15 136:4

137:4,8,11,14

139:6

140:7,14,16

141:13,17 142:8

147:18 148:9,12

149:9,11,13,16

150:17,22

154:21

156:3,8,15

157:9,21 158:19

159:2,13,14,17,1

8,19,21 160:3

161:1,4 163:11

165:1,3,9,19

166:1,22

169:11,17,19

170:6 171:5

172:4,6

177:10,15

178:16 179:4

196:21

199:15,18 201:8

202:19

203:6,13,20
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 15

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

204:3,8,13

205:10

207:18,19

208:5,8,13,15,16

209:9,12

210:8,20

211:8,19

212:2,12,20

213:10,16

214:19 215:6,10

216:14,15,20,21

217:18

218:3,7,21 219:3

220:5,13 221:4

222:8 223:16

225:2,3,13

227:11,21

228:13

229:7,10,18,20,2

1

232:5,6,9,10,16

235:6 237:11

250:12 251:12

255:18 256:10

DoE-approved

77:22 89:5

DoE's 10:11 62:1

68:20 90:13 91:4

93:4 100:2

109:19 127:10

160:22 164:12

202:12 212:3

255:19

DoE--that 195:1

DoE-VICP 118:14

doing--if 37:22

dollar 109:12

dollars 42:7 53:15

84:16 95:13

171:20

domestic 231:10

239:21

done 8:20 16:1

25:21 26:3 32:11

36:20 47:14

51:12 53:20 57:3

66:21 78:13

83:20 87:22

106:14 114:2

121:22 138:6

140:4 141:8

144:16 177:3

204:13 215:20

222:14,19 237:5

243:13

done--all 83:19

don't--because

58:10

don't--it's 93:13

Doodle 249:21

258:18

Doppel 2:15 27:4

47:11 51:9

52:4,13 54:8

63:11

68:2,13,15,17

72:14 74:13

75:2,4,16 82:22

83:6

DoT 132:11

144:16 161:9,10

220:11

double 90:8 112:3

149:21

150:2,8,13 153:1

154:22 156:20

162:7,8,18,21

166:13 175:1

176:7 179:1

180:2 197:18

198:11 256:15

doubled 177:4

doubling 34:4

179:21

doubts 82:6

downloaded 184:7

downside 152:12

drawing 44:18

125:20 240:6

246:9

drawings 228:10

245:3,4,5,20,21

246:1

drive 258:12

driven 110:7

driver 173:18

drives 115:3

driving 258:16

drop 114:8 119:8

163:2 164:5

dropping 116:4

drops 115:16

ducting 209:4

due 22:14

duplicate 170:10

during 25:1 81:11

82:4 88:10 221:9

222:4,8 251:2

duty 73:6,8,12

E

earlier 33:3 59:14

72:10 73:15

77:21 117:19

134:21 139:2

149:2,6 164:17

172:20 250:18

252:20 257:10

258:2

early 5:19 92:7

114:15,17 135:4

138:2 253:15

EarthJustice 2:9

40:16 113:6

ease 224:1

easier 111:14

117:1,7 167:19

easiest 75:12

easily 159:13

East 51:10

easy 186:8 194:5

196:1 199:4,5,6

200:3 246:4

echoes 112:8

economically

12:17

Economy 3:10

education 214:15

education--there

29:22

EEV 245:10,11

effect 6:17 44:6

80:18 169:11

195:13 251:3

effective 84:11

effectively 124:1

efficiency 19:1

21:16,22 22:9,19

24:2 27:18 46:2

47:6,9 61:9 87:6

93:18 107:4

112:2 121:5

123:22 139:8

224:9 240:20

241:2,20 242:20

efficient 15:17

87:7,11 93:15

107:5 150:17

152:10 241:14
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 16

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

242:1,4

effort 53:21 54:5

55:19

eight 33:22 153:20

Eisner 2:3 44:21

45:17 46:10

57:16 63:22 66:7

70:15

71:3,13,19,22

72:7 77:15

78:11,18 79:21

80:15 81:1

82:9,12,19

83:4,7 86:2,22

87:8,13 88:3,6

100:4,19

101:12,17,20

102:1 106:12

107:10 110:1

114:11 115:22

117:4,10

119:5,12,17

122:22

124:7,19,22

125:3,17 126:21

127:5,11,20

130:20

131:7,13,21

135:6,17,22

142:6 143:3

144:8,20 147:10

161:8,20 162:7

163:6 166:5

167:10,16,22

168:4

217:3,6,9,12,16

218:13,17

219:18

220:10,13

234:6,12

235:5,16 240:18

241:12

242:14,20

243:1,4,8

244:10,17

246:18,22 247:9

249:17

251:1,7,10

253:5,8,10

257:7,13,19

either 9:19 21:17

38:6 62:3 82:17

84:1 108:17

126:7 132:9

141:6 142:13

172:16

177:19,22

178:15,17

194:22 196:2,21

197:8 201:10

204:7 242:9

elaborate 80:4

81:3

elect 177:13

Electric 2:15,20

electrical 44:4

230:19

electrocuted

235:22

electronic 245:22

elegant 116:5

elements 81:16

175:2 221:7,16

225:4

elevates 105:7

eliminated 77:16

elite 223:4

else 36:6 80:14

91:1 104:18

123:8 131:10

132:10 161:5,20

172:2 222:15

227:7 236:20

238:12 244:17

else's 71:20 233:19

Elsewise 105:16

e-mail 4:20 97:8

e-mails 6:1 30:14

employed 260:8

employee 56:12

employees 48:19

56:14 57:15

encompassed

193:22

encouraged

115:20

energy 1:1,6

2:8,10,12 3:4

14:3 15:1,6,16

16:1,8,14,15,16

19:13,19 20:4,10

21:5,7,8

22:18,20

23:2,6,11,16

24:4,7 25:10,20

26:2,9,16,18

27:5,6,12,14,17,

21 28:3

29:10,11,12,13,1

8 30:2 33:4,17

34:13 44:8,18

58:17 61:6

86:6,10,11,14

87:1,5 93:13,21

108:16,22

128:3,13,16

129:6,13,22

136:8,16,21

138:7,9

139:5,7,9,12,13,

17 140:5 141:12

142:19

143:5,13,14,17

144:5,6,21,22

145:6,21

147:15,20

148:7,19 149:17

151:5 155:8

156:3 158:2,10

159:1,4,12,15

160:8 170:14

182:11,22 197:6

213:4 237:22

239:4 240:2

247:20 248:1

Energy-Efficient

3:9

energy's 60:6

energy--would

44:17

enforcement 78:8

81:12,13 216:3

251:2

engineer 20:9 28:8

188:2 190:16

engineered 9:12

242:11

engineering 22:21

53:21 56:17

83:12

engineers 20:5

21:20 52:20

enrolled 147:9

ensure 216:16

ensures 65:5

entail 32:22

entails 55:18

enter 121:14,17

123:17 124:8,22

125:5 136:3

180:11

181:4,10,11

194:14 195:8

196:3

entered 130:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 17

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

entering 116:16

121:12

enters 124:18

entire 28:8 211:9

239:17

entirely 5:16 37:1

160:11,16

236:16

entrant 167:2

197:3

entrants 113:21

116:1 174:21

182:6 215:4

entries 118:10

entry 114:20

115:6,8 116:13

155:20 176:22

187:12

194:6,17,21

196:11,14

envision 172:21

218:22

EPA 87:21 88:1,2

138:17,19 139:3

EPACT

252:7,9,13

equally 75:13

equipment 10:11

15:18,19 28:11

45:10 51:10,13

59:4 73:10,12

86:9 123:11

137:1,10

142:9,19 143:14

147:19 152:17

235:1,6 240:19

241:22 253:6

equipment's 237:9

equivalent 178:3

error 86:15 152:12

188:12

errors 48:16 49:1

escalating 106:8

especially 94:9

95:10 116:1

essentially 72:15

establish 102:20

103:22 124:21

125:4,8,17

129:16 165:12

established 24:19

92:8 115:8

116:21

124:12,13 125:9

127:1 162:4

176:5

establishes 124:19

establishing 85:21

129:18

et 158:3 185:16

ETL 18:11 108:17

eventually 74:4

113:12 144:4

everybody 17:9

19:21 51:13 55:9

60:4 61:13 62:16

77:22 78:3,4

89:10 168:14

172:2,11 180:3

185:18 191:6

201:3 211:16,22

218:17 244:17

246:14 250:16

251:18 255:2

everybody's 59:8

75:13 197:2

258:6

everyone 4:7 9:16

62:17 75:12

85:12 99:22

250:11

everyone's 135:14

everything 8:2

16:10 17:3 21:4

28:14 42:18 44:3

45:7 56:7,8

61:15 72:22

78:17 91:1

94:1,12

130:12,16

142:16 147:16

161:11 168:6

196:16

206:5,9,10 218:4

246:9

everything's 28:13

45:6

everywhere 47:2

exact 36:2 76:7

104:3 144:1

183:20 241:22

exactly 49:13,16

50:22 79:6

128:22 131:19

158:8 227:17

239:5 241:7

example 9:21

45:18 61:17

79:2,4 80:9

115:13 137:5

141:7 145:5

155:22 173:20

174:13 176:3

194:2 195:10

213:4 215:3,6

252:19 255:13

examples 122:12

Excel 188:18,21

excellent 135:9

except 57:6 64:12

109:12 134:4

exception 52:22

103:2 168:9

exception--I 168:8

excess 102:22

exclude 148:10

Excuse 176:14

231:13

exempt 142:22

148:16

exempted 156:11

exercise 205:12

exist 81:16 85:5

90:4 109:8

existed 81:10

existing 17:8

181:20,21

211:20

exists 17:11

255:17

expect 60:2,21

209:9

expectation 6:3

254:21 255:5

expected 48:8

127:6

expense 27:22

42:8 75:7 230:3

232:8

expenses 42:9

expensive 70:16

126:3

expensive/witness

11:20

experience 55:21

58:3 105:15

experiences 30:2
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 18

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

expert 209:13

expertise 28:5

explain 79:22

88:10 118:10

225:11

explained 193:21

explaining 136:15

explains 133:8

237:13

explicit 220:4

explore 114:22

exposed 7:11

exposing 109:2

exposure 7:6

expressed 227:2

extend 18:4

extending 52:9

extensive 170:1

extent 92:14

132:17 140:13

172:8 222:7

extinguished

221:21

extra 5:6 14:6

58:11 64:1 75:14

132:5 142:22

170:17

extreme 174:8

extremely 36:22

53:16

F

face 89:15,22

facetiously 50:5

FACILITATOR

2:2

facilities 16:2

24:22 25:1,21

facility 26:8 66:13

77:4 99:12 133:4

141:8,11

fact 13:6 28:21

49:19 54:2 63:15

70:6 76:11 90:15

91:3 129:21

137:16 144:5

164:3 192:5,6

210:21 228:2

237:19,21 244:9

factor 186:17

187:2,4

factors 99:6,7

192:2,20 202:21

203:1 240:9

factory 36:17

72:20 93:8

fail 58:12 59:9

80:22 84:5

108:18 138:20

141:2 143:4,8

242:10

failed 56:6

59:10,11 79:16

87:3 145:1

212:18 239:13

failing 87:18

109:14

fails 62:3 76:20

86:10 110:13

failure 59:15

79:18 82:7 83:2

106:3 109:21

111:5 150:11

186:21,22

187:2,3 188:11

216:4,7 224:21

243:14

failure--give 106:1

failures 84:1 85:7

87:19 106:4,6,10

109:20 125:11

144:12

150:12,14

157:19 188:12

207:21 212:15

219:6

failure--then

243:17

fair 51:6 172:11

252:2

fairly 103:15

154:8 181:16

fall 183:1 185:1

falls 26:9

familiar 224:22

families 33:8

34:17,18

94:16,17 97:18

149:3,10 153:3

156:16 157:11

168:17

173:14,15

175:1,9 182:15

190:9 200:12

family 8:18 14:21

33:12 113:15

150:1,4 162:10

163:12,15,21

164:2

174:4,9,16,17

175:6 177:2,7

179:16

180:1,10,20,22

181:8 182:2,3,17

185:12 190:14

254:15

family--I 34:21

fan 49:6 57:12

139:11

237:21,22 238:1

fast 191:9 215:13

favor 5:3,11 52:9

feasible 17:13

feature 37:13,14

features 219:8

federal 1:4 85:7

136:10 137:22

138:8 140:6,11

143:6,8,15,18,20

144:1 170:10

171:11,13,16

188:19,22 189:4

213:4,7 259:10

fee 7:9

feedback 6:8 12:6

115:12

feel 9:8 21:12 34:9

43:7 83:15 92:16

99:14,21

108:15,16

130:18 161:16

210:19

feet 167:21

felt 210:9

fewer 48:19 63:16

105:14 122:18

126:7 153:5

164:12

field 11:8 61:5

95:3 109:7,11

112:22 185:17

figure 9:9 12:13

37:5 59:7 60:6

101:21

102:1,6,11

figures 185:21

file 20:20 44:16
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 19

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

46:14 230:19

231:9,19

233:3,5,15 237:1

238:3,6

files 23:1 44:19

234:3 235:7

246:1

fill 203:11 238:9

filling 198:22

199:1

filter 74:4

fin 56:18

final 8:4,10 32:22

45:11 134:21

169:3

finally 239:8

financial 114:18

119:22 260:9

finding 98:5 154:7

fine 160:13 172:8

213:21 217:20

244:15,17

finish 46:4 47:6

finished 181:2

finishing 6:14

241:20

fins 56:18

fire 41:3,11,12

fires 41:14

fireworks 116:10

first 62:6,9 69:3,16

76:19 86:14

96:13 102:2

114:1,6 117:5

120:19 123:15

124:9,10

125:8,22 133:21

157:8 161:8

163:10 167:2

169:7,18

177:8,13 190:12

218:14 221:3

225:11 251:2

first-time 116:1

fit 9:8 45:21 46:3,4

47:6 100:3

five 6:21 86:15

105:3,4,6,8

120:11 124:6

142:15 149:11

152:18 153:12

154:13

156:11,17

157:12

162:6,11,14

163:12,15,21

164:2,9 167:11

168:17,20

169:1,2 174:1,5

175:20 176:4,22

179:5,9 188:11

204:22 219:14

235:13 243:22

244:5

five-year 105:3

144:4 194:19

fix 222:10

fixation 89:5

fixed 6:21

63:8,9,10

flexibility 76:5,8

flip 28:12 152:6

flipping 114:5

flipside 148:7

floor 108:3

floppy 248:21

flow 223:7 224:10

fly 2:16 46:16 53:7

65:22 66:4 96:20

97:1 107:14

123:13

180:16,19

188:18,21

202:11 203:2,6

219:10

254:14,18

focus 55:14,18

focused 53:14

106:21 107:3

FOIA 247:7,10,17

folks 12:7 93:12

114:9 127:18

189:12 198:13

228:6

food 18:19 61:3

force 175:13

234:21

forcing 168:14

180:3

foregoing 260:3

foreign 64:19 66:8

67:9 70:17,20,21

71:2,6,8,14,22

74:1,5,9

99:11,12 102:4

231:6,10

236:14,15,17,18

238:4 243:20

forewarning 79:18

forgotten 94:20

for--it's 19:14

form 156:12 201:4

format 167:19

former 69:8

formula 11:15

188:13

formulas 188:2

191:21 194:18

forth 52:8 152:17

forward 19:22

28:14

for--where 158:4

fourth 99:16

182:11

220:2,5,10

framework 98:18

104:10 192:19

193:17

Frank 3:7,13

21:13 22:4 41:10

44:9 55:6 102:14

107:21 108:7

112:21

114:6,12,13

121:10 131:17

132:12 148:20

152:14

154:10,19

160:18 161:14

163:17 166:8

167:8 168:7,19

172:18 173:6

176:14 177:9,16

179:11 181:14

182:8 189:10,20

191:22 193:12

194:13 196:9

198:16 199:1,21

201:20 203:21

206:3 209:20

211:13 228:4

229:14 234:15

246:5 250:4

freezers 37:8

freight 75:7

Friday 46:8,9

from--Ron 12:7
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 20

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

front 115:6 196:4

full 19:14 20:20

28:3 42:13,20

128:11 159:11

207:7 208:4

221:2,7

fully 133:17

function 229:11

fundamental

189:11 197:3

future 58:14 234:7

249:19

G

gain 121:2

gallons 112:13

250:7

game 51:17 76:22

80:9 172:7

252:15

garden 64:18

Gas 2:20

gasoline 112:13,14

geeky 188:1

general 14:21 65:7

66:3,4 73:6,8,12

190:15

191:15,18

257:7,14,16,20

258:3

generally 47:15

74:13 182:7

192:18 225:8

generic 246:7

get--if 143:7

gets 46:22 51:13

59:21 187:20

220:5

getting 13:4 15:15

22:13 29:10

45:22 53:19 64:4

91:5 138:9

141:20 151:14

156:10,19 157:1

158:14 185:20

214:7,10 216:4,8

235:21 249:6

given 37:9 130:2

218:2

gives 88:13 91:6,7

98:6 177:22

giving 29:21 90:21

100:12 137:20

140:13,19

141:15 142:3,4

165:12 227:6

goal 11:14

gone 52:1 60:10

73:1 92:14

116:11 162:9

163:1 171:15

196:17

258:19,20

good--got 224:3

Goodman 3:17

43:14 56:11

64:10 83:9 84:12

153:16 162:2

222:22 247:22

250:14

Gorman 2:17

got--people 27:17

gotten 13:12 92:10

186:20

239:20,21

governed 26:16,18

governing 28:2

government 86:5

government-run

87:17

government's

58:21

grace 251:1,8

grandfathered

127:10 128:9

133:12,15 160:9

193:7

grandfathering

144:17

grant 184:9

great 96:8 132:19

207:14 259:7

greatest 132:17

ground 116:8,9

221:9

groundwork

119:3

group 2:17 3:12

8:18 9:1 15:5,7

19:21 20:4,11,12

22:17,18,22 23:3

26:16 30:20

32:12 33:6 34:17

122:5 130:22

144:3 181:1

182:11 190:13

191:2 199:22

205:7 209:22

225:16,20

249:10 250:10

252:8 257:1,12

grouping 149:2

189:19

groupings 14:21

97:22

groups 16:5 18:14

31:4 84:3,5

85:14 96:21

97:2,5 98:19

109:9 181:4,12

190:1 252:7,17

guaranty 211:5

guess 12:22 24:1

30:13 32:2 40:20

72:8 78:22 84:17

89:22 90:5 101:2

108:7 119:14

127:17 137:20

147:14 164:21

171:10 190:11

201:16 205:16

208:20 216:4

222:12 233:8

237:1 255:19

guessing 182:19

guidance 203:20

210:4,20

211:3,9,11

216:15,21

217:4,7,18

218:1,2

guidances 214:12

gut 92:19 116:6

guy 38:15

guys 13:4 57:18

58:11,12,15

60:7,21 63:22

132:6,21 181:5

H

habitually 50:9

hackle 214:16

half 56:18 191:15

249:9

half-hour 29:9

hand 171:4 183:12

257:3
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 21

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

handful 234:17

handle 24:16

67:19

handled 67:22

100:19 190:18

221:9

happen 39:12

48:10 63:20

113:8 191:18

222:9 233:14

238:16 239:4

245:14

happened 83:1

happens 49:18

53:16 74:13

100:20 113:4

happy 85:3 95:8

191:7,11 224:15

227:10

hard 83:15 154:19

186:9 191:9

194:8,10 199:5,7

200:1

harder--more

244:11

hard--if 199:4

harm 58:6 241:14

Harvey 3:9

11:4,18 12:21

19:11,16 93:6

94:19 96:1 98:2

112:7,19 115:4

116:20 152:5

164:16,21 189:2

191:11 193:2,10

213:14 215:19

221:20 227:10

235:17

Harvey's 103:19

has--12 17:9

haul 114:20

have--for 67:17

have--if 176:16

have--I'm 49:10

haven't 13:12

20:15 48:22 85:9

93:8 101:8

106:14 112:11

126:18 152:7

181:2 222:6

255:9,19

have--the 51:11

have--these 69:9

have--this 80:19

have--we 212:11

have--you 36:17

having 14:8 17:17

39:9 42:18 54:21

59:19 74:12

75:6,19 79:10

85:13,19,22

90:20 93:5,12

114:4 128:13

136:22 140:1

146:3 147:8

154:19 178:4

192:12

196:10,19

223:21 243:11

head 10:9

headed 16:21

headroom 92:15

98:8

heads 192:21

hear 29:4,5,7 65:1

84:21 89:17

106:21

131:18,22

159:10

249:16,17

heard 4:21 5:1 6:8

7:21 9:5 11:6

12:7 30:13 33:3

95:12 96:15,18

107:1 146:12

245:15 250:5

257:12

hearing 9:14 27:5

125:5 198:10

heartache 84:10

heartburn 164:22

heat 3:16 123:14

heaters 8:15 21:16

23:10 24:11

240:3

Heating 2:6,16

3:13

heavily 13:15

hedged 80:7

held 247:19

he'll 5:21

Hello 29:6

help 24:4 57:22

61:14 64:1 79:22

137:5 188:1

helpful 26:4 31:9

221:6

hereby 260:3

here's 42:6 157:5

210:22

here--the 165:18

HERS 115:13

he's 6:18 69:14

187:18 236:12

Hex 2:21

hey 64:22 170:16

235:2

hierarchy 101:21

high 15:3 46:22

48:17 57:4 88:13

95:17 97:15

116:3 119:6,8,15

120:2,6,15

144:13 145:12

159:2 200:1

higher 11:21 23:3

24:2 63:18

71:2,3 77:1

88:18 89:19

94:15 99:10

111:4 114:7,20

116:4 123:22

125:21 126:8,13

138:13 141:11

144:18 145:3

147:17 159:2,12

165:15

168:13,14

187:3,4 190:19

196:2

higher-end 241:18

highly 108:10

high-volume 61:22

hinge 242:19,21

history 122:14

136:2,5 145:6

194:20

hit 87:11,13 123:7

hitting 12:9 29:21

90:13 147:14

Hmm 217:5

hold 14:5 61:2

109:8 204:22

234:3

holding 61:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 22

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

holds 137:19

hole 223:11

Hon 2:18 14:15

15:9,11 16:11,14

17:16,19,22

18:11 20:1 22:12

24:12,15 25:8

26:15 27:9 32:16

33:16 35:2 37:6

69:14 86:19

129:1,10

131:4,14 134:16

135:5 138:5

139:10 144:19

145:10,15,17,20

146:6,10,13,20

147:7 148:13

150:15 158:21

159:11 160:5

211:18

230:12,17

231:13,21

233:7,10,13,18

238:15 244:21

252:5,21

253:4,14

honestly 63:6

honesty 42:11

Hootman 2:19

35:14,18,22 36:4

42:1 64:13,16

66:11,15 67:2

68:10,14,16,18

75:8,22 85:17

86:14,20 98:16

100:21 101:2

102:11

121:19,21 122:1

126:10,17 127:3

142:11,14 144:2

154:19

155:16,21

156:6,18

157:1,6,15,22

168:5

176:1,9,12,17

188:7 195:5

200:6,10 210:15

214:1,7 216:2,12

218:1,19 219:9

224:4 226:5

230:8,11 232:18

233:8,11,17,22

234:9 237:15

245:17 247:6,18

248:14 249:11

254:2 256:12

257:18

hope 13:7 100:10

248:13

hopefully 21:10

29:21 167:19

hoping 46:1

hot 250:7

hours 72:19 102:8

210:3

house 115:17

houses 115:14,15

146:14

how--that's 80:21

how--what 223:7

HTP 26:12 41:7

70:12 85:11 91:9

120:13 166:20

175:14 220:1

huge 14:10 109:19

114:17 246:1

huh 62:13

hundreds 43:5

Hunt 2:20

Hurst 2:21 49:17

50:1,4,5,15

51:18 52:12

61:17

62:4,14,18,20,22

63:7,10 64:9,18

70:7,10 72:5,9

77:3 110:4,7,15

111:2,12,16

119:16

hurt 86:4 117:6

hurting 55:11

Hussmann 3:11

29:4 31:8 40:1

201:15 250:10

HVAC 8:14 14:12

25:12,14

86:17,20 96:11

110:15,19 112:4

116:7

121:19,21,22

142:9 143:19

144:6 214:10

253:22 255:8

258:10

hybrid 78:16

I

I'd 53:8 61:1 95:2

101:3 103:3

111:12 152:6

185:11 204:7,12

221:14

248:16,20

idea 33:1 34:10

40:20 49:8 58:9

59:1 67:21 76:9

77:22 113:11

120:6 125:21

160:12

191:15,18 201:3

203:20 205:14

223:21 227:1,8

231:4 249:5

idea--all 32:17

ideally 207:7

253:9

ideas 63:22

101:7,17,18

232:1,2

identical 15:1

28:22

identify 40:22

91:22 113:21

230:19

if/then 100:4

if--I 205:16

if--standards

26:20

if--you 194:5

I'll 11:22 47:21

83:9 153:16

167:9 173:22

190:2 207:12

209:1 226:4

250:1,2 256:15

I'm 5:16 8:13 9:14

13:3,5,7,20 20:6

25:9 26:5,15

27:5 31:8

33:5,11

34:2,8,14

42:7,12,14 44:14

49:14,15 50:10

51:3,7,18,21

52:2,15 54:20

58:17 61:3

69:20,22 70:8

71:7 75:8 83:22

87:14 89:22

90:5,7 93:2,3,7

95:7,22 96:5

97:8 98:9 100:14

101:20

102:1,2,6,11
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 23

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

105:6,20 111:6

112:2,16

119:7,17 123:11

125:5 131:7,21

132:2 134:3,9

135:22 136:6

137:8 139:11

142:3,4 144:5

146:3,11

151:17,20,22

154:19 155:21

157:1 158:8

160:10,13,14

162:15 165:6,11

168:10 169:12

173:5 178:8

179:12

182:19,20

183:19 189:12

192:17,21

195:13,20,21

196:10 197:14

198:10 203:6

204:8,10,11

206:15

208:10,20 209:7

213:16 214:1

215:21

216:3,4,8,11

219:14 221:3

224:15 225:5

228:5,11 235:2

238:4 241:12

244:15 245:11

251:14 256:14

257:3,13,19

imagine 42:15

43:8,9 139:12

I'm--I 183:20

immediate 40:20

immediately 210:2

impact 8:5 29:11

86:1

impacts 198:8

impartiality

224:21

implementation

234:10

implication 178:10

import 50:16

64:11 67:13

important 56:21

57:17 67:15 68:1

94:18 112:8

222:1 232:7

242:12

importation 71:9

imported 65:16

230:14,21 231:7

233:1 235:20

236:5 237:9

238:20

importer 230:22

231:17

236:12,15

244:20 245:18

importers 72:16

239:20

importing 51:5

233:15,18

234:17 236:12

imports 50:11

64:6 65:3,5,6

230:13 231:14

243:21

impose 71:2 76:21

173:16 196:1

197:16

imposed 82:14

impression 100:12

improbable 91:14

improve 241:19

inaudible 30:11

40:2 41:20 83:11

96:3

Inc 2:15,21 3:7

incentive 80:21

inch 56:18,19

include 16:6 21:19

217:10

219:19,22

234:14

included 10:10

256:10

includes 218:8

including 176:9

207:20 208:20

incoming 56:20

incorporate

148:22 151:3

214:11

incorporated

199:17

incorporating

59:20

incorrect 55:12

250:5

increase 150:12,13

157:19 174:20

increased 67:7

126:13

increases

106:3,4,6

increasing 59:11

incredible 193:13

incur 27:22

independence

201:14 202:13

203:2

independent 99:2

103:9 104:3,9

142:5 202:7

219:13

independently

17:22

indeterminate

62:3,5

indicate 80:16

144:9

indicated 57:2

indicates 82:13

indication 87:17

individual 88:16

89:4 91:18 92:21

223:6 224:7

industrial 52:19

115:19

Industries 3:7

industry 13:1

14:10 19:17

30:22 36:22

50:11 54:15

91:19,21 92:1

98:19 104:7

107:2 170:19

183:14 211:9

219:6 249:1

251:21 258:13

industry-wide

211:11

inform 41:18

information 32:16

43:12,18,21,22

128:20 148:1

182:13,14

211:14 224:1,11

227:6,14,15,18,2

2 228:1,3 231:3

234:5 235:15,22

236:2 238:14
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 24

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

243:9 246:15,21

247:11 252:8

ingredient 105:21

in-house 99:16

in--is 258:7

initial 113:20

115:2 120:16

125:14 127:22

144:11 145:14

146:21 167:3

174:2 195:19

196:4 250:17,18

initially 22:3 60:4

149:21 173:8

187:16 213:9

257:5

initial--the

162:19,21

initiated 135:11

inlet 224:9

innocence 116:16

input 30:22 205:10

212:4 218:21

219:3 220:5

inserted 158:1,2,5

204:16,21

inside 42:21

73:9,11

insight 5:19

in--so 156:1

inspect 28:11

inspection 20:20

22:17,18 38:16

45:11

inspections 20:3

21:1 59:21

228:17

inspector 20:11

23:5 51:16

inspectors 52:19

installation 63:16

installed 57:8

installers 63:17

instead 103:4

240:16

instinct 116:6

193:12

Institute 2:7 3:14

in-stock 78:20

insulted 54:20

intend 219:18

intended 161:13

163:17 215:1

216:14 217:17

intends 133:5

intense 93:5

intensity 115:12

150:3

intent 155:3 191:5

255:20

intentional 47:15

56:3 98:5

intentionally 55:1

58:5,20

interest 13:4

234:19 260:10

interested 14:8

17:12 45:22

139:6 150:17

interesting 58:8

83:4

interests 5:9

internal 142:2

internally 83:11

Internet 67:21

129:4

interpret 176:15

212:8,9 222:16

interpretation

208:15,17 212:1

221:10 223:13

interpretations

208:13 211:22

interpreting

216:22

interpretive 222:3

Intertek 3:15

201:17

interval 207:22

250:22

intervene 103:6

introduced 120:8

introduction

113:12,16

inventory 36:6

39:15 50:12

56:20 61:19

69:12 77:5,9

186:14

187:10,11,18

invest 93:14

investigate 229:12

investigating

62:19 78:10

230:2

investment 93:10

148:17,19

investments

148:18

invited 212:12

involved 13:15

109:14 209:21

211:8 212:7

239:2 252:7

involvement

207:19 208:8,17

involve--quite

211:19

ironed 191:16

irrespective

208:14

is--and 189:12

is--if 132:16

isn't 40:21 129:15

150:18 246:18

ISO 142:1 224:18

is--okay 146:11

is--one 202:12

ISOs 95:7

is--so 243:19

issue 7:18,22 8:10

23:4 39:2 59:2

63:8 65:4 75:1

76:2 89:3 116:8

117:15 137:20

143:4 169:16

190:2 209:14

211:2,8 217:21

221:8 222:3

225:7 228:21

236:10 239:4

243:3,10,15,19

258:11

issued 216:15

251:4

issues 13:12 39:6

59:19 61:4 79:10

189:11 214:16

215:22 221:10

222:3,6 223:2

224:21
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 25

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

is--their 212:6

is--you 97:18

it'd 27:10 40:7

item 37:2 228:7

242:13

items 15:4 34:3

35:16 72:18

78:20 89:7

166:21 191:9

225:4 251:7

it--is 44:15

it'll 59:11

it's 6:10 7:8,9,11

8:16 9:2,10 10:1

11:14 12:3,22

16:21 25:15,16

31:14,15 32:11

34:9 35:8 36:15

39:5,10,13,17

40:20 41:14,21

42:21 43:4,14

46:7,18 47:15

48:8,11 49:1

51:12,17,20,22

52:20 53:6

58:10,22

60:9,11,20,22

61:1,7 62:3

65:12 67:6,14

68:13,14,15,16

69:8,16 70:16

71:3,19 72:7,22

73:9 74:8 76:1,5

80:8 83:15,18

84:8,10,16 85:7

86:7,20 89:2,4

91:11,14 92:2,11

96:4,20

98:2,5,11,18

99:6,10 105:1

106:16

109:12,13

110:12

112:12,14,22

114:14 116:9

117:22 118:3

120:7,8,22 123:2

127:17

129:8,12,20,21

130:1,13,15

132:20 134:2,11

135:20

136:1,11,17,18

137:3,10,11

138:11 139:22

140:22 144:5

145:16,21

147:17 152:3

153:3,13 157:19

158:16,18,22

160:15,20

162:21 165:18

168:22 169:6

170:13 172:11

177:21 178:15

183:7 184:2

185:8 189:8,19

191:15 199:6

200:5,11 201:10

202:5,6 203:10

204:17,22

205:16,18

206:6,19 208:15

209:10 210:5,7

213:5,6 215:1

220:10 221:5

223:17 230:6

232:7 236:13

239:1,21

240:7,12,15,20

241:11,15

242:7,9,10,12

243:1,2 244:8,11

246:4,22

248:3,6,21 251:5

254:11 258:20

it's--damn 193:17

it's--you 171:19

I've 6:7 11:6,11

29:8 79:13 84:21

95:12 96:18

110:11 140:3

141:5 146:12

148:20 151:12

153:19 184:17

201:6 216:10

225:8 227:22

258:21

J

Jeff 2:11 3:2 5:22

10:4 11:17 12:21

18:17 20:14 22:1

23:8 25:9 26:6

29:19 31:13

32:10 36:21

37:16 47:16 48:9

59:12 79:11 87:4

89:14,16 90:11

122:7 123:19

147:12 153:8

190:21 193:20

225:10 240:1

Jill 2:19 35:22

42:1 75:8,22

84:15 176:1

205:19 214:14

216:13 218:20

245:15

job 49:14 52:6

John 2:12,17,21

50:5 54:17 112:7

249:15

Johnson 2:22

join 5:21 81:7,14

109:4 195:13,14

197:15 202:1

205:7 225:15

joining 81:14

200:22

Judd 3:12 134:14

146:17

judge 98:9

jump 86:17

jumping 6:2

just--and 188:1

just--if 229:16

justify 54:21

just--that 55:4

juts 248:6

K

Karen 3:5 52:17

83:21 84:12

85:13 108:6

116:19 123:1

171:17

Karen's 70:3

Karim 2:6 8:12

9:17 25:13

32:9,16 34:16

36:13 38:14

41:16 42:2 62:10

78:22 80:20

87:20 100:9

106:13 107:11

112:9,20 117:11

133:20 134:14

139:4 146:2

154:3 164:19

165:22 166:10

168:19 170:22

178:2 212:10

214:8 220:15

230:4 252:18

255:7

Karim--that 10:6
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 26

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

kick 255:3

kinds 49:1 59:6

127:12 209:8

Kleiss 3:2 4:6,13

22:1 23:9 24:9

25:11,20 26:6

36:21 48:9 79:11

87:4,9 89:15,16

122:7,11 123:19

153:8 168:6

190:21 193:20

225:10,14 240:1

241:5,8

knee-deep 29:10

knew 8:9 31:11

56:4 58:6 62:17

72:11 188:14

243:12

know--if 60:14

knowingly 41:2

knowledge 146:3

189:9

Kojak 3:3 117:21

118:2,6,9,13

125:14 128:3,14

129:12 130:4

131:11 132:20

133:7 140:3,9

141:3,22

142:7,12 143:19

146:21 147:4

184:17 185:9

201:6,7 203:15

215:8,16

218:5,9,12 237:8

241:11,15

L

lab 13:15 25:16,18

26:8 27:2 38:2

39:5,10 42:19,21

60:5,7 66:21,22

73:16 74:11

92:19 99:9,17

151:15,18,19,20

182:12 184:8

185:6 186:11,12

187:17 202:9

203:16 210:22

214:3 223:17

236:17,19

237:20

245:4,9,13

246:17

label 15:15,16

labeling 16:17

lab--or 187:11

laboratories 3:3

184:5 201:22

211:15

laboratory 104:18

149:18 152:16

158:11 182:22

183:12,13,16

187:10 202:5

204:1,6,8 210:5

laboratory's 202:2

labs 42:20,22

83:20 98:19

104:8 129:2

139:22 142:2

151:17 184:1

202:9 211:4

language 103:19

155:5 158:2

181:17 182:4

183:20

large 5:11 12:4

50:6 154:8

205:19 254:1

larger 27:11 85:15

92:14 149:4

largest 37:7

last 5:18 29:9

43:15 117:12

118:3 147:13

155:6 179:9

183:21 184:8

186:21 201:5

208:8 213:17

218:19 224:17

226:11,20,22

228:7 230:17

235:18 237:17

240:9 248:12

250:16

later 5:21 6:15

114:1,15 135:12

221:11 252:14

latitude 89:18

Laughter 10:21

41:15 49:22

62:21 64:21

82:21 92:4

102:10 111:3

119:20 127:16

163:5 188:3

189:1 193:19

217:1 237:14

249:4 251:16

Laura 2:10,14

10:5 12:6 20:16

29:21 37:18

61:17 64:22 73:2

80:3 84:20 90:13

92:3 96:8 98:10

102:15 110:18

132:1 156:8

160:8 172:18

176:2 184:11

215:20 221:21

224:13,17

226:19 247:22

251:12

Laura's 58:2

95:2,8 143:7,11

law 22:15

lead 40:5,16

leakage 45:3,4,12

leaking 47:1

leaks 46:19

least 6:12 8:2,7,8

9:14 10:15 41:17

44:2 47:9 56:12

78:20 79:14

97:21 103:19

104:7 107:14,15

113:2 114:21

134:8,10 147:15

148:16 149:22

150:3 155:1

156:2 163:20

173:3 177:6

179:5,16 180:14

182:2,17 206:3

208:2 210:18,21

214:9 221:7,16

222:18 237:3

245:21 247:17

255:16

leave 7:17 28:15

leaving 47:13

LEED 154:5,7

legal 108:11

112:13

legally 25:5 231:16

legislation 252:11

legit 65:20 130:17

legitimately

247:10

L'Enfant 1:7

length 48:14

leniency 77:10
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 27

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

Lennox 50:6

less 15:17,18

32:2,5 33:9

72:19 95:19

114:15 117:7

171:6 173:4

178:11 246:6

254:8

less--would 171:5

let's 69:15 79:8

86:5 88:6 118:16

143:3 163:6

167:10 172:3

173:21,22

195:14,16 197:3

232:21 234:13

241:16 243:19

letter 62:20 256:10

level 11:8,21 12:8

23:3 30:4,11

31:19 32:4 38:12

44:12 48:19

59:20 61:11 67:1

68:11 77:8 78:5

79:18 86:7

88:14,17,18,20

89:1,6,13

90:13,22

91:7,13,16 95:2

99:2,10,20 100:2

109:7,11

112:17,22

113:7,20 114:8

116:4 118:19

120:7 121:16

125:18 126:13

128:16,18

129:13

130:3,18,22

132:3

133:8,10,13

139:8 141:12

144:13,14

145:12 148:1

159:2 168:13,14

185:17 187:12

199:19 201:13

240:12

level--on 91:6

levels 5:15 32:2

68:6 115:18

118:15 129:7

138:8 147:17

159:1 163:16

191:10 200:18

252:17

leverage 13:18

14:2 94:5

leveraged 16:5

leverage--if 234:21

lieu 126:3 181:19

lifetime 113:11

light 55:4

like--as 223:3

likelihood 46:17

likely 113:13

115:8 154:15

228:13

limit 66:7 70:20

92:10 121:1

216:14

limited 78:9 148:8

256:8

LIN 73:2

line 4:17 12:19

13:14 21:2,7

26:22 35:6,11,21

38:10,22 39:15

45:10 46:1 48:19

49:11 53:5,19

56:4,5,8,9 59:22

60:12 61:15

62:17 78:18,19

97:11 100:21

116:9 159:21

160:21 168:15

169:7 186:14

200:3 217:12

218:14 235:18

240:13

lines 14:11 68:9

194:9

link 189:5

list 14:22 15:5,17

20:19 30:5 43:7

44:15 51:13 60:5

64:8 66:6 69:15

100:6 117:17

120:19,21 121:4

129:3 130:6

149:22 150:2

181:21 205:13

206:22 207:5

219:1 225:3,8

227:2 237:16

239:16 242:1,9

243:3,11 246:7

247:1 248:1

250:7,12,17

251:8

listed 12:20

15:2,4,13 24:21

25:5 27:12

32:18,20 43:21

130:8 181:13

213:9

listening 148:21

151:12

listing 15:20 17:4

20:21 27:19

32:20,22 33:4,18

34:7,12 44:2

196:12,13

239:12

listings 18:13

listing--this 162:2

lists 33:7,12 44:3

222:9

literature 133:17

little 11:5 35:3

43:7 45:3 49:9

56:8 58:22 79:1

84:8 87:1,2

88:10 90:10

93:18 98:3

108:13 111:16

115:1 149:4,5

161:6 164:17

184:14 191:16

193:8 196:10

201:5 228:5,11

230:16 240:10

live 132:11

LLC 3:3

lo 61:20

load 19:14 215:4

loading 18:1

local 17:4 20:11

22:17 23:4

location 37:19

38:2,6,9

39:16,20,21

186:10 190:22

191:1

locations 185:16

Lochinvar 3:2

22:1 26:6 36:21

48:9 79:11 87:4

89:16 122:7

123:19 153:8

225:10 240:1

lock 21:14 246:10

logistic 39:6
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 28

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

long 9:2 50:8

114:20 115:2

127:13 141:19

228:2 233:14

258:15

longer 18:4,5 92:8

187:1 252:9

253:8

loosely 120:9

looser 138:11

Loser 230:10,11

loss 22:10

lot 4:10,12 6:18

7:3 8:8 13:12

14:22 16:22

18:1,6 19:12

27:14 30:4,14

44:16,22 45:14

47:8 48:10,20

50:6 51:19

53:10,20 54:4

55:20 56:6 57:21

60:11 61:12

71:11 80:10 82:9

84:10 88:11

93:14,15 94:10

95:10,12 99:6

111:14 114:17

126:5 138:22

139:7,21 151:3

167:5 170:13

174:10 192:21

193:13 204:7,22

224:11 227:21

234:4 235:1

249:13 252:8,13

254:3 257:5

lots 64:14 98:6,8

173:9,13 175:9

190:5,6,7 234:18

love 188:8 207:7

low 87:16 119:6,8

188:11 215:4

lower 48:19

106:16 107:9,16

111:8 112:21

126:2 144:14,18

148:9 152:9,19

154:15 168:18

185:19

187:2,4,15,20

lower-end 241:17

lowering 107:17

108:1

lowest 174:18

low--if 188:12

lunch 161:5,22

163:6 177:18

luncheon 167:12

luxury 42:16

M

magic 95:6

mail 167:9

main 206:12

maintaining

142:20

major 7:1 43:6

110:2 202:9

majority 55:16

make--I 104:12

management

53:21

mandate 178:17

mandatory 94:1

manner 53:17

manufacture

38:15 51:19

manufactured

61:20 62:7 69:18

74:1 231:6,10,11

239:10

manufacturer 5:7

6:18 12:4 35:5

40:17 41:1 48:2

52:2 56:1 60:13

66:22 67:5,10,16

68:22 69:9

70:2,17,22

71:4,7,14,15,18

72:1 74:6,9

91:18 92:21

98:20 99:15

102:5 104:22

127:9 131:11

132:14 149:15

154:16

159:18,20

164:8,10 192:14

195:12

199:14,22 200:5

201:8

202:8,17,18

205:16 206:14

220:18 224:2

227:5 229:11,17

231:1,16 234:17

235:4 236:15,17

238:5,11,16

239:8 241:16

243:20 244:12

245:1,4

manufacturer-run

227:19

manufacturers

4:22 5:2 6:9

7:4,9 8:13 9:5,6

11:7 25:14,21

30:8,15,19,21

36:16 39:7 41:18

47:19 48:17 49:2

54:22 55:5,16

56:19 59:18

61:12 64:20 66:8

70:13 71:2,11

75:20 77:11

81:6,14

85:15,16,19

91:8,10,13 93:5

95:13 99:11

100:11,13,16

103:9,14

104:4,16 106:19

108:2 116:18

126:4 131:19

133:4 137:6

138:20 139:13

142:9 148:3

149:14 151:4

190:4 206:20

208:10 211:15

214:17 234:19

235:6 239:22

240:5 244:22

manufacturer's

23:22 26:8

37:19,21 38:2,9

39:15,16,22

43:17 69:16,21

173:2 186:11

202:4 204:1,14

228:13,22 229:6

Manufacturers

131:13

manufactures

205:20

manufacturing

2:18 3:5,17 36:7

44:22 48:5 52:14

63:7 72:12

90:1,5

Marantan 3:4

margin 86:15

mark 2:16 46:16

53:7 64:7 65:22
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 29

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

96:20 123:13

180:16 202:11

231:15

market 15:14

16:16,19 23:14

24:5 34:3 46:1

77:19 94:2

105:16

113:12,22

116:17,21 117:6

120:11 136:3

140:2 164:18

167:2 169:22

170:3,13 174:21

180:4 182:6

196:17 197:4

marketing 15:12

111:22 112:5

170:21 171:14

marketplace 51:6

235:8

marking 65:11

Marshall 2:20

marvelous 116:10

Mary 2:13 13:8

30:18 44:13

93:20 94:19

95:22 96:1

97:13,21 98:2

108:14 111:17

119:21 136:13

142:17 169:6

226:2 251:20

mass 46:6 241:21

242:13

match 98:14

170:19

matches 158:12

material 43:16

56:20,21

materials 130:6,7

242:12

math 97:6,19

106:14

mathematical 92:2

matter 49:18

126:11 213:10

241:1 242:8

max 215:4 248:18

250:15

maximum 7:6

32:13 96:3

152:12

may 8:5 18:18

20:7 34:3,7,12

36:2 37:12 38:9

39:1 43:19 45:17

51:5 53:1,3

56:17 57:3 72:19

73:2,5 74:2,3

91:21 92:5,22

93:18 104:8

108:21 110:18

122:12 123:5

143:14 144:9,13

159:12 165:2

177:13 181:20

184:14 189:7

191:10 194:5,7

197:16 198:3,4

204:16 211:4

213:19 221:8,9

222:6 223:10,19

234:1,10 235:12

236:17 244:22

245:1 247:12,13

248:16 252:6,15

253:14 257:9

258:9

maybe 5:21

7:14,17 8:2,3

9:10 34:13 38:14

39:16,18 43:6

48:13,15 50:11

51:4 58:9 59:7

68:7 77:9,12,16

78:16 80:3 81:3

88:15,20 89:8

99:10,13,15,20

108:22 109:17

113:21 114:6,8

117:1 118:19

127:18 134:9

155:3 173:5

178:3,4,9 179:14

191:11 193:8

194:8 195:18

196:3,5 197:17

203:2,17

205:1,18,20,22

208:1,20 216:3

223:15 232:19

233:2 234:9

248:1,4 254:11

McQuay 2:22

mean 10:1 11:10

13:21 14:12

22:20 25:14 27:8

32:10 34:22 36:4

37:19 38:11

41:21 42:2 43:3

50:5 51:16 57:16

60:12 63:3,20

66:10,15

72:15,18 75:4,17

77:7 80:3,12

83:1,3 84:3,22

85:3 96:11 101:7

107:15 108:19

110:1 111:18

113:14,15 117:1

126:11 129:12

133:21 137:21

139:6 140:8

143:12,19

147:20 156:14

168:20 169:12

171:18

178:2,6,8,10

180:20,21

201:10,16

202:3,21 203:10

205:16 208:15

212:14,15

214:1,15

217:9,16,20

219:11 224:14

226:6 229:12

231:1,5 232:11

241:12 245:7,17

255:1

means 5:16 11:13

120:2,3 174:1

196:7 225:12

226:4 246:1

247:11 251:2

meant 33:9 46:12

127:20 168:8

169:3 208:21

measure 223:7

240:6

measured 57:14

mechanism 194:22

232:16 246:16

mechanisms

203:13

medium 186:8

187:9 194:7

199:5,6

meet 28:16 61:18

65:7 85:4 93:4

100:2 123:3

124:10,13

127:11 143:14

148:4 152:11

182:15 197:9

212:15,22

220:21 241:1,3
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 30

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

242:2 258:2

meeting 1:4 13:9

30:19,20 34:19

89:8 115:16

136:10 137:22

165:14 248:8

249:19 256:16

257:12 259:11

meeting--is 30:1

meetings 30:7,17

32:8 83:12 84:22

212:12 237:18

258:10

meets 89:1 112:2

133:15 199:19

236:18 237:11

member 170:2

225:19 226:1,7,8

251:22

members 9:6

54:15 107:13

112:11 173:4

177:10,14 179:8

211:5,6,12 226:2

249:9

membership 205:7

225:15 226:5

membership's

96:6

memory 184:13

mentioned 19:16

37:18 38:14 82:1

139:1 160:7

mentioning 33:3

mentioning--the

133:10

menu 88:16 98:13

merged 27:14

mess 239:14

messed 47:15

met 117:13 145:4

me--the 138:2

me--this 138:15

method 185:20

188:5 200:6

methods 122:8

185:15 197:11

metrics 23:17,19

met--the 143:22

Meyers 3:5 4:14

52:17 67:14

83:21 108:6

116:19 117:5

123:1 136:7

137:17 141:2

143:4 171:17

184:11

Michael 3:3,8

256:15

microphone 16:13

70:7 133:6

142:11 159:9

188:7 224:4

Microsoft 226:11

middle 93:4 239:3

might--we 168:12

Mike 3:15 179:6

184:17 201:7

215:8 235:19,20

mill 241:9

millions 42:7

84:15 95:13

171:19

mimicking 161:19

mind 8:4 9:9 68:20

110:11 156:2

173:10 199:18

224:8

minded 13:3

mindlessly 49:14

mine 94:4

mine's 224:3

minimum 10:1

65:8 78:12 83:3

107:4 137:22

139:16 140:6,11

141:12 142:8

143:6,8,15,18,20

144:1

146:9,19,20

148:12 149:7

159:13 166:7,22

167:1 173:21

174:11 175:16

213:7 237:11

minimums 85:7

136:10 138:9

148:10

minus 56:18

150:5,18 153:10

154:13

minute 88:4 96:1

minutes 247:22

248:11

miss 87:16

missed 40:13

230:16

missing 4:9,10

92:5 136:6

143:17,18

235:17 249:13

mistaken 173:5

mistakes 48:10

misunderstanding

93:1

misunderstood

165:5

Mitsubishi 2:15

27:4 47:11 51:9

54:8 63:11

68:2,5 72:14

75:16 82:22

233:3

Mitsubishis 51:21

mix 9:13 98:14

175:9 192:15

Mm-mm 217:8

mode 76:13

83:10,11,13,18

84:2 127:14

model 8:18

15:8,20 20:19

32:22 35:12 36:2

37:13 39:11,13

40:18 42:17

43:10 44:20

46:12 74:16

76:3,7 84:3,5

85:13 94:17

96:21 97:2

103:4,7 104:20

105:2,4 113:14

122:5 124:1

144:3 149:22

150:1,4 153:2

155:1 156:3,4

161:1,2 162:10

164:2,9

174:4,9,16,17,22

175:6,9 177:2,7

179:16

180:1,10,15,20,2

2 181:1,4,7,8,12

182:2,3,15,17

190:1,8,13

194:22 196:21

197:5,8 198:19

203:4 204:13,18

209:12
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 31

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

238:17,18

240:22 243:12

247:8

models 6:20 9:2

12:20 15:9,18

27:16 42:4,6

45:14 51:14

69:3,11 75:19

79:19 97:1,5

104:21 105:2,10

108:18 122:3

123:16 144:6

149:3,8,14 150:6

156:10 166:11

173:11,13,18

174:1,2,6,8,14

175:5,10,18

182:21 186:2

189:14,15,22

190:1,5,6,7,8,13

194:8,9

205:13,15

206:2,14,17,20,2

1,22 207:4,6

228:16,19

243:22 244:6

254:21

models--keep

173:10

models--so 173:12

modest 115:18

modified 177:17

modify 72:12

Molvie 3:6

moment 37:9

106:2 181:15

Monday 46:7

258:8

monetary 82:2,17

138:21

money 57:21 81:7

93:14 170:17

235:2

monitor 16:3

monkey 192:3

month 30:17 37:3

250:21 251:1,6,8

255:2

months 16:2 37:2

250:22 251:3,5

252:20

253:2,8,21 255:1

mood 192:17

morning 4:21

29:20 92:12 97:8

motor 43:11 57:12

65:4 73:3,6,8,11

237:21,22

241:17,18

242:2,16 243:6

258:10,12,16

motors 44:16

57:11

65:6,7,9,10

66:1,3 238:1,19

move 19:22 24:5

moved 250:20

moving 57:12

119:6 152:7

200:4

mull 161:6

multiply 12:2

Myers 3:7 21:13

22:4 41:10 44:9

55:6 102:14

104:12 105:20

106:18

107:20,21

114:13

121:10,20,22

122:10 131:17

132:12 148:20

151:2 152:14

154:10 155:3,19

156:1,14,22

157:5,7,17 158:8

159:8,17 160:18

161:14

162:8,15,18

163:1,18 164:13

166:8 168:7,22

169:2 172:18

173:6,20 175:22

176:14,19

177:16 178:13

179:2,11

180:7,18 181:14

182:8 183:3

189:10,20,21

191:22

194:13,21 195:8

196:9 198:10,22

199:1,11,21

200:8,11,21

201:20 203:21

206:3 209:20

210:14,16

211:13 228:4

229:14 234:8,15

235:11 246:5

250:4

my--I 248:13

N

NAFM 13:10

20:17 30:19

NAFTA 132:5

narrow 8:3

national 2:11 6:1

10:5 11:18 18:17

20:15 29:20

37:17 50:7 59:13

90:12 147:13

nature 10:3 27:16

34:1 43:17 44:5

186:22 187:22

223:9,18 238:6

Navigant 2:3,14

3:8,19

necessarily 30:3

36:7 40:21 41:6

49:3 51:3 55:9

58:20 71:10

99:21 105:13

120:15 128:17

157:18 164:1

170:19 176:20

199:5 202:3

238:5,17,20

necessarily--in

238:8

necessarily--it

163:22

necessary 22:15

74:9 152:10

157:9

negative 150:16

negotiated 11:3

181:2

negotiating 97:9

120:1 204:6

negotiation 181:2

Neil 2:3 163:8

242:7 257:17

Neil's 76:9

neither 260:7

NEMA 259:1

nervous 50:3 59:5

new--you 7:8

nice 47:7 119:18

niche 238:9

niches 116:7
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 32

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

nifty 240:10

night 184:8

nine 251:6

nobody 46:1

119:10 257:14

nobody's 258:2

nod 25:9

nodding 192:21

Nods 25:11

non 26:14 47:21

non-AHRI 211:6

noncompliant

143:9,14

none 57:20 91:2

244:5

non-witness 13:20

nor 260:8

norm 43:13 52:20

normal 53:6

120:11 242:16

normally 103:5

244:6,9

nose 54:12

notes 115:4 214:12

no--that's 134:13

nothing 150:22

172:4 186:4

246:10

not--I 30:3 95:15

218:20

notice 13:11 46:2

notification

238:22

notified 134:16

212:20 213:2

Not--that's 235:11

not--there's 40:3

not--this 156:6

nozzles 223:6,9

NR 129:1

NRCan

128:15,20,21,22

133:22

134:2,4,15 146:9

147:2,4,15

149:18 151:5

155:10 158:3,11

182:11,22

NRCanada 145:11

146:3 147:8,9

NRCan's 146:18

NSF 11:14 16:9

17:2,10

18:7,19,21,22

19:1,11

NSF-7 19:9

NSFs 214:18

NSF-type 17:4

nuances 22:13

number's 6:22

83:1

O

object 119:11

120:4

objecting 119:22

objection 119:5

objective 93:7

98:10 165:15

objectives 93:4

165:15

objects 119:10,13

obligated 76:5

obtain 91:12

obtained 207:1,17

obviously 11:3

12:2 16:8 18:20

21:6 91:2 123:18

155:4 185:22

190:12 207:18

240:11

odd 158:21 208:16

OEM 68:7 71:8

72:15 187:11

236:14,15

of--and 104:14

of--can 65:1

off-base 11:15

offer 16:9 164:18

offered 133:2,13

offering 112:13

offers 13:3

official 73:7,10

officials 73:5

offs 190:16

off-season 48:18

offshore 51:20

52:2 115:8

234:18 239:8

off-the 67:8 242:8

244:13

off-the-shelf 67:4

236:7,8 240:11

243:1,2

244:11,15

of--I 38:11

of--I'm 218:20

of--it's 84:10

of--so 18:1

oh 4:16 11:1 43:10

46:12 49:4,6

66:4 96:8 133:7

204:19,21

206:15 217:13

222:14

old 138:10

OM 186:14

one--a 254:3

one--at 179:16

one-off 242:11

onerous 115:5

ones 26:21 28:4

138:10 176:9

250:17

one's 47:13 55:1

one-sided 60:19

92:9 93:11

one-size-fits-all

9:15,18

one-time 135:10

one-to-ones 74:15

ongoing 16:4

140:1,21 142:5

167:1 214:16

on--if 213:11

on--it's 6:17

on--like 209:11

online 52:19

ons 37:12

on-site 25:8 28:1

open 13:3 253:3,5

operate 14:19

31:10

operated 113:19

operating 59:4

63:13,18
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 33

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

operation 28:22

68:5

operations 26:21

opinion 5:10,13

6:13 232:3

253:18

opportunities

191:21

opportunity

114:22 135:10

136:5 185:12

204:2 205:13

opposed 32:4

35:21 38:10

39:20 55:15

92:11 104:4

177:1 202:8

204:5

optimum 60:15

option 6:12 19:7

26:13 30:3 36:14

38:9 41:8 65:4

71:14 103:3

122:19 126:2,5

169:10 185:19

191:12,20

201:19

optional 27:21

43:19,20 206:6

options 7:16,18

8:3,5,8,9 12:10

30:10 89:11

95:20 101:6

102:7 120:14

188:17

191:4,5,19 196:5

or--depending

33:14

order 22:7 40:4,8

75:18 136:20

149:8 179:17

180:10 190:5,16

193:16 200:2

219:15 221:13

243:8

order--small 190:4

organization

18:19 19:3,8

45:8,9 85:20

128:7 169:20

204:12

organize 167:18

or--I 9:13

original 5:5,8

181:15 252:7

other--for 220:17

others 57:2 63:15

80:17 82:10

122:22 131:2

201:17

otherwise 41:19

77:5 91:5 131:22

144:16

ought 27:3 35:20

248:1,4

ours 44:16 47:10

ourselves 42:22

outlet 224:10

outside 53:8 83:20

85:9 213:12

238:16

outspoken 193:4

out--this 198:22

overly 54:1 83:16

overseas 64:14

231:14

oversight 133:18

201:9,14 204:7

oversimplifying

93:7

overtly 179:15

P

p.m 167:15 259:9

Pacific 2:20

package 19:14

20:21

packages 19:14

packed 36:1

page 216:1

paid 7:8 56:6

palatable 126:2

131:1

paragraph 155:6

161:9 163:10

parallel 34:2

parallels 125:20

parameters 78:2

94:7 192:7

Pardon 121:20

participant 124:18

149:9 166:11

169:19 170:4

173:9 206:15

participants 2:5

3:1 103:17

104:15 112:10

141:15 149:13

154:21 156:15

158:1,2 173:17

210:12 225:15

participate 9:7

52:15 100:17

108:2 111:17

170:15 205:6

206:6 211:16

225:19

participating

52:12 136:2,8

184:1

participation

116:2 170:6

participation--on

169:7

particular 8:14

11:15 36:22

41:21 54:3

73:7,10,11

115:13 139:1

144:10 209:12

219:7

particularly 89:2

97:17 116:7

parties 98:18

169:17 260:8

party 7:11 17:17

28:6 39:5

47:21,22 48:4

104:10 138:7

149:10 157:21

161:17

163:19,20

168:11,16 169:8

173:1 177:11,19

178:16

179:5,7,14

180:4,9 181:19

182:12,22 183:6

184:1,9 185:6

186:12 187:10

190:22 201:12

202:1,5,9

203:16,22

204:12 205:14

218:1 220:16

228:19

pass 77:12

87:8,10,15

123:17 124:9
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 34

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

194:10 242:9

244:4

pass/fail 194:4

passed 61:21

114:4,9 252:11

passes 62:3 110:13

243:15

passing 56:10

137:9

past 186:19 255:2

path 132:15

154:14,16

158:19

paths 135:11

177:22

Paul 2:15 27:4

47:11 51:9,18

54:8 63:11 68:2

72:14 73:2,21

75:16 76:1 82:22

Paul's 232:21

Pause 4:18 5:20

88:8 105:19

157:16 184:16

185:10

pay 7:10 75:14

76:11,16

paying 53:17

69:21

208:5,10,14

pays 230:6,10,11

peak 49:3

penalize 81:2

150:20

penalized 242:3

penalizing 158:22

242:15

penalties 82:14,17

85:16,18 86:2

138:21

161:10,12

penalty 76:13,21

77:2 80:18,20

82:3,13

83:11,13,14,17

84:2 85:19

127:14 138:19

143:12 161:16

people 4:11,12

7:17,19,21 13:11

18:14,15,16 20:8

26:17,20 30:4

49:10,15 50:6

52:11 53:5,14,22

54:6 56:4 58:21

59:1,5 67:18

75:9 76:15

80:10,22

88:10,20 90:15

94:10 102:3

103:8 109:4

114:3 115:3

116:10

125:12,19

128:5,11,12

133:10 134:22

135:2 148:21

155:2 156:9

171:15 179:4

185:15 192:19

205:8 222:6

229:9 234:3

249:7,13 252:14

per 16:1

31:11,14,20

32:5,13 56:18

83:2 98:11

105:4,5,6 120:10

160:19 174:11

186:2 187:13

percent 6:19

16:16,18 24:21

25:2,5

34:6,7,11,12,13,

18 37:9,11 56:15

61:7 80:4 86:16

87:6,7,9,11,15

94:15 95:17

96:1,4,7,9,10,19,

20 97:15,18

106:4,5,7

120:10,21,22

121:5,16,18

123:2,3,7,15,16

124:5,6

138:8,10,19

142:8,15 144:2,4

150:6,12,19

151:14,17,21

152:8,15,18,21

153:4,10,12,20,2

1 156:10

162:6,14

175:15,16,18,21

177:21

178:1,3,7,11,15,

21 181:9

186:1,2,7

187:13,21

188:15 189:15

194:3,4,7,8,10,1

1

percentage

7:19,20 33:14

81:1 86:10

108:18 120:18

124:13

percentages 9:22

189:19

percentage-wise

7:2

percent--and

187:7

perfectly 45:6 46:3

perform 56:1 62:8

229:10

performance

21:19,22 22:9

44:6 56:15 226:3

performing 61:16

perhaps 82:6

182:10 197:19

225:1

period 18:5 105:3

135:1 144:4

251:2,8 255:2

permit 234:7

person 156:19

157:4 176:3

198:6 199:15

231:14

personally 57:14

personnel 22:6,7

perspective 91:17

92:7 104:17

114:18,19

143:7,11 231:1

pertain 29:14

Peter 3:6

Peter's 250:1

Ph.D 3:4

phase 116:3

Phil 175:19

Phillip 3:16 26:12

41:7 70:12 85:11

91:9 92:5 93:2

120:13 122:16

126:1 127:8

135:8 160:6

175:14 176:13

192:22 220:1

Phillips 166:20
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 35

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

Phillip's 94:3

phone 4:20 5:19

153:17

251:21,22

phonetic 44:18

57:5 64:20

physical 223:8

245:22

physically 15:1

pick 21:2 36:18

50:21 53:11 77:8

87:19 90:3

picked 37:20

picking 196:8

picks 51:16 88:16

picky 64:20

pictures 223:10,17

picturing 49:10

piece 59:4 240:18

252:11

pieces 45:3,21

181:19 227:17

246:15

piggyback 17:20

pill 122:18

placed 40:8 229:16

places 182:1

202:12

plain 68:8

plan 88:22

207:3,15 217:14

planning 56:21

plant 36:7

plausible 104:8

play 224:19

player 108:5,9

116:21 118:16

players 109:2

114:16

playing 95:3

109:7,11 112:22

185:17 211:17

252:15

plays 185:18

Plaza 1:7

please 35:14 149:4

191:8 225:11

256:17

plugging 192:14

plus 56:18

150:5,18 153:9

154:13 176:22

181:20

plus/minus 152:21

point 10:13 29:10

47:17 50:16

52:18 55:7 57:17

58:1 68:1 70:4

73:9 79:12 85:12

92:11 96:19

102:8 113:13,17

115:3

135:9,14,19

147:13 148:16

155:20 159:14

164:19 179:13

180:8 190:14

191:6 209:8

211:7 216:9

220:3 238:8

pointed 29:16

point--impose

58:10

pointing 90:15,19

point--or 44:14

points 31:18 82:1

91:3,22 202:12

207:13 208:2,3

224:7 226:13

Poll 249:21 258:19

polymer 48:11

poorly 92:1

portion 21:20

23:14,15 140:22

142:10 252:9

portions 6:5

position 91:14

107:22 165:6

203:11

possession 236:14

possibilities 8:4

possibility 44:1

58:16 59:19

61:10 201:18

205:22 257:22

possible 27:19

33:17 37:1

102:15 130:6

132:17 205:16

233:14 236:16

possible--can

134:19

possibly 23:17

67:3 154:3

200:10

posted 134:21

potential 40:22

130:9 218:14,18

225:13

potentially 21:5,10

30:11 31:17 38:2

39:19 47:21

72:10 236:11

253:16

potentials 38:8

power 15:17

224:7,9

practical 246:12

practice 45:16,18

53:6 115:20

223:17

practices 92:18

95:6

pre 28:9

preamble 79:22

precise 80:15

Precision 152:2,3

preclude 214:20

precluded 189:8

precludes 183:22

predictable 219:17

pre-do 123:14

pre-established

144:15

prefer 39:7 69:8

169:18

preferable 38:22

preference 203:12

premise 100:15

premium 139:9

prepare 252:9

prerogative

177:15

presence 74:6

present 13:6 16:15

47:19 128:19

presented 188:6

193:17

presently 84:19

preserve 221:15
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 36

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

press 96:7

pressure 44:5

63:13,18

pressures 45:12

presumably 33:5

40:19

presume 210:17

presumption

114:5 116:16

pretty 10:13 60:4

61:6,12

84:8,13,17

114:14 116:11

153:21 188:11

248:11 250:15

254:2 256:14

prevent 48:22

previously 6:9

19:17 140:18

168:10 182:15

primary 72:21

principle 92:8

94:22 113:17

principles 113:10

print 57:4 204:17

250:7

printing 245:22

prints 56:16

prior 43:22 222:4

priority 69:15,17

private 227:15

proactively 221:18

probably 4:7 9:15

10:12,13

13:10,11 18:14

23:15 27:15

33:22 37:7 41:12

62:16,17 97:2

100:1 107:13

128:7 158:22

159:1,4 181:18

190:13 193:9

207:8 214:6

219:16 223:2

231:4 242:12

253:2

probation 83:10

84:2,5

problem 12:22

17:8 42:9 46:9

47:12 49:7 90:2

93:13 161:18

166:9 199:12

229:15,19

234:10 237:7

244:18 246:6

252:12 257:15

problematic

234:16

problems 48:21

78:10 116:7

procedural 215:9

procedure 11:13

17:14,15 81:19

92:17 138:6

154:5,7

207:19,20

208:9,12,14,16,1

8 209:5,16 211:9

213:16

214:4,8,13 215:7

216:15,21,22

218:4,8,11

219:13 221:14

222:10

procedures 23:13

52:5 214:11

217:19 221:5

proceeding

260:3,4,5,7,9,10

process 13:2 16:17

17:10 27:2,10,20

28:9 51:12

52:6,8 55:10,17

63:8 72:12 73:17

74:14 79:20

88:18 90:9 103:3

130:11

137:19,21 138:1

148:14,15

169:13,16 186:9

187:8 198:8

207:16 211:21

212:11

219:12,13 223:4

232:13

processes 90:1,5

93:16 137:18

139:21 141:21

142:3 216:5

process--I 137:18

procuring 207:16

produce 45:5

160:21

produced 59:22

99:4 242:13

producers 77:10

product 3:6 7:5

8:18 10:2 12:19

14:11,21,22

15:5,7,16 17:5

21:2,21 22:3

24:21 25:5

33:8,11,19

34:6,8,17,18,21,

22 40:17 41:4

45:22 47:10 51:8

60:5 61:20 62:1

64:11 65:10,16

71:20 75:5 83:20

85:7 89:18

92:16,21,22

93:11 94:16

97:11,18 98:1,8

107:5 110:5,8

111:9 113:15

115:7 116:9

120:9,12,19

121:15 129:3

130:19 132:8

134:1 143:9,16

145:8 149:3,10

150:19,21

151:19 156:16

157:11 159:17

163:12,15,21

164:10 167:4

168:17,20 172:6

173:14,15

177:12 181:8

190:14,17

196:16 197:17

198:4

200:4,10,12,17

204:3 205:11,19

207:16 209:13

212:15,19,21

213:4,5

218:11,21 219:3

223:2 224:3

225:22 226:3

227:7,11,12

229:10

230:19,21

231:14 232:22

235:12,20

236:3,4,8

239:5,10,12

245:12

246:9,10,19

247:15 248:4

254:15

255:9,20,21

production

35:6,10,21

38:10,22 39:14
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 37

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

46:6 53:14 54:11

56:12,13 57:15

60:12,21 62:1

120:22 186:14

240:13

productive

215:18,19

products 2:16 3:16

6:19 9:22 10:7

12:18 15:5 16:9

24:2 26:1,2,22

27:1,12 30:5

32:12,14,18,19

33:4,6,8 35:4,9

41:22 45:1 50:21

53:11 54:18

67:12 74:1,7

82:6 96:2,11

99:3 107:4

108:11

109:21,22

110:14 113:11

116:14

128:12,16

129:8,11,13,14,1

7 136:9,12

137:22 138:3

139:6,7,9,13,16,

19 140:1,5 141:1

143:19 148:8,12

149:12 159:6

160:8 165:13

167:2 170:5

176:21 177:2,14

190:16

197:4,14,19

199:22 200:9

205:17,18

230:14 231:8

234:20 236:6

238:1 240:10

245:10 255:16

products--your

153:2

product--well

212:18

product--you 63:1

profiling 82:3

program 8:16 9:7

14:3 23:11 24:4

25:15 27:22

44:10 69:2,10

78:1,4 79:4

80:18,20

81:8,10,17 82:8

83:5,8 84:9,16

85:1,5,10 86:5,6

87:5,17,18

88:12,16,19

89:1,5 90:21

91:6 93:21,22

95:10,21 97:17

98:22

102:19,20,22

103:8,10,15,17,1

8,20,22

104:1,4,5,7,11,1

6,19 105:13

106:15 108:12

109:15 111:18

112:10,12

113:18,19

114:7,16 116:2

118:14,15

120:17,20

121:12,14,15,17

122:6 123:9,17

124:8,9,14,18

125:1,4,5,6,21

126:1,11,12,18,2

2

127:10,14,18,21,

22

128:2,4,8,11,21,

22 129:1,2,22

130:6,11,15,21

131:6,9

132:1,6,11,16,21

,22 133:1,11,22

134:12

135:11,15

136:2,4,8,16,18

137:4,6 138:13

139:12,18

140:15,17,18

141:7,16,17,18

142:21

144:17,21 145:1

146:1,4 147:5,9

149:10,14

153:11 154:22

155:11

156:3,8,16

157:10,21

158:12,15

159:19

161:9,12,17

163:12,19,20

164:8,11

165:2,12 166:17

168:11

169:8,20,21

170:7,9,10,18,19

171:5,11,12,13

173:1,3,9,12,14,

17 174:11,17

175:2,10,13

176:10,16

177:1,6,11,19

178:17

179:5,6,8,9,17

180:6,9,11

181:4,10,11,21

182:6 183:1

186:9,18 187:1,4

188:10 189:13

194:5,14,18

195:6,14,15,16,1

8,21,22

196:3,8,14,17,20

,21 197:15,16

198:5,6,12,14,15

,17,21

199:4,6,15,17,19

200:16,22

201:17,22

202:2,4,5,6,17

204:1,2,14

205:5,9,10,13,15

,17,21

206:2,14,18,21

207:15,21

209:22 210:18

212:15,18 213:9

217:13 218:2,22

219:5 220:18,20

222:2 225:18

226:12 227:9,19

228:7,9,14,22

229:7 230:5

232:4 236:19

254:3 255:4

program--and

179:14

programs 11:12

13:18 14:4,17

15:3 16:4 34:10

41:17 44:11

79:15 81:14,15

86:12 95:3,14

96:2 100:1,17

102:17

109:1,5,7,17

130:4 131:2

132:18 135:3

149:19 151:6,8

155:14 157:13

159:22

160:4,20,21

161:3,4 164:17

165:7,20

166:2,10 169:10

172:9 174:12

178:6 180:1,5,13

181:4,7
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 38

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

183:14,15

189:14 194:3

202:8 206:4,8

211:16 214:4

225:3 228:8

229:11 232:15

program's 31:10

programs--either

175:4

program--so

197:13

progress 193:4

project 22:14

projects 18:12

promote 136:19

promoted 174:9

promoting 136:19

174:15

proof 232:9

proper 21:3

properly 60:10

proposal 13:1

107:13 108:7,10

116:6 156:12

176:8 184:12

proposals 148:22

propose 108:13

184:14

propose--actually

248:20

proposed 114:6

149:2 150:10

178:14 199:19

257:4

proposing 84:18

106:15 112:21

137:4 172:20

230:18

proprietary 210:9

223:22 234:4

238:6

protect 228:2

protection 116:12

prove 91:15 119:8

247:14

proven 81:17

162:12

provide 42:5 51:8

55:13 99:1

102:16 130:21

170:13 181:12

197:21 208:6

221:19 224:2

227:20 228:1

235:14 244:12

246:8

provided 89:13

220:11 227:3,14

provider 67:21

provides 88:19

169:22 211:3

providing 53:12

208:4 210:7,8

227:21

provision 82:13

234:14

provisions 82:2,3

138:20 224:19

225:1

psychometric

153:19,21 154:8

public 210:12

227:6

publish 189:5

published 224:12

publisher 185:12

pull 42:18 50:12

51:4 69:5 123:15

240:6

pulled 39:20 61:18

62:6 90:22

187:18,19

pumps 123:14

purchased 240:11

purchasing 245:1

purpose 65:7

66:3,4 73:6,8,12

134:17 136:15

253:21

purposely 84:6

purposes 15:12

134:15 180:21

push 97:14 207:8

pushed 5:7

pushing 8:1 80:10

puts 56:17

putting 26:22 55:8

59:14 101:13

118:6 135:6,7

161:18 184:13

192:7,13 206:18

214:1

PVI 3:7 21:13 22:4

41:10 44:9

102:14 107:21

114:13 121:10

132:12 154:10

160:18 168:7

172:18 173:6

177:16 179:11

181:14 182:8

189:10 191:22

194:13 196:9

199:1,21 201:20

203:21 209:20

211:13 228:4

229:14 234:15

246:5 250:4

PVI--I 189:21

Q

QC 47:8

qualification

117:1,7,12

120:20 122:9

124:4,17 125:20

130:2 170:2

183:13 185:15

186:9 187:9,16

193:22 195:17

196:5 201:4

qualified 86:13

126:18 139:9

qualify 23:20

86:9,12

123:2,6,8,20

128:4 144:10

240:3

qualifying 94:11

qualities 94:14

quality 52:18 57:2

98:7

quantities 104:20

155:7 173:11

quantity 12:16

21:11 32:5 107:9

quarter 163:7

quarterly 21:1

207:2 228:17

question 8:17

34:15 35:7 40:16

65:8 66:9

73:4,15,18,20

79:12 92:6 97:20

119:14 127:17

131:15 132:7

135:9 136:7
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 39

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

140:3 142:7

144:20 152:7

161:21 163:9

169:7 171:3

184:18 186:5

189:21 201:6,21

202:7

209:1,3,10,21

212:14 215:9

218:19 220:14

221:21 222:17

230:13,16

231:3,13 232:19

233:9 237:8

239:1,15 250:10

255:8 256:18

questioned 222:13

223:14,20

questioning 127:3

questions 101:5

145:11 167:5

193:8 207:20

208:9,13,19

209:8,16 210:19

222:7 228:5

quick 16:20

quickly 8:21 45:1

116:11 153:6

quite 41:12 102:8

103:11 105:21

107:3 145:20

175:7 192:10

211:20 219:16

249:8

quiz 29:22

quizzical 213:16

R

R22 63:12,17

R410(a 63:12

raise 47:17

raised 214:16

raising 74:22

172:1 231:3

ramifications

192:9

ramp-up 116:15

ran 155:7,14,16

160:4

ranch 26:11

random 67:20

randomly 36:18

51:14 52:6 74:18

range 89:10

128:11 129:13

ranges 137:2

rant 151:1 190:20

rate 60:14 110:15

111:4 114:20

124:11,14,19,21

125:21

127:2,21,22

144:11

150:7,9,21 153:7

162:4,19

163:2,19 164:3,5

168:18 175:1

176:4,7 177:20

178:22 179:1,10

185:20

186:1,6,21,22

187:7,15,21

188:11 189:18

191:14

rated 118:17

194:12 212:21

213:12 255:12

rates 82:7 109:21

110:12 163:13

187:2,3 224:10

rather 38:2 49:10

103:3 115:18

122:17 204:8,12

221:2 232:14

235:14

rating 27:17,18

87:10 115:13

123:3,7 125:15

143:5,17,22

145:6 154:15

163:22 184:22

198:20 213:8

237:11 242:20

ratings 136:17

152:20 226:12

rationale 140:19

Raymond 256:15

re 61:19 150:21

reach 89:5 99:19

259:1

reaction 106:12

114:11

reactions 107:10

reading 179:13

251:14

reads 161:15

ready 4:3 28:10

161:5 218:17

real 6:17 16:20

41:14 75:10

115:7 172:3

192:14 193:4

217:20 239:14

realistic 188:14

realizes 222:15

really 26:11,13

44:4 48:16 51:18

58:19 60:10

62:14 63:6 73:19

97:3 107:18

108:10

110:6,9,10,11

114:2 119:1

131:18 141:3,6

151:15 166:4

172:10 189:12

190:15 192:8

194:6 199:12

205:19 206:20

208:22 215:18

223:19 233:19

239:20 242:8

247:7 249:7

254:10 255:9,22

reason 44:19

58:18 63:17 81:6

105:12

141:14,19

148:11 166:9,19

173:7 176:19

177:17 210:17

214:15 236:2

237:2 238:17

reasonable 102:21

114:14 152:16

reasons 15:11

244:10

recall 117:15

receive 257:5

recent 215:12

recess 167:12

recipe 227:7

recognition 137:16

recognize 148:15

232:5

recognized 232:16

recognizes 154:14

recognizing

158:18

160:19,20
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 40

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

recollection 185:3

recommend 127:9

213:19

recommendation

30:9 31:18,20

32:7 103:13

204:4

recommendations

30:16

recommends

159:20

record 115:11

144:15 168:3

215:17 236:12

249:14 260:7

recorded 260:4

red 118:3,7 226:20

redesign 56:3

redo 5:13 179:21

reduce 15:20

38:10,19 78:21

148:2

reduced 114:4,21

140:14,19

141:16 260:5

reduces 24:1

reducing 16:17

23:22 59:18

reduction 142:3,4

144:11

refer 83:13

reference 215:14

referenced 215:10

references 211:19

referred 57:18

207:21

referring 15:8

51:19 52:3

153:14 182:10

refer--you 83:17

reflecting 183:12

reflects 202:21

refrigerant 47:1

224:6

refrigeration

2:7,11 3:14

14:18 17:3 30:21

112:4 147:19

refrigerator

46:7,8

refrigerators 37:8

reg 256:7

Regal-Beloit 73:3

regarding 209:16

regardless 216:17

220:21 241:3

regards 4:22 6:15

11:22

Register 188:19,22

189:4

regs 215:10

regular 56:13

146:8 162:21

233:20

regulated 66:1

regulating 58:19

regulation 30:6

102:16

regulations 10:11

98:21 134:1

regulatory 81:12

86:7 232:12

reinvent 8:20

reiterate 84:14

153:17

relate 34:10

related 20:17

31:22 32:6 61:6

65:4 260:8

relates 48:11

relative 170:5

relatively 36:1

relax 77:12

released 210:7

reliability 11:22

12:14 38:20

91:11,15 99:2

reliable 12:16 32:1

reliably 12:18

relieve 21:10

rely 26:19

remainder 62:7,8

remaining 80:16

remember 46:10

73:17 75:19 83:1

118:8 157:17

201:11

re-merging 23:1

remind 169:4

remote 29:17

38:3,5 39:19,21

remotely 109:22

remotes 31:2

repeat 126:16

repeating 72:7

168:20

repetitive--is 60:1

replace 38:6 137:8

replacing 38:4

report 44:7 79:17

197:6 208:5

222:3,21

223:6,15,22

Reported 1:16

Reporter

260:1,2,14

reporting 1:17

85:6 88:1

reports 79:14

181:9,12 207:8

208:4

221:2,3,4,7,8,16,

18

representative

51:1 99:3 148:11

representatives

108:21

represented 181:7

reputable 51:20

reputation 56:5

request

221:7,15,17

232:14 245:13

requested 255:15

request--I 224:14

requesting 225:1

require 17:4

22:6,20 31:11

37:12 44:11

75:12 159:2

165:1,3,8,19

169:16 175:3

177:10,15

180:10 189:15

197:18,20,21

199:20 217:3

228:9 232:14

238:22

required 16:4

31:20 91:12,16
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 41

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

92:16 106:9

136:4 139:3

141:13 156:7

163:17 172:1

180:2 185:6

200:4 215:5

221:18 225:19

requirement 21:18

24:20 65:11

85:21,22 86:8

134:2 148:2

152:9 158:13,20

164:7,12 166:14

171:6 182:16

198:3 205:7

225:15

requirements 6:6

17:6 21:11 26:14

58:11 76:19 94:5

104:3 115:16

128:6 132:3

133:3 146:18

149:20 151:9

159:13 160:22

166:16 168:16

170:20 172:5

175:7 185:4

194:4 197:9

217:10 225:13

258:2

requires 23:4

125:6 134:4

146:7 195:16

211:10 232:12

requiring

34:6,12,13 64:1

76:12 159:15

168:12 177:21

217:6,16

requisite 165:13

re-run 156:5

246:11

reselection 76:4,6

reserve 252:3

residential 41:13

120:20 255:11

256:8,20 257:2

resolve 7:22

resolved 152:7

resources 78:6

respect 215:21

235:8,18

responded 255:18

response 190:12

responsibility

93:17 229:18,21

responsible 71:8

76:10 104:18

228:6 229:3

rest 25:19

restate 159:9

rested 239:17

restricting 200:5

result 17:11 28:20

72:13 163:14

results 14:6 16:4

28:13,14,15 45:4

88:14 99:3

143:10 153:18

207:6 208:7

232:16

retail 67:4,8

retain 103:6

retains 149:11

retired 256:21

revert 162:12,13

review 20:10 27:2

28:20,22 30:12

176:22

reviewed 88:22

reviewing 214:9

revise 212:13

revising 221:5

revisit 193:22

207:13

reward 135:2

253:21

reword 182:10

Rheem 3:5 52:17

67:18 72:17

83:21 108:6

116:19 123:1

171:17

Rheems 51:21

rig 72:13

rights 235:3

rigid 14:19

rigor 76:14 171:4

rigorous 16:19

76:12

risk 77:1 93:9

Rivest 3:8

road 77:10

223:14,20

Robert 3:20

robin 151:18

role 203:12

roll 10:15

rollout 248:19

rolls 104:2

Ron 4:19 5:19

14:9 29:5,20

30:13 31:8,13

40:1 97:7 201:15

249:11,12 250:9

251:14

Ronald 3:11 29:3

room 8:13 18:11

128:5 168:1

210:2 250:11

257:15 258:7

rooms 24:17 42:13

roughly 34:18

81:2 120:10

153:20

round 151:18

rounded 106:4

rule 195:13

251:3,4

rulemaking 1:3

78:8 222:11

232:13 257:5

259:10

rules 81:16 86:18

90:17 103:10,12

134:4 172:7

185:18 227:13

235:7

run 17:22 48:17

53:13 55:13 61:1

96:2 120:16

122:18 123:21

126:10,18 147:4

150:18 152:18

153:6 154:18

155:13,14

158:16,17,18

159:22 160:1,3

198:14,18

205:20 214:18

229:4,11

241:9,20

run--it's 160:2

running 61:7 87:9

124:1 153:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 42

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

158:10 198:6

205:14 214:19

220:21 258:6

runoff 37:13,15

runs 106:16

236:19 241:17

runtime 61:8

rushing 45:20

Rusty 3:17 43:14

56:11 64:10 83:9

84:12 123:10

153:16 154:1

162:2 184:12

190:11 199:9

222:22 225:21

236:1 247:21

249:3 250:14

S

S.W 1:7

Sachs 3:9 11:4

12:21 92:3,5

93:6 94:19 98:2

110:17

111:1,6,8,11

112:7 113:3

115:4 116:5

150:22 152:2,5

164:16 165:5,11

167:20 168:2

186:3 189:2,7

191:13 193:2,10

213:14,19

214:14 215:20

221:20 235:17

256:18 257:3

safe 150:20

safety 13:16 18:19

19:1,19

20:3,12,22

21:14,15,19,20

22:17 44:1,6,16

58:3 59:2,4

228:16,19

230:19

231:6,8,15

sale 41:3,11,12

same--singing

211:17

sample 51:1

186:13

sampled 93:11

142:16

sampler 223:11

samplers 223:12

samples 91:12

126:7 185:16

sampling 115:17

177:20

sanitation 13:16

19:12,19 20:20

61:13

satellite 66:22

80:11 132:21

186:11 187:17

satisfaction 100:2

satisfactory

132:2,4

satisfied 130:21

166:5

satisfies 13:2

132:6

satisfy 75:18 95:5

158:19 161:4

saw 6:1

scaled 84:6

scared 63:17

scenario 29:2

72:10 237:1

scenarios 90:4

101:9 192:4

212:19 244:20

245:19

schedule 24:15

42:21,22 53:20

scheduled 248:19

scheduling 249:18

scope 257:1

screen 104:15

167:20 182:9

200:12 257:21

screw 49:20 60:22

screwed 58:19

scroll 105:21

157:18 173:19

scrunching 89:22

scrutinize 135:1

scrutinized 128:17

scrutiny

133:8,10,13

se 98:11 160:20

seal 48:11,12,14

49:7

seals 48:11

season 49:3

seasonal 37:1

second 11:10 29:2

68:11 73:9 96:14

190:14 208:7

220:2 251:15

secondary 134:20

Secondly 69:17

second--sorry 29:1

secret 85:8

section 122:1

182:9 184:18

seeing 25:9 167:5

192:21 219:6

250:12

seem 4:10 26:7

164:14 221:22

235:19

seemed 6:2

seems 29:9

35:8,11,19

38:4,18 55:17

90:15 92:13 93:8

104:7,8 140:15

164:6 171:13

208:16 242:19

257:14,19

seen 216:10

239:4,19 258:21

segment 140:2

select 41:17 67:10

81:22 150:2,6

185:16 202:14

219:7

selected 35:4

40:18 41:4 51:14

66:16 69:2,9

74:19 105:9

149:16 156:4

159:17 182:21

243:12

selecting 52:7

102:16 105:11

203:7 219:1

selection 47:4

79:19 88:17

89:19 102:17

103:2 104:22

149:13 151:9

155:6 158:19

159:19,20

186:13 187:8

202:13 203:3,5

204:13,18
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 43

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

205:11 218:21

219:3

selections

203:14,17 204:3

207:4

selective 107:6

self 31:1

self-contained

29:15

sell 112:1 132:8

190:8 197:4,14

237:9,12 244:6,9

selling 71:7,19

74:7 112:6

131:16 195:12

241:10,21,22

sells 234:18

semiannual

136:22

semiannually

207:2

send 14:5 48:1

57:21 60:5 72:1

84:1 134:17

246:20 249:21

sending 13:11

18:15 39:4

sense 8:11 31:22

32:1 92:19 114:3

143:1 145:18

154:12 172:15

173:3 192:3

198:9 214:17

sensitive 114:15

sent 4:20 28:19

39:9,10,11 42:8

47:20 132:22

246:2 258:18

sentence 157:8

separate 23:19

90:20 190:17

249:19

separately 15:2,13

40:11 190:18

serve 228:18

service 204:10

sets 25:4

setting 199:15

200:16

settings 209:11

settled 161:21

setup 207:20

208:20 223:10

set-up 223:1

setups 223:18

seven 157:18

166:7,21

several 4:22 5:2

15:11,18 16:3

36:20 85:1

181:18 202:20

227:22

shape 156:11

share 75:11 93:6

Shebik 3:11

29:3,6,8 31:7,14

40:1,12 201:15

250:9 251:12,17

shed 55:5

sheds 55:4

sheet 188:18,21

189:8 211:17

226:10 250:6

sheets 193:15

shelf 35:6 56:2

67:8 90:3,18

186:15 187:19

240:19

241:11,16 242:8

244:14

she's 182:9

shift 17:9 47:12,13

92:20

ship 39:8 74:10

99:11 190:7

244:2

shipped 37:11

39:13 47:1 75:6

shocked 58:4

short 45:3 46:18

114:5

shorten 182:12

shot 209:2

shoulder 52:21

53:3 59:3

showing 12:8

145:7

shown 155:13

162:13

sided 112:3 151:1

sign 67:18 96:9

236:17

significant 153:18

257:15

significantly 57:9

106:16 114:7

175:11 192:6

silicone 48:14

similar 6:6 32:4

52:5,10,16

106:15 109:22

130:15 137:12

149:1 188:5

220:17 229:8

similarly 104:14

simple 103:15

181:16 192:6

228:15 234:13

240:7

simpler 193:16

simplify 184:14

simply 71:13 74:7

166:6 169:19

single 18:8 49:13

122:2,4,5

200:5,6,10

single-phase

255:10,21 256:8

single-tailed 152:8

sirens 50:17

sit 74:2,4

site 28:8

sitting 53:3 108:20

146:14

situation 70:21

71:14 72:15

85:14 212:5

236:6 252:22

253:14

situations 40:5

246:14

six 16:2

33:5,7,10,11,18,

19 72:21

97:17,18 174:19

205:1 250:22

251:1,2,5,6,8

253:20 255:2

size 206:5

sizes 223:11

skeptical 90:7

skill 22:7,11

slap 257:3
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 44

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

slide 117:21

134:11 204:19

slides 117:18

133:21

204:17,22

216:11 219:21

slightly 165:14

slower 200:4

small 5:9 11:5 12:4

16:8 62:16 83:12

84:4 95:16 116:1

123:11 137:6

199:22 234:18

235:3,5,13 250:6

254:1,5,10

smaller 5:12 46:5

53:10 70:13

85:15,19 97:10

234:16

smallest 175:5

smart 98:9 115:19

smile 215:20

Smith 3:12 134:14

146:17

243:13,17

245:3,6,9

so--I'm 195:11

sold 67:6

129:5,8,11 134:1

solution 59:8

234:6

somebody 14:1

36:17 49:11 51:5

52:21 57:22

58:19 71:20

72:11 77:20

98:19 104:18

116:22 123:5

136:22 162:5

192:8 201:10

225:11 227:7

229:3 243:22

somebody's 53:2

somehow 182:14

someone 55:10

59:3 132:18

166:17 228:13

233:18 246:8

someone's 55:3

someone--you

55:2

somewhat 23:11

90:7 187:8

somewhere

35:18,19 36:6

69:6 80:14 93:3

117:19 171:8

172:13 188:13

236:20 238:11

song 211:17

sooner 63:14

253:9,10,11,13

sophisticated

112:12

sophistication

112:17

sorry 29:8 31:8

40:12 89:15

95:22 105:6,20

131:20 162:15

163:8 193:21

207:10 224:3

251:17 257:3,16

sort 12:22 48:12

90:18 95:1

113:8,9,20 114:2

129:2 186:19

187:7 191:18

192:19 194:19

214:15 228:11

so--so 215:5

So--sorry--go

148:5

sound 8:6 19:6

115:1 140:9

158:21 212:17

sounded 208:1

sounds 7:13 100:4

source 116:8,9

123:14 243:11

speak 13:2 45:8

95:15 141:15

SPEAKER 14:13

185:7 220:7,14

226:17

speaking 65:1,3

74:13 75:17

112:9 192:18

special 42:12,17

53:18 106:22

210:1 219:11

specialty 37:12

specific 36:15

67:19 89:20

149:12 191:9

193:15 215:15

227:14 255:8

specifically 36:19

66:2

specifics 209:7

specified 27:21

207:22

specifies 209:5

specify 200:18

215:11

spend 54:4 57:21

81:7 84:15

171:21 172:1

spending 42:7

64:13 95:14

171:19

spent 170:17 179:5

sphere 140:16

141:1

split 201:2 253:22

257:9 258:1

spoilage 61:4

spoken 228:7

spot 90:16,21

247:2

spot-checking

41:9 77:17

spots 64:18

spread 42:7

spreading 55:15

spreadsheet

192:8,13

199:2,14 240:10

spreadsheets

188:2

SPVU 250:19

staff 48:20 110:18

standard 16:18,20

17:1,5,6 18:20

19:10 21:17

28:17 33:7,20

37:14 41:3 55:2

60:20 61:18 62:2

77:12 78:12

86:22 124:11

128:14

137:10,11 138:9

139:19 143:8

145:5 159:5

162:17 165:14

171:16 186:16

187:12 211:20
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 45

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

212:6 213:8

215:11,12 222:4

241:2

standards 1:3

19:18 21:19

54:19 57:22 98:6

112:2 136:10

138:1 139:16

148:9,12 184:5

211:20

212:13,20

215:10,13 226:6

231:8 259:10

standby 22:10

standing 49:11,15

standpoint 23:22

56:13 107:14

181:1

stands 227:4

Stanonik 3:13

Star 14:3 15:6,16

16:1,8,14,16

22:20

23:3,6,11,16

24:4,7 25:10,20

26:2,9,17,18

27:5,6,12,14,17,

21

29:10,11,13,14,1

8 30:2 33:4,17

34:13

86:6,10,11,15

87:1,5 93:13,21

108:22

128:3,13,16

129:13,22

136:8,16,21

139:6,7,9,12,13,

17 140:5 142:19

143:5,13,15,17

144:5,6,21,22

145:6,21

147:15,20

148:8,19 149:18

151:5 155:8

156:3 158:3,10

159:1,4,12,15

160:8 170:14

182:11,22 213:4

Star's 16:15

108:16

start 10:9 18:2

82:15 94:9,14

100:10,15

101:13 114:4

116:4 119:8

127:9

135:14,18,21

136:1 140:14

151:22 167:16

169:10 185:22

186:6 201:8

234:13

started 22:14 88:6

201:4 212:11

started--and

185:21

starting 10:13

19:18 102:7

113:17 119:6

250:22

startup 132:11

135:18

state 224:7

stated 14:9

statement 80:7

164:13

States 71:8 74:7

197:5 231:15

233:20 235:13

237:7,10 243:21

244:3

statistical 115:17

statistics 62:1

80:15 87:21

92:14

statutory 256:1

stay 18:3

Stem 3:15

step 5:13 33:22

55:10 84:19 94:7

177:8

Stephens 3:16

26:12 41:7 64:19

70:12 85:11,18

91:9 93:2 119:14

120:13 121:4,8

122:19 126:4,16

127:8 135:8,16

160:6 166:20

167:8 175:14

176:13 184:7

192:22 193:1

220:1 258:8

stepping 26:11

steps 85:1

Stevens 176:13

stick 184:13

200:20

sticker 15:14

stiff 83:3

stipulate 104:3

stock 35:8,11,12

36:1,3

37:2,4,18,21

38:8 39:1,16

40:21 41:5

69:16,17 72:18

74:17 77:7 78:14

242:13

stocked 72:18

stocker 37:7

stockholders 42:9

46:21

stocking 40:3

stop 156:17,19

stops 91:2

street 50:19

stress 13:22

stretch 173:22

stretched 48:13

Stricken 213:22

strict 76:19 118:18

strictly 20:12

strike 67:3 172:13

176:20 177:13

strikes 91:10

stringency 88:20

98:11 137:19

196:2 199:3

stringent 32:2,5

80:8 84:9,13,14

95:19 96:18 98:3

108:13 117:8

145:21 154:14

strip 48:12

struck 176:17

178:14 213:20

structure 137:5

struggle 49:2

stuck 37:14 76:7,8

studies 52:20

stuff 13:19 36:1

37:5 41:2 42:14

71:7 147:21

154:6 176:17

190:20 205:19

217:21
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 46

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

222:10,13 241:9

243:14 246:3

248:5

style 34:12 180:6

subcategories

258:1

subject 185:22

231:8 247:6,9

subjected

139:14,19

140:16,17,21

141:18

submit 14:4 43:17

54:9

submitted 221:4

submitting 28:6

136:21

subsequent 125:10

subsequently

124:12

subset 16:9

subsidiary 193:15

substance 167:18

substantial 84:17

substantially

106:20 107:9,16

138:11

substantiate

118:18

184:19,21

substantiated

185:5

substitute 35:12

102:21 175:3

196:19

substituted 244:7

substitution--

that's 181:17

subsuming 256:20

subversion 98:6

subzero 210:2

successful 164:4

175:13

sudden 45:5

suddenly 34:11

73:1 143:8

suffer 114:20

sufficient 12:16

suggest 103:7

105:10 153:9

226:14

suggested 11:11

104:21 149:15

237:3

suggesting 10:17

33:11 38:21

58:15 122:13

126:1

suggestion 154:20

248:12,13

250:19

suggestions

148:22 216:19

summary 110:19

208:7 221:2

222:3

super 112:14

supermarket

29:12,17

supervised 136:18

supplied 35:5

supplied-by 67:3

suppliers 130:7

supplies 245:3

supply 181:9

237:13,16

245:4,20 250:8

supplying 71:15

support 85:22

115:10 189:3

192:22 229:15

supporting 115:11

suppose 70:11

supposed 38:18

145:7 182:5

209:4,5 219:20

240:21,22

sure 13:3,5,20

21:2,6,7 26:5

29:15 33:6 38:17

39:8,10 45:6

47:14 49:16

56:22 58:17

60:7,16 65:19

69:22 88:22

89:10,21 90:14

91:17 93:10 96:7

101:6,10 108:11

109:6 112:16

123:12

130:16,18

135:22 136:12

152:10 158:8

166:16 169:5

178:8 184:1

197:1 199:18

200:17

201:18,21

208:10 210:5

215:21 216:3,11

219:7 228:15,17

231:20 236:3

240:6 241:12

256:14

sure--I 208:20

surface 221:11

surprised 189:12

193:14 228:6,11

suspect 115:7

Sutphen 249:15,18

250:1

swallow 122:17

swap 43:11 179:20

sweetheart 97:12

switch 28:12

204:15

switches 44:5

synergy 214:21

system 13:15

22:16 32:21

51:17 57:12

76:22 79:19

80:7,9,21 81:18

88:13,16 89:12

93:16 99:15

129:16,18

134:20 224:9

246:3

systems 63:14

T

table 7:17 8:6,8,9

43:9 50:6 54:14

94:10 95:16

96:17 100:5

101:7 162:1

166:7,22 168:18

173:19 176:5

177:4,20

178:4,7,12,15,22

179:10,22 225:7

248:4 249:7

tables 193:17

tagged 54:2

tailor 88:21

take--and 75:5
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 47

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

taking 27:19 40:21

41:5 44:14 109:2

192:7 259:3

talk 4:4 7:15 8:2

18:21 40:10

43:15 50:14 64:2

75:9 79:8 89:11

201:4 234:9

249:18 252:1

talked 6:11 19:11

31:21 35:3 58:9

64:3 72:10 88:9

117:14 118:2

149:6 185:13

202:22 223:4

255:9,19 256:19

talking 5:17

6:3,4,14 8:13

14:19 18:21,22

19:2 22:5

23:12,16 33:15

35:7,9,15 40:9

43:5 47:18 58:2

59:14 60:19 67:9

73:22 85:21

92:12

94:9,12,14,17

102:8 107:15

108:1 109:6

119:7 122:2

124:7,15,17,22

125:3,14 139:5

141:4,5,6 147:17

148:14 175:19

194:14 197:12

201:7,11,16

213:1 239:5

254:4 255:14

257:2

tangent 98:15

target 82:5

tax 7:9

teammates 248:13

technical 189:3

Technically 242:6

technician 235:21

Technologies 2:21

teeth 12:15 59:14

teleconference

258:13,17

temperature

61:3,5

temperatures

11:14

ten 153:11 219:14

253:20

tend 177:16

term 68:4 98:3

256:20

terming 132:21

terms 104:14

138:22 175:8

196:2,4 232:19

256:3,4

test 7:10 10:14

11:13 17:6,14,15

18:22

19:1,13,15,18

21:18 22:5

23:13,22

24:13,20 27:8

28:4,8,9,11,19,2

2 32:3 34:17

41:20

42:13,17,18

43:10 45:6

47:2,22 58:13

59:10 60:6

62:1,8 66:11,15

69:2 72:11,13

73:16 76:20

77:5,6,16 84:5

91:12 92:12,17

94:6 96:6,10,15

98:19 103:4

105:4,5

106:3,4,6,9

107:2 110:13,21

111:15 115:16

120:15,18,20

121:2,13

123:16,21 126:7

130:12 132:22

133:1,2,4 138:5

140:14,20

141:16 142:22

143:5 146:9,14

149:7,12,17

150:5 151:15,20

152:16 153:21

156:3,5,13

157:11 158:3,6

159:19 163:12

164:1,3

165:1,2,3,20

166:3,14

168:13,16,17,20

170:15

174:1,11,17,19

177:2,6,14

179:10,16

180:14

181:3,7,9,12,20

185:5 187:16

192:20

194:7,8,10,22

195:20

196:19,20,21

197:8,9,22

198:19 200:2

203:4,18 205:17

207:7,19,20

208:4,7,8,12,13,

16,18 209:5,16

210:2,4

211:9,14,20

213:16

214:3,4,8,11,12

215:6,7,10

216:15,21

217:18

218:3,7,10

219:13

221:2,4,5,7,8,14,

16,17 222:10,21

223:6,10,15

224:21 226:6

229:4 230:6

232:6 237:20

239:13 241:1

243:4,5

244:1,3,8,9

245:4,9,12

246:11,17

tested 12:18 21:8,9

24:21 61:19

78:21 86:11

95:19 103:7

104:21 105:1

113:13,16 120:9

122:3,6

128:12,13 129:4

138:7 140:20

141:11 142:19

144:3,4,7 145:22

147:8 149:11,15

150:1,3 151:19

156:10,17 161:2

162:9 163:21

164:3 174:4,22

175:17,18 180:1

181:9

182:2,15,17,21

189:15 207:5,6

212:19 213:5

220:6 227:11

232:4 236:19

tested--or 104:20

tester 161:12

testers 223:4
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 48

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

testing 5:4,6

6:10,19 11:21

12:16 13:20

15:22 16:1,3,6

17:7,10 18:4

19:9,12 20:2,4

21:7,12,14,15,16

,19

22:2,9,10,18,22

23:2,13,17

24:3,7

25:1,7,8,10,20

26:7,8,9,19

27:5,6,7

28:1,3,6,18

31:12,19,20 32:3

33:17 36:19 38:1

39:2,3 40:18

41:5 43:1,22

45:12,13 47:19

52:8 59:9,16

62:14 64:1

66:12,20 71:16

72:2 73:17 74:10

75:19 76:12

78:8,9 80:11

81:18,20,21

82:4,18 83:19

87:22 88:1,15,17

89:21 91:11,15

95:18 99:1,8,16

102:4 104:17

106:22 107:6

108:18

109:16,19

113:7,20

114:2,17 115:12

120:7

124:4,5,11,14,20

125:6,9,21

126:3,6,7,14

127:2,6,19,21,22

128:6,15 129:2

131:5 132:3

133:19 134:15

137:1,21

138:6,14,21,22

139:2

140:4,11,22

142:5,12 144:11

145:12,13,14

146:6,19,20,22

147:2,16,22

148:1 150:6

153:5,19 154:9

155:12

158:12,20

159:1,4,21

160:1,21,22

161:3 162:5,19

163:2,14,16

164:9,12 165:8,9

166:6,18

170:1,12

171:4,20 173:4

175:3,11,13

176:22 177:5,11

178:22 180:2,10

184:19,21

185:15 186:10

187:9,12 190:22

195:17,19,22

196:3 197:18,21

200:4 203:16

204:18 207:1,18

211:5 213:15

216:17,20

220:16 221:9

222:8 226:15,19

229:1,2,8 230:1

232:3,15 235:20

236:4 237:4

240:18,20

245:10 247:3

testings 147:1

testing--would

185:1

testing--you

188:10

test--model 151:8

test--note 105:6

test--once 174:16

test--or 69:1

tests 6:9,16 10:1

11:21 12:14 14:9

17:14,17,19

32:5,12,13

33:5,10,19,22

34:21 54:3 55:13

58:13 59:11

69:22 78:13

79:10,16 80:5

97:19 98:1,7

106:11,17,20

107:9 114:4,9

117:7 118:17,20

120:16 121:2,17

122:16,18

123:3,7 124:1,2

125:7 140:7

141:9 143:21

145:1 149:22

150:10,13,14

151:1,4

152:8,18,19

153:1,2,5 154:18

155:7,9,13,17

156:7 158:16

159:15 160:3

162:3 166:12

173:16 194:6,11

198:14,18

208:10 214:19

215:5 230:18

232:7 254:15

test--the 161:3

texting 161:2

thank 12:22 68:1

94:20 111:11

113:3 154:1

160:5 163:3

185:11,12

210:14

214:14,21

226:19 259:8

thanks 65:21

258:5

Tharp 3:17 43:14

56:11 64:10 83:9

84:12 119:21

153:16 154:3

162:1,2,14,16,20

163:3 185:11

186:4 188:4,9,15

190:11 191:2,14

192:16 194:2,16

195:3,6 213:22

222:22 224:5

225:21

226:10,18 227:4

230:10 236:1,21

237:2 247:21

248:10,15

250:14 251:9,11

256:9,14

258:12,16

259:3,7

that--a 170:18

that--especially

106:9

that--I 22:19

202:21

that--isn't 171:10

that--or 9:14

that's 4:6 6:6,17

11:2

12:5,11,13,17

13:22 14:9 16:8

19:4,6,10 20:10

24:12 25:7,8

27:9 29:14,16

31:15 33:10
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 49

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

34:14 35:20 36:3

37:14 40:14

43:20 44:8 45:16

46:14,19

47:3,10,14 48:14

49:18 50:13 51:5

52:1,15 54:5

55:4 56:21

57:4,9,14,16

58:2,8 60:12,18

62:15,22 66:9,15

67:7 68:1,6

69:19 70:3

72:1,21 73:19

77:13 78:13,15

80:21 81:21

83:3,17 84:20

86:5,7 88:2 89:7

90:12,21 93:15

96:2,8,13

98:10,11

100:11,14

101:4,20 110:11

111:19 112:7

116:5 117:8

120:17 127:20

129:10,13

130:10 131:10

134:8,10,13

135:9 137:20

138:1 141:3,4,6

143:6 144:1

147:14

150:17,20

152:13,16 154:7

156:18,22

157:1,7 158:18

160:13,19

163:18

164:8,11,13,19

165:4 166:14,19

169:3,5 171:8,14

172:7 173:7

174:18 176:7,19

177:14,17

178:13,14,20

179:18

180:13,17 190:1

193:4 195:3

196:14 197:13

199:4,9,11

200:13

204:11,13,20

209:13 210:16

213:21 214:6,21

215:18,19

217:20,21,22

222:13 223:2,15

224:14 225:17

226:3

227:2,6,11,12

233:10,13

236:12 237:2

240:21 242:2,18

243:6 245:12,14

247:2,17 248:5

251:9 253:18

256:1 257:1,13

258:3

that's--and 38:12

that--that's 226:15

that--Tim 122:13

That--what

161:14

that--you 221:11

the--and 182:19

the--DAVP 208:6

the--especially

53:10

the--groups 228:8

the--in 223:5

the--it's 163:13

themselves

81:9,15,17 98:20

118:20

them--that's 252:2

the--not 166:12

then--to 182:12

thereabouts 16:18

thereafter 260:5

thereby 134:22

therefore 18:5

80:17 85:15

132:8 145:3

there's 4:16 6:2

7:3 8:19 15:3

16:11 17:8 18:1

21:4 30:18 32:14

33:16 38:7,12

39:1,2,6,12 43:1

45:3 46:17 47:8

48:5 49:7 51:16

56:13 57:2 71:17

77:9 79:16 80:12

83:10 84:9 86:15

97:17 105:20

109:19 129:19

134:4 136:1

138:21 143:16

153:17 154:8

156:1 167:17

169:8 170:8

185:14 186:4

194:6 195:6

196:4 201:13

209:3 211:5

222:13 224:20

227:21 228:11

243:15 245:22

252:10

there's--I 10:10

the--until 174:3

the--what 168:9

170:5 177:3

the--where 189:5

they'd 243:8

they--I 202:10

they'll 13:11 21:2

146:18 203:18

235:9

the--you 150:13

they're 7:11 12:1,8

13:16 16:17

17:19 20:4 21:15

26:21 28:21 32:6

41:3 43:10

45:11,12,13,19,2

2 47:14 49:19

52:1,12,14 55:11

56:16 65:6

69:2,11 76:22

77:1 79:17 89:20

95:13

109:9,10,18

112:1 128:6,15

130:18

133:12,13 136:3

137:9 139:8

141:4,6,7,9,10,1

1,19,20 142:12

144:2 145:20

148:11 154:13

157:3 165:3

171:22 184:4

198:14 219:1

221:18 226:2

228:17 234:4

238:5,12,13

241:21 247:6,9

253:10 255:21

they've 87:22

107:1,2 140:20

141:17,21 142:5

177:3,8 214:18

240:21 244:7

thin 57:4

think--I'm 180:11
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 50

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

think--is 226:15

think--it 62:15

think--this 247:21

third 7:11 17:17

26:13 28:6 39:5

47:21,22 48:3

99:16 138:6

149:9 157:21

161:17

163:18,19

168:11,16 169:8

173:1 177:10,19

178:16

179:4,7,14

180:4,9 181:19

182:12,22

183:5,22 184:9

185:6 186:12

187:10 190:22

201:12 202:1,5,8

203:15,22

204:11 213:15

218:1 220:16

228:19

third--let's 103:9

Thirdly 69:18

third-party 13:15

25:16,18 26:8

30:12 39:5 66:21

99:8,9 102:19

124:2 128:7

129:5 130:17

138:7,12 149:18

154:21 155:10

156:15 157:10

158:11 161:11

163:11 164:11

165:1 166:2

245:9,13

this--verify 28:16

thoughts 98:13

193:11

three-phase 254:9

255:11,20

256:6,11

threshold 87:6

122:15

threw 191:17

throughout 24:8

throw 37:17 48:6

83:10 154:4

191:20 226:4

241:18 248:16

254:18

throwing 96:16

thrown 101:7

153:19

Thursday 1:10

thus 231:18

tie 48:16 49:3

tied 49:4 192:20

tier 26:20,21 99:17

tight 153:22

186:16

tighten 80:13

154:17

tighter 89:19

122:15,18 150:7

187:15,20

tighter--the 138:9

tilted 13:5

Tim 40:15 113:5

115:10 120:5

127:11 221:1,21

222:5 227:10

timeframe 42:4

169:9

timeline 242:3

timely 53:17

Timothy 2:9

titled 226:11

to--all 34:9

to--and 210:19

toasters 110:20,22

111:5

today 4:20 34:16

52:1 57:20 59:7

79:4 100:12,17

103:21 119:19

161:15 168:15

172:5 192:17

214:5 221:11

249:2,6,8,10

255:17

to-do 225:8

to--giving 59:21

to--if 182:19 188:9

tolerance 5:15

48:2 56:17

57:1,4 62:14

86:16 87:3 92:9

121:7,15,16

122:16,18

124:3,5,6 126:6

150:6,8,16,19

151:14

152:12,15,17

153:10,11,12,13

162:4,6,14,16,17

,21 176:6 186:16

187:20 191:12

213:12

tolerances 60:2,19

94:9,11 126:2

153:15 154:17

186:15 187:12

191:10

Tom 2:22

tomorrow 52:1

ton 84:7

tons 187:18

tool 199:18

to--or 151:18

to-order 9:12

to--our 120:19

top 17:20 26:7

110:20,21

174:21

176:18,21

217:12

topic 50:13 154:12

to-stock/in-stock

35:16

total 224:9

totally 20:4

towards 30:17

to--well 15:4

to--with 6:7

to--you 51:19 61:1

tracked 231:9

trade 75:11 95:3

tradeoff 152:22

trade-off 93:9

trade-offs 98:7

99:13

trained 20:8 98:10

trampoline 111:19

Trane 2:19 36:1

42:1 72:17 75:22

233:1,15

transcript 260:6

Transfer 3:16

transit 38:7

transmission
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 51

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

46:11

Traulsen 2:13

13:8 44:13 93:20

108:14

119:11,13

136:14 142:17

169:6 251:20

treat 113:21

treated 75:13

193:7

tried 47:2 148:22

151:2 167:18

234:21 242:14

triple 150:14

tripling 34:4

Tritsis 3:18 25:22

33:2,3 81:4,5

82:11,16 84:20

97:13,16

124:16,21 125:2

138:15 181:6

183:8,11 184:3

210:10 224:16

trouble 196:10

239:21,22

truck 62:7

true 2:18 134:13

136:17 196:15

236:13 260:6

truly 134:19 216:7

Trust 64:19

try 4:20 9:9

19:18,20 46:20

69:7 70:1 122:20

141:9 185:13

192:13 232:20

253:17

trying 6:7 27:9

29:8 31:16

34:2,5,8 41:19

44:22 54:16,22

55:1,7 63:6

66:22 69:15

77:13 93:3 94:4

102:6,11 127:4

129:16 136:19

137:13 141:7

151:22 170:9

173:16 174:20

175:12 179:13

183:19 185:16

192:4 237:19

238:9

TSD 189:6

turn 28:11 50:17

195:1

turns 244:5

Twenty 95:17

97:18

Twenty-six 105:7

twice 24:10,11

106:5 109:16

158:13 161:1

164:3

two-day 28:9

two-fifths 153:10

154:12 162:3,17

176:5

two--let's 174:7

type 19:15 26:21

52:2 85:22

103:22 104:10

115:11 128:18

130:15 132:11

133:13,18

136:16 186:12

187:5 190:16

203:18 209:1

248:3 253:16

types 10:6,7 19:16

90:5 223:13

typewriting 260:5

typical 60:11

153:20 190:19

223:15

typically 56:17

U

U.S 2:8,10,12 3:4

21:17 67:5,11

136:3 231:7

233:1 238:10

UL 18:11,20

20:2,4,22

22:19,22 34:12

44:19 46:14

61:13 108:18

146:6 179:6

184:5,17 195:15

201:7,16 215:8

231:6,9 233:3,5

238:3,6

ULE 123:2,5,12

254:6

UL's 22:21

ultimately 19:21

unanimity 64:4

unanimous

249:1,6

unbeknownst

206:16

uncertainty

153:18 154:2,8

uncomfortable

11:12

undergoing 236:3

underlying 179:12

understand

7:1,5,7 11:5

17:21 38:11 53:8

60:9 73:5 75:14

76:18 79:1 80:6

86:6 106:18

111:6 121:9

131:18 133:17

134:8 139:20

163:3,4 167:6,7

172:14 192:4,9

199:12 201:21

202:15 208:19

209:19 216:18

232:20 237:9

242:7 253:1

256:4

understanding

90:13 160:7,10

189:17 247:17

249:20

understands 89:10

understood 73:7

95:9

Underwriters 3:3

undoubtedly 93:7

undue 55:15

unfair 117:9

UNIDENTIFIED

14:13 185:7

220:7,14 226:17

unit 17:2 21:7,8

28:19

36:15,16,18

38:3,5,11,16

39:9,11 41:20

43:4 44:8 47:12

48:3,8 52:22

60:7,11,22 61:4

66:19 68:21

69:5,7 70:1

75:13,18 90:17

130:10 155:1

202:13 210:2
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 52

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

242:22 243:14

unitary 11:6 51:12

United 71:7 74:7

197:4 231:15

233:20 235:13

237:7,10 243:21

244:2

units 16:3,22

24:12,17,18,19

27:12,13,15 35:8

41:17 43:4 50:20

53:11,12,14

55:13,22 56:2

64:3 67:19,21

69:1,9,21 71:11

74:10 79:10

81:22 94:17

96:15 99:18

130:5 131:5

134:17 145:12

146:9 147:8

159:4 174:4,10

203:19 207:17

226:9 234:17

240:16 241:17

unit's 60:3 61:2

242:4

universal 103:15

universe 92:13

148:8

unless 14:22 40:20

64:13 74:10

131:22 136:6

235:7 238:21

246:11 253:21

unlikely 108:10

unnecessary

5:5,12 38:5

unreasonable

115:2

upon 84:2 134:22

171:18 195:1

243:13

up--the 16:19

us--also 22:9

useful 122:12

use--this 225:21

usual 45:17 47:12

usually 37:15

45:16 76:2 223:8

utilized 149:19

utilizes 202:4

V

valid 185:2

validate 118:10

198:18

validity 160:20

value 21:4

170:3,8,13,21

171:15

values 48:8 194:12

variability 109:20

110:7 152:17

198:3

variables 88:12

89:9

variance 47:5

variations 48:5

174:14 180:12

varies 198:4

variety 71:9 74:8

99:5 206:17

various 102:7

120:3 191:19

vary 44:10 198:3,4

vast 55:16

vehicle 46:12

verification 5:17

11:22 20:18

21:12 31:12

38:13 41:5,8

43:16 44:11 48:4

59:20 61:11

69:2,10 78:1,4,5

79:3,16 81:8,17

85:1 88:12 90:20

91:6 99:1,8

103:14 104:1,16

113:17 121:17

122:11 124:8,20

125:4,6,7,18,22

126:10

128:20,21

129:1,19 136:8

138:13

139:12,15,17,18,

20

140:1,10,15,17,1

8,21 141:18

142:5,8,21

144:17 145:13

146:4,22

147:1,2,5

149:10,11,14,19

151:8 154:22

155:11

156:15,16

157:10,21

158:11 159:19

161:9,11 163:11

165:1 166:6

168:11 169:8,19

171:16 173:1,3

177:11 178:17

179:5,7,14 180:5

183:1,14

195:4,5,9,14

197:15,16 198:5

202:2,4

204:1,2,10

205:5,9,21

206:18 207:1

219:5 220:16

225:2,18 226:12

227:9 228:22

229:6 230:14

232:15

236:3,21,22

237:4 247:3

254:22 255:3

verified 128:8

134:2

verifier 134:6

227:18

verify 21:1 44:7

100:5,7 118:20

136:22 146:15

196:13 237:21

239:9 240:4

246:15

verifying 134:6

version 137:9

215:12,15

versus 6:21 19:1

28:6 39:9 90:20

138:19 143:18

156:8 256:4

very--we 9:22

VIC 169:10

VICP 102:17

103:12 104:1,4

118:9,14,19

127:10 156:13

165:7 168:16

169:13 181:21

182:13 183:3,4

201:9 222:2

227:15

VICP--that 182:13

view 84:18 88:12
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 53

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

voice 230:15

volume 190:20

200:1

voluntarily 108:2

voluntary 83:5,7

85:20 86:6 87:18

100:17 109:4

111:17 128:1

133:22 134:12

153:3 170:18

205:5 213:9

volunteer 129:22

volunteers 170:14

vote 94:20

218:15,16

248:7,22 249:2,8

250:13 257:21

voted 94:10

117:15,16

VRF 122:2,6

W

wait 4:7,14 7:22

70:19

waiver 218:8,11

waivers 218:6

walk 28:10

walking 36:5

wall 134:20

want--to 222:7

warehouse 36:6

37:10,21 38:3

39:8,22 40:4

69:4,12 72:16,20

74:12

warehouses 37:22

39:18,19 67:13

74:2

warning 43:3

50:18

warranted 208:11

warranties 46:19

warranty 46:21

Washington 1:8

was--I 175:12

wasn't 57:21 127:4

155:4 188:14

231:19 247:1

waste 38:11

was--the 196:18

watch 68:3

watched 49:19

watching 38:15

49:12,15 52:21

water 8:15 21:16

23:10 24:11

123:13 240:3

250:7

ways 44:15 78:6

80:8 88:21

99:6,20 100:2

185:16 233:14

weather 48:12

web 189:3

Weber 3:19

webinar 249:19

website 146:18

210:11

we'd 22:10 37:20

65:18 68:17

74:19 76:3 85:3

111:2 185:22

193:5 198:12

weed 90:15

week 25:1 35:1

201:5 225:9

226:11 249:22

weekend 97:21

weeks 37:15 40:7

72:21 130:2

245:14 258:7,8,9

we--I 231:1

weighting 192:2

weird 244:19

245:19

welcome 212:3

we'll 13:10 34:22

43:11 53:11 59:9

76:20 79:13 91:4

168:6 172:17

192:16 207:8,13

228:15 244:1,2

258:7

well-above 249:9

well-defined 10:12

we're 4:9 7:20 8:1

9:1 12:11

13:17,22

14:1,2,8,19

22:13 26:10

27:9,19 28:10

29:9,12,21 32:12

33:14,19 34:5

35:9,15 36:22

40:9 43:5,19

46:5 51:4,11

53:12 54:21,22

55:7 67:15 75:10

76:4,7 85:2,20

88:11 89:18

94:4,5,12,17

95:16 96:16

97:9,21 107:15

108:3,19 109:6

113:1 120:1,21

124:17

129:15,17,18,22

130:17 131:5

133:18

136:17,20

137:3,4,13

140:13 146:13

147:17 148:14

156:13 165:17

167:5 170:9

171:19 172:1,7

175:19 180:3,22

184:13

197:12,17

198:1,2 201:16

203:9 208:22

210:7 214:9,10

216:2,8 219:4

221:13 222:9

230:2 231:2

239:2,5 241:10

246:3 248:17

249:8,9,12

251:21 253:3

254:14,15

255:14 257:2

we're--for 180:21

were--in 226:10

Wes 3:21 151:10

152:5 153:17

154:1

we--the 56:22

we've 6:3,8 7:21

20:17 31:21

32:11 36:10,20

75:18 77:16

83:12 84:17 85:6

92:10,12 101:4

102:8 109:13

116:6 142:20

146:6 147:7

148:17 185:14

186:20 195:1

202:22 204:21
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 54

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

216:7 219:5

222:14 223:4

239:19

what--and 9:10

What--could

172:19

whatever 6:10 7:9

40:5 44:20 47:20

60:14 76:13,22

90:18 95:7 97:7

99:17 101:10

103:1 107:1,2

122:15 124:10

126:12 137:11

155:22 163:19

199:16 200:17

233:4

wheel 8:20

whenever 46:21

whereas 71:11

74:11 222:7

whereby 211:21

where--how 158:6

where's 128:12

Whereupon

167:12 259:9

wherever 186:7

whether 6:10

10:14 12:3

30:10,11 35:4

47:7 48:11

66:19,20

73:11,13 82:13

98:18 122:15

126:12

135:10,11

144:21 186:10

199:6 201:1

206:6 208:14

209:4,10 214:17

224:20 226:1

231:10

whichever 179:17

Whitwell 3:20

64:22

65:1,3,15,21

68:19 69:19

70:11 73:19

111:14 163:8,9

164:6,14,21

165:10,17

177:9,10 198:16

199:9 207:10,14

208:3,18

209:15,18 215:3

249:3 257:16

258:5,15,20

who--and 9:6

whoever 98:21

118:19 134:6

222:2

whoever's 20:22

250:10

whole 47:8 88:19

89:4 91:19,21

92:22 93:15

99:19 126:5

130:22 138:22

140:15,19 141:1

143:6,10 245:18

whom 260:3

who's 169:13

208:14 216:17

220:21

whose 181:22

who've 179:8

why--it 35:8

wider 149:5

willing 24:22

57:21 114:19

132:4,10 154:17

156:9 201:2

235:2

wind 72:9 193:14

window 120:11

wins 230:7,9

wipe 112:18

wise 109:12

wish 170:20

253:15

withdrawn 220:14

with--if 187:1

witness 5:4

6:10,19 7:10

16:1,6 22:18

25:7,8,10 26:19

28:1,3,6,18,21

36:16 38:1

39:2,3 54:10,13

80:11 133:2

138:7 147:16,22

203:16 214:19

witnessed 26:3,9

201:12

witnessing 30:11

124:2 138:12

203:18 204:7,12

wonder 11:8

wondering

151:17,21

214:21

word--acceptance

181:18

wording 158:4

165:18

work 9:15 11:8

12:17 19:18

27:10,20 28:10

48:21 68:20

89:12 159:13

192:19 193:9

196:6 198:11

200:15 202:16

204:3 229:17

230:5,20 243:13

245:8,11

257:8,22 258:4

workable 8:6

worked 45:9

153:15

worker 49:12

working 48:19

58:3 172:17

196:11

214:7,9,10

218:22 249:10

257:1

workmanship

47:9

works 14:13,14

79:20 82:13

99:15 134:10

196:8 199:16

world 41:11,13

115:7 192:14

worldwide 235:12

238:11

worried 51:22

worry 102:5

233:12

worse 80:17 82:10

95:5,7 98:5

110:19 111:2

worst-case 90:3

worth 17:9 50:8

72:7 135:6,7

worthy 130:19

Wostal 3:21
Capital Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

Page 55

(866) 448 - DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013

151:10 152:3

154:1

would--I 60:21

212:3

would--no 183:2

would--they 204:5

would--well 19:5

write 169:4 213:18

writing 210:21

written 178:21

211:22 238:7

wrong 37:3 39:9

46:11 83:22

123:6 134:9

182:20 185:4

198:16 232:9

X

X-number 24:16

124:9

Y

year's 123:15

186:21

Yep 164:21 206:11

258:5

yesterday 5:1

6:7,11,14 7:15

9:5 12:10 19:11

35:3 58:9 66:19

70:15 84:15

132:22 133:2

168:2 183:17

yet 11:6 13:12 97:5

101:16 111:1

118:11 180:20

191:20 203:8

233:2

you--I'm 193:20

you--let's 173:20

you'll 19:9 58:13

59:10 112:15

153:5 248:22

you--or 203:8

yours 83:7 117:8

171:11

yourself 119:8

162:12

yourselves 57:18

your--until 162:9

you's 101:14

you--so 172:22

you've 12:18 27:17

45:2,5 53:4

60:10,15 99:14

142:16 145:4

158:16 161:1

162:9,12 163:1

167:22 182:1

187:1 188:10

193:3 194:18,19

196:17

you--what 194:17

Z

zero 44:6 124:3

191:11

zero-dollar 53:13

zero--there's

188:12

ZR 43:19

ZR-121 43:20