### Capita l 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.

R eported by: Christine Allen, Capital Reporting Company

### Capita l 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 F ACILITATOR: 3 N eil Eisner, Navigant Consulting 4 5 P ARTICIPANTS: 6 K arim Amrane, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 7 Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 8 A shley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy 9 T imothy Ballo, EarthJustice 10 L aura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy 11 J eff Bauman, National Refrigeration & Air-Conditioning 12 J ohn Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy 13 M ary Dane, Traulsen 14 L aura Degitsz, Navigant Consulting 15 P aul L. Doppel, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. 16 M ark Fly, AAON Heating & Cooling Products 17 J ohn Gorman, CSA Group 18 C harles Hon, True Manufacturing 19 J ill Hootman, Trane 20 M arshall Hunt, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 21 J ohn Hurst, Hex Technologies, Inc. 22 T om Johnson, Daikin McQuay

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 3 1 P ARTICIPANTS: 2 J eff Kleiss, Lochinvar 3 M ichael Kojak, Underwriters Laboratories LLC 4 A ris Marantan, Ph.D., U.S. Department of Energy 5 K aren Meyers, Rheem Manufacturing Co. 6 P eter Molvie, Cleaver-Brooks Product Development 7 F rank Myers, PVI Industries, Inc. 8 M ichael Rivest, Navigant Consulting 9 H arvey Sachs, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 10 Economy 11 R onald Shebik, Hussmann Corporation 12 J udd Smith, CSA Group 13 F rank Stanonik, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 14 Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 15 M ike Stem, Intertek 16 P hillip Stephens, Heat Transfer Products 17 R usty Tharp, Goodman Manufacturing 18 B ill Tritsis, AHRI 19 C ollin Weber, Navigant Consulting 20 R obert J. Whitwell, Carrier Corporation 21 W es Wostal, ClimateMaster 22

### Capita l 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 b ack and talk more about the dates? The compliance 5 d ates? 6 MR. KLEISS: Yes. Actually, I think that's 7 s omething that we should probably wait for everyone to 8 a ssemble. 9 MS. DANE: Right, we're missing-- 10 MS. BARHYDT: We do seem to be missing a lot 11 o f people. 12 MS. DANE: A lot of people. 13 MR. KLEISS: Yeah, yeah. 14 MS. MEYERS: There was another wait at the 15 c offee. 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 t o try to be on the phone today, but he sent an e-mail 21 t his morning and he said that he heard back from 22 s everal CRE manufacturers, and this is in regards to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 5 1 w hat we were discussing yesterday. He said, "I heard 2 b ack from several CRE manufacturers and they are not in 3 f avor of the following. 4 "One, witness testing. This was never part 5 o f the original agreement and is an unnecessary burden. 6 "Two, cost of testing. The extra cost now 7 b eing pushed on the manufacturer was never part of the 8 o riginal agreement. DoE is not looking at the 9 i nterests of the small companies. 10 "And three, two companies are of the opinion 11 t hat all of the discussion will favor large companies 12 a nd place unnecessary burdens on smaller companies. In 13 t heir opinion DoE would be better to step back and redo 14 t he analysis since costs have changed as well as the 15 a ccepted tolerance levels." 16 And I'm not entirely clear of what he means, 17 b ecause we have not been talking about verification 18 u ntil the last few days. So, does anyone have any 19 i nsight 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 6 1 N ational. I saw some of the e-mails. It follows that 2 t hey seemed to be jumping ahead, but I think there's an 3 e xpectation that what we've been talking about is when 4 w e were talking about ADMs and things, the decisions we 5 m ake could carry through to other portions that have 6 s imilar requirements. And that's one of the things 7 I 've been trying to--with our discussions yesterday, 8 w as considering the feedback we've heard from other 9 m anufacturers previously about the burden on the tests, 10 y ou know, whether it's witness testing or whatever, and 11 a s we talked about yesterday, basically your kind of 12 l east burdensome option. 13 I think my opinion, too, is that as we were 14 t alking about yesterday when we were finishing up, or 15 l ater part of the afternoon, in regards to how many 16 t ests you're going to have to do in a year, I think 17 t hat's going to have a real direct effect on--it's a 18 l ot different to tell a manufacturer that he's got to 19 d o 10 percent of all his products witness testing a 20 y ear where all he had was the basic models a year 21 v ersus a fixed number of one, two, five, you know, what 22 t hat number's going to be, I think is going to be a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 7 1 m ajor consideration to understand. You know, I think 2 w e 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 b ehalf of the manufacturers, I would think, that would 5 g o to other product categories to understand what your 6 m aximum exposure could be a year, to be able to budget 7 f or that and understand what the costs are going to be. 8 B ecause it's a new--you know, it's not being paid as a 9 t ax for DoE or whatever, but it's a fee manufacturers 10 a re going to have to pay to do a witness test or a 11 t hird party. It's something that they're not exposed 12 t o now, so. 13 MS. BARHYDT: So it sounds like it would be-- 14 m aybe one way to go about this is to, like we did 15 y esterday, talk about what some of the different 16 o ptions are, decide if there are some options that 17 p eople agree are off the table, but maybe leave some 18 o ptions on each issue while we have more time go by to 19 a llow people to do more thinking about what percentage 20 i s the right percentage or how we're going to do that. 21 B ecause I know we've heard that people want more time 22 b efore we resolve that issue. But if we just wait and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 8 1 w e don't discuss things at all, we're just pushing 2 e verything back. But maybe we could at least talk 3 a bout options, maybe narrow those options down to a few 4 p ossibilities, keeping in mind that that final number 5 m ay have an impact on which options end up on the 6 t able. Does that sound workable? Or, at the very 7 l east, even if we didn't even take anything off the 8 t able, at least we could get a lot of options on the 9 t able so we all knew what options were available for 10 e ach different issue. And then once we have the final 11 n umber we can decide what makes sense in that context. 12 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. For many of 13 t he manufacturers in this room and I'm not talking 14 a bout CRE here, but to the HVAC in particular, some of 15 t he boilers and water heaters, there are already things 16 i n place. AHRI has a program. So, you know, it's just 17 a question of definitions here. You know, if we go 18 w ith this basic model group concept or product family 19 c oncept and there's already something in place. We 20 d on't have reinvent the wheel. And that can be done 21 q uickly. 22 Now, of course, if we have to define new

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 9 1 d efinitions, new, you know, how we're going to group 2 t hose basic models, yeah, it's going to take a long 3 t ime to do that. 4 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I think part of what I 5 h eard yesterday is that there are some manufacturers 6 w ho--and some of those manufacturers are AHRI members-- 7 w ho don't participate in AHRI's program because they 8 f eel like it doesn't fit their business. And so 9 k eeping that in mind, I think we want to try and figure 10 o ut what--and maybe it's a difference of coming up with 11 o ne number for the build-to-stock and a different 12 n umber for the engineered- to-order, built-to-order, 13 o r--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 o ne-size-fits-all probably is not going to work for 16 e veryone. 17 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. And 18 e ven within AHRI we don't have one-size-fits-all 19 e ither. Okay? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 21 MR. AMRANE: For example, for the CRE 22 p roducts, we have a very--we don't have percentages.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 10 1 I t's a minimum of two tests a year. So, again, I mean, 2 s o there are distinctions product by product and things 3 o f that nature, so. 4 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 5 N ational. Also, Laura, that I think for CRE--and I 6 a gree with Karim--that, you know, the different types 7 o f products types are going to have different 8 c hallenges to coming up with something. CRE has a bit 9 o f a head start on some of them because, in addition to 10 t he AHRI definitions that are included, there's--I 11 c ounted 43 equipment classes under DoE's regulations, 12 w hich would probably be for CRE a well-defined and 13 p robably a pretty good starting point for determining 14 w hether, you know, you test some from each class or 15 b asically how you roll that through, at least for CRE, 16 s o. 17 MS. BARHYDT: So are you suggesting one from 18 e ach 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.

### Capita l 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 n egotiated obviously. 4 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And I certainly 5 u nderstand that CRE's a little bit different from small 6 u nitary. What I don't think I've heard yet is a 7 c onsensus among the CRE manufacturers on what would 8 w ork and keep the field level, and I wonder if we could 9 a sk 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 u ncomfortable to see this aligned with other programs, 13 e ven if it means test procedure changes to align the 14 t emperatures with NSF. The goal is assurance. It's 15 n ot a particular formula. So am I off-base in asking 16 f or that? 17 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 18 N ational. Harvey, I think you're right as far as that 19 g oes. And I think the challenge is going to be 20 b asically a balance between more expensive/witness 21 t esting, a higher level of the tests and more 22 r eliability, I'll say, to verification as regards to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 12 1 h ow many you do a year. I think they're going to be 2 d irectly--because the cost, obviously when you multiply 3 t he cost, it's going to go up a year, whether it's a 4 s mall manufacturer or a large manufacturer. So I think 5 t hat's going to be the balance there. 6 And as Laura said, some of the feedback we 7 h eard from--Ron heard from CRE folks that are not here, 8 b ut I think they're showing, you know, some more level 9 o f alarm I think than even we were kind of hitting on 10 w hen we discussed yesterday even what the options were. 11 S o I think that's something we're going to have to 12 b alance out. But I think you're right, we have to 13 f igure out something that we want that's going to have 14 t hat reliability, tests that are going to be--you know, 15 h ave some teeth behind them, that are going to be 16 r eliable and have a sufficient quantity of testing 17 t hat's going to work economically and going to work 18 r eliably that you've got enough products being tested 19 t hat you have assurance across the product line of 20 m odels and basic models that are listed. 21 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. Jeff, 22 t hank you. I guess I sort of think it's your problem

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 13 1 a s an industry to bring a proposal to see if it 2 s atisfies the process. And I can't speak for DoE, but 3 I 'm sure open- minded about what offers that balance 4 a nd you guys have a competitive interest in not getting 5 t hings tilted one way or the other. I'm not sure I 6 n eed to be present for that conversation. In fact, I 7 h ope I'm not. 8 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. We do 9 h ave a meeting set up among the CRE on the 22nd with 10 N AFM, and we'll probably discuss some of those things. 11 T hey'll be sending out a notice. Some people probably 12 h aven't gotten it yet, but a lot of these issues will 13 b e discussed. 14 But the thing is, in our line we already have 15 a very heavily involved third-party lab system for 16 s afety and for sanitation, and they're in and out of 17 o ur building all the time. And I think what we're 18 a sking is to be able to leverage those programs to be 19 a ble to have them look in on our stuff at the same 20 t ime. When we say non-witness testing, I'm sure we 21 d on't mean that we never want anybody to look at our 22 d ata. I want to stress that that's not what we're

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 14 1 s aying. Somebody always looks at our data. What we're 2 s aying is we want to be able to leverage, if we're in 3 a n Energy Star program or some other program, we want 4 t o be able to use those programs to be able to submit 5 o ur data through them, so they hold our data and send 6 t he results to DoE. We don't want to add an extra 7 b urden. 8 Now, having said that, we're also interested 9 i n the number of tests. As Ron stated, that's going to 10 m ake a huge difference because within our industry we 11 h ave very, very diverse product lines, kind of like 12 H VAC, 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 f ew things going on here. 17 Number one is that the alternate programs we 18 d eal with in commercial refrigeration are much more 19 r igid in the way they operate than what we're talking 20 a bout there in DoE. They demand there aren't going to 21 b e product groupings in a general product family where 22 y ou can list a lot of product under it. Unless it is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 15 1 p hysically "identical" on energy consumption it is 2 g oing to have to be separately listed under those 3 p rograms. And as such, there's a very high number of 4 i tems listed compared to--well, I would say we would 5 l ist one product group for DoE for every two products 6 w e would have for Energy Star in Canada. 7 MS. BARHYDT: When say "product group," are 8 y ou referring to the basic model? 9 MR. HON: Basic models, yes. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 11 MR. HON: Because there are several reasons. 12 N umber one is marketing purposes. Because if you don't 13 h ave it separately listed, you can't put on the 14 s ticker, you can't market it that way. And also, when 15 y ou're not getting the advantage of the label, the 16 E nergy Star label, you can take a product that is-- 17 w ell, list the more power consumption or less efficient 18 e quipment and have several models which use less 19 e quipment with the same basic design under the same 20 b asic model and as such reduce your listing burden that 21 w ay. 22 But in testing burden right now we have to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 16 1 h ave witness testing done per Energy Star and for 2 C anada. They come into our facilities every six months; 3 w e set up several units. They monitor the testing and 4 t he results. Those are ongoing programs required by 5 t hose groups. And those can be leveraged very well 6 b ecause those do include witness testing. 7 MS. BARHYDT: So one of the concerns I have 8 a bout Energy Star is that that's obviously a small 9 s ubset of the products you offer. And so would the NSF 10 t hen cover everything? 11 MR. HON: There's two different answers. 12 N umber one is right now-- 13 MS. BARHYDT: (Off microphone.) 14 MR. HON: Okay. Energy Star is at the 15 p resent time, according to Energy Star's data, 62 16 p ercent of the market is covered under Energy Star 17 l abeling. They're in the process of reducing that down 18 t o 25 percent, thereabouts, by making the standard much 19 m ore rigorous. But it will soon catch up--the market 20 w ill catch up with the standard real quick. I know 21 w here it's headed and we will get there because there 22 a re a lot of units that will be brought back down below

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 17 1 t he new standard. 2 NSF does cover all the unit, basically 3 e verything in commercial refrigeration, because of 4 l ocal building codes require an NSF-type listing on the 5 p roduct. The standard is not the same as the DoE 6 s tandard. The test requirements are different. The 7 t esting is different, the conditions are different. So 8 t here's a problem there with all the existing data that 9 e verybody has--12, 15 years' worth of data--if we shift 10 t o an NSF testing process. Some of that testing 11 e xists; some of it doesn't have near the same result 12 w hat you'd be interested in. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Would it be feasible while they 14 w ere there to do the tests under their test procedure 15 a nd the same test under the DoE test procedure? 16 MR. HON: It would be no different than 17 h aving a different third party doing the same tests. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 19 MR. HON: Because they're not the same tests, 20 s o 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.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 18 1 T he loading is different. There's a lot of--so you 2 b asically start over. So their being there would not 3 b e any good because they would just have to stay there 4 l onger. The testing burden would just extend it a 5 l onger period, therefore, a longer cost. So we don't 6 k now that it would do us a lot of good. 7 We also don't know the competency of NSF 8 b ecause that would be a single choice. Right now we 9 h ave CSA-- 10 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 11 MR. HON: --ETL, UL, all in this room. They 12 a ll do the same projects. Some of them also do 13 l istings, but do they have the competencies in the same 14 p eople, in the same groups? So they would probably be 15 s ending 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 N SF, NSF as an organization, NSF as a food and safety 20 s tandard, just like UL obviously. So I think when we 21 t alk about--I thought when you were talking about NSF, 22 y ou were talking more about how you test for NSF for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 19 1 s afety versus using NSF as your test for efficiency. 2 MS. BARHYDT: I actually was talking about 3 t he organization. 4 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, all right. That's how I 5 w ould--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 Y ou'll be using it and testing it to the NSF-7 10 s tandard, and that's, I think, kind of part of what 11 H arvey and I we talked about yesterday is the NSF 12 t esting it for sanitation is a lot different than an 13 e nergy test, what you do there. As Charlie said, the 14 p ackage, you know, if you load full packages for--it's 15 a different type of test that you do for the two test 16 t ypes. So, you know, I think as Harvey mentioned, too, 17 p reviously, as an industry, you know, going back and 18 s tarting to try to work those divergent test standards 19 f or energy and sanitation and safety and things like 20 t hat, try to bring those together closer is a challenge 21 f or our group that ultimately should benefit everybody 22 a s we move forward.

### Capita l 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 t esting, we cannot--okay, like, right now we have UL 3 s afety inspections coming in. That is not the same 4 g roup that does UL energy testing. They're totally 5 d ifferent engineers because of different competencies. 6 A nd we do not have anybody that I'm aware of that 7 c rosses over both those competencies well. There may 8 b e a few people that can be trained, cross-trained, but 9 a t this time we still have to bring an engineer in from 10 D allas to our energy review because that's the 11 c ompetent group for that. And the local inspector for 12 t he safety is strictly for the safety group. So they 13 d o not have the competencies there. 14 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 15 N ational again. And if we haven't confused enough, 16 L aura, I think the other part of the discussion that 17 w e've had in other related areas with NAFM and other 18 a gencies is component verification part of it, where 19 y ou also have, in addition to when you list the model, 20 y ou go through a full sanitation inspection and file 21 l isting and documentation package. And then basically 22 w hoever's doing your UL for safety, you basically have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 21 1 q uarterly inspections where they come in and verify. 2 T hey'll pick a product off the line to make sure that 3 i t is being built with proper components and 4 e verything, which we think there's some value there to 5 p otentially have that considered as part of the energy 6 t o make sure that, you know, obviously you're not 7 e nergy testing every unit off the line, but making sure 8 t hat the unit that you tested for energy, what you're 9 b uilding is the same thing as what you tested to. And 10 t hat potentially could, hopefully, relieve some of the 11 b urden of the requirements for the quantity of 12 v erification testing you feel you need to do here. 13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Just 14 s o you don't get lock in that all safety testing, if 15 t hey're coming in for safety testing, is not capable of 16 d oing the efficiency testing. For water heaters and 17 b oilers a part of the standard, either for U.S. or 18 C anada, which uses the same test requirement, both of 19 t hose safety standards include performance testing. So 20 t hose certification engineers for the safety portion of 21 t he product also have the capability of doing the 22 e fficiency performance side.

### Capita l 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 t hat testing, though, is not annual audit testing. 3 T hat is certification of the product initially. 4 MR. MYERS: Right. This is Frank Myers, PVI, 5 a gain. I was just talking about capability of the test 6 p ersonnel. It does not, in that case, require 7 d ifferent personnel in order to have that skill set. 8 S o when they come in, if they were also--which they do 9 f or us--also do performance testing, the efficiency 10 t esting, and standby loss testing, we'd like to have 11 t hat accepted because they do have that skill set. 12 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. There is a 13 d ifference. Again, we're getting to the nuances of 14 d ifferences. When we started with our project, due to 15 C anadian law, you didn't have to have the necessary 16 c ompetencies built into the system. So we could have 17 t he local inspection group, which was the safety 18 i nspection group, do witness testing for our energy 19 e fficiency for Canada. UL will not accept that--I 20 m ean, Energy Star will not accept that. They require a 21 c ompetency under UL's engineering, so they have to 22 b ring in a different group for UL testing. So then we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 23 1 e nded up re-merging files so that we put the Canadian 2 d oing energy testing at the same time as the Energy 3 S tar group with different competency level; higher than 4 C anada it requires because of that issue. So the local 5 i nspector could do it for Canada, but could not do it 6 f or Energy Star. 7 MS. BARHYDT: You were going to say 8 s omething, Jeff? 9 MR. KLEISS: Well, I was just going to add to 10 t hat. As far as the boilers and water heaters, an 11 E nergy Star program is somewhat different than what 12 t hey were talking about in that you could apply the 13 s ame testing, same test procedures are used. However, 14 t his does cover just a portion of the market. That 15 p ortion is probably going to change very soon. And 16 a lso, Energy Star is talking about adding some 17 a dditional metrics possibly to the testing. 18 Now, you could still take the same data and 19 s eparate out those additional metrics and use that to 20 q ualify. And I would think that that would be 21 s omething that would be beneficial from the 22 m anufacturer's standpoint of reducing the test burden,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 24 1 b ut, also, it reduces, I guess, in a way the cost of 2 g oing to higher efficiency products, in a way, in that 3 w e wouldn't have to then add on new testing for going 4 i nto an Energy Star program. So that might help to 5 m ove the market in that direction, which I think is a 6 g ood thing. 7 MS. BARHYDT: So the Energy Star does testing 8 t hroughout the year. Annual? 9 MR. KLEISS: Annual. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Once a year? Twice a year? 11 T wice a year for CRE. Once a year for water heaters. 12 MR. HON: That's dependent on how many units 13 y ou have to test. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 15 MR. HON: Because we schedule it, saying, 16 o kay, we have the capability to handle X-number of 17 u nits when you're here because we have to have rooms 18 s et up for them, all the conditions, all the units 19 e stablished. And we have a number of units that we can 20 t est at one time. They have an annual requirement of 10 21 p ercent of our listed product be tested every year. 22 If we had enough facilities and were willing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 25 1 t o allot those facilities during that week of testing 2 o r more, we could do all 10 percent at one time. But 3 w e don't have that or we choose not to allot that 4 a nyway, so we do two different sets. But you only, 5 l egally, have to do 10 percent of your listed product 6 e very 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 t hat 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 m ean, most of these HVAC manufacturers do it through 15 A HRI. It's part of our certification program. 16 MS. BARHYDT: And so it's a third-party lab 17 t o begin? 18 MR. AMRANE: Third-party lab. We do the 19 r est. 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.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 26 1 Y es, it can be for some of the products that are big, 2 c ommercial products that still are Energy Star. Yes, 3 i t can be done as witnessed. 4 MS. BARHYDT: So, this is all very helpful, 5 b ut I'm not sure how to put it all together. 6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. The two 7 t op bullets that seem to be acceptable was testing at 8 t hird-party lab and testing at manufacturer's facility 9 w itnessed. And all of the Energy Star testing falls 10 w ithin those two bullets, so I don't think that we're 11 r eally stepping off the ranch. 12 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 13 t hink there really needs to be a third option there for 14 n on- 17025 requirements. 15 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I'm concerned 16 n ot for our group because we are governed by Energy 17 S tar, but there are people in some of these categories 18 t hat are not governed by Energy Star and, as such, 19 c omplete witness testing, I think that you should rely 20 o n the people who do those if--standards, which is tier 21 3 , tier 4 type of operations. They're the ones who are 22 p utting their name on the line to certify products.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 27 1 A nd if they believe that they can certify products as a 2 r eview process because of the competencies of a lab, I 3 t hink 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 t he difference between the Energy Star testing and DoE 7 t esting? Is there some way that, you know, there can 8 b e a compromise test or something? I mean-- 9 MR. HON: That's what we're trying to get to 10 i s to say the same process can work; it'd just be a 11 l arger database. Because right now we have 60-some 12 u nits which are Energy Star listed on our products. If 13 w e had those same units which would be DoE and would 14 n ot have been Energy Star, we would have merged a lot 15 o f them together and probably only had 30 units, base 16 m odels. But because of the nature of what's going on 17 w ith Energy Star and you've got--people are rating and 18 b uying by the efficiency rating, we want to make it as 19 g ood as possible, so we're taking the best and listing 20 t hem as well. That same process can work because the 21 w ay Energy Star specified it, that it is an optional 22 p rogram. We chose to incur the additional expense of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 28 1 o n-site witness testing. 2 The governing bodies who are also allowing us 3 t o do other energy testing without the full witness 4 t est are the ones who should be able to give you the 5 e xpertise and give you what the difference is, 6 s ubmitting to a third party versus witness testing. 7 T he only difference for us would be the cost of that 8 e ngineer being on our site for the entire test, which 9 i s a two-day test process, because we do all the pre10 w ork ahead of time. When they walk in, we're ready to 11 t urn the test on. They inspect the equipment and we 12 f lip the switch and away we go. Then the next day we 13 g et the results. But if everything's okay and 14 e verything goes forward, then they take the results 15 w ith them and leave and go and analyze the results to 16 m eet this--verify all the different categories of the 17 s tandard. 18 What we do without that witness testing is we 19 g o ahead and test the unit, we sent it to them, the 20 r esult, they review that result the same way. Other 21 t han the fact that they're not there to witness the 22 t est operation itself, the review is identical.

### Capita l 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 s econd scenario that you-- 3 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ronald Shebik from 4 H ussmann. 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 i n for the last half-hour here. It seems like we're 10 g etting knee-deep in Energy Star. I do want to point 11 o ut that Energy Star for CRE has no impact on the 12 s upermarket cases. We're not covered under Energy 13 S tar. So before we get too far along with the Energy 14 S tar conversation, that's only going to pertain to 15 s elf-contained cases. So I just wanted to make sure 16 t hat's pointed out. 17 The remote supermarket cases, there is no 18 E nergy Star classification. 19 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 20 N ational. Good morning, Ron. And I think also what 21 w e're kind of hitting on, Laura, hopefully is giving 22 y ou a good education--there will be a quiz after this

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 30 1 m eeting--is that I think for CRE, you know, we have had 2 s ome experiences that, although Energy Star again is an 3 o ption, not--I don't think something necessarily as a 4 l ot of people would want to bring that level across the 5 b oard when you have to list all your products, you 6 k now, by regulation. But I think our challenge is, I 7 w ould say, by the next meetings, 26th, 27th, 28th, is 8 f or CRE manufacturers to come back with a 9 r ecommendation on what- -you know, we think we kind of 10 k now what those options are, whether it would be 11 w itnessing or whether potentially the (inaudible) level 12 o f, you know, just the third-party review. 13 And as you heard from Ron, I guess, you know, 14 t he e-mails, there is a lot of concern on that with 15 s ome of the manufacturers. But I think we should be 16 a ble to come back with some recommendations by the next 17 m eetings, towards the end of the month, for CRE as far 18 a s what that should be. As Mary said, there's a 19 m eeting with NAFM manufacturers. We can also add a 20 m eeting with the AHRI group, with commercial 21 r efrigeration manufacturers, and get some additional 22 i ndustry input there, so.

### Capita l 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 c ontained 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 w e decide how the program's going to operate, if we 11 k new the number of cases per year that would require 12 v erification testing. 13 MR. BAUMAN: Ron, this is Jeff. 14 MR. SHEBIK: If it's two cases per year, 15 t hat's one thing. If it's 10--go ahead. 16 MR. BAUMAN: What I was trying to say when we 17 c ome back on the 26th is we would potentially have a 18 r ecommendation with both points there as, you know, 19 w hat level of testing it would be and then how much 20 t esting per year would be required, a recommendation 21 t here. Because as we've talked about, I think they are 22 d irectly related to each other from the sense of cost

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 32 1 a nd also from the sense of how reliable you are because 2 I guess, on some levels, if you did a less stringent 3 t est, but you did more testing, it might give you a 4 s imilar kind of confidence level as opposed to a more 5 s tringent but less quantity of tests per year. So I 6 t hink they're directly related and I think that should 7 b e part of what CRE comes back with a recommendation on 8 a t 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 a t what we've done as AHRI. It's already there: how 12 w e group products; the number of tests that we're 13 d oing, which are, as I said, maximum of two tests per 14 y ear in the case of CRE products. So there's already 15 s omething you can look at. 16 MR. HON: Karim, just for my information, 17 b ecause I don't know, do you have any idea--all right, 18 y ou have a certain number of products listed right now, 19 s ay a company--I don't know, a company has 50 products 20 l isted under your listing in the commercial air21 c onditioning system, how many do you think that would 22 e ntail when they did the final base model listing for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 33 1 t he DoE? Have any idea at all? 2 MR. TRITSIS: Let me answer this, Charlie. 3 B ill Tritsis with AHRI. I heard you earlier mentioning 4 t hat you are listing 60 products with Energy Star. And 5 y ou're doing presumably six tests, if I'm correct. I'm 6 n ot sure how you group your products, but the AHRI 7 S tandard 1200 that has been adopted by DoE lists six 8 p roduct families that you can put your products in. 9 O kay. That will have meant, you know, much less than 10 t he six tests that you are doing right now. But that's 11 w hy I'm suggesting that if you look at the six product 12 f amily lists and adopt this definition, I believe it 13 h as been adopted already by DoE, you know, we can have 14 u p to two or--depending on what percentage we're 15 t alking about. 16 MR. HON: But there's also a difference 17 b ecause with the Energy Star testing of the possible 18 s ix categories we would not be listing in all of those, 19 s o out of our product we're looking at six tests out of 20 o ur standard. But if we were doing it under the 21 c ategories that would be coming up now we would 22 p robably have to step up to eight tests, but we would

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 34 1 d o that just because of the nature of it. 2 But, again, I'm trying to get a parallel 3 w here your market is, how many items, because you may 4 b e going doubling your number or tripling your number, 5 I don't know. And we're trying to get some comparison 6 b ecause you're requiring 20 percent of the product and 7 t hat may only be 10 percent as you dilute it by listing 8 d ifferent product categories. So I'm trying to get a 9 f eel for how it's going to--all these different 10 p rograms relate, so we can come up with some idea of, 11 o kay, 20 percent suddenly, because of the change of 12 l isting style, may go to 10 percent. UL requiring, 13 E nergy Star requiring 10 percent, maybe the same base 14 n umber, we just don't know. That's why I'm asking the 15 q uestion. 16 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI, I think today 17 w e group product in product families and we test 20 18 p ercent, roughly, of those product families a year. 19 A nd I think we could by the next meeting we will have 20 t his kind of analysis and that you could see how many 21 o f those tests we do and how do it by product family--I 22 m ean, by product categories and so on. So we'll get

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35 1 y ou that in the next week. 2 MR. HON: Right. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So we talked yesterday a little 4 b it about how products would be selected, whether it be 5 f rom the manufacturer, supplied by the distributor, off 6 t he shelf, off the production line. And I think a 7 q uestion I had, we were talking about build-to-stock 8 a nd stock units and it's not clear to me why--it seems 9 t o me that if those are the products that we're talking 10 a bout, why we would even need to do off the production 11 l ine. It seems to me that that would be in stock or we 12 c ould just substitute another model that was in stock 13 t hat was comparable. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Say it again for me, please. 15 MS. BARHYDT: So we're talking about the 16 b uilt- to-stock/in-stock items, so these are things 17 t hat you have. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Somewhere. 19 MS. BARHYDT: Somewhere. And it seems to me 20 t hat we ought to be able to get one that's already 21 b oxed up as opposed to off the production line. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill Hootman from

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36 1 T rane. Yeah, relatively for the packed stock stuff, 2 b ut, 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 y ou're walking in, again, it might be out in an 6 i nventory in some warehouse somewhere else, so it 7 d oesn't always necessarily add the manufacturing plant. 8 W e have to have some communication about this is what 9 y ou're looking for and, you know, we would look at 10 w here we've got it and say we have it here, here, here, 11 y ou know, we can tell you where we have it. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 13 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. AHRI has 14 a nother option, though. And sometimes when we want a 15 s pecific unit and it's not available, we can have it 16 b uilt. We can witness that unit and manufacturers will 17 h ave--you know, there will be somebody at the factory 18 w ho will pick up the components randomly and that unit 19 w ould be assembled specifically for AHRI testing. So 20 w e can do that. We've done that several times. 21 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. In the 22 b oiler industry, in particular, we're extremely

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 37 1 s easonal, so it is entirely possible that we could have 2 a stock item that would be in stock 11 months out of 3 t he year. But if you came in the wrong month, you might 4 n ot find much of any stock. 5 MS. BARHYDT: We can figure that stuff out. 6 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We are 7 p robably the largest stocker of commercial 8 r efrigerators and freezers. If you take our catalogue 9 a nd go through it, at any given moment 75 percent, 10 a pproximately, of our catalogue is in a warehouse and 11 c an be shipped the next day. Another 25 percent or so 12 m ay require specialty add- ons and they would be the 13 n ext runoff. Say that we have Model X with Feature Y 14 s tuck on to it, and that's not a standard feature, so 15 i t would be the next runoff then, usually 3 to 6 weeks. 16 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 17 N ational. To throw out another consideration, and that 18 m akes two, also, that you mentioned, Laura, is in stock 19 a t the manufacturer's location. I mean, one 20 c onsideration we'd have is if you picked something from 21 s tock, it could be a manufacturer's warehouse and you 22 h ave warehouses all over the place if you're doing--if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 38 1 w e end up, you know, deciding on witness testing at a 2 m anufacturer's location, potentially even a lab, rather 3 t han bringing a unit from a remote warehouse back in, 4 r eplacing that with another, it seems like an 5 u nnecessary cost for bringing a unit from a remote 6 l ocation in and then we would have to either replace 7 t hat or, you know, there's some transit and damage 8 p otentials. So I think, you know, considering in stock 9 f rom the manufacturer's location may be another option 10 a s opposed to off the production line, just to reduce 11 t he waste of--I mean, I understand you want a unit 12 t hat's--and I think there's, again, a level of 13 c omponent verification that could be part of it, like 14 K arim had mentioned. You know, maybe you're not there 15 w atching the guy manufacture it, but you take a built 16 u nit and part of that inspection is the components to 17 m ake sure those components that are in it are what it 18 w as supposed to be built with, so it just seems to be a 19 w ay to reduce that burden and still get that 20 r eliability. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So you're suggesting that off 22 t he production line could be preferable even to in-

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 39 1 s tock because it may not be stock there if there's 2 w itness testing. Is that not an issue if there's not 3 w itness 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 k now, again, there's logistic issues to consider there. 7 Y ou know, I think manufacturers would still prefer to 8 s hip it from their own warehouse so they made sure the 9 r ight unit got sent over versus having the wrong one 10 s ent to the lab, that they can make sure that it's the 11 r ight unit, you know, the right model being sent over 12 b ecause there's confusions that sometimes happen in 13 m odel numbers being shipped. But I think it's almost 14 a n additional definition between off of the production 15 l ine and from the manufacturer's inventory, being, you 16 k now, in stock at the manufacturer's location. Maybe 17 i t's already built, but, you know, I think we all have 18 w arehouses where we build, also, before they maybe go 19 o ut to remote warehouses. So it would be potentially 20 p ulled from, you know, that location as opposed to a 21 r emote location that, you know, could still be a 22 m anufacturer's warehouse.

### Capita l 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 j ust want to add that, again, for (inaudible 43:13) 3 c ases, in most part we do not--there's no stocking, we 4 d on't warehouse. We build to order, so in those 5 s ituations you'd be looking at whatever the lead time 6 i s for the case based on the components. So you might 7 b e looking at 6, 8, 10 weeks for a case. Anyway, it'd 8 b e based on how the order is placed. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So we're talking about 10 t he build-to-stock right now. We were going to talk 11 a bout build-to-order separately. 12 MR. SHEBIK: Okay, sorry. You're cutting 13 o ut, so I missed parts here. 14 MS. BARHYDT: That's okay. 15 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo with 16 E arthJustice. I had a question. How much lead time 17 w ill the manufacturer get when a product is, you know, 18 s elected for testing or, you know, a basic model 19 p resumably would be? Because if you have enough time, 20 y ou know, unless it's immediate, I guess the idea of 21 t aking something out of stock isn't necessarily 22 a dvantageous of, you know, identify a potential bad

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 41 1 a ctor. Because if there was a manufacturer that was 2 m aking stuff that, you know, knowingly was below the 3 s tandard, they're going to have a fire sale as soon as 4 t hey find out that the product has been selected for 5 v erification testing. So taking one out of stock 6 w ouldn't necessarily catch anybody that way. 7 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. This 8 i s verification, right? DoE always has the option for 9 t he spot-checking. 10 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. The 11 c oncept of a fire sale in the commercial world is 12 p robably quite a bit different than a fire sale in the 13 r esidential 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 a head of time and we inform the manufacturers because, 19 o therwise, if you're trying to do what you're saying 20 h ere, you're not (inaudible 45:12) good unit to test, I 21 m ean, it's very difficult, in particular for commercial 22 p roducts.

### Capita l 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 K arim is right. I mean, what AHRI does for us is, you 3 k now, tell us ahead of time, around the December 4 t imeframe, what our models are. We have a discussion 5 b ack with them about when we can provide those. And 6 h ere's the thing: I have near 100 models at this end 7 a nd I'm spending millions of dollars. I need to spread 8 t hat expense across a year. I can't have them all sent 9 i n one time. Stockholders have a problem with expenses 10 g oing 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 o ne and go test it. My test rooms are full. I don't 14 h ave-- I'm not doing that kind of stuff. And I just 15 c an't imagine anybody that, you know, was kind of doing 16 t his that you would have that time and that luxury to 17 g o be making a special model for this test and then 18 h aving time to go pull off and test it and everything. 19 B ecause you would have had to find a lab to do that and 20 t hese labs are full all the time. You would have had 21 t o schedule a lab to get that if it's not inside your-- 22 w ell, even within ourselves, we have to schedule labs

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 43 1 b ecause there's development testing happening all the 2 t ime. 3 So there needs to be some warning. I mean, 4 y ou know, if it's just one unit or two units, this is 5 n ot a big deal, but we're talking about hundreds. 6 MS. BARHYDT: So maybe the major component 7 l ist or something like that would make me feel a little 8 b etter about it. I can imagine companies, not anyone 9 a t the table, but I can imagine companies that if they 10 f ind out that, oh, they're going to test this model, 11 w e'll swap out this better motor, this better 12 c ompressor, and if I don't have enough information 13 a bout what their norm is, I will never know. 14 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. It's 15 o ne thing to talk about last time was like the 16 v erification of the building material. The 17 m anufacturer's nature, I submit some basic component 18 i nformation, what the coil is, what the compressor is. 19 W e're allowed optional compressor, so I may use a ZR20 1 20 and my optional compressor is a ZR-121. And that's 21 l isted with AHRI and that information, the basic 22 c omponent information, is checked prior to testing.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 44 1 A nd we discussed the possibility of using the safety 2 c omponent listing or at least some basic components off 3 o f that because that lists everything. All the 4 e lectrical components really don't affect--you know, 5 p ressure switches and things of that nature, we have 6 z ero effect on performance. But you could use a safety 7 a gency report to verify the components that are in the 8 u nit that's being energy audited. 9 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. 10 T hat does vary from program to program, though. All 11 p rograms do not require that kind of a verification of 12 t he component level. 13 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. I 14 t hink, though, that the point--or what I'm taking from 15 i t--is there are ways to check our component list. I 16 k now ours are in the safety file, a lot of the motors 17 a nd things that would be energy--would affect the 18 e nergy drawing (phonetic 49:10). So I don't see a 19 r eason why we couldn't check the UL files against 20 w hatever model you have. 21 MR. EISNER: Are there differences in 22 m anufacturing? If you're trying to make a lot of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 45 1 p roducts quickly and you're cutting corners, even 2 t hough you've got all the right components in, could 3 p ieces be cut a little too short, there's leakage where 4 t here shouldn't be leakage affecting the results? And 5 t hen all of a sudden you've got to produce one for a 6 t est, you make sure everything's cut perfectly or 7 e verything is-- 8 MS. DANE: I speak for my organization and 9 t he organization before me that I worked for 20 years, 10 a but our equipment would go down the line and we have 11 f inal inspection. And so at final inspection they're 12 t esting, you know, pressures, they're testing leakage, 13 t hey're testing, you know, things like that. So we can 14 c atch a lot of that all models that go into the boxes. 15 S o you would have to define "cut corners" because 16 t hat's not usually a business practice. 17 MR. EISNER: But again, it may not be usual 18 b usiness practice, but, you know, for example, cars, 19 t hey're not all made the same. And when they're 20 r ushing them out, they do, you know, cut corners and 21 t hings and they fit pieces that shouldn't have been fit 22 i n, but they're more interested in getting the product

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 46 1 o ff the line and out to the market, hoping nobody will 2 n otice the difference in efficiency. You know, the 3 t hing doesn't fit as perfectly as it should, you know, 4 t he fit and finish. 5 MS. DANE: Right. We're smaller and I don't 6 s ee mass production as causing something like that. 7 I t's like a refrigerator made on Monday is a 8 r efrigerator made on Friday. We don't have the same 9 p roblem as a Friday afternoon car. 10 MR. EISNER: I remember buying a car with the 11 w rong transmission in it. You know, the apology is, 12 o h, this was meant for another vehicle, not this model. 13 H ow did it get in my car? 14 MS. DANE: That's why you would have UL file 15 t he check. 16 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. You 17 k now, I don't think there's much likelihood of that. 18 I t's not like you cut copper short or if you have 19 l eaks. That's a defect. And we all have warranties 20 t hat we try to keep some kind of control over because 21 o ur stockholders beat us up about whenever our warranty 22 c osts gets very high. And we would be claiming a defect

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 47 1 i f we shipped that one and it was leaking refrigerant 2 e verywhere and it had no charge when you tried to test 3 i t. So I don't think that's a big deal. 4 The big deal is the selection of the 5 c omponent and what the component variance is as far as 6 w hat affects efficiency. You not, fit and finish and 7 w hether it looks nice is kind of another deal, but I 8 d on't think there's a whole lot of QC that has to do 9 w ith workmanship that affects efficiency, at least 10 t hat's in my product anyway, the way ours are built. 11 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I 12 t hink the usual problem might be a shift change unit 13 w here one shift is leaving, the other one's coming in, 14 a nd they're not sure what's been done. And that's when 15 t hings generally get messed up. It's not intentional. 16 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. I think 17 t hat was a good point to raise, you know, and I think 18 w hat it goes back to, also, is when we were talking 19 a bout doing testing and manufacturers being present or 20 w hatever. It would end up even if that was just sent 21 t o a third party potentially with I'll say non22 c onforming components, if they did a third party test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 48 1 a nd they found it was enough to send it out of 2 t olerance, the manufacturer would say it was a 3 d efective unit anyway if, you know, it was a third 4 p arty not using that component verification. So I 5 t hink, yes, there's variations in manufacturing that 6 c an affect that. If it was enough to throw it out, I 7 t hink it would be considered, like I said, a defective 8 u nit if it's much off of what the expected values were. 9 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. There 10 a re mistakes that happen and a lot of it I think 11 r elates around seals, whether it's a polymer seal that 12 i s along sort of a weather strip seal that can be 13 s tretched and maybe not be actually cut the right 14 l ength or a silicone seal that's put on something and 15 m aybe not applied appropriately. I don't know that you 16 c an really tie errors like that which might affect any 17 o f us as manufacturers to high run or busy times 18 b ecause you can also have off-season where you have a 19 l ower level of-- fewer employees working on the line as 20 w e staff up for the different times. And a lot of 21 t hose are problems in design or work constructions that 22 j ust haven't been caught or clarified to prevent those

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 49 1 k inds of errors. It's something that I think that all 2 o f us as manufacturers struggle against, but you can't 3 n ecessarily tie that to peak season. 4 Oh, and also, those would not be tied to a 5 p art number as far as, you know, you wouldn't check 6 t hat and say, oh, this fan is this and know that 7 t here's a seal problem. 8 MS. BARHYDT: I think the idea of the way 9 A HRI does it actually concerns me a little bit more. I 10 w ould rather have--I'm picturing the people on the 11 l ine. And if somebody from AHRI is standing there 12 w atching them make this thing, then I the worker am not 13 g oing to do exactly what I do every single day, just 14 m indlessly doing my job. I'm going to think there are 15 p eople standing here watching me. I'm going to make 16 s ure I do this exactly right. 17 MR. HURST: You're correct, but, believe it 18 o r not, that's not what always happens. As a matter of 19 f act, we find that when they're being watched they 20 s crew up more. 21 MS. BARHYDT: More. 22 (Laughter.)

### Capita l 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 i s-- 3 MS. BARHYDT: It makes them nervous. 4 MR. HURST: You know, I don't know if you say 5 i t facetiously or you mean it. This is John Hurst with 6 L ennox. A lot of the people at this table have large 7 n ational account customers and we wouldn't be in 8 b usiness very long or our brand wouldn't be worth 9 a nything if we habitually cheated. 10 I'm concerned, too, about the bad actor in 11 t he industry that maybe imports. I don't know how 12 y ou're going to pull that inventory. Do you do it at-- 13 MS. BARHYDT: That's another topic I wanted 14 t o talk about. 15 MR. HURST: Yeah. So, you know, you could 16 s how up at the point of import or the distributor. 17 D on't turn on the sirens, you know, so you don't give 18 a nybody advance warning that you're coming down the 19 s treet. But, you know, we own our own distribution and 20 m any of our business units, so, you know, you have a 21 b igger, broader array of products to pick from. You 22 m ight not get exactly what you're looking for, but you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 51 1 w ould get a representative sample that, you know, is 2 " out of the box." 3 But I'm concerned with not necessarily what 4 w e're doing, but how you're going to maybe pull from 5 s omebody that's importing, that may be a bad actor in 6 t he marketplace. And I want it to be fair, but, at the 7 s ame time, you know, I'm concerned with how we would 8 p rovide you with the product as well. 9 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 10 Y ou know, we bring our equipment from the Far East and 11 w e're not a bad actor. But, you know, we have--the way 12 t he process is done is it's just like unitary 13 e quipment, that, you know, everybody gets a list of 14 m odels and then randomly things are selected. You 15 k now, we have to bring three of each kind and then the 16 i nspector comes in and picks. I mean, there's no way 17 t o game that system. So, you know, it's-- 18 MR. HURST: Yeah, Paul, I'm not really 19 r eferring to--you know, I know a lot of us manufacture 20 o ffshore. Your company's a reputable company. It's not 21 t he Rheems and the Mitsubishis and the Daikins that I'm 22 w orried about. It's the Acmes and the ABC and, you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 52 1 k now, they're here today and gone tomorrow. That's 2 m ore of the type of offshore manufacturer that I'm 3 r eferring to. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Right. But, you know, again, if 5 t he procedures are set up similar to what AHRI does, I 6 t hink the AHRI process does a good job in randomly 7 s electing what needs to be--you know, what should be 8 b rought forth for testing. So I think that process is 9 g ood and I would be in favor of, you know, extending 10 s omething similar to that for the Acmes or those kind 11 o f people. 12 MR. HURST: If they're participating, right? 13 MR. DOPPEL: Well, no. If they are 14 m anufacturing, if they're bringing in, then they would 15 h ave to participate in the DoE, that's what I'm saying, 16 s o if DoE adopted something similar. 17 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. And 18 j ust another point to make is we all have quality 19 i nspectors online almost every day. We have industrial 20 e ngineers doing time studies, so it's more than norm to 21 h ave somebody looking over their shoulder watching them 22 b uild that unit than it is the exception. So, yeah, to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 53 1 a ddress your comment about, you know, they may not be 2 d oing it the same way they always do it if somebody's 3 s itting there looking over their shoulder. It may not 4 a ctually be a correct characterization because you've 5 g ot those people going up and down the line all the 6 t ime. It's kind of a normal practice. 7 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. And I 8 u nderstand your concern and if I was outside I'd have 9 t he same concern. But what I find in my company, you 10 k now, we build a lot of the--especially the smaller 11 p roducts we'll build three units and AHRI will pick 12 o ne. And because we're providing those units, the way 13 w e run our company, those go through as zero-dollar 14 c ost units. Our production people are very focused on 15 h ow many dollars a day they put out. What actually 16 h appens is extremely difficult to get them to build 17 t hem and do it in a timely manner. They are not paying 18 a ny special attention to it. They don't even want them 19 o n the line for the most part. So, you know, getting 20 t hem built and done and the right schedule takes a lot 21 o f effort from the engineering management part and the 22 c ertification people in the company.

### Capita l 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 w ith the fact that we know something is being tagged 3 f or this particular application for tests is not always 4 t he case. You know, I assume that if you spend a lot 5 e ffort, you could do that, but I don't think that's 6 h appening with the most of the people that are doing 7 i t. 8 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 9 Y ou know, I would submit that if a company was bad 10 e nough an actor, you could have witness there observing 11 p roduction and they could build--they could cheat right 12 u nder your nose and you wouldn't even know it. The 13 w itness wouldn't even know it. So, you know, I don't 14 t hink anyone around this table is like that. 15 I don't think members of the industry are 16 l ike that. And, you know, we all are trying to do the 17 b est we can for our customers. And like John said, we 18 w ouldn't be in business if we continually made products 19 t hat weren't up to the best standards that we could. 20 A nd so, you know, to me I'm almost kind of insulted in 21 t hat, you know, we're having to justify this. Because 22 a s manufacturers we're there trying to do the best we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 55 1 c an and no one's intentionally trying to cheat. And if 2 w e have to do a standard based on someone--you know, 3 a ssuming someone's going to cheat, then, you know, 4 t hat's just--that sheds a very bad light on 5 m anufacturers that should not be shed. 6 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. To that 7 p oint, what we're trying to do is keep those bad actors 8 f rom doing their thing and I don't think putting 9 a dditional burden on everybody is necessarily the right 10 s tep. We do have a challenge process. If someone is 11 o ut there and is hurting our business because they're 12 m aking claims that we know to be incorrect, we buy 13 t heir units, we can run those tests, and provide that 14 d ata to DoE and have that focus from DoE be on the bad 15 a ctor as opposed to spreading an undue burden on the 16 v ast majority of manufacturers that are not bad actors. 17 S o it seems like the challenge process and all that 18 t hat entails would be the better way to focus the 19 e ffort. 20 MS. BARHYDT: So I don't have a lot of 21 e xperience with this, but I have one experience with 22 t his. And in that case the units we got that the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 56 1 m anufacturer built for us did not perform the same as 2 t he units we got off the shelf. And I don't think it 3 w as any redesign. I don't think it was any intentional 4 c hange. I think the people on the line knew that their 5 c ompany's reputation was going to be on the line if 6 t hese things failed. And they paid a lot more 7 a ttention and care, and everything that came off the 8 l ine was just a little bit better than everything that 9 h ad come off the line before. And that was enough to 10 m ake the difference in them passing. 11 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I 12 w ould say that at least from the production employee 13 s tandpoint, there's not enough that regular production 14 e mployees can do that would make much more than a 15 p ercent difference in performance because you're 16 b uilding off of prints. Coils when they're made, 17 e ngineering typically puts tolerance on them. It may 18 b e 16 fins per inch plus or minus half of a fin per 19 i nch. And, you know, manufacturers do that, too. You 20 k now, we control our incoming material inventory, 21 m aterial planning. All that's very important to the 22 c ompany, so we make sure that we--the absolute most

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 57 1 t hey could do is within the tolerance. 2 As others have indicated, there's quality 3 a ssurance checks that are always done, so they may go 4 t o 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 c ompressors. So if you're checking the components that 8 a re installed I can't put a different compressor in 9 t hat's going to be significantly better without AHRI 10 k nowing about it. I can't. 11 And the same thing with motors. You know, I 12 h ave a certain motor, a fan blade or moving system. I 13 t ell them about how much airflow is on the condenser 14 a nd that's measured. So I don't personally see how 15 p roduction employees could make a difference there. 16 MR. EISNER: I mean, I think that's an 17 i mportant point. And I think one thing that should be 18 m ade clear, you guys have all referred to yourselves 19 a s, you know, being in business and not wanting to take 20 a chance. None of you would be here today if your 21 c ompany wasn't willing to spend a lot of money to send 22 y ou here to help develop these standards. Somebody

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 58 1 m ade the good point there are some bad actors, and I 2 t hink 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 w ould do. They didn't intentionally do what they did 6 t hinking it would cause any harm, but they knew they 7 w ere cutting corners. 8 And I think that's why it was interesting, I 9 t hink yesterday, we talked about the idea that maybe we 10 d on't--because I think it's a very good point--impose 11 e xtra requirements on the good guys because there are 12 s ome 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 i n the future is one way to go about this. I don't 15 t hink anybody is suggesting you guys are bad actors. I 16 t hink there is a possibility there will always be one 17 t here. In my area, and sometimes I'm sure in the energy 18 a rea, the area I came from the reason we were 19 r egulating was because somebody really screwed up. And 20 a gain, not necessarily intentionally. But now when the 21 g overnment's there coming in to check, people have to 22 b e a little bit more careful and it's just the way

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 59 1 p eople are. I agree with the idea. 2 Again, the same issue in the safety area. Do 3 y ou want someone looking over your shoulder while 4 y ou're operating a piece of safety equipment? No, 5 b ecause it sometimes does make people more nervous. 6 T hese are all the different kinds of things we have to 7 f igure out how to address here today. And maybe the 8 s olution to everybody's concern is something like more 9 t esting for those who fail. We'll set it here. You 10 h ave a failed test, you'll do more next year. If you 11 h ave more failed tests, it'll be increasing. 12 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 13 N ational. I agree with and, you know, it is. We were 14 t alking about earlier putting some teeth behind it. In 15 t hat year if you have a failure, you have to do 16 a dditional testing. 17 I think on the other side of that, on the 18 r educing the burden for those manufacturers that are 19 n ot having issues, the, you know, possibility of 20 i ncorporating component level verification and 21 c orrelating inspections, again, gets to--giving you 22 s ome assurance that what's being produced off the line

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 60 1 i s going to have that, you know, repetitive--is going 2 t o be within those tolerances that you expect. 3 I know when a unit's built, you know, I think 4 p retty much everybody in here when you initially are 5 g oing to list a product and you send it to your lab to 6 t est to figure out what the energy's going to be, your 7 l ab guys are going to go over that unit and make sure 8 i t was built right. Because, you know, you want to 9 h ave it basically to understand that it's been built 10 p roperly and that, you know, you've really gone through 11 t hat. And it's a lot of times not just a typical unit 12 o ff the production line. I mean, and that's part of 13 w hy we built in, you know, that a manufacturer can de14 r ate or whatever, that they can, you know--if you know 15 t hat what you've built is your optimum, you want to 16 h ave that, making sure that you're going to 17 c onsistently be able to make that number. 18 And that's, I think, why we came up with the 19 k ind of one-sided tolerances where you're talking about 20 s omething, if it's going below what the standard is, 21 t hat would--I would not expect that production guys 22 c ould screw a unit up enough that it's going to still

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 61 1 r un, but it's not going to--you know, again, I'd be 2 m ore concerned about that the unit's not going to hold 3 t emperature and I'm going to basically have food 4 s poilage or other issues of that unit get out into the 5 f ield. Because those holding temperature and things 6 a re pretty much directly related to what the energy-- 7 y ou know, how much it's going to be running, percent 8 r untime and things like that that are going to directly 9 a ffect the efficiency. 10 So, again, I think the possibility of 11 c omponent- level verification, which is already a part 12 o f a lot of manufacturers are doing or pretty much 13 e verybody for UL or sanitation, you know, it could be 14 c onsidered to be part of this and it would help to give 15 t hat assurance that everything coming off the line is 16 c onsistently performing about the same. 17 MR. HURST: Laura, on the example you gave 18 w here it didn't meet the standard, was that pulled out 19 o f inventory? You tested it and then they re20 m anufactured the same product and, lo and behold, it 21 p assed? 22 MS. BARHYDT: So this was a high-volume

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 62 1 p roduction product. And under DoE's statistics we test 2 f our and then, depending on the standard deviation, 3 i t's either indeterminate, passes, or fails. 4 MR. HURST: Okay. 5 MS. BARHYDT: It came out indeterminate after 6 t he first four. The first four we pulled off of a 7 t ruck. The remainder of them they manufactured for us 8 t o test, and it was that remainder that didn't perform 9 t he same as the first four. 10 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. Did 11 y ou 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 t hat 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 63 1 y our answer. If you want a custom-built product--you 2 k now, look, if you're going to cheat, you're going to 3 c heat. I mean, you could come in and say, you know, we 4 w ant this-- 5 MS. BARHYDT: Well, see, I don't think that 6 t hey were trying to cheat, I really honestly-- 7 MR. HURST: They just had a manufacturing 8 p rocess 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 Y ears ago, when we changed from R22 to R410(a), you 13 k now, there was a big change in the operating pressure 14 o f the systems. And one company came out sooner than 15 o thers and they made a big deal about the fact that 16 t hey had fewer installation defects than they did with 17 R 22. Well, the reason was the installers were scared 18 t o death with this new higher operating pressure, so, 19 y ou know, they were more careful about what they did. 20 S o, you know, I mean, those things can happen and it 21 c an make a difference. 22 MR. EISNER: Do you guys have other ideas,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 64 1 l ike requiring extra testing that could help? 2 MS. BARHYDT: Well, actually before we talk 3 a bout that, when we talked about how to get the units 4 a nd there was unanimity, I think, about not getting it 5 f rom a distributor, but where do we get them for 6 i mports? Are we going to get those from a distributor? 7 B ecause if we are, then we can't mark that off the 8 l ist. 9 MR. HURST: I think you'd have to. 10 MR. THARP: Rusty with Goodman. I would say, 11 y eah, for the import product you don't have a choice 12 e xcept to get it from a distribution. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Unless you want to be spending 14 l ots of time overseas. 15 MS. BARHYDT: If only. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. You going to have the 17 b udget for that? 18 MR. HURST: The garden spots. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Trust me, the foreign 20 m anufacturers are picky (phonetic 1:12:00). 21 (Laughter.) 22 MR. WHITWELL: Hey, Laura, this is Bob

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 65 1 W hitwell. Speaking of--can you hear me? 2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 3 MR. WHITWELL: Speaking of imports, I was 4 t hinking about our motor option issue and related to 5 i mports. So is there a way that the DoE ensures that 6 t hose motors that are used in those imports, if they're 7 g eneral purpose motors, that they do meet the DoE 8 m inimum? I know this is kind of a side question. 9 MS. BARHYDT: So all of the motors that 10 c ompliant, motors are the only product that have this 11 r equirement, they actually have a marking requirement. 12 A nd it's a CC number, it's a compliance certification 13 n umber, and we can crosslink that number to our 14 d atabase. 15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. So that would be one of 16 t he things that would be checked if an imported product 17 w ere to be audited. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, and we'd be looking to 19 m ake sure that it had the CC number on it and that the 20 C C number was a legit number. 21 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, thanks. 22 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. Are all those

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 66 1 m otors regulated, though? Because some of them-- 2 MS. BARHYDT: He specifically said the 3 g eneral purpose motors. 4 MR. FLY: Oh, the general purpose, okay. 5 MS. BARHYDT: So if we put distributor back 6 o n the list-- 7 MR. EISNER: Do you want to limit it to 8 f oreign 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 d istributor. You're not going to have a testing 13 f acility at a distributor. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 15 MS. HOOTMAN: So, I mean, that's under test, 16 b ut where it comes from or where you get it selected 17 m ight be the distributor. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there was some discussion 19 y esterday about whether or not where we get the unit 20 s hould be different depending on whether the testing 21 w as being done at a third-party lab or if it was at a 22 s atellite manufacturer lab in trying to balance the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 67 1 d ifferent level of certainty that DoE has. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, and I think it was 3 p ossibly Bob and I who said strike the supplied-by 4 d istributor and retail off-the-shelf. Because in a 5 U .S. manufacturer, if you're going to our U.S. 6 d istribution, it's already been sold, so we would have 7 t o buy it back from them. That's at an increased cost. 8 S ame thing with a retail off-the- shelf. 9 Now, when you're talking about a foreign 10 m anufacturer I think your only choice is to select that 11 f rom the distributor in the U.S. 12 MS. BARHYDT: So what about the products that 13 y ou import? Are they not coming into your warehouses? 14 MS. MEYERS: Yes and no. But I think it's 15 a lso very important that it be--if we're going to keep 16 d istributor on there, that it be a manufacturer17 a uthorized distributor. Because when we have--for the 18 p eople that we sign up for Rheem distributors, we make 19 t hem handle the units a specific way and do all those 20 o ther things. So if you get it from some random 21 I nternet provider, then we have no idea how these units 22 h ave been handled or anything like that. So I do think

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 68 1 t hat's an important point, so thank you. 2 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I 3 t hink we need to watch that we don't use the 4 " distributor" term like for two different things. 5 B ecause our Mitsubishi operation, we do distribute to 6 d istributors, so that's two levels of distributors. So 7 i f we call like one maybe the OEM distributor and the 8 o ther just a plain distributor, something along those 9 l ines. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, you're saying by the time 11 y ou get to the second level in your case, you're just 12 l ike-- 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 C arrier. So in DoE's mind how would that work? If 21 y ou're going to get a unit from a distributor is this 22 w here you would come to the manufacturer and you would

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 69 1 s ay we want to test--or these are the units that are 2 s elected for the verification test program, and they're 3 b uild-to-stock models. So first we would look to see 4 i f we have it in our warehouse. If not, then do we 5 p ull our distribution to see if we have a unit in our 6 d istribution somewhere or is the DoE going to just go 7 o ut and dig around and try to find each unit? I would 8 p refer it if it's the former, where DoE comes to the 9 m anufacturer and says we have--these units are selected 10 f or the verification program. Are they build-to-stock 11 m odels? If they're build-to-stock models, then do you 12 h ave them in inventory in your warehouse or are you 13 a ware of them being available in a distributor? 14 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I think he's 15 t rying to say let's get a priority list. Number one is 16 m anufacturer's stock. If it's there, it would be first 17 p riority to choose from. Secondly, distributor stock. 18 T hirdly, manufactured build. 19 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, that's part of it. The 20 o ther thing, Charlie, is I'm just thinking that since 21 t he manufacturer's paying for these units and the 22 t ests, I'm not sure that I want DoE to go to a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 70 1 d istributor and try to get the unit directly from the 2 d istributor without the manufacturer being able to say, 3 y es, that's an authorized distributor, to Karen's 4 p oint. 5 MS. BARHYDT: Don't your authorized 6 d istributors advertise that fact? 7 MR. HURST: (Off microphone.) 8 MS. BARHYDT: I'm a Carrier-authorized 9 d istributor. 10 MR. HURST: Yes. 11 MR. WHITWELL: I suppose they would, yes. 12 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Not 13 f or some of the smaller manufacturers. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 15 MR. EISNER: If we discussed yesterday that 16 i t's more expensive to get it from the distributor, and 17 i t doesn't go from the foreign manufacturer directly to 18 t he distributor, it goes through the company, why 19 w ouldn't we wait until the company just got more from 20 t he foreign distributor and limit the distributor to 21 t he situation when it comes from the foreign 22 m anufacturer directly to the distributor?

### Capita l 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 i mpose a higher burden on the foreign manufacturers. 3 MR. EISNER: It's not a higher burden. If it 4 n ever comes through the American manufacturer, the only 5 w ay you can get it is from the distributor. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Right, but if I am a foreign 7 m anufacturer and I'm selling stuff in to the United 8 S tates, and I the foreign OEM am responsible for its 9 i mportation, but then it goes to a variety of different 10 d istributors, I necessarily am going to have to buy 11 b ack my units whereas a lot of other manufacturers do 12 n ot. 13 MR. EISNER: Well, why not simply say in that 14 s ituation a foreign manufacturer has the option of 15 s upplying one directly to the American manufacturer for 16 t he testing? 17 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there's not always an 18 A merican manufacturer on the other end. 19 MR. EISNER: It's just a company selling 20 s omebody else's product? 21 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 22 MR. EISNER: Well, why doesn't the foreign

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 72 1 m anufacturer just send it directly to the place that's 2 g oing to do the testing? 3 MS. BARHYDT: Would you all be comfortable 4 w ith that? 5 MR. HURST: No. 6 MS. BARHYDT: I didn't think so. 7 MR. EISNER: It's not worth repeating, I 8 g uess. 9 MR. HURST: Well, you wind up with the same 10 s cenario you talked about earlier where potentially 11 s omebody could--if you knew that the test was coming, 12 y ou modify your manufacturing process or change 13 c omponentry to rig the result of the test. 14 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I 15 m ean, essentially you have the same situation of an OEM 16 d istribution warehouse with, you know, the importers as 17 y ou do with a Rheem or a Trane or a Carrier on the 18 s tock items. I mean, we have stocked items. The only 19 d ifference is that it may take two hours or less to get 20 f rom their factory to their warehouse, but it takes us, 21 y ou know, six weeks or so. So that's the primary 22 d ifference. It's not like everything comes in and then

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 73 1 s uddenly has gone out to our other distributors. 2 MR. LIN: Laura, if I may. This is Paul with 3 R egal-Beloit. I just wanted to go back on that motor 4 q uestion. 5 The Customs officials may understand to look 6 a t the general purpose duty motor and look for a CC 7 n umber if that particular Customs official understood 8 w hat a general purpose duty motor was. 9 The second point is if it's inside of the 10 e quipment, that particular Customs official won't know 11 w hether or not that particular motor inside the 12 e quipment is a general purpose duty and would have to 13 b e checked, whether or not they had to have a CC number 14 o n it. 15 MS. BARHYDT: I think the earlier question 16 w as would the test lab be checking for that as part of 17 t he testing process. I don't remember now who asked 18 t he question. 19 MR. WHITWELL: You're right, that's really 20 w hat my question was. 21 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, Paul, back to what 22 y ou were talking about. So I think what you were

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 74 1 s aying was that your foreign manufactured products come 2 i n, they go into one of your warehouses. They may sit 3 t here for a while, then they may go to a distributor 4 a nd sit there for a while, and then eventually filter 5 t hrough the chain. And my concern is for the foreign 6 m anufacturer who does not have an American presence and 7 i s simply selling the products into the United States 8 a nd it's going to a variety of distributors, that 9 f oreign manufacturer is necessary going to have to buy 10 b ack units for testing unless we let them ship directly 11 t o a lab. Whereas if we get them from you, out of your 12 w arehouse, you're not having to buy them back. 13 MR. DOPPEL: Generally speaking, what happens 14 w ith the AHRI process is that, you know, if they ask 15 f or a certain--especially on the one-to-ones, if they 16 a sk for a certain model and we don't have any in our 17 s tock, but we have a comparable one, then, you know, a 18 c hange is made and then the new one is randomly 19 s elected. You know, if not, then we'd have to say, 20 w ell, you know, give us 90 days, 120 days, and we would 21 g et-- 22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so you were raising a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 75 1 t iming issue. 2 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 4 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. So, I mean, we could get 5 t he product made available, but it would take--and 6 a gain, building it and having it shipped, or we could 7 a ir freight it at your expense. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill. I'm going to 9 h ave to talk to some people here because we have to be 10 r eal careful that we're not creating a barrier to 11 t rade, so. But I share your concerns, which is why for 12 m e the easiest case is to require everyone to buy the 13 u nit back because then everybody's treated equally. 14 B ut I understand your also not wanting to pay the extra 15 c osts, so. 16 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. I 17 m ean, just speaking for our company, I don't think 18 w e've ever had to buy a unit back in order to satisfy 19 m odels for AHRI testing. I don't remember ever having 20 t o do that. I don't know about the other manufacturers, 21 b ut. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill from Trane.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 76 1 R ight, Paul, but I think it's because AHRI, we can 2 u sually go back to them and say we have this issue, 3 h ere is a comparable model and so we'd get a 4 r eselection up to the amount that we're already 5 o bligated to. So it's that flexibility that you are 6 a llowed to have the reselection. If it has to be that 7 e xact model, then we're sometimes stuck. Yeah, I think 8 w e would be stuck, but AHRI has that flexibility. 9 I like Neil's idea of, you know, for those of 10 u s that are being very responsible and doing it, I 11 d on't think we need to pay for the fact that there are 12 t he bad actors. So requiring more rigorous testing, 13 y ou know, they go into a penalty mode, whatever you 14 w ant to call it, and such that they get more rigor on 15 t hem for the bad actors than for the people who are 16 d oing it every day. We don't need to, you know, pay for 17 t hat bad apple. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So I understand that, but if we 19 d on't have strict enough requirements on that first 20 t est, we'll never get one that fails. We won't catch 21 t he bad actor to impose an additional penalty. If 22 t hey're able to game whatever system we come up with,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 77 1 t hen they're not going to be at risk of the higher 2 p enalty. 3 MR. HURST: Well, I think you have to show up 4 a t the facility then and say what do you have in 5 i nventory and you have to test that. Otherwise, you 6 k now, we want to test the 1-2-3-4. Don't have any in 7 s tock. Going to have to build it. I mean, if you need 8 t o get to that level, then I think you have to pick 9 f rom what's in inventory. And then maybe there's some 10 l eniency down the road once you see producers or 11 m anufacturers that are behaving, that consistently 12 p ass. Then maybe you relax to a different standard. 13 B ut 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 m aybe in the back-and-forth we've eliminated this test, 17 I thought you were going to do some spot-checking on 18 y our own if you bought something in the commercial 19 m arket. 20 MS. BARHYDT: So actually, no. Somebody said 21 t hat earlier, too, so I wanted to clarify that. So our 22 i dea is that everybody would be in a DoE-approved

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78 1 v erification program and we think that we can come up 2 w ith some parameters for those so that we can balance 3 a ll of the different concerns, but everybody would have 4 t o be in a verification program. And because everybody 5 w ould have a certain level of verification going on, 6 D oE could use its resources in other ways. We would 7 s till be doing complaints. We would still be doing 8 r ulemaking testing and we would still do enforcement 9 t esting. So the assessment testing would be limited to 10 i nvestigating problems. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay, so complaints made. What 12 a bout some kind of a minimum standard where a certain 13 n umber of tests have to be done on something that's in 14 s tock? 15 MS. BARHYDT: That's kind of what I was 16 t hinking. Maybe we can come up with some hybrid here 17 w here not everything is coming from-- 18 MR. EISNER: Right off the assembly line. 19 MS. BARHYDT: Right off the assembly line, 20 b ut where at least some amount of in-stock items are 21 b eing tested and in that way reduce the burden. 22 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. I guess

### Capita l 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 b etter. Are you saying, for example, that you're 3 c oncerned with the way AHRI is doing its verification 4 p rogram, for example, today? 5 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think that DoE would 6 w ant to adopt exactly what AHRI is doing. 7 MR. AMRANE: Because? Well, I don't know, 8 l et's talk about it. I want to know. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Because we are concerned about 10 t he issues with having units built for tests. 11 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. To that 12 p oint and answering or commenting on your question, 13 w e'll never catch the bad actors. I've been to a 14 n umber of annual reports from AHRI and, at least within 15 t he commercial programs, just about every year there 16 a re annual verification tests that are failed. There's 17 a report on that and they're always looking at that 18 l evel of failure. And that is with forewarning of, you 19 k now, we need a selection of these models. The system, 20 t hat process works. 21 MR. EISNER: That kind of data in the 22 p reamble could also help explain why you're coming out

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 80 1 w here you are. 2 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 3 MR. AMRANE: Laura, I mean, maybe Bill can 4 e laborate on this, but we don't have 100 percent, you 5 k now, tests. 6 MS. BARHYDT: No, I understand that. And I 7 h edged my statement that if the system we come up with 8 i s not stringent enough, if it's got too many ways to 9 g ame the system. So, for example, one of the things 10 t hat a lot of people are pushing for is to allow the 11 s atellite testing with no witness. You don't allow 12 t hat. So, I mean, there's some balances here where if 13 y ou're going to allow one, you got to kind of tighten 14 u p somewhere else. 15 MR. EISNER: Are your statistics precise 16 e nough while still remaining anonymous to indicate that 17 s ome companies are worse than others, so, therefore, a 18 p enalty program would have an effect? 19 MR. AMRANE: Actually we do have--this is 20 K arim with AHRI. We do have a penalty program in our 21 s ystem because that's how--that's the incentive for 22 p eople not to fail.

### Capita l 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 c ould penalize, roughly? 3 MR. AMRANE: Well, maybe Bill can elaborate. 4 MR. TRITSIS: Yes, look, this is Bill 5 T ritsis, 6 AHRI. There is a reason why manufacturers 7 s pend the money to join a credible certification 8 p rogram or verification program if you want to call it: 9 t o distinguish themselves from the bad actors. Okay? 10 A program like AHRI that has existed for over 60 years, 11 a nd in the absence of DoE during, you know, a 12 r egulatory enforcement, you know, it was AHRI that was 13 d oing this very enforcement. Okay? And the 14 m anufacturers who join the programs are, again, joining 15 t he programs to distinguish themselves. There are 16 c ertain rules and elements that exist in a credible 17 v erification program that have proven themselves in the 18 A HRI system, okay, such as the challenge testing 19 p rocedure, the ability to do what we call discretionary 20 t esting. AHRI has a budget for discretionary testing 21 t hat's over and above the annual testing, where we go 22 a nd select units, you know, other distributors, some of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 82 1 t he points that you mentioned here. 2 And yes, there are provisions, monetary 3 p enalty provisions, or if you want to call it profiling 4 d uring the continuous annual testing that we have put 5 i n place, where we know, you know, what the target, 6 c ertain products perhaps I might have doubts on. Okay? 7 B ut yes, there are failure rates in each and every 8 p rogram. 9 MR. EISNER: And there some that are a lot 10 w orse than others. 11 MR. TRITSIS: Correct. 12 MR. EISNER: And do you have any data that 13 i ndicates whether the penalty provision works? Can you 14 s ee a company here, after the penalties are imposed, 15 t hey start coming-- 16 MR. TRITSIS: Absolutely, because the burden 17 i s such, either in monetary penalties or additional 18 t esting. 19 MR. EISNER: This could be a good way to 20 b alance the budget. 21 (Laughter.) 22 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 83 1 m ean, I just happened to remember I think the number's 2 l ike $10,000 per failure once you go over kind of the 3 m inimum. So, I mean, that's very stiff. 4 MR. EISNER: What's interesting is this is a 5 v oluntary program. 6 MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 7 MR. EISNER: Yours is not a voluntary 8 p rogram. 9 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'll 10 t hrow in, you know, there's a probation mode and a 11 p enalty mode. And internally and (inaudible) very 12 s mall engineering committee meetings that we've been 13 d iscussing, we refer to AHRI's penalty mode as the 14 d eath penalty because you don't want to get there 15 b ecause it is so hard to get out that we feel it's 16 o verly burdensome of what AHRI has put on us. So 17 t hat's what we refer--you know, that's the penalty 18 m ode. We don't want to get there because it's 19 b asically all testing is done--all testing for any new 20 p roduct has to be done outside your labs. 21 MS. MEYERS: And this is Karen with Rheem. 22 A nd Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 84 1 f ailures that you can have that send you into either 2 p robation or penalty mode are based upon the number of 3 b asic model groups that you have. So, I mean, if 4 y ou're a small company and only have like two basic 5 m odel groups, you fail one test, you're in probation. 6 S o we scaled it purposely because, you know, A, if you 7 h ave a ton of them, then, you know, it needs to be a 8 l ittle bit comparable. So, you know, it's a pretty 9 s tringent program that we put together. And there's a 10 l ot of--it's caused a lot of heartache, but it's been 11 e ffective. 12 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. Karen 13 u sed the word "pretty stringent," I would say very 14 s tringent. And I just want to reiterate the comment I 15 t hink Jill made yesterday that we spend millions of 16 d ollars on the AHRI certification program and it's 17 p retty substantial. And I guess from what we've 18 d iscussed so far, my view is that what DoE is proposing 19 i s a step below from AHRI has presently. 20 MR. TRITSIS: Laura. That's right. From 21 w hat I hear so far, in the two days I've been attending 22 t hese meetings, I mean, what is being discussed as part

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 85 1 o f the verification program within DoE is several steps 2 b elow what we're doing. If we want to up the ante 3 h ere, I mean, we'd be more than happy to challenge you 4 a nd, you know, meet some of these conditions that 5 c urrently exist in our program. 6 And you know we've been reporting to you 7 p roduct failures. Below federal minimums. Okay, it's 8 n ot a secret. So, not only does within AHRI, those 9 o utside of AHRI that haven't been part of our challenge 10 p rogram. 11 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. And I 12 a gree with what everyone said here. The one point is 13 w hat Karen said about having it based on basic model 14 g roups. It is very much a different situation for the 15 s maller manufacturers therefore the larger 16 m anufacturers. Those penalties are-- 17 MS. HOOTMAN: I don't agree with-- 18 MR. STEPHENS: Those penalties are just about 19 t he death penalty for smaller manufacturers. Having a 20 v oluntary organization is one thing, but what we're 21 t alking about is establishing a requirement and I could 22 n ot support having a requirement with that type of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 86 1 i mpact. 2 MR. EISNER: Again, penalties can be adjusted 3 s o that they don't put companies out of business but 4 s till hurt. 5 Let's go back to a government program that's 6 v oluntary, the Energy Star program. As I understand 7 i t, it's a level that's above the regulatory 8 r equirement. A company comes in, I assume what they 9 a re saying is, "We believe our equipment will qualify 10 f or Energy Star." Do we know what percentage fails 11 w hen they are tested under Energy Star? In other 12 w ords, don't qualify for programs that they thought 13 t hey qualified for. 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, first of all with Energy 15 S tar there's no margin of error, there's no five 16 p ercent tolerance. So, you have to be there for 17 c ommercial 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 n ot the same as AHRI. 22 MR. EISNER: But again, my standard could be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 87 1 h ere for Energy Star, you can have a little bit above 2 a nd a little bit below, do we even know how many would 3 h ave failed even with allowance for tolerance? 4 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss with Lochinvar. 5 A gain, the Energy Star program, say for boilers the 6 t hreshold is 85 percent efficiency. If we have a 95 7 p ercent efficient appliance-- 8 MR. EISNER: It would pass. 9 MR. KLEISS: We could be running 10 percent 10 b elow our rating and still pass. But if we had an 85 11 p ercent efficient appliance, we would have to hit our 12 n umber. 13 MR. EISNER: You would have to hit your 14 n umber. What I'm asking is do we know some that are at 15 8 8, 89 percent that don't pass the 85? Or do we know 16 s ome that miss 85 by being as low as 80? So that there 17 i s some indication that a government-run program, a 18 v oluntary program, companies are still failing. In 19 o ther words, you will pick up failures. 20 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I 21 b elieve the EPA makes those statistics available. I 22 t hink they've done some testing and DoE has been doing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 88 1 t he testing for EPA, too and the CBs are reporting to 2 E PA, so that's available. 3 MR. EISNER: I think now might be a good time 4 f or 10, 15 minute break. 5 (Break.) 6 MR. EISNER: All right. Let's get started 7 a gain. 8 (Pause.) 9 MS. BARHYDT: So I talked to a couple of 10 p eople during the break and so just to explain a little 11 b it about where we're coming from, there are a lot of 12 v ariables in a verification program in our view is that 13 w e want to come up with a system that gives us a high 14 l evel of confidence in the results coming out of the 15 t esting. But that could be achieved, maybe through a 16 m enu system of each individual program picks off of 17 t his level for selection, this level for testing, this 18 h igher level for some other part of the process. 19 So that as a whole any DoE program provides a 20 c ertain level of stringency. Maybe different people 21 w ill tailor in different ways and all that would be 22 r eviewed by the Department to make sure that the plan,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 89 1 t he program meets that level. 2 It's not so much that we are particularly 3 l ooking at anyone issue, saying we absolutely want this 4 a nswer. It's that as a whole we want each individual 5 D oE-approved their fixation program to reach a certain 6 l evel. And that could be through a balance of 7 d ifferent items. And that's why I was thinking, as I 8 s aid beginning of the meeting that maybe the way to go 9 a bout this is to come up with different variables. To 10 m ake sure everybody understands what the range of 11 o ptions is. And then, we can talk about how those 12 c ombinations might work together to build a system that 13 p rovided that level of certainty. 14 Jeff you look like you have something to say. 15 MR. KLEISS: Sorry, my face is so telling. 16 J eff Kleiss with Lochinvar. 17 I think I hear what you're saying, that if 18 w e're going to give more latitude, say on product 19 s election, then we want to be tighter or have higher 20 a ssurances that they're using the specific components 21 o r some other area to make sure that there is testing. 22 A nd I'm scrunching up my face, I guess, just because I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 90 1 b elieve that for most of the manufacturing processes 2 t hat you would have the problem of not being able to 3 p ick something off the shelf; all of the worst-case 4 s cenarios for your assurances exist within the same 5 t ypes of manufacturing processes. I guess is where I'm 6 g oing. 7 And I'm somewhat skeptical that you're going 8 t o be a double to balance them with some of the 9 p rocess. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So little confidence. 11 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 12 N ational. I think one of the things that's kind of 13 h itting me, Laura, in understanding the level of DoE's 14 c oncerns and our concerns, too, in making sure that we 15 w eed out people. It seems to be pointing to the fact 16 t hat the DoE spot checking, which you know, is a 17 d ifferent set of rules. You can go and buy a unit off 18 t he shelf or whatever, I think what this is sort of 19 p ointing to is that, you know, kind of look at this as 20 a nnual verification versus DoE having a separate 21 p rogram that's still spot checking and giving you that 22 l evel that what's pulled out of the box is going to do

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 91 1 i t and everything else. 2 Obviously none of this stops that, but I 3 t hink this points to the fact that, you know, with 4 D oE's concerns that we'll need to continue to back this 5 u p otherwise I just don't see a way and getting a 6 v erification program that gives a level--on its own 7 g ives that level that you're concerned about without 8 b eing a very big burden on manufacturers. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. What 10 s trikes me is the same thing that manufacturers are up 11 a gainst when we do reliability testing. It's the 12 n umber of samples required to test to obtain an 13 a dequate confidence level. And from the manufacturers 14 p osition it's improbable that anyone could afford to 15 a ctually do all that testing to prove your reliability 16 a t the required confidence level. But from your 17 p erspective are you looking to make sure that every 18 i ndividual manufacturer is good or are you looking at 19 t he industry as a whole? 20 I see that because if you're looking at the 21 i ndustry as a whole, then it may not be that difficult 22 f or you to have enough data points to identify that on

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 92 1 a verage the industry is doing well or is doing poorly. 2 I t's more of a mathematical calculation. 3 MR. SACHS: This Laura-- 4 (Laughter.) 5 MR. SACHS: Phillip, I may be missing 6 s omething but your question confuses me in the confuses 7 m e from the perspective that I thought early on we had 8 e stablished the principle that DoE would no longer have 9 t olerance bands but would have a one-sided tolerance 10 l imit. We've also, certainly I think, gotten to the 11 p oint of saying if it's a one off as opposed to what 12 w e've been talking about this morning; you only test 13 o ne because it is the universe. So, it seems to me to 14 a larger extent this burden of statistics has gone away 15 i n that you have the choice of making as much headroom 16 a s you feel is required for your product to get through 17 a ll the ambiguities of the test procedure. And you can 18 c hoose that based on your control of your practices and 19 y our gut sense about the capabilities of the lab. 20 So, I don't know why it has to shift from the 21 i ndividual product or even the individual manufacturer 22 t o the product classes of whole. I may be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 93 1 m isunderstanding something. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. What I'm 3 t rying to do is I'm trying to find somewhere in the 4 m iddle that we could meet the DoE's objectives without 5 h aving an intense burden on any of the manufacturers. 6 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. We share 7 t hat objective, so I'm undoubtedly oversimplifying it, 8 I haven't been in your factory; but it seems to me that 9 t his is a risk trade-off that you accepted. What 10 i nvestment do you have to make to be sure if your 11 p roduct is sampled it clears the bar, on a one-sided 12 b asis, just like the CRE folks are having to do for 13 E nergy Star. I don't--it's not my problem is you 14 d ecide you have to invest a lot of money to make it a 15 w hole lot more efficient. That's your control in your 16 p rocesses. So, I think we set up a system that aims to 17 p ut the responsibility where it belongs and as a side 18 b enefit may give me a little more efficiency than you 19 w anted to. 20 MS. DANE: This is Mary Dane from Traulsen. 21 I think the difference between the Energy Star program 22 a nd the DoE program is that the DoE program is going to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 94 1 b e mandatory, because we have to certify everything 2 b efore we place it on the market after a certain day. 3 So, I think what companies like Phillip's and 4 m ine are trying to do, is we're trying to find a way to 5 b eat the requirements and leverage what we're already 6 d oing. You know, is there a way that within our test 7 p arameters we can add one more step or do one more set 8 o f certifications. So, you know, I want to be careful, 9 e specially we start talking about tolerances, because a 10 l ot of these people at this table believe that we voted 11 o n tolerances based on qualifying in AEDM, not across 12 t he board for everything we're talking about. 13 So, you know, I just want to say there some 14 d ifferent than when we start talking about qualities of 15 2 0 percent or higher, or more, you know, divided by 16 p roduct families is because of the number of product 17 f amilies and base model units we're talking about here, 18 t hese numbers are very important to us. 19 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, again. And Mary, 20 t hank you. I had forgotten the actual vote was on the 21 A EDMs. 22 I think the principle is broadly applicable

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 95 1 i n the benchmark that I want sort of aligns with 2 L aura's in this case. That I'd like to have a level 3 p laying field for programs other than trade 4 a ssociation, other than AHRI, and I don't want it to be 5 a ny worse than AHRI's. So, if you can satisfy me with 6 a ny combination of magic numbers and business practices 7 a nd ISOs or whatever, that your no worse than AHRI, I'm 8 g oing to be a happy camper with Laura's or not. 9 MS. DANE: Understood, but right now 10 e specially in CRE, a lot of us aren't in the program 11 b ecause of the costs. I know that there is some 12 d iscussion on, you know, I've heard a lot of 13 m anufacturers say about the millions of dollars they're 14 s pending to be a part of those programs. CRE is just 15 n ot--I can't speak for all of the companies at the 16 t able because we're small, but I think that would be 17 b urdensome. Twenty percent is too high of a number for 18 u s. So, we can get close and our testing could be more 19 s tringent based on less numbers tested, so I too, would 20 l ike to see there be more options than just the AHRI 21 p rogram. 22 MR. AMRANE: But Mary, I'm sorry just a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 96 1 m inute Harvey. Mary we don't have 20 percent for CRE 2 p roducts and that's not the way we run our programs. 3 A ctually, we have a maximum of (inaudible) here. So, 4 i t's not 20 percent, okay. 5 MS. DANE: I'm only going by the numbers so 6 f ar that your membership's bringing up. As we test 20 7 p ercent, we press 20 percent. I want to make sure 8 L aura doesn't think, "Oh, that's great. We should just 9 s ign up for 20 percent." 10 MR. AMRANE: No. What we test 20 percent is 11 t he HVAC, I mean most of the HVAC products are this 12 w ay. But not CRE. 13 MS. DANE: Okay. So, that's the first time-- 14 w ell, the second time, because Bill did tell me by 15 h imself that you do test to units. I heard him tell 16 C harlie, but still the number we're throwing around at 17 t his table is that it should be just like AHRI, as 18 s tringent as them. And the only number I've heard up 19 t o this point is 20 percent. 20 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly. It's 20 percent 21 o f the basic model groups 22 MR. AMRANE: Right.

### Capita l 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 m odel groups is probably 5:1 to 10:1 or more. We 3 r eally don't know. 4 MS. DANE: Have we decided what the number 5 b asic models groups is yet? Because I still am looking 6 t o do the math calculation based on the number of 7 w hatever it is that we decide. I know Ron and said so 8 i n the e-mail this morning and I'm saying we don't know 9 w hat that number is. So, we're kind of negotiating 10 b lindly and it makes a difference to both the smaller 11 c ompany 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 a nd say 20 percent is too high. 16 MR. TRITSIS: Bill Tritsis, AHRI. 17 P articularly for CRE in the AHRI program, there's six 18 p roduct families. Twenty percent of six is--you can do 19 t he math, up to two tests a year. 20 MR. AMRANE: And to answer your question 21 M ary, we're going to be coming up next weekend at least 22 s how how the groupings are within AHRI and the number

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 98 1 o f 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 T he concept that I want to give me assurance is that 5 i t's no worse than AHRI at finding intentional 6 s ubversion of the standards. And that gives you lots 7 o f trade-offs between numbers, quality of tests, 8 h eadroom of the product design, and lots of other 9 t hings. I'm not smart enough to judge that and I don't 10 t hink Laura is trained to, but that's the objective 11 t hat I have. It's not about stringency per se, that's 12 j ust one way to get to it. I think. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Any other thoughts on the menu 14 m ix and match concept. We kind of went off on a 15 t angent. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah we did, so say that again. 17 MS. BARHYDT: So what DoE wants to do is to 18 c ome up with a framework for parties, whether it's 19 i ndustry groups, test labs, somebody who just wants to 20 g o in the business for themselves, and manufacturer, 21 w hoever to be able to read to regulations and say, 22 " Okay, I get it. I have to come up with a program to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 99 1 d o verification testing that is going to provide some 2 l evel of reliability, independent, certainty that the 3 r esults are representative of the products being 4 p roduced." 5 And that can be achieved in a variety of 6 w ays. And there are a lot of different factors and it's 7 n ot that DoE looks at anyone of these factors and says 8 w e absolutely want third-party verification testing in 9 t he lab, in a third-party lab. 10 It's that maybe you take the higher level 11 t here and you let the foreign manufacturers ship it 12 d irectly from their facility in a foreign country. But 13 m aybe there is a way to do some trade-offs so that when 14 y ou put it all together, you feel like that you've got 15 a system that works. But maybe another manufacturer 16 c hooses to do in-house testing using a third or fourth 17 t ier, whatever it is, of the lab but they have all of 18 t heir units are coming from distributors already out of 19 t heir control. But, as a whole it needs to reach a 20 c ertain level and maybe there are different ways to do 21 t hat. We don't feel like we necessarily have to tell 22 e veryone has to do it this way.

### Capita l 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 w ith ways to meet that level to the DoE's satisfaction, 3 b ut also fit their needs. 4 MR. EISNER: This sounds like an if/then 5 t able. If you are or if you verify in the following 6 w ay, then you must do the following. You list the 7 c onditions for that. If you choose to verify this way, 8 t hen you must do the following. 9 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. But in 10 d oing this I hope DoE will not start assuming that all 11 m anufacturers are bad actors. Because that's the 12 i mpression that you're giving us today, is that 13 m anufacturers are bad actors and we need to do 14 s omething, you know, that's what I'm saying. I think 15 w e need to start from the premise that actually all 16 m anufacturers are good actors and most of them 17 p articipate in voluntary certification programs today 18 b ecause they are good actors. 19 MR. EISNER: And that could be handled in the 20 s ame way. If the following happens then you must. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: So are you going to line that 22 o ut and give that to us to look at? Or what?

### Capita l 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 b een going through the different questions is to make 6 s ure that we have all of the different options on the 7 t able. Because, I mean, you all have thrown out ideas 8 t hat I haven't thought of and certainly you all have, 9 w ith scenarios that I hadn't thought of. And we need 10 t o make sure whatever we come up with addresses all of 11 t hose. 12 MR. EISNER: Do we want to put a blank chart 13 u p? With an "If you..." and then start putting all of 14 t he "If you's" in there? 15 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think what they are 16 y et. 17 MR. EISNER: But you want to get the ideas. 18 MS. BARHYDT: I want to get all of the ideas, 19 b ut not-- 20 MR. EISNER: That's what I'm saying. 21 MS. BARHYDT: --figure out the hierarchy of 22 i f this then that.

### Capita l 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 a nd then you must, I'm saying first get the "If you" 3 a nd then put in each different way that people can do 4 t he testing. In other words, if you are a foreign 5 m anufacturer and you want X, and not worry about the 6 t hen. I'm just trying to figure out how to get the 7 v arious options up on the chart show we have a starting 8 p oint, because we've been talking for quite a few hours 9 a bout this. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm trying to figure out what 12 t he 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 d iscretion in selecting? Can the regulation provide 17 d iscretion to DoE for selection of VICP programs that 18 a re approved by the Department? So if you're going 19 u nder a third-party, like an AHRI program that you can 20 e stablish the acceptance criteria for that program and 21 i f you accept that as a reasonable substitute or 22 s omething in excess of a base program that you would go

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 103 1 w ith whatever they have. If you accepted it with, to 2 m e, with one exception and that is in the selection 3 p rocess you have the option of saying, "No, I'd rather 4 y ou test this model instead of that." 5 They would normally do that, but if you 6 w anted to intervene you would retain that ability to 7 s uggest an alternate model to be tested. And then, 8 h ave a program for people who are not in that 9 i ndependent, third--let's call it the manufacturers 10 a pproved program and it would have a set of rules that 11 w ould be very distinct, but might be quite different 12 t han the rules for the VICP. 13 If so, I have a recommendation for that 14 a lternate--the manufacturers DoE approved verification 15 p rogram. It would be universal and fairly simple if we 16 c ould agree on it. That will get all of the 17 p articipants in the AHRI program, assuming that was 18 d eemed to be an acceptable program. Kind of using 19 H arvey's language, at least that. 20 Those who are in that program would have to 21 d o anything more than they do today and we would 22 e stablish a program for those who are not in that type

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 104 1 o f DoE accepted VICP verification program. 2 All of that rolls back to do we have to 3 s tipulate the exact requirements for an independent 4 V ICP program, as opposed to a manufacturers VICP 5 p rogram. 6 MS. BARHYDT: I think we do, because there is 7 r ight now and industry program, but it seems at least 8 p lausible that labs may want to and it seems to me that 9 t hey would also be independent. And so, I do think we 10 n eed to set up a framework for any type of party wants 11 t o have a DoE approved program. 12 MR. MYERS: Let me make--I won't go through 13 e very detail, but let me give you what I was thinking 14 i n terms of--and we look that this similarly before on 15 t he screen. And that is, for participants in a DoE 16 a pproved manufacturers verification program, which 17 c ould also be-- from my perspective, a testing 18 l aboratory or somebody else could be responsible for 19 t he same program. 20 The model to be tested--or the quantities are 21 b elow and the models to be tested will be suggested by 22 t he manufacturer to DoE, but DoE makes the selection of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 105 1 w hat needs to be tested. And then, it's based on basic 2 m odels. If you have one basic model, and this is all 3 i n a five-year period, so you divide by five. If you 4 h ave one model you test five, one per year. If you 5 h ave two to 25 you test two per year, 26 to 50 you 6 t est--note per year, I'm sorry, per five years. 7 T wenty-six to 50 you do 14 and then elevates up to over 8 2 00, you'd do 30 over five years. 9 And they are selected by you. You know, we 10 c ould suggest models to you but you would actually be 11 t he one, DoE would be the one selecting it. 12 And the reason I wouldn't want to apply that 13 n ecessarily to the AHRI program, is AHRI might have 14 c ertain conditions where you would do fewer than that, 15 b ut they have years of experience in adequately 16 c ontrolling the market. Elsewise I would say let this 17 b e the base and if anybody wants to do more, they could 18 d o more. 19 (Pause.) 20 MR. MYERS: I'm sorry, there's one other 21 i ngredient here. I didn't scroll down quite far 22 e nough.

### Capita l 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 m oment. 3 One failure increases the test burden by 25 4 p ercent rounded up. Two failures increases the test 5 b urden by 100 percent. You have to do twice as much. 6 T hree failures increases the test burden by 300 7 p ercent. 8 So there would be an escalating number of 9 t est required. Again, with that--especially if you get 10 t o three failures, that would be a crushing number of 11 t ests. 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 y ou're proposing any way for a similar program like 16 A HRI runs, it's going to be significantly lower number 17 o f tests that we do currently. 18 MR. MYERS: It might well. I understand that 19 t here are some manufacturers that would under the AHRI 20 t ests would be substantially more, but here these are 21 f ocused by DoE. If they hear any comments from anybody 22 t hey don't have to do special testing, they can do it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 107 1 e ach year. Take whatever they've heard from the 2 i ndustry, whatever additional test data they've got, it 3 c an be quite focused. 4 Looking at minimum efficiency products are 5 t he most efficient product, I think you could be 6 s elective go after anybody who is not doing the testing 7 c orrectly. 8 But yes, in some cases it would be a 9 s ubstantially lower quantity of tests. 10 MR. EISNER: Other reactions? 11 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI. Again, I 12 t hink-- of course, will have to discuss with our 13 m embers, but a proposal like this will probably not 14 f ly. At least from our standpoint. I think it has to 15 b e at least in the ballpark, I mean, we're talking 16 s ubstantially lower. 17 So we are lowering the bar from what we 18 c urrently have, which is not really where we want to 19 g o. 20 MR. MYERS: I certainly appreciate that. 21 T his is Frank Myers, again with PVI. 22 I appreciate that position but where you are

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 108 1 t alking about lowering the bar that bar was set for 2 m anufacturers who voluntarily participate. And what 3 w e're looking at here is some floor that can give DoE 4 a nd the Advocates confidence that if you have a bad 5 p layer 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 g ive the assurance that it would accomplish that. You 9 w ould not be able to find the bad player with your 10 p roposal or it would be highly unlikely. If we really 11 w ant to make sure that only legal products are being 12 d istributed in commerce, then the program would need to 13 b e 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 E nergy Star's not this, but I would feel better if 17 t here was some way we could get from either CSA, ETL, 18 a nd UL the percentage of models that fail the testing 19 t hat they follow up on. Because, I mean, again we're 20 s itting here blindly. I know we have two 21 r epresentatives in here, but they may not have access 22 t o those numbers and maybe it is a call to Energy Star

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 109 1 d irect. But, I can't believe that those programs are 2 n ot exposing bad players and are not taking some kind 3 o f action before them. 4 And like I said, people join voluntary 5 p rograms based on their ability to afford them. So, I 6 j ust wanted to make sure that when we're talking about 7 a level playing field we don't know that the programs 8 t hat exist now for, you know, they need to get a hold 9 o f their groups and find out what they're doing, how 10 m any they're catching, what they're doing about it. 11 B ecause they couldn't be on a level playing field 12 e xcept dollar and cents wise or, you know, because it's 13 l ike we've said it's been you're going to find out who 14 i s failing and they will be involved in the same 15 p rogram. 16 If we are testing twice a year for some of 17 o ur programs, maybe we just need to look at those and 18 f ind out how they're comparing to AHRI. 19 MS. BARHYDT: In DoE's testing there's a huge 20 a mount of variability in how many failures there are by 21 t he different products. The failure rates are not 22 r emotely similar for different products.

### Capita l 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 t here major distinctions that would account for that 3 t hat could be addressed? 4 MR. HURST: Can you give some detail on that? 5 N ot numbers, but do you know product-- 6 MS. BARHYDT: I don't really know-- 7 MR. HURST: Is it driven by variability or 8 p roduct complexity? 9 MS. BARHYDT: You know, I really don't know. 10 Without really looking at the data, with that 11 i n mind because that's not really the way I've been 12 l ooking at it. It's just that I know the actual rates 13 o f what we test and what passes in what fails is very 14 d ifferent for different products. 15 MR. HURST: Where does HVAC rate in those? 16 i n that continuum of-- 17 MR. SACHS: I think there is enough concern 18 a bout this Laura, that you may want to ask staff to 19 b ring us a bit of a summary if HVAC is much worse than 20 s et top boxes and toasters. 21 MS. BARHYDT: We don't test set top boxes and 22 t oasters.

### Capita l 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 f ailure 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 t han 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 a dd would-- 14 MR. WHITWELL: It would be a lot easier and 15 c heaper to test. 16 MR. HURST: I wanted to add a little bit to 17 w hat Mary said. We don't participate in a voluntary 18 p rogram 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 d o it. 21 But there is a benefit to our contractors. 22 T here is a marketing benefit that they know what

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 112 1 t hey're buying to sell into commerce to their consumers 2 m eets the efficiency standards. So, you know, I'm kind 3 o f double- sided here, because both commercial 4 r efrigeration, as well as commercial HVAC. But there 5 i s a marketing benefit that your customers know that 6 y ou're selling them what you say you're selling them. 7 MR. SACHS: John, this is Harvey. That's 8 v ery important and it echoes something I was thinking 9 a s Karim was speaking. Because there are added 10 b enefits of the AHRI program to its participants and 11 m embers, I haven't been completely convinced that 12 a lternative program needs to be a sophisticated. It's 13 o ffering a legal assurance, like gallons of gasoline, 14 b ut it's not saying that it's a super gasoline that 15 y ou'll never bit it by. 16 And so, I'm not sure that saying the AHRI 17 l evel of sophistication would actually be good for AHRI 18 b ecause it would wipe out the differentiation. 19 MR. AMRANE: Right. And Harvey, this is 20 K arim. I was not saying that what I was saying was is 21 w hat Frank was proposing is much lower and we, I think, 22 i t's not a level playing field.

### Capita l 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 i t has to be at least comparable. 3 MR. SACHS: Thank you. I apologize for 4 c onfusion, but it happens to me. 5 MR. BALLO: So, this is Tim Ballo from 6 E arthJustice. 7 In thinking about the level of testing that 8 n eeds to happen, the way I was sort of thinking about 9 t his is currently I sort of don't know who the bad 10 a ctors are. And the principles that are like, is the 11 i dea that over the course of a products lifetime, from 12 i ntroduction to market to eventually being 13 d iscontinued, it would likely be tested at some point. 14 Now that doesn't mean that basic model, it 15 c ould mean that product family. Between its 16 i ntroduction to discontinuance it would be tested at 17 s ome point as a starting principle for verification 18 p rogram. 19 Once the program has operated for a year or 20 t wo, that initial level of testing sort of does to 21 i dentify bad actors and maybe we can treat new entrants 22 t o the market differently if there is a company that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 114 1 c omes in later. But after that first year or two where 2 y ou sort of have done enough testing to really get a 3 s ense of who the bad actors are, the people who have 4 p assed their tests then start having a reduced burden. 5 So, short of flipping the presumption, if we 6 t ook what Frank proposed and maybe for the first year 7 o r two of the program it had significantly higher 8 n umbers but then maybe did drop out to this level after 9 a year or two for folks who passed their tests. I 10 t hink I can be okay with that. 11 MR. EISNER: What's your reaction to that 12 F rank? 13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 14 I think it's pretty reasonable to have more 15 e arly on in less later, but I am very sensitive to, you 16 k now, this too many players will be a brand-new program 17 a nd a lot of testing early on is going to be a huge 18 f inancial burden from one company's perspective. 19 From my perspective, I would be willing to 20 s uffer a higher entry rate if over the long haul we 21 c ould have a reduced burden. So, I at least, would 22 l ike to explore further that opportunity, think about

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 115 1 i t a little bit more. But it doesn't sound 2 u nreasonable as long as that initial burden is not to 3 t he 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 t he front end as a barrier to entry. Although I 7 s uspect in the real world of these product classes' 8 e ntry is likely to be by established offshore 9 c ountries. And I don't know how to do that. 10 But I do want to say in support of Tim that 11 w e do have a record of advocates supporting this type 12 o f feedback, controlled testing intensity. A 13 p articular example is something called HERS Rating of 14 n ew houses in California where that backs down for 15 c ontractors who consistently show that they are houses 16 a re meeting the test requirements. And it drops from 17 a n every house builds down to a statistical sampling at 18 r ather modest levels. 19 So, we think this is smart industrial 20 p ractice and something to be encouraged where 21 a pplicable. 22 MR. EISNER: If there is some concern

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 116 1 e specially for small or new entrants are for first-time 2 p articipation in the program, the numbers might be too 3 h igh. Could you phase in the numbers over three years, 4 l evel off at that higher one and then start dropping? 5 MR. SACHS: I think that's an elegant 6 p roposal. My gut instinct says sometimes when we've had 7 p roblems, particularly in niches of the HVAC and I 8 t hink of a few bad actors in the ground source issue 20 9 y ears ago. Ground source product line. It's been 10 p eople who came in like fireworks with a marvelous 11 d isplay and were gone pretty quickly. 12 And for consumer protection, a certain amount 13 o f barrier to entry is appropriate even for commercial 14 p roducts. I don't know what the answer is, but I do 15 h ave concerns about a ramp-up that blesses you with a 16 p resumption of innocence completely as you're entering 17 a market where there are consequences, for other 18 m anufacturers and your customers. 19 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. 20 And I actually agree with Harvey, you know, 21 i f you are an established player in the market and 22 s omebody new comes in, you know, I don't think they

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 117 1 s hould have an easier qualification time. I mean maybe 2 t here is some compromise that we can make, that we 3 c ould come up with, but-- 4 MR. EISNER: Did you also agree with-- 5 MS. MEYERS: --do something in the first 6 c ouple of years to hurt your market, because their 7 c ertification, qualification tests were easier or less 8 s tringent than yours were. I think that's kind of 9 u nfair. 10 MR. EISNER: Other comments? 11 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I 12 b elieve we added qualification, I think, the last time 13 w e met or something in there. 14 MS. BARHYDT: We talked about it, but I don't 15 r ecall if we voted on that issue. 16 MR. AMRANE: I don't think we voted, but it 17 w as on the list of things that we discussed. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Was that on the slides, 19 s omewhere earlier? 20 It is in there? 21 MR. KOJAK: I don't know about the slide, but 22 i t's on the document.

### Capita l 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 l ast time, it's in red. 4 MS. BARHYDT: There was a Word document that 5 w e were-- 6 MR. KOJAK: Yeah. And you were putting it in 7 r ed the changes and additions, and there was-- 8 MS. BARHYDT: I remember that. 9 MR. KOJAK: The VICP approved, DoE would have 10 t o validate new entries, but we didn't explain what 11 t hat was yet. 12 MS. BARHYDT: No. 13 MR. KOJAK: I was assuming that was up to 14 V ICP authorized, DoE-VICP program, up to them to come 15 u p with those levels of acceptance into their program. 16 L ike let's say if there is a new player coming in and 17 h e is rated by AEDMs and you have to have two tests to 18 s ubstantiate those AEDMs, those can be put at a strict 19 l evel of whoever the VICP is, maybe they want to 20 c onduct those tests themselves to verify that is 21 c orrect before they accept that. You know, things like 22 t hat.

### Capita l 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 w hat that would be, but you know, that was just 3 g roundwork for it. 4 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 5 MR. EISNER: Is there any objection to the 6 c oncept of starting high and then moving low? Assuming 7 w e agree on the numbers. I'm just talking the concept. 8 S tart high to prove yourself and then drop down low 9 w hen 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 h ow high? 16 MR. HURST: Well, what would the-- 17 MR. EISNER: I'm asking concept. I had we 18 s till have to agree on the number, but it would be nice 19 t o have agreement on something today. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. THARP: Mary, can you say why you're 22 o bjecting? Does it assume the financial burden?

### Capita l 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 b lindly. And so, until I know what high means and what 3 t hat means to the various categories, I would have to 4 o bject. 5 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. To me what I 6 c onceived of as high would be that idea that from time 7 t o a level of testing, such that from the time it's 8 i ntroduced to the time it's discontinued, every 9 p roduct-- product defined loosely, would be tested. 10 So, roughly the 20 percent per year if a 11 f ive- year time window is the normal time on the market 12 f or product. 13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. 14 I think one of the options we have with 15 s aying high is not necessarily the number, of test you 16 r un but the acceptance criteria for the initial tests. 17 T hat's one of the things we have in the AHRI program. 18 W e have a different percentage that we test to. So 19 w hen we first list a product we have to--our 20 q ualification test in the residential boiler program is 21 9 8 percent of what we list. And then, when we're 22 p roduction, it's 95 percent.

### Capita l 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 t he 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 p ercent efficiency-- 6 MS. BARHYDT: They give you a different 7 t olerance. 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 w here 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 p roduct into the program you have a different tolerance 16 l evel. Many of them have it at 98 percent tolerance to 17 e nter the program, but the verification tests are at 95 18 p ercent. 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?

### Capita l 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 y ou're talking about but like VRF, every single one of 3 y our models had to be tested before you got in there. 4 E very single one. 5 Every single basic model group has to be 6 t ested in VRF just to get into the program. 7 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. 8 So, these are different methods of 9 q ualification-- 10 MR. MYERS: Right. 11 MR. KLEISS: Before we go into verification. 12 B ut I think there may be useful examples for kind of 13 t he thing that--Tim, you're suggesting that we create 14 s omething of a database where history. And you know, 15 w hatever that threshold is whether it is a tighter 16 t olerance with more tests. And I think what Phillip is 17 g oing for is, you know, saying I would rather swallow 18 t he pill of tighter tolerance but to run fewer tests. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Just as an option to give us 20 s omething to discuss to try to get an agreement on 21 s omething. 22 MR. EISNER: Others? Comments?

### Capita l 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 t hink for ULE it's 100 percent to qualify. You have 3 t wo tests that meet 100 percent of your rating. There 4 i s no averaging, there is no anything. I think for 5 U LE, and I will let somebody who may know about this 6 c orrect me if I am wrong, but I think qualify you have 7 t o have two tests that hit 100 percent of your rating. 8 T here is no averaging or anything else just to qualify 9 t o be in the program. 10 But I think Rusty is looking at it to 11 c onfirm. I know is that way with small equipment, I'm 12 n ot sure about ULE. 13 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly. I know for water 14 s ource heat pumps you basically have to pre-do your 15 f irst year's pull. So if you're doing 20 percent, you 16 h ave to test 20 percent of your basic models before you 17 c an enter the program. And they all have to pass, 18 o bviously. 19 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. And I 20 w as just thinking what we do to qualify our boilers 21 w ith AHRI, is we have to run two test and we cannot 22 c laim any higher efficiency than the average of those

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 124 1 t wo tests on the model. So, effectively we are running 2 o ur own tests that without third-party witnessing, but 3 w e have a zero tolerance for declaring those. 4 And then we do qualification testing with two 5 p ercent tolerance and then we do on it testing with a 6 f ive percent tolerance. 7 MR. EISNER: Are we talking about something 8 w here we are saying verification program --to enter the 9 p rogram you must pass X-number in the first year or the 10 f irst two years and they must meet Y-- whatever we set 11 t he standard at, and then your rate of testing 12 s ubsequently will be established. And if you don't 13 m eet a certain percentage in your new established 14 p rogram, 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 W hat we're talking about is qualification criteria 18 b efore any participant enters, even enters a program. 19 MR. EISNER: Which is establishes the rate 20 f or verification testing. 21 MR. TRITSIS: Is does not establish the rate. 22 MR. EISNER: You are talking about to enter

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 125 1 t he AHRI program. 2 MR. TRITSIS: Right. 3 MR. EISNER: Here we are talking about 4 s omething to establish a verification program. And 5 w hat I'm hearing is, a program might be to enter the 6 D oE program which requires verification testing, you 7 w ill do a certain number of verification tests in the 8 f irst year or two to establish the base for your 9 t esting. And that based will then be established for 10 s ubsequent years. If you go above a certain number of 11 f ailures it will go up. 12 Is that why people are making these 13 c omparisons? 14 MR. KOJAK: Are you talking about for initial 15 c ertification to the DoE, what the rating is? 16 MS. BARHYDT: No. 17 MR. EISNER: No, to establish your 18 v erification level. 19 MS. BARHYDT: I think what people are doing 20 w as drawing parallels between AHRI's qualification 21 p rogram in the idea of some higher testing rate for the 22 f irst few years of the DoE approved verification

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 126 1 p rogram. I think Phillip was suggesting that it might 2 b e a more palatable option to have lower tolerances in 3 l ieu of more testing, because of the expensive testing. 4 MR. STEPHENS: Or give manufacturers the 5 o ption. Choose, okay you could do a whole lot of 6 t esting or you can decrease the allowable tolerance on 7 t hat testing and test fewer samples. Either way the 8 D epartment would be able to have higher confidence in 9 t he data. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: So, the DoE run verification 11 p rogram would mean all of us, no matter who we are 12 w hether we are in an AHRI program or whatever, would 13 s till have that increased burden for their higher level 14 o f 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 q ualified in the DoE program because you haven't run 19 o ne before. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 21 MR. EISNER: Or would there be a basis for 22 s aying that if you are in a program that is authorized

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127 1 b y DoE, you have an established base which can be used 2 t o 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 w ouldn't the expected to do any more testing than what 7 y ou're doing now. 8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. I would 9 r ecommend 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 k inds of concerns you were addressing? 13 MR. BALLO: Well, as long as, you know, if 14 y ou're in the program but in the penalty mode at the 15 t ime, you don't get the-- 16 (Laughter.) 17 MR. BALLO: I guess it's a question more for 18 t he folks who aren't in the program, but who maybe do 19 t heir own testing. 20 MR. EISNER: That's what I meant by saying 21 y our testing rate in the program would determine what 22 y our initial testing rate would be in the DoE program.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 128 1 H ow about some of those who are not in a voluntary 2 p rogram right now? 3 MR. KOJAK: Well, would the Energy Star 4 p rogram qualify for that also because the, you know, 5 s ome of the people in this room are not part of AHRI, 6 b ut they're part of other testing requirements from a 7 t hird-party organization that will probably have a DoE 8 v erified program as well. 9 Would they be grandfathered in? 10 MS. BARHYDT: I see a distinction in that the 11 p eople who were in AHRI's program have the full range 12 o f their products being tested, where's the people who 13 a re in Energy Star for not having things tested that 14 a re down near the standard. E MR. KOJAK: It 15 d epends, you know, if they're doing testing for NRCan 16 t hat is products that are in the Energy Star level 17 n ecessarily, and you know, they have to be scrutinized 18 a t the same type of level. 19 MS. BARHYDT: Can you all present some 20 i nformation next time about the NRCan verification 21 p rogram? Or is there not an NRCan verification 22 p rogram? What exactly is the NRCan thing?

### Capita l 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 t he same sort of testing labs. You set up a program 3 a nd any product that is on a Canadian list, which is 4 a ccessible on the Internet, has to have been tested by 5 a third-party before it can be sold in Canada. And 6 t hat is the same criteria as the basic DoE energy 7 l evels. 8 MR. AMRANE: But it's only for products sold 9 i n Canada, right? 10 MR. HON: That's is correct. Only for 11 p roducts that are sold in Canada. 12 MR. KOJAK: But that doesn't mean it's just 13 t he Energy Star level products. That's a range of the 14 d ifferent products. 15 MS. DANE: And I think isn't it what we're 16 t rying to establish is that we have a system in place 17 w here we are looking at our products, and we're 18 f ollowing a system and, you know, we're establishing 19 t he numbers and that there's verification. I think 20 i t's not so much the how many, you know, we can 21 d etermine that at the end. I think it's the fact that 22 w e're in a volunteer program such as Energy Star.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 130 1 A lthough, it's different from AHRI. I think it should 2 b e given some weeks as far as what our qualification 3 l evel would be. 4 MR. KOJAK: And also with those programs 5 t heir componentry for when the units are entered in the 6 p rogram they have to a list of materials, of possible 7 m aterials also if they change suppliers or they are 8 d oing something like that. That it has to be listed 9 p otential components that, you know, could be in that 10 u nit and that's also checked. That's part of the 11 p rocess with the program as well, where they are 12 c hecking their test data. We checked everything is 13 b uilt the way they say it's going to be built and 14 t hings like that. 15 So, it's a similar type program where we are 16 a uditing them to make sure they are doing everything 17 l egit, because our third-party name is on it and we're 18 m aking sure they're doing things to the level we feel 19 t hat is worthy of our good name on their product. 20 MR. EISNER: So if DoE were to check out this 21 p rogram and be satisfied that it would provide us, DoE 22 a nd the whole group, the level of certainty they want;

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 131 1 w ould that make this approach palatable to those who 2 a re not in other programs? Or are there others in 3 a ddition to this that you would want to consider? 4 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. In our Canada 5 t esting right now, we're doing four units a year and if 6 w e were in the AHRI program we would be doing two. 7 MR. EISNER: But I'm saying if this is 8 a cceptable to DoE, would it make that approach 9 a cceptable to those who are not in the AHRI program or 10 s omething else that's out there? 11 MR. KOJAK: I would say a manufacturer would 12 h ave to answer that, but I would assume yes. 13 MR. EISNER: Manufacturers? 14 MR. HON: That is good for us, but the 15 q uestion is I do not know the answer for anyone who is 16 n ot selling in Canada this time. 17 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I didn't 18 h ear a good enough description to really understand 19 e xactly what you're saying, do manufacturers agree. 20 S o, sorry. 21 MR. EISNER: And I'm saying DoE, I think, 22 w ould- -unless I hear otherwise, would want to look

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 132 1 m ore at this program, because Laura did not know that 2 m uch about it. I'm saying assuming it is satisfactory, 3 t heir level-- their requirements for testing are 4 s atisfactory to DoE and they are willing to adopt it, 5 t hey would get extra credit under the NAFTA agreement 6 a nd they would have a program that satisfies you guys. 7 The question is, are there those who don't 8 s ell a product in Canada we are therefore not allowed 9 t o use this as an alternative; is they are either 10 s omething else for them or would they be willing to 11 l ive 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 a nother manufacturer would be concerned about it. If 15 t his was the only path, then that would be different. 16 B ut if this is--if you're in this program, use it to 17 t he greatest extent possible. I would think that would 18 b e for someone not in those programs, not able to use 19 i t would be of great concern. 20 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, it's just like what you 21 g uys were terming the satellite program, which we call 22 t he client test program. Yesterday I sent a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 133 1 d escription of both: the client test data program, the 2 w itness test that you all offered to Ashley yesterday, 3 s o she can read all their requirements that we place on 4 t he manufacturers test facility. I don't know if she 5 i ntends to distribute that-- 6 MS. BARHYDT: (Off microphone.) 7 MR. KOJAK: Oh you did. Okay. So, if a kind 8 o f explains the level of what, you know the scrutiny we 9 p ut on them, you know, which is the same kind of thing 10 y ou're mentioning--the level of scrutiny on the people 11 t hat are in the AHRI program, they would be 12 g randfathered in. So, what they're asking is since 13 t hey're in a type of scrutiny level that is offered 14 o ther than a company than AHRI, you know, can that be 15 g randfathered in as well if it meets the same criteria 16 t hat you're going to be looking at once you read 17 t hrough our literature, you know, to fully understand 18 w hat we're doing with them in the type of oversight we 19 h ave on their testing as well. 20 MR. AMRANE: This Karim with AHRI. Just a 21 c ouple of things, I mean, looking at the slides first 22 o f all NRCan is not a voluntary program. By the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 134 1 C anadian regulations every product sold in Canada must 2 b e verified, so it's a requirement. However, the NRCan 3 d oesn't do any auditing, as far as I'm concerned, 4 t here's no set of rules that NRCan requires except that 5 y ou have to be a CC accredited, I think, as the 6 v erifier. Whoever is verifying has to be a CC 7 a ccredited. Okay. 8 That's at least that's the way I understand 9 i t. Maybe Bill you can correct me if I'm wrong, but 10 t hat'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 a ctually did some testing for NRCan auditing purposes. 16 MR. HON: We were notified when we had to 17 s end in units for that purpose and some of them are 18 s till up there. 19 One other possible--can we go truly off the 20 w all and make a secondary system where if you would 21 h ave your data posted much earlier than the final date 22 t hat we agree upon, thereby allowing people to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 135 1 s crutinize that data over a certain period of time, 2 c ould be a reward for people who are not in one of 3 t hese 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 t hat's an excellent point. I think my question is 10 w hether this will be a one-time opportunity to have the 11 D oE program initiated or whether the same paths could 12 b e used later? 13 MS. BARHYDT: I think it would only be at the 14 s tart up, because after that point everyone's going to 15 b e in the DoE program. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 17 MR. EISNER: You're saying it would always be 18 a vailable to a startup company or just start up at this 19 p oint? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, no because if it's a 21 s tart up then-- 22 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure--

### Capita l 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 t hey have a history of participating in a program and 3 a s soon as they enter the U.S. market they're going to 4 b e required to be in the DoE program. So there won't 5 b e any opportunity for that history. 6 Unless I'm missing something. 7 MS. MEYERS: So I have a question. How does 8 p articipating in an Energy Star verification program 9 g ive any assurance to the Department that products are 10 m eeting federal minimums standards? Don't get it. 11 B ecause to me, it's two different things. It's two 12 d ifferent products for sure. 13 MS. DANE: Right. This is Mary from 14 T raulsen. 15 I think what my purpose is for explaining the 16 E nergy Star type of program is saying that, you know, 17 i t's true that the ratings are different. What we're 18 s aying is that it's a supervised kind of program, much 19 l ike you're promoting AHRI, I am trying to promote an 20 a lternative that we're already in and in order to be in 21 E nergy Star we have to certify by submitting data that 22 s omebody looks at and to verify by having semiannual

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137 1 t esting of some of the equipment that are in those 2 r anges. 3 You know, we're not saying that it's better 4 t han the DoE program that we're proposing. We're 5 a sking them to use it as an example to help structure a 6 p rogram that small manufacturers and manufacturers that 7 c hoose not to be part of AHRI would be able to use. 8 S o, I'm not saying it should replace DoE. My 9 a ssumption is that as they're passing their Version 3 10 o f their standard, for our equipment it's said that 11 i t's going to go back to whatever the DoE standard is 12 s o those numbers will also be similar. 13 So, you know, I think we're just trying to 14 s how that we do something already that is like what DoE 15 w ould like us to do and we would like to have some kind 16 o f recognition of that fact. 17 MS. MEYERS: So I could--you know, so if the 18 p rocess--I don't know what the processes, but if the 19 p rocess, you know, it holds up to the stringency then 20 t hat's okay. But I guess my issue is giving credit. I 21 m ean, if you can use that process and do testing to 22 s how that your products are meeting federal minimum

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 138 1 s tandards and still use the same process that's one 2 t hing. But to give early credit, to me--the two 3 d ifferent products. So I don't know that I would agree 4 w ith that or argue against. 5 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. the test 6 p rocedure is the same. The testing done is by third7 p arty or witness tested by third-party. The energy 8 l evels are approximately 25 percent below the federal 9 e nergy minimums and getting tighter--the new standard 10 w ill be about 25 percent below. The old ones are even 11 a re looser than that. But it's still substantially the 12 s ame as third-party witnessing, third-party 13 v erification of any other program and also has a higher 14 d emand as far as testing goes. 15 MR. TRITSIS: Let me--this is Bill Tritsis 16 w ith AHRI. 17 There are some differences. AHRI is an EPA 18 a pproved certification body and the difference is 10 19 p ercent for EPA. 20 percent versus AHRI. Penalty 20 p rovisions under AHRI for manufacturers who fail; 21 m onetary penalties, additional testing, so there's a 22 w hole lot of differences. And in terms of the testing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 139 1 b urden for Charlie's particular case he mentioned 2 e arlier is his choice to do the additional testing. It 3 i s not required by EPA. 4 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. And 5 a gain, what Charlie is talking about here is Energy 6 S tar products. I mean, DoE is not just interested in 7 E nergy Star products. There are a lot of products that 8 a re not the same efficiency level, they're not the 9 p remium products that are qualified as Energy Star. 10 MR. HON: Right. 11 MS. BARHYDT: I'm not a fan of using the 12 E nergy Star verification program. I can imagine 13 m anufacturers building their Energy Star products in a 14 c ertain way knowing that they would be so subjected to 15 v erification in a way that they deal differently with 16 m inimum standards products and as I said, I see that as 17 a big distinction between the Energy Star verification 18 p rogram and the AHRI verification program because the 19 p roducts down by the standard aren't being subjected to 20 v erification right now. And I understand that you have 21 a lot of processes in place and you have a lot of 22 c hecks on your labs. But still, it's not the same

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 140 1 t hing as having ongoing verification of the products in 2 t hat segment of the market. 3 MR. KOJAK: So, I've got for the question. 4 A re you saying that the testing that is being done for 5 t he Energy Star products, since they are above the 6 f ederal minimum, are going to be discounted as being 7 c hecks and tests for the DoE? 8 MS. BARHYDT: What do you mean discounted? 9 MR. KOJAK: Well, you're making it sound like 10 y ou're only going to be wanting to see verification 11 t esting for the federal minimum. 12 MS. BARHYDT: No, but am saying that to the 13 e xtent that we're contemplating giving some kind of 14 r educed test burden at the start of a DoE approved 15 v erification program. It seems to me that the whole 16 s phere of what would be subjected to the DoE 17 v erification program should have already been subjected 18 t o a verification program previously. That would be 19 t he whole rationale behind giving some kind of reduced 20 t est burden is that they've been tested and they've 21 b een subjected to some kind of ongoing verification 22 t esting. And it's like some portion has been, but not

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 141 1 t he whole sphere of products. 2 MS. MEYERS: You could fail-- 3 MR. KOJAK: But I don't think that's really 4 w hat they're talking is that at all. You know, that's 5 n ot what I've been talking about at all and I don't 6 t hink really that's what they're talking about either. 7 T hey're just trying to use that program as an example 8 o f, you know, what's being done at their facility. Not 9 t hat they're going to try to be using those tests for 10 a nything other than to show that they're being, you 11 k now, they're being tested at the facility at a higher 12 l evel of energy consumption than just the basic minimum 13 t hat DoE required. 14 MS. BARHYDT: So the only reason I would 15 c onsider giving a break so to speak to participants in 16 t he AHRI program with a reduced test burden in the very 17 b eginning of the DoE program, is because they've 18 a lready been subjected to a verification program for a 19 l ong time. And to me that is the only reason they're 20 g etting it. They're not getting it because they have 21 o ther processes in place that they've got-- 22 MR. KOJAK: So are you saying that--

### Capita l 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 c ertified labs and they have all of these internal 3 p rocesses in place, I'm not giving them a reduction 4 b ecause of that. I'm giving them a reduction because 5 t hey've had independent verification testing ongoing. 6 MR. EISNER: And if they-- 7 MR. KOJAK: The question I have is does AHRI 8 d o 100 percent verification of all of the DoE minimum 9 e quipment from all of the HVAC manufacturers, all of 10 t hem or just a portion of them? 11 MS. HOOTMAN: (Off microphone.) 12 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, so if they're not testing 13 a ll of them either-- 14 MS. HOOTMAN: Not in a year-- 15 MR. AMRANE: It takes 25 percent, so in five 16 y ears you've sampled everything. 17 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. So 18 a re you saying then that we couldn't even ask for our 19 e quipment that we have Energy Star tested and that 20 w e've been maintaining under a certification and 21 v erification program, that you won't even allow us to 22 e xempt that from this extra test burden?

### Capita l 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 a n Energy Star test rating but you're still above the 6 f ederal minimum. So, that's a whole different thing 7 f rom Laura's perspective. You're not going to get--if 8 y ou fail a federal minimum standard, then suddenly 9 y ou're distributing noncompliant product in commerce. 10 T hat results in a whole different set of actions from 11 L aura's perspective. So, I think we need to take that 12 i nto account, I mean, yeah you get a penalty from 13 E nergy Star, but you're still not distributing 14 n oncompliant equipment. It may not meet the Energy 15 S tar, but it still above the federal minimum. 16 So there's a difference to me in a product 17 m issing the Energy Star rating but being above the 18 f ederal minimum versus missing the federal minimum. 19 MR. KOJAK: So does that mean HVAC products 20 t hat are bombed the federal minimum that the same thing 21 a ccounts for that? And those actual tests are the same 22 t hing. if they are not met--the rating, above the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 144 1 f ederal minimum but that's the same exact same thing. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: They're still 100 percent 3 t ested. Every model we have in a basic model group is 4 1 00 percent tested eventually in the five-year period. 5 I t doesn't care that it's Energy Star, and in fact, I'm 6 n ot Energy Star and commercial HVAC. But all my models 7 g et tested. 8 MR. EISNER: Let me clarify one thing. I 9 t hought we agreed that the data in AHRI may indicate 10 t hat a particular company doesn't qualify for a 11 r eduction in the initial testing rate, because they had 12 t o many failures. So it could cause them to come in at 13 t he high level and it may allow them to come in at the 14 l ower level, because they have the data to show what 15 t heir record is. They have a pre-established record 16 t hat otherwise has to be done through the DOT 17 v erification program, so where grandfathering in both a 18 h igher and lower. Am I correct? 19 MR. HON: Charlie Hon-- 20 MR. EISNER: The question for those in 21 a nother program like Energy Star, is whether it is 22 a cceptable to take the data from the Energy Star

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 145 1 p rogram to show that you failed in many of the tests 2 w hen you said you were going to be here, you were here, 3 a nd therefore you deserve a higher number. Is it 4 a ppropriate to also say that if you've always met the 5 s tandard, for example, that you were applying for an 6 E nergy Star rating on, that you have a history of 7 s howing that you do what you're supposed to do with 8 y our product. 9 I don't know the answer to that. 10 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I have a 11 c ouple of other questions. NRCanada is across the 12 b oard testing. It is not just the high level units 13 MS. BARHYDT: Is it verification testing or 14 i s 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 m e. 20 MR. HON: Because they're not quite as 21 s tringent as Energy Star, but close to it. And it's, 22 a gain, above what would have been tested under the AHRI

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146 1 p rogram. 2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. To the 3 b est of my knowledge I'm not aware of NRCanada having a 4 v erification program on a continuous basis. I am not 5 a ware of this. 6 MR. HON: The UL testing that we've been 7 g oing through requires that. 8 MR. AMRANE: On a regular basis and you have 9 t o 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 i t. I've never heard of it. 13 MR. HON: Well, we're-- 14 MS. DANE: We have test houses sitting here, 15 t hey should be able to verify that. 16 MR. AMRANE: Yes absolutely, they should-- 17 MR. SMITH: Judd Smith from CSA. If you go 18 N RCan's website, they'll tell you what the requirements 19 a re 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 a nd some of the verification testing for that.

### Capita l 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 d o you do for NRCan a year? Verification testing? 3 C ontinuously? 4 MR. KOJAK: I don't run the NRCan 5 v erification program, so I don't know how to answer 6 t hat. 7 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We've been 8 h aving four units a year tested for NRCanada since we 9 e nrolled in the program when NRCanada put it in place. 10 MR. EISNER: Other comments? Are we going in 11 t he right-- 12 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman with 13 N ational. I just wanted to get one last point. 14 I guess one of the things that's hitting me 15 i s we know Energy Star and NRCan are at least with 16 w itness testing that you have to do and everything, 17 i t's higher than the levels that we're talking about I 18 t hink so far for DoE, as far as commercial 19 r efrigeration equipment. 20 So, I mean, I do Energy Star. I don't need a 21 C RADA because the stuff you're going to want, I already 22 h ave for that testing. You know, I have witness

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 148 1 t esting and have, you know, that level of information 2 s o I don't see a need to reduce the requirement, 3 b ecause the manufacturers who are already in that have 4 t he 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 S tar only applying to a limited universe of products is 9 i f the Canada standards are lower than say than the DoE 10 m inimums. I think those should also be exclude also 11 f or the same reason they're not representative of the 12 p roducts 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 s o I think the process should still be recognize and 16 c onsider. At least to the point where you don't exempt 17 t he investment we've already made, because we've made 18 i nvestments, too. We want to be able to use our 19 i nvestment in Energy Star. 20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I've been 21 l istening to a number of the different people making 22 s uggestions and proposals and tried to incorporate as

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149 1 m any of those as I could into something similar to what 2 I had earlier proposed. We would use the grouping of 3 b asic 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 y ou're going to have to test a minimum of different 8 b asic models in order to comply with this. 9 For a participant in a DoE approved third10 p arty verification program, all product families must 11 b e verification tested every five years. DoE retains 12 t he right to direct specific products for test 13 s election. For participants in a DoE approved 14 m anufacturers verification program, the models that are 15 t o be tested are suggested by the manufacturer, but are 16 s elected by DoE. 17 Test conducted in compliance with Energy 18 S tar, NRCan, or a 17025 third-party laboratory 19 v erification programs can be utilized to comply with 20 t he following requirements: 21 Initially you would take double the number of 22 t ests in the list until one model, at least one model

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 150 1 o f each model family has been tested, and the you 2 s elect them according to the list. So, you double the 3 i ntensity until you have tested at least one of every 4 m odel family. 5 If test are conducted at a plus or minus two 6 p ercent tolerance, then you select models for testing 7 b ased on that rate. So you have a much tighter 8 t olerance, but you don't have to do the double. You 9 j ust do that rate. 10 These are the proposed number of tests that 11 h ave to be conducted. And if you have one failure, you 12 i ncrease the burden by 25 percent. Two failures you 13 i ncrease the--you double the number of tests and three 14 f ailures you triple the number of tests. 15 MR. HON: I would like to ask that he would 16 c hange that to a negative tolerance only, because if 17 y ou're more efficient that's what the DoE is interested 18 i n, isn't it? Because if you run plus or minus two 19 p ercent tolerance, if we de-rate our product just to be 20 o n the safe side, that's going to penalize those who 21 r e- rate their product. 22 MR. SACHS: The DoE should do nothing but

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 151 1 o ne- sided tests. End of rant. 2 MR. MYERS: So with this I tried to 3 i ncorporate a lot of different things where 4 m anufacturers do get credit for the tests that are 5 c onducted under Energy Star, NRCan. You're not 6 a ctually using those programs for compliance, but 7 y ou're using the data that is collected under those 8 p rograms to comply with the verification test--model 9 s election and requirements, down below. 10 MR. WOSTAL: This is Wes Wostal with 11 C limateMaster. 12 I apologize. I've been listening and doing 13 o ther things, but thing I would like to bring up is the 14 t wo percent tolerance, is that getting within what a 15 t est lab is really even capable of doing? 16 You know, to say that you have to be within 17 t wo percent, I'm wondering if you took two labs or a 18 r ound robin and you went from one lab to--or even the 19 s ame lab if you tested a product and then went back to 20 t he same lab the test day, the same conditions, I'm 21 w ondering if you would be within two percent. I think 22 w hen you start looking at some of the-- I'm trying to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 152 1 t hink of the word, not the accuracy but-- 2 MR. SACHS: Precision. 3 MR. WOSTAL: Precision, that it's just not 4 t here when you-- 5 MR. SACHS: Wes, this is Harvey and I 6 a ppreciate the comment, but I'd like to flip the 7 q uestion. Haven't we resolved that by moving to 8 s ingle-tailed tests, so you can only be two percent 9 l ower than the requirement but you can design as much 10 m ore efficient as you think is necessary to make sure 11 t hat you meet it. So that you're not within a 12 t olerance band, but have a maximum downside error 13 t hat's allowable, 14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. The two 15 p ercent tolerance, the caller is absolutely correct 16 t hat that's not reasonable for a test laboratory. The 17 v ariability and tolerance of equipment and so forth, 18 b ut those tests would be run at five percent. If you 19 c hoose to lower the number of annual tests you would 20 h ave to be more conservative on your ratings, such that 21 y ou could comply with plus/minus two percent. 22 The tradeoff is you don't have to conduct as

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 153 1 m any tests each year, you don't have to double the 2 n umber of tests until all of your products--your model 3 f amilies are covered. So it's voluntary. You don't 4 h ave to take that two percent choice, but if you do, 5 y ou're running fewer tests so you'll not be testing as 6 m any as quickly, but those that you do run are going to 7 b e at a much more conservative rate. 8 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. 9 I might suggest that we change that plus or 10 m inus two percent tolerance to a two-fifths of the 11 p rogram tolerance since some of the things have ten 12 p ercent tolerance, some of them have five percent 13 t olerance. It's not consistent. 14 MS. BARHYDT: And you're referring to the 15 A EDM tolerances that we worked before? Okay. 16 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'll 17 r eiterate what Wes on the phone said, that there's very 18 s ignificant uncertainty in the results of any 19 p sychometric testing. I've been thrown around a 20 n umber, roughly eight percent for a typical 21 p sychometric test, so that two percent would be pretty 22 t ight.

### Capita l 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 U ncertainty was the word I was looking for. 3 MR. THARP: And I think Karim was possibly 4 g oing to throw out was there was going to be some 5 d iscussion on our LEED procedure, I know that will be 6 a s we do some 210 and 240 stuff it will be brought out. 7 B ut that's what the LEED procedure is finding is that 8 t here's a fairly large uncertainty in the psychometric 9 t esting. 10 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 11 I agree with all that has been said on this 12 t opic, I agree that two-fifths make sense because 13 t hey're not all plus or minus five. But this is a more 14 s tringent path and it recognizes that you're going to 15 h ave to most likely lower your rating to take advantage 16 o f this path, but it does give a path if a manufacturer 17 i s willing to tighten the tolerances, he doesn't have 18 t o run as many tests. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: So Frank I'm having a hard time 20 f ollowing this suggestion. For what you're saying, in 21 f our participants in a DoE approved third-party 22 v erification program, they don't do this double the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 155 1 f ollowing unit at least one model? that this only 2 a pplies to the people who are not in the above? 3 MR. MYERS: No, the intent and maybe the 4 w ords need to change since it wasn't clear, obviously 5 i t needs better language. The concept was that in 6 c omplying with that last paragraph and the selection 7 q uantities, if you ran one of those tests under the 8 E nergy Star, you can use that data to comply with one 9 o f your tests. 10 If you got it under NRCan or a third-party, 11 1 7025 verification program, those are deemed adequate 12 t o cover your testing down here. So no, you have to 13 r un the tests that are shown there, but if you already 14 r an them on those programs you don't have to run them 15 a gain. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay, so you're saying I ran 17 t hem on AHRI. I use those very same tests is that what 18 y ou're saying? 19 MR. MYERS: If you were using AHRI as the 20 e ntry point. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, I'm just using that as an 22 e xample, whatever.

### Capita l 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 n o confusion, at least in my mind. If you are in the 3 E nergy Star program and you had to test Model X and DoE 4 s elected Model X, then you could use that data. You 5 w ouldn't have to re-run that test. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. But this is not--this is 7 s till saying that there is tests required to get into 8 t he DoE program versus what she was saying, what Laura 9 w as saying. She was willing to say that people who are 10 i n AHRI and getting 100 percent of their models tested 11 e very five years would be exempted in some shape or 12 f orm. So you are saying in this proposal that we would 13 h ave an additional test burden if we're in a VICP? 14 MR. MYERS: I certainly didn't mean to. For 15 p articipants in a DoE approved third-party verification 16 p rogram, all product families must be verification 17 t ested every five years. Stop. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. That's what I was 19 g etting at. So when you say stop, then that person 20 d oesn't come down here and do double the following and21

- 22 MR. MYERS: That's correct.

### Capita l 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 a t. So, you do need more words around this that says 3 s omething like, okay, they're completed. Now for the 4 p erson 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 a dditional words in that first sentence would be 9 n ecessary to clarify that if you're in the DoE approved 10 t hird-party verification program, the criteria is that 11 y ou have to test all of your product families every 12 f ive years. 13 If you're not in one of those programs, you 14 d o the following. 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. 16 (Pause.) 17 MR. MYERS: And remember that down below 18 s even, you don't necessarily have to scroll up, but 19 i t's the increase if you have failures as a part of 20 t hat. And that, too, is just for those that are not in 21 t he third- party DoE verification program. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: So where would you have it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 158 1 i nserted for participants in a--where would you have 2 t his language inserted for the participants in Energy 3 S tar and NRCan, et cetera. They could use their test 4 f rom those for--where would you have that wording 5 i nserted? 6 After? Before test conducted? Or where--how 7 w ould you make that? 8 MR. MYERS: Well, I'm exactly sure what 9 y ou're asking. What I was attempting to capture here 10 w as that if you are already running the Energy Star, 11 N RCan or 17025 third-party laboratory verification 12 p rogram testing and that matches up with the 13 r equirement below, you just don't have to do it twice. 14 Y ou can go ahead--it's not like you're getting credit 15 f or the program. 16 It's just if you've already run the tests in 17 t hat year that you need to run, they why would you need 18 t o run it again? So, it's just recognizing that that's 19 a path by which you can satisfy the DoE selection of 20 t esting requirement. 21 MR. HON: This is going to sound odd because 22 i t's probably going to be penalizing my corporation,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 159 1 b ut testing to the Energy Star levels would probably be 2 a s high or a higher level than the DoE would require. 3 A nd as such, if we would get credit for all of our 4 E nergy Star units, we would probably not be testing 5 a nything near the standard and that would be a concern 6 a s a consumer of products. I would be very concerned 7 a bout that. 8 MR. MYERS: Could I get you to kind of 9 r estate that and get closer to the microphone because I 10 a m right here and I still couldn't hear you. 11 MR. HON: I said that if we got full credit 12 f or Energy Star and Energy Star may be higher than the 13 D oE minimum requirements, which it could easily work 14 o ut to be. At that point, DoE would basically be not 15 r equiring any additional tests other than Energy Star. 16 Is that correct? 17 MR. MYERS: If the DoE selected product, 18 b ecause DoE and the DoE manufacturer approved 19 v erification program, DoE makes the test selection. 20 T he manufacturer recommends, but the selection is made 21 b y DoE. If those line up with the testing that you 22 h ave already run under those three programs, you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 160 1 w ouldn't have to run any additional testing. You would 2 h ave run--it's not like you don't do anything under 3 D oE. You would have already run those tests because 4 y ou 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 u nderstanding that what you mentioned a while ago 8 L aura, was that only those Energy Star products would 9 b e grandfathered in. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So if I'm understanding this 11 c orrectly, it looks to me like it is an entirely 12 d ifferent 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 l ike it is- -it's addressing the concern but in an 16 e ntirely different way than what we had been 17 d iscussing. 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 19 That's correct. This is not recognizing per 20 s e those programs, it's recognizing the validity of the 21 t esting those programs produce and if those line up 22 w ith DoE's requirements for testing, just don't do it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 161 1 t wice. If you've already--if DoE wants Model X to be 2 t ested this year and you are texting Model X under one 3 o f those three programs, that same test--the testing 4 u nder 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 o ver and-- 8 MR. EISNER: If you're in the first 9 p aragraph, a DOT approved verification program, there 10 a re not penalties from DOT to get better compliance. 11 E verything would be under the third-party verification 12 p rogram. The penalties that tester had. 13 Was that what you had intended? 14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. That--what 15 y ou just described, is the way this reads today if we 16 f eel there should be a penalty described so that if a 17 t hird- party program other than AHRI is doing it, then 18 I would have no problem with putting it in and 19 m imicking something like what AHRI has. 20 MR. EISNER: Okay. Does anybody else have a 21 q uestion they have to get settled so they can think 22 b etter about this or should we break for lunch?

### Capita l 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 b efore this listing--this is Rusty Tharp with Goodman. 3 If all tests are conducted at a two-fifths of 4 e stablished AEDM tolerance, then this is the rate. 5 W hat if somebody wants to do testing at the AEDM 6 t olerance? So again, using five percent if-- 7 MR. EISNER: You don't double-- 8 MR. MYERS: Then you have to double it until 9 y ou've gone through all of your--until you've tested 10 o ne of every model family. If that takes you a year, 11 o kay. If it takes you five years, okay. And then you 12 r evert back, now that you've proven yourself, you 13 r evert 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 i s two-fifths of the standard AEDM tolerance. 18 MR. MYERS: Only if you choose not to double 19 t he initial--the testing rate. 20 MR. THARP: okay. So if you choose to keep 21 t he initial--the regular tolerance, then it's double 22 t his.

### Capita l 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 a ll, 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 g et back at quarter to one. 8 MR. WHITWELL: Neil, sorry this is Bob 9 W hitwell. One other question. 10 So, as I read this, the first paragraph says 11 t hat for the DoE approved third-party verification 12 p rogram you must test every product family every five 13 y ears. Down below the--it's not clear that those rates 14 t hat are down there below would result in testing each 15 p roduct family every five years. So, it looks like 16 t here is different criteria or different testing levels 17 r equired, is that what you intended Frank? 18 MR. MYERS: Yes, that's correct. The third19 p arty program will be whatever rate that the third20 p arty program has defined, but it must be at least once 21 e very-- each product family must be tested every five 22 y ears. The rating below would not necessarily--it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 164 1 m ight for some, but it would not necessarily test each 2 m odel family every five years, but you would have to 3 t est at twice that rate until you had, in fact, tested 4 t hem all. And if you are successful at that then you 5 c an drop back to this rate. 6 MR. WHITWELL: So it seems to me that this is 7 s aying, if this were to end up being the requirement, 8 t hat if a manufacturer that's in an approved program 9 w ould be testing every model every five years, but 10 t here could be another manufacturer in the same product 11 c ategory that's not part of a third-party program that 12 w ould 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 t o me but-- 16 MR. SACHS: Bob, this is Harvey. And we had 17 a little bit of earlier discussion that AHRI programs 18 d o offer market differentiation beyond basic 19 c ertification. I think that's the point that Karim 20 m ade. 21 MR. WHITWELL: Yep, I agree Harvey. I guess 22 t he heartburn that I have here is that this says that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 165 1 D oE would require that third-party verification test 2 p rogram to test more. Now, the program may decide 3 t hey're going to test more, but DoE should not require 4 t hat. That's my-- 5 MR. SACHS: Okay, I misunderstood that and 6 y eah, that I'm certainly comfortable with the position 7 t hat AHRI or other VICP programs should be allowed to 8 r equire as much testing beyond the certification 9 t esting 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 e stablish that an alternative program is giving the 13 r equisite assurance that the products in commerce are 14 m eeting the standard. And that is a slightly different 15 o bjective from the higher objectives that AHRI has, 16 w hich I certainly applaud. 17 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I think we're saying the 18 s ame thing. It's just that the wording here--the way 19 t hat I read it, it says that DoE would require those 20 w ho are in these programs to test more than those who 21 a re not. 22 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI.

### Capita l 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 n ow going to say to third-party programs, like AHRI, 3 t his is what you need to test every year, which is not 4 r eally what it should be. 5 MR. EISNER: So would that be satisfied by 6 s imply saying that verification testing must be at a 7 m inimum according to the table, one through seven? 8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I wouldn't 9 h ave a problem with that, but the reason I didn't do 10 t hat Karim is because I think there are some programs 11 w ith certain--how many models a participant have that 12 t he number of tests in the chart, even the--not the 13 d ouble, but just in the chart, would be more than their 14 a nnual test requirement. If that's not the case, then 15 y ou wouldn't need the differentiation between the two. 16 B ut I was wanting to make sure that the requirements in 17 t his chart didn't cause someone in the AHRI program to 18 d o more testing. 19 And that's the only reason. 20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillips Stephens, HTP. I 21 t hink we could take those seven items and put it in a 22 t able to show the bare minimum the DoE will accept on

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 167 1 a n ongoing basis and then the bare minimum for a new 2 e ntrant into the market for their first products, and 3 t hen another column for the initial acceptance because 4 t his 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 d on't understand what you want to do-- 8 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Frank if you could e9 m ail that to me, I'll put that in a chart. 10 MR. EISNER: All right, let's get back about 11 f ive 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 t he chart? There's some changes that have been made to 18 t he substance, and we tried to organize into this chart 19 f ormat, hopefully easier to follow. 20 MR. SACHS: Would you bring the screen this 21 w ay about 10 feet? 22 MR. EISNER: You've got to look at the one at

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 168 1 t he 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 w as meant to be, with one exception--I believe on 9 e xception-- the same thing that was in the--what was up 10 p reviously. The one difference that I'm aware of is in 11 t he third party verification program there was some 12 c oncern that you might--we might be requiring, as a 13 b ase, a higher level of test. My concern was that we 14 m ight be forcing everybody to do a higher level than 15 t hey are today. So, adding into that line the 16 r equirements for the third party VICP, you must test 17 a ll product families over five years or you can test at 18 t he rate in Table A, which could be the lower rate. 19 MR. AMRANE: Frank, this is Karim, what's 20 r epeating? I mean, you must test a product over five 21 y ears-- 22 MR. MYERS: It's--

### Capita l 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 t he same thing. That's not meant to be the final 4 w ords, it was just to remind them when they write that 5 t hey need to be sure that's covered. 6 MS. DANE: It's Mary from Traulsen. I have a 7 q uestion about participation--on the first line, in the 8 t hird party verification program, if there's only one 9 a t this time, will there be a timeframe allowed for 10 o ther VIC programs to start up before this option is 11 p ut in effect or before the DoE goes through accepting? 12 B ecause, I mean, I'm assuming you're going to have to 13 g o through a process to decide who's a VICP and who's 14 n ot? 15 MS. BARHYDT: We will have to go through a 16 p rocess to issue approvals, and that will require 17 p arties to basically apply for the DoE approval. I 18 w ould prefer to combine those first two categories into 19 s imply a participant in a DoE approved verification 20 p rogram. And if an organization like AHRI, who has a 21 c ertification program and that certification program 22 p rovides an additional market benefit because they have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 170 1 m ore extensive testing or they have additional checks, 2 l ike the qualification to be a member, then you still 3 h ave that delineation between the market value that 4 b eing an AHRI participant and have AHRI certified 5 p roducts relative to the--what I would call the 6 b aseline of a participation in just the DoE approved 7 p rogram. 8 To me, there's an added value to the AHRI 9 p rogram that I don't know that we're trying to 10 d uplicate in a federal program. 11 MS. DANE: I can agree with what you're 12 s aying because to me, the amount of testing that they 13 d o does provide a lot of market value. It's kind of 14 h ow we are all volunteers of Energy Star, those of us 15 w ho choose to participate, we wouldn't have to test, 16 b ut we want to be able to tell our customers, hey, look 17 w hat we did, we spent this extra money. 18 So, I agree that a program that--a voluntary 19 i ndustry program should not necessarily have to match 20 t he AHRI requirements for those companies that wish to 21 n ot use the marketing value of it. 22 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. But at

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 171 1 t he same time, we don't want to have too much of a 2 d ifference between the two because then some could 3 q uestion why would you have to go through so much 4 t esting and rigor when on the other hand you will have 5 a DoE program which will be much less--would have much 6 l ess requirement. 7 So, I think that there needs to be a balance 8 s omewhere, and that's what the difficulty is going to 9 b e, to find that balance. 10 MS. BARHYDT: I guess that--isn't the closer 11 t he federal program is to yours, doesn't that, in a 12 w ay, devalue your program? The more distinctive your 13 p rogram is from the federal program, it seems like 14 t hat's your marketing aspect, that's how you say, we 15 h ave added value because people have gone above and 16 b eyond the federal standard for verification. 17 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. I 18 t hink it depends upon that balance. I mean, I don't 19 t hink it's--you know, if we're spending millions of 20 d ollars in testing for AHRI and another company is able 21 t o come in and spend, you know-- 22 MS. BARHYDT: Well, right now they're not

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 172 1 r equired to spend anything, so we're already raising 2 t he bar on everybody else. 3 MR. AMRANE: But let's be real, until now 4 t here was no DoE database, there was nothing, and there 5 a re no requirements in place today for commercial 6 p roduct, even to certify to DoE. So, we are changing 7 t he rules of the game in a way and that's why we're 8 s aying, well, to such an extent, fine, if there are 9 d istinctions between the two programs, but if one is 10 h ere and one is really at the bottom, I don't think 11 i t's going to be fair to everybody. 12 So, I think that will be our concern, that we 13 s trike a balance somewhere. 14 MS. BARHYDT: I understand. That makes 15 s ense. 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 W hat--could you better describe the change you were 20 p roposing earlier, what you said you would like to see? 21 A nd then, I can't envision that in words. 22 MS. BARHYDT: So, if you--so, I would say the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 173 1 t hird party verification program should be comparable 2 t o what you have there for a manufacturer's 3 v erification program, and at least my sense is that 4 t hat is still less testing than what AHRI members are 5 d oing right now. But maybe I'm mistaken there. 6 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. In 7 m any cases, that's correct, but the reason I didn't do 8 t hat initially was that there will certainly be cases 9 w here a current AHRI program participant has lots of 10 b asic models--keep in mind, the one down at the bottom 11 i s all based on basic models, the quantities are based 12 o n basic models--so, they could be in the AHRI program 13 a nd have lots of basic models in only one or two 14 p roduct families, and if the AHRI program is based on 15 p roduct families, they wouldn't have to do as many 16 t ests. So, I was trying to be careful not to impose an 17 a dditional burden on current program participants just 18 b ecause 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 j ust go with that minimum column and let's say you had22

- I'll stretch it, but let's say you had 200 basic

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 174 1 m odels, that means over five years you'd have to test 2 3 0 models once you got through your initial 3 c ertification. And certainly in the--until you got one 4 o f every model family tested, you'd be at 60 units 5 e very five years. 6 If those basic models were all contained 7 w ithin one or two--let's just, again, take it to the 8 e xtreme-- all 200 of those basic models were in one 9 m odel family, you only promoted one thing, but you had 10 a lot of units within that one thing, in the AHRI 11 p rogram you would only have to test the minimum one per 12 y ear because--in certain programs. 13 If you were, for example, a boiler and you 14 h ad 200 basic models but they were all just variations 15 o f the same thing, so you're only promoting that one 16 m odel family, then you test--once you're in the 17 p rogram, you have to test one of every model family 18 e very year, that's the lowest you can go, where this 19 s ays you would have to test six every year. 20 So, I was trying not to increase the number. 21 A nd then on top of that for new market entrants, and 22 u ntil you tested all of your basic--all of your model

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175 1 f amilies, then you're at double that rate while AHRI 2 h as other elements of their program that would more 3 t han substitute for that. They require testing of the 4 b iggest--in many of their programs--either all of the 5 b asic models or the biggest and the smallest of a 6 m odel-- basic model or a model family, so the 7 r equirements 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 m any basic models, then the AHRI program is 11 s ignificantly more testing, but there are cases where 12 t his would be more, and that was--I was trying not to 13 f orce more testing on a successful program. 14 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. If you 15 d id the percent for each of those, the 200 and above 16 w ould be a minimum of 15 percent of those would be 17 t ested. For all other categories, it would be over 20 18 p ercent of those basic models that would be tested. 19 MR. AMRANE: But Phil, here we're talking 20 o ver five years, right. AHRI, most of the time, is 20 21 p ercent in one year. 22 MR. MYERS: Right.

### Capita l 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 t hat you had changed it above, Laura, so, you're saying 3 t hat in your example you had the person that had over 4 2 00 and had 30 over five years, they would have to rate 5 i n Table A with two-fifths of the established AEDM 6 t olerance? 7 MS. BARHYDT: Or double the rate. That's the 8 p roposal up there. 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Including the ones that are in 10 a n 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 a lready have--if you're already in the AHRI program-- 17 MS. HOOTMAN: She struck out the stuff at the 18 t op. 19 MR. MYERS: Right. And that's one reason I 20 d on't think we should necessarily strike out what's at 21 t he top. Those products are already going through that 22 r eview every five years plus they have entry testing to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 177 1 g et into that program as opposed to AEDMs, you actually 2 h ave to test the products from each model family to get 3 i n. So, they've already done the--what, down at the 4 b ottom --that table was designed so that you doubled it 5 s o that you got testing of each one. Well, to get into 6 t he AHRI program, you have to test at least one of 7 e very 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 W hitwell, you can't have DoE require members of a third 11 p arty verification program to do more testing than 12 t hose in the same product category that are not. So, 13 y ou have to strike that first. AHRI may elect to have 14 t heir members test more products, that's their 15 p rerogative, but you can't have DoE require it. 16 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I tend 17 t o agree with you and that's the reason that I modified 18 f rom what I had before lunch to what you see here so 19 t hat the third party program could either do what's in 20 T able A as the sampling rate or they could do 20 21 p ercent. So, it's not requiring them to do more, it 22 g ives them two paths to compliance, either doing the 20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 178 1 p ercent or follow the chart below. 2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. I mean, there is 3 t he assumption that maybe the 20 percent is equivalent 4 t o Table A. And by having this "or" and maybe not what 5 y ou want to say, but at the same time, you know, I 6 d on't know. I mean, our programs, even with 10 7 p ercent, could be more than Table A. 8 So, again, I mean, I'm not sure how to word 9 t hat column over there, but we need maybe to think 10 a bout the implication of what it will mean, because you 11 c ould be less than 20 percent and be much more than 12 T able A. 13 MR. MYERS: Right, that's why in what I had 14 p roposed up there that's now struck, is you have to 15 e ither do 20 percent or you can do Table A. It's the-- 16 i t would be the choice of the DoE approved third party 17 v erification program, so it wouldn't mandate either of 18 t hose, it would say you could choose which one of those 19 y ou want. 20 MS. BARHYDT: But so the way that that's 21 w ritten up there, if they didn't do 20 percent, then 22 t hey are testing at the base rate of Table A, not the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 179 1 d ouble rate -- 2 MR. MYERS: Correct. 3 MS. BARHYDT: --and I think the assumption 4 t here is that the people in the DoE approved third 5 p arty verification program have spent at least five 6 y ears in AHRI's program, but Mike might decide that UL 7 i s going to have a third party approved verification 8 p rogram and he doesn't have members who've been in that 9 p rogram for the last five years, but according to that, 10 t hey would be able to test at the rate of Table A. 11 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. You're 12 c orrect, but I think your underlying assumption, if I'm 13 r eading what you're trying to point out there is that 14 i f you're a third party verification program--and maybe 15 w e need to say this overtly in the column--you had to 16 t est at least one--at least one of every model family 17 i n order to get into that program, whichever one it is, 18 a nd if we need to say that here, that's the big 19 d ifferentiation. 20 So, they can swap. If they want to go from 21 h ere to there, they don't have to redo the doubling, 22 t hey can just go by the table because they have already

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 180 1 t ested under one of these programs each model family, 2 w hich is all the double testing required. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Then we're forcing everybody 4 w ho decides to get into the market of third party 5 v erification programs that they have to make an AHRI6 s tyle program. 7 MR. MYERS: I think all we would have to do 8 t o cover that point would be to say that as a part of 9 t he definition of a third party program, that you have 10 t o require testing of each basic model family in order 11 t o enter the program. And I think--I'm not certain, 12 b ecause I don't know all the different variations, but 13 I believe that's the case for all of the AHRI programs 14 w here you have to test at least one of every basic 15 m odel to get in. 16 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I 17 d on'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 m ean, I think we're--for the purposes of discussion, 22 w e're all kind of saying a basic model family is a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 181 1 b asic model group from an AHRI standpoint, but we 2 h aven't negotiated or finished that negotiation. I 3 d on't believe that you have to test all your basic 4 m odel groups to enter a program on all the programs. 5 B ut, you know, you guys can correct me. 6 MR. TRITSIS: That is correct. For some 7 p rograms you don't have to test every model represented 8 i n model of each product family, but you do have to 9 s upply test reports. You know, we tested 20 percent or 10 m ore, depending on the program, to enter the program, 11 b efore you enter the program, but you do have to 12 p rovide test reports for all basic model groups that 13 a re listed. 14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. If you 15 c an give me just a moment to look back at my original 16 d ocument, I think we can add some fairly simple 17 l anguage to cover that. We allow substitution--that's 18 p robably not the right word--acceptance of several 19 t hird party pieces of data. In lieu of the continuing 20 t est we may be able to say that those plus an existing21

- add an existing VICP program to the list of the other 22 t hree whose data we were accepting and say that data

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 182 1 f rom those places can be used to show that you've 2 t ested at least one basic model family, one of every 3 b asic model family. 4 MS. BARHYDT: Can you show us that language? 5 I s that only supposed to be applicable to the new 6 m arket entrants or program entrants? Or is that 7 g enerally? 8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Yes, 9 s he's at the section down at the bottom of the screen 10 t hat I was referring to. Perhaps we could reword that 11 t o add a fourth group. We have NRCan, Energy Star, and 12 1 7025 third party lab, and then--to shorten it up, a 13 V ICP--that we would accept information from a VICP, and 14 t hen somehow word into it you can use that information 15 w here you have previously tested model families to meet 16 t he compliance requirement that you have to have at 17 l east one of every model family tested. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So, it looks like if you change 19 t hat to--if any of the--and I'm guessing here, you all 20 c orrect me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying 21 i s if any of the basic models selected were tested by 22 E nergy Star, NRCan, a 17025 third party laboratory

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 183 1 v erification program, would AHRI fall into that? It 2 w ould--no? 3 MR. MYERS: Or VICP. 4 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. Or VICP. 5 MS. DEGITSZ: But why wouldn't it be a third 6 p arty-- 7 MS. BARHYDT: I think it's not 17025. 8 MR. TRITSIS: I think we need to add to this 9 t he 17065. Okay, this is-- 10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 11 MR. TRITSIS: --okay, 17065, again, and 17025 12 g o hand in hand with 17025 reflecting the laboratory 13 a nd the qualification of the laboratory, and 17065 is 14 t o verification programs, industry verification 15 p rograms. 16 MS. BARHYDT: And take out laboratory? 17 MS. DANE: Didn't yesterday we discuss that 18 w e would do "or" but not "and"? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, I'm just trying to kind 20 o f-- I'm--I don't think this exact language is going to 21 l ast. 22 MS. DANE: I believe one precludes third

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 184 1 p arty labs from participating, so I want to make sure 2 i t's "or". 3 MR. TRITSIS: No, it does not, it should be 4 " and", both of them. They're completely distinct 5 s tandards that the laboratories, like UL, like CSA have 6 a ccreditation too, like the 17065. 7 MR. STEPHENS: I downloaded them and read 8 t hem last night and Bill's correct. So, your lab would 9 b e 17025 but the third party that would grant you the 10 1 7025 would be 17065. 11 MS. MEYERS: So, Laura, we have another 12 p roposal. Actually, Rusty has another proposal that 13 w e're putting on a memory stick that we would like to 14 p ropose 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 g ot a question with that section there. Would they be 19 a ble to use the testing that they did to substantiate 20 t heir AEDM for that as well, since they are doing the 21 t esting to substantiate their AEDM and since all the 22 r ating is based on the AEDM and the AEDM is found to be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 185 1 a ccurate? Does that fall into their testing--would be 2 v alid also? 3 MS. BARHYDT: Correct me if my recollection 4 i s wrong, but I don't think we had any requirements on 5 t he test data that substantiated the AEDM. Was that 6 r equired 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 o pportunity to thank my publisher, my family. All 13 r ight, so I try and think of the things we talked about 14 a nd where we've discussed that there's a different 15 q ualification methods people want, different testing 16 l ocations, ways to select samples, et cetera, trying to 17 f ind a way that would give a level playing field so 18 t hat everybody plays under the same rules and would 19 a lso give an option for those who want a lower audit 20 r ate to have a method of getting there. 21 If we started--and these figures would 22 o bviously change subject to discussion, but we'd start

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 186 1 w ith something like a base audit rate of 10 percent. 2 A nd--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 T he question was, is there anything in Column B. So, 6 t his is the base rate that you start with. It could be 7 1 0 percent, 20 percent, wherever we choose. 8 And then we can come up with easy, medium, or 9 h ard qualification process to get into the program, you 10 c an choose your testing location, whether you want it 11 t o be your manufacturer's lab, a satellite lab, or a 12 t hird party, their lab type of thing, you can choose 13 w here you get your sample selection from. You can get 14 i t of the production line, OM inventory, or off a 15 d istribution shelf. You can choose your tolerances 16 t hat you want, tight tolerance or a standard tolerance. 17 A nd then there- -a factor that could be based off of 18 t he number of years you're in the program and in the 19 p ast AHRI had a look- back and we sort of didn't like 20 t hat. We've gotten away from that. But, you know, 21 t his could be last year's failure rate, it could be an 22 a verage failure rate, some of that nature, but

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 187 1 b asically with--if you've been in the program longer, 2 w ith lower failure rates, you have a lower factor. If 3 y ou have higher failure rates, you have a higher 4 f actor. Lower years in the program, higher factor. 5 T hat type of thing. 6 And what this would do is if we have a base 7 r ate of 10 percent--and this is sort of a--the 8 s election there is somewhat of an AHRI process, so if 9 w e have a medium qualification difficulty with testing 10 a t a third party laboratory with inventory coming out 11 o f an OEM lab--or inventory coming from an OEM with 12 s tandard tolerances, entry level, you're testing at 20 13 p ercent per year. 14 And then for those who would like to have a 15 l ower audit rate, they could have a tighter 16 q ualification initially and if they want to test at 17 t heir own or a satellite lab, they could have things 18 p ulled, like Charlie said, he's got tons of inventory, 19 w e just have it pulled off the distribution shelf, 20 c hoose a tighter tolerance, and then he gets to a lower 21 a udit rate than the 20 percent. 22 So, something of this nature, I think, might

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 188 1 b e able to help us all so we just--and being a geeky 2 e ngineer, I like formulas and things and spreadsheets. 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. THARP: So, I thought this might be a 5 s imilar but different method of looking at the way that 6 w as presented. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: (Off microphone.) 8 MS. BARHYDT: I love it. 9 MR. THARP: And once you get out to--if 10 y ou're testing--you know, if you've been in the program 11 f ive years and very low failure rate, you get pretty 12 l ow--if you have no failures, zero--there's an error in 13 m y formula somewhere. 14 MS. BARHYDT: It knew that wasn't realistic. 15 MR. THARP: So, you get down to 5 percent, 16 s omething like that, you know, depending on what 17 o ptions you choose. 18 MR. FLY: So, can you put an Excel sheet in 19 t he Federal Register? 20 MS. BARHYDT: What? 21 MR. FLY: Can you put an Excel sheet in the 22 F ederal Register?

### Capita l 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 t echnical support documents are on the web, I think, in 4 t he Federal Register. 5 MS. BARHYDT: We publish a link to the--where 6 t he TSD is. 7 MR. SACHS: So, I may or may not like this 8 s heet, but it's not precluded, to the best of my 9 k nowledge. 10 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Two 11 f undamental issues that are not addressed by this, one 12 i s--and I'm really surprised that folks from the AHRI 13 p rogram have not said something, but this is based on 14 b asic models and there are definitely programs that do 15 n ot require 10 percent of the basic models to be tested 16 e very year. 17 MS. BARHYDT: My understanding was that that 18 w as a base audit rate to be determined with the 19 p ercentages, what the grouping is, that it's-- 20 MR. MYERS: Okay. I had asked--this is Frank 21 M yers, PVI--I had asked the question, on what is that 22 b ased, and was told that it was basic models. If

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 190 1 t hat's not basic models, if that's basic model groups, 2 t hen I'll need to take a closer look on that issue. 3 The other is, it does not address 4 m anufacturers of build to order--small manufacturers of 5 b uild to order that have lots of models, again, if this 6 i s based on basic models, have lots of models, but 7 d oesn't ship lots of models. We can go for years and 8 n ot sell basic models. If this is based on basic model 9 f amilies, however we define that, then it becomes more 10 d oable. 11 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, and I guess my 12 r esponse goes to, obviously, yeah, the first one would 13 p robably be basic model group, not basic models or 14 p roduct family, something, and the second point, this 15 w ould really be again for our general discussion is not 16 o ne offs or not engineer to order type products, so 17 t hat would be a separate class of product that would be 18 h andled separately. 19 So, this would be for the more typical higher 20 v olume stuff. End of rant. 21 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. Two things. One, 22 o n the choose testing location, third party testing at

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191 1 m y location, is that-- 2 MR. THARP: We could group it however you 3 w ant. This is just a--we could make three different 4 o ptions, we could make it just two options, however 5 m any options you want. Basically my intent was to show 6 a concept of how to get to a point that everybody might 7 b e happy with. 8 So, please don't take each one of these 9 s pecific items as being hard and fast because, you 10 k now, we may want to choose three levels of tolerances 11 o r maybe if to make Harvey happy, if I have a zero 12 t olerance option. That would be-- 13 MR. SACHS: Yes. 14 MR. THARP: --and then we cut the audit rate 15 i n half, right? Again, it's just a general idea and 16 t he details of that could be ironed out a little bit. 17 B ut I just threw some numbers and things in there to 18 s ort of get a general idea of what could happen with 19 t he various options and, you know, not to say that we 20 c ouldn't throw in yet another option, because that 21 w ould give us more opportunities to make more formulas. 22 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. If

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 192 1 w e all could get a copy of this to see how you're 2 w eighting those different factors so that we could 3 m onkey with the numbers and see what makes sense, 4 t rying some different scenarios out. I understand the 5 c oncept and other than the fact that this is 6 s ignificantly complex, made simple only by the fact 7 t hat you're taking all of these parameters and putting 8 i t through a spreadsheet, for somebody to really 9 u nderstand all of the ramifications is going to take 10 t hem quite a while to know how they should comment on 11 s omething like that. 12 But having said that, I would like to get a 13 c opy of the spreadsheet and just try putting in-- 14 p lugging in some real world, what if a manufacturer had 15 t his mix of things. 16 MR. THARP: We'll distribute as soon as I get 17 m y copyright. I'm in a good mood today. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So, generally speaking, do 19 p eople think this sort of a framework would work where 20 t est 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 193 1 S tephens. 2 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. 3 MS. BARHYDT: And you've been such an 4 o utspoken critic. That's real progress. 5 MS. DANE: We'd kind of like to look at it 6 a lso, but we would have to know how things had come in 7 t hat are grandfathered would be treated and, you know, 8 m aybe just a couple little questions like that, and we 9 c ould probably work with something like this. 10 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I very much 11 l ike the creativity both of this and the thoughts that 12 F rank has brought to it. My instinct is that this is 13 a n incredible basis for a lot of discussion. I would 14 n ot be surprised if we wind up with a couple of 15 s ubsidiary sheets that are specific to, say, CRE or 16 b uild to order that are enough simpler that can just be 17 p resented as tables, but as a framework it's--damn 18 c lever, boy. 19 (Laughter.) 20 MR. KLEISS: This is Jeff. Would you--I'm 21 s orry if you explained this before, but would you 22 r evisit "choose qualification" what is encompassed in

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 194 1 t hat? 2 MR. THARP: For example, in the AHRI 3 p rograms, some programs have 30 percent, some have 20 4 p ercent, and some have different pass/fail requirements 5 t o get into the program. So, if--you know, an easy may 6 b e that there's really no additional entry tests and 7 m edium may be that you test 10 percent of your basic 8 m odels, hard maybe you test 20 or 30 percent of your 9 b asic models, something along those lines, and then 10 h ard, you know, you have to test 30 percent and pass 11 1 00 percent of your tests at 95 percent or better of 12 r ated values. 13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Is 14 t hat to enter the program? Is that what you're talking 15 a bout? 16 MR. THARP: Correct. Yeah. That would be 17 b ased on your entry. And then basically if you--what 18 t he formulas would do is if you've been in the program 19 t hen that sort of goes away once you've got a five-year 20 h istory put in place. 21 MR. MYERS: So, we already have an entry 22 m echanism, you can either test each basic model and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 195 1 t urn that into DoE--that we've agreed upon, or the 2 A EDM. 3 MR. THARP: That's for certification. And 4 t his 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 v erification? 10 MS. BARHYDT: So, to give you an example, I 11 t hink this is what you're thinking, so--I'm a 12 m anufacturer and I want to continue selling after this 13 n ew 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 t he CSA, the UL program, the AHRI program? Do I want 16 t o make my own program? Well, let's see, AHRI requires 17 m e to do some qualification testing to get into their 18 p rogram. If I make my own program, maybe I just won't 19 d o any of the initial testing beyond--because I already 20 h ave all my test data for certification. So, I'm going 21 t o make my own program and I'm not going to do any 22 a dditional testing for my program.

### Capita l 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 h igher burdens, either in terms of stringency or amount 3 o f testing, but maybe if I enter AHRI's program, 4 t here's an initial up front cost in terms of 5 q ualification, but maybe there are some other options 6 t here 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 e ntry and the AEDM entry, which, when we were working 12 o n AEDMs, I thought that was to get into the listing 13 a nd now we want a verify the listing. There is an 14 e ntry program to get into the AHRI program, that's 15 t rue, but you can't--if you're in, you have to be in 16 w ith everything and you can't put a new product on the 17 m arket until you've gone through their program. 18 So, I thought this was--the AEDM was a 19 s ubstitute for having to test however many you have to 20 t est in the AHRI program. When you're going into the 21 D oE program you would test either every basic model or 22 A EDM.

### Capita l 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 e verybody's clear on this, because this is very 3 f undamental, I am a, let's say, new entrant to the 4 m arket. I want to sell my products in the United 5 S tates. Every basic model has to be certified to the 6 D epartment of Energy on a certification report. 7 So, before I can do that, I have to have some 8 t est data. I either have to test each basic model or I 9 h ave to test enough to meet the AEDM requirements and I 10 h ave to develop my AEDM. 11 From those two methods, I get my 12 c ertification numbers. What we're talking about is an 13 a dditional program--so, that's how I get in and I 14 c ertify my products so I can sell, but I'm also going 15 t o have to join a verification program. Each 16 v erification program may want to impose a check. So, 17 m aybe AHRI says, for this product, we're going to 18 r equire you to do some additional testing to double 19 c heck your AEDM, or perhaps for other products, AHRI 20 s ays, well, for these we don't require additional 21 t esting, but we require you to provide us all of that 22 t est data that you used as the basis of your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 198 1 c ertification and we're going to take a look at that. 2 And what we're saying is that there can be 3 v ariability in what that requirement is and it may vary 4 f or AHRI, it varies by product, it may vary from 5 v erification program to verification program, but that 6 w ould be up to the person running the program as to 7 w hat they wanted to ask for, but that could have 8 i mpacts on what other burdens are in the process. Does 9 t hat make sense? 10 MR. MYERS: I'm hearing it. I'm just 11 t hinking of the double work that those that are not in 12 t hat program would have to do. Because we'd have to do 13 t he AEDM to get on the chart where the folks that are 14 i n the program just run these tests and then they're in 15 t he program. 16 MR. WHITWELL: No, Frank, you're wrong. 17 T hose that are in the AHRI program also have to have 18 t he AEDM, they have to run the tests to validate the 19 A EDM. Or we have to test every model for developing 20 t he rating. No different than those that are not in 21 t he program. 22 MR. MYERS: So, when you're filling out--this

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 199 1 i s Frank Myers, PVI again--when you're filling out this 2 s preadsheet and you're making your choice as to the 3 s tringency, one of the choices, then, is not on the 4 e asy, hard--if you're in the AHRI program, that's not 5 n ecessarily easy, medium, hard, you'd have to look at 6 t hat program to determine whether it's easy, medium, or 7 h ard. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so-- 9 MR. WHITWELL: I think that's what Rusty was 10 t hinking, yes. 11 MR. MYERS: If that's the case, then I 12 u nderstand and don't really have a problem with that. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, so this wouldn't be each 14 m anufacturer doing the spreadsheet, it would be the 15 p erson setting up the program and applying for DoE 16 a pproval and then whatever it works out to is what's 17 g oing to be incorporated into the program. And so, in 18 m y mind, this is a tool DoE would use to make sure that 19 t he program, as proposed, meets the level that we 20 r equire. 21 MR. MYERS: Frank Myers, PVI. If we had two22

- if a manufacturer had a small group of products that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 200 1 w ere high volume and you wanted to do the hard way in 2 o rder to keep the test numbers down, you could do that 3 f or part of your line and then take the easy way, which 4 r equired more testing, for a slower moving product. 5 I t's not restricting a manufacturer to a single number. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Single method is what you're 7 s aying. 8 MR. MYERS: Yeah, if your number came out on 9 s ome of your products-- 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Single product class, possibly. 11 MR. MYERS: --just because it's on the 12 s creen, 4.8, if you had other product families that the 13 n umber came out to 30, then that's okay, you'd do 30 14 f or those and 4.8 for these. 15 MS. BARHYDT: I think that can work. I think 16 t hat if you're setting up your own program, then you 17 w ould make sure that for each product class or whatever 18 t he different levels are, that you would specify what 19 y ou were going to use for that and you'd be bound to 20 s tick with that. 21 MR. MYERS: Okay. 22 MS. BARHYDT: If you were joining a program,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 201 1 t hen it would be up to them as to whether they were 2 w illing to let you split. 3 So, is everybody okay with the idea of some 4 f orm of qualification? Because we had started to talk 5 a bout that a little bit last week. 6 MR. KOJAK: I've got a question. This is 7 M ike Kojak with UL. When you were talking about if the 8 m anufacturer wants to start their own DoE approved 9 V ICP, they would still have to have oversight from 10 e ither another--from somebody, right? I mean, it's-- 11 b ecause I remember we were talking about it has to be 12 l ike third party witnessed or something. 13 MS. BARHYDT: There's got to be some level of 14 i ndependence and oversight, yes. 15 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussmann. I 16 m ean, we're talking or assuming, I guess, that UL and 17 I ntertek and others will have a program, but when will 18 w e know for sure that will be a possibility or that 19 w ill be an option? 20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. 21 J ust to make sure I understand that question. When you 22 s ay those three laboratories will have a program, you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202 1 d on't-- if you have a--you can join a third party 2 l aboratory's approved verification program, but that 3 d oesn't necessarily mean that you cannot have a 4 m anufacturer's verification program that utilizes a 5 t hird party laboratory, but it's not their program, 6 i t's your program. 7 So, the question then is, for independent 8 p rograms, as opposed to the manufacturer using a third 9 p arty lab, do all of the major labs have that now? Are 10 t hey--I believe some do. 11 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I know 12 o ne of DoE's points is--one of the places you want to 13 k eep your independence is in unit selection area 14 b ecause you don't want to select your own. I 15 u nderstand that, but, you know, does that need to be 16 a nother category up here? Or how would that work in a 17 m anufacturer who created his own program? Or is that 18 l eft up to the manufacturer to come up with something 19 f or DoE that would be acceptable? 20 MS. BARHYDT: I think there are several 21 a dditional factors that--I mean, that reflects what 22 w e've talked about so far, but there are still more

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 203 1 f actors. 2 MR. FLY: So, maybe degree of independence of 3 s election is one of the-- 4 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, the actual model for test 5 s election and then-- 6 MR. FLY: Because I'm assuming that DoE 7 d oesn't want to get in the business of selecting or do 8 y ou--or is that yet to be decided? 9 MS. BARHYDT: We're not chomping at the bit 10 t o do that, but I mean if it's something that we end up 11 i n a position where we have to do it, we will fill that 12 r ole, but it is certainly our preference that we come 13 u p with mechanisms to do that without DoE being the one 14 w ho has to do all the selections. 15 MR. KOJAK: It could be left up to the third 16 p arty lab that actually has to witness the testing, 17 m aybe they can make the selections as well so they know 18 w hat test they'll be witnessing, like what type of 19 u nits and things. And they might be able to get that 20 g uidance from the DoE or something, just an idea. 21 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 22 C ertainly that should be the case for a third party

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 204 1 l aboratory verification program. For a manufacturer's 2 v erification program, we need to have the opportunity 3 t o work with DoE to make those product selections. We 4 w ould make a recommendation as to what we should do, 5 b ut then they would--they should approve it as opposed 6 t o negotiating with a laboratory that we contract with 7 t o do the, either witnessing or oversight. I'd a lot 8 r ather do that with DoE than a laboratory I'm 9 c ontracting with. 10 If I'm using their verification service, 11 t hat's one thing, but if I'm just using them as a third 12 p arty witnessing organization, I'd rather have the 13 m odel selection done with DoE, but that's just for the 14 m anufacturer's program. 15 MS. BARHYDT: If you switch back over to the16

- and I don't know, we may have inserted additional 17 s lides- -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 l ot of slides. Hold on, it's about five slides after

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205 1 t hat, maybe six. 2 MS. DEGITSZ: This one? 3 MS. BARHYDT: That one. So, these were some 4 o f the things we were thinking about that we might want 5 t o see. So, a voluntary verification program, we think 6 i t should allow anyone to participate without 7 r equirement to join the membership group, and I believe 8 A HRI already does that, you allow people to use your 9 v erification program. So, that kind of a set up. 10 That the program should allow DoE input in 11 p roduct selection. I don't know how much we would 12 e xercise that, but we would like to have that 13 o pportunity. The list of all models in the program, I 14 t hink that the idea there is that the party running the 15 p rogram should know which models are in the program and 16 i f--I mean, I guess it's possible a manufacturer would 17 s ay I want to test these products in your program and I 18 w ant these other products to be--and maybe it's on a 19 p roduct class basis, the really large stuff that Jill 20 m anufactures, maybe she decides to run her own 21 v erification program for it. 22 So, maybe there would be some possibility of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 206 1 t hat kind of thing. And so, we would want it clear as 2 t o which models were in which program. 3 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. At least 4 t wo of the AHRI programs are like that where they cover 5 e verything up to a certain size, but above that size, 6 i t's optional whether you participate. 7 MR. AMRANE: Right. But there are other 8 p rograms where you have to basically certify 9 e verything. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Everything. 11 MR. AMRANE: Yep. 12 MS. BARHYDT: So, the main would be just that 13 i t needs to be clear to the Department about which 14 p rogram models were in, that way a manufacturer 15 c ouldn't say, oh, I'm a participant in AHRI and 16 u nbeknownst to the Department they actually have 17 c ertified a variety of other basic models that they 18 a ren't actually putting in to the verification program. 19 So, it's just a way for us to check that 20 m anufacturers really have all of their models, basic 21 m odels, in the program. 22 We would want to see the list of models that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 207 1 a re going to be obtained for verification testing, that 2 m ight be quarterly, semiannually, annually, depending 3 o n what basis that plan is set up for, making 4 s elections, so that we know which models are actually 5 b eing tested, and then we would want to see a list of 6 t he tested models and the results. 7 Ideally, we would love to have the full test 8 r eports, but I think we'll probably get some push back 9 o n that one. Bob? 10 MR. WHITWELL: Yes, sorry. Yeah, this is 11 B ob. So, do you want to have a discussion on this now? 12 MS. BARHYDT: So, I'll read all the bullet 13 p oints and then we'll go back and revisit them. 14 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, great. 15 MS. BARHYDT: We think that the program plan 16 s hould document the process for procuring the product 17 s o that we know how the units are going to be obtained, 18 t he testing would obviously be to the applicable DoE 19 t est procedure. There would be DoE involvement in the 20 c ase of test procedure questions including setup and 21 a ll program failures should be referred to the 22 D epartment within some specified time interval.

### Capita l 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 d iscuss at least one of these points. 3 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, there are two points 4 h ere, I think. One is providing full test reports. 5 S ince DoE is not paying for the report, I think that it 6 w ould be adequate to provide for the--DAVP to provide 7 t he summary of the test results. And then the second 8 t o the last, about DoE involvement in the case of test 9 p rocedure questions, again, since, you know, 10 m anufacturers are paying for these tests, I'm not sure 11 t hat that would be warranted as well. 12 MS. BARHYDT: So, the test procedure 13 q uestions are interpretations of the DoE test 14 p rocedure, so irrespective of whether who's paying for 15 i t, I mean, it's still an interpretation of the DoE 16 t est procedure, so it seems odd to me that the DoE 17 w ouldn't have some involvement in that interpretation. 18 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, test procedure 19 q uestions, okay, I understand that. The clause 20 " including setup", though, I'm not sure--I guess maybe 21 y ou could define what you meant there. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so, now we're really into

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209 1 a n "actually" type of question, but I'll give this a 2 s hot. 3 So, if there's a question about how the 4 d ucting is supposed to be set up and whether or not the 5 t est procedure specifies that you were supposed to have 6 i t set up one way or another way, and I just don't know 7 e nough of the specifics, I'm making this up at this 8 p oint, but those kinds of questions would be questions 9 w e would expect to come to DoE. 10 Now, if it's a question about whether or not 11 t he settings on--like, how do I achieve the CFM for 12 t his particular model, yeah, I would think that DoE is 13 n ot the expert on your product, and so that's a 14 d ifferent issue. 15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. So, these are all 16 q uestions regarding the test procedure itself. 17 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 18 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. All right. I didn't 19 u nderstand it that way. 20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers at PVI. I 21 h ave a question to those directly involved with the 22 A HRI program and its administration. Each group does

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 210 1 l ook at special things like, you know, can you take a 2 u nit out of a subzero room and then immediately test it 3 o r does it have to set there for X amount of hours 4 b efore you test it and we give that guidance to the 5 l aboratory to make sure that it's consistent. We 6 c reate a document for that. Is there a concern about 7 p roviding that document once it's released and we're 8 a ctually going to use it, providing that to DoE? Or is 9 t hat felt to be proprietary? 10 MR. TRITSIS: All these documents are 11 c urrently available on the website, AHRI documents that 12 o ur participants are asked to adhere to are public 13 d ocuments. 14 MR. MYERS: Thank you. 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Ashley knows about that. 16 MR. MYERS: That's what I thought. I didn't 17 w ant to presume that, which was the reason I was asking 18 i t that way, so at least for that program you have 19 a ccess to--and if there are questions that they feel 20 t hey need to get guidance from DoE on, they would do 21 t hat in writing that, but at least after the fact, you 22 c ould-- soon as it was, here's what we want the lab to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211 1 d o, could make a copy available. 2 MS. BARHYDT: So, the issue there is that the 3 g uidance AHRI provides is not the definitive guidance 4 o f the Department, and so while AHRI's labs may be 5 t esting that way for AHRI members, there's no guaranty 6 t hat there will be consistency for non-AHRI members. 7 A nd so, the-- what we want to do is get to the point 8 w here DoE is more involved so that we can issue 9 g uidance for the entire industry on the test procedure, 10 s o where you find that there is something that requires 11 g uidance, we need to address that industry-wide, not 12 j ust for AHRI members. 13 MR. MYERS: Frank Myers, PVI. I agree that 14 t hat information does need to get out to other test 15 l aboratories and to manufacturers that don't 16 p articipate in those programs so that everybody is 17 p laying by the same--singing to the same song sheet. 18 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I would ask 19 t hat DoE also involve--quite often DoE references an 20 e xisting test standard and those test standards, quite 21 o ften, are in a process whereby there are 22 i nterpretations written so that everybody can see that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 212 1 i nterpretation. ASHRAE does that, so I would ask that 2 t he DoE take that into consideration as well. ASHRAE 3 w ould--I certainly would very much welcome the DoE's 4 i nput and direction because we don't want to have a 5 c onflict in situation here, but definitely get ASHRAE 6 o r AHRI, which is--their 1200 standard, in our case-- 7 g et them involved as well because there could be a 8 d ifference in what you interpret and what ASHRAE would 9 i nterpret. 10 MR. AMRANE: I agree. This is Karim with 11 A HRI and I think we have--we have started a process by 12 w hich DoE would be invited at all meetings when we 13 r evise our standards. 14 I have a question about--what do you mean by 15 p rogram failures? Do you mean product that didn't meet 16 t he-- 17 MS. BARHYDT: That makes it sound like the 18 p rogram failed. So, where a product--well, there would 19 b e two scenarios. One is that if the product tested 20 w as below the standards, DoE would be notified of that. 21 T he other would be if the product was rated with an 22 A EDM and it didn't meet the AEDM criteria that we set

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 213 1 u p before when we were talking about AEDMs, we would be 2 n otified about that. 3 MR. AMRANE: But this will not be, for 4 e xample, if a product is above the federal Energy Star 5 p roduct, 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 s tandard, though, but below what the rating was 9 i nitially listed to with the voluntary program or with 10 D oE for that matter. 11 MS. BARHYDT: So, it would depend on--if it 12 w as rated with an AEDM and it was outside the tolerance 13 w e set for an AEDM-- 14 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And looking at 15 t he third bullet from the bottom, testing the 16 a pplicable DoE test procedure only, I'm quizzical about 17 t he last word. If I wanted-- 18 MS. BARHYDT: I didn't write this. 19 MR. SACHS: May I recommend that that be 20 s truck? 21 MS. BARHYDT: That's fine. 22 MR. THARP: Stricken.

### Capita l 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 b ut I think that, you know, these things that we said 3 w ere communications that we have to the test lab from 4 t he programs, which are not part of the test procedure 5 t oday -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: That's actually probably-- 7 MS. HOOTMAN: --but we are working on getting 8 t hem as part of the test procedure, just like Karim 9 s aid, we're working on reviewing, at least in the case 10 o f commercial HVAC, I know we're working on getting 11 t hose test procedures such that we will incorporate 12 t hose notes and those guidances into the test 13 p rocedure. 14 MR. SACHS: Thank you, Jill, for continuing 15 m y education, and I mean it. The reason it sort of 16 r aised a bit of a hackle is that we have ongoing issues 17 a bout whether it makes sense for some CRE manufacturers 18 a t some times to run their NSFs while they've got the 19 s ame witness as their running their DoE tests, and they 20 o nly looked like it might preclude that kind of 21 s ynergy, and that's what I was wondering about. Thank 22 y ou.

### Capita l 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 d o that. Go ahead, Bob. 3 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, another example would be 4 i n AHRI for new entrants, there are max load/ low load 5 t ests that are required as well, so--so that would be 6 a nother example of where we would test only to the DoE 7 t est procedure. 8 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 9 k ind of have a procedural question. Can--you know, you 10 r eferenced test standards in the DoE regs. Do you have 11 t o specify an actual standard and a year, or can it 12 j ust say the standard and the most recent version since 13 t he standards are changing so fast right now? 14 MS. BARHYDT: No, we have to reference a 15 s pecific version. 16 MR. KOJAK: Okay. 17 (Off the record discussion.) 18 MS. BARHYDT: That's really not productive, 19 H arvey. That's not productive. 20 MR. SACHS: Laura, it was done with a smile 21 o f respect. I'm not sure why. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Are there any other issues with

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 216 1 a nything on this page? 2 MS. HOOTMAN: I think we're going to get to 3 t hat in enforcement maybe, I'm not sure, but what 4 c onstitutes a failure, and I guess I'm getting at--you 5 k now, we have processes within AHRI about a defective 6 c laim and things like that. So, you know, when is it 7 t ruly a failure and not something that we've claimed as 8 d efective or something? But I'm assuming we're getting 9 t here at some point. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, I know I've seen that one 11 o f these slides. I'm not sure which one. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. 13 MS. BARHYDT: So, I actually think Jill is 14 r ight. I think "only" was intended to limit it to DoE, 15 t he DoE test procedure and guidance issued by the 16 D epartment, and that is to ensure that we have 17 c onsistency regardless of who's doing the testing. 18 And I understand that "only" is confusing, so 19 i f anyone has suggestions on how to clarify that. 20 MR. BALLO: Testing to the applicable DoE 21 t est procedure and any applicable DoE guidance 22 i nterpreting that procedure.

### Capita l 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 g uidance document so that-- 5 MS. BARHYDT: Hmm? 6 MR. EISNER: Are you requiring compliance 7 w ith a guidance document? 8 MS. BARHYDT: Mm-mm. 9 MR. EISNER: What does this mean? 10 R equirements for approving it include-- 11 MS. BARHYDT: Where? 12 MR. EISNER: The top line. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, for - so, in their program 14 p lan they would agree to only use those documents and 15 n ot other documents. 16 MR. EISNER: Yeah, I mean, you're requiring 17 c ompliance with something that is intended to be 18 g uidance. Why don't you just say your DoE test 19 p rocedures? 20 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, that's fine. The real 21 i ssue is the "and not other stuff" and that's the-- 22 t hat's the difficulty of only --

### Capita l 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 o r some other program that has given guidance. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So, go back up to DoE test 4 p rocedure, delete everything there, and-- 5 MR. KOJAK: Shouldn't you add in "and 6 w aivers" too? 7 MS. BARHYDT: Well, applicable DoE test 8 p rocedure actually includes the waiver. 9 MR. KOJAK: Okay. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Because the applicable test 11 p rocedure 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 c an 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 J ill. Allowance of--I'm not--I agree with this-- 21 a llowance of DoE input in product selection, but how do 22 y ou envision that kind of working where the program

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 219 1 w ould give you the list of what they're selecting and 2 t hen you're saying yes or add in this? Is it-- 3 a llowance of DoE input in product selection. 4 MS. BARHYDT: No, I think we're thinking more 5 l ike we go to the verification program and say, we've 6 b een seeing failures across the industry in this 7 p articular area. Can you make sure you select 8 s omething with these features or-- 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. Okay. 10 MR. FLY: So, you're approving more of a--I 11 m ean, there are special cases and then I would assume 12 y ou would approve a process when you approve the 13 i ndependent test procedure, you know, a process that 14 m ight not be approved is, I'm going to do a five, ten, 15 1 5, 20-ton, you know, in that order, kind of deal. 16 MS. BARHYDT: Probably not quite that 17 p redictable. 18 MR. EISNER: Do you intend this to still have 19 t he "include" in there, that you might not want to add 20 m ore, or is this supposed to be it? 21 MS. BARHYDT: I think there are more slides. 22 S o, it would be "include".

### Capita l 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 i s the difference between the second and fourth dash 3 p oint? 4 MS. BARHYDT: So, one is making explicit that 5 D oE gets some input and the fourth one is that we 6 a ctually know what is being tested. 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Couldn't we combine 8 t hose? 9 MS. BARHYDT: Will that add clarity? 10 MR. EISNER: The fourth bullet is saying it's 11 g ot 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 t his is for third party verification testing, right, 17 y ou will have something similar for other--for, like, 18 s ay a manufacturer approved program or-- 19 MS. BARHYDT: So, this would be for anyone 20 w ho is approved--for us to approve a program, 21 r egardless of who's running it, it would have to meet 22 a ll of these.

### Capita l 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 a bout the summary test reports rather than full test 3 r eports, and first off, let me say I'm not advocating 4 t hat all test reports be submitted to DoE. My concern 5 i s when it's revising test procedures, I think it would 6 b e helpful for the Department to have the ability to 7 r equest if not full test reports, at least elements of 8 t est reports that may demonstrate how an issue has been 9 h andled on the ground during testing. There may be, 10 y ou know, issues of interpretation that are not 11 a pparent today that could surface later that--you know, 12 t hat hasn't been something anyone's even asked about, 13 b ut, you know, in order to, when we're amending the 14 t est procedure to get it right, I think I'd want to 15 p reserve the ability for the Department to request at 16 l east elements of test reports. 17 MS. BARHYDT: We can always request test 18 r eports. This is what they're required to proactively 19 p rovide. 20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I have a 21 q uestion for Tim, Laura, and the extinguished cadre 22 a ssembled. It would seem to me that this is an

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 222 1 i mportant concern but would it be appropriate to ask 2 w hoever is that program administrator, VICP or other, 3 t o issue a summary report on interpretive issues with 4 e ach standard that have arisen during the prior year? 5 MS. BARHYDT: So, I think Tim was saying that 6 t here may be issues that people haven't asked about 7 w hereas we want--to the extent that there are questions 8 d uring testing, DoE wants to know about them when they 9 h appen, in which case, we're always compiling lists of 10 a ll the stuff to fix in the next test procedure 11 r ulemaking. 12 MR. BALLO: I guess I was concerned that 13 t here's stuff that's not even being questioned now 14 b ecause this is just, oh, this is the way we've done 15 i t, and, you know, no one realizes that anyone else 16 m ight interpret it a different way. 17 But if you do get a question about that or, 18 y ou know, you at least have the ability to see that it 19 h as been done that way. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Do you all think that you'd 21 a ctually be able to tell that from a test report? 22 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 223 1 t hink it would be--because of the set-up of the 2 p roduct, that's probably where most of the issues, I 3 w ould think, would be are and other areas like--as 4 w e've talked about this elite process and code testers, 5 w hat's not documented almost ever is the--in an 6 i ndividual test report is the bank of nozzles used to 7 m easure the air flow, how--what diameter--diameters 8 u sed is usually documented, but the physical 9 a rrangement of the nozzles, things of that nature, 10 t here may be pictures of the test setup, but it may not 11 t ell you the diameter of the sampler and the hole sizes 12 u sed in the samplers. 13 Those are the types of interpretation things 14 t hat I would think would be questioned down the road, 15 b ut that's not in a typical test report. Maybe some 16 d ocumentation of it, but, you know, DoE has asked, and 17 i t's a good practice for any lab to take pictures of 18 t he setups and things of that nature, but again, some 19 o f those you can't really tell the details that may be 20 q uestioned down the road. 21 And I like the idea of having that detail in 22 e very report, but again, because of proprietary

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 224 1 c onfidential information and the ability and the ease 2 i t would provide another manufacturer of copying my 3 p roduct, 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 t hat I don't want the details as far as the refrigerant 7 s tate points and the individual component power 8 c onsumptions added. You know, I don't mind like a 9 t otal system power, capacity, efficiency, inlet 10 c onditions, outlet conditions, air flow rates, and 11 b asic 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 y ou can always request--I mean, if that's good enough 15 f or you then I'm happy with it. 16 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill Tritsis, AHRI. 17 L aura, one last bullet that you might want to add here 18 i s accreditation to ISO 17065 or compliance to 19 p rovisions of 17065. That will come into play again 20 w hen 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 225 1 p rovisions of 17065, perhaps if you are not requesting 2 a ccreditation from the DoE approved verification 3 p rograms, you will need to, as DoE, create a list of 4 i tems that adhere to certain elements from that 17065. 5 MS. BARHYDT: So, I'm definitely in agreement 6 w ith you that we need to come up with that. If we 7 c annot add 17065 here and just table that as an issue 8 g enerally, because I've got on my to-do list for next 9 w eek to actually read it. 10 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. Lochinvar. Would 11 s omebody please explain to me what the first bullet 12 m eans? 13 MS. BARHYDT: Potential DoE requirements? 14 MR. KLEISS: No, allowance of all 15 p articipants without a requirement to join a membership 16 g roup. 17 MS. BARHYDT: So, that's like AHRI does. 18 T hey have a verification program but you're not 19 r equired to be a member of AHRI to participate in that 20 g roup. 21 MR. THARP: Anybody can use--this is Rusty-- 22 a nybody can have their product certified through AHRI,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 226 1 w hether you're an AHRI member or not. Charles and 2 M ary, even though they're not AHRI members, can have 3 t heir product certified performance by AHRI. That's 4 w hat that means. And I'll throw in-- 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Membership has a different--I 6 m ean, then you would have say in all the test standards 7 a nd things like that if you were a member, but if you 8 w ere not a member and all you did was certification, 9 y ou would just certify the units through it. 10 MR. THARP: There were--in the sheet we had 11 l ast week, the Microsoft document, Word document titled 12 " Verification Program of Certified Ratings", there are 13 t hree bullet points that are not up there that I would 14 s uggest we should add. One of them is the "allowing 15 c hallenging testing", I don't think--is that--that's 16 n ot there, is it? 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 18 MR. THARP: I would like to have that. So, 19 t he allow, thank you, Laura, "allow challenge testing." 20 A nd then, the last two bullets in all red-- 21 MS. BARHYDT: So, there were some concerns 22 l ast time about the componentry being checked and I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 227 1 l ike the idea, but there were definitely some concerns 2 e xpressed about who has that list and how that's 3 p rovided and how detailed it is. 4 MR. THARP: And the concern still stands 5 b ecause, again, I as a manufacturer don't want that 6 i nformation to become public. That's basically giving 7 s omebody else the recipe for my product. 8 But, again, I do like the idea of knowing 9 t hat those under the verification program are--and this 10 i s the check that will make Tim and Harvey happy and 11 D oE in knowing that the product that's being tested is 12 t he product that's being distributed in commerce. And 13 s o there would have to be some rules as far as what 14 s pecific information is provided and that would be kept 15 b y the VICP as private information. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So, if you all can think about 17 i t before next time as to exactly which pieces of 18 i nformation the verifier would need, and also think 19 a bout if it was a manufacturer-run program, who do you 20 w ant to provide that to? Do you want to provide it to 21 D oE? I know there's a lot of concerns about providing 22 i nformation to us, but as I've said several times,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 228 1 c onfidential business information that you provide to 2 u s, we can protect, as long as it is, in fact, 3 c onfidential business information. 4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. I 5 h ave two questions on that. One, I'm a little 6 s urprised that those folks responsible for the AHRI 7 p rogram have not spoken up on that last item because 8 t here are programs within the--groups within the AHRI 9 p rogram that do not require that kind of componentry 10 c heck against some baseline, some set of drawings, that 11 s ort of thing, so I'm a little surprised there's not 12 b een comments about that and I would be very concerned 13 a s someone who will likely have a manufacturer's DoE 14 a pproved program how I can do that, how far I have to 15 g o, could it be as simple as we'll make sure that our 16 m odels are all safety certified where you have 17 q uarterly inspections and make sure they're built the 18 s ame way, and let that serve as the componentry check 19 f or those models that we have third party safety 20 c ertified. 21 And the other issue is how does a 22 m anufacturer's verification program allow for challenge

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 229 1 t esting? I agree with allowing challenge testing where 2 c hallenge testing can take place, but I don't want to 3 b e responsible for somebody challenging me and saying I 4 h ave to go run my challenge test. 5 So, I don't see how that could be in there 6 a nd continue to have a manufacturer's verification 7 p rogram approved by DoE. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Is challenge testing similar to 9 w hen people contact us and say, we think such and such 10 p roduct is not compliant? Then I think DoE can perform 11 t hat function for the manufacturer run programs. I 12 m ean, we investigate all complaints, so I mean, we can 13 d o that. 14 MR. MYERS: Okay. This Frank Myers, PVI. I 15 h ave no problem with that. I support the concept of 16 c hallenge, I just--if that were placed on the 17 m anufacturer I couldn't see how that could work, but if 18 D oE could assume that responsibility, I don't see any 19 p roblem with that. 20 MR. BALLO: But with DoE assuming 21 r esponsibility, DoE is also assuming the costs. Am I 22 r ight?

### Capita l 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 w ould be, but if we're investigating a complaint than 3 w e already have that expense. 4 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. Okay, 5 b ut right now for the AHRI program how does it work? 6 T he challenge test who pays for it? It's the one-- 7 d epending on who wins, right. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. Right, depending on who 9 w ins. 10 MR. THARP: Loser pays. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Loser pays. 12 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon, then one 13 q uestion. How are you going to control imports as far 14 a s verification of componentry, imported products? 15 MS. BARHYDT: Your voice kind of went down a 16 l ittle at the end; I missed the end of your question. 17 MR. HON: Under the last bullet, must be 18 c hecked before tests. Basically, where proposing using 19 t his product safety file to identify the electrical 20 c onsuming components. How does that work on an 21 i mported product? 22 MS. BARHYDT: So the importer is the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 231 1 m anufacturer from our perspective. So, we--I mean this 2 g oes back to what we're checking it against and I think 3 y ou're raising the question of who has that information 4 a nd a think you all probably have a better idea of that 5 t han I do. I mean if you're comparing it against the 6 U L safety checklist, then if its foreign manufactured 7 a nd it is being imported to the U.S., I assume it 8 s ubject to the same safety standards that your products 9 a re being tracked against. So UL would have a file, 10 w hether it was foreign manufactured or domestic 11 m anufactured. 12 MR. AMRANE: This is-- 13 MR. HON: Excuse me. My question comes when 14 s ay a person goes overseas and buys a product, imports 15 i t into the United States, it has some safety mark 16 a lready on it in the manufacturer is not legally the 17 i mporter. 18 MS. BARHYDT: And thus, does not have access 19 t o that file? That does actually follow, I wasn't 20 s ure. 21 MR. HON: Yes. 22 MS. BARHYDT: okay, I don't know. Anyone

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 232 1 h ave any ideas? 2 MR. AMRANE: I don't have any ideas. On the 3 c hallenge testing though, I think in my opinion, if a 4 p rogram like the AHRI program has a challenge tested 5 a t, I think I would like DoE to recognize that 6 c hallenge test and I would like DoE to act on this 7 c hallenge tests because I think it's important. If you 8 g o through the expense of doing all this and come back 9 t o DoE with some proof that something is wrong, I think 10 t hat should be considered by DoE. 11 MS. BARHYDT: That we can do. I mean, that 12 i s something that requires a regulatory change but this 13 i s a rulemaking process and we can do that. 14 So, the request is rather than to require all 15 v erification programs to have a challenge testing 16 m echanism is that DoE recognized the results from a 17 c hallenge to us. Okay. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: So Charlie let me put it in 19 t erms and maybe, because I might have the same question 20 a nd I just want to try to understand what you're 21 s aying. So, let's say I went and bought, Paul's not 22 h ere but, I went and bought product from him and I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 233 1 i mported it. It came in as Trane in U.S. Customs. But 2 y et, and so what you're saying is maybe then I don't 3 h ave access to the UL file and Mitsubishi is a 4 c ooperating with me or whatever, and they are not going 5 t o 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 q uestion 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 c ontracts out there that I worry about right now. 13 MR. HON: That's why I was just looking at 14 a ll of the possible ways it could happen. As long as 15 T rane was importing a Trane file, you could still 16 a ccess it at any time. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. 18 MR. HON: But if you were importing someone 19 e lse's, say a company that doesn't even really do 20 b usiness in the United States on a regular basis, that 21 b ecomes more and more cumbersome. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Right and depending on your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 234 1 c ontract with them and how you did this, you may not 2 h ave in that agreement that you can have access to that 3 b ecause people hold those files, and they should, 4 t hey're proprietary. Is a lot of proprietary 5 i nformation in them. 6 MR. EISNER: Is that part of or the solution 7 t o say future contracts must permit you access to? 8 MR. MYERS: No. 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Maybe so, but when we talk 10 a bout implementation there may be a problem because we 11 h ave to go changes contracts. 12 MR. EISNER: No, I am saying new contracts. 13 L et's start with the simple. All new contracts must 14 i nclude a provision. 15 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 16 That would be problematic for a smaller 17 m anufacturer who is importing a handful of units from 18 a n offshore company that sells to lots of small 19 m anufacturers. They would have no interest in us 20 k nowing the details of how to build their products and 21 w e wouldn't have enough leverage--if we tried to force 22 t hat into a contract we wouldn't be able to buy the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 235 1 e quipment. Where, you know, if you're buying a lot of 2 t hem, hey, I want to make all this money so I'm willing 3 t o give up some of those rights, for a small 4 m anufacturer you couldn't. 5 MR. EISNER: If all of the small 6 m anufacturers could not buy the equipment under DoE 7 r ules unless they had access to the files, wouldn't 8 t hat change the marketplace with respect to the 9 c ontract? They don't care; they'll give up all that 10 b usiness? 11 MR. MYERS: Not--that's correct because it 12 m ay be a worldwide product and where just one customer 13 o r five small customers in the United States that might 14 b uy that and they would give it up rather than provide 15 t hat information to us. Yeah, absolutely. 16 MR. EISNER: Do you have any way-- 17 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey and am missing 18 s omething. With respect to that last line which is 19 w hat we seem to be discussing. If my good buddy Mike 20 i s testing some imported product, Mike needs to know 21 w hat to avoid doing to avoid getting his technician 22 e lectrocuted. What's the information that--

### Capita l 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 c oncerning-- the reason that information is there is to 3 m ake sure that the product undergoing verification 4 t esting is a product that being distributed in 5 c ommerce. What we already discussed was that imported 6 p roducts under that situation would have to be acquired 7 b asically off-the-shelf. 8 So if that product is off-the-shelf, it is 9 w hat is being distributed and commerce, so there would 10 n ot be an issue. Is that correct? 11 MS. BARHYDT: Potentially. If Charlie's 12 i mporting and he's the importer of record and that's 13 t rue. It's already going to be here. But if Charlie 14 d oes it take possession of it and the foreign OEM is 15 t he importer, then the foreign OEM is the manufacturer. 16 In which case it is entirely possible that 17 t hat foreign manufacturer may sign up with a lab in a 18 f oreign country that meets all the criteria that we set 19 o ut for a lab who runs a program and they get it tested 20 s omewhere else. 21 MR. THARP: For verification? 22 MS. BARHYDT: For verification. Of course, I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 237 1 g uess, and that scenario they have their own file so-- 2 MR. THARP: I think that's part of the reason 3 w hy we said or at least was suggested, I don't know 4 w hat we agreed to, that any verification testing would 5 b e done-- 6 MS. BARHYDT: I know. You all wanted it in 7 t he United States, but I think we have a problem there. 8 MR. KOJAK: I have a question so I can 9 u nderstand. If equipment's being imported to sell in 10 t he United States doesn't have to be certified--the 11 r ating, that it meets the minimum rating with the DoE 12 b efore they can sell it anyways? And don't they have 13 t o supply something that explains anything? 14 (Laughter.) 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes and yes. We went over that 16 l ist of things that we had to supply to them, I don't 17 k now if it was the last time but anyway one these 18 m eetings. 19 But the fact is we were trying to have a 20 d ocument such that you have it at your test lab, you 21 a re now going to verify that the fan motor is in fact 22 t he fan motor that we said. Those energy consumption

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 238 1 p roducts, those things like fan motors and compressors 2 a nd all of that are the same. We were saying that we 3 c ould give you the UL file to do that comparison. 4 Well, when I'm dealing with that foreign 5 m anufacturer they're not necessarily going to give me a 6 U L file because of proprietary nature in it and because 7 o f the way the agreements are written. They are not 8 n ecessarily--in his point is very good, there are many 9 t imes 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 f ind Mr. Worldwide Manufacturer that makes it somewhere 12 e lse and you're only buying 10 of them. They're not 13 g oing to give it to you for 10. They're just not going 14 t o give that kind of information. 15 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. That can also 16 h appen because if you go to an outside manufacturer to 17 h ave a model. They do not necessarily have a reason to 18 c hange the model number before they change components. 19 I f they change and motors, they go to an alternate 20 c ompressor that imported would not necessarily know 21 t hat unless you had set up a contract that said all 22 c hanges require notification.

### Capita l 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 d on't know the answer. We're not involved in it, but I 3 d on't get caught in the middle of this because I have 4 s een this issue happen with the California Energy 5 C ommission on a product exactly what we're talking 6 a bout here. 7 It was brought in by a contract from an 8 o ffshore manufacturer and when they finally got into 9 t he details of it, they could not verify where the 10 p roduct was actually manufactured, any of the 11 c omponents in it. There were some component changes 12 w hich were allowed within the listing of the product 13 b ut they failed the CEC audit test because of it. And 14 i t was a real mess. 15 And the question came back, "Well, how come 16 y ou don't have control of your component list?" And 17 b asically, the entire case rested on how much detail do 18 y ou have to go to. 19 MS. BARHYDT: We've seen that as well. Where 20 c hanging out components has really gotten importers 21 i nto trouble. Actually, it's gotten the domestic 22 m anufacturers into trouble as well.

### Capita l 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 O n that same bullet, energy consuming componentry, for 3 b oilers and water heaters, a burner would qualify 4 t here. And as far as how do you verify that? Most of 5 t he burners are custom-made for manufacturers, so you 6 h ave to pull out a drawing and measure it and make sure 7 t hat it complies. It's not a simple thing. 8 MS. BARHYDT: So what about if we took the 9 l ast bullet off, but we made it one of the factors in 10 y our nifty little spreadsheet so that where products 11 w ere purchased off-the-shelf, then obviously there is 12 n o level of componentry check needed. If it's coming 13 o ff the production line, you need to have some kind of 14 c omponent check. 15 Where it's contingent on where you get the 16 u nits from instead of from an across the board, you 17 h ave to check components. 18 MR. EISNER: When you're testing this piece 19 o f equipment, that you're buying off of the shelf, 20 y ou're testing its efficiency. You know what it's 21 s upposed to achieve because that's what they've told 22 y ou. This model is supposed to get a 10. Why does the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 241 1 c omponentry matter if you test it and it doesn't meet 2 t he efficiency standard? 3 It doesn't meet it regardless of what the 4 c omponentry-- 5 MR. KLEISS: I think the concern is the other 6 w ay around. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Exactly. 8 MR. KLEISS: We would put something on there 9 t hat is Class A, when the run of the mill stuff that 10 w e'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 t he different classes. They put something in there to 14 m ake it more efficient? What's the harm? 15 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, but if it's something off16 t he- shelf, let's say a manufacturer has to make a 100 17 u nits and he runs out of the lower-end motor and he has 18 t he higher-end motor and he wants to throw them in 19 t here, which is actually going to improve the 20 e fficiency of it and they end up finishing the run 21 s elling it to their mass distributor and they're 22 a ctually selling equipment that doesn't have the exact

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 242 1 c omponent list but it has a better, more efficient 2 m otor in it because that's what they had to use to meet 3 t he timeline. They shouldn't be penalized for that, 4 e ven though the unit's actually more efficient than it 5 s hould be. 6 Technically you would be dinging them for 7 t hat. So, I understand what Neil is saying. If it's 8 o ff-the- shelf, what does it really matter what the 9 c omponent list is because it's either going to pass or 10 i t's going to fail. If it's a custom one, then I think 11 t hen, like an engineered to build or a one-off, then 12 i t's probably more important that the bill of materials 13 i s correct than a mass produced stock item. 14 MR. EISNER: If you tried to take action 15 a gainst them and they said, "What are you penalizing me 16 f or? I didn't have the normal motor, so I put a better 17 o ne in there." 18 MS. BARHYDT: Right, that's why I was saying 19 i t 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 w e get the unit from.

### Capita l 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 d on't see that the component list is an issue. 4 MR. EISNER: If they say I want to do a test 5 a nd they do a test and they gave you one that had the 6 b etter motor, that's different. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 8 MR. EISNER: But in order to do that, they'd 9 h ave to give you the information on the componentry. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Well, so I think the issue 11 h aving a source for that list that was created before 12 t hey knew the model was selected. 13 MR. SMITH: Can all of this work be done upon 14 f ailure of unit? The checking of components and stuff? 15 I f it passes, there's no issue. 16 MS. BARHYDT: Well, no-- 17 MR. SMITH: --failure--then you check all of 18 t he components. 19 MS. BARHYDT: So, the issue is--so let's say 20 t hat we are dealing with a foreign manufacturer who 21 i mports into the United States and we contact them and 22 w e say or somebody says, "These are the five models

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 244 1 t hat we want to test." And they say, "Okay, we'll make 2 t hose for you and we'll ship them to you in the United 3 S tates and you can test them there." And they arrive 4 a nd they all pass. 5 And it turns out that none of those five 6 m odels are what they normally sell. 7 They've substituted components because they 8 b uilt those for test. And it's knowing that what we 9 g ot for test is what they, in fact, normally sell. 10 MR. EISNER: One of the reasons for not going 11 t o off-the-shelf, it's harder--more costly for the 12 m anufacturer. If they don't want to provide you with 13 t he data, then you say we will always take it off-the14 s helf. 15 MS. BARHYDT: --off-the-shelf. No, I'm fine 16 w ith that. 17 MR. EISNER: Everybody else fine with that? 18 A nybody see a problem with that? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Does that address all the weird 20 i mporter scenarios? 21 MR. HON: I do not know. You have to ask the 22 c ustom manufacturers about that even though they may be

### Capita l 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 a s well. 3 MR. SMITH: Who supplies the drawings? Does 4 t he 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 a nswers for how this would work. 9 MR. SMITH: Like a third-party test lab, some 10 p roducts I do EEV testing for, but I don't do the 11 c ertification work for that. So if I'm doing an EEV 12 t est for a product that's not under my certification, I 13 h ave to request that from another third-party lab. 14 T hat's going to take weeks or never to happen. 15 MS. BARHYDT: I heard Jill say she needs to 16 t hink about this some more. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, yeah, I mean as far as 18 t he importer whole thing. I had to think through some 19 v ery weird scenarios. But I don't want to have to 20 s upply drawings. 21 Drawings, at least for me anymore is 22 e lectronic. There's actually no physical printing of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 246 1 d rawings. So that means big huge CAD files that have 2 t o get sent to you and I don't even know if you're on 3 t he 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 t here was some kind of generic list of what it was we 8 n eeded to provide, because I could see someone saying 9 y ou need every product drawing of everything in that 10 p roduct and you lock that down, and then nothing 11 c hanges unless you re-run a test. And that would not 12 b e practical, so-- 13 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So what I had asked was 14 e verybody think about in situations where we would need 15 t o verify componentry, what pieces of information would 16 w e need? And what is the best mechanism to get that to 17 t he test lab? 18 MR. EISNER: Why isn't that something you get 19 w hen you certify the product at the very beginning? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Because they don't want to send 21 m e that information. 22 MR. EISNER: No, no. if it's needed at some

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 247 1 t ime, why wasn't it put on the list that you needed to 2 c ertify. That's when you get it before the spot 3 c hecking or the verification testing. 4 You say you need it to be in place 5 b eforehand. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Because they're subject to 7 F OIA. I really don't want to put down all of my 8 c ompressor model numbers. 9 MR. EISNER: Well, they're not subject to 10 F OIA if they are legitimately confidential business 11 i nformation. I don't think that means you even have to 12 g ive them to the Agency, the Agency just may need to 13 h ave access to have to them, which you may have to 14 p rove this is what you had in place since the time you 15 c ertified the product and they have access to it 16 a nytime 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 A HRI now, but it is held confidential between us and 20 A HRI. The energy consuming componentry is. 21 MR. THARP: Well, I think--this is Rusty with 22 G oodman. You commented a few minutes ago Laura, that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 248 1 m aybe we ought to make a list of what these energy 2 c onsuming componentry is and what should be documented. 3 I t's going to be different for each different type of 4 p roduct. So maybe we just ought to table that. 5 I agree with most of the stuff that's there. 6 I t's juts if we can go back and think about it we can 7 h ave a good vote on it at the beginning of the next 8 m eeting. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 10 MR. THARP: Which actually, since we have 13 11 m inutes left, and we had a pretty good acceptance of 12 t he last suggestion. I want to make one more 13 s uggestion. 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 g ood for the day. I'd like to throw out, if I may, the 17 c ertification compliance dates. And basically we're 18 g oing max. 19 The rollout that was scheduled, that we have, 20 I 'd like to propose--actually I put it on that disk, 21 y our floppy there. It's Book3.xls. 22 So if we wanted to vote on something, you'll

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 249 1 g et a unanimous decision from the industry if we choose 2 t o 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 o f getting an unanimous decision today. I was counting 7 t he number of people at the table and I really think we 8 s houldn't vote today. We're almost, we're not quite at 9 h alf, but we're not well-above half of the members on 10 t he working group today, so-- 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Ron and Bob are on. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Ron and Bob are on, but we're 13 m issing a lot of people. 14 (Off the record discussion.) 15 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen with 16 C leaver- Brooks. Can you hear me? 17 MR. EISNER: Yes, we can hear you. 18 MR. SUTPHEN: can we talk about scheduling a 19 s eparate boiler webinar or meeting in the near future? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, my understanding is that 21 A shley was going to send out a Doodle Poll for next 22 w eek.

### Capita l 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 g oing to attend or I'll attend in his place if he 3 c an't. 4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I just 5 w anted to say that I was incorrect for those that heard 6 m e, I do agree with the sheet. I didn't see the small 7 p rint on the list and 10 gallons on the hot water 8 s upply boiler. But I am in agreement with that. 9 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ron Shebik with 10 H ussmann. The question I have for the group, whoever's 11 t here in the room, is everyone still okay with what's 12 i n the list and is DoE okay with what you're seeing so 13 f ar? 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 o f what everybody had agreed to the last time. 17 The initial list had some of the ones that 18 a re 18 and earlier, so those, you know, their initial 19 s uggestion was SPVU and CRACs would be at 12 or 20 s omething like that. And those that were moved to 18, 21 b ut we basically have something at every three month 22 i nterval starting with six months.

### Capita l 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 p eriod means no enforcement action during the first six 3 m onths after the rule goes into effect, which is 30 4 d ays after the AEDM rule is issued. 5 MS. BARHYDT: No, I think it's six months 6 a fter their six month, nine month, 12 month-- 7 MR. EISNER: So for each of the items on the 8 l ist 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 t hey 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 t his? 20 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. on 21 t he 21st we're going to have our industry phone call or 22 t he member phone call.

### Capita l 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 t hem--that's fair. 3 MS. DANE: I would like to reserve that until 4 t hen. 5 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. One thing we 6 m ay want to look at is under CRE there are different 7 g roups involved. The original 2005 EPACT covered a 8 c ertain group of information, which has had a lot 9 l onger to prepare for that portion. Then the EPACT '09 10 c overed other categories and since then, there's even 11 b een another piece of legislation that was passed. 12 And so, the problem is that some of us who 13 h ave been under EPACT '05 have a lot of data, while 14 o ther people which are much, much, much later in the 15 g ame playing, may not have the database that we have. 16 A nd as such, you're going to have a division amongst 17 t he groups of who is available for which levels. 18 MR. AMRANE: Charlie, this is Karim with 19 A HRI. Are you advocating for in your case, for example, 20 f or an earlier date than 15 months? 21 MR. HON: I believe that it is a doable 22 s ituation in certain categories within the CRE. But

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 253 1 t here are certain other categories I understand 2 c ompletely, 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 c lasses 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 c omply sooner, right? 12 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I would like them to 13 c ommit to complying sooner. 14 MR. HON: The situation being that we may not 15 w ish to comply too early, because there are certain 16 " me, too" type companies who will then potentially take 17 o ur numbers and try and be very close to our numbers. 18 T hat's just an opinion on our part. But that's how we 19 w ould do it as a business. 20 We would not want to put our on six, ten 21 m onths ahead unless there was some reward purpose. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Any chance HVAC would split up?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 254 1 S mall, large? Very large? 2 MS. HOOTMAN: To us it pretty much goes into 3 o ne--a lot of that already goes into one AHRI program, 4 s o you're still talking about one body of data. So 5 y ou're description of small, you know, that is all 6 g oing into one ULE. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah-- 8 MR. AMRANE: But about the one less than 9 6 5,000 BTUs, the three-phase-- 10 MS. BARHYDT: The really small. 11 MR. AMRANE: So, I don't know. Maybe it's 12 s omething we can-- 13 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 14 MR. FLY: And we're still all doing this with 15 n o definition of product family or how many tests we're 16 g oing 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 c ertification and we do have definitions of basic 21 m odels now. So, I will also say my expectation is that 22 t he date for the verification would not be until after

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 255 1 t he 18 months is up. I mean, I think we would get 2 e verybody certified, past their six month time period 3 b efore we would kick in some kind of a verification 4 p rogram. 5 So, my expectation is that timing doesn't 6 h ave to be aligned. 7 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. And I have a 8 q uestion specific to HVAC and specific to the AEDM. We 9 r eally haven't talked about, but you know the product 10 c lass in 65,000 BTUs, the single-phase are the 11 r esidential, the three-phase are commercial. But all 12 o f them have been rated the same before by an ARM, for 13 e xample. 14 And we're talking about AEDM and now 15 c omments, anyway of the AHRI comments, we requested at 16 l east for those products that we keep the ARM concept 17 a s 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 i ntent to consider the three-phase product differently 21 f rom the single-phase product, even though they're 22 r eally the same.

### Capita l 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 d ifferent. 3 MR. AMRANE: Different in terms of the, I 4 u nderstand that, but in terms of the ARM versus an 5 A EDM. 6 MS. BARHYDT: So the three-phase has always 7 b een under an AEDM, by reg not ARMs. ARMs has always 8 b een 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 t hree-phase. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 14 MR. THARP: I think. I'm pretty sure it 15 d oes, from Michael Raymond. I think, I'll double check 16 a nd 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 s ubsuming both commercial and residential and the term 21 A RM would be retired. 22 MS. BARHYDT: We didn't discuss that because

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 257 1 t hat's out of the scope of this working group because 2 w e'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 A EDM rulemaking initially, but we did receive a lot of 6 c omments against that. 7 MR. EISNER: So is the general consensus of 8 t hose who are still here, that this will work? If 9 a nything we may be able to split one or more categories 10 a nd have some of them do it earlier. 11 MS. BARHYDT: I know CRE wants to have their 12 g roup meeting and we heard boilers do, too. 13 MR. EISNER: Okay. That's why I'm looking 14 f or a general consensus. Nobody seems to have a 15 s ignificant problem in this room. 16 MR. WHITWELL: Sorry, general consensus on 17 w hat Neil? I got distract-- 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, Bob-- 19 MR. EISNER: What I'm saying is there seems 20 t o be a general consensus of those here, which is not 21 e nough to take a vote. What is up on the screen will 22 w ork. There is a possibility that a couple categories

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 258 1 c ould be split into subcategories, some of which could 2 m eet the requirements earlier. But nobody's committing 3 t o that. That's just a general consensus that it will 4 w ork. 5 MR. WHITWELL: Yep, okay. Thanks. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Well, everybody's running from 7 t he 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 c ouple of different meetings. One for the HVAC motor 11 i ssue and one for boilers. 12 MR. THARP: Who is going to drive the motor 13 t eleconference? is that something that industry needs 14 t o do? 15 MR. WHITWELL: So long. 16 MR. THARP: Who is driving the motor 17 t eleconference? 18 MS. BARHYDT: So Ashley sent out a Doodle 19 P oll. 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 259 1 t hink she was going to reach out to NEMA and kind of 2 c lue them in on what's going on. 3 MR. THARP: Okay. Ashley's taking care of 4 i t. 5 MS. BARHYDT: And find out who all's going to 6 b e 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 21 221 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 accept22:19,20 102:21 118:21 166:22 182:13 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 accuracy152:1 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 act232:6 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 amongst252:16 amount76:4 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

### Capita l 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 Armstrong2:8 arrangement 223:9 array50:21 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 assessment78:9 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-f

orth 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 bank223:6 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 better5:13 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--they54:11 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

### Capita l 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 Californi a 115:14 239:4 caller 152:15 camper95:8 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 capability21:21 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 72:17Carrierauthorized 70:8 carry6:5 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 category98:1 164:11 177:12 202:16 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 certainty67:1 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

### Capita l 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 cetera158:3 185:16 CFM209:11 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

### Capita l 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 completely112:11 116:16 184:4 253:2 complex 192:6 complexity110:8

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 comply149:8,19 151:8 152:21 155:8 253:11,15 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

### Capita l 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 contact229:9 243:21 contained 31:2 174:6 contemplating 140:13 context8:11 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 contract204:6 234:1,22 235:9 238:21 239:7 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

### Capita l 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 correctly107:7 160:11 correlating 59:21 cost5:6 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 CRADA147:21 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 creativity193:11 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 customer235:12 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

### Capita l 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 diameter223:11 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 different6:18 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

### Capita l 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 disk248:20 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 document117:22 118:1,4 181:16 207:16 210:6,7 217:4,7 226:11 237:20 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 elect177:13 Electric 2:15,20 electrical44:4 230:19 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-mail4:20 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 enforcement78:8 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

### Capita l 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 EPA87:21 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 error86:15 152:12 188:12 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 et158:3 185:16 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 exact36:2 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 except57:6 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 expect60:2,21 209:9 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013 Page 18

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 expert209:13 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 extent92:14 132:17 140:13 172:8 222:7 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

### Capita l 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 FOIA247:7,10,17 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 format167:19 former69:8 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

### Capita l 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 government86:5 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 great96:8 132:19 207:14 259:7 greatest132:17 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 habitual ly 50:9 hackle 214:16 half 56:18 191:15 249:9 half-hour 29:9 hand 171:4 183:12 257:3

### Capita l 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 Hmm217:5 hold 14:5 61:2 109:8 204:22 234:3 holding 61:5

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 impact8:5 29:11 86:1 impacts 198:8

impartiality 224:21 implementation 234:10 implication 178:10 import50:16 64:11 67:13 important56:21 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 importer230:22 231:17 236:12,15 244:20 245:18 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 incorrect55:12 250:5 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 industry13:1 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

### Capita l 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-stock78:20 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 investment93:10 148:17,19 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-08-2013 Page 26

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 kick255:3 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

### Capita l 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 letter62:20 256:10 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 limit66:7 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 link189:5 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

### Capita l 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 mail167:9 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 mandatory94:1 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

### Capita l 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 Mary2:13 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 max215:4 248:18 250:15 maximum7:6 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 meant33:9 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

### Capita l 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 mill241:9 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 model8:18 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

### Capita l 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 modest115:18 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 money57:21 81:7 93:14 170:17 235:2 monitor 16:3 monkey192:3 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 NAFM13:10 20:17 30:19 NAFTA132:5 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

### Capita l 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 normal53:6 120:11 242:16 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 object119:11 120:4 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--at179:16 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

### Capita l 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--small190:4 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

### Capita l 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 permit234:7 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

### Capita l 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 pick21:2 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 Poll249:21 258:19 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

### Capita l 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 pretty10:13 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 primary72:21 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 project22:14 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 protect228:2 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 qualif ication 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

### Capita l 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 quick16:20 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 recent215:12 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

### Capita l 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 remote29:17 38:3,5 39:19,21 remotely 109:22 remotes 31:2 repeat126:16 repeating 72:7 168:20 repetitive--is 60:1 replace 38:6 137:8 replacing 38:4 report44:7 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

### Capita l 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 requirement21:18 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 respect215:21 235:8,18 responded 255:18 response 190:12 responsibility 93:17 229:18,21 responsible 71:8 76:10 104:18 228:6 229:3 rest25:19 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

### Capita l 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 secret85:8 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 select41:17 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 small5:9 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 smaller5:12 46:5 53:10 70:13 85:15,19 97:10 234:16 smallest175:5 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 sort12:22 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 speak13:2 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

### Capita l 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 standpoint23:22 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 start10:9 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 street50:19 stress 13:22 stretch 173:22 stretched 48:13 Stricken 213:22 strict76:19 118:18 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 target82:5 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 term68:4 98:3 256:20 terming 132:21 terms 104:14 138:22 175:8 196:2,4 232:19 256:3,4 test7:10 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--or104:20 tester161:12 testers 223:4

### Capita l 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--or69:1 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 thank12:22 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 timeframe42:4 169:9 timeline 242:3 timely53:17 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 tomorrow52:1 ton 84:7

tons 187:18 tool 199:18 to--or151:18 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

### Capita l 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 treat113:21 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 try4:20 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 ultimately19:21 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

### Capita l 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

### Capita l 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 week25:1 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

### Capita l 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 work9:15 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

### Capita l 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--they204:5 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 yet11:6 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