### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

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

APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Forrestal Building Washington, D.C.

Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:10 a.m.

R eported by: Christine Allen, Capital Reporting Company

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(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 Degitz, Navigant 15 P aul L. Doppel, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. 16 M ark Fly, AAON Heating & Cooling Products 17 G eoffrey M. Halley, Sji Consultants, Inc. 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 D iane Jakobs, Rheem Manufacturing Co.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 3 1 P ARTICIPANTS: 2 T om Johnson, Daikin McQuay 3 J eff Kleiss, Lochinvar 4 M ichael Kojak, Underwriters Laboratories LLC 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 9 H arvey Sachs, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 10 Economy 11 R onald Shebik, Hussmann Corporation 12 F rank Stanonik, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 13 Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 14 L ouis Starr, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 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 orey Tucker, Navigant 20 C ollin Weber, Navigant 21 R obert J. Whitwell, Carrier Corporation 22 W es Wostal, ClimateMaster

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (8:10 a.m.) 3 MR. EISNER: Let's get started. Apparently 4 J ohn forgot to get the rest of you the dress code for 5 t oday. 6 All right. Okay, we want to talk some more 7 a bout scheduling the effective or implementation date. 8 A ny suggestions from the meeting last night? 9 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp with Goodman, 10 a nd I'm happy to report that we have -- are in the 11 p rocess of making agreements for a scheduled roll out 12 o ver time and we'll start with, if your company name 13 b egins with MI, it's two months. 14 MR. BAUMAN: Reverse alphabetical. 15 MR. THARP: Seriously, though, varying from 16 s ix months to 18 months, by product category, they'll 17 r oll it out and we would like to ask for another week 18 t o discuss and finalize amongst the members which 19 p roducts would be which timeframe, but it would be 6 20 m onths, 9 months, 12 months, 15 months, and 18 months. 21 And the effective date would be from the 22 i ssue date of the AEDM final rule as long as there were

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 5 1 n o changes to the other certification information that 2 w e agree here. If there is changes in the final issue 3 o f the certification agreement, then we would want it 4 t o be from that date. 5 MR. SACHS: Can you repeat the effective 6 d ate, please? 7 MR. THARP: The effective date would be based 8 o n the final rule of the AEDM unless something changed 9 i n the certification over what we agree, and then we 10 w ant it to be based on the final rule issue of the 11 c ertification. 12 MR. EISNER: Okay. Any questions? 13 MS. BARHYDT: And you think we'll have enough 14 t ime between now and the next meeting to iron out which 15 p roducts? And I'm not pressuring that you need to, I'm 16 j ust asking because you mentioned a week, so since 17 w e're meeting in a week, I was just wondering. 18 MS. MEYERS: We'll have to see. This is 19 K aren with Rheem. We have all agreement of the 20 c ompanies in this room -- 21 MR. AMRANE: Right. 22 MS. MEYERS: -- the proposal, but we have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 6 1 n ot had a chance to reach out to the other companies. 2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I 3 m ean, we will have, you know, again maybe by next week 4

- - we will try, but I don't want to commit to next week 5 b ecause we have a much larger group. 6 MR. CYMBALSKY: And so this idea takes away 7 w hat was talked about at the end with this grace period 8 c oncept. So, this is hard six-month, hard 12-month, 9 h ard 15-month. Is that right? 10 MR. AMRANE: Yes, this is what it is. 11 MR. THARP: Yeah, and Mark just reminded me 12 t hat we'd ask for a six-month grace period. 13 MS. BARHYDT: For each one individually? So, 14 s ix months after the cert's due? 15 MR. THARP: Yes. From everything. 16 MR. EISNER: And -- 17 MR. THARP: And if you want to extend it to 18 s ix years, that's okay. 19 MR. EISNER: In terms of changes to the final 20 r ule that might be made, do you have any plans in terms 21 o f whether you want to reconvene the advisory 22 c ommittee? I think that was mentioned, but not clearly

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 7 1 i n the rulemaking documents. 2 MS. BARHYDT: I think what we said was that 3 t his committee would want to reconvene if there were 4 g oing to be changes, but that that would be contingent 5 o n the ASRAC agreeing to our -- getting to have that 6 s econd say, but assuming ASRAC's okay with it, we 7 c ertainly have no qualms about meeting again if it 8 l ooks like we're going to have to make changes to the 9 f inal rule. 10 MR. EISNER: What this generally means, and 11 w e talked about this at the very first meeting of this 12 g roup, is that generally the agency would prepare a 13 s ummary of the comments to the docket. They would be 14 c irculated to everybody and then there'd be a decision 15 a s to whether there needed to be a meeting or it could 16 b e done via conference calls or emails to decide 17 w hether or not to reconvene the group to decide whether 18 a ny changes should be made or whether everybody feels 19 t hat no changes are necessary. 20 So, any changes that would be made would be 21 m ade after review and consideration by this group. 22 d oes everybody understand that? So, you won't be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 8 1 s urprised by it, you'd participate in the process. 2 Okay, any further questions? And if they 3 c an't get everything ready by next week, are you 4 c omfortable with this being an issue at the final 5 m eeting at the end of August? 6 MS. BARHYDT: That's fine. 7 MR. EISNER: You discussed that? 8 MS. BARHYDT: If we can get a timeframe 9 t hat's really going to work and meet everybody's needs, 10 t hen absolutely. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. All right. Ready for 12 v erification? 13 MR. WHITWELL: Sorry, this is Bob Whitwell, 14 o ne more question. So, Laura, right now the CCE rule 15 g oes into effect January 1, 2014. So, between -- 16 b efore then, you expect that we will have -- that DOE 17 w ill issue a revised rule -- the revised rule that will 18 c hange that effective date? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, so if we get to a 20 r esolution here and we have a complete package to send 21 t o the ASRAC, DOE will do whatever rulemaking we have 22 t o do in order to deal with that date.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 9 1 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, thanks. 2 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI. And if we 3 d on't have a deal? 4 MS. BARHYDT: Then the date stands. 5 MR. AMRANE: With no AEDM, nothing in place? 6 MS. BARHYDT: We've got to reach a deal, 7 f olks. 8 MR. BAUMAN: The nuclear option. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, would you like to explain 10 w hat it is that you have -- we have a proposal for a 11 v erification program and some terms and I haven't seen 12 t his and I don't know if any of you have either, so 13 w e'll just see what we've got here. 14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. This 15 i s not meant to be anything other than a framework for 16 d iscussion. I believe it has all of the pieces that we 17 n eed, but I'm sure there's some back up and support and 18 d efinitions that would be required. 19 The fundamental issue is that when we're 20 t alking about verification testing, testing based on 21 s electing something where we would cover all basic 22 m odels, have to be tested during some period of time,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 10 1 m ost manufacturers or certainly many manufacturers have 2 h undreds, if not thousands, of basic models so it's 3 i ntractable to be able to test all of those. 4 So, this uses -- if you'd scroll down to the 5 b ottom -- a product family concept, and the definition 6 o f product family is basically every manufacturer 7 g roups their products for sale into product families or 8 i nto groups, whatever they say it is, but basically if 9 y ou have an electric water heater with certain 10 c haracteristics, it would be a family, because that's 11 t he way it's promoted, that's the way it's advertised, 12 o r any of the other covered products would be grouped 13 i nto product families. 14 So, the selection would be from a product 15 f amily, is what's being proposed in this -- if you'd 16 s croll back up to the top -- with that definition in 17 m ind, there's not a lot of difference between the first 18 t wo methods for selection of what products to be 19 v erified, but if you are using an AEDM, it basically 20 s ays that if a manufacturer utilizes more than five -- 21 w hich means, if you don't, you don't have to do this -- 22 i f you have more than five AEDMs to qualify equipment

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 11 1 e fficiency, then you randomly divide all AEDMs into 2 f ive groups. Make it simple, if you had 15 AEDMs, 3 y ou'd have five groups of three, so then you select a 4 d ifferent AEDM if you have five or less, or AEDM group, 5 i f you have more than five, and each year -- my eyes 6 a re blurring, excuse me -- select -- oh, thank you -- 7 s elect a representative basic model for verification 8 t esting from each product family that's covered by 9 n umber two, either the AEDM or AEDM group, and after 10 y ou have rotated through all AEDMs, then you repeat the 11 p rocess. 12 What that means is obviously if you have 13 f ive, then you do one each year, or five groups, you do 14 t hose groups each year, and then every product family 15 t hat's covered by the AEDM has to be tested within that 16 f ive- year period. 17 If you only have one or two, then you rotate 18 t hrough -- you never stop. If you have two AEDMs, then 19 a fter two years you would start back over with the 20 f irst AEDM and then the second. So, you're constantly 21 t esting through on a rotating basis, no more than five 22 y ears, where every product family has a representative

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 12 1 b asic model that is tested. 2 And then if you don't use an AEDM, it's 3 e ssentially the same thing except you can divide your 4 p roduct families into five or less, if you have less 5 t han five, groups and you have to test a representative 6 m odel of all of those product families at least every 7 f ive years. And DOE -- the manufacturer would make 8 t hat selection, but that would be reported to DOE and 9 D OE can say, nope, test this basic model instead. 10 So, whatever -- that keeps it flowing better 11 s o that we're not waiting on DOE for all of these 12 p ieces of information, but if DOE chooses, they can 13 d irect every test that's conducted, so it doesn't stop 14 D OE from being able to say, oh, you manufacture, I want 15 y ou to test this one this year, that one, that one, you 16 c an still substitute within this framework. 17 And if you'd scroll on down, if a basic -- 18 a nd this is really for manufacturers that are build-to19 o rder, if the product that is selected can't be 20 n egotiated during that 12-month period with DOE to 21 s elect another representative or what I call an 22 a lternate basic model, then the world doesn't stop, it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 13 1 j ust means you cannot -- as a manufacturer, you cannot 2 s hip for any use other than testing -- for the 3 v erification testing, a unit until the successful 4 v erification and compliance testing is concluded. 5 So, if a manufacturer has a product that they 6 m ight not build for seven years, but they're still 7 p romoting it, what this says if that one was one that 8 w as selected, it cannot be shipped -- it can be built, 9 b ut it cannot be shipped for anything other than 10 t esting until that testing is successfully concluded. 11 And the last part is, who can conduct the 12 t esting. Again, thinking about a manufacturer, 13 p articularly when you get to build-to-order, you can't 14 b lock out a month to make arrangements for a test lab 15 t o come in, so it really needs to be -- there needs to 16 b e an avenue by which the manufacturer can conduct the 17 t est. So, there, for verification testing, can be 18 c onducted by DOE, it can be done by a DOE-approved 19 v erification program, like, for example, the AHRI 20 c ertification program, an independent third-party 21 l aboratory accredited to ISO 17025, or the 22 m anufacturer, if the manufacturer's laboratory and its

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 14 1 t est personnel are found to be compliant with and is 2 s ubject to the continuing review and monitoring program 3 r equired to conduct testing acceptable to an 4 i ndependent third-party laboratory accredit to ISO 5 1 7025. That's the best accreditation a manufacturer's 6 f acility can get, 17025 does not allow a manufacturer 7 t o certify their facility for testing their products. 8 T hat's one of the tenants of 17025 is that there has to 9 b e some level of independence. 10 But a 17025 lab -- UL, Intertek -- all have 11 p rograms where they can verify -- and it's a continuing 12 a nnual or sometimes more often review, you have to set 13 u p training programs and conduct investigations each 14 y ear. In our case, it's a two- to three-day 15 i nvestigation every year to verify that all of our 16 s ystems are in place, and if you do that, we are 17 e xtended the opportunity to provide test data without 18 w itnessing to that 17025 lab. 19 So, that's what I'm proposing in number four. 20 I f you have that accreditation, then you're allowed to 21 c onduct the test yourself. So, that's the proposal. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Thank you. That has a lot of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 15 1 r eally good ideas in it. I think you've presented a 2 l ot of things for us to talk about. 3 MR. MYERS: Sure. 4 MS. BARHYDT: I actually want to take one 5 s tep higher and so I think we'll come back -- 6 MR. MYERS: Okay. 7 MS. BARHYDT: -- to the information you have 8 h ere and I want to start out with talking about -- DOE 9 a lready does assessment testing and we've heard that 10 m anufacturers have concerns about the transparency of 11 w hat we do, or they don't understand what we do. And 12 s o, where I'd like to start is when DOE does 13 v erification testing, what is it that you want to see 14 t hat will answer the questions that you have about what 15 w e do right now that we can put into the regs that will 16 m ake the process more clear to everyone? 17 So, with that in mind, go ahead and go down 18 t o the next slide. So, how much should we be testing? 19 W hat is the -- should it be based on basic models? 20 S hould it be based on the groupings of basic models? 21 N ow that we have a better idea of what exactly DOE 22 c onsiders to be a basic model, that may change your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 16 1 c alculus of what you think it is a reasonable amount to 2 t est each year. 3 So, those are some of the things we'd like to 4 t alk about. How should models be selected for testing? 5 S hould it be random? Should there be some provision 6 f or challenge testing? Should there be targeting? 7 T hat's a whole other area that we'd like to talk about. 8 Process for low volume products. How should 9 w e coordinate with the manufacturer with production 10 s chedules? Should production be monitored for 11 c ompliance to the model design specifications to make 12 s ure that the units being tested are not specially made 13 f or tests, that kind of thing? 14 So, we would like to engage with you about 15 w hat it is you would like to see in a DOE verification 16 p rogram and then we'll go from there to what you would 17 l ike to see in terms of DOE recognizing third-party 18 t esting programs. And a good starting point might be 19 f rom what we talked about with the AEDM and when DOE 20 d oes testing and how we compare that to ratings from 21 A EDMs. 22 I mean, there's a lot of ways we could go

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 17 1 a bout this. Or if everybody just wants to say, well, 2 w e already agreed to the way we do the AEDM program. 3 J ust, if you have any thoughts before we -- 4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. When 5 y ou say the testing that we agreed to on the AEDM 6 p rogram, are you talking about DOE's testing? 7 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, so we could use that as a 8 m odel, because we talked about how DOE would select 9 t hings, we talked about how things would be tested, 10 w here they would be tested. I mean, we talked about a 11 l ot of these same issues in the context of AEDM where 12 D OE does verification of AEDM testing of units rated by 13 A EDMs. 14 MR. MYERS: Right, this is Frank Myers, PVI 15 a gain. I don't think that that's a reasonable model 16 f or continued verification testing. I understand the 17 n eed for that when DOE wants to bear down and do 18 e verything independent and then take that manufacturer 19 t o the mat if need be. I understand the need for the 20 l evel of independence that is maintained in that 21 p rogram. 22 We had a lot of discussion about that and we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 18 1 a ll know the parts that we don't embrace, but 2 u nderstand. With this, we're talking about a lot of 3 t esting and testing that has to fit within a 4 m anufacturer's production and delivery capabilities, 5 p roviding free equipment that goes away somewhere and 6 i s tested would be financially ruinous for a lot of 7 c ompanies. So, this needs to be something that we can 8 g et a lot of information out to DOE and to the 9 a dvocates and to our competitors that they can look at 10 a nd scrutinize. 11 And then we have both the DOE's more 12 i ndependent test program available should it be needed, 13 a s well as Challenge Testing, particularly a Challenge 14 T est within VICPs, and we could set up something 15 o utside of a VICP for Challenge Testing. 16 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. If DOE runs a 17 v erification testing program, I'm concerned that you 18 h ave a budget, I assume, and you have all this testing 19 t o do, you know, can you fund, if we pick so many 20 u nits, who pays for that? Is that something that the 21 m anufacturers would have to pay for the testing to -- 22 a s part of the verification? And can you run that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 19 1 t hrough your program? Is that allowed? Or -- because, 2 y ou know, as we do this and we look at -- we don't want 3 t o give an unfair advantage -- I understand not giving 4 a n unfair advantage to people who belong to a voluntary 5 c ertification program, but I don't want to give an 6 u nfair disadvantage to people that do that because we 7 s pend a lot of money testing that equipment. 8 So, I would like to see anything that's 9 i ndependent outside that program to be at least 10 r easonably close in scale so that we have equal 11 v erification with both groups. 12 So, can you speak to how you fund, if we 13 d ecide we're going to do, you know, 5 percent of our 14 b asic models, or we do a grouping and we do, you know, 15 2 0 percent so that we catch it every year, or whatever 16 t he math works out, how does that get funded? And can 17 D OE afford to do that for everybody who's outside a 18 v oluntary program? 19 MR. HURST: I would like to add to that 20 b efore you answer. Maybe it would be helpful if you 21 g ave kind of a macro overview, not only of the funding, 22 b ut the breadth. Because, I think, John, you mentioned

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 20 1 a number a while back and then you cover a number of 2 p roduct classes outside of what we're even talking 3 a bout, and I think as a manufacturer another concern 4 w ould be if the funding goes up or down or away over 5 t ime, how that would impact the program. 6 So, just some macro thoughts on how the 7 p rogram is maybe funded and administered. 8 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, for funding, you know, my 9 b udget is given to me as one number and it applies to 10 b oth codes and standards currently. With that said, 11 o bviously meeting our legislative deadlines for 12 s tandards and test procedures comes first. So, 13 w hatever we're doing in that space, that's -- depending 14 i f the funding goes up or down -- that's kind of the 15 s acred part of the budget. 16 Lately, you know, the budget hasn't been an 17 i ssue for any of that and we've been able to add new 18 p roducts and we've been able to also do the 19 v erification, both for Energy Star and Certification 20 a nd Enforcement. So, the budget currently is about $5 21 m illion for that activity. So, in the future, if the 22 b udget gets to a critically low point, I could say,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 21 1 w hat will be saved is meeting the statutory deadlines 2 t hat are imposed on the program. 3 Other than that, I really can't say much 4 m ore. 5 MR. HURST: Thank you. 6 MS. BARHYDT: So, given that, DOE is very 7 i nterested in coming up with a scheme that will make 8 s ure all manufacturers are treated equally in terms of 9 n ot disadvantaging people who are running -- who are 10 p articipating in a voluntary certification program. 11 S o, what DOE is looking at is requiring some level of 12 v erification testing across the board, and whether that 13 i s done through a program run by DOE, a program run by 14 a manufacturer, or a program run by a lab, program run 15 b y an industry group, whatever that mechanism is, 16 r equires some level of verification testing and that 17 t here would be some level of controls and oversight by 18 t he Department to make sure that everybody is running a 19 f air program and that everybody is being treated the 20 s ame. 21 And so, that's really where we're looking to 22 g o with this, is that there would be verification

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 22 1 t esting for everyone and that way everybody is on the 2 s ame playing field. 3 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'd 4 l ike to suggest that the way it might be handled is 5 t hat DOE would publish minimum requirements for any 6 v erification program, and that if an industry 7 c ertification program, VICP, were to meet those 8 r equirements, then DOE would do no testing, would 9 a ccept that as the verification. For manufacturers not 10 p art of VICP, they would have to participate with DOE 11 o r another organization for meeting those minimum 12 r equirements of verification. 13 So, I think what we ought to discuss is what 14 t hose minimum requirements for verification are. 15 MS. BARHYDT: Exactly. 16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. So, 17 y ou're planning to do what EPA is currently doing for 18 i ts Energy Star program? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Can you explain what Energy 20 S tar is doing? Because I don't know enough about it. 21 MR. AMRANE: Energy Star has a verification 22 p rogram and has recognized what they call certification

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 23 1 b odies who are doing the testing for manufacturers, and 2 A HRI is part of it, but DOL is also part of the 3 p rogram. 4 So, there is already something in place that 5 E PA is doing. Again, there's some concern with what 6 E PA is doing in terms of burden to manufacturers and 7 b ecause does not totally mimic what industry is doing 8 a nd maybe that's something we'll have to work out with 9 E PA in the future, but at least there's a starting 10 p lace where you could look and maybe we can start off 11 t hat and see whether it's something that we would all 12 a gree to. 13 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. There is more 14 t han one program involved here. Number one is Energy 15 S tar program. Number two is certification to 16 N RCanada's regulations. There are different reasons 17 f or different programs. Energy Star is only the more 18 e fficient pieces of equipment. At this time they're 19 r equiring approximately 10 percent of the products 20 l isted under Energy Star to be tested every year. 21 That is an issue because Energy Star test 22 s tandard testing is not potentially what we're agreeing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 24 1 t o here at this time because they define everything on 2 a ll possible power consuming items built in and on, and 3 t hat's a question that we haven't verified yet. 4 So, that can be a problem. The 5 c ertifications are done by the same basic laboratories 6 f or NRCanada, those certifications are to the standards 7

- - the test standards that we're applying today under 8 t he Energy Star program, but it has far less -- you're 9 t esting units that may or may not be Energy Star 10 a pprovable. So, you have a broader spectrum of 11 p roducts available to you. 12 And, again, they're running between 7 and 10 13 p ercent of the total unit base. And, again, NRCanada 14 h as everything on, so we have some questions, number 15 o ne in test procedure, number two, and because some of 16 t he industry groups do not have the same level of 17 r eview or they allow for much broader grouping. Energy 18 S tar says, okay, you have 60 products listed. We're 19 g oing to test six this year. There's no question about 20 i t. It's no base models. Everything is a tested unit, 21 s ubmitted to Energy Star, and then verification tested 22 o ver a period of years. And they will pull out of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 25 1 g roups so that you don't let one group just fall by the 2 w ayside. 3 So, they will look at different groupings, 4 n ot necessarily the DOE groupings, but different 5 g roupings that have some industry understanding, and 6 t hey will pull from those groups representative samples 7 a nd say, well, we haven't tested anything from this 8 g roup for a while, so we'll go over there. 9 They will dictate which units get tested, not 10 t he manufacturer. It can be a different approach, and 11 w e may end up with conflict in the future if we're not 12 c areful how we clarify our issues of accessories. 13 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. Two 14 c omments. Going back to some of your prefacing 15 c omments, Laura, I think that certainly the regulation 16 n eeds to clearly describe assessment testing, because 17 r ight now, in fact, what's on the books, you have 18 c ertification, you have enforcement, and at least in 19 t erms of what's written there, enforcement doesn't 20 r eally describe the interim point of assessment 21 t esting. 22 And, by the way, that's not a criticism. You

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 26 1 k now, I think you found out what we have known for a 2 l ong time, that, you know, in balancing looking at a 3 l ot of models and what's available to you in terms of 4 r esources, assessment testing, let's say you call it a 5 f irst cut, makes a lot of sense. But I think it needs 6 t o be clearly spelled out in the regulations. 7 The other issue I want to talk about is 8 E nergy Star, and I certainly appreciate it's very 9 i mportant to the commercial refrigeration 10 m anufacturers, but we're talking about commercial 11 p roducts, okay. There aren't that many Energy Star 12 p rograms for commercial products. I mean, there's some. 13 T hey have requirements and we're here because, in fact, 14 e ffectively there's really nothing that everyone's 15 a greed to between the manufacturers of DOE and everyone 16 e lse, and as far as certification and verification 17 e nforcement for commercial products. So, there's a 18 v oid, if you will, okay? 19 I think that we should keep -- one of the 20 o bjectives should be that whatever comes out of here, 21 i n fact, should be developed and looked at to -- 22 i nsofar as efficiency metrics that are governed by DOE,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 27 1 i t should replace Energy Star's verification 2 c ertification requirements. 3 You know, letters have flown back from AHRI 4 f or a long time. The business of certification and 5 e nforcement of efficiency ratings covered by federal 6 r egulations should be the business of DOE, and if we 7 c an write something that we can give the EPA and say, 8 y ou don't need to do anything else, that should be part 9 o f this objective. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That is something we 11 c an all agree on. 12 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 13 N ational Refrigeration. As you -- again, with 14 c ommercial refrigeration, we have a lot of experience 15 w ith the EPA and the requirements they had, and as 16 C harlie said, the 10 percent retesting. There's some 17 v ery significant things to keep in mind there that when 18 t hat was being developed, there was a lot of push back 19 f rom industry and a lot of companies became involved 20 a cross the board with the National Association for Food 21 E quipment Manufacturers, and even having said all that, 22 u nderstanding that Energy Star is an optional program.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 28 1 Y ou can be in it, and some manufacturers don't, but 2 e ven the manufacturers that wanted to be in it, the 3 b urden -- everything I'm hearing here, and I can't 4 i magine that with your $5 million, John, you're going 5 t o able to really do an effective -- you know, that DOE 6 i s necessarily going to be able to pay for all that 7 w ith the level that I think we all would really want. 8 So, I think there's going to be -- it sounds 9 l ike there's going to be some burden on manufacturers 10 t o supply equipment or to pay for testing, or whatever, 11 s o that's obviously something we have to keep in mind. 12 But there was -- again, I think in this case, 13 I can talk for a lot more people than those in this 14 r oom as far as experiences with EPA is the burden is 15 h ugely significant even at 10 percent of products being 16 r etested. 17 The other thing to keep in mind, too, in the 18 e xperience that we've had so far with being in that 19 v erification program for a couple years is the third20 p arty labs have had a lot of difficulty understanding, 21 k eeping up with, managing that testing, and I've had 22 e xperience on the Energy Star side and on -- with the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29 1 A HRI program, so the burden on the labs, they're out 2 t here, is a significant part of this and their ability 3 t o keep up with it. 4 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I just 5 w ant to make sure that I understand what we're actually 6 t alking about in terms of verification. Is this 7 i ntended to be for people that are not participating in 8 a voluntary certification program would then have to 9 h ave their products verified by DOE before they could 10 p ut them on the market and then as an ongoing program? 11 MS. BARHYDT: No. So, that would be a 12 s ignificant difference from what I understand about 13 E nergy Star, is that now, to get something Energy Star 14 l isted, it has to be verified before it can be sold as 15 E nergy Star, and we're not talking about that. 16 We're talking about, on an ongoing basis, 17 s ome percentage of models being sold are being 18 v erification tested, but not any kind of prior to sale. 19 MR. KLEISS: Okay, then based on -- or, in 20 r esponse to that then, how is what you're asking -- how 21 i s the verification program that you're asking for some 22 g uidance and response on, how is that different from

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 30 1 w hat action DOE is already in the process of doing as 2 f ar as testing manufacturer's equipment? 3 MS. BARHYDT: So, the difference is that it 4 w ould be a regulatory requirement to participate in 5 s ome kind of verification testing like what AHRI does. 6 I t would impose a requirement to have some kind of 7 v erification testing done. So, it would be a new 8 r equirement for verification testing, and then who 9 a ctually is doing that testing may vary. If somebody 10 d idn't participate in a plan at all, they would be 11 s ubject to DOE. If they were in an industry run 12 p rogram, that would be in lieu of DOE testing. If they 13 w ere running their own program that had been approved 14 b y DOE, that would be another option, if the labs 15 w anted to run one and they wanted to participate in 16 t hat, but the idea is that everybody would be subjected 17 t o some level of verification testing. 18 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I've 19 g ot a question. When it's a one-off manufacturer that 20 m akes custom equipment and you're asking the percentage 21 o f basic models to test per year, if everyone is a 22 b asic model, how would that affect them if they're

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 31 1 m aking one of a kinds all the time? 2 MS. BARHYDT: So, they're still going to have 3 t o certify it. So, they're going to be grouping them 4 s omehow. I mean, there should be the ability to still 5 i dentify what the basic models are. 6 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I have some 7 v ery big concerns about your terminology there because 8 i t could be very different if you interpret it 9 d ifferent ways. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 11 MR. HON: The basic model can be nothing more 12 t han a product and we can have a basic model, which is 13 a particular size unit. We could also have that same 14 b asic unit with a different lighting system, which the 15 c ustomer wants, which makes it a lot -- it consumes 16 m ore energy. But it is still that basic unit with add17 o n features, which then consume more energy, but we 18 d on't want to list the truly basic model as a de-rated 19 p roduct because of a much more demanding customer. 20 So, do they then become two basic models? 21 MS. BARHYDT: So, so -- 22 MR. HON: Because they're going to be listed

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 32 1 s eparately. 2 MS. BARHYDT: I think you're raising a very 3 i mportant issue and I think that that's something we're 4 p robably going to spend a considerable amount of time 5 t alking about. I'm not saying that basic model is the 6 r ight metric for us to use. I'm throwing that out just 7 b ecause it's a term that now we all understand what 8 t hat means, but I'm not saying that it has to be a 9 p ercent of a basic model. All I'm saying is that we 10 w ould like to see some level of verification testing 11 a cross the board, and how we're actually going to get 12 t o that point and what the regulations circumscribing 13 t hat would be, is what we want to talk about. 14 And so, I mean, definitely that's one of the 15 d etails we're going to have to figure out. 16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. And 17 t hat's why, I mean, a long time ago AHRI found out 18 a bout it and that's why we created this basic model 19 g roup. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 21 MR. AMRANE: Just to reduce the number 22 t esting burden on manufacturers. So, there is a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 33 1 s olution, of course you'll have to work out the 2 d etails. 3 MR. BALLO: On the idea of product families 4 t hat I think Frank raised earlier, I don't have a 5 p roblem with that sort of grouping of basic models. It 6 w ould be a concern to me if we were solely looking to 7 t he manufacturer literature, because that can change 8 a nd be sort of unclear. What I think might be helpful 9 i s maybe if, at the time of certification, the 10 m anufacturer indicates which product family the basic 11 m odel belongs to so that it's clear for everyone to see 12 w hen it should be tested. 13 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I'm 14 j ust going to throw a few things out there. You know, 15 t he number of models or the number of -- I mean, the 16 n umber of basic models is not necessarily reflective of 17 t he volume or sales volume of any company. I'm not -- 18 I don't have a solution, I'm just throwing things on 19 t he table. So, you know, going off the number of 20 m odels is not equitable across the board to the number 21 o f products that are out being sold. 22 So, you know, I don't know how to handle

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 34 1 t hat. We really are not handling that any better or any 2 w orse in AHRI today, so if you want to be in AHRI and 3 y ou're a small business and you have lots of model, you 4 d o probably a bigger percent, you spend a bigger 5 p ercentage of your revenue on testing than someone who 6 s ells a few models but sells a whole lot of them. 7 So, I don't know if that figures in there. 8 O ur definition that we've been working on for three 9 m onths on basic models is somewhere between where we 10 s tarted and the basic model group that AHRI has. We've 11 p ulled some things in, but we've pulled a lot of -- but 12 t here still are a lot of differences, and one of the 13 t hings I talked to Karim yesterday about was, you know, 14 j ust as a I think AHRI could probably figure out -- I'm 15 s ure he doesn't have it on the top of his head, but we 16 c ould look at the number of AHRI listings versus the 17 n umber of AHRI model groups and see what it is. 18 I suspect it's somewhere between 5:1 and 19 1 0:1. And I think the number of models listed in the 20 A HRI program is fairly close to what we're going to end 21 u p with, maybe a little bit lower because we've had a 22 f ew things in our copper coils and some other things

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35 1 t hat I think deviated from what AHRI has been talking 2 a bout in the past. So, I think that number would be 3 g ood to have before we finish this, and maybe we could 4 h ave that next week. 5 And then I'd just like everybody's opinion. 6 D o we want to try to make this proportional to sales 7 s omehow? Or do we want to try to keep it proportional 8 t o the number of models offered? I don't have an 9 a nswer. 10 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I 11 w ould suggest that we wouldn't base it off of sales 12 b ecause reporting information -- of course, with the 13 A HRI program it's anywhere from 20 to 33 percent, one14 f ifth to one- third of your basic models every year 15 t hat are audited. 16 MS. MEYERS: Basic model groups. 17 MR. THARP: Basic model groups that are 18 a udited every year. 19 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. Is it possible 20 t o have an alternate for the small manufacturers or not 21 n ecessarily saying, okay, well, we have 40 different 22 b asic model groups, but we only sell 1,200 products a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36 1 y ear, and that's a very, very arduous percentage for a 2 s mall manufacturer. We certainly don't fall in that 3 c ategory, we have a broad spectrum, but we sell a lot 4 o f equipment. 5 But could it be an option for that small 6 m anufacturer as a possible way to avoid some of the 7 b urden to be willing to voluntarily submit their total 8 s ales and then have a percentage of units out of their 9 t otal sales tested as an alternate? But that would be 10 t heir choice to do it or they could stay with the base 11 m odel numbers like everyone else is working with. 12 MS. BARHYDT: We could do it that way or we 13 c ould also use the small business rules that if you 14 q ualify as a small business, there's a different 15 t hreshold. I mean, there's a lot of ways to get there. 16 MS. MEYERS: Is it -- we've kind of come up 17 w ith a definition for basic models for certification. 18 I s it possible to come up with another definition for 19 v erification, like a basic model group? 20 MS. BARHYDT: The product family concept? 21 Y eah, sure. 22 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. We're a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 37 1 v ery small company with a very large product line and 2 w hat I had proposed in the program would cause us to 3 t est at least one of every -- and we have a lot of 4 p roduct families, to test at least one of those every 5 f ive years. That's a lot of testing for us. But we can 6 d o that, spread out even with our number of basic model 7 f amilies that something as long as we can do it as a 8 p art, because we're also build-to-order. We have no 9 i nventory. We can't afford to build things just for 10 t ests, so the proposal that I had made embedded in that 11 i s our ability to take a few days, and a customer has 12 o rdered a product, but before we ship the product we 13 h ave to conduct the verification test on it. 14 If we can have a program that allows us to do 15 t hat, then we can test at least one basic model of 16 e very product family we have, at least every five 17 y ears. That's very similar to -- except for the 18 d ifference in product family versus basic model group - 19

- that's very similar to the testing requirements for 20 t he AHRI program. 21 So, that was one reason that I looked at 22 t hat, but the key here is our ability to do that as a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 38 1 p art of our normal take an order, build, and then add 2 i n a small slice for tests, then ship, because the 3 c ustomers, you know, they're paying for that product, 4 t hey want it as quickly as they can get it, so we have 5 t o minimize that disruption. 6 If we can do that, then we can run that 7 n umber of tests. 8 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. One of 9 t he problems with this is that we're looking at a rule 10 t hat would apply to our 80,000 BTU per hour 11 i nstantaneous hot water heaters that have no options, 12 v ariations, they're prepackaged, and stacked five high 13 a nd ten deep on our shelves. And talking about 14 a pplying the same criteria for selection and 15 v erification for highly customized, extremely expensive 16 e quipment, is there some way that we can differentiate 17 p roducts? Within the AHRI program there's the Certify 18 A ll Rule. There are some exemptions from that Certify 19 A ll Rule recognizing those difficulties of producing 20 p roduct simply for the business of verification. 21 So, I don't have a suggestion at this, but 22 I 'm just proposing this as an idea that there might

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 39 1 n eed to be different classes of product that should 2 h ave different thresholds for verification. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So, in DOE's regs right now, in 4 t he enforcement context, there's already a distinction 5 b etween high volume and low volume build-to-order, and 6 s o certainly we've already drawn some of those lines in 7 o ur regs and we could follow those guidelines already. 8 As to if it's something that's stacked up in 9 b oxes, then it's high volume, and if it's built to 10 o rder or if it's very, very low volume, then have a 11 d ifferent threshold for testing, but I think DOE would 12 l ike to see all of it in the pool somewhere so that low 13 v olume stuff isn't not getting verification tested. 14 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON, I'm 15 t alking way too much today. The other issue that we're 16 g oing to have to face as we look at verification 17 t esting, and it relates back to some of the others, as 18 w e've expanded the scope of some of these product 19 c ategories, there's not necessarily laboratories that 20 a re capable, available today, that can test all of -- 21 e vap condensing -- some of the very large unit does not 22 f it in any of the existing chambers. That may get

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 40 1 r ectified in the next two or three years, but -- 2 MS. BARHYDT: Including the manufacturer? 3 T he manufacturer doesn't have the facilities either? 4 MR. FLY: I don't think the manufacturer has 5 t he facilities either. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 7 MR. STEPHENS: Phillips Stephens, HTP. 8 H arvey, you're going to love this, I hope. I think 9 s omething else we need to recognize is the difference 10 i n standard production products and innovative products 11 a nd technologies. They typically don't fit -- it's a 12 r ound peg trying to go into a square hole. They just 13 d on't fit sometimes. 14 So, having to have something innovative to 15 f it the same structure as something high volume, 16 s tandard production, is a burden to bringing innovative 17 p roducts into a marketplace. 18 MR. SACHS: Phillip, this is Harvey, and if I 19 u nderstand the question, it would be a product such as 20 a n integrated, fully condensing water heater boiler 21 c ombination, for which we do not have a test procedure 22 t hat's adequate today. And it seems to me that we've -

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 41 1

- and I'm looking for reactions -- we've had a waiver 2 p rocess, which was used for VRF for a while, it's been 3 u sed for a lot of things, and it seems to have worked 4 o kay. If it hasn't, I need to be reeducated and DOE 5 n eeds to be beat up, and I wonder if we can use the 6 w aiver process for things that we really just don't 7 h ave an adequate test procedure for. And that's one 8 e xample of innovation. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. That 10 m ay be as simple as we need to make it, as long as the 11 m anufacturers would have assurance that the waiver 12 p rocess would apply to the annual verification methods 13 a s well as the method of test for it. 14 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. ACEEE, to the best 15 o f my knowledge, has opposed exactly one waiver since 16 2 001, that waiver request was for a category of "space 17 c onstrained" residential air conditioners. That's the 18 o nly thing that -- these are split systems -- that's 19 t he only thing that we have ever felt warranted any 20 k ind of opposition, but we may have missed some we 21 s hould have opposed. 22 This is Harvey. Let me add to that that as a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 42 1 g eneral observation, if something is innovative, 2 e fficient, and doesn't look like it's going to have 3 h igh volume, it doesn't have substantial effect on 4 n ational energy savings. If it's not affecting the 5 c redibility of the certification programs, we have no 6 r eason to oppose it. Tim may, but we don't. 7 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. The 8 w aiver process is good, and having had a lot of 9 e xperience with it the only problem that we had was the 10 l ength of time that it took for waivers, and I know DOE 11 h as made efforts to shorten the time, but, you know, 12 t his could possibly bring many, many new waivers, so 13 D OE would have to kind of gear up for that. 14 I mean, we -- I think our first waiver, we 15 w aited a year and a half, but I know it's better than 16 t hat now. 17 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, just so long as we're 18 c lear that it is much, much better than that now. 19 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. I have 20 e normous sympathy for the issues that Paul faced, but 21 t his was a case where there was a lot of uncertainty 22 a mong other manufacturers about how these products

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 43 1 w ould play competitively. There were a lot of basic 2 u nderstandings and it really is, in some senses, it's 3 a n advanced product that wasn't innovative because of 4 t he global experience, it wasn't something where -- 5 w e're looking at something that had not been marketed 6 b efore. 7 So, DOE may have been inefficient, but I 8 d on't think all of your competitors in the HVAC 9 i ndustry were bending over backwards to help that go 10 f ast. 11 (Off record discussion.) 12 MS. BARHYDT: So, I've heard that people are 13 c oncerned about making sure that we recognize the 14 d ifference between low volume and high volume, the 15 d ifference between small manufacturers and larger 16 m anufacturers, and what the right metric is for how to 17 d ecide how much should be tested in any given year. 18 Going back to the -- what I started with in a 19 D OE program, we've heard that there's a lot of 20 c onfusion about what DOE currently does, and so we also 21 w ant to make sure that we address that in a process 22 t hat everybody understands and so that expectations are

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 44 1 c lear in terms of when DOE does testing. 2 MS. MEYERS: Say that again. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So, to the extent that any of 4 y ou have concerns about how DOE does assessment testing 5 r ight now, or believes that there is a lack of clarity, 6 p lease state what your concerns are so that we can 7 m aybe address some of those. 8 MR. WHITWELL: What is the process? 9 MS. BARHYDT: So, DOE goes out and we buy 10 t hings and we test them in accordance with the DOE test 11 p rocedure, and that is under 10 CFR 429.104, which is 12 e ntitled "Assessment Testing" and we look at the 13 r esults, and based on those results, we either say, 14 g reat, good to go, and that's the end of it, or we 15 n otify the manufacturer and we proceed under Section 16 1 10 and proceed with the enforcement testing process, 17 w hich is laid out in the regs. 18 MR. EISNER: How do you determine which 19 p roduct to test? 20 MS. BARHYDT: We just buy things. 21 MR. THARP: How do you select which models 22 y ou're going to test? Is there some criteria that you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 45 1 u se? Is it absolutely random? 2 MS. BARHYDT: No, I mean, it really is. We 3 g o out and we say, hmm, let's try this one, we haven't 4 t ested one of these lately. Except for we previously 5 h adn't done hardly any testing at all, so that's really 6 e asy. So, you know, realistically, it's -- we don't 7 h ave a long history of testing, so for us, we just pick 8 t hings. It's not based on we want to target this 9 m anufacturer or this type of product or this industry, 10 i t's -- we just go buy things that we haven't tested 11 b efore. 12 We do a lot of testing in support of our 13 r ulemakings and all of that we look at to make sure 14 t hat the product meets the standards. Whenever the 15 r atings are really far off, we usually send a letter to 16 t he manufacturer telling them that, hey, by the way, we 17 t ested this thing and it's nowhere near your rating, 18 b ut that's the extent of what we've been doing there. 19 MR. SACHS: Laura, this is Harvey, and I have 20 t wo concerns, relative, particularly to the term 21 t argeted. One of them is, in general, I think given 22 t he modest budget available and the large spectrum of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 46 1 p roducts, the Department should avail itself of a good 2 " ear to the ground." There always are rumors about 3 w ho's -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, we do testing where we 5 r eceive complaints, always. 6 MR. SACHS: I think that's an important thing 7 t o have clear to those at this table. The second 8 c oncern I have about targeting is the question of who 9 i s -- whether DOE is buying these products. I can 10 c ertainly conceive of an administration, which decides 11 t hat some manufacturer is an enemy for some reason and 12 r eally wants to put inordinate pressure on it, 13 i ncluding financial pressure. And, as a 14 g eneralization, for which there may be exceptions, I 15 w ould be concerned about the DOE subpoenaing a unit 16 i nstead of buying it. 17 MR. MYERS: Excuse me, this is Frank Myers. 18 C ould you repeat that last bit? You're concerned about 19 D OE subpoenaing and then I didn't hear the rest. 20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. I would be 21 c oncerned about a process that allowed DOE to demand 22 t hat a unit be provided of some specification that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 47 1 p erhaps might not even be sellable, and provide it to 2 D OE at no cost, because that would open the possibility 3 o f abuse of the regulatory process. This is the 4 l ibertarian side of me. 5 MS. BARHYDT: So, assessment testing, DOE 6 b uys the units, in enforcement testing, the 7 m anufacturer is required to provide the units, and 8 t hat's in the statute. 9 MR. EISNER: When you say you select a 10 p roduct, first you said, you know, you just select 11 a nything, and then you said it does depend on 12 c omplaints. Several complaints? One complaint? From 13 p articular companies? From customers? 14 MS. BARHYDT: So we do the random selection 15 a nd we just pick things. 16 MR. EISNER: Who is the "we"? John? 17 MS. BARHYDT: He has the money. 18 MR. EISNER: Okay. 19 MS. BARHYDT: So, there's the random 20 s election, but we also have a policy of investigating 21 a ll complaints. So, if somebody makes a complaint, we 22 w ill go buy a unit and we will test it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 48 1 MR. EISNER: Just one person? 2 MS. BARHYDT: Just one person. 3 MR. EISNER: So, even if a competitor is 4 t rying to get you to check another company, you'll just 5 d o it because they asked? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Sure. And I guaranty you, the 7 c ompetitors then complain about the other one and we 8 b uy one of the other ones. So, everybody makes money 9 o ff the deal. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can we talk during the 11 b reak? 12 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. So, 13 i s it possible that -- or is there a process -- this 14 r andom selection, is it made at the beginning of the 15 y ear so that, you know -- and it's not so -- if it 16 c ould be at least a little bit more transparent between 17 t he manufacturer and DOE, hey, heads up, you know, 18 y ou've been selected to have one of these units tested 19 s ometime this year. 20 So, I mean, you're obviously managing a 21 b udget, you're doing this random selection. Seems like 22 i t would be helpful -- I mean, we kind of -- you know,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 49 1 s o that, you know, just -- you know, just not trying to 2 h ide anything or anything, just, you know, these units 3 h ave been selected by DOE or this unit or this basic 4 m odel group, however we decide -- this product family 5 w ill have a unit tested by DOE in the year 2013. 6 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we're going to go -- what 7 w e do is a pop quiz. We don't do midterm exams here. 8 S o, we said this before, and I think Mike had the 9 a nalogy correct, if I'm the food critic and I'm telling 10 y ou I'm coming to the restaurant, you know, that steak 11 i s going to be darn good, I'm sure. 12 So, the random -- I think it's twice a year 13 w e sit down and we pick a bunch of batches, I would 14 s ay, pretty much randomly. Not so much your products, 15 b ut in home appliances there's cycles when things hit 16 t he market, so that comes into play, so like room air 17 c onditioners generally come out for sale in the late 18 w inter, early springtime. 19 So, maybe it will be weighted more towards 20 p roducts like that. So, there are some cycles in the 21 c ourse of the year where more product is available for 22 u s to pick off the shelf.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 50 1 So, that comes into our thinking. For Energy 2 S tar it's a little different because we've had more 3 y ears of experience in that verification program. And 4 w e've seen patterns in Energy Star by product, and 5 t hose reports are on the web, you can see it yourself 6 a s well. 7 But otherwise it is, there's no -- it's not 8 l ike, let's go pick on Charley's products this month. 9 I mean, we don't -- you know, when she said that I was 10 t hinking, oh, no, here we go. 11 MR. HURST: John when you say patterns -- 12 t his is John Hurst with Lennox -- what patterns do you 13 m ean? Are you talking sales patterns or patterns that 14 y ou see in testing. 15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Patterns in the products, 16 l ike for Energy Star, and this is not enforcement 17 t esting, we've seen certain products fail Energy Star 18 m ore frequently than others. We've seen brands fail 19 m ore frequently than others. We see the way they're 20 r ated, how they rate them, be more susceptible to 21 f ailing than others. You know, logical things that 22 w e've learned through the process. It's -- and again,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 51 1 s ince this is pretty new, we don't have a long track 2 r ecord of coming up with a really good process by which 3 w e can do more tailored. 4 So, in the beginning it's going to be 5 c ompletely random because we don't have any experience 6 a t all. So, I think that's kind of where we're at. 7 MR. KLEISS: Is there any weighting based on 8 t he expectation of power consumption within that -- 9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Like how much the unit would 10 u se versus -- 11 MR. KLEISS: Or rather, as an example, there 12 a re about 9:1 volume of furnaces versus boilers for 13 h ome heating. 14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 15 MR. KLEISS: So, is your sampling -- 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: We focus more on the furnaces 17 b ecause they're more prevalently sold. Probably that's 18 t rue. I mean, there's more available to pick from. 19 S o, other important factors -- so, Laura said, I think 20 t his is important and may have been missed, that we 21 p urchase a lot of things just to test for our standards 22 p rocess, so let's say we're doing a CRE rule. We'll go

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 52 1 o ut and buy the spectrum, just to do tear-downs with, 2 b ut before we tear it down, we do a test to see what it 3 r ates out at. 4 So, we're learning a lot that way, too. 5 W e're getting -- one test is giving us a lot of 6 i nformation for both the rulemakings, the test 7 p rocedure, and the assessment. So, you know, we're 8 t rying to do these things in a smart way to have the 9 m oney stretch as far as possible. 10 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. I'm trying to 11 g et a sense of to what extent you're essentially 12 r unning a challenge testing program with DOE funds 13 r ather than the manufacturer's funds, and so what 14 p ortion of when you say you get a complaint from 15 s omeone you start looking at that product? How much 16 o f those or what percentage of those complaints come 17 f rom manufacturers? What percent come from 18 d issatisfied customers of the product? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Ninety percent come from 20 m anufacturers. But that testing makes up a very small 21 p roportion of the overall testing that we're doing. I 22 m ean, realistically, we don't get that many complaints.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 53 1 A nd I think that some of that may reflect the fact that 2 t he process takes a very long time, and so some people 3 h ave made complaints, I know, think that it takes way 4 t oo long for us to get to the end of the process, but 5 t here is a real need, and I'm sure you would all agree 6 w ith this, for the manufacturer to get due process. 7 And so, we do take a long time going through 8 t he process and make sure we get to the right result at 9 t he end. And so, I think that if people saw their 10 c omplaints bear fruit more frequently, we might get 11 m ore complaints, but the process takes a really long 12 t ime. 13 MR. EISNER: Do manufacturers provide you 14 w ith just their understanding there's been a failure, 15 o r have they tested it and supplied you -- 16 MS. BARHYDT: Usually the manufacturer 17 p rovides us with their own test data. 18 MR. EISNER: Of this other product? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Of the other product. 20 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. So, on the 21 o ther verification programs you have, you have no 22 s ampling rate that we've been talking about here, there

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 54 1 i s not -- you don't test some percentage of the basic 2 m odels? That's totally random -- 3 MS. BARHYDT: No. 4 MR. FLY: -- so, it is not a continuous, 5 b road- based verification program? 6 MS. BARHYDT: No. 7 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. That 8 r eally brings out -- the question that was just asked 9 b rings out the concern I have, and I suspect others 10 h ave, that enforcement should be something consistently 11 d one that doesn't depend on funding or that sort of 12 t hing -- I'm sorry, I said enforcement, testing, the 13 c ontinuing testing that we're talking about shouldn't 14 d epend on DOE funding or timelines, that should be a 15 r egular process that goes through a manufacturer's 16 p roduct families either through a VICP or directly, 17 w here that continues on and is required through the 18 r egulation to be delivered year after year after year. 19 MS. BARHYDT: We agree. 20 MR. MYERS: And the DOE testing seems best 21 s uited for the enforcement/challenge that you just 22 d escribed as opposed to the continuing testing.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 55 1 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 2 N ational. I guess one of the things, and I've been 3 t hinking a lot about that, Frank, is, you know, again, 4 h aving some experience on the -- and with DOE we kind 5 o f have the extreme now of random and the manufacturer 6 m ay or might go years or if ever having tested a 7 p roduct to a 10 percent of all manufacturer's products 8 o r 30 percent, which is very burdensome. 9 Almost -- I'm trying to think about the 10 m inimum, but across the board evenly, is if you took -- 11 e very manufacturer had to test one product every year 12 f or DOE. I mean, would DOE even be able to fund that 13 p rogram? Or, you know, because that's your bare, bare 14 m inimum where across the board, everybody would be 15 s ubject to it. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So, what we're looking at with 17 t he verification program would be the manufacturer18 f unded testing, not the DOE funded testing. 19 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, and that's -- and even, I 20 t hink, for some companies having one product tested a 21 y ear would be -- that they're paying for, is going to 22 b e very burdensome. You know, there's product

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 56 1 c ategories that aren't so -- you know, it's not so much 2 w ith CRE, some may be, but I know large boilers and 3 t hings, you know, you'd want a manufacturer to have to 4 v erify something every year, and even that level would 5 b e burdensome. 6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. As 7 w e've been talking about this and challenge tests and 8 w e're talking about verification, one of the things 9 t hat has leapt out in my mind, and we're also talking 10 a bout voluntary certification programs and comparing 11 t hose to what we might recommend for DOE to apply, or 12 f or limits for other VICPs, there is a huge difference 13 b etween what we're talking about for product 14 v erification for DOE and what AHRI does, at least in 15 t he product classes that I'm involved with. 16 And that being related to challenge testing, 17 t here are tolerances. And when there are challenges 18 m ade, those tolerances provide a significant amount of 19 g race. 20 When we certify products in our VICP with 21 A HRI, first we have to qualify the products we test and 22 w e cannot claim anything higher than the average

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 57 1 e fficiency of our qualification tests, and then there 2 a re -- or submittal -- 3 MS. BARHYDT: Wait, before you go on, can you 4 e xplain that? 5 MR. KLEISS: For example, when we're 6 s ubmitting a new boiler for listing in the AHRI 7 p rogram, we have to run at least two tests on that 8 m odel that we're submitting and we cannot claim to them 9 a ny higher efficiency than the average of those two 10 t ests for publication. 11 Then, AHRI has a third-party test of our 12 p roduct with a tighter tolerance than what we do for 13 v erification, and we have to pass that test with that 14 t ighter tolerance before we can list our product on the 15 A HRI directory. 16 That is a huge step, I think, of tighter 17 c ontrol and that qualification process creates a much 18 h igher threshold for the claims of efficiency than what 19 w e're talking about with a verification program. And 20 t here's a significant up front expense for those 21 p articipants in that VICP. I think that's something 22 f or us to bear in mind when we're comparing what we're

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 58 1 t alking about for DOE programs versus what's going on 2 w ith AHRI. 3 MS. BARHYDT: That's for all models? Or 4 w henever you have a new model group? 5 MR. KLEISS: That's the introduction of the 6 n ew product or if we were going to try and increase the 7 r ating of a product we would have to go through that 8 s ame process. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 10 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 11 J eff, you've got to be careful with your terminology. 12 E verything you described is not verification. That is 13 c ertification. And what we're trying to figure out 14 h ere is verification. All the processes you described 15 f or the program are for listing a model, that's 16 c ertification, and that really doesn't -- is not really 17 w hat would be done for subsequent verification testing 18 i n the AHRI program, so, I mean -- and it is, to a 19 l arge extent, in fact, follows federal regulations. We 20 a ctually want to make sure they're following federal 21 r egulations. Imagine that. 22 But anyhow, that's not verification, and the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 59 1 s ubject here is really verification or what we're 2 t rying to sort out is what might be verification. 3 MR. EISNER: What does certification mean? 4 W hen you put it on your site saying, this has been 5 c ertified, what do you mean by certified? 6 MR. STANONIK: Well, it's entering -- let me 7 t alk about a new model, because it's easier, although 8 w e're actually talking about programs that are 9 o verlaying a market that's existed for a long time, 10 r ight, but for a new model, first of all, the federal 11 r egulation is that you have to have the ratings 12 c ertified, you have to have a certified rating before 13 y ou can introduce the commerce. 14 So, we essentially are, in our certification 15 p rograms, pretty much doing the same thing. We have to 16 h ave -- the manufacturer has to tell us, here is the 17 r ating for this new model, here's test data that 18 s upports the rating, and as Jeff was saying, in certain 19 c ases we do a qualification test, in essence to kind of 20 m ake -- I'll say to be comfortable that the test was 21 d one properly, and then we list the model. And then, 22 i n theory, the manufacturer is free to -- and that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 60 1 i nformation, by the way, now is set up so it also is 2 d elivered to DOE, so there's that next, almost 3 s imultaneous step, it gets delivered to DOE, and now 4 t he manufacturer can sell the product in commerce. 5 But what I was trying to make the point is, 6 o kay, so we're past that point and let's say a year 7 l ater our folks make a -- say, we're going to select a 8 p roduction unit of this model that was entered last 9 y ear and we're going to test it to verify that it 10 c ontinues to have the same rating that was claimed. 11 T hat's where the verification comes in. 12 MR. EISNER: And how do you determine which 13 o nes to do verification testing? 14 MR. STANONIK: Well, Bill can talk to that, 15 b ut basically, I mean, we have a staff that -- we have 16 s ome general guidelines in terms of, let's say, cycling 17 t hrough a full manufacturer's listing in three, four, 18 f ive years or something of that nature, and then we 19 h ave other factors by which we determine which ones we 20 w ill test in a given year. 21 You know, it's random, but not totally 22 r andom.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 61 1 MR. EISNER: Do you get complaints? 2 MR. STANONIK: Pardon me? 3 MR. EISNER: Do you get complaints from 4 o thers that lead to verification testing? 5 MR. STANONIK: We have a challenge process, 6 a bsolutely, both open both to participants and non7 p articipants, yeah. 8 MR. HURST: This is John Hurst from Lennox. 9 T he other thing we get is we do get an advance 10 n otification of what we're going to be -- it's not the 11 p op quiz, I guess, it's the midterm, and the reason 12 i t's valuable to a manufacturer is we can plan our 13 p roduction. It's not that we, you know, all run back 14 a nd figure out how we're going to get that equipment up 15 t o standard, that's not the case, but you know, it is 16 s omewhat of a pain because they do randomly select, and 17 s ometimes it's high volume, it's easy to do, sometimes 18 i t's rather custom, and we like to fit it in to the 19 p roduction cycle where we're not jumping through hoops 20 t o make a specific unit for the verification testing. 21 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I'd 22 l ike a clarification, if possible, because I seem to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 62 1 h ave possibly misunderstood what was said earlier. For 2 t he verification testing, who does the Department 3 e xpect to cover the cost of the products and the 4 t esting? 5 MS. BARHYDT: Manufacturers. It would be a 6 n ew regulatory requirement and we recognize that there 7 w ould be burden associated with that. 8 MR. STEPHENS: And then the same for any 9 e nforcement activities? 10 MS. BARHYDT: So, for enforcement, the 11 m anufacturer is required to provide units, but DOE pays 12 f or the testing. 13 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. So, 14 h ow does verification testing differ from assessment 15 t esting? 16 MS. BARHYDT: They're the same thing. 17 MR. WHITWELL: So, the regs currently say -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: It's a spot check. 19 MR. WHITWELL: -- assessment testing, the 20 D epartment buys the equipment? 21 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. Assessment testing and 22 v erification testing are a spot check, enforcement

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 63 1 t esting is different. 2 MR. STANONIK: Laura -- Frank Stanonik, AHI - 3

- but Laura, I think you maybe inadvertently misspoke 4 b ecause -- 5 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 6 MR. STANONIK: -- you indicated that the 7 i ntent would be that there would be, in the 8 r egulations, verification requirements applicable to 9 e very manufacturer, but then, in addition to that, DOE 10 w ould still continue to do assessment testing on their 11 d ollar. 12 MS. BARHYDT: So, what we would like to do is 13 g et to a point where everybody is having verification 14 t esting and that could be -- and so, let me make clear, 15 t he question I was answering was, what is happening 16 r ight now? DOE pays for assessment testing and we buy 17 t he units. 18 MR. STANONIK: Right. 19 MS. BARHYDT: What we would like to do is get 20 t o a point where there is verification testing across 21 t he industry and manufacturers pay for the testing, but 22 t he manufacturers can meet this regulatory requirement

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 64 1 e ither through a third-party industry association 2 t esting, through lab testing, through their own 3 m anufacturer-run program, through a DOE-run program. 4 T he DOE-run program would still be manufacturer paid 5 f or, but DOE would help administer some of the 6 t echnical parts of it. 7 MR. STANONIK: And in that future objective, 8 w ould there still be any assessment testing, and I mean 9 t hat different than enforcement testing? 10 MS. BARHYDT: No, our notion -- so, somewhat. 11 MR. STANONIK: Minimal. 12 MS. BARHYDT: So, there would still be 13 a ssessment testing in as much as DOE would still do 14 t esting in support of its rulemakings, we would still 15 d o assessment tests where we received a complaint, so 16 w e would, but it would not be the same kind of random 17 t esting that we're doing right now. We would stop 18 t hat. 19 MR. STANONIK: Okay, so -- Frank Stanonik, 20 A HRI -- so then let's say that would progress to that - 21

- okay, DOE could and may -- let's say would do 22 e nforcement testing, but that would be the full bore,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 65 1 y ou know, testing of multiple samples with statistical 2 a nalysis, blah, blah, blah. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Right. And that's never a spot 4 c heck. 5 MR. STANONIK: Right. Right. Okay. 6 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. You know, 7 l ooking at the AHRI program today, before we can enter 8 a program, a certification program, we kind of have to 9 p re-approve, you know, there's a preapproval process, 10 w e have to basically pretest the first year's sample 11 p roducts and pass those tests before we're accepted 12 i nto the program, at least in some of the programs, the 13 o nes that I'm familiar with. 14 If DOE administers this or we have these 15 o ther programs, and basically you've kind of got that 16 f irst year for free if you introduce -- if you're new 17 t o the process and you really don't know what your 18 n umbers are and maybe you have some tests that will 19 v alidate your AEDM, but you have to ask for it first, 20 s o I mean, there is a difference there in the fact 21 t hat, you know, once you're in the program and you're 22 r unning for several years, you are getting continuous

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 66 1 c ertification. So, if you're a bad actor, you're going 2 t o get caught fairly quickly. 3 But that first year test, you know, is 4 v ulnerable to a flash-in-the-pan introduction and the 5 g uy's gone, because there's not testing that's really 6 r equired for me to hold up my hand and say, I'm a new 7 m anufacturer of some product. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there's still the 9 r egulatory requirements to have testing. I mean, you 10 e ither have to have your two tests and certify, or you 11 h ave to have your testing underlying your AEDM. 12 MR. FLY: But DOE isn't necessarily seeing 13 t hat test unless they request it, right? 14 MS. BARHYDT: That's correct. 15 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. To that end, I 16 w ould think in regulatory bang for your buck, DOE 17 r equiring to see -- more so than spot testing or even 18 t he verification testing -- DOE requiring to see a 19 m anufacturer's test data and calculations compliant 20 w ith 10 CFR Part 429 with the lower confidence level 21 a nd all that, is that widely done? And if not, I would 22 t hink that that would be --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 67 1 MS. BARHYDT: We do request test data 2 f requently. 3 MR. KLEISS: Okay. 4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I'm 5 n ot sure, could you explain -- or what drives you to 6 e nforcement testing? 7 MS. BARHYDT: So, the legal standard is that 8 t here has to be a reason to believe that the product, 9 w hen tested and evaluated under the enforcement 10 s tatistics would not meet the standard. 11 MR. MYERS: Okay, so what do you see that 12 c auses you to believe that's the case. 13 MS. BARHYDT: A failing test. 14 MR. MYERS: So, if a manufacturer provided 15 d ata that failed or the VICP program said, here's a 16 u nit that failed, then you would either go into 17 e nforcement, or obviously if that product family, if 18 i t's -- or that basic model is removed from the market, 19 t hen there would be no need for enforcement testing. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I don't know that I would 21 a gree with that. If they've been selling the product, 22 j ust simply removing it from the market doesn't make

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 68 1 t he problem go away. If the product is non-compliant - 2

- so, let's say as our base that this really is a non3 c ompliant product. If DOE says we want to do 4 e nforcement testing, we have reason to believe that 5 y ou're selling a non- compliant product, it's not 6 e nough for us -- to us for the manufacturer to say, 7 w ell, I'll just stop selling it. 8 If they've been selling it and it's non9 c ompliant, then they're subject to civil penalties, so 10 w e will want to go ahead with the enforcement testing. 11 I t's not enough to just remove it. 12 MR. MYERS: That being said, the enforcement 13 t esting for a small manufacturer, build-to-order 14 m anufacturer would be devastating. You know, if we had 15 t o provide the number of models built just for that 16 t est, they would have no value to the manufacturer when 17 t hey're one, it would be much more punitive than if 18 y ou're talking about the same kind of thing for 19 r esidential appliances. 20 MS. BARHYDT: So, the regulations do 21 c ontemplate smaller sample sizes for built to order 22 p roducts. In our experience, we've had manufacturers

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 69 1 w ho basically said, well, we'll build one more just 2 b ecause we're not real sure, and we've tested it and 3 i t's failed, and they've said, we're done. We've made 4 t wo, you've tested two, they both failed, we'll concede 5 t hat it's non-compliant, and we don't ever get to a 6 l arger sample size. 7 A lot of that is just in discussions with the 8 m anufacturer. I mean, we like to have as big of a 9 s ample size as possible, but some of it is the 10 m anufacturer decision as to whether or not they want to 11 a ctually contest it or not. 12 MR. MYERS: So, one conceivably could not 13 c ontest after the first sample? 14 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 15 MR. MYERS: It could -- even though they 16 m ight be convinced that that was an error, the cost of 17 b uilding the second sample just for test, best just to 18 e liminate that and admit to guilt? 19 MS. BARHYDT: I suppose they could. That's 20 n ot been our experience. 21 MR. MYERS: Obviously, it depends a lot on 22 e xactly which model is involved.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 70 1 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 2 MR. MYERS: If you pick some of our models, I 3 a ssure you that would be the consequence because we 4 c ouldn't afford to do that, but other models, okay, we 5 c ould build those and vindicate ourselves from an 6 e rroneous test if that's what happened. 7 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess 8 j ust a point of clarification. For your enforcement 9 t esting, a non-compliant unit would be a unit that 10 w ould fail to meet the federal minimum standard, right? 11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, but we do not prosecute 12 a ll cases. 13 MR. AMRANE: Okay. But in your verification 14 p rogram, it would be the same? I mean, you would be 15 l ooking at making sure that products just meet the 16 f ederal minimum standard? Or will you be looking at 17 w hat AHRI does, which is making sure that the rating is 18 c orrect? 19 MS. BARHYDT: I think we would be looking at 20 b oth, but whether or not we would actually be seeking 21 p enalties or something like that is a different matter. 22 B ut certainly we have an interest in making sure that,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 71 1 p articularly with AEDMs, and we've already talked about 2 A EDMs, that we have a real interest in making sure the 3 A EDM is generating numbers that are reasonable, because 4 i f they're not generating numbers that are reasonable 5 t hree points above the standard, then maybe they're not 6 g enerating reasonable results down at the standard 7 e ither. 8 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. Could we see Frank 9 M yers' proposal up there again? Because as I'm 10 t hinking through this, just about every point that 11 y ou're calling for, I think is covered within that 12 p roposal. 13 MR. SACHS: Laura, would it be possible in a 14 r easonable time -- this is Harvey -- just to provide 15 p rinted copies so that we could write notes on them? 16 MS. BARHYDT: Of that? 17 MR. SACHS: Yeah. 18 MS. BARHYDT: I think we can do that. 19 MR. SACHS: That would be quite a favor. 20 T hank you. 21 MS. BARHYDT: Why don't we take a break and 22 w e'll make copies?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 72 1 MR. EISNER: Are we going to start discussing 2 t his? 3 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, sure. 4 MR. EISNER: Why don't we take a ten-minute 5 b reak? 6 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 7 MR. EISNER: I called you all together again 8 f or another recess. Karim said. 9 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 10 MR. EISNER: All right. Are we ready to 11 b egin discussion? Who wants to lead off? 12 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I 13 t hink we have a proposal we would like the chairman to 14 t ype it on the board first and -- 15 MR. EISNER: Would everybody who is on the 16 p hone please mute your phone? 17 (Pause.) 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Rusty will say what 19 t his is for. 20 MR. THARP: This would be for the basic 21 r equirements for any certification or verification -- 22 a ny verification program, whether it's a VICP or a DOE

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 73 1 r un or whoever runs the program. And there's an 2 a dditional requirement under the second bullet that if 3 y our company name starts with MI, you have 40 percent 4 o f your products tested. 5 MR. THARP: So, the first is basically that 6 4 80 verification program, that any and all models that 7 a re part of that program would be available in a public 8 l ist of all the models that are certified, then a 9 p rogram would have 20 percent of product families would 10 b e verified by test on an annual basis, I didn't -- 11 a ctually, it would probably be good to type that up 12 t here if you would on the annual basis, the second main 13 b ullet. 14 And whoever is running the program would 15 p rovide a list of the models to be tested to DOE prior 16 t o the annual testing so that DOE could have some input 17 o n the models that were being tested. That program 18 w ould require a changing of a rating or removal of the 19 r ating if there was a failure of the test. 20 The program should require some sort of 21 q ualification procedure of any new participants. That 22 w ould include things such as testing of models to be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 74 1 i nitially qualified and/or submission of test data or 2 A EDM data, something of that nature, to the person or 3 p ersons running this certification program. 4 The program should also allow some method of 5 c hallenge testing for those people within the program 6 o r somebody from outside the program, similar basically 7 t o AHRI certify all policy that any models in that 8 p roduct family or any models that the participant 9 o ffers for sale that are in that product category must 10 b e certified along with all the other ones, so you 11 c an't pick and choose which ones you want to certify. 12 The certification program would need to 13 p rovide a summary of all verification testing, at least 14 a nnually, and if there are any failures, that there 15 w ould have to be some specified timeframe for how fast 16 t he notifications are provided to DOE. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And that's to DOE? 18 MR. THARP: Right. That's notification to 19 D OE. And you may want to put that in there, if you 20 w ould, the quick notification "to" DOE, please, thank 21 y ou, Jeremiah. 22 Whoever does the testing should be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 75 1 i ndependent, third party laboratory that's ISO 17025 2 c ertified unless, as we've noted before, there's not 3 s uch an animal facility that can test a certain 4 p roduct, and obviously, the testing would need to be 5 d one via DOE test procedures and, as indicated earlier, 6 a test report would need to be made available. 7 MS. JAKOBS: A summarized test? 8 MR. THARP: A summarized test report. And 9 t hat's a -- I guess a starting point for the baseline 10 r equirements for a verification program of certified 11 r atings. 12 MR. BAUMAN: Russ, was this -- I guess I 13 s till have some confusion. So, this is being proposed 14 f or across the board for all products versus a third 15 p arty industry program that would be an optional 16 p ossibility for DOE to approve outside of normal -- 17 MR. THARP: This would be the base 18 r equirements for any verification program of certified 19 r atings, whether it's a DOE run, whether it's a VICP. 20 O bviously, a VICP could go even beyond this. I feel 21 t hat AHRI's certification program is more stringent 22 e ven than this.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 76 1 MR. EISNER: So, if DOE was doing testing it 2 w ould have to test 20 percent of the product family? 3 MR. THARP: Correct. And part of that is 4 m aking it a level playing field. So, regardless of who 5 y ou are, whether you're part of a VICP or part of a 6 D ICP or whoever's running the program, that you have 7 t he same verification requirements of your certified 8 r atings. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 10 t hink the question I would have would be a Certify All 11 R equirement on the baseline because we have some 12 m anufacturers that are with AHRI, but AHRI doesn't 13 o ffer a program for their products. So, having the 14 C ertify All on the baseline, would that mean they can't 15 d o any of their products with AHRI? 16 MR. AMRANE: I guess in this context, I mean, 17 t hose are products that are regulated by DOE, so, I 18 m ean, so all of them would have to be within -- subject 19 t o verification. 20 MR. FLY: So, the Certify All rule in AHRI 21 a pplies to a program, to a certification, for large air 22 c onditioners, but if I can go build chillers and not be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 77 1 c ertified then I haven't violated the Certify All rule. 2 T he other thing is, you know, when you say Certify All, 3 i t has to be within the program scope, which you have 4 d efined as the product class scope. So, you know, 300- 5 t on air conditioners are not currently a regulated 6 p roduct, they're not currently in a certified program, 7 s o they're not being discussed here. 8 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. 9 I think possibly a better way to phrase it 10 w ould just be to simply say, all products must be 11 c ertified, because the Certify All rule brings up 12 d ifferent connotations if you're talking about a VICP 13 v ersus -- 14 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON again. But you 15 c ould also have part of your product certified through 16

- - one VICP part of it certified through DOE if you 17 w ant, if you chose to do so. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So, are we talking about Verify 19 A ll? Because everything's already required to be 20 c ertified. And so just making sure we're clear on 21 t erminology. 22 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78 1 A gain, couple of things. We're talking about a 2 v erification program and none of us should forget that 3 t his working group spent a lot of time developing AEDM 4 c riteria, which applied to the certification of all of 5 y our models covered by federal regulations. Okay. So, 6 y eah, the question of Certify All really is not a 7 v erification program in the terms of DOE 8 c ertifications, not a program requirement, okay, but 9 w hat I think we want -- what we're saying is that if 10 s omeone is operating a verification program, all -- and 11 a manufacturer is participating, all of that 12 m anufacturer's products that fit within the scope of 13 t hat program must be listed in the program. That's 14 w hat we're saying. 15 Because, again, yeah, in terms of DOE's 16 r egulation, everything is certified. 17 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, and I would suggest that 18 b e changed to "all products must be in the verification 19 p rogram", because if you say "all must be verified" 20 t hat implies they're all tested. 21 MR. STANONIK: Right, right. 22 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And I'm not

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 79 1 q uite sure how to understand the term "verification 2 p rogram". I've got a pretty ornery friend, Charlie Hon, 3 a nd he's not part of AHRI for his own good reasons, he 4 d oesn't want to be part of any -- any trade group. He 5 w ants to be out on his own. And what does it mean to 6 t hink about a -- sorry I'm using you for an example, 7 C harlie -- what does it mean to have a one manufacturer 8 p rogram? 9 MS. BARHYDT: So -- 10 MR. SACHS: This is really a question to AHRI 11 b ecause it's theirs. Laura, you're off the hook. But 12 w hat Does it mean if I've got a firm in -- 13 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane. We're not saying 14 t hat you have to be in the AHRI program here. I mean, 15 i t could be UL, it could be somebody else. I don't 16 k now. Like for Energy Star today, I mean, Charlie 17 p articipate in one of those programs. 18 MR. SACHS: Well, Karim, I'm hearing from you 19 t hat UL is a program and I think of it as a test lab. 20 MR. AMRANE: Well, I think they do have a 21 p rogram for Energy Star, I believe, I mean, I don't 22 k now. You can speak for yourself.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 80 1 MR. THARP: UL has a verification services 2 d ivision. 3 MR. SACHS: How would you treat -- I can 4 t hink of a boiler company that's in the same category 5 o r is a particularly good example -- how do you treat 6 a n individual company that might want to use CSA one 7 y ear, might want to use UL one year, might want to use 8 I ntertek, but wants to have full responsibility for its 9 o wn verification, wants to be a good player, but 10 d oesn't want to be pushed to join anything other than 11 h aving a 17025 lab do its testing? 12 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 13 H arvey, I think you've maybe jumped a little ahead, 14 o kay. First of all, our intent -- to be absolutely 15 c lear on this -- our intent and our belief is that the 16 c riteria for acceptance of -- let's call them VICPs, 17 o kay, that in this regulation that should be the 18 b aseline, and so what we're trying to do is establish 19 t he baseline. 20 We're also operating off of Laura's statement 21 t hat DOE's intent is that every manufacturer will have 22 t o have some kind of verification on an annual basis.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 81 1 I s that correct? 2 MS. BARHYDT: (Shakes head yes.) 3 MR. STANONIK: Okay. And so, the question 4 o f, okay, what will be the requirements for 5 v erification for any manufacturer not in a VICP of 6 w hoever's operating it, I would say, still needs to be 7 d eveloped as part of the working group recommendation, 8 b ut we feel very strongly the baseline from which those 9 r equirements would be developed should be working off 10 o f this. 11 So, the answer to your question, I think 12 r ight now, unless other people in the working group 13 k now, I think that the answer is to be determined. 14 MR. SACHS: Thank you, Frank. That's 15 h elpful, and my question then is that really this is 16 b asic requirements for a VICP verification program. 17 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I 18 t hink I heard earlier, though, that DOE's intent is to 19 r un a program for those people who aren't in a VICP 20 p rogram, so if it wasn't one of our VICP programs or 21 U L's, then I would assume DOE would be administering 22 t his to similar rules.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 82 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Exactly. At the very same 2 m inimum rules. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So, I can't say that we're 4 w anting to just pick up everybody, but what we would 5 l ike to do is, as you all said, have a single set of 6 r ules for these are the minimum requirements for DOE to 7 r ecognize a program. We actually think that it could 8 b e possible for Charlie to come up with a plan for True 9 M anufacturing that DOE could approve that would let 10 t hem do in-house testing, I'm not sure whether or not 11 w e would be okay with him selecting the units himself, 12 b ut maybe an algorithm or something, we might even 13 a gree to something like that, where he could have his 14 o wn plan that is an approved plan, and DOE would 15 p rovide oversight and make sure that people were 16 a dhering to those plans, but that he wouldn't 17 n ecessarily have to go and participate in a larger 18 g roup program. 19 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 20 h ad a question about that same thing. If it's a 21 s maller manufacturer that doesn't have its own test 22 l ab, but they don't want to be part of a voluntary

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 83 1 c ertification program, couldn't they just send, you 2 k now, X amount of units every year that randomly is 3 p icked by them or by the DOE to a third party test lab 4 t o have it verified that it meets the requirements 5 w ithout being part of some verification group? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Without agreeing to the 7 s pecifics of how that would work, yes. Conceptually, 8 y es. 9 MR. EISNER: I have a question about the 10 t hird bullet, required qualification of new 11 p articipants. Is this new testing facilities, the ones 12 d oing the verification? Or is this a new entrant into, 13 f or example, one of the existing testing facility 14 p rograms? Do you qualify as a manufacturer or qualify 15 a s a tester? 16 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. It's 17 i ntended to be a manufacturer. And this is not 18 i ntended to be a group thing, this is anybody, any 19 m anufacturer would have to comply with this, is the 20 i ntent of that, and I think just the bullet that's 21 h ighlighted in red, I think that should say, all 22 p roducts within the DOE covered -- this is additive

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 84 1 w ords, you're not removing anything, but all products 2 w ithin DOE covered product category must be in the 3 v erification program. 4 MR. EISNER: Okay, Rod Beever had a question 5 o nline. He said, "This does not appear to line up with 6 t he proposed rules for the use of an AEDM. How do they 7 a ddress this difference?" 8 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. This is 9 s eparate from the AEDM requirements, so we're not 10 t alking about verifying the AEDM, we're talking about a 11 v erification program, once you have already certified 12 y our product with DOE, whether you have used an AEDM or 13 n ot, so that comes after that process. I don't know, 14 y ou can have -- 15 MR. THARP: The AEDM is used to certify or 16 c reate the rating, and this is a verification program 17 t o verify that what is already in commerce is correct. 18 MR. BALLO: There is one point of 19 i ntersection between the two issues, though. For AEDMs 20 w e went through a lot of discussion about the role of 21 t he manufacturer involvement in the testing that DOE 22 w ould do to substantiate or confirm, validate the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 85 1 A EDMs. So, I think we do need to address the role of 2 t he manufacturer in any verification testing as part of 3 t his criteria. 4 MR. HALLEY: Geoff Halley with AEDM. I would 5 l ike to follow up. I like what Laura put forth 6 r ecently in reference to Charlie's problem to deal with 7 s ome of the realities that I see. When you get into 8 t he larger boilers, we've still got the problem of 9 t esting in the manufacturer's facility. We've also got 10 t he problem that I don't know for sure, but I suspect a 11 g ood proportion are not qualified to ISO 17025 and 12 p robably may never be qualified to that because they 13 d on't have a formal test lab. They test in what's 14 k nown as a fire test area, which is the end of the 15 p roduction line, if you like, where they do a fire test 16 a nd it's the only place in the plant where they have 17 t he capability of the utilities, if you like, the 18 w ater, the fuel, oil, natural gas, flow capabilities, 19 t hat sort of thing. 20 So, you know, I think there are a couple of 21 w ays to address it. Yeah, it would be nice for ISO 22 1 7025, but what are the basic requirements for a test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 86 1 t hat is acceptable to DOE? And I think they could be 2 s omething like, you know, an agreed test procedure to 3 s tart between DOE and the manufacturer -- obviously, 4 t hat's one -- a selection process has got to be agreed 5 o n. And I think beyond that, you need the right 6 i nstrumentation properly calibrated, the right 7 e nvironment, if you like, or as close to it as you can 8 g et. 9 Obviously, if you're somewhere in the Midwest 10 i n summer, you're going to get different air densities 11 t han you would in the winter, and that sort of thing, 12 s o that's going to be a problem area if you're going to 13 s plit hairs and go to the n-th degree. 14 You know, we're not dealing with a Swiss 15 w atch here, we're dealing with something a lot cruder 16 t han a Swiss watch, and so I think those things should 17 b e considered when you get to this, and I think DOE 18 c ould probably save a lot of grief all around by 19 p utting a cap on this rather than 25 million -- 2.5 20 m illion BTUs an hour. I know it can't be done 21 i mmediately, but I think it should be considered and 22 I 'll throw out a number, 12.5 million.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 87 1 Beyond that, the boilers tend to become more 2 i ndustrial type boilers, but in a heating application, 3 y ou know, the controls are -- there's a control split 4 a t 12.5 million for one thing. 5 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik with Hussmann. I 6 j ust have a couple questions to make sure I understand. 7 T he second bullet where it says "20 percent of product 8 f amily verified testing annual basis", looking at 9 c ommercial refrigeration equipment, which I'm familiar 10 w ith, using it as an example, we've got self-contained 11 r emote, medium temp, low temp, open and closed, so we 12 h ave eight product families would be the potential. Is 13 t hat what you -- so, we test 20 percent, so it would be 14 t wo cases per year? 15 MR. AMRANE: Again, this is Karim with AHRI. 16 A gain, this product family has to be defined, but it's 17 a concept that's -- it's broader than the basic model 18 d efinition that just came out a few days ago, okay -- 19 MR. SHEBIK: Okay. 20 MR. AMRANE: So, that's to group product a 21 l ittle bit differently. 22 MR. SHEBIK: And the last question I have is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 88 1

- - for now, is -- the last bullet, testing by a third 2 p arty, ISO 17025 lab, if a manufacturer is part of 3 I ntertek satellite program or UL client test data 4 p rogram, part of the requirement of being in those 5 p rograms is to be -- is to meet ISO 17025 requirements. 6 Y ou're not certified by ISO as being a lab, but you 7 m eet the UL and Intertek requirements. Is that 8 s atisfactory? 9 MR. AMRANE: This Karim with AHRI. And, 10 a gain, it might be satisfactory. I think the intent 11 h ere is to make sure that it's somehow an accredited 12 l ab to 17025 that follows those rules, so at least 13 t here is some legitimacy to the test. 14 MR. SHEBIK: Okay. 15 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. It 16 n eeds to be ISO -- needs to be qualified for ISO 17025 17 t o run the performance, the rating test, and not just 18 t he UL 1995 test. There are differences. Okay. So, 19 j ust being part of the UL satellite program doesn't 20 n ecessarily mean that you are ISO 17025 certified to 21 r un the rating tests. 22 MR. SHEBIK: Okay, I understand. Thank you.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 89 1 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman, Trane 3 MR. KLEISS: Go ahead. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: Go ahead, Jeff. 5 MR. KLEISS: Okay. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: I was just going to say -- so, 7 w ould we say ISO 17025 certified or just, you know, 8 a ccredited to those factors? 9 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I think certified -- 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Not everyone might be exactly 11 c ertified with an ISO inspector, but there might be 12 l abs that are doing all of those criteria, but just not 13 h aving an ISO person coming in and doing that 14 c ertification. 15 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I think certified is not 16 r eally the right word, it's more like what is required 17 b y -- for Energy Star, right? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. 19 MR. WHITWELL: A CB needs to come in and 20 a udit, I think is -- 21 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, so, like an ISO 17 -- 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Audit.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 90 1 MR. KOJAK: -- an ISO 17025 third party lab 2 w ould come in and audit the manufacturer's test 3 f acility and, you know, be the certification body for 4 t hem saying that they're up to the standards of an ISO 5 l ab, so the third party ISO 17025 lab is basically 6 g iving the accreditation to your lab saying it's good 7 e nough to do it. 8 MR. SACHS: Can you give us actual words for 9 t hat? 10 MR. KOJAK: No. 11 MS. MEYERS: Wouldn't it just be accredited. 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Accredited. 13 MS. MEYERS: Accredited. I'm sorry. Testing 14 b y an accredited third party ISO 17025 -- isn't -- does 15 t hat work? 16 UNIDENTIFIED: I like that. 17 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There's a legal issue 18 h ere. As a third party, as a lab certified to run the 19 t est audited by a third party like UL or ETL, the labs 20 a re not technically ISO 17025 certified themselves. 21 T he body above them is the certified because they're 22 t he independent tester.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 91 1 As a manufacturer, you're really questionable 2 w hether you can legally have 17025 to test your own 3 p roducts. There's a distinction there that can't be 4 c rossed and by having the third party viewing our labs, 5 w e meet the criteria of being 17025 but we're 6 t echnically not. But we have all the competency by the 7 t hird party verification of our labs to meet the lab 8 t est requirements for all the conditions. 9 MR. EISNER: Could we say "audited by"? 10 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. It 11 s eems to me what we're saying is "tested by" or under 12 t he auspices of a third party ISO 17025 lab. 13 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. That's the 14 p roblem because if by chance we want to be an 15 i ndependent -- in sending data to DOE ourselves on some 16 p roducts, then we fall out from under that scope. 17 MR. STANONIK: Well, I was just trying to 18 c orrect what is, at this point, again, what we're 19 c onsidering the baseline principle and I think the 20 p oint, not dismissing what Charlie just said, because 21 i t needs to be resolved, but the point of the 22 r ecommendation here would be that it's either testing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 92 1 d one by the lab, or in essence, it's done under their 2 c ontrol, and that's why you were saying under the 3 a uspices of. That, to me, was what I was trying to 4 s ay. 5 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'm 6 n ot comfortable with my competition doing their own 7 v erification testing. If we want to do it that way, 8 I 'll be happy to do my own verification testing of all 9 t he products. That's why I think it's important that 10 t he testing for the verification be done by an -- at an 11 i ndependent, third party laboratory or under the direct 12 c ontrol of an independent, third party laboratory. 13 MR. HON: I think that's what we're trying to 14 d iscern here, what really needs to be done. Charlie 15 H on. 16 MR. EISNER: How about testing by or under 17 t he control of an accredited third party ISO lab? 18 MS. BARHYDT: What would you call testing in19 h ouse but with a representative of the third party lab 20 p resent? Because we know that there are some issues of 21 l abs being able to accommodate it and some of the 22 m anufacturers have better lab set ups for their

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 93 1 p articular equipment, so how would you describe that -- 2 MR. KOJAK: With the way UL works is there's 3 d ifferent levels. It's Mike Kojak with UL. The first 4 l evel is the witness test program, which is exactly 5 t hat. Someone from UL will actually travel to the lab 6 s ite and witness the testing being done to verify 7 e verything is being done properly, and then there's a 8 h igher level, which is a client test data, which is, 9 y ou know, also known as a satellite program, which once 10 t hat remote lab has gone through a higher level of 11 a uditing and oversight, they are allowed to do the 12 t esting without having a person from, you know, the 13 a ccreditor's location witnessing everything. 14 So, basically, they've earned the right to, 15 y ou know, conduct their own testing because they have 16 t he proper documentation and the proper oversight from 17 y early audits and things like that. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Rusty, would witness testing 19 a ddress your concern that you just expressed? 20 MR. WHITWELL: Before you answer. Bob 21 W hitwell from Carrier. Maybe Karim and Frank can help 22 m e on this or Bill, but, for example, chiller programs,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 94 1 r ight, the chiller program at AHRI, I know that we test 2 i n our lab some chillers and we have the third -- for 3 A HRI certification program, and we have the third party 4 l ab representative come in and make sure that we are 5 r unning that test properly, and it actually takes the 6 d ata away. So, Bill, maybe you can add to that. 7 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill Tritsis, AHRI. 8 Y ou're correct. So, what we're talking about here is, 9 y ou know, and I guess we're noodling around here the 10 c oncept that Energy Star has already in place, we're 11 t alking about supervised testing, either it is through 12 a n independent laboratory such as UL or Intertek, or 13 t hrough AHRI supervising the testing at the 14 m anufacturer's facility, at the manufacturer's facility 15 w hich is approved, okay, by the certification body, 16 e ither, again, it is AHRI or UL or Intertek. AHRI, 17 a gain, has a list of requirements that the laboratory, 18 t he manufacturer's laboratory, has to meet, okay, and 19 t hese requirements are close, I guess, to what ISO 20 1 7025 is prescribing, okay, that makes the 21 m anufacturer's laboratory not necessarily accredited, 22 b ut approved, okay, by a certification body.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 95 1 And we have a testing done, which is 2 w itnessed by the certification body. 3 MR. EISNER: Again, language seems to be what 4 w e're talking about here. Instead of "under the 5 c ontrol of" should we be saying "witnessed and verified 6 b y" or something like that? 7 MR. THARP: This is Rusty. I agree that 8 u nder the supervision or witness -- 9 MR. STEM: This is Mike Stem with Intertek. 10 T here is specific language in ISO 17025 that deals with 11 w hat you're talking about, which is basically a 12 r ecognize test lab. It's not a certified test lab, a 13 C BTL, but an RTL, and there's four different levels for 14 b oth -- or any of those CBTLs to be able to assign a 15 c ompetency level for a recognized test lab underneath 16 t heir umbrella or scope of accreditations. 17 So, I don't think we probably have to 18 r einvent the wheel here. We can probably pull that 19 s pecific RTL language out of the ISO documents if 20 a nybody was interested in that. 21 MS. DANE: This is Mary Dane from Traulsen. 22 MR. EISNER: Mike, was that the question I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 96 1 w as handed that you wanted to -- or the point that you 2 w anted to make? 3 MR. STEM: It's one of them. 4 MR. EISNER: Okay. Jump in when you want to. 5 G o ahead, Mary. 6 MS. DANE: I just want to make sure that 7 w e're not wandering away, because where I'm seeing this 8 g oing is now we're starting to go from talking about 9 b elonging to a voluntary industry program -- 10 c ertification program, into being in a required 11 p rogram, which is going to remove a manufacturer's 12 a bility to test in their own laboratories, and I want 13 t o be very careful -- I'm not trying to take away from 14 A HRI and the investment that those members have made, 15 b ut for CRE, we're not generally part of that now. 16 So, as we're going on and we're adding this 17 v erbiage, where testing is done by or under the 18 s upervision of a third party, now this starts to look 19 t o me like we're not talking about a voluntary industry 20 p rogram, we're talking about the basic requirements to 21 c ertify certified ratings. So, you know, maybe -- 22 (Simultaneous discussion.)

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 97 1 MS. DANE: So, I still want to make sure 2 b ecause, you know, as I say, I don't want to take away 3 f rom the investment that people have made into the 4 p rogram, but I want to make sure it remains a voluntary 5

- - 6 MS. BARHYDT: So, Mary, what we're talking 7 a bout is a requirement to participate in a verification 8 p lan. 9 MS. DANE: That makes me feel better. I just 10 f eel like I have to say something because I see this 11 g oing under -- 12 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, so, the idea is that all 13 m anufacturers would have some level of verification. 14 N ow, how they met those requirements may vary, some may 15 d o it through a VICP, some may do it through some other 16 m echanism, but the general idea is that DOE would 17 a pprove whatever plan or program that manufacturer was 18 p articipating in, and that that would be the mechanism 19 f or them to meet their verification requirement. 20 MS. DANE: Okay. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So, we are talking about a 22 r equirement, and -- but I think that that doesn't

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 98 1 n ecessarily preclude manufacturers being able to do the 2 t esting in-house, it's just a question of what level of 3 s upervision is occurring when that testing happens at 4 t he manufacturer's facility. 5 MR. EISNER: Are people happy with this 6 l anguage? Does somebody want to pull up the ISO 7 l anguage? 8 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 9 j ust wanted to bring something up. What we're talking 10 a bout here is for verification only. For 11 c ertification, a lab doesn't have to be ISO 17025. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 13 MR. KOJAK: A manufacturer can test their 14 p roduct in their own lab, certify it at DOE, but the 15 v erification portion, this is the only part we're 16 t alking about where it has to go through this. Okay. 17 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. This 18 b asically is saying you have to participate in a VICP. 19 I t's structured to be a VICP. If we're looking at base 20 r equirements that all manufacturers have to comply 21 w ith, there's a lot in here that I like. But I'd like 22 t o be able to do it without being forced into a VICP.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 99 1 The 20 percent product family verified by 2 t est annually, that seems reasonable. Provide a list 3 t o DOE for their review before test, I understand, but 4 w e'll have to work out, for those of us that build-to5 o rder, we don't know at the first of the year what 6 w e're going to sell during the year. We might know the 7 f irst month or so, but we will have to be in closer 8 c ommunication with DOE to provide them, here's what we 9 h ave coming up, because a lot of our products have six10 w eek windows from the time we accept an order until we 11 d eliver, and that's the window we have to insert some 12 t esting. 13 So, I don't have a problem with that as long 14 a s it's understood that for manufacturers that don't 15 k now what they're going to build during the year, we 16 c an't say we'll test these units. We can say, we'll 17 t est these product families is a unit is built that 18 y ear. And then require changing ratings or removal if 19 f ail, absolutely. That should be inherent in the 20 p rogram. Qualification of new participants, if that 21 m eans verifying their ability to conduct the test, I'm 22 g oing to propose that would be covered by the last

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 100 1 s ection, the third party ISO 17025, so that, to me, is 2 a bit redundant. I don't have a problem with making 3 s ure the manufacturer can run the test. Allow 4 c hallenge testing is a VICP tenant. In terms of general 5 v erification, the challenge for a non-VICP would be 6 t hrough DOE or you could go, like the AHRI programs 7 a llow external challenge to products that are not in 8 t he VICP program. So, there are means to have 9 c hallenge if you're not in a VICP, so allow challenge 10 t esting doesn't really play if you're looking at a base 11 r equirement. 12 To me, it's redundant that all products 13 w ithin DOE covered category must be in a verification 14 p rogram. 15 That's what we're saying: everything has to 16 b e in a verification program. So, it doesn't seem to 17 b e necessary here since that's a part of what we're 18 d oing is making sure everything is covered. 19 Summarize verification testing annually and 20 q uick notification, I absolutely agree. 21 The last line, if we can, as I had proposed 22 i n my section, even if it's limited to build-to-order

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 101 1 m anufacturers, I've got to have something where I can 2 r un the test. I'll be as qualified as I need to be and 3 w e currently do that under the auspices of a satellite 4 a pproval where we go through all the things that the 5 l aboratories have talked about where we have to be 6 a pproved for the testing that we do, we have to set up 7 t raining programs, we have to have feedback loops, 8 a nnual audits to be sure that we're doing it correctly, 9 b ecause we need to be able to take a product that is -- 10 w e receive an order for, and before we ship, we have to 11 b e able to test, and we can't put in there weeks or 12 m onths to have somebody scheduled to come in because we 13 d on't have weeks or months to do that. 14 We have to be able to deliver, basically, our 15 t esting when it needs to be a two- or a three-day 16 w indow for this to be practical. If we can test under 17 t he auspices of a 17025 laboratory, then we can do 18 t hat, but if we have to wait for a member of a third 19 p arty lab to come watch the test, for us that build-to20 o rder, that would be almost impossible. 21 So, a lot of this I like, just a few items, I 22 t hink, need to be adjusted to allow this to be a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 102 1 g eneral requirement as opposed to a VICP requirement. 2 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. 3 U nder the red -- the whole line that's in red, I think 4 y ou should add in at the end there, "must be in the DOE 5 v erification program" -- no, not there, the one above 6 i t. 7 MS. BARHYDT: The idea is that -- well, what 8 e xactly are you trying to clarify? Maybe I'm not 9 u nderstanding. 10 MR. KOJAK: Because it -- you know, you're 11 g oing to have your own rules because you're going to be 12 k ind of the overseer of your verification program only, 13 i t's not -- you know, it's not going to be a bunch of 14 d ifferent verification programs having all the same 15 r ules, you're going to set the rules for all of us that 16 w e have to abide by for your verification program. 17 MS. BARHYDT: What about "must be in a DOE 18 a pproved verification program"? 19 MR. THARP: I like that. This is Rusty Tharp 20 w ith Goodman. This is really sort of intended, you 21 k now, to the point that Bob made earlier, and Frank -- 22 t his was sort of -- this was meant to be a basic

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 103 1 r equirement for a verification program for a huge 2 m ajority of products, and then there would be, 3 o bviously, the one-offs and things of that nature where 4 i t would need to have something separate because of the 5 u niqueness of those particular products. 6 I agree with Laura's comment to Mike's 7 c omment, in a DOE approved verification program. 8 MR. EISNER: The last bullet still seems to 9 b e of concern to some. Anybody have solutions? 10 MS. BARHYDT: So, for the labs, how long -- 11 h ow quick can you get out to witness a test? 12 MR. KOJAK: For witnessing a test, for one, 13 i t would be where they're located and, you know, what 14 F rank was talking about, you know, I think it is 15 p ossible for people to witness a test, because if 16 t hey're in the manufacturing process, there's going to 17 b e a schedule when it's -- the manufacturing of that 18 p roduct is going to be complete and when they're going 19 t o start the testing, so they'll have a good idea of 20 s ome dates when their testing will take place, so then 21 t he witness people can schedule their time accordingly 22 t o be there, you know, to witness the test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 104 1 You know, it's not -- I would assume they 2 w ould know when their manufacturing process was going 3 t o be over and they were going to be testing it 4 t hemselves. You know, I wouldn't think that would just 5 a ll come up in three days. 6 MR. SMITH: This is Judd Smith from CSA. It 7 w ould depend on when they notify us. Yeah, this is 8 J udd. It would depend on when they notify us for the 9 w itness testing, but I think we have enough resources 10 t o meet their needs within a couple weeks or a month. 11 MS. BARHYDT: So, up to a month of notice. 12 MR. STEM: This is Mike with Intertek. 13 S orry. I think it would also be very dependent on the 14 s pecific technology that's being witnessed and the lab 15 r eadiness as far as instrumentation and set up 16 a ccuracies. That's probably going to be the bigger 17 d etermination in time. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So, Mike, are you saying that 19 t he -- it would depend on how -- because we're talking 20 a bout it being in a manufacturer's test facility, so 21 p resumably they have their lab all set up and the 22 i nstrumentation. Are you saying it may take additional

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 105 1 t ime for the person witnessing to verify that 2 e verything is properly calibrated and prepared? Or 3 w hat exactly is your concern there? 4 MR. STEM: Well, for all other witnessed-type 5 t ests there's a pre-test process that goes through 6 w here you verify the calibrated equipment and 7 m ethodologies of the testing for the specific standards 8 a nd scope. But that's assumed to be correct when you 9 g o, it's not a big deal. You go and you witness the 10 t est, run the calculations, and report the results. 11 B ut more often than not, there are issues, because 12 t here's always issues when you deal with mechanical 13 c omponents. 14 A timeline is -- I think you're going to have 15 t o -- and, Mike, I understand where you're going with 16 t his, you know, looking for the time, but you're going 17 t o have different pieces, you know, as far as timelines 18 f or scheduling, timelines for testing, timelines for 19 r eporting. 20 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. With 21 t he AHRI witness program for chillers, like the power 22 m easuring equipment that is used is sent by the third

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 106 1 p arty labs either ahead of time or with the person 2 w itnessing it to put in line with the lab's equipment. 3 So, you know, if it was the case, if we were 4 c oming to witness a test at a third party's facility, 5 y ou know, the instrumentation, depending on size, could 6 b e shipped ahead of time to be added in from the third 7 p arty, you know, the witness testing lab, so, I mean, 8 i t might be an option just to have the witness testing 9 l ab ship, you know, like the power reading equipment, 10 w hich is ISO 17025 calibrated and traced, to be sent to 11 t he location for that to take the ultimate reading of 12 t he power consumed and things like that, kind of like 13 t he AHRI witness program is for chillers. 14 MS. BARHYDT: So, rather than using the 15 m anufacturer's and verifying that everything is 16 c alibrated and has all the complete documentation, 17 h aving the lab use -- ship theirs, seems to me like 18 t hat's going to add a lot of burden to the manufacturer 19 t o actually set up their lab using different equipment, 20 b ut maybe not, maybe that's really straightforward. 21 MR. KOJAK: UL has got like travel kits of 22 t he power reading equipment, so when we do go witness a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 107 1 t est for the AHRI program, that gets either shipped 2 a head of time to be installed depending on the size of 3 i t or it's brought with the person that's going to 4 w itness the test and they install it the day of, you 5 k now, and it's usually in combination with their own 6 e quipment just to verify, you know, their stuff is 7 r eading the same as our stuff, you know, things like 8 t hat. 9 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I 10 a ppreciate the fact that AHRI's certification program 11 h andles it that way, but there is a federal test 12 p rocedure that gives the specification for the test 13 e quipment and the tolerances of the test equipment, and 14 I think anybody that has that verified that they have 15 t he proper tolerance specified in the test procedure, 16 t hen they should be able to use that equipment. 17 MR. STEM: This is Mike with Intertek. 18 T hat's what I was going to say. That's handled as a 19 L evel II RTLs. There's also Level III and Level IV 20 R TLs. Level III, you know, you can use your own 21 e quipment, and then Level IV actually doesn't even 22 r equire any supervision.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 108 1 So, I don't know, you know, how far up the 2 l evels you want to discuss, but I do think Level III, 3 i n most cases, for manufacturers would be acceptable 4 g iven that most of their equipment probably will be 5 c alibrated in that instance. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill with Trane. Let 7 m e give you an example of, I guess, you know, I'll walk 8 t hrough an example of an AHRI test that physically 9 c ould not fit in any of the approved laboratories, and 10 i t's directly under this rulemaking. Commercial 11 f urnaces. Commercial furnaces are 225,000 BTUs and up, 12 w e make furnaces that go up to 2 million BTUs and they 13 g o on our very large rooftops. There is no physical 14 l ab outside of Trane, you know, independent lab that 15 c an fit that. So, AHRI said they were picking one of 16 t hese units, it happened to be 105-ton unit with a 1 17 m illion BTU heat exchanger. 18 We worked with AHRI and Intertek, in this 19 c ase, and it took us -- first of all, it takes us a 20 l ong time to build one of those units, 12 weeks to 21 b uild one of those units, so, you know, we had a long 22 t ime in scheduling this out. We could set the test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 109 1 d ate out for our lab knowing what the build cycle was, 2 e t cetera, worked with the lab on setting that test 3 d ate up. 4 They sent all the information, a checklist of 5 w hat had to be -- what the equipment had to be, what it 6 h ad to be calibrated to, et cetera, so that was all 7 d one -- pre done before they came, and, you know, we 8 c oordinated then the actual witnessed test of the test 9 a t our laboratory. 10 And this is a one-off, build-to-order, custom 11 u nit. 12 Now, oh, by the way, that's a very expensive 13 u nit. So, don't do it too often. 14 MR. CYMBALSKY: I hope somebody bought it. 15 MR. THARP: Again, this is Rusty. So, there 16 o bviously should be some differences between one-off or 17 l ow-volume type products and higher volume products. 18 I 'll point out that Bill Tritsis commented that there's 19 a ISO Guide 65, which are the general requirements for 20 b odies operating product certification systems that 21 c ould be referenced here. 22 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens. HTP. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 110 1 h ave some proposed language for the last major bullet 2 p oint. I pulled this up from Guide 17025. 3 " Manufacturers shall submit accredited verification 4 t est results using ISO 17025 with the most recent 5 v ersion as the basis for their accreditation." Now, 6 a long the same lines as the low- volume products and 7 t he difficult products to do, we could also add 8 v erbiage along the lines of "unless the Department 9 a pproves a waiver of this requirement due to 10 e xtenuating circumstances" and just leave it open ended 11 b ecause there are so many various reasons why we would 12 n ot need that. 13 Wow, I really know how to quiet a room. 14 MS. BARHYDT: Can we come back to the lab 15 a ccreditation issue a little later? I'd like to 16 a ctually sit down and look at some of the language from 17 1 7025 before we get -- figure out exactly what language 18 w e want to use there. 19 It's 11:30. Do you all want to deal with the 20 p roduct family issue? Start talking about it? Do you 21 w ant to go to lunch? 22 MR. KLEISS: Keep talking.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 111 1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, we've seen the 2 c oncept of a product family introduced, but I'm not at 3 a ll sure that everybody is envisioning the same scope 4 o r magnitude on that, so if people could talk a little 5 b it about what they are thinking when they use that 6 w ord. 7 MR. KLEISS: Can I touch the language on that 8 j ust while I've got it on my mind? Jeff Kleiss, 9 L ochinvar. On the second bullet, "20 percent of 10 p roduct families" I believe is an important distinction 11 a nd add "rounded up" so that if you have one product 12 f amily, you would have to test one unit. If you have 13 s ix product families, you would have to test two units. 14 The next distinction is on the second sub15 b ullet, "requiring changing of product family rating or 16 r emoval". 17 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. That's 18 g oing too far. The -- we've got AEDMs, you've got 19 p roduct families, the particular circumstances of a 20 f ailure will determine what has to be re-rated and that 21 s hould be up to the operator of the program and the 22 m anufacturer to just say automatically that if I had a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 112 1 p roduct family and I had one -- the particular model I 2 t ested failed, and that means absolutely at 100 percent 3 o f all cases that the product family has to be re-rated 4 i s an overstatement. You don't know that until you've 5 g ot the test data. 6 I think that's part of where the 7 c ertification program can figure out what is the next 8 a ppropriate step of a failed result. 9 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. A product 10 f amily can be done by AEDMs or by testing, and so that 11 w ould be ludicrous to remove other tested product just 12 b ecause one product in the family would fail if there's 13 o ther test data to verify the others. 14 MR. THARP: Maybe we should discuss what 15 " product family" is. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 17 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I made 18 a proposal earlier that "product family" be "a grouping 19 o f models identified and advertised by a manufacturer". 20 MR. EISNER: People want to talk about this? 21 D o they want to change it? Are they okay with it? 22 MR. HON: That encompasses our entire product

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 113 1 l ine in one family. 2 MR. BALLO: This is Tim and not to take us 3 b ack where we just were -- I guess, actually to do that 4

- - I don't have a problem with limiting the re-rate to 5 t he basic model that was tested, but I think at that 6 p oint, because there is an indication that at least 7 t here may be a problem with the product family, I think 8 t hat should be a case where maybe if you do have a re9 r ate you have an additional test within the product 10 f amily of a different basic model. 11 MR. THARP: Well, since -- going along those 12 l ines, since we would be submitting whether the models 13 a re rated by AEDM or by test, that information would be 14 a vailable -- so, if it is an AEDM, that may be an 15 i ndication that your AEDM has a problem. But if you 16 h ave a product family that's all models are done by 17 t est, then it's probably just that one particular 18 m odel. So, maybe there should be a requirement as, you 19 k now, the action based on a failure is dependent on 20 w hether it's an AEDM or test data generated rating. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So, we talked at length about 22 w hat would happen if an AEDM rating was off. So, I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 114 1 m ean, we can use what we already came up with if the 2 A EDM rating is off. We have a whole mechanism that we 3 a lready worked out. So, really, I think the issue is 4 w hat happens if it wasn't an AEDM. 5 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I tend to 6 a gree with what was just stated. If it was AEDM 7 g enerated we use the mechanism that we already have for 8 h ow you deal with models covered by that AEDM. If it 9 w as test generated, then that test was inaccurate, so 10 i t would be just that basic model, all the models under 11 t he basic model would have to be dealt with. 12 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 13 g uess my question is, would the product family be 14 l imited to one AEDM or could we use multiple AEDM in a 15 p roduct family? 16 MS. BARHYDT: I haven't really thought out 17 e xactly how this would work, but it seems to me that a 18 p roduct family should not span AEDMs. 19 MR. EISNER: So, would that change 20 m anufacturer's current advertising? 21 MR. SACHS: Laura -- 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Laura, can you explain why you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 115 1 t hink that way? 2 MS. BARHYDT: Like I said, I hadn't really 3 g iven it any thought. It would just seem -- that was 4 m ore of a knee-jerk reaction of -- 5 MR. SACHS: Well, Laura maybe I can address 6 t his as a consumer. I get a brochure from a humongous 7 f urnace company from my contractor and it says, "I 8 t hink you need the 80" and I say, "Well, maybe I can 9 g et away with a 60,000 BTU because we keep the house 10 c old" or vice versa. Now, because those are two 11 d ifferent capacities, I think they have to be different 12 A EDMs. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: No. No, no, no. 14 MR. SACHS: Okay. Then I'll crawl back in my 15 h ole. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: No. 17 MR. SACHS: We resolved that. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: I mean, no, the laws of physics 19 a nd the way refrigeration works, you can easily go 20 a cross. 21 MR. SACHS: Well, I would think that too, but 22 I thought we had come up against a barrier. So, I'm

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 116 1 g lad I'm mistaken. Thank you. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens -- 3 MR. EISNER: This is based on the way the 4 m anufacturer advertises its products. Do manufacturers 5 a dvertise products in a way that would cause the family 6 t o cross AEDM categories? 7 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. It 8 c ertainly could. You might have one AEDM that works 9 w ell for larger pieces of equipment in that product 10 f amily and another AEDM that works well for smaller 11 p ieces of equipment in that family. 12 I think here, understanding that that could 13 t ake place, I don't think changes things if you find 14 t hat a product test low and it was -- there were other 15 p roducts under the same AEDM, all of those products 16 t hen would be suspect. 17 MR. EISNER: Is there any problem, Laura, 18 w ith having a product family here that crosses AEDMs? 19 I mean, could DOE live with that? 20 MS. BARHYDT: I'm just not sure. I'm going 21 t o have to think about that one a little bit. 22 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We've already

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 117 1 d iscussed this in our category, we easily could, 2 b ecause we've already been told that glass-doored 3 m erchandisers and solid-doored merchandisers are 4 s eparate categories, yet those basic units, the only 5 d ifference may be the door, and there's definite 6 p arallel between the energy usage -- they're not the 7 s ame, but there are definite parallels, and so they 8 c ould easily fall within AEDM. 9 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. You 10 k now, we could have an 11-0ER line of commercial HVAC 11 p roduct where some of them have round two-plate fin 12 c oils and some of them have micro channel coils and 13 t hose would definitely be different AEDMs, I would 14 b elieve, so I think that AEDM -- crossing multiple 15 A EDMs in one product family is actually something we 16 a greed to previously even and very possibly could be 17 d one. 18 I'll also throw in, Bob had a good idea in 19 b asically saying something to the nature that a product 20 f amily is a grouping of basic models as defined 21 s eparately, and I think he suggested that we might want 22 t o talk about it over lunch.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 118 1 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I'll 2 t hrow one more thing out. You know, when you're 3 t alking about a product family, you could have a line 4 o f products that crossed test standards because three 5 p hase below five tons is classified by DOE as 6 c ommercial equipment and therefore, you know, you're 7 c rossing from 210 based standards to 34360 based 8 s tandards. But you could also have an AEDM that 9 c overed both of those, that spanned all the way through 10 t hat range, or an arm -- well, I guess you can't have - 11

- well, I guess it's an AEDM if it's three phase, it's 12 a n arm if it's single phase. 13 MR. EISNER: It looks like we have an 14 e quipment failure at the end of the table. Do we want 15 t o break for lunch so this issue can be discussed? 16 MS. BARHYDT: Sounds like it. 17 (Simultaneous discussion.) 18 MR. EISNER: Is an hour going to be enough 19 f or discussions on this subject and eating? All right, 20 w hy don't we get back here at 12:35? 21 (Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., a luncheon recess 22 was taken.)

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 119 1 MR. EISNER: How many people got here via 2 L 'Enfant Plaza subway station? How many of you know 3 t here was a baby born there during rush hour this 4 m orning? The Washington Post was reporting that. 5 All right, we're ready to begin. 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The subway station? 7 MR. EISNER: The subway station way. 8 L 'Enfant. 9 MR. KLEISS: What's the meaning of that name? 10 MR. EISNER: L'Enfant is the French engineer 11 w ho designed Washington, D.C., originally. 12 All right. Do we still have some discussion 13 o n the last bullet? Anything worked out over lunch? 14 A ny changes suggested? 15 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I don't 16 t hink that we have reached a consensus, but the leaning 17 s eems to be toward rather than saying "20 percent of 18 p roduct families finding another way," to word that so 19 t hat we get the same scope of frequency of covering all 20 o f the products that a manufacturer has in annual 21 t esting, but not necessarily defining the groups by the 22 n ame product families. But I don't think that we've

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 120 1 g ot satisfactory text to get us there yet. 2 MR. EISNER: Is it because there are too many 3 e xceptions or because everybody's having a hard time 4 d efining the general standard they want? 5 MR. KLEISS: Well, we go back to using the 6 t erm "basic model," but "basic model" could be an 7 i ndividual product or it could be a whole group of 8 p roducts, and that creates some lack of parity in the 9 a ssigned number of tests. 10 MR. HURST: I think conceptually we can agree 11 o n a definition, but it would be hard to put a metric 12 t o the definition, if that makes any sense. I mean, 13 J ill Hootman forwarded kind of a textbook definition, 14 w hich I can read, but attempting to put a metric 15 a gainst that would be rather difficult. 16 MR. EISNER: In terms of coming up with a 17 n umber that had to be tested. 18 MR. HURST: Yes. 19 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. I can toss 20 o ut something that might help with this. It's one 21 c oncept of being sure that nobody plays games with the 22 d efinition that's down at the bottom of the screen.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 121 1 MR. EISNER: Why don't we -- 2 MR. MYERS: And that is to add following that 3 s entence, and I'll just read it and then we can type it 4 i f there's any interest, in addition to that 5 r equirement 6 "a minimum number of different basic models 7 m ust be tested every 5 years according to the following 8 c hart:" 1 to 25, you have to test 5; 26 to 50, you test 9 7 ; 51 to 75, 9; 76 to 100 basic models, 11; 101 to 200, 10 y ou test 13; 201 or more, you test 15. That assures 11 t hat no matter how someone interprets their grouping of 12 m odels identified as advertised, if they have lots of 13 b asic models, they're going to have some minimum number 14 o f tests that they have to run. 15 MR. EISNER: And what was the first one, 1 to 16 2 5 was how many tests? 17 MR. MYERS: One to 25 would be 5. 18 MR. EISNER: And what if you had 5 or fewer? 19 MR. MYERS: I'm sorry? 20 MR. EISNER: If you had 5 or fewer. Instead 21 o f 1 to 25, you had 3. 22 MR. MYERS: If you had 3, then you would test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 122 1 1 per year. 2 MR. EISNER: Okay, that wasn't inherent in -- 3 MR. MYERS: I didn't put that in, but that 4 w as -- again, this was just kind of tossing out a 5 t hought. The 1 to 5 is -- or, I'm sorry, the 5 falls in 6 l ine with most, though not all right now, but I think 7 t hey're all changing to it, where every manufacturer, 8 e ven if they only make one model, one basic model or 9 o ne model, they have to test at least one unit each 10 y ear. So if it's retest that same one model, then 11 t hat's what it is. But to maintain -- to make sure 12 t hat their product is continuing to be produced, they 13 h ave to test at least 1 per year and 5, since these 14 n umbers were per 5 years. If you have 1 to 25 basic 15 m odels, you have to test at least 5, which is 1 per 16 y ear. 17 MR. EISNER: People want to see this typed up 18 o n the screen? 19 MR. MYERS: A minimum number of -- 20 JEREMIAH: Where am I putting this? 21 MR. EISNER: At the end of the list. 22 MR. MYERS: It's right at the end of that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 123 1 s entence. It's the second sentence after that. A 2 m inimum number of different basic models must be tested 3 e very 5 years according to the following. Bad 4 l anguage, but -- and then I had a semicolon there, 1 to 5 2 5 basic models, you must test 5; 26 to 50 is 7; 51 to 6 7 5 is 9; 76 to 100 is 11; 101 to 200 is 13; 201 or more 7 i s 15. 8 So the manufacturer groups according to their 9 i dentified and advertised -- how they sell and market 10 t heir products. But this keeps somebody from playing a 11 g ame, hey, I make water heaters, I advertise water 12 h eaters, I have one test to run. At a minimum they 13 h ave to do -- based on those tests according to how 14 m any basic models they have. 15 MR. EISNER: Okay, comments? Mark, go ahead. 16 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. The only 17 p roblem I see with this is something that we really 18 h aven't addressed yet. But if we have to create a 19 b asic model for each one-off unit that we build as part 20 o f the process, then that's going to drive everybody to 21 t hat 200 and above. So for small manufacturers who 22 m ake custom units that tend to build one-offs for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 124 1 e verything, this is going to be -- you're going to be 2 d oing the maximum number of tests for DOE. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Do you think that -- but given 4 t he basic model definitions that we've come up with is 5 t hat your expectation that every one-off is going to 6 h ave to be a different basic model? 7 MR. FLY: I think that over time, with the 8 d efinitions that we have, because there may be other 9 t hings that we did not exclude that come up -- you 10 k now, I guess either that or I've got to file a test 11 w aiver every time I want to build a one-off model 12 b ecause it doesn't fall within the category. 13 MS. BARHYDT: So a test procedure waiver 14 w ould be something different. 15 MR. FLY: Okay. So I can't really do that. 16 S o if something else comes on the market, some new 17 w idget that makes our efficiency great and that we 18 h aven't thought of in our list, what happens? Do I get 19 a new model for that? One would think I would under 20 t he current regulations that we're talking about. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So I think you could group it 22 i n the same basic model if the characteristics were

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 125 1 s uch that it was -- I'll use our language -- 2 e ssentially identical. But given our understanding of 3 w hat it means to group things, but it would require you 4 t o de-rate it, which, presumably, if it's a new 5 t echnology and you don't want to de-rate it, then, 6 y eah, that would be different basic model. But that 7 w ould be within the manufacturer's control as to how 8 t hey wanted to group or not group that. But if you -- 9 s ay, you've got this new widget that makes it super10 e fficient and you use that in five different one-off 11 d esigns, it seems like that still you might have your 12 n ew widget basic model as opposed to it being five 13 d ifferent basic models. 14 MR. FLY: But, you know, if the new widget 15 w hat it tends to do, at least in the air-conditioning 16 b usiness, what it tends to do, if I'm applying it 17 b roadly across a bunch of models, is it takes my basic 18 m odels and multiplies the number by 2 because I have 19 d ifferent, you know, capacities, I have different 20 e fficiencies for the model before I put the widget on 21 t here. So I'm just bringing it up. And we really 22 h aven't delved deep into the one-off issue.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 126 1 MR. EISNER: Would there be room for an 2 e xception for small businesses under the Small Business 3 A dministration code? So you say if you are a small 4 b usiness pursuant to definition in the SBA list and you 5 m ake one-off equipment, the testing shall be as 6 f ollows, with separate numbers. 7 MR. FLY: The Small Business code makes 8 b usinesses pretty small is my only comment. I mean, 9 i t'd be nice if there was a little more graduation in 10 t hat, but there's not. 11 MR. EISNER: But DOE probably has authority 12 t o set a different standard if it can justify it. They 13 h ave to do that through the regulation. But would that 14 b e an approach that would -- 15 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. But this is 16 n ot just a small business issue. I mean, there could 17 b e large manufacturers who just make one-off type of 18 u nit, too. 19 MR. EISNER: Yeah, but would it affect them 20 i f they're a large business and they have lots of other 21 k inds of equipment? Would it be the same effect that 22 i t would have on a small business that does just that?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127 1 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I have a question 2 b ecause, unfortunately, when you start defining one3 o ff, I could take a base product and tweak it a 4 f raction different and it's suddenly a one-off because 5 i t is not the original. And where do we get -- that's 6 t he difficult part because we make some very small7 v olume orders. They're slightly different than 8 a nything else we've made. And energy test-wise we 9 c ould use a justification process and maybe in the AEDM 10 o r something and come up with a number so we didn't 11 h ave to test it. But on this, then we have -- that'd be 12 j ust different numbers. We could manipulate the 13 n umbers well. But the danger is if we suddenly have 14 e verybody producing one, one, one, one, by some simple 15 c hanges, very basic design changes that may not make 16 a ny difference in energy efficiency, it's no longer the 17 s ame product. 18 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. If a 19 m anufacturer has 200 different variants of products 20 t hat would have potentially different efficiency, 21 t esting three units a year does not seem to be -- well, 22 i t strikes me as reasonable.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 128 1 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. To give you 2 a n idea, though, Energy Star's program we have 60-some 3 u nits, we test 6 a year. 4 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Do 5 n ote, although it's separated into two areas, the red 6 t yping after the first part of the definition of 7 " product family." It says, "A minimum number of 8 d ifferent basic models to be tested every 5 years." So 9 w here we're talking that this is a big number, that is 10 j ust three units per year at the maximum. I would say 11 i t differently: If you have 200 basic models, a 12 m inimum of 3 per year has to be done. You still should 13 b e grouping -- a basic model should be as you identify 14 a nd advertise. 15 The addition was to put a floor on 16 m anufacturers so they couldn't play games and say, hey, 17 I make -- using our company, we make water heaters. We 18 a dvertise water heaters, that's one model. Yes, we 19 m ake electric, gas, oil, combination, this technology, 20 t hat technology. We advertise all of those 21 d ifferences, so we would be held to something 22 s ignificantly more than 15. But any way you slice it,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 129 1 i f we have 200 basic models, no matter what we told DOE 2 i n terms of how we group our models, we would have a 3 f loor of 15. It's just a way to protect the integrity 4 s o you'd have to test it if you had that many models, 5 a t least three per year. 6 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? 7 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell, Carrier. 8 I 'm having a little trouble here because I think, you 9 k now, this scale type of thing or, you know, a 10 p ercentage is probably okay. But if I try to relate 11 t his, and it's difficult because we're talking about 12 D OE basic models versus -- I'm trying to relate to what 13 w e do today within AHRI. And the DOE basic model 14 d efinition is different than the basic model groups 15 t hat we use within AHRI. So there will be more basic 16 m odels per the DOE definition than we have today. And 17 I 'm not sure, I haven't figured out what that is yet 18 f or my company. 19 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 20 MR. WHITWELL: But today in AHRI we test 20 21 p ercent of the basic models -- model group every year 22 a nd this is much less than that. And so I'm just not

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 130 1 q uite sure how to reconcile that and whether that means 2 t hat we will reduce the number of units that we test in 3 t he AHRI program or we have to increase the number of 4 u nits that are tested for manufacturers that are not 5 p art of an AHRI or similar type program. 6 MR. MYERS: Bob, keep in mind -- this is 7 F rank Myers, PVI -- keep in mind that this is the 8 f loor. If you go back to the chart where we're saying 9 h ere's the requirements, we use product family in that 10 a nd it says you have to test 20 percent of your product 11 f amily every 5 years. 12 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, but we don't have a 13 d efinition for "product family," and I'm not sure we're 14 g oing to develop a good -- 15 MR. MYERS: Yeah, that was this or at least 16 t his attempt. 17 MR. WHITWELL: So we come up -- each 18 m anufacturer comes up with their own definition of 19 " product family." 20 MR. MYERS: No. What they are supposed to do 21 i s group the basic models that are identified and 22 a dvertised by the manufacturer. There was a concern

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 131 1 t hat somebody might abuse that definition and the rest 2 o f that in red was to put some kind of floor on it. 3 MS. MEYERS: Advertise to whom? 4 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. 5 A ctually I think -- 6 MS. MEYERS: It makes a difference. 7 MR. THARP: -- what was added would be more 8 a ppropriate under the second bullet up above rather 9 t han as a subpart of product family. And I agree with 10 B ob's comment on the quantity. And again, as an AHRI 11 m ember, you know, comparing to what we're doing today, 12 w here we test a minimum of 20 percent, some product 13 f amilies test one-third of the product family every 14 y ear, of the basic models every year. And comparing 15 t hat to these numbers, that basically -- these numbers 16 p ut it anywhere from half a percent to 7 percent per 17 y ear. 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In 20 percent. 19 MR. WHITWELL: No, no per 5 years. 20 MR. THARP: No, per year. So it's 2 to 20 21 p ercent per 5 years or half a percent to 6.7, 6.6666666 22 p ercent in 5 years.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 132 1 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Just a 2 q uestion for clarification. Apparently it was a long 3 l unch. Is this what we're talking about as the 4 b aseline or is this the baseline for VICPs or are they 5 t he same? 6 MS. BARHYDT: The same. 7 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, the minimum. 8 MR. STEPHENS: The minimum of 20 percent 9 t ested combined with what you said before about the 10 m anufacturers will have to pay for that? I cannot 11 s upport that. That would put too many businesses out. 12 MS. BARHYDT: So potentially testing one a 13 y ear seems very low to me, so is there some mid-ground? 14 MR. STEPHENS: Yes. 15 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I 16 u nderstand the concern, but, at the same time, we don't 17 w ant DOE to lower the bar too low. So there is already 18 a n industry program in place for many of the products 19 w e're talking about here that test significantly. I 20 d on't know how many models a year, but we can give you 21 t he statistics if you want to at the next meeting. 22 And I don't think we should be going the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 133 1 o ther way around and trying to lower the bar so low 2 t hat this industry program will mean nothing anymore. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So if -- thinking about the 4 r elationship between the basic model definition that 5 w e've come up with and the basic model group that AHRI 6 u ses for its program, if we converted 20 percent basic 7 m odel groups into percent of basic models, do you have 8 a ny sense of what that number would be. Would it be 9 1 0, 5, 3? I mean, certainly there are a lot more basic 10 m odels than basic model groups, but do you have any 11 s ense of -- 12 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. From 13 m y experience, manufacturers sometimes choose to use 14 b asic model groups, sometimes choose to use basic 15 m odels. Basic model groups are allowed in some 16 p rograms; they're not -- well, the interpolation method 17 i sn't encouraged in other product groups. So there's 18 n ot any one specific answer that we have for that. 19 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem, and 20 I 'll differ with you just a little bit because the 21 d iscussion we're having now is on commercial HVAC, 22 w ater heating, refrigeration, et cetera. So, you know,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 134 1 I think the best way maybe to get to this is try and 2 d efine what a product family means for these categories 3 t hat we're talking about and then you can go back to 20 4 p ercent of product families should be tested. But now 5 h ow you define a product family for a commercial HVAC 6 p roduct may be different than how you define a product 7 f amily for a commercial water heater. I think, you 8 k now, we all in this room could probably come up with 9 s omething, but I think we're trying to make "product 10 f amily" fit a broad range of products here and I'm not 11 s ure that's the best way to get to this. 12 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI. I mean, to 13 f ollow-up on what just Karen said, actually those 14 d efinitions already exist. I mean, we have programs, 15 w e have the definition of basic model groups that have 16 b een used by industry for many, many years, so we can 17 s tart from there. 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Karim, 19 t he one issue that would concern me about that is that 20 I know AHRI has a significant latitude of 21 i nterpretation of those definitions of basic models. 22 I f you read them, they are in each one. AHRI provides

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 135 1 c onsistency because they interpret it the same way 2 e very time. I'm not sure if we use those same 3 d efinitions in a reg that everybody that read the reg 4 a nd was responsible to comply with it would interpret 5 i t the same way as AHRI. That would be my concern. 6 MR. AMRANE: If the group is interested, 7 m aybe the next meeting we could review those 8 d efinitions and see whether they're acceptable to the 9 g roup or not. 10 MR. DOPPEL: I think Harvey, Tim, and Louis 11 h ave been pretty quiet on this topic. It's time for 12 s ome pontification. 13 MR. SACHS: Same to you, buddy. This is 14 H arvey. I've been quiet because for the last couple of 15 h ours I've been thinking what Karen has just said, that 16 I 'm not sure that a product family carries across 17 s pecies of products that we're talking about. I'm very 18 s ympathetic to or very interested in the idea of 19 r eviewing the AHRI definitions if only because they've 20 s urvived a generation of internecine warfare and, 21 c onsequently, might save us from some fights. But, on 22 t he other hand, I might find that the council here

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 136 1 r eminds me that there are really bad definitions for 2 s ome interests that we have. So I'd love to 3 p ontificate, but I'm still learning. 4 MR. HURST: Maybe that's the point. And I 5 d on't know if this is feasible, but it seems to me that 6 t his is a case of you don't know which -- we won't know 7 h ow this is going to play out until you kind of get 8 i nto it. If there was a process by which we could 9 r eview periodically to see what's working and what 10 i sn't, I don't know if that's accounted for, but I 11 d on't think you really know. 12 I can conceptualize around the product 13 c ategories or families or groups that I know. The ones 14 t hat I'm less familiar with, I can't even get my head 15 a round it. And I don't think we could understand it 16 u ntil we start doing it and see where the gaps are in 17 t he process. 18 MR. EISNER: Is there a consensus we should 19 g et the definitions from AHRI before the next meeting? 20 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 21 MR. EISNER: Up on slides, we can just go 22 t hrough each one where they can all be on a couple

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137 1 p ages. I don't know how much room they take. 2 MR. SACHS: Neil, perhaps we could get them 3 s ent out ahead of time. 4 MR. EISNER: Yeah. 5 MR. SACHS: I think there's a consensus that 6 w e can't think of anything smarter. 7 MR. EISNER: So we're asking everybody to 8 a gree they're stupid or? 9 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with NEEA. I 10 t hink if we could get that ahead of time because maybe 11 w e could look at the -- or actually even DOE, maybe 12 t hey already have them, but just kind of the legal 13 d efinitions and how it would work in the context of a 14 r egulation as opposed to a voluntary program that has 15 s ome flexibility and maybe a little more understanding 16 o f how things might actually work. It might work 17 d ifferently in the regulation process. 18 MR. EISNER: Think you can get them out by 19 M onday? Is that good enough for everybody, Monday? 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tomorrow. 21 MR. EISNER: For tomorrow? Can't get it any 22 f aster than tomorrow. Okay. Is that okay with

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 138 1 e verybody? 2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. I just want to make one 3 o ther comment that the reason I asked about scaling 4 f rom a basic model group or a product family down to a 5 b asic model is that that's something that you'll 6 a lready be certifying and it's a commodity that we've 7 a ll figured out now. And there are tradeoffs when a 8 m anufacturer decides how to group things, and so it 9 s eems to me like that already is sort of a mechanism 10 t hat we could use if we could come up with the right 11 n umber rather than introducing a second concept and 12 h aving additional interpretational issues; that that's 13 s omething that the manufacturer's already making 14 d ecisions about I want to group these things, I don't 15 w ant to group these things, and that that might be the 16 e asiest thing for us to use as our counter. 17 And so I just ask that you also keep that in 18 m ind as a possibility. And certainly we'll look at the 19 g roupings and we'll talk about it more next week as to 20 w hat really makes sense. But I'd like to keep "basic 21 m odel" as a possibility on the table. 22 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with NEEA

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 139 1 a gain. One last thing I had kind of thought about, but 2 I didn't really see a good solution for. In the 3 t esting, I guess you're going for 20 percent a year, 4 b ut obviously each year you introduce new models, so 5 I 'm wondering how much the supply of new models in 6 t here and it seems like you will not necessarily cover 7 a ll of the models in 5 years if you have new models 8 c oming in and others ones going out. So I don't know 9 w hat the percentage should be, but it seems like there 10 m ight be some thought around that concept. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill from Trane. 12 D iscontinued models are also included in the count of 13 m odels certified to AHRI. So your discontinued models 14 a re also included and can be pulled for testing. So 15 y ou do pretty much get, in the 3-year period, 16 e verything looked at. 17 Rusty, I think, and others have said that, 18 y ou know, in light of the basic model description in 19 D OE, which is different than AHRI, recognizing that 20 f act, let's just give -- I'll just give you a little 21 b it of numbers to understand the magnitude you might be 22 t alking about. Currently, under AHRI, Trane has over

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 140 1 9 00 basic model groups. That's not even the definition 2 y ou just described in DOE. I know our count will go 3 u p. Twenty percent of that is 180 models. Ready to 4 t est that much? Am I ready to test that much? That's a 5 l ot. Are the labs ready for that much? 6 MS. MEYERS: I think we can agree more than 7 o ne. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: We can agree more than one. 9 MR. HURST: I think the other point is, as 10 y ou mentioned, new products are introduced, but some of 11 t his products last more than a 5-year period, so the 12 l ength of your platform may extend sometimes 10 years 13 a nd beyond. So, you know, there's new product coming in 14 a ll the time, but some of your product's not always 15 g oing out all the time. I don't know if that makes 16 s ense. 17 MR. EISNER: Okay. Anything else on this 18 s ubject? 19 MS. HOOTMAN: And this is Jill. I guess I 20 w ould also add that I would roughly put those in around 21 3 0 product families. So that 900 is in roughly 30 22 p roduct families by my definition of a product family.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 141 1 MR. THARP: Is that commercial HVAC, Jill? 2 MS. HOOTMAN: That's commercial HVAC, water 3 s ource heat pumps, you know, everything within those; 4 c ommercial furnaces, everything within those. 5 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. You know, we 6 s et up a process for the AEDM testing where there were 7 c onsequences for failures, some of which involves 8 a dditional or different test results being provided. 9 W ith more and more testing, the more you fail, then I 10 g uess one possibility here is to go the other way for 11 v erification testing, where you would start off testing 12 a certain percentage per year and if you just don't 13 h ave problems, if everything's passing, that number 14 c ould come down over time. And I don't know if that's 15 o ne way to address the problem of, you know, test 16 b urden, but I found something we haven't suggested yet. 17 MR. SACHS: This is why we have Tim around. 18 MR. BALLO: Oh, that's why. 19 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And I like this. 20 M y eyes are lighting up because it's a reward for good 21 b ehavior and building that into the program across 22 s mall and large, with limits, I think is something

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 142 1 w hich has worked on some other kinds of programs, some 2 n ew construction quality verification programs, for 3 e xample, in California. So we certainly would be open 4 t o that concept of good behavior rewards. I don't know 5 h ow that plays with the different product categories 6 y ou have at AHRI, but, as a general principle, I could 7 b e made happy. 8 MR. AMRANE: Karim with AHRI. The way we do 9 i t at AHRI is that if you have a percentage of failure 10 a bove a certain number, then you're subject to 11 p enalties. And penalties mean additional tests and 12 a lso sometimes financial penalties, too, so that's the 13 i ncentive to be below the threshold. 14 MR. SACHS: Karim, what I'm hearing novel 15 f rom Tim is a balance with gold stars for good 16 b ehavior, to bring it back to the kindergarten metaphor 17 w e all understand. 18 MR. STEPHENS: I might be able to go up to 19 t wo per year with that. 20 MR. EISNER: Do I hear three? 21 MR. SACHS: More. 22 MR. EISNER: Okay, anything else on this page

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 143 1 w e want to discuss now before we get on to some of the 2 o ther issues on verification? 3 MS. BARHYDT: So, I think we talked about the 4 f irst red bullet point, that all products within DOE5 c overed product category must be in a DOE-approved 6 v erification program. And so I think that's one of the 7 f undamental ideas that DOE is working from in this 8 d iscussion. 9 The list of all certified models, obviously 10 e verything will already be certified, so we talked 11 a bout that. 12 We're going to talk more about product 13 f amilies next time. 14 And the third bullet point, I know somebody 15 s aid that they thought that that wasn't relevant for 16 t his. And so I just want to revisit that and see 17 w hether everybody agrees to remove that bullet point 18 o r? 19 MR. HALLEY: Geoff Halley, ABM. I would like 20 t o see it taken out. It sounds like an invitation to 21 j oin an elite club and I think the fifth bullet covers 22 i t really.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 144 1 MR. THARP: Rusty with Goodman. I think 2 t here needs to be some sort of requirement for anybody 3 e ntering the marketplace. I don't think it's wise to 4 j ust open the door for anybody to come in and introduce 5 a ll the products without having some sort of pre-check 6 p ut in place. 7 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I agree with 8 Rusty's goal. And I'll name what my fear is 9 t hat we certainly have seen with other kinds of 10 c ommercial products: what I would consider systematic 11 e fforts to subvert U.S. standards by certain categories 12 o f imports, where you can do a very quick flood, sell a 13 b unch of crap, and when you get caught and your hand 14 s lapped, you get out. 15 I'm not sure what require certification of 16 n ew participants means. I'm not sure how we protect 17 c onsumers and industry from that threat and I'm not 18 s ure how big a threat it is in commercial equipment. 19 B ut I would hate to look back and say why didn't we do 20 s omething, even if it's not the wording of that bullet. 21 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Recall 22 t hat in order to sell something, to introduce into

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 145 1 c ommerce, it first has to be entered into the 2 d irectory, and there are two paths to enter it into the 3 d irectory: 4 you have to either test the basic models or 5 y ou have to generate an AEDM which you validate test. 6 S o there is already testing of new participants in the 7 m arket by way of their entry into the program. That's 8 e ven before you get to the verification testing. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 10 t hink the department said they did not want to handle 11 t he validation of the AEDMs. They're requiring the 12 m anufacturers to maintain their own data for the AEDM 13 v alidation. 14 MR. MYERS: That's true. The testing, 15 h owever, is supposed to be made available, not sent in, 16 b ut made available to DOE, the validation testing. 17 MS. BARHYDT: So I can tell you when I read 18 t hat and I translate it from a voluntary program into - 19

- sort of translating it into DOE reg speak, the way I 20 w ould -- if I was going to try and have that kind of a 21 r equirement, I would say that it would be a requirement 22 u pon initial certification in a product area to provide

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146 1 D OE the test data with the certification. And I'm not 2 s aying that we think that that should be required, but 3 t hat's what I would interpret that to mean in a 4 r egulatory framework. 5 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 6 Y eah, and Laura, I think, as you kind of said there, 7 a nd right now nobody is suggesting that that would be 8 t he requirement for every new model, okay, I think in 9 t erms of the way the thing is structured that becomes 10 v ery difficult and unworkable for the industry. But 11 f rom the perspective of an operator of a certification 12 p rogram, let me try and explain why that makes sense. 13 O kay? 14 We have Frank's Furnace Company. I'm 15 e ntering the AHRI furnace program for the first time. 16 I 'm asking the AHRI certification program to stand 17 b ehind my 100 basic models. All right? And I'm going 18 t o give them -- I'm going to send all my entries to 19 B ill and say, hey, Bill, here's by check, put them in. 20 A ll right. And even though the federal regulations 21 s ays, Frank's Furnace Company, you have run all those 22 t ests for all those ratings and you comply with the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 147 1 l aw, you better, you good citizen, okay, the fact is 2 t he other part of this, the other part of this contract 3 i s that there is now -- I'm going to be able to put 4 A HRI's label on there. 5 And so, as the operator of a certification 6 p rogram, to qualify this new participant we need some 7 a ssurance, at least some level of assurance, that they 8 h ave run -- that those tests that would -- that those 9 r atings that we're being asked to, in essence, put our 10 n ame behind have been determined based on tests run 11 p roperly. And so that's why that kind of requirement 12 n eeds to be there for a certification program. 13 B ecause, in fact, we don't test -- you know, again, it 14 i s mainly a verification program. So over some period 15 o f time we're going to look at most of those models, 16 b ut we're not asked to, oh, only list these five this 17 y ear and add another five next year. We're asked -- 18 a nd we feel our obligation or our services, we list all 19 1 00 the day you're qualified for the program. And so 20 t hat's a necessary requirement. 21 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 22 t hink the question I would have after that excellent

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 148 1 p oint from Frank is the first time a new company enters 2 t he market, not a new product, but a new company enters 3 t he market, would the DOE validate their very first 4 A EDM or test report? 5 MS. BARHYDT: We don't know. There's no 6 r egulatory requirement for it. And so the question is, 7 i s that something that you think is appropriate? 8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 9 P hillip, were you saying to validate the AEDM or to 10 a ccept test data and make sure that the test data is 11 p roperly done? 12 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, because those are the two 13 m ethods. 14 MS. BARHYDT: It would have to be the latter. 15 I t would DOE asking for test data. It wouldn't be us 16 g oing in and checking their model. 17 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 18 P reviously, in the past you haven't certified 19 c ommercial products, so this is all new territory. And 20 s o, again, you know, you were asking with your initial 21 s lide what should we do? And this is kind of our 22 s olution. I mean, this is not a voluntary. This isn't

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149 1 l ike requirements for participation in the product 2 c ategories that we have been covering so far. That's 3 t he intent of this. 4 MS. BARHYDT: So is everybody saying that 5 t hey think that should be a requirement? 6 MR. THARP: Rusty with Goodman says yes. 7 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Let me 8 m ake sure I understand what "that" requirement is. Are 9 y ou saying, Laura, that should it be a requirement that 10 t he validation test for the first AEDMs entered by a 11 c ompany when they're first entering the marketplace, 12 t hat we send the test data that validates the AEDM to 13 y ou for your scrutiny? I certainly wouldn't have a 14 p roblem with that and I think there is some benefit to 15 i t if it's actually looked at. So if it were limited 16 t o new entrant into the market, like first AEDM for a 17 p roduct class, something like that, I wouldn't have a 18 p roblem with it. 19 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah, Frank, I think you're 20 c onfusing this because there's no discussion about 21 A EDMs with this. This is physical tests. The AEDM 22 r equirement is separate from this.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 150 1 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I think what he's saying 2 m akes sense in that, okay, so I'm a new company, I've 3 n ever sold in the U.S. market before and I started 4 m anufacturing products, and I submit a certification to 5 D OE. That certification may be based on an AEDM, it 6 m ay be based on testing. And I think what I'm hearing 7 i s that there's at least several people in the room who 8 t hink that when I submit that certification, I should 9 p rovide my test data, whether it's test data underlying 10 m y AEDM or its test data underlying my certification. 11 O ne way or the other, I should submit that 12 c ertification with test data to be reviewed by DOE. 13 MR. DOPPEL: No, I think what we're saying is 14 t hat this is what would have to happen, that 20 percent 15 o f their products would have to be tested by a third 16 p arty. 17 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. Can 18 y ou clarify something? When you say a "new company," 19 a re you talking about an import company or a domestic 20 c ompany or both? 21 MS. BARHYDT: Either. 22 MR. DOPPEL: All of the above.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 151 1 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. One way 2 t hat that could be defined or identified is that the 3 C CE, when you have to -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: When you create a CCMS account 5

- - 6 MR. KLEISS: Thank you. 7 MS. BARHYDT: -- you have to get a user 8 r egistration form. It would be very easy for us to 9 t ell when there was somebody new certifying. 10 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. But 11 t he qualification that you're talking about is 12 b asically that. Maybe that should be the role of the 13 V ICP that would do that function. 14 MS. MEYERS: There has to be some way for new 15 p articipants to be qualified because what people like, 16 y ou know, Tim and Harvey and PG&E, they're going to be 17 c omparing the information that they put in that 18 d atabase to other companies who've been going through 19 a ll this certification and assessment testing for 20 y ears. So here's a new participant and there needs to 21 b e some assurances by, you know, the people that are 22 u sing this database that the new participant has

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 152 1 p roperly rated their products. And so for me, if I'm 2 f rom Rheem, if we've been doing this for a while and we 3 h ave a lot of test data to back it up and some new 4 p articipant comes in there, before that can go into the 5 D OE database there needs to be some qualification that 6 t heir ratings are, in fact, correct. Maybe it's 7 i ncreased assessment for the first 3 years, I mean, I 8 d on't know. 9 But there has to be something because people 10 a re comparing what they are listing in that database 11 c ompared to what we are listing. And I'm not going to 12 b e happy if Frank's Furnace Company suddenly starts 13 p utting all this data in there and he's a brand-new 14 p articipant, and people are using that data to perhaps 15 s elect his products versus my products, who have doing 16 t his for years. And we have, you know, been properly, 17 y ou know, tested and all that kind of stuff. I don't 18 t hink it's fair that new participants are not held up 19 t o some type of scrutiny by the department to make sure 20 t hat their data is, in fact, correct. 21 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'll 22 t ack on to that. I guess maybe the way I would compare

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 153 1 i t is for most manufacturers, if you're going to have a 2 n ew supplier, there's a qualification process that 3 p retty much every company has for new suppliers. And 4 o nce you validate that that supplier can provide you 5 g ood quality components, then typically the checks that 6 y ou do, you do some initial checks that are more 7 r igorous than your checks after they have been a 8 s upplier for months or years. And it's the same type 9 o f principle. So as before we're entering product into 10 c ommerce, we want to check and make sure that that 11 m anufacturer is supplying to the market good quality 12 p roducts that meets its performance ratings. 13 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. How 14 a bout if the company entering the market, if they rated 15 w ith an AEDM, they have to have tested by a third-party 16 l ab the two -- two of the units that they used to 17 d evelop the AEDM to prove that those are accurate? And 18 i f they say they did it by testing, you randomly choose 19 s ome of the units to randomly test to verify that it 20 w as done correctly. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So from my perspective, 22 d efinitely don't want to go there. We already did

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 154 1 A EDMs and we agreed on it and it's been to the ASRAC 2 a nd it's going on in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 3 s o I really don't want to revisit that. 4 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I'd like to 5 g o back and riff on something Karim said about the blue 6 h ighlighted line. Right now I'm seeing this as 7 q ualifications for voluntary programs, whether is an 8 A HRI program or Frank's Accreditation Program or, more 9 l ikely, Mike Kojak or Judd. And it seems to me that 10 A HRI has invested a great deal in differentiating 11 p roducts that are identified by its service mark. Look 12 f or the AHRI seal. It's the Intel of air-conditioners 13 o r whatever. 14 Now, I'm worried a little bit about sparking 15 a race to the bottom. But, on the other hand, in terms 16 o f qualifying a voluntary program, I'm not sure that 17 D OE needs to set the same bar that AHRI has. If UL or 18 C SA wants to risk its reputation with a program that 19 h as a slightly different, more or less stringent 20 q ualification, I'm not sure that that's not the way the 21 m arket's supposed to work, but I do have concerns 22 a bout, as I say, the race to the bottom of we'll

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 155 1 q ualify you for less cost and fewer tests than anybody 2 e lse in the world. So I'd like to hear reactions to 3 t hat. 4 MR. THARP: This is Rusty. And as far as the 5

- - I don't want to say that the minimum requirements 6 s hould be what AHRI has. And reading from the UOEOM, 7 t o get into the program, if you're less than 250,000 8 B TUs, you have to test 30 percent of an applicant's 9 b asic model shall be tested with a minimum of 2 models. 10 S o if it's bigger than 250, it's 20 percent. So that's 11 t he minimum just to get into the program. 12 If we do something less than that as the 13 m inimum, I'm fine with that, but I think there ought to 14 b e some sort of minimum check. If it's 10 percent, 15 w hatever this committee feels is the right number, I 16 s till think there ought to be some type of check to 17 m ake sure that what's going into the market on a new 18 e ntry for a new product line is proper. 19 MR. SACHS: So, this is Harvey. Rusty, we're 20 j ust arguing about the price. That's an old human 21 t ransaction question. So I could be comfortable with 22 t hat, with DOE qualifying VICPs and including some

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 156 1 r equirement in the VICP for entry to its program. I'm 2 n ot sure I'm comfortable with -- or, like you, I think 3 I 'm more comfortable with that as a minimum threshold 4 t han as necessarily being a replica of what the leading 5 i ndustry association has established for its comfort. 6 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem. But I 7 t hink, you know, this also has to go back to DOE. So 8 t his is almost -- this is a requirement for VICPs, but, 9 t o me, this also needs to be a requirement for DOE. To 10 p ost information from a new participant onto the DOE 11 w ebsite, I think DOE has to have some responsibility in 12 q ualifying this new participant rather than just 13 a ccepting the data that they send in so that it can be 14 c ompared to all these other companies who have been 15 d oing this for years. So that is my concern is that 16 t his is not only a requirement for a VICP, but this is 17 a lso a requirement for DOE. 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Agreed. 19 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. I just 20 w ant to add in. We keep using the word "participant." 21 W hen we're talking about DOE, we're not talking about 22 c hoosing to be a participant anymore. We're talking

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 157 1 a bout a federal requirement. I mean, companies that 2 d on't have a VICP now, if it's a DOE program, 3 e verybody's a participant. It's not an optional -- I 4 t hink "participant" is the wrong word. We're not 5 t alking about that. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. could you change that to 7 " require qualification of market entrants," or 8 s omething like that? 9 MR. EISNER: And what should the requirements 10 b e? What would be the sub-bullets under this heading? 11 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Before 12 w e get to that question, I think there's an elephant in 13 t he room that we need to pay attention to. Is the DOE 14 g oing to consider these in addition to VICP 15 p articipation or will the VICP participation take the 16 p lace of these federal minimums? 17 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so I'll try and say this. 18 S o what DOE is hoping to do is to require all 19 m anufacturers to participate in some sort of 20 v erification program, plan, framework, something, 21 w hatever you want to call it. And that that program or 22 p lan could be administered by a test lab, an industry

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 158 1 g roup, the manufacturer themselves, but it would have 2 t o be DOE- approved and it would have to meet certain 3 r equirements to get that DOE approval. 4 MR. HURST: And these are those requirements 5 t hat we're talking about? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 7 MR. HURST: Okay. 8 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. So if 9 A HRI becomes a DOE-approved program, then as long as 10 M ark's Air-Conditioning can join AHRI's independent 11 m anufacturer, then I have met the requirements of this 12 b ecause I have joined an approved program. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 14 MR. FLY: And so, I don't really have to go 15 t hrough any of this extra stuff direct to DOE. Now, if 16 I choose to develop my own plan, then I have to go to 17 D OE, you have to approve my plan, and you're going to 18 b e a lot more involved in this. 19 MS. BARHYDT: And I'm going to make sure that 20 y our plan has all of these -- 21 MR. FLY: That I've done all these things in 22 i t.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 159 1 MS. BARHYDT: -- requirements in it. 2 MR. FLY: Okay. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. 4 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 5 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. If you 6 l ook on page 13 of the handout, the bottom slide, the 7 b ottom bullet I think covers what we're talking about. 8 MS. BARHYDT: Slide 13 or page 13? 9 MR. KLEISS: Page 13. 10 MS. BARHYDT: Page 13, okay. 11 MR. KLEISS: That would be about Slide 26, I 12 g uess. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Mm-hmm. 14 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 15 h ave a question. If, let's say, a company wants to 16 s tart its own VICP for the DOE, do they have any 17 r esponsibility to DOE for the people that they're in 18 t heir program for? 19 MS. BARHYDT: Say that one more time. 20 MR. KOJAK: So let's say I start my own VICP 21 o rganization and I have Mark's Air-Conditioning wants 22 t o join, and I'm supposed to be witnessing, testing, or

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 160 1 w hatever is going to be happening at his location to 2 m ake sure he's doing the testing properly. If he's 3 d oing something found later not to be done correctly, 4 i s the owner of the VICP program, approved DOE program, 5 w hich would be my company, liable for what they're 6 d oing since I'm supposed to be witnessing and 7 o verseeing what they're doing? 8 MR. SACHS: You got big pockets? 9 MR. KOJAK: Because the reason I'm asking is 10 b ecause then will -- let's say I wanted to start my own 11 V ICP organization, can I put my own requirements on a 12 b rand-new company that wants to join mine, that they'll 13 h ave to meet of my requirements for me to believe that 14 t hey're DOE -- 15 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, these are minimums. 16 MR. HURST: You can do anything you want to, 17 b ut my understanding is these are the minimum 18 r equirements you'd have to meet. You could set up your 19 p rogram. You've got to convince his air-conditioning 20 c ompany or whomever to join your program provided that 21 t hey meet these base minimum standards. 22 MR. KOJAK: But I can have requirements over

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 161 1 a nd above this? 2 MR. HURST: You can do anything you want to. 3 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 4 MR. HURST: It's a free country. 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But with the owner of 6 t he -- 7 MR. HURST: Nobody may join. 8 MS. MEYERS: Can we put that other slide back 9 u p. 10 MR. KOJAK: With the VICP, let's say if I 11 s tarted my own, would I be partially liable if the 12 p eople that I'm overseeing are found to do something 13 w rong? 14 MS. BARHYDT: To DOE? 15 MR. KOJAK: Yeah. 16 MS. BARHYDT: So my expectation is that the 17 V ICP -- the DOE-approved program, whoever's running 18 t hat program, is responsible for making sure that the 19 p rogram is run in accordance with whatever was the 20 d ocument that DOE approved as the framework. If the 21 m anufacturer's pulling fast ones and manages to get 22 a way with something, that's on the manufacturer. If

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 162 1 y ou didn't do your job, the consequence would be we 2 w ould revoke your approval. 3 MR. KOJAK: Thank you. 4 (Off microphone discussion.) 5 MS. BARHYDT: Oh yeah, I don't like lawyers 6 e ither. 7 So where did we end up? Is this something 8 t hat you think should be -- well, and actually we've 9 t alked about it two different ways. One is that it 10 w ould be a requirement for somebody running a program 11 t o have some kind of a qualification to be in the 12 p rogram, but then the other way that I had talked about 13 i t was simply across the board, before DOE accepts an 14 i nitial certification from a new market entrant, they 15 w ould have to provide test data to support their 16 c ertifications. 17 So we've talked about it two different ways 18 a nd we've heard a lot of different views. Where are 19 p eople on what we've discussed? 20 MR. HALLEY: Geoff Halley, ABM. I like the 21 i dea of submitting test data. In the segment of the 22 b oiler industry that I'm involved there are a lot of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 163 1 o ther things that a new company would have to do to 2 p roduce in this country. 3 For example, they've got to set up an ASME 4 c ode qualification program. They've got to have, you 5 k now, a written and an audited inspection program on 6 t he (inaudible) itself. I've got to comply with the 7 e missions, you know, from EPA. They've got to have a 8 U L label in the great majority of cases, so they've got 9 t o interface with UL from the point of view of safety 10 c ircuits, you know, the whole safety of the product. 11 S o there are a lot of things that they've got to do 12 a lready and I think that, you know, submitting the test 13 d ata to DOE should be one of them, yeah. 14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I 15 t hink if the starting point for VICPs that have been 16 a pproved by DOE, there would not be a need for 17 s ubmission to DOE of any of the initial qualification 18 o f a new market entrant. That would be handled by the 19 V ICP because that's a part of the program requirements. 20 S o I don't think the VICP needs to be turning in new 21 e ntrant data. 22 For someone not in a VICP, I think it makes

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 164 1 a ll the sense in the world that for each product class 2 t hat is newly entered into the system, that a set of 3 t est data be provided to DOE to determine Does this 4 p erson even know what they're talking about when they 5 p rovide me all these numbers? So I wouldn't have a 6 p roblem with that. But I wouldn't want -- 7 MS. BARHYDT: Can you say the last part 8 a gain? Because I thought it was different from what you 9 s aid at the beginning, so I'm a little confused. 10 MR. MYERS: For VICP programs, I don't think 11 t hey should need to provide this test data to DOE for a 12 n ew entrant. If you are not in a VICP program where 13 t hey're taking care of that monitoring and supervision 14 o f the new entrant, then it makes sense to send to DOE 15 t he test package for each product class that you're 16 e ntering in. So it's not just that you've been in a 17 p rogram before, but maybe you were in for water 18 h eaters, now you've begun making furnaces. You should 19 s end in data from a furnace test. So whenever you 20 e nter a -- not just a new entrant into the program, but 21 a new entrant into a new product class, there should be 22 a n associated test data provided to DOE.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 165 1 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. So you have 2 a lready approved DOE at this point, the VICP's 3 r equirements which you're looking to see that has some 4 i nitial test data to approve. So I only really see 5 t his as one path: either you join a prequalified VICP, 6 w hich requires you to do testing or submit test data as 7 p art of that you have vetted through the approval 8 p rocess, or you have to do that to DOE as part of your 9 t est plan. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm going throw in a little 11 c oncept here that if we're requiring that you 12 p articipate in a verification program, a DOE-approved 13 v erification program, then I would like to see in the 14 c ertification, whether it's for -- in a mechanic, 15 m echanistic sort of way, whether it's on the user 16 r egistration form or it's somewhere in the 17 c ertification report, an identification of which 18 p rogram you're in. And that might address this if we 19 s aid whatever program you're in, they have to have some 20 k ind of initial qualification. And then whenever we 21 g et a certification from somebody new, if it doesn't 22 s ay that they're in a -- which program they're in, then

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 166 1 t hey haven't provided one of the things they're 2 r equired to do to make a valid certification. So they 3 h ave to identify which program they're going to be 4 p articipating in. 5 MR. SACHS: Laura, this is Harvey. I think I 6 w as hearing something slightly different and marking 7 M ark's fly-by-night -- oh, wait, that wasn't the name. 8 Came closest to it that I'm seeing it as two 9 p aths: there's having the VICP as an interlocutor 10 b etween the manufacturer and DOE, an agent, and there's 11 s elf-certification. In self-certification, the test 12 d ata must be provided and that's a little different 13 f rom saying that everybody's got to join AHRI or Mark 14 o r UL or CSA. Is there going to be a route for 15 s ubmitting the data as Charlie's Refrigerators without 16 j oining anybody else's program? 17 MS. BARHYDT: No, what we're talking about is 18 r equiring participation in some kind of verification 19 p rogram. It can be a self-run program if it meets all 20 o f these criteria and it has the independence that we 21 w ant to see. But there should be some plan by which 22 t hat manufacturer's products are going to get verified.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 167 1 MR. EISNER: So the answer's yes, but they 2 h ave to meet the requirements. 3 MR. HON: So basically I won't -- 4 MR. SACHS: No, the answer is no. Self5 c ertification -- 6 MS. BARHYDT: To his question it's no. 7 MR. SACHS: Self-certification is not an 8 o ption for those manufacturers who don't want to join a 9 t rade association. They will have to join some other 10 V ICP. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Or run their own. 12 MR. SACHS: I heard Laura saying they could 13 c reate their own program. What's the difference 14 b etween run your own and self-certification? 15 MR. HON: I think I can explain the 16 d ifference. I think I've got this pretty well down 17 b ecause we had previous discussions. Basically, what I 18 w ould do is I will take what we have, we will send it 19 i n to them. I will, in the process, set up a schedule 20 w ith the DOE and say, okay, I'm going to have a third21 p arty verifier verify X, Y, Z over here, over here, 22 o ver here, and then submit the data from the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 168 1 v erification testing to them. The third party verified 2 o ur program setup. 3 And then in a few months, I will send her 4 a nother notification saying, okay, here's our 5 s preadsheet of different units in different families. 6 W e did A, B, C, so this time we haven't done C, D, E 7 y et, so let's take one of those and give her a choice 8 o r give her an option. You know, this is what we'd 9 p refer because it's in stock, and then submit it to you 10 a nd you would approve those. Right? 11 MS. BARHYDT: That would be one way to do it. 12 I mean, I don't want to limit how this might work. 13 MR. HON: Right. 14 MS. BARHYDT: But that is a -- 15 MR. HON: A viable system -- 16 MS. BARHYDT: -- possible way of doing it. 17 MR. HON: -- because we have third-party 18 v erification of our product, we do not have to go 19 t hrough a secondary source as long as we meet your 20 m inimum criteria. 21 MR. THARP: So then Mark's Fly-By-Night Air22 C onditioning can come over to Mike Kojak's UL or some

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 169 1 f acility and have them come to his lab and all the 2 t esting's done at his lab, witnessed by UL, and that 3 m eets -- and DOE's satisfied with that. 4 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm not going to say yes to 5 t hat. I'm going to say -- 6 MR. WHITWELL: And you shouldn't. 7 MS. BARHYDT: -- we haven't figured out what 8 t hese requirements are going to be, but based on the 9 p remise that we have a set of criteria that is what 10 c onstitutes DOE approval and that -- and a key element 11 o f that is going to be a level of independence that DOE 12 i s comfortable with. And so that's why I'm kind of 13 h edging is that I think it's going to be challenging 14 f or a manufacturer to achieve that level of 15 i ndependence, but I don't think it's impossible for a 16 m anufacturer to achieve that. And I can think of a 17 v ariety of different ways that that might be obtained 18 f or different manufacturers. They may come up with 19 d ifferent mechanisms to do that, but it would be 20 p ossible for a manufacturer to have their own plan that 21 D OE approves to get their products verification tested. 22 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. To

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 170 1 m ake a comment, what Charlie was talking about, that 2 w ould kind of contradict the last bullet unless their 3 l ab was under the supervision of an ISO 17025 lab. 4 T hat was something that was left out with that. I 5 m ean, if his lab was already under scrutiny from a 6 t hird-party lab that ISO 17025, I would think what he 7 e xplained would work. 8 MR. HON: Well, that's one of the things that 9 w e are, so we don't have that issue because -- 10 MR. STEPHENS: I think we that as an 11 o utstanding item. Laura mentioned she wants to review 12 t he 17025 guide before we actually put the text in. 13 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with NEEA. 14 Y ou know, it seems like if you just -- instead of just 15 r equiring the new market entries to provide the test to 16 D OE, it takes a level of DOE having some of the things 17 y ou're not sure about what you're going to do. If that 18 h appens, then it kind of protects everybody from the 19 l egitimate labs to the people that maybe aren't doing 20 i t well. 21 In other words, AHRI is going to have no 22 p roblem with what they're doing whereas Bob's new

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 171 1 t esting laboratory might have some problems. But if 2 y ou just get the test data, then you're kind of taking 3 c are of it that way. It seems like that might be 4 s omething that works in the interest of everybody, 5 l egitimate people as well as - - well, not in the 6 i nterest of the people who are not legitimate, but just 7 a thought. 8 MS. DANE: This is Mary from Traulsen. Just 9 a question. So as you're collecting all this test data 10 f or those of us who don't join a voluntary industry 11 p rogram, where does our test data go? And is it 12 s omething that somebody could FOIA out of you? 13 MS. BARHYDT: So people can file FOIA 14 r equests. Whether or not that test data would be 15 r eleased is an open question, but it is not -- 16 MS. DANE: But participation in a voluntary 17 c ertification program, they're allowed to hold the test 18 d ata. Is that what you're saying? 19 MS. BARHYDT: We haven't actually discussed 20 t hat yet. 21 MS. DANE: Okay, because that would be one of 22 t he things that wouldn't be a level playing field for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 172 1 u s, that their data would be protected under that level 2 a nd ours would be out available for FOIA. We couldn't 3 a gree to that. 4 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly. I mean, that 5 d ata can always be subpoenaed, too. 6 MS. DANE: That's fine, but whether it's -- I 7 m ean, it might be easier -- it's a little bit harder 8 f or them to go through it and subpoena it and we have 9 o ur own lawyers and stuff like that. 10 MS. MEYERS: So I have a question. So to 11 e nsure we keep this on a level playing field, if you 12 a re a company that has submitted your own plan to DOE 13 t o, you know, self-assess or whatever, are you given an 14 a dvantage because then you can pick and choose what 15 p roducts you want to test per year? Or should there -- 16 i t seems like there should be some qualification for 17 c ompanies that do that. 18 MS. BARHYDT: I agree and we have not 19 d iscussed selection yet. I mean, to me -- 20 MS. MEYERS: I think that's important because 21

- - 22 MS. BARHYDT: Selection is going to be a key

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 173 1 e lement of how this works. 2 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from 3 C arrier. There's another thing, too, that we need to do 4 t o make sure we have a level playing field and that's 5 t o do something like with the AHRI program. AHRI goes 6 a nd picks the units. And then they get sealed, you 7 k now, marked and shipped, and so the manufacturer 8 d oesn't get a chance to take that unit, test it quick 9 f irst to make sure it's okay. So there needs to be 10 s ome process to make sure that some third party picks 11 t he units right off the production floor or out of the 12 w arehouse or whatever, and then those are the units 13 t hat get tested without any -- 14 MS. MEYERS: And Bob, isn't that rating 15 f rozen, too, until after that -- 16 MR. WHITWELL: Once the units are selected, 17 y ou can't go in and change a rating, so yeah. 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 19 A lthough that's true for a number of AHRI programs, 20 t hat is not true for all AHRI programs. Products are 21 n ot independently selected and sealed in all AHRI 22 c ertification programs.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 174 1 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. Well, where they are I 2 c ertainly wouldn't want it to be different for members 3

- - for others that aren't members of the AHRI program. 4 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. 5 A nother issue that really hasn't been brought up yet is 6 i f it goes back to our big argument a couple weeks ago 7 a bout witnessing the testing for the verification 8 t esting. So if it is done through AHRI, that is able 9 t o be witnessed by the manufacturers. And also, if the 10 m anufacturer, you know, has its own certification for 11 D OE testing, they're going to be doing it themselves, 12 w hich totally contradicts that because they're actually 13 r unning their own tests without any direct supervision. 14 S o that's another thing we've got to address as well. 15 MR. AMRANE: Can you elaborate a little bit 16 h ere? I don't understand that. 17 MR. WHITWELL: Do we have that situation on 18 a ny of these products? I'm not aware of it. 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What do you mean? 20 MR. KOJAK: So what I mean is when AHRI 21 p erforms testing with their contracted labs, the 22 m anufacturer can be present. So the whole discussion

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175 1 w e had earlier in these meetings was when there's 2 v erification testing being done by the DOE, there's no 3 m anufacturer witnessing or participation whatsoever 4 w ith the first test. And that's what we all agreed on. 5 S o now we're saying if the AHRI testing is part of the 6 v erification process for the DOE, how do you get around 7 w ith the AHRI requirement -- you know, ability for the 8 m anufacturer to be present at the third-party test 9 f acility to witness the test? 10 MR. WHITWELL: My question was really the 11 s econd part of your statement where you said that tests 12 c ould be done -- the AHRI program allowed tests at 13 m anufacturer's lab without any third party presence. 14 MR. KOJAK: No, not that AHRI would -- the 15 s ituation Charlie was mentioning with being a DOE16 a pproved verification program, that the actual 17 m anufacturers can get a DOE-approved verification 18 p rogram themselves, you know, right there, I mean, if 19 t he manufacturer creates their own VICP and is 20 c onducting their own testing, who's monitoring that? 21 T hat's what I was trying to say. 22 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, I agree. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 176 1 m isunderstood your comment. I thought you were 2 r eferring to AHRI programs. 3 MR. KOJAK: No. 4 MR. TRITSIS: Just a clarification, this is 5 B ill Tritsis, to what Mike was saying. Manufacturers 6 a re allowed to be present during the setup, not during, 7 y ou know -- or influence the set. There are strict 8 r ules and guidelines what the manufacturers can do 9 d uring their presence at the independent laboratories. 10 T hat's to witness the setup only. 11 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. 12 MR. KOJAK: And what we have discussed here 13 a nd at our previous meetings is the DOE stance was the 14 m anufacturer cannot be at the location whatsoever or 15 e ven have knowledge where the testing is being done. 16 MR. AMRANE: It is not -- I'm not sure if DOE 17 w as talking about verification testing. 18 MR. WHITWELL: No. No. 19 MR. AMRANE: Right. We're not talking about 20 t he verification testing. We were talking about the 21 q ualification -- the validation of the AEDM. 22 MR. STANONIK: This is Frank Stanonik with

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 177 1 A HRI. That previous discussion was, in fact, about 2 a ssessment testing that has been ongoing. And Laura 3 c an certainly correct me, but that assessment -- I 4 m ean, right now there are no DOE regulations for 5 v erification specifically, so we're creating a new 6 s ubsection. 7 MR. KOJAK: No, when -- you know, not 8 e verybody in the room has been here the entire time, so 9 i n the beginning, when they discussed how they were 10 g oing to pick a product from the market and they were 11 g oing to test it without any knowledge of the 12 m anufacturers knowing, there was a lot of discussion 13 s how the manufacturers wanted to be, you know -- 14 MR. STANONIK: Right. 15 MR. KOJAK: -- told about the testing so 16 t hey can have input on setup and things. And it was 17 t he DOE's stance that the manufacturers would have no - 18

- that they couldn't know that it was being done or 19 b eing contacted by the third-party lab doing the 20 t esting or any of that. 21 MR. STANONIK: Right. And that assessment -- 22 t hat was assessment testing that at least was, I would

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 178 1 s ay, in most people's minds, a prelude to enforcement 2 t esting. 3 MS. MEYERS: AEDM. 4 MR. STANONIK: But -- 5 MR. KOJAK: What currently happens right now 6 w ith Navigant, I wish somebody would speak because when 7 y ou do testing for the DOE right now, there is no 8 c ommunication with the manufacturer whatsoever. 9 MR. STANONIK: Right, right. 10 MR. KOJAK: So it's -- 11 MR. AMRANE: And it says we are referring to 12 a ssessment testing or enforcement testing. We're not 13 t alking -- we're talking about -- 14 MR. KOJAK: Well, enforcement testing is 15 a fter you've already failed the rating test, correct? 16 MR. AMRANE: Yeah, but you're not talking 17 a bout -- 18 MR. KOJAK: But that's not what this is. 19 MR. AMRANE: This is a verification test. 20 MR. KOJAK: It's verification. 21 MR. AMRANE: Yes. So it's a new chapter. 22 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, so it's --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 179 1 MR. AMRANE: We haven't defined the rules 2 y et. 3 MR. KOJAK: It's testing units randomly 4 t hroughout the -- help me out here, Laura. Which one 5 i s it? 6 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so this is what we talked 7 a bout with AEDMs and it was how DOE would do a single 8 u nit spot check to verify an AEDM. So this is what DOE 9 w as looking at in terms of doing verification tests 10 w here something had been certified using an AEDM. 11 MR. WHITWELL: This is verification for an 12 A EDM versus verification rating. 13 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I mean -- 14 MR. WHITWELL: So there's some -- 15 MR. BARHYDT: There's real overlap there. 16 MR. STANONIK: Yes. Frank Stanonik, AHRI. 17 T here's overlap, but there's also some distinction. 18 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. 19 MR. STANONIK: Because the verification we're 20 t alking about right now is a continual, ongoing 21 p rocess. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 180 1 MR. STANONIK: I would venture that -- and 2 t his would certainly be up to DOE, but I'd venture that 3 t his kind of verification testing to, let's say, check 4 y our AEDM may happen, but it's not like, you know -- 5 i t's not going to be we're doing it every month 6 s ituation. In one case the verification -- 7 MS. BARHYDT: So you're drawing a volume 8 d istinction, I think. 9 MR. STANONIK: Well, yeah. Well, yes, a 10 v olume distinction and also, in the one sense, the 11 v erification is essentially verifying that the rating 12 o f this particular model, the rating of this unit of 13 t his model is, in fact, correct. This verification has 14 a much deeper implication because you're really 15 c hecking the -- you know, the ultimate purpose would be 16 t o check the AEDM. And if the AEDM proves invalid or 17 i ncorrect, that's a lot bigger deal. 18 MR. KOJAK: But what if the company's not 19 u sing an AEDM? 20 MR. STANONIK: Well, then you don't have to 21 w orry about this. 22 MR. KOJAK: Well, that's -- exactly, because

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 181 1 i n the beginning of all these conversations the two 2 w ays you can rate to the DOE was running your own 3 t esting of the actual product or you can use an AEDM. 4 MR. STANONIK: Well, okay. So let me go back 5 t o, I think, something you said at the beginning in 6 t erms of this verification and the option where the 7 m anufacturer has set up their own verification program 8 w ith DOE's approval. I think what you had raised the 9 p oint was that this manufacturer's program could 10 p otentially operate without any other, lack of a better 11 w ord here, supervision. And I think, at least in our 12 p roposal and even I think what Frank Myers has said, 13 t here is still -- even within the let's call it the 14 m anufacturer's self-operated verification program -- 15 w ell, let me rephrase this. 16 We put forth the VICP requirements as the 17 b aseline. We believe a critical part of that baseline 18 i s that there is that supervision by a 17025 lab. And 19 t hat has to -- we haven't really talked about the 20 d etails of, okay, what's the requirements for a 21 m anufacturer's self- operated verification? But I 22 w ould put forth that one of the requirements, even for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 182 1 a manufacturer self-operated, is there has to be that 2 o versight, supervision, whatever the right verb may be, 3 o f a 17025 lab at some point, at some stage. That 4 m akes it equitable. 5 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. But, 6 L aura, I mean, we're talking about two different 7 t hings, I think, right? 8 MS. BARHYDT: I'm not sure. 9 MR. WHITWELL: No, remember -- 10 MR. BAUMAN: Because, Laura, I mean, DOE can 11 s till spot check a unit. I mean, that's what you're 12 d oing now, you're random or spot-checking or whatever. 13 I don't see how -- because this was where you'd be 14 p otentially in addition to an annual verification 15 p rogram with ongoing, every year you had to do a 16 c ertain amount. You guys can still go out and buy a 17 u nit or whatever and check it. Or are we saying 18 t here'd be restrictions on you not to do that? 19 MS. BARHYDT: So, DOE actually is okay with 20 t he idea of us not doing spot checks the way we 21 c urrently do assessment testing if all the 22 m anufacturers are in a DOE- approved verification

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 183 1 p rogram. And the idea there is that all of the 2 m anufacturers will be subjected to verification without 3 D OE doing that. So DOE's testing would be limited to 4 d oing enforcement testing, following up on complaints, 5 a nd rulemaking testing. 6 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. So, 7 y ou know, as I would see this, DOE would still have the 8 a bility to do a spot check when they felt they needed 9 t o do a spot check. Say we've got some verification 10 p rogram that you're suspicious is not working, you're 11 g etting complaints, then you may want to pull one. And 12 y ou may want to pull one off the open market and you 13 m ay not want anybody to know about it and you may want 14 t o test it. I think, you know, you have the ability to 15 c heck any of the things that we're laying out here to 16 c heck quality of those programs that we have at random. 17 B ut it's not something, you know -- but the difference 18 b eing is that you're buying the equipment, you're 19 p aying for the test as opposed to this much broader, 20 w here we're doing much more testing, but the 21 m anufacturers are buying the equipment and the 22 m anufacturers are paying for the test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 184 1 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I don't know if it's much 2 m ore testing. I'm hearing one and two units. 3 MS. MEYERS: So this Karen with Rheem. And 4 b ased upon our discussion today, I would say that this 5 s lide is no longer applicable and should be deleted 6 f rom the proposal. Because if DOE -- because this is a 7 v erification of, and DOE's going to be approving the 8 v erification program. Manufacturers are going to be 9 f unding that with their units. So I don't know that we 10 n eed this slide anymore. 11 MR. BALLO: This is Tim. I don't want to 12 p reclude DOE from having the authority to pull one 13 p roduct if it hears something bad about it rather than 14 h aving to go through an enforcement testing process 15 r ight off the bat. So I do think there is still value 16 i n having the ability for DOE to do a single unit spot 17 c heck. 18 But sort of the flip side of the verification 19 p rocess taking the place of this, though, is that when 20 a product is pulled for a verification test and fails, 21 i t, number one, gets re-rated; number two, triggers the 22 A EDM consequences, which may require more testing; and,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 185 1 n umber three, is then subject to potential enforcement 2 t esting by DOE if it fails to meet the standard. Am I 3 r ight? 4 MS. BARHYDT: Mm-hmm. 5 MR. BALLO: Okay. 6 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I 7 a ctually have thought all along that if you were in a 8 V ICP program, there would be no need for DOE to ever 9 i mplement this kind of spot check if you're in a VICP 10 p rogram, a DOE-approved VICP program. But for those 11 t hat are not in a VICP program, part of the control 12 o ver them not doing something they shouldn't was that 13 t hey would -- all of the money that you spread across 14 t he market before, you can now focus the spot checks on 15 t he ones that are not in VICP programs to give them 16 a dditional reason to behave. So I've always thought 17 t his was a good thing and that it should stay in place 18 f or non-VICP participants where more direct information 19 w ould be provided by a manufacturer to DOE to give DOE 20 t he continued option of going out and pulling a unit 21 a nd, in secret, test it, and you've been a bad 22 m anufacturer and done wrong things and we have the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 186 1 e vidence to show it, but that that was largely 2 u nnecessary for DOE-approved VICP programs. 3 MR. EISNER: Why don't we take a quick 5- 4 m inute break? Come back at a quarter after 12, 17 5 a fter. 6 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 7 MR. EISNER: Can everybody get to their seat? 8 Mike Kojak and I talked with Laura over the 9 b reak because we were both getting more and more 10 c onfused and Laura's going to explain where she thinks 11 w e are and how we should handle this discussion. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, when we talked about 13 A EDMs, we -- multiple times people said what about 14 V ICPs, what about VICPs? And we kept saying we'll talk 15 a bout VICPs later. And we wanted to make sure that in 16 t he context of the AEDM discussion before that went to 17 t he ASRAC, we had some very clear framework for how DOE 18 v erification for AEDMs would work. And so, that's what 19 w e worked out and from DOE's perspective as far as a 20 v erification program is concerned, I wouldn't say maybe 21 i t's solid gold but that is a gold-plated program. I 22 m ean, it has a huge amount of controls in terms of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 187 1 i ndependence from the manufacturer in the selection, in 2 t he testing. There are a lot of controls in the 3 p rogram that we've come up with for AEDMs. 4 We would absolutely love to adopt that for 5 a ll verification programs. I am realistic and don't 6 a ctually think that's going to happen, but -- so that's 7 t he context for what we discussed before if how DOE 8 w ould do verification testing in the absence of DOE 9 a pproved verification programs. 10 If we get a DOE approved verification program 11 f ramework set up, then that's what we'll apply. And if 12 D OE does rulemaking testing, if we do follow-up on 13 c omplaints, I think there was a third one. The three 14 d ifferent instances where we still might do spot 15 c hecking, that's what would apply. 16 Does that make sense to everyone? 17 MR. EISNER: And what is on the table as I 18 u nderstand it are some of the issues that we're still 19 s aying, well hey this would be unfair. Their 20 i nformation was made public, but other information was 21 n ot made public. Laura said that's' all open to 22 d iscussion and how it's handled.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 188 1 MS. BARHYDT: I mean if you -- 2 MR. EISNER: If it has to go to DOE, for 3 e xample, or whether it stays with the independent third 4 p arty testers. 5 MS. BARHYDT: I mean if you look at the 6 s lides, slides 27, 28, 29, 30. I mean all of those -- 7 w e've only started to scratch the surface of all those 8 i ssues and those are all things that we have to 9 r esolve. 10 Or we can just adopt what with did with the 11 A EDM provisions. 12 MR. EISNER: So much of it in simple terms, 13 t his group can decide what the verification testing 14 w ill look like. I don't mean your delegated authority 15 b y the agency, but if everybody agrees that will be the 16 v erification testing program. 17 So comments, suggestions? Do we want to 18 c ontinue going through some of these terms? 19 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. To the 20 d egree that we have discussed a number of the items 21 t hat are in the pages that you just mentioned, I was 22 t hinking that we were proposing alternates in

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 189 1 c onjunction with the program requirements. I know that 2 w e didn't discuss all of these items, but -- 3 MS. BARHYDT: No, we've discussed a lot of 4 t hem. But there are definitely things that we still 5 h aven't discussed. 6 MR. MYERS: Right. 7 MS. BARHYDT: And some of the concerns that 8 h ave been raised are some of those items that we have 9 n ot discussed yet. 10 MR. WHITWELL: So Bob Whitwell, Carrier. 11 J ust to make sure that I'm clear and maybe I missed 12 s ome of what you said. So the prior discussion that we 13 h ad several meetings back, that was up there, is 14 v erification testing for potential -- or verification 15 t esting for manufacturers that are not in the VICP. 16 F or those in the VICP, it could be different. We've 17 s till got to work out some of those details. 18 MS. BARHYDT: Yes and DOE's goal is to get 19 e verybody into some kind of a vacation program plan. 20 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, thanks. 21 MR. EISNER: And as I understand it, some 22 o ther things that concern people about the first

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 190 1 d iscussions about the testing the DOE did -- for 2 e xample, they couldn't be there to witness the test. 3 T his could change some of that as I understand it, if 4 t his group decides that you want to get everybody into 5 a program and alleviate some of the concerns that were 6 r aised during the initial discussions. 7 That's partly -- I know Mike and I were very 8 c onfused about that. We thought we had a lot of these 9 d iscussions and they were resolved. 10 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, and that was the reason 11 f or my question. My question about these are two 12 d ifferent things because I didn't understand that. I 13 w as thinking that we were talking about two different 14 t hings. Now, it's the same thing but two different 15 c ases. If that makes sense. 16 MR. EISNER: Yeah. 17 FM: Frank Myers, PVI. 18 MS. BARHYDT: That's why had difficulty 19 a nswering that. They're not exactly different, but 20 t hey're not exactly the same either. 21 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. Laura 22 w here you were talking about everyone would be any

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191 1 p rogram, that's DOE's expectation is everyone would be 2 i n the program. You've mentioned several times, I just 3 w anted to confirm that's not everybody has to be in a 4 V ICP program, but in a DOE approved program. 5 MS. BARHYDT: Correct. 6 MR. EISNER: So comments on where -- 7 MS. BARHYDT: That's where we would like to 8 b e. 9 MR. EISNER: Comments on where this 10 d iscussion is going to whether there's a better way to 11 a pproach it? Should we continue going through some of 12 t hese charts and some of these questions? Make good 13 u se of the time. 14 MS. BARHYDT: So we've agreed to hold off on 15 t he percent or whatever metric we use for how much 16 s hould be verified. We haven't really talked about how 17 t he models would be selected yet. And that, I think, 18 g oes hand-in- hand with the next bullet point of 19 p rocess for low-volume products. 20 So do you all want to start on that issue 21 n ext? 22 MR. STEPHENS: Okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 192 1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So DOE think everything 2 s hould be completely random and that the selection 3 s hould be out of the control of the manufacturer and 4 t he manufacturer should not know in advance what is 5 g oing to be tested. So there's a starting point. 6 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. We seldomly do this, 7 b ut there are a few low-volume products which are not 8 s tocked, but most low-volume products are not stocked. 9 S o the only way you're going to get them is to order 10 t hem from the manufacturer. Whether it be for third11 p arty verification outside just in case you decide to 12 r un one or in a verification program. So, that's 13 a lmost impossible not to do it that way. The 14 m anufacturer will know about it and likely will be 15 t esting it in their own facility, and a lot of areas. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I'd 17 l ike to propose that we break it into two sections and 18 d o low- volume and then the standard production. 19 B ecause you're absolutely right, the answers are going 20 t o be vastly different and will confuse ourselves if we 21 t ry to talk about them all at the same time. 22 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. My

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 193 1 c ompany and I think I represent some part of the 2 i ndustry, probably not all the industry. We're 3 c ompletely build-to-order. So, like you said, it's 4 g oing to have to be ordered and built so it's not going 5 t o be a particular surprise. You know, I don't really 6 h ave a problem with it being random, although I think 7 y ou need to get a distribution across the range over 8 s ome period of time. 9 And I absolutely agree with you that the 10 m anufacturer should not be the one picking the models 11 f or it. Because I don't want my competitors to be able 12 t o do that. But, you know, I have a little problem 13 w ith the other part of your deal. 14 MR. SACHS: Laura -- this is Harvey. I've 15 w andered through a factory or two in my day, and this 16 l ooks -- your bullet two is fine for products like 17 w ater heaters, where you might see 6,000 a day running 18 t hrough a factory. Much of what we're talking about 19 h ere, I tend to think about as engineered products. 20 A nd rather than thinking about it as high volume versus 21 l ow-volume, I tend to think about it as stockable or 22 s tocked versus built-to-order.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 194 1 And I would -- certainly from my perspective 2 w orry about how I picked things from the built-to-order 3 f or testing, but I think that's most of what we're 4 t alking about here for these products classes. 5 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. That's 6 t rue even where in the product range where we would 7 s tock products, those products quite often are going to 8 h ave economizers, they're going to have some other 9 o ptions that are not to be tested. So, to get a basic 10 m odel is probably going to be a build-to-order. 11 MR. SACHS: Again, this is Harvey. The 12 i mplication of that is what can we do that gives us a 13 f airness that emulates random, when there is no way the 14 m anufacturer can't -- cannot know that this is being 15 b uilt for tests. And I do not know the answer, but I 16 t hink unless we face that situation that we're not 17 g oing to get very far. 18 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, with AHRI. 19 A nd again, I'm going to emphasize the need for 20 c onsistency of terminology and I'll specifically talk 21 a bout the stocked -- the circumstance that we have 22 s tocked models. Ten high --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 195 1 MR. SACHS: Ten high -- 2 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, right. In that 3 s ituation, because for a lot of practical reasons and 4 r unning certification programs, the selection to check 5 t he rating of that model might not be random. But the 6 s election of the actual test sample, might be one unit 7 f rom a pool that has been pulled aside from three, 8 f our, five, six units. Again, recognize that is a 9 v ariable, but there is some stock of the unit, okay? 10 And so, you know, the manufacturer doesn't 11 g et to say, "Oh, take that one in the purple box." He 12 j ust maybe pulls out six or seven and you say, "We want 13 t hat one." Okay. 14 So, the random part of it is which one end up 15 b eing the test unit, because most often, you know, all 16 o f this has gradients but most often the manufacturer 17 i n that kind of circumstance is not going to do a huge 18 p roduction run for just our test sample. All right. 19 B ut at the same time, for the practicalities of 20 s cheduling testing for the need to, in fact, actually 21 w hen that selector shows up at the door, to actually 22 f ind the ones he -- that we want him to test, the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 196 1 r eality is we have to give the manufacturer some 2 i ndication of what models were planning to check this 3 y ear. Right, Bill? 4 Otherwise, I mean, the experience says 5 o therwise you have too many wasted days where you sent 6 t he tester and wanted to test model Frank's Floor 7 F urnace 42, but I'm sorry all I've got in my warehouse 8 t oday and all I'm making are Frank's Floor Furnace 98. 9 A nd I'm not going to be making 42s for the next three 10 w eeks. 11 MS. BARHYDT: So why can't the selector not 12 j ust walk in and pick stuff? Why do you have to pre13 s elects something? 14 MR. STANONIK: So if he did that, if he did 15 t hat then we've got to revisit this whole idea that I'm 16 g oing to be testing 20 percent, you know, whatever the 17 p ercentage is -- X percent every year, because you're 18 g oing to have a lot of repetition. And maybe that's an 19 a cceptable think, but basically you're giving up that 20 t here's probably some models I may never test. 21 Not test in seven or eight years but I may 22 n ever test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 197 1 MR. RIVEST: I mean, to minimize costs -- 2 MS. HOOTMAN: There are several models that 3 w e never make. We offer but never make. 4 MR. RIVEST: Right. And models you never 5 m ake, we probably wouldn't want to test, anyway. So, 6 t here's something elegant here about -- 7 MS. HOOTMAN: But we're certifying to you 8 s ome kind of value for those. But, you know, depending 9 o n where the market is at any one time we may not make 10 i t. We may not make it for two years. So if you're 11 c oming in and just randomly selecting, you would be 12 g etting the common models every single time and it 13 w ould be very, very repetitive. And you likely 14 w ouldn't get, you know, some of the other ones that are 15 n ot as repetitive. 16 MR. RIVEST: Okay. But wouldn't that be 17 r epresentative of what's actually being shipped, and 18 t herefore, the energy usage? To minimize costs, if 19 s omeone were to go -- give a little heads up we're 20 c oming in look at what's in your production run, look 21 a t what's in your inventory. Amongst those may be 22 s elect the basic models that haven't already been

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 198 1 t ested. 2 I don't know if it would delay shipment of 3 t hose units too much. But it would potentially 4 m inimize your costs -- 5 MS. HOOTMAN: It would delay shipment of 6 t hose units largely. 7 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Just like Mark is describing. 9 E very single unit that goes down my line -- for 20 tons 10 a nd up, has a customer order attached to it. It is 11 s old. 12 MR. FLY: Yeah -- 13 MR. RIVEST: Jill -- 14 MS. HOOTMAN: It is being sent to a customer. 15 Y ou are tying up their business. 16 MR. RIVEST: Jill that applies to your stuff. 17 I t may not apply to water heaters, it may not apply to 18 e verything. 19 MR. FLY: And again, I'm going to interject 20 h ere. My premise was, I'm talking about stockable 21 s tuff, okay? By no means anything we were discussing 22 s hould be necessarily considered automatically applying

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 199 1 t o build- to-order or even a semi-customized whatever. 2 Y ou know, there is a whole different consideration as 3 t o how we need to address this. 4 MR. RIVEST: But wouldn't even customized or 5 s emi-customized be done in batches around some sort of 6 p roduction schedule? So you're not totally -- 7 MR. FLY: It's driven by orders. You know, I 8 m ean -- 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Yep. 10 MR. FLY: Go ahead. 11 MR. WHITWELL: In our case, it's based on 12 o rders. And there's typically not two of the same next 13 t o each other on the assembly line. They are -- each 14 o ne is based on the customer's order. So, they're not 15 b atched. They're -- it's mixed model production. 16 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I 17 m ean, the other thing it has -- if we're late on a 18 s hipment we get to pay for cranes, we get to pay for 19 l iquidation damages, we get lawyer letters. And you 20 k now, we're not building things hugely ahead of time. 21 Y ou know, I hire enough people on the factory floor to 22 d o the amount of work I have going right now, and when

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 200 1 w ork slows down I quit hiring and by attrition the 2 w orkforce goes down. 3 So, I'm not building things and they're not 4 s itting there. I don't even have a place to set them 5 f or two weeks. You know, stocked inventory or rolling 6 b uffer right thing and that kind of business. Now, 7 l ike I said this is not build to stock. Build to stock 8 y ou need to have warehousing for the equipment. 9 MR. STANONIK: Yeah but even -- excuse me. 10 B ut even in that circumstance, a water heater facility 11 t oday, okay. They may get -- tomorrow's production run 12 m ay be the orders they got in the last two days and it 13 m ay be six of this model and then the next 12 or that 14 m odel. And so, by the end of the day they've built what 15 h as been ordered. What they stock is, in fact, let's 16 s ay what they know is their most popular products or 17 w hatever else, so they can fill some orders straight 18 f rom stock, but they're still a huge component that 19 o kay, you know, here's the orders that came in, 20 w hatever and this is what we're building tomorrow to 21 f ill those orders. And for many of those models they 22 d on't build extra. They just build what they've got

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 201 1 w ord for. 2 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with NEEA. 3 W hy doesn't DOE just by their air handler through a 4 m echanical design build contractor. 5 MR. RIVEST: That's what we do. 6 MR. STARR: Well, then what's the problem, 7 b ecause they can just order whatever you have. 8 MS. BARHYDT: So we're talking about -- 9 MR. RIVEST: Industry-run. 10 MS. BARHYDT: -- industry-run or 11 m anufacturer- run or lab-run verification program, 12 w here the selection is not happening by DOE. Where the 13 u nit selection is not happening by DOE going out and 14 b uying a product. 15 MR. HON: I've been waiting for a few minutes 16 h ere. Because we built both categories, quite a lot of 17 b oth. I'm sure Collin can tell you that our warehouses 18 a re quite large. We have certain models that are 19 s tocked and a lot of others that are not stocked. The 20 p roblem is, say we bring in a unit. You have a 21 r epresentative or UL has a representative or somebody 22 c omes in and says, "Okay, well pull down Model Q. Pull

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202 1 i t down. Pull eight models out. Take the serial 2 n umber off of one of them to send to our lab." Then we 3 h ave to move it from our warehousing facility to our 4 l aboratory, prep for testing, and it takes three to 5 f ive days to get it stabilized. 6 Are we going to pay the UL person to stay the 7 t hree to five days? Are they just going to come in for 8 a day to pick units and then leave and then come back 9 l ater? 10 MR. RIVEST: Look, the goal is some 11 r andomness so that you can design to test specifically 12 f or the test, right? And the second one is to minimize 13 t he costs. So how to get that? 14 MR. HON: I agree, but I'm just asking 15 q uestions here. I don't know. 16 MR. RIVEST: I want answers. 17 MR. HON: Okay. 18 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 19 c an tell you how it's done or how was done in the past 20 f or some AHRI-witnessed testing, is we would have a UL 21 r epresentative show up at the factory and they would 22 m ake random selections, mark them, seal them, and then

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 203 1 w hen it came around time to test it the people who 2 s howed up to test it make sure it was the exact same 3 p roduct that was picked. 4 So there are two different trips. Because 5 t he one that comes to pick the units, since we have 6 q uite an extensive organization of FUS people all over 7 t he country and the world, we have people who can show 8 u p at almost any location whenever we need them to make 9 a ny kinds of, you know, picking of product or whatever 10 t hey need to do. 11 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. Is that for 12 c ommercial equipment, that you use that technique? 13 T hat sounds very much like a residential, where there 14 i s build-to-stock is the normal practice. 15 MR. KOJAK: That was built as stock 16 e quipment. 17 MR. MYERS: Residential or commercial? 18 MR. KOJAK: Whatever's stocked. 19 MR. RIVEST: Another idea. If there are, and 20 I 'm sure you have very detailed parts lists and 21 d rawings of these things, in that case if you were 22 g iven ahead notice of what would be tested and the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 204 1 p erson doing the selection would make sure that it was 2 b uilt as shown in the technical drawings; then you 3 k now, wouldn't that be good enough for everybody? 4 MR. HON: Well, there's an easy way to do 5 t his. Almost everybody in this room either builds to 6 U L, ETL -- some sort of technical standard. And those 7 d ocument packages exist for safety reasons. They 8 i dentify the compressor, the fans, all major electrical 9 c omponents. And so, if you would specify our GDM-10, I 10 c an guarantee you that when the UL inspector comes he 11 k nows what that is, he has all of the dimensions build 12 i nto the thing. It's a documented package which is 13 i ndependently handled. They have all of the componentry 14 l isted out for them and the basics of everything is 15 t here. 16 MR. RIVEST: So would that satisfy everyone, 17 s o we could specifically order a base unit or ask you 18 f or a base unit and we don't have to worry that it's 19 g oing to be gold-plated, because it's just going to 20 m atch drawings that predate the manufacture. 21 MR. HON: That's fine. 22 MS. BARHYDT: Oh no.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205 1 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. So, 2 I 'm not sure I'm following that. So under that 3 t hinking we would open up our certification files to 4 t he inspector? 5 MR. HON: To verify that it is the product 6 t hat says it is, I don't see any problem with that at 7 a ll. The inspector, whether it be some third-party lab 8 t hat's going to be looking at it, it's probably the 9 s ame third- party labs that are doing your safety 10 i nspections. Also, let's do a single source that way; 11 w hether it be ETL, UL because it's cheaper that way. 12 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. As 13 l ong as that -- because that specific information, that 14 h as the specific compliments listed, again, that's the 15 t ype of information that's in some of the DOE test 16 r eports. It's online. That is confidential product 17 i nformation and that's not something that should be 18 a vailable to the open public. I don't want my 19 c ompetitors knowing what my billed material is, that 20 g oes into it. 21 So we'll need to have some type of method -- 22 s ay what?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 206 1 MR. RIVEST: (Inaudible). 2 MR. HON: If they just examine it. 3 MR. THARP: As long as it is checked. 4 MR. HON: They say check, check, check. It 5 i s what it says it is. 6 MR. THARP: The inspector checks it. The 7 i nspector says, "Yes, I checked it, that it meets this 8 U L report." I'm fine with that, but I don't want that 9 i nformation in a test report somewhere that's going to 10 b e later subjected to a FOIA request. 11 MR. HON: If the DOE documents are set up, 12 m ajor componentry matches UL file, check. 13 MR. THARP: Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with 14 t hat. And something else to remember, too, as Karen 15 p ointed out as she was leaving, is that one thing we 16 w ould suggest it is that any verification program would 17 h ave a provision that ratings are frozen once a model 18 i s selected so that reading can't be modified. It was 19 1 4, now it's 13 type of thing. So that would be 20 s omething that should be part of any verification 21 p rogram. 22 MR. KOJAK: It's Mike Kojak with UL. With

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 207 1 t he minimum requirements for the VICP group, that 2 s hould be added in there that the program person should 3 b e checking the bill of materials to make sure the unit 4 i s what it's supposed to be. 5 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. I 6 k now the AHRI certification which has probably the most 7 c redibility of any program out there, doesn't do that. 8 MR. THARP: AHRI does check components. 9 MR. MYERS: Does what? 10 MR. THARP: AHRI does check components. 11 MR. MYERS: In your particular program? 12 O kay, I'm speaking about water heaters and boilers, 13 t hey did not. 14 MS. BARHYDT: So this bullet point we just 15 a dded, can you help with the language? Because I'm not 16 e xactly sure how -- 17 MR. THARP: Actually, rating must be frozen 18 u pon unit selection for testing. Frozen or locked. 19 T he AHRI terminology is locked. 20 MR. WHITWELL: Gets locked in the directory. 21 Y ou can't -- 22 MR. THARP: Right. Member cannot change the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 208 1 r ating in any manner, shape or form. 2 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. The 3 r eason we do it is because our database is a live 4 d atabase. Data changes every day. Is DOE's database 5 g oing to be a live database? 6 MS. BARHYDT: DOE's database updates once a 7 w eek and there's about a two-week lag between when 8 s omebody submit something and when it shows up live on 9 t he site. 10 MR. BALLO: So how does selection work if 11 y ou're a manufacturer self-directed certification for a 12 v erification program? 13 MS. BARHYDT: Good question. 14 MR. THARP: Harvey and Tim. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 16 t hink at that point the DOE would need to do the 17 s election just have the manufacturer verify that they 18 h ave the right model number. 19 MR. HON: Well, there's also another thing 20 t hat can be involved because one of the things for 21 e conomy is the fact that there is other testing that 22 h as to be done in some componentry. Energy Star

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209 1 r equires a certain amount of testing, another 2 g overnment agency. What they do is they all allow our 3 i ndependent certifier to verify and pick models. And 4 t hey go back, and we have a big spreadsheet of okay, 5 t his is groups, this is families. Basically this is 6 s imilar to what we're developing right here. They'll 7 p ick -- we haven't tested anything in this one for a 8 w hile. They'll pick one of the numbers out of there. 9 W e haven't tested any in this one for a while, will 10 p ick one of the numbers out of there. 11 And they will do the selection that way 12 r ather than us give them. Sometimes will say well, if 13 y ou've got four out of this one but we still haven't 14 t ouched this category and make a suggestion for them to 15 b e fair about it. You know, just keep testing this one 16 d oesn't do us any good. So will make a suggestion, but 17 t hey don't have to accept it. 18 MR. KOJAK: Are you guys going to add in that 19 t he componentry must be checked before the testing 20 o ccurs, too? 21 MS. HOOTMAN: How will that be done? 22 MS. BARHYDT: So Jill, I believe that the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 210 1 s uggestion was that whoever the third-party lab 2 s upervising the testing is would be able to check the 3 c omponentry against a pre-existing safety componentry 4 l ist. 5 MR. WHITWELL: Or comparable. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: From the UL file? 7 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. It could be UL file, 8 J ill, or it could be some other data that is provided 9 t o the VICP from the manufacturer. Right? I mean the 10 V ICP may have some other -- 11 MS. HOOTMAN: So we got to pull bill of 12 m aterials on every single unit and get it into some 13 k ind of package that somebody else can read, because 14 t hose are in proprietary drawing systems, et cetera 15 r ight now. 16 MR. WHITWELL: Jill, this is Bob Whitwell. I 17 t hink, you know, today there's a certain amount of 18 i nformation that goes in as part of the AHRI 19 s ubmission, which I think can be adequate for this. 20 MS. HOOTMAN: It doesn't have bill of 21 m aterials, it just has compressor model number -- you 22 k now.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211 1 MR. WHITWELL: Basic model information, 2 r ight? 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. 4 MR. THARP: Compressor, condenser, evaporator 5 i nformation. Primary heat transfer components. 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. 7 MR. WHITWELL: Surface areas, air flows, so - 8

- 9 MS. HOOTMAN: If that's -- 10 MR. STEM: This is Mike with Intertek. 11 MR. EISNER: Go ahead Mike. 12 MR. STEM: I just had a quick question about 13 t he timelines here. You're saying that the componentry 14 m ust be checked before the testing, but if there's an 15 i ssue then do we not test? Because I kind of tend to 16 a gree with Jill here, that you know, basic quality 17 c hecks for testing is, you know, we'll all document the 18 c ritical components. Major energy consumptive 19 c omponents. But that also serves almost as a quality 20 c heck, right? Quality control check. So, I'm kind of a 21 l ittle bit confused as to where this is going. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, and I guess how much

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 212 1 d etail Mike. 2 MR. STEM: Correct. Yeah, I mean if we're 3 j ust talking about compressors, you know, condenser fan 4 m otors, evaporative fan motors -- the things that are 5 r eadily available that we can, you know, see a 6 n ameplate on the components themselves and make a quick 7 l ist of four to five items of critical components. 8 I t's not an issue, right? It's pretty common practice 9 r ight now. If were talking about an entire bill 10 m aterials and you know, going in and getting, you know, 11 f in branch spacings on the coils, a more detailed level 12 t hen that may be an issue that I don't think the test 13 l abs where the manufacturers would be comfortable with. 14 MR. KOJAK: Mike, this is Mike Kojak with UL. 15 I t would be the -- like a nameplate data sheet. Just 16 t he fan motor, blower motor, compressor, you know, the 17 m ain energy consuming sources of the equipment. You 18 k now, nothing too detailed just to make sure that the 19 b ulk of the equipment that's on the unit is what it's 20 s upposed to be that's associated to that specific 21 m odel. 22 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 213 1 t hink if you just said it's the componentry that -- the 2 p rimary componentry that impacts performance and 3 e fficiency should be checked. 4 MR. EISNER: Do we want to say what it needs 5 t o be checked against? 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, wait a minute Paul. You 7 k now, a coil fin density, it's dimensions, it's ID, 8 i t's tube diameters, all of those have something to do 9 w ith critical -- about this refrigeration system. But 10 t he testing lab is going to have to sit there and 11 v erify all of that. We're going to have to give them 12 d etailed drawings that say, you know, and I don't know 13 i f they're in a physical drawing anymore. They're all 14 i n the cyber world, you know. Explaining all the and 15 t hat's what I'm getting at, is are they going to sit 16 t here and check the fin diameters -- 17 MR. DOPPEL: Well, come up with a different 18 t erm. I was just trying to get us focused. 19 MR. KOJAK: I think it should say critical 20 e nergy consuming components. 21 MS. BARHYDT: So -- 22 MR. DOPPEL: Well, that could be the coil,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 214 1 t oo. 2 MR. KOJAK: Yeah, like when you're doing 3 t esting of HVAC units you want to know amps, watts, and 4 v olts of the compressors, the blower motors, the fan 5 m otors, the compressor, maybe the controls, but you 6 k now, those of the components I'm speaking about. The 7 m ajor energy consuming components. 8 MR. DOPPEL: Maybe we she just list -- 9 MS. BARHYDT: So I don't want to lose sight 10 o f why we were even talking about this, and that is 11 b ecause to the extent that these are built to order and 12 D OE want some kind of assurance that what is being 13 b uilt is not being built special for the test, but is 14 a ctually what is in your normal production lineup. 15 T his was a suggestion of one way to achieve that. 16 T here may be other ideas. 17 So, where at 3 o'clock in the room is 18 s tarting to empty out, so I don't want people to miss 19 o ut on the discussion. But think some more about what 20 m echanisms we might be able to use. One may be using 21 t he componentry list, but I also understand that there 22 a re a lot of concerns about how that might work.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 215 1 MR. DOPPEL: Just one point on the bullet. 2 A bove that, that probably should say "Upon unit 3 s election notification for testing." 4 MR. STARR: The other thing is on the last 5 n ote you can put "energy consuming componentry" and 6 t hat will kind of handle the last five minutes, I 7 t hink. 8 MR. EISNER: And I don't think any of this is 9 l ocked in stone. 10 MS. BARHYDT: No. 11 MR. EISNER: But before we leave, do we want 12 t o agree on a few words at the end of the sentence to 13 s ay what we are checking it against? 14 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I don't 15 b elieve were going to reach agreement on that sentence 16 a t all today. 17 MR. EISNER: Okay. All right. 18 MS. HOOTMAN: I agree. 19 MR. EISNER: You are all excuse. You can go 20 h ome. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: See you next week. 22 (Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the Appliance

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 216 1 Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 2 Committee Meeting was concluded.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 1

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 $ $5 20:20 28:4 1 1 1:11 8:15 108:16 121:8,15,21 122:1,5,13,14,15 123:4 1,200 35:22 10 23:19 24:12 27:16 28:15 44:11 55:7 66:20 133:9 140:12 155:14 10:1 34:19 100 112:2 121:9 123:6 146:17 147:19 1000 1:7 101 121:9 123:6 105-ton 108:16 11 121:9 123:6 11:30 110:19 11:36 118:21 110 44:16 11-0ER 117:10 12 4:20 108:20 186:4 200:13 12.5 86:22 87:4 12:35 118:20 12-month 6:8 12:20 13 121:10 123:6 159:6,8,9,10 206:19 14 206:19 15 4:20 11:2 121:10 123:7 128:22 129:3 15-month 6:9 17 89:21 186:4 17025 13:21 14:5,6,8,10,18 75:1 80:11 85:11,22 88:2,5,12,16,20 89:7 90:1,5,14,20 91:2,5,12 94:20 95:10 98:11 100:1 101:17 106:10 110:2,4,17 170:3,6,12 181:18 182:3 18 4:16,20 180 140:3 1995 88:18 2 2 108:12 125:18 131:20 155:9 2.5 86:19 20 19:15 35:13 73:9 76:2 87:7,13 99:1 111:9 119:17 129:20 130:10 131:12,18,20 132:8 133:6 134:3 139:3 150:14 155:10 196:16 198:9 200 121:9 123:6,21 127:19 128:11 129:1 2001 41:16 201 121:10 123:6 2013 1:11 49:5 2014 8:15 210 118:7 225,000 108:11 25 86:19 121:8,16,17,21 122:14 123:5 250 155:10 250,000 155:7 26 121:8 123:5 159:11 27 188:6 28 188:6 29 188:6 3 3 121:21,22 128:12 133:9 152:7 214:17 3:03 215:22 30 55:8 140:21 155:8 188:6 300 77:4 33 35:13 34360 118:7 3-year139:15 4 40 35:21 73:3 42 196:7 429 66:20 429.104 44:11 42s 196:9 480 73:6 5 5 19:13 121:7,8,17,18,20 122:5,13,14,15 123:3,5 128:8 130:11 131:19,21,22 133:9 139:7 186:3 5:1 34:18 50 121:8 123:5 51 121:9 123:5 5-year140:11 6 6 4:19 128:3 6,000 193:17 6.6666666 131:21 6.7 131:21 60 24:18 60,000 115:9 60-some 128:2 65 109:19 7 7 24:12 121:9 123:5 131:16 75 121:9 123:6 76 121:9 123:6 8 8:10 1:12 4:2 80 115:8 80,000 38:10 9 9 4:20 121:9 123:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 2

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 9:1 51:12 900 140:1,21 98 196:8 A a.m 1:12 4:2 118:21 AAON 2:16 18:16 33:13 39:14 53:20 65:6 77:14 81:17 118:1 123:16 158:8 165:1 183:6 192:22 199:16 abide 102:16 ability 29:2 31:4 37:11,22 96:12 99:21 175:7 183:8,14 184:16 able 10:3 12:14 20:17,18 28:5,6 55:12 92:21 95:14 98:1,22 101:9,11,14 107:16 142:18 147:3 174:8 193:11 210:2 214:20 ABM 143:19 162:20 absence 187:8 absolutely 8:10 45:1 61:6 80:14 99:19 100:20 112:2 187:4 192:19 193:9 abuse 47:3 131:1 accept22:9 99:10 148:10 209:17 acceptable 14:3 86:1 108:3 135:8 196:19 acceptance 80:16 accepted 65:11 accepting 156:13 accepts 162:13 accessories 25:12 accommodate 92:21 accordance 44:10 161:19 according 121:7 123:3,8,13 accordingly 103:21 account 151:4 accounted 136:10 accredit14:4 accreditation 14:5,20 90:6 110:5,15 154:8 accreditations 95:16 accredited 13:21 88:11 89:8 90:11,12,13,14 92:17 94:21 110:3 accreditor's 93:13 accuracies 104:16 accurate 153:17 217:7 ACEEE 41:14 achieve 169:14,16 214:15 across 21:12 27:20 32:11 33:20 55:10,14 63:20

75:14 115:20 125:17 135:16 141:21 162:13 185:13 193:7 action 30:1 113:19 activities 62:9 activity 20:21 actor66:1 actual 90:8 109:8 175:16 181:3 195:6 actually 15:4 29:5 30:9 32:11 58:20 59:8 69:11 70:20 73:11 82:7 93:5 94:5 106:19 107:21 110:16 113:3 117:15 131:5 134:13 137:11,16 149:15 162:8 170:12 171:19 174:12 182:19 185:7 187:6 195:20,21 197:17 207:17 214:14 add 19:19 20:17 31:16 38:1 41:22 94:6 102:4 106:18 110:7 111:11 121:2 140:20 147:17 156:20 209:18 added 106:6 131:7 207:2,15 adding 96:16 addition 63:9 121:4 128:15 157:14 182:14 additional 73:2

104:22 113:9 138:12 141:8 142:11 185:16 additive 83:22 address 43:21 44:7 84:7 85:1,21 93:19 115:5 141:15 165:18 174:14 199:3 addressed 123:18 adequate 40:22 41:7 210:19 adhering 82:16 adjusted 101:22 administer 64:5 administered 20:7 157:22 administering 81:21 administers 65:14 administration 46:10 126:3 admit69:18 adopt 187:4 188:10 advance 61:9 192:4 advanced 43:3 advantage 19:3,4 172:14 advertise 116:5 123:11 128:14,18,20 131:3 advertised 10:11 112:19 121:12 123:9 130:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 3

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 advertises 116:4 advertising 114:20 advisory 1:4 6:21 216:1 advocates 18:9 AEDM 4:22 5:8 9:5 10:19 11:4,9,15,20 12:2 16:19 17:2,5,11,12 65:19 66:11 71:3 74:2 78:3 84:6,9,10,12,15 85:4 113:13,14,15,20, 22 114:2,4,6,8,14 116:6,8,10,15 117:8,14 118:8,11 127:9 141:6 145:5,12 148:4,9 149:12,16,21 150:5,10 153:15,17 176:21 178:3 179:8,10,12 180:4,16,19 181:3 184:22 186:16 188:11 AEDMs 10:22 11:1,2,10,18 16:21 17:13 71:1,2 84:19 85:1 111:18 112:10 114:18 115:12 116:18 117:13,15 145:11 149:10,21 154:1 179:7 186:13,18 187:3 affect 30:22 126:19 affecting 42:4 afford 19:17 37:9 70:4 against 115:22 120:15 210:3 213:5 215:13 agency 7:12 188:15 209:2 agent 166:10 ago 32:17 87:18 174:6 agreed 17:2,5 26:15 86:2,4 117:16 154:1 156:18 175:4 191:14 agreeing 7:5 23:22 83:6 agreement

5:3,19 215:15 agreements 4:11 ahead 15:17 68:10 80:13 89:3,4 96:5 106:1,6 107:2 123:15 137:3,10 199:10,20 203:22 211:11 AHI 63:2 AHRI 2:7 3:13,18 6:2 9:2 13:19 22:16 23:2 25:13 27:3 29:1 30:5 32:16,17 34:2,10,14,16,17 ,20 35:1,13 37:20 38:17 56:14,21 57:6,11,15 58:2,10,18 64:20

65:7 70:7,17 72:12 74:7 76:12,15,20 77:22 79:3,10,14 80:12 84:8 87:15 88:9 91:10 94:1,3,7,13,16 96:14 100:6 105:21 106:13 107:1 108:8,15,18 111:17 126:15 129:13,15,20 130:3,5 131:10 132:15 133:5 134:12,20,22 135:5,19 136:19 139:13,19,22 142:6,8,9 146:5,15,16 151:10 154:8,10,12,17 155:6 158:9 166:13 170:21 173:5,19,20,21 174:3,8,20 175:5,7,12,14 176:2 177:1 179:16 194:18 207:6,8,10,19 208:2 210:18 AHRI's 75:21 107:10 147:4 158:10 AHRI-witnessed 202:20 air 41:17 49:16 76:21 77:5 86:10 168:21 201:3 211:7 air-conditioners 154:12 air-conditioning

2:6,11 3:12 125:15 158:10 159:21 160:19 algorithm 82:12 Allen 1:17 217:2,15 alleviate 190:5 Alliance 3:14 allow 14:6 24:17 74:4 100:3,7,9 101:22 209:2 allowed 14:20 19:1 46:21 93:11 133:15 171:17 175:12 176:6 allows 37:14 alphabetical4:14 already 15:9 17:2 23:4 30:1 39:4,6,7 71:1 77:19 84:11,17 94:10 114:1,3,7 116:22 117:2 132:17 134:14 137:12 138:6,9,13 143:10 145:6 153:22 163:12 165:2 170:5 178:15 197:22 alternate 12:22 35:20 36:9 alternates 188:22 am 122:20 140:4 185:2 187:5 217:7 American 3:9 among 42:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 4

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 amongst4:18 197:21 amount16:1 32:4 56:18 83:2 182:16 186:22 199:22 209:1 210:17 amps 214:3 Amrane 2:6 5:21 6:2,10 9:2,5 22:16,21 32:16,21 70:7,13 72:12 76:16 79:13,20 84:8 87:15,20 88:9 126:15 132:15 134:12 135:6 142:8 151:10 174:15 176:16,19 178:11,16,19,21 179:1 208:2 analogy 49:9 analysis 65:2 and/or 74:1 animal 75:3 annual 14:12 41:12 73:10,12,16 80:22 87:8 101:8 119:20 182:14 annually 74:14 99:2 100:19 answer 15:14 19:20 35:9 81:11,13 93:20 133:18 167:4 194:15 answering 63:15 190:19 answers 192:19 202:16 answer's 167:1 anybody 83:18 95:20 103:9 107:14 144:2,4 155:1 166:16 183:13 anyhow 58:22 anymore 133:2 156:22 184:10 213:13 anything 9:15 13:9 19:8 25:7 27:8 47:11 49:2 56:22 80:10 84:1 119:13 127:8 137:6 140:17 142:22 160:16 161:2 198:21 209:7 anyway 197:5 anywhere 35:13 131:16 Apparently 4:3 132:2 appear 84:5 Appliance 1:3 215:22 appliances 49:15 68:19 applicable 63:8 184:5 applicant's 155:8 application 87:2 applied 78:4 applies 20:9 76:21 198:16 apply 38:10 41:12 56:11 187:11,15 198:17 applying 24:7 38:14 125:16 198:22 appreciate 26:8 107:10 approach 25:10 126:14 191:11 appropriate 112:8 131:8 148:7 approvable 24:10 approval 101:4 158:3 162:2 165:7 169:10 181:8 approve 75:16 82:9 97:17 158:17 165:4 168:10 approved 30:13 82:14 94:15,22 101:6 102:18 103:7 108:9 158:2,12 160:4 161:20 163:16 165:2 175:16 182:22 187:9,10 191:4 approves 110:9 169:21 approving 184:7 approximately 23:19 arduous 36:1 area 16:7 85:14 86:12 145:22 areas 128:5 192:15 211:7 aren't 26:11 56:1 81:19 170:19 174:3 arguing 155:20 argument174:6 arm 118:10,12 Armstrong2:8 arrangements 13:14 Ashley 2:8 aside 195:7 ASME 163:3 ASRAC 7:5 8:21 154:1 186:17 ASRAC's 7:6 assembly199:13 assessment15:9 25:16,20 26:4 44:4,12 47:5 52:7 62:14,19,21 63:10,16 64:8,13,15 151:19 152:7 177:2,3,21,22 178:12 182:21 assign 95:14 assigned 120:9 associated 62:7 164:22 212:20 association 27:20 64:1 156:5 167:9 assume 18:18 81:21 104:1 assumed 105:8 assuming 7:6 assurance 41:11 147:7 214:12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 5

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 assurances 151:21 assure 70:3 assures 121:10 attached 198:10 attempt 130:16 attempting 120:14 attention 157:13 attrition 200:1 audit 89:20,22 90:2 audited 35:15,18 90:19 91:9 163:5 auditing 93:11 audits 93:17 101:8 August 1:11 8:5 auspices 91:12 92:3 101:3,17 authority 126:11 184:12 188:14 automatically 111:22 198:22 avail 46:1 available 18:12 24:11 26:3 39:20 45:22 49:21 51:18 73:7 75:6 113:14 145:15,16 172:2 205:18 212:5 avenue 1:7 13:16 average 56:22 57:9 avoid 36:6 aware 174:18 away 6:6 18:5 20:4 68:1 94:6 96:7,13 97:2 115:9 161:22 B baby 119:3 backward s 43:9 bad 66:1 123:3 136:1 184:13 185:21 balance 142:15 balancing 26:2 Ballo 2:9 33:3 52:10 84:18 113:2 141:5,18 184:11 185:5 208:10 bang 66:16 bar 132:17 133:1 154:17 bare 55:13 Barhydt 2:10 5:13 6:13 7:2 8:6,8,19 9:4,6,9 14:22 15:4,7 17:7 21:6 22:15,19 29:11 30:3 31:2,10,21 32:2,20 36:12,20 39:3 40:2,6 42:17 43:12 44:3,9,20 45:2 46:4 47:5,14,17,19 48:2,6 52:19 53:16,19 54:3,6,19 55:16 57:3 58:3,9 62:5,10,16,18,21 63:5,12,19 64:10,12 65:3 66:8,14 67:1,7,13,20 68:20 69:14,19 70:1,11,19

71:16,18,21 72:3 77:18 79:9 81:2 82:3 83:6 92:18 93:18 97:6,12,21 98:12 102:7,17 103:10 104:11,18 106:14 110:14 111:1 113:21 114:16 115:2 116:20 118:16 124:3,13,21 129:19 132:6,12 133:3 136:20 138:2 143:3 145:17 148:5,14 149:4 150:1,21 151:4,7 153:21 157:6,17 158:6,13,19 159:1,4,8,10,13, 19 160:15 161:3,14,16 162:5 164:7 165:10 166:17 167:6,11 168:11,14,16 169:4,7 171:13,19 172:18,22 179:6,13,15,22 180:7 182:8,19 184:1 185:4 186:12 188:1,5 189:3,7,18 190:18 191:5,7,14 192:1 196:11 201:8,10 204:22 207:14 208:6,13 209:22 213:21 214:9 215:10 barrier 115:22 base 24:13,20 35:11 36:10 68:2 75:17 98:19 100:10 127:3 160:21 204:17,18 based 5:7,10 9:20 15:19,20 29:19 44:13 45:8 51:7 54:5 113:19 116:3 118:7 123:13 147:10 150:5,6 169:8 184:4 199:11,14 baseline 75:9 76:11,14 80:18,19 81:8 91:19 132:4 181:17 basic 9:21 10:2 11:7 12:1,9,17,22 15:19,20,22 19:14 24:5 30:21,22 31:5,11,12,14,16 ,18,20 32:5,9,18 33:5,10,16 34:9,10 35:14,16,17,22 36:17,19 37:6,15,18 43:1 49:3 54:1 67:18 72:20 81:16 85:22 87:17 96:20 102:22 113:5,10 114:10,11 117:4,20 120:6 121:6,9,13 122:8,14 123:2,5,14,19 124:4,6,22 125:6,12,13,17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 6

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127:15 128:8,11,13 129:1,12,13,14,1 5,21 130:21 131:14 133:4,5,6,7,9,10, 14,15 134:15,21 138:4,5,20 139:18 140:1 145:4 146:17 155:9 194:9 197:22 211:1,16 basically 10:6,8,19 60:15 65:10,15 69:1 73:5 74:6 90:5 93:14 95:11 98:18 101:14 117:19 131:15 151:12 167:3,17 196:19 209:5 basics 204:14 basis 11:21 29:16 73:10,12 80:22 87:8 110:5 bat 184:15 batched 199:15 batches 49:13 199:5 Bauman 2:11 4:14 9:8 27:12 55:1,19 75:12 156:19 182:10 bear 17:17 53:10 57:22 beat 41:5 became 27:19 become 31:20 87:1 becomes 146:9 158:9 Beever 84:4 begin 72:11 119:5 beginning 48:14 51:4 164:9 177:9 181:1,5 begins 4:13 begun 164:18 behave 185:16 behavior 141:21 142:4,16 behind 146:17 147:10 belief 80:15 believe 9:16 67:8,12 68:4 79:21 111:10 117:14 160:13 181:17 209:22 215:15 believes 44:5 belong 19:4 belonging 96:9 belongs 33:11 bending 43:9 benefit 149:14 best 14:5 41:14 54:20 69:17 134:1,11 better12:10 15:21 34:1 42:15,18 77:9 92:22 97:9 147:1 181:10 191:10 beyond 75:20 86:5 87:1 140:13 bigger 34:4 104:16 155:10 180:17 bill 3:18 60:14 93:22 94:6,7 109:18 146:19 176:5 196:3 207:3 210:11,20 212:9 billed 205:19 bit 34:21 46:18 48:16 87:21 100:2 111:5 116:21 133:20 139:21 154:14 172:7 174:15 211:21 blah 65:2 block13:14 blower 212:16 214:4 blue 154:5 blurring 11:6 board 21:12 27:20 32:11 33:20 55:10,14 72:14 75:14 162:13 Bob 8:13 62:13 88:15 93:20 102:21 117:18 129:7 130:6 173:2,14 182:5 189:10 194:5 210:16 Bob's 131:10 170:22 bodies 23:1 109:20 body 90:3,21 94:15,22 95:2 boiler 40:20 57:6 80:4 162:22 boilers 51:12 56:2 85:8 87:1,2 207:12 books 25:17

bore 64:22 born 119:3 bottom 10:5 120:22 154:15,22 159:6,7 bought 109:14 box 195:11 boxes 39:9 branch 212:11 brand-new 152:13 160:12 brands 50:18 breadth 19:22 break 48:11 71:21 72:5 118:15 186:4,9 192:17 brief 72:6,9 186:6 bring 42:12 98:9 142:16 201:20 bringing 40:16 125:21 brings 54:8,9 77:11 broad 36:3 54:5 134:10 broader 24:10,17 87:17 183:19 broadly 125:17 brochure 115:6 brought 107:3 174:5 BTU 38:10 108:17 115:9 BTUs 86:20 108:11,12 155:8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 7

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 buck66:16 buddy135:13 budget 18:18 20:9,15,16,20,22 45:22 48:21 buffer200:6 build 13:6 37:9 38:1 69:1 70:5 76:22 99:15 108:20,21 109:1 123:19,22 124:11 199:1 200:7,22 201:4 204:11 building 1:8 69:17 141:21 199:20 200:3,20 builds 204:5 build-to 12:18 99:4 101:19 build-to-order 13:13 37:8 39:5 68:13 100:22 109:10 193:3 194:10 build-to-stock 203:14 built 13:8 24:2 39:9 68:15,21 99:17 193:4 194:15 200:14 201:16 203:15 204:2 214:11,13 built-to-order 193:22 194:2 bulk212:19 bullet 73:2,13 83:10,20 87:7 88:1 103:8 110:1 111:9,15 119:13 131:8 143:4,14,17,21 144:20 159:7 170:2 191:18 193:16 207:14 215:1 bunch 49:13 102:13 125:17 144:13 burden 23:6 28:3,9,14 29:1 32:22 36:7 40:16 62:7 106:18 141:16 burdensome 55:8,22 56:5 business 27:4,6 34:3 36:13,14 38:20 125:16 126:2,4,7,16,20, 22 198:15 200:6 businesses 126:2,8 132:11 buy 44:9,20 45:10 47:22 48:8 52:1 63:16 182:16 buying 46:9,16 183:18,21 201:14 buys 47:6 62:20 C calculations 66:19 105:10 calculus 16:1 calibrated 86:6 105:2,6 106:10,16 108:5 109:6 California 142:3 cap 86:19 capabilities 18:4 85:18 capability85:17 capable 39:20 capacities 115:11 125:19 Capital 1:18 care 164:13 171:3 careful 25:12 58:11 96:13 Carrier3:21 62:13 88:15 93:21 129:7 173:3 182:5 189:10 194:5 carries 135:16 case 14:14 28:12 42:21 61:15 67:12 106:3 108:19 113:8 136:6 180:6 192:11 199:11 203:21 cases 59:19 70:12 87:14 108:3 112:3 163:8 190:15 catch 19:15 categories 39:19 56:1 116:6 117:4 134:2 136:13 142:5 144:11 149:2 201:16 category4:16 36:3 41:16 74:9 80:4 84:2 100:13 117:1 124:12 143:5 209:14 caught 66:2

144:13 cause 37:2 116:5 causes 67:12 CB 89:19 CBTL 95:13 CBTLs 95:14 CCE 8:14 151:3 CCMS 151:4 certain 10:9 50:17 59:18 75:3 141:12 142:10 144:11 158:2 182:16 201:18 209:1 210:17 certainly 7:7 10:1 25:15 26:8 36:2 39:6 46:10 70:22 116:8 133:9 138:18 142:3 144:9 149:13 174:2 177:3 180:2 194:1 CERTIFICATE 217:1 certification 5:1,3,9,11 13:20 19:5 20:19 21:10 22:7,22 23:15 25:18 26:16 27:2,4 29:8 33:9 36:17 42:5 56:10 58:13,16 59:3,14 65:8 66:1 72:21 74:3,12 75:21 76:21 78:4 83:1 89:14 90:3 94:3,15,22 95:2 96:10 98:11 107:10 109:20 112:7 144:15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 8

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 145:22 146:1,11,16 147:5,12 150:4,5,8,10,12 151:19 162:14 165:14,17,21 166:2 167:5 171:17 173:22 174:10 195:4 205:3 207:6 208:11 certifications 24:5,6 78:8 162:16 certified 59:5,12 73:8 74:10 75:2,10,18 76:7 77:1,6,11,15,16, 20 78:16 84:11 88:6,20 89:7,9,11,15 90:18,20,21 95:12 96:21 139:13 143:9,10 148:18 179:10 certifier 209:3 certify 14:7 31:3 38:17,18 56:20 66:10 74:7,11 76:10,14,20 77:1,2,11 78:6 84:15 96:21 98:14 217:4 certifying 138:6 151:9 197:7 cert's 6:14 cetera109:2,6 133:22 210:14 CFR 44:11 66:20 chairman 72:13 challenge 16:6 18:13,15 52:12 56:7,16 61:5 74:5 100:4,5,7,9 challenges 56:17 challenging 169:13 chambers 39:22 chance 6:1 91:14 173:8 change 8:18 15:22 33:7 112:21 114:19 157:6 173:17 190:3 207:22 changed 5:8 78:18 changes 5:1,2 6:19 7:4,8,18,19,20 116:13 119:14 127:15 208:4 changing 73:18 99:18 111:15 122:7 channel 117:12 chapter 178:21 characteristics 10:10 124:22 Charles 2:18 Charley's 50:8 Charlie 23:13 27:16 31:6 35:19 79:2,7,16 82:8 90:17 91:13,20 92:14 112:9 116:22 127:1 128:1 170:1 175:15 192:6 Charlie's 85:6 166:15 chart121:8 130:8 charts 191:12 cheaper 205:11 check 48:4 62:18,22 65:4 146:19 153:10 155:14,16 179:8 180:3,16 182:11,17 183:8,9,15,16 184:17 185:9 195:4 196:2 206:4,12 207:8,10 210:2 211:20 213:16 checked 206:3,7 209:19 211:14 213:3,5 checking 148:16 180:15 187:15 207:3 215:13 checklist 109:4 checks 153:5,6,7 182:20 185:14 206:6 211:17 chiller 93:22 94:1 chillers 76:22 94:2 105:21 106:13 choice 36:10 168:7 choose 74:11 133:13,14 153:18 158:16 172:14 chooses 12:12 choosing 156:22 chose 77:17 Christine 1:17 217:2,15 circuits 163:10 circulated 7:14 circumscribing 32:12 circumstance 194:21 195:17 200:10 circumstances 110:10 111:19 citizen 147:1 civil 68:9 claim 56:22 57:8 claimed 60:10 claims 57:18 clarification 61:22 70:8 132:2 176:4 clarify 25:12 102:8 150:18 clarity 44:5 class 77:4 149:17 164:1,15,21 classes 20:2 39:1 56:15 194:4 classified 118:5 clear 15:16 33:11 42:18 44:1 46:7 63:14 77:20 80:15 186:17 189:11 clearly 6:22 25:16 26:6 Cleaver-Brooks 3:6 client 88:3 93:8 ClimateMaster 3:22 close 19:10 34:20 86:7 94:19 closed 87:11

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 9

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 closer 99:7 closest 166:8 club 143:21 Co 2:22 3:5 code 4:4 126:3,7 163:4 codes 20:10 coil 213:7,22 coils 34:22 117:12 212:11 cold 115:10 collecting 171:9 Collin 3:20 201:17 combination 40:21 107:5 128:19 combined 132:9 comes 20:12 26:20 49:16 50:1 60:11 84:13 124:16 130:18 152:4 201:22 203:5 204:10 comfort156:5 comfortable 8:4 59:20 92:6 155:21 156:2,3 169:12 212:13 coming 21:7 49:10 51:2 89:13 99:9 106:4 120:16 139:8 140:13 197:11,20 comment 103:6,7 126:8 131:10 138:3 170:1 176:1 commented 109:18 comments 7:13 25:14,15 123:15 188:17 191:6,9 commerce 59:13 60:4 84:17 145:1 153:10 commercial 26:9,10,12,17 27:14 87:9 108:10,11 117:10 118:6 133:21 134:5,7 141:1,2,4 144:10,18 148:19 203:12,17 commit 6:4 committee 1:4 6:22 7:3 155:15 216:2 commodity 138:6 common 197:12 212:8 communication 99:8 178:8 companies 5:20 6:1 18:7 27:19 47:13 55:20 151:18 156:14 157:1 172:17 company1:18 2:20 4:12 33:17 37:1 48:4 73:3 80:4,6 115:7 128:17 129:18 146:14,21 148:1,2 149:11 150:2,18,19,20 152:12 153:3,14 159:15 160:5,12,20 163:1 172:12 193:1

company's 180:18 comparable 210:5 compare 16:20 152:22 compared 152:11 156:14 comparing 56:10 57:22 131:11,14 151:17 152:10 competency

91:6 95:15 competition 92:6 competitively43:1 competitor48:3 competitors 18:9 43:8 48:7 193:11 205:19 complain 48:7 complaint 47:12,21 52:14 64:15 complaints 46:5 47:12,21 52:16,22 53:3,10,11 61:1,3 183:4,11 187:13 complete 8:20 103:18 106:16 completely51:5 192:2 193:3 compliance 13:4 16:11 compliant 14:1 66:19 68:3,5,9 compliments 205:14 comply83:19 98:20 135:4 146:22 163:6 component200:18 componentry 204:13 206:12 208:22 209:19 210:3 211:13 213:1,2 214:21 215:5 components 105:13 153:5 204:9 207:8,10 211:5,18,19 212:6,7 213:20 214:6,7 compressor204:8 210:21 211:4 212:16 214:5 compressors 212:3 214:4 concede 69:4 conceivably 69:12 conceive 46:10 concept 6:8 10:5 36:20 87:17 94:10 111:2 120:21 138:11 139:10 142:4 165:11 conceptualize 136:12 conceptually 83:7 120:10 concern 20:3 23:5 33:6 46:8 54:9 93:19 103:9 105:3 130:22 132:16 134:19 135:5 156:15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 10

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 189:22 concerned 18:17 43:13 46:15,18,21 186:20 concerns 15:10 31:7 44:4,6 45:20 154:21 189:7 190:5 214:22 concluded 13:4,10 216:2 condenser 211:4 212:3 condensing 39:21 40:20 conditioners 41:17 49:17 76:22 77:5 Conditioning 168:22 conditions 91:8 conduct 13:11,16 14:3,13,21 37:13 93:15 99:21 conducted 12:13 13:18 conducting 175:20 conference 7:16 confidence 66:20 confidential 205:16 confirm 84:22 191:3 conflict 25:11 confuse 192:20 confused 164:9 186:10 190:8 211:21 confusing 149:20

confusion 43:20 75:13 conjunction 189:1 connotations 77:12 consensus 119:16 136:18 137:5 consequence 70:3 162:1 consequences 141:7 184:22 consequently 135:21 consider 144:10 157:14 considerable 32:4 consideration 7:21 199:2 considered 86:17,21 198:22 considering 91:19 considers 15:22 consistency 135:1 194:20 consistently 54:10 constantly 11:20 constitutes 169:10 constrained 41:17 construction 142:2 Consultants 2:17 Consulting 2:3 consume 31:17 consumed 106:12 consumer115:6 consumers 144:17 consumes 31:15 consuming 24:2 212:17 213:20 214:7 215:5 consumption 51:8 consumptive 211:18 contacted 177:19 contemplate 68:21 contest69:11,13 context17:11 39:4 76:16 137:13 186:16 187:7 contingent 7:4 continual 179:20 continue 63:10 188:18 191:11 continued 17:16 185:20 continues 54:17 60:10 continuing 14:2,11 54:13,22 122:12 continuous 54:4 65:22 contract147:2 contracted 174:21 contractor115:7 201:4 contradict 170:2 contradicts 174:12 control 57:17 87:3 92:2,12,17 95:5 125:7 185:11 192:3 211:20 controls 21:17 87:3 186:22 187:2 214:5

conversations 181:1 converted 133:6 convince 160:19 convinced 69:16 Cooling 2:16 coordinate 16:9 coordinated 109:8 copies 71:15,22 copper 34:22 Corey3:19 Corporation 3:11,21 correct 49:9 66:14 70:18 76:3 81:1 84:17 91:18 94:8 105:8 152:6,20 177:3 178:15 180:13 191:5 212:2 correctly101:8 153:20 160:3 cost47:2 62:3 69:16 155:1 costs 197:1,18 198:4 202:13 council 3:9 135:22 count 139:12 140:2 counter 138:16 country 161:4 163:2 203:7 couple 28:19 78:1 85:20 87:6 104:10 135:14 136:22 174:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 11

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 course 33:1 35:12 49:21 Court217:1,2,15 cover9:21 20:1 62:3 139:6 covered 10:12 11:8,15 27:5 71:11 78:5 83:22 84:2 99:22 100:13,18 114:8 118:9 143:5 covering 119:19 149:2 covers 143:21 159:7 cranes 199:18 crap 144:13 crawl 115:14 CRE 51:22 56:2 96:15 create 84:16 123:18 151:4 167:13 created 32:18 creates 57:17 120:8 175:19 creating 177:5 credibility 42:5 207:7 criteria 38:14 44:22 78:4 80:16 85:3 89:12 91:5 166:20 168:20 169:9 critic 49:9 critical 181:17 211:18 212:7 213:9,19 critically 20:22

criticism 25:22 cross 116:6 crossed 91:4 118:4 crosses 116:18 crossing 117:14 118:7 cruder 86:15 CSA 80:6 104:6 154:18 166:14 current114:20 124:20 currently 20:10,20 22:17 43:20 62:17 77:5,6 101:3 139:22 178:5 182:21 custom 30:20 61:18 109:10 123:22 customer31:15,19 37:11 198:10,14 customers 38:3 47:13 52:18 customer's 199:14 customized 38:15 199:4 cut26:5 cyber 213:14 cycle 61:19 109:1 cycles 49:15,20 cycling 60:16 Cymbalsky 2:12 6:6 20:8 49:6 50:15 51:9,14,16 109:14 D

D.C 1:9 119:11 Daikin 3:2 damages 199:19 Dane 2:13 95:21 96:6 97:1,9,20 171:8,16,21 172:6 danger 127:13 darn 49:11 data 14:17 53:17 59:17 66:19 67:1,15 74:1,2 88:3 91:15 93:8 94:6 112:5,13 113:20 145:12 146:1 148:10,15 149:12 150:9,10,12 152:3,13,14,20 156:13 162:15,21 163:13,21 164:3,11,19,22 165:4,6 166:12,15 167:22 171:2,9,11,14,18 172:1,5 208:4 210:8 212:15 database 151:18,22 152:5,10 208:3,4,5,6 date 4:7,21,22 5:4,6,7 8:18,22 9:4 109:1,3 dates 103:20 day 107:4 147:19 193:15,17 200:14 202:8

208:4 days 37:11 87:18 104:5 196:5 200:12 202:5,7 deadlines 20:11 21:1 deal 8:22 9:3,6 48:9 85:6 105:9,12 110:19 114:8 154:10 180:17 193:13 dealing 86:14,15 deals 95:10 dealt 114:11 decide 7:16,17 19:13 43:17 49:4 188:13 192:11 decides 46:10 138:8 190:4 decision 7:14 69:10 decisions 138:14 deep 38:13 125:22 deeper 180:14 define 24:1 134:2,5,6 defined 77:4 87:16 117:20 151:2 179:1 defining 119:21 120:4 127:2 definite 117:5,7 definitely32:14 117:13 153:22 189:4 definition 10:5,16 34:8 36:17,18

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 12

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 87:18 120:11,12,13,22 126:4 128:6 129:14,16 130:13,18 131:1 133:4 134:15 140:1,22 definitions 9:18 124:4,8 134:14,21 135:3,8,19 136:1,19 137:13 Degitz 2:14 degree 86:13 188:20 delay 198:2,5 delegated 188:14 deleted 184:5 deliver 99:11 101:14 delivered 54:18 60:2,3 delivery 18:4 delved 125:22 demand 46:21 demanding 31:19 densities 86:10 density 213:7 department1:1,6 2:8,10,12 21:18 46:1 62:2,20 110:8 145:10 152:19 depend 47:11 54:11,14 104:7,8,19 dependent 104:13 113:19 depending 20:13 106:5 107:2 197:8 depends 69:21 de-rate 125:4,5 de-rated 31:18 describe 25:16,20 93:1 described 54:22 58:12,14 140:2 describing 198:8 description 139:18 design 16:11 127:15 201:4 202:11 designed 119:11 designs 125:11 detail 212:1 detailed 203:20 212:11,18 213:12 details 32:15 33:2 181:20 189:17 determination 104:17 determine 44:18 60:12,19 111:20 164:3 determined 81:13 147:10 devastating 68:14 develop 130:14 153:17 158:16 developed 26:21 27:18 81:7,9 developing 78:3 209:6 Development3:6

deviated 35:1 diameters 213:8,16 Diane 2:22 DICP 76:6 dictate 25:9 differ62:14 133:20 difference 10:17 29:12 30:3 37:18 40:9 43:14,15 56:12 65:20 84:7 117:5 127:16 131:6 167:13,16 183:17 differences 34:12 88:18 109:16 128:21 different11:4 23:16,17 25:3,4,10 29:22 31:8,9,14 35:21 36:14 39:1,2,11 50:2 63:1 64:9 70:21 77:12 86:10 93:3 95:13 102:14 105:17 106:19 113:10 115:11 117:13 121:6 123:2 124:6,14 125:6,10,13,19 126:12 127:4,7,12,19,20 128:8 129:14 134:6 139:19 141:8 142:5 154:19 162:9,17,18 164:8 166:6,12 168:5 169:17,18,19

174:2 182:6 187:14 189:16 190:12,13,14,19 192:20 199:2 203:4 213:17 differentiate 38:16 differentiating 154:10 differently87:21 128:11 137:17 difficult 110:7 120:15 127:6 129:11 146:10 difficulties 38:19 difficulty 28:20 190:18 Digital 217:15 dimensions 204:11 213:7 direct12:13 92:11 158:15 174:13 185:18 direction 217:6 directly 54:16 108:10 directory57:15 145:2,3 207:20 disadvantage 19:6 disadvantaging 21:9 discern 92:14 discontinued 139:12,13 discuss 4:18 22:13 108:2 112:14 143:1 189:2 discussed 8:7 77:7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 13

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 117:1 118:15 162:19 171:19 172:19 176:12 177:9 187:7 188:20 189:3,5,9 discussing 72:1 198:21 discussion 9:16 17:22 43:11 72:11 84:20 96:22 118:17 119:12 133:21 143:8 149:20 162:4 174:22 177:1,12 184:4 186:11,16 187:22 189:12 191:10 214:19 discussions 69:7 118:19 167:17 190:1,6,9 dismissing 91:20 disruption 38:5 dissatisfied 52:18 distinction 39:4 91:3 111:10,14 179:17 180:8,10 distribution 193:7 divide 11:1 12:3 division 80:2 docket 7:13 document161:20 204:7 211:17 documentation 93:16 106:16 documented 204:12 documents 7:1 95:19 206:11 DOE 8:16,21 12:7,8,9,11,12,1 4,20 13:18 15:8,12,21 16:15,17,19 17:8,12,17 18:8,16 19:17 21:6,11,13 22:5,8,10 25:4 26:15,22 27:6 28:5 29:9 30:1,11,12,14 39:11 41:4 42:10,13 43:7,19,20 44:1,4,9,10 46:9,15,19,21 47:2,5 48:17 49:3,5 52:12 54:14,20 55:4,12,18 56:11,14 58:1 60:2,3 62:11 63:9,16 64:5,13,21 65:14 66:12,16,18 68:3 72:22 73:15,16 74:16,17,19,20 75:5,16,19 76:1,17 77:16 78:7 81:21 82:6,9,14 83:3,22 84:2,12,21 86:1,3,17 91:15 97:16 98:14 99:3,8 100:6,13 102:4,17 103:7 116:19 118:5 124:2 126:11 129:1,12,13,16 132:17 137:11 139:19 140:2 143:4,7 145:16,19 146:1 148:3,15 150:5,12 152:5 154:17 155:22 156:7,9,10,11,17 ,21 157:2,13,18 158:2,3,15,17 159:16,17 160:4,14 161:14,20 162:13 163:13,16,17 164:3,11,14,22 165:2,8 166:10 167:20 169:10,11,21 170:16 172:12 174:11 175:2,6,15 176:13,16 177:4 178:7 179:7,8 180:2 181:2 182:10,19,22 183:3,7 184:6,12,16 185:2,8,19 186:17 187:7,8,10,12 188:2 190:1 191:4 192:1 201:3,12,13 205:15 206:11 208:16 214:12 DOE-approved 13:18 143:5 158:9 161:17 165:12 175:17 185:10 186:2 DOE-run 64:3,4 DOE's 17:6 18:11 39:3 78:15 80:21 81:18 169:3 177:17 181:8 183:3 184:7 186:19 189:18 191:1 208:4,6

DOL 23:2 dollar 63:11 domestic 150:19 done 7:16 13:18 21:13 24:5 30:7 45:5 54:11 58:17 59:21 66:21 69:3 75:5 86:20 92:1,10,14 93:6,7 95:1 96:17 109:7 112:10 113:16 117:17 128:12 148:11 153:20 158:21 160:3 168:6 169:2 174:8 175:2,12 176:15 177:18 185:22 199:5 202:19 208:22 209:21 door 117:5 144:4 195:21 Doppel 2:15 42:7 83:16 135:10 148:17 149:19 150:13,22 212:22 213:17,22 214:8 215:1 drawing 180:7 210:14 213:13 drawings 203:21 204:2,20 213:12 drawn 39:6 dress 4:4 drive 123:20 driven 199:7 drives 67:5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 14

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 due 6:14 53:6 110:9 during 9:22 12:20 48:10 99:6,15 119:3 176:6,9 190:6 E ear46:2 earlier 33:4 62:1 75:5 81:18 102:21 112:18 175:1 early49:18 earned 93:14 EarthJustice 2:9 easier 59:7 172:7 easiest 138:16 easily 115:19 117:1,8 easy45:6 61:17 151:8 204:4 eating 118:19 economizers 194:8 economy3:10 208:21 effect 8:15 42:3 126:21 effective 4:7,21 5:5,7 8:18 28:5 effectively 26:14 efficiencies 125:20 efficiency3:14 11:1 26:22 27:5 57:1,9,18 124:17 127:16,20 213:3 efficient23:18 42:2 125:10 efforts 42:11 144:11 eight 87:12 196:21 202:1 Eisner 2:3 4:3 5:12 6:16,19 7:10 8:7,11 44:18 47:9,16,18 48:1,3 53:13,18 59:3 60:12 61:1,3 72:1,4,7,10,15 76:1 83:9 84:4 91:9 92:16 95:3,22 96:4 98:5 103:8 112:20 114:19 116:3,17 118:13,18 119:1,7,10 120:2,16 121:1,15,18,20 122:2,17,21 123:15 126:1,11,19 129:6 136:18,21 137:4,7,18,21 140:17 142:20,22 157:9 167:1 186:3,7 187:17 188:2,12 189:21 190:16 191:6,9 211:11 213:4 215:8,11,17,19 either 9:12 11:9 40:3,5 44:13 54:16 64:1 66:10 67:16 71:7 91:22 94:11,16 106:1 107:1 124:10 145:4 150:21 162:6 165:5 190:20 204:5

elaborate 174:15 electric 2:15,20 10:9 128:19 electrical204:8 elegant 197:6 element 169:10 173:1 elephant 157:12 eliminate 69:18 elite 143:21 else 26:16 27:8 36:11 40:9 79:15 124:16 127:8 140:17 142:22 155:2 200:17 206:14 210:13 else's 166:16 emails 7:16 embedded 37:10 embrace18:1 emissions 163:7 emphasize 194:19 employed 217:8 empty 214:18 emulates 194:13 encompasses 112:22 encouraged 133:17 enemy 46:11 energy1:1,6 2:8,10,12 3:14 20:19 22:18,19,21 23:14,17,20,21 24:8,9,17,21 26:8,11 27:1,22

28:22 29:13,15 31:16,17 42:4 50:1,4,16,17 79:16,21 89:17 94:10 117:6 127:8,16 128:2 197:18 208:22 211:18 212:17 213:20 214:7 215:5 Energy-Efficient 3:9 enforcement20:20 25:18,19 26:17 27:5 39:4 44:16 47:6 50:16 54:10,12 62:9,10,22 64:9,22 67:6,9,17,19 68:4,10,12 70:8 178:1,12,14 183:4 184:14 185:1 enforcement/ challenge 54:21 engage 16:14 engineer 119:10 engineered 193:19 enormous 42:20 ensure 172:11 enter65:7 145:2 164:20 entered 60:8 145:1 149:10 164:2 entering 59:6 144:3 146:15 149:11 153:9,14 164:16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 15

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 enters 148:1,2 entire 112:22 177:8 212:9 entitled 44:12 entrant 83:12 149:16 162:14 163:18,21 164:12,14,20,21 entrants 157:7 entries 146:18 170:15 entry145:7 155:18 156:1 environment86:7 envisioning 111:3 EPA22:17 23:5,6,9 27:7,15 28:14 163:7 equal 19:10 equally 21:8 equipment 10:22 18:5 19:7 23:18 27:21 28:10 30:2,20 36:4 38:16 61:14 62:20 87:9 93:1 105:6,22 106:2,9,19,22 107:6,13,16,21 108:4 109:5 116:9,11 118:6,14 126:5,21 144:18 183:18,21 200:8 203:12,16 212:17,19 equitable 33:20 182:4 erroneous 70:6 error69:16 essence 59:19 92:1 147:9 essentially 12:3 52:11 59:14 125:2 180:11 establish 80:18 established 156:5 et109:2,6 133:22 210:14 ETL 90:19 204:6 205:11 evaluated 67:9 evap 39:21 evaporative 212:4 evaporator 211:4 evenly 55:10 everybody 7:14,18,22 17:1 19:17 21:18,19 22:1 30:16 43:22 48:8 55:14 63:13 72:15 82:4 111:3 123:20 127:14 135:3 137:7,19 138:1 143:17 149:4 170:18 171:4 177:8 186:7 188:15 189:19 190:4 191:3 204:3,5 everybody's 8:9 35:5 120:3 157:3 166:13 everyone 15:16 22:1 26:15 30:21 33:11 36:11 89:10 187:16 190:22 191:1 204:16

everyone's 26:14 everything 6:15 8:3 17:18 24:1,14,20 28:3 58:12 78:16 93:7,13 100:15,18 105:2 106:15 124:1 139:16 141:3,4 143:10 192:1 198:18 204:14 everything's 77:19 141:13 evidence 186:1 exact203:2 exactly15:21 22:15 41:15 69:22 82:1 89:10 93:4 102:8 105:3 110:17 114:17 180:22 190:19,20 207:16 examine 206:2 example 13:19 41:8 51:11 57:5 79:6 80:5 83:13 87:10 93:22 108:7,8 142:3 163:3 188:3 190:2 exams 49:7 excellent 147:22 except12:3 37:17 45:4 exception 126:2 exceptions 46:14 120:3 exchanger 108:17

exclude 124:9 excuse 11:6 46:17 200:9 215:19 exemptions 38:18 exist 134:14 204:7 existed 59:9 existing 39:22 83:13 expanded 39:18 expect8:16 62:3 expectation 51:8 124:5 161:16 191:1 expectations 43:22 expense 57:20 expensive 38:15 109:12 experience 27:14 28:18,22 42:9 43:4 50:3 51:5 55:4 68:22 69:20 133:13 196:4 experiences 28:14 explain 9:9 22:19 57:4 67:5 114:22 146:12 167:15 186:10 explained 170:7 Explaining 213:14 expressed 93:19 extend 6:17 140:12 extended 14:17 extensive 203:6 extent44:3 45:18 52:11 58:19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 16

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 214:11 extenuating 110:10 external100:7 extra 158:15 200:22 extreme 55:5 extremely 38:15 eyes 11:5 141:20 F face 39:16 194:16 faced 42:20 FACILITATOR 2:2 facilities 40:3,5 83:11 facility 14:6,7 75:3 83:13 85:9 90:3 94:14 98:4 104:20 106:4 169:1 175:9 192:15 200:10 202:3 fact 25:17 26:13,21 53:1 58:19 65:20 107:10 139:20 147:1,13 152:6,20 177:1 180:13 195:20 200:15 208:21 factors 51:19 60:19 89:8 factory 193:15,18 199:21 202:21 fail 50:17,18 70:10 99:19 112:12 141:9 failed 67:15,16 69:3,4 112:2,8 178:15 failing 50:21 67:13 fails 184:20 185:2 failure 53:14 73:19 111:20 113:19 118:14 142:9 failures 74:14 141:7 fair 21:19 152:18 209:15 fairly 34:20 66:2 fairness 194:13 fall 25:1 36:2 91:16 117:8 124:12 falls 122:5 familiar 65:13 87:9 136:14 families 10:7,13 12:4,6 33:3 37:4,7 54:16 73:9 87:12 99:17 111:10,13,19 119:18,22 131:13 134:4 136:13 140:21,22 143:13 168:5 209:5 family 10:5,6,10,15 11:8,14,22 33:10 36:20 37:16,18 49:4 67:17 74:8 76:2 87:8,16 99:1 110:20 111:2,12,15 112:1,3,10,12,15

,18 113:1,7,10,16 114:13,15,18 116:5,10,11,18 117:15,20 118:3 128:7 130:9,11,13,19 131:9,13 134:2,5,7,10 135:16 138:4 140:22 fan 212:3,4,16 214:4 fans 204:8 fast 43:10 74:15 161:21 faster 137:22 favor 71:19 fear 144:8 feasible 136:5 features 31:17 federal 1:4 27:5 58:19,20 59:10 70:10,16 78:5 107:11 146:20 157:1,16 216:1 feedback101:7 feel 75:20 81:8 97:9,10 147:18 feels 7:18 155:15 felt 41:19 183:8 fewer 121:18,20 155:1 field 22:2 76:4 171:22 172:11 173:4 fifth 35:14 143:21 fights 135:21

figure 32:15 34:14 58:13 61:14 110:17 112:7 figured 129:17 138:7 169:7 figures 34:7 file 124:10 171:13 206:12 210:6,7 files 205:3 fill 200:17,21 fin 117:11 212:11 213:7,16 final 4:22 5:2,8,10 6:19 7:9 8:4 finalize 4:18 financial 46:13 142:12 217:9 financially 18:6 finding 119:18 fine 8:6 155:13 172:6 193:16 204:21 206:8,13 finish 35:3 fire 85:14,15 firm 79:12 first 7:11 10:17 11:20 20:12 26:5 42:14 47:10 56:21 59:10 65:10,16,19 66:3 69:13 72:14 73:5 80:14 93:3 99:5,7 108:19 121:15 128:6 143:4 145:1 146:15 148:1,3 149:10,11,16 152:7 173:9

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 17

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175:4 189:22 fit 18:3 39:22 40:11,13,15 61:18 78:12 108:9,15 134:10 five 10:20,22 11:2,3,4,5,13,16, 21 12:4,5,7 37:5,16 38:12 60:18 118:5 125:10,12 147:16,17 195:8 202:5,7 212:7 215:6 flash-in-the-pan 66:4 flexibility 137:15 flip 184:18 flood 144:12 floor 128:15 129:3 130:8 131:2 173:11 196:6,8 199:21 flow 85:18 flowing 12:10 flown 27:3 flows 211:7 Fly2:16 18:16 33:13 39:14 40:4 53:20 54:4 65:6 66:12 76:20 77:14 81:17 118:1 123:16 124:7,15 125:14 126:7 158:8,14,21 159:2 165:1 172:4 183:6 192:22 198:12,19 199:7,10,16

fly-by-night 166:7 168:21 FM190:17 focus 51:16 185:14 focused 213:18 FOIA171:12,13 172:2 206:10 folks 9:7 60:7 follow-up 134:13 187:12 food 27:20 49:9 forced 98:22 foregoing 217:3 forget 78:2 forgot 4:4 form 151:8 165:16 208:1 formal85:13 Forrestal 1:8 forth 85:5 181:16,22 forwarded 120:13 fraction 127:4 framework

9:15 12:16 146:4 157:20 161:20 186:17 187:11 Frank 3:7,12 9:14 17:4,14 25:13 33:4 36:22 46:17 54:7 55:3 58:10 63:2 64:19 67:4 71:8 77:22 80:12 81:14 91:10 93:21 98:17 102:21 103:14 107:9 111:17 112:17 114:5 116:7 120:19 128:4 130:7 134:18 144:21 146:5 148:1,8 149:7,19 163:14 173:18 176:22 179:16 181:12 185:6 188:19 190:17,21 194:18 203:11 207:5 Frank's 146:14,21 152:12 154:8 196:6,8 free 18:5 59:22 65:16 161:4 French 119:10 frequency 119:19 frequently 50:18,19 53:10 67:2 friend 79:2 front 57:20 frozen 173:15 206:17 207:17,18 fruit 53:10 fuel 85:18 full 60:17 64:22 80:8 fully 40:20 function 151:13 fund 18:19 19:12 55:12 fundamental9:19 143:7 funded 19:16 20:7 55:18 funding 19:21

20:4,8,14 54:11,14 184:9 funds 52:12,13 furnace 115:7 146:14,15,21 152:12 164:19 196:7,8 furnaces 51:12,16 108:11,12 141:4 164:18 FUS 203:6 future 20:21 23:9 25:11 64:7 G game 123:11 games 120:21 128:16 gaps 136:16 gas 2:20 85:18 128:19 GDM-10 204:9 gear 42:13 general 42:1 45:21 60:16 97:16 100:4 102:1 109:19 120:4 142:6 generalization 46:14 generally 7:10,12 49:17 96:15 generate 145:5 generated 113:20 114:7,9 generating 71:3,4,6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 18

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 generation 135:20 Geoff 85:4 143:19 162:20 Geoffrey 2:17 gets 20:22 60:3 107:1 184:21 207:20 getting 7:5 39:13 52:5 65:22 183:11 186:9 197:12 212:10 213:15 given 20:9 21:6 43:17 45:21 60:20 108:4 115:3 124:3 125:2 172:13 203:22 gives 107:12 194:12 giving 19:3 52:5 90:6 196:19 glad 116:1 glass-doored 117:2 global 43:4 goal 144:8 189:18 202:10 gold 142:15 186:21 gold-plated 186:21 204:19 gone 66:5 93:10 Goodman 3:17 4:9 22:3 35:10 92:5 102:20 117:9 131:4 144:1 149:6 152:21 205:12 governed 26:22

government209:2 grace 6:7,12 56:19 gradients 195:16 graduation 126:9 great44:14 124:17 154:10 163:8 grief 86:18 ground 46:2 group 6:5 7:12,17,21 11:4,9 21:15 25:1,8 32:19 34:10 36:19 37:18 49:4 58:4 78:3 79:4 81:7,12 82:18 83:5,18 87:20 120:7 124:21 125:3,8 129:2,21 130:21 133:5 135:6,9 138:4,8,14,15 158:1 188:13 190:4 207:1 grouped 10:12 grouping 19:14 24:17 31:3 33:5 112:18 117:20 121:11 128:13 groupings 15:20 25:3,4,5 138:19 groups 10:7,8 11:2,3,13,14 12:5 19:11 24:16 25:1,6 34:17 35:16,17,22 119:21 123:8 129:14 133:7,10,14,15,1 7 134:15 136:13 140:1 209:5 guarantee 204:10 guaranty 48:6 guess 55:2 61:11 70:7 75:9,12 76:16 94:9,19 108:7 113:3 114:13 118:10,11 124:10 139:3 140:19 141:10 152:22 159:12 211:22 guidance 29:22 guide 109:19 110:2 170:12 guidelines 39:7 60:16 176:8 guilt 69:18 guys 182:16 209:18 guy's 66:5 H hairs 86:13 half 42:15 131:16,21 Halley 2:17 85:4 143:19 162:20 hand 66:6 135:22 144:13 154:15 191:18 handed 96:1 hand-in 191:18 handle 33:22 145:10 186:11 215:6 handled 22:4 107:18 163:18 187:22 204:13 handler 201:3 handles 107:11 handling 34:1 handout159:6 happen 113:22 150:14 180:4 187:6 happened 70:6 108:16 happens 98:3 114:4 124:18 170:18 178:5 happy 4:10 92:8 98:5 142:7 152:12 hard 6:8,9 120:3,11 harder 172:7 hardly 45:5 Harvey 3:9 40:8,18 41:14,22 42:19 45:19 46:20 71:14 78:22 80:13 135:10,14 141:19 144:7 151:16 154:4 155:19 166:5 193:14 194:11 208:14 hate 144:19 haven't 9:11 24:3 25:7 45:3,10 77:1 114:16 123:18 124:18 125:22 129:17 141:16 148:18 166:1 168:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 19

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 169:7 171:19 179:1 181:19 189:5 191:16 197:22 209:7,9,13 having 27:21 40:14 42:8 55:4,6,20 63:13 76:13 80:11 89:13 91:4 93:12 102:14 106:17 116:18 120:3 129:8 133:21 138:12 144:5 166:9 170:16 184:12,14,16 head 34:15 81:2 136:14 heading 157:10 heads 48:17 197:19 hear 46:19 142:20 155:2 heard 15:9 43:12,19 81:18 162:18 167:12 hearing 28:3 79:18 142:14 150:6 166:6 184:2 hears 184:13 heat 3:16 108:17 141:3 211:5 heater 10:9 40:20 134:7 200:10 heaters 38:11 123:11,12 128:17,18 164:18 193:17 198:17 207:12 heating 2:6,16 3:12 51:13 87:2 133:22 hedging 169:13 held 128:21 152:18 help 43:9 64:5 93:21 120:20 179:4 207:15 helpful 19:20 33:8 48:22 81:15 hereby 217:3 here's 59:17 67:15 99:8 130:9 146:19 151:20 168:4 200:19 he's 79:3 150:1 152:13 160:2 Hex 2:21 hey 45:16 48:17 123:11 128:16 146:19 187:19 hide 49:2 high 38:12 39:5,9 40:15 42:3 43:14 61:17 193:20 194:22 195:1 higher 15:5 56:22 57:9,18 93:8,10 109:17 highlighted 83:21 154:6 highly 38:15 hire 199:21 hiring 200:1 history 45:7 hit 49:15 hmm45:3 hold 66:6 171:17 191:14 hole 40:12 115:15 home 49:15 51:13 215:20 Hon 2:18 23:13 31:6,11,22 35:19 79:2 90:17 91:13 92:13,15 112:9,22 116:22 127:1 128:1 167:3,15 168:13,15,17 170:8 192:6 201:15 202:14,17 204:4,21 205:5 206:2,4,11 208:19 hook79:11 hoops 61:19 Hootman 2:19 82:1 89:2,4,6,10,18,2 2 108:6 112:16 114:22 115:13,16,18 120:13 139:11 140:8,19 141:2 197:2,7 198:5,8,14 199:9 209:21 210:6,11,20 211:3,9,22 213:6 215:18,21 hope 40:8 109:14 hoping 157:18 hot 38:11 hour 38:10 86:20 118:18 119:3 hours 135:15 house 92:19 115:9

HTP 40:7 41:9 61:21 76:9 77:8 109:22 114:12 132:1 133:12 145:9 147:21 157:11 192:16 205:1 208:15 huge 56:12 57:16 103:1 186:22 195:17 200:18 hugely 28:15 199:20 human 155:20 humongous 115:6 hundreds 10:2 Hunt 2:20 Hurst 2:21 19:19 21:5 50:11,12 61:8 120:10,18 136:4 140:9 158:4,7 160:16 161:2,4,7 Hussmann 3:11 87:5 HVAC 43:8 117:10 133:21 134:5 141:1,2 214:3 I I'd 15:12 22:3 35:5 61:21 98:21 110:15 136:2 138:20 154:4 155:2 180:2 192:16 ID 213:7 idea 6:6 15:21 30:16 33:3 38:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 20

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 97:12,16 102:7 103:19 117:18 128:2 135:18 162:21 182:20 183:1 196:15 203:19 ideas 15:1 143:7 214:16 identical 125:2 identification 165:17 identified 112:19 121:12 123:9 130:21 151:2 154:11 identify31:5 128:13 166:3 204:8 II 107:19 III 107:19,20 108:2 I'll 59:20 68:7 86:22 92:8 101:2 108:7 109:18 115:14 117:18 118:1 121:3 125:1 133:20 139:20 144:8 152:21 157:17 194:20 I'm 4:10 5:15 9:17 14:19 18:17 28:3 32:5,6,8,9 33:13,17,18 34:14 38:22 39:14 41:1 49:9,10,11 52:10 53:5 54:12 55:9 56:15 65:13 66:6 67:4 71:9 78:22 79:6,18 82:10 87:9 90:13 92:5 96:7,13 99:21 102:8 111:2 115:22 116:1,20 121:19 122:5 125:16,21 129:8,12,17,22 130:13 134:10 135:2,16,17 136:3,14 139:5 142:14 144:15,16,17 146:1,14,16,17,1 8 147:3 150:2,6 152:1,11 154:6,14,16,20 155:13 156:1,2,3 158:19 159:22 160:6,9 161:12 162:22 164:9 165:10 166:8 167:20 169:4,5,12 174:18 176:16 182:8 184:2 189:11 194:19 196:7,8,9,15 198:19,20 200:3 201:17 202:14 203:20 205:2 206:8,13 207:12,15 211:20 213:15 214:6 imagine 28:4 58:21 immediately 86:21 impact20:5 impacts 213:2 implement

185:9 implementation 4:7 implication 180:14 194:12 implies 78:20 import150:19 important26:9 32:3 46:6 51:19,20 92:9 111:10 172:20 imports 144:12 impose 30:6 imposed 21:2 impossible 101:20 169:15 192:13 inaccurate 114:9 inadvertently 63:3 inaudible 163:6 206:1 Inc 2:15,17,21 3:7 incentive 142:13 include 73:22 included 139:12,14 including 40:2 46:13 155:22 incorrect180:17 increase 58:6 130:3 increased 152:7 independence 1:7 14:9 17:20 166:20 169:11,15 187:1 independent13:20 14:4 17:18 18:12 19:9 75:1 90:22 91:15 92:11,12 94:12 108:14 158:10 176:9 188:3 209:3

independently 173:21 204:13 indicated 63:6 75:5 indicates 33:10 indication 113:6,15 196:2 individual 80:6 120:7 individually 6:13 industrial 87:2 Industries 3:7 industry21:15 22:6 23:7 24:16 25:5 27:19 30:11 43:9 45:9 63:21 64:1 75:15 96:9,19 132:18 133:2 134:16 144:17 146:10 156:5 157:22 162:22 171:10 193:2 industry-run 201:9,10 inefficient 43:7 influence 176:7 information 5:1 12:12 15:7 18:8 35:12 52:6 60:1 109:4 113:13 151:17 156:10 185:18 187:20 205:13,15,17 206:9 210:18 211:1,5 inherent 99:19 122:2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 21

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 in-house 82:10 98:2 initial 145:22 148:20 153:6 162:14 163:17 165:4,20 190:6 initially74:1 innovation 41:8 innovative 40:10,14,16 42:1 43:3 inordinate 46:12 input 73:16 177:16 insert 99:11 insofar 26:22 inspection 163:5 inspections 205:10 inspector 89:11 204:10 205:4,7 206:6,7 install 107:4 installed 107:2 instance 108:5 instances 187:14 instantaneous 38:11 instead 12:9 46:16 95:4 121:20 170:14 Institute 2:7 3:13 instrumentation 86:6 104:15,22 106:5 integrated 40:20 integrity 129:3 Intel 154:12 intended 29:7 83:17,18 102:20 intent 63:7 80:14,15,21 81:18 83:20 88:10 149:3 interest70:22 71:2 121:4 171:4,6 217:10 interested 21:7 95:20 135:6,18 interests 136:2 interface 163:9 interim 25:20 interject198:19 interlocutor 166:9 internecine 135:20 interpolation 133:16 interpret31:8 135:1,4 146:3 interpretation 134:21 interpretational 138:12 interprets 121:11 intersection 84:19 Intertek 3:15 14:10 80:8 88:3,7 94:12,16 95:9 104:12 107:17 108:18 211:10 intractable 10:3 introduce 59:13 65:16 139:4 144:4,22 introduced 111:2 140:10 introducing 138:11 introduction 58:5 66:4 invalid 180:16 inventory 37:9 197:21 200:5 invested 154:10 investigating 47:20 investigation 14:15 investigations 14:13 investment96:14 97:3 invitation 143:20 involved 23:14 27:19 56:15 69:22 158:18 162:22 208:20 involvement 84:21 involves 141:7 iron 5:14 isn't 39:13 66:12 90:14 133:17 136:10 148:22 173:14 ISO 13:21 14:4 75:1 85:11,21 88:2,5,6,16,20 89:7,11,13,21 90:1,4,5,14,20 91:12 92:17 94:19 95:10,19 98:6,11 100:1 106:10 109:19 110:4 170:3,6 issue 4:22 5:2,10 8:4,17 9:19 20:17 23:21 26:7 32:3 39:15 90:17 110:15,20 114:3 118:15 125:22 126:16 134:19 170:9 174:5 191:20 211:15 212:8,12 issues 17:11 25:12 42:20 84:19 92:20 105:11,12 138:12 143:2 187:18 188:8 it'd 126:9 item 170:11 items 24:2 101:21 188:20 189:2,8 212:7 it's 4:13 10:2,11 12:2 14:11,14 23:11 24:20 26:8 30:19 32:7 33:11 34:18 35:13 39:8,9,10 40:11 41:2 42:2,4,15 43:2 45:6,8,10,17 48:15 49:12 50:2,7,22 51:4 56:1 59:6,7 60:21 61:10,11,12,13,1 7,18 62:18 67:18 68:5,8,11 69:3,5 72:22 75:19 79:11 82:20 83:16 85:16 87:16,17 88:11 89:16 90:6 91:22 92:1,9 93:3 95:12 96:3 98:2,19 99:14

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 22

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 100:12,22 102:13 103:17 104:1 105:9 107:3,5 108:10 110:19 113:17,20 118:11,12 120:20 122:10,22 123:1 125:4 127:4,16 128:5 129:3,11 131:20 135:11 138:6 141:20 144:3,20 149:15 150:9 152:6,18 153:8 154:1,2,12 155:10,14 157:2,3 161:4 164:16 165:14,15,16 167:6 168:9 169:13,15 172:6,7 173:9 178:10,20,21,22 179:3 180:4,5 183:17 184:1 186:21 187:22 190:14 193:3,4 199:7,11,15 202:19 204:12,18,19 205:8,11,16 206:19,22 207:4 212:8,19 213:1,7,8 IV 107:19,21 I've 28:21 30:18 43:12 55:2 79:2,12 101:1 111:8 124:10 135:14,15 150:2 158:21 163:6 167:16 185:16 193:14 196:7 201:15 J Jakobs 2:22 75:7 January 8:15 Jeff 2:11 3:3 27:12 29:4 38:8 55:1 56:6 58:11 59:18 66:15 71:8 89:1,4 111:8 119:15 127:18 151:1 156:19 159:5 215:14 Jeremiah 74:21 122:20 Jill 2:19 89:2 108:6 120:13 139:11 140:19 141:1 198:13,16 209:22 210:8,16 211:16 job 162:1 John 2:12,21 4:4 19:22 28:4 47:16 50:11,12 61:8 Johnson 3:2 join 80:10 143:21 158:10 159:22 160:12,20 161:7 165:5 166:13 167:8,9 171:10 joined 158:12 joining 166:16 Judd 104:6,8 154:9 Jump 96:4 jumped 80:13 jumping 61:19 justification 127:9 justify 126:12 K Karen 3:5 5:19 48:12 133:19 134:13 135:15 156:6 184:3 206:14 Karim 2:6 6:2 9:2 22:16 32:16 34:13 70:7 72:8,12 79:13,18 84:8 87:15 88:9 93:21 126:15 132:15 134:12,18 142:8,14 151:10 154:5 208:2 key 37:22 169:10 172:22 kindergarten 142:16 kinds 31:1 126:21 142:1 144:9 203:9 kits 106:21 Kleiss 3:3 29:4,19 38:8 51:7,11,15 56:6 57:5 58:5 66:15 67:3 71:8 89:1,3,5 110:22 111:7,8 119:9,15 120:5 127:18 151:1,6 159:5,9,11 215:14 knee-jerk

115:4 knowledge 41:15 176:15 177:11 known 26:1 85:14 93:9 Kojak 3:4 30:18 82:19 89:21 90:1,10 93:2,3 98:8,13 102:2,10 103:12 105:20 106:21 150:17 153:13 154:9 159:14,20 160:9,22 161:10,15 162:3 169:22 174:4,20 175:14 176:3,12 177:7,15 178:5,10,14,18,2 0,22 179:3 180:18,22 186:8 202:18 203:15,18 206:22 209:18 212:14 213:19 214:2 Kojak's 168:22 L lab 13:14 14:10,18 21:14 64:2 79:19 80:11 82:22 83:3 85:13 88:2,6,12 90:1,5,6,18 91:7,12 92:1,17,19,22 93:5,10 94:2,4 95:12,15 98:11,14 101:19 104:14,21 106:7,9,17,19 108:14 109:1,2 110:14 153:16 157:22 169:1,2 170:3,5,6 175:13 177:19 181:18 182:3 202:2 205:7 210:1 213:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 23

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 label 147:4 163:8 laboratories 3:4 24:5 39:19 96:12 101:5 108:9 176:9 laboratory 13:21,22 14:4 75:1 92:11,12 94:12,17,18,21 101:17 109:9 171:1 202:4 lab-run 201:11 labs 28:20 29:1 30:14 89:12 90:19 91:4,7 92:21 103:10 106:1 140:5 170:19 174:21 205:9 212:13 lab's 106:2 lack 44:5 120:8 181:10 lag 208:7 laid 44:17 language 95:3,10,19 98:6,7 110:1,16,17 111:7 123:4 125:1 207:15 large 37:1 39:21 45:22 56:2 58:19 76:21 108:13 126:17,20 141:22 201:18 largely 186:1 198:6 larger 6:5 43:15 69:6 82:17 85:8 116:9 last 4:8 13:11 46:18 60:8 87:22 88:1 99:22 100:21 103:8 110:1 119:13 135:14 139:1 140:11 164:7 170:2 200:12 215:4,6 late 49:17 199:17 lately 20:16 45:4 later 60:7 110:15 160:3 186:15 202:9 206:10 latitude 134:20 latter148:14 Laura 2:10,14 8:14 25:15 45:19 51:19 63:2,3 71:13 79:11 85:5 114:21,22 115:5 116:17 146:6 149:9 166:5 167:12 170:11 177:2 179:4 182:6,10 186:8 187:21 190:21 193:14 Laura's 80:20 103:6 186:10 law 147:1 laws 115:18 lawyer 199:19 lawyers 162:5 172:9 laying 183:15 lead 61:4 72:11 leading 156:4 leaning 119:16 leapt 56:9 learned 50:22 learning 52:4 136:3 least 12:6 19:9 23:9 25:18 37:3,4,15,16 48:16 56:14 57:7 65:12 74:13 88:12 113:6 122:9,13,15 125:15 129:5 130:15 147:7 150:7 177:22 181:11 leave 110:10 202:8 215:11 leaving 206:15 legal 67:7 90:17 137:12 legally 91:2 legislative 20:11 legitimacy88:13 legitimate 170:19 171:5,6 L'Enfant 119:2,8,10 length 42:10 113:21 140:12 Lennox 50:12 61:8 less 11:4 12:4 24:8 129:22 136:14 154:19 155:1,7,12 let's 4:3 26:4 45:3 50:8 51:22 60:6,16 64:20,21 68:2 80:16 139:20 159:15,20

160:10 161:10 168:7 180:3 181:13 200:15 205:10 letter45:15 letters 27:3 199:19 level 14:9 17:20 21:11,16,17 24:16 28:7 30:17 32:10 56:4 66:20 76:4 93:4,8,10 95:15 97:13 98:2 107:19,20,21 108:2 147:7 169:11,14 170:16 171:22 172:1,11 173:4 212:11 levels 93:3 95:13 108:2 liable 160:5 161:11 libertarian 47:4 lieu 30:12 light 139:18 lighting 31:14 141:20 likely 154:9 192:14 197:13 limit168:12 limited 100:22 114:14 149:15 183:3 limiting 113:4 limits 56:12 141:22 line 37:1 84:5 85:15 100:21

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 24

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 102:3 106:2 113:1 117:10 118:3 122:6 154:6 155:18 198:9 199:13 lines 39:6 110:6,8 113:12 lineup 214:14 liquidation 199:19 list 31:18 57:14 59:21 73:8,15 94:17 99:2 122:21 124:18 126:4 143:9 147:16,18 210:4 212:7 214:8,21 listed 23:20 24:18 29:14 31:22 34:19 78:13 204:14 205:14 listing 57:6 58:15 60:17 152:10,11 listings 34:16 lists 203:20 literature 33:7 little 34:21 48:16 50:2 80:13 87:21 110:15 111:4 116:21 126:9 129:8 133:20 137:15 139:20 154:14 164:9 165:10 166:12 172:7 174:15 193:12 197:19 211:21 live 116:19 208:3,5,8 LLC 3:4 located 103:13 location 93:13 106:11 160:1 176:14 203:8 Lochinvar 3:3 29:4 38:8 56:6 89:1 111:9 119:15 127:18 151:1 159:5 215:14 locked 207:18,19,20 215:9 logical 50:21 long 4:22 26:2 27:4 32:17 37:7 41:10 42:17 45:7 51:1 53:2,4,7,11 59:9 99:13 103:10 108:20,21 132:2 158:9 168:19 205:13 206:3 longer 127:16 184:5 loops 101:7 lose 214:9 lot 10:17 14:22 15:2 16:22 17:11,22 18:2,6,8 19:7 26:3,5 27:14,18,19 28:13,20 31:15 34:6,11,12 36:3,15 37:3,5 41:3 42:8,21 43:1,19 45:12 51:21 52:4,5 55:3 69:7,21 78:3 84:20 86:15,18 98:21 99:9 101:21 106:18 133:9 140:5 152:3 158:18 162:18,22 163:11 177:12 180:17 187:2 189:3 190:8 192:15 195:3 196:18 201:16,19 214:22 lots 34:3 121:12 126:20 Louis 3:14 135:10 137:9 138:22 170:13 201:2 love 40:8 136:2 187:4 low 16:8 20:22 39:5,10,12 43:14 87:11 110:6 116:14 132:13,17 133:1 192:18 lower 34:21 66:20 132:17 133:1 low-volume 109:17 191:19 192:7,8 193:21 ludicrous 112:11 lunch 110:21 117:22 118:15 119:13 132:3 luncheon 118:21 M macro 19:21 20:6 magnitude 111:4 139:21 main 73:12 212:17 mainly 147:14

maintain 122:11 145:12 maintained 17:20 major 110:1 204:8 206:12 211:18 214:7 majority 103:2 163:8 manages 161:21 managing 28:21 48:20 manipulate 127:12 manner208:1 manufacture 12:14 204:20 manufacturer 10:6,20 12:7 13:1,5,12,16,22 14:6 16:9 17:18 20:3 21:14 25:10 30:19 33:7,10 36:2,6 40:2,3,4 44:15 45:9,16 46:11 47:7 48:17 53:6,16 55:5,11,17 56:3 59:16,22 60:4 61:12 62:11 63:9 64:4 66:7 67:14 68:6,13,14,16 69:8,10 78:11 79:7 80:21 81:5 82:21 83:14,17,19 84:21 85:2 86:3 88:2 91:1 97:17 98:13 100:3 106:18 111:22 112:19 116:4 119:20 122:7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 25

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 123:8 127:19 130:18,22 138:8 153:11 158:1,11 161:22 166:10 169:14,16,20 173:7 174:10,22 175:3,8,19 176:14 178:8 181:7 182:1 185:19,22 187:1 192:3,4,10,14 193:10 194:14 195:10,16 196:1 201:11 208:11,17 210:9 manufacturer-run 64:3 manufacturers 10:1 12:18 15:10 18:21 21:8 22:9 23:1,6 26:10,15 28:1,2,9 32:22 35:20 41:11 42:22 43:15,16 52:17,20 53:13 63:21,22 68:22 76:12 92:22 97:13 98:1,20 99:14 101:1 108:3 116:4 123:21 126:17 128:16 130:4 132:10 133:13 145:12 153:1 157:19 167:8 169:18 174:9 175:17 176:8 177:12,13,17 182:22 183:2,21,22 189:15 212:13 manufacturer's 13:22 14:5 18:4 30:2 52:13 54:15 55:7 60:17 66:19 78:12 85:9 90:2 94:14,18,21 96:11 98:4 104:20 106:15 114:20 125:7 138:13 161:21 166:22 175:13 181:9,14,21 Manufacturers 27:21 62:5 110:3 176:5 184:8 manufacturing 2:18,22 3:5,17 82:9 103:16,17 104:2 150:4 mark 2:16 6:11 18:16 33:13 39:14 53:20 65:6 77:14 81:17 118:1 123:15,16 154:11 158:8 165:1 166:13 172:4 183:6 192:22 198:8 199:16 202:22 marked 173:7 market 29:10 49:16 59:9 67:18,22 123:9 124:16 145:7 148:2,3 149:16 150:3 153:11,14 155:17 157:7 162:14 163:18 170:15 177:10 183:12 185:14 197:9 marketed 43:5 marketplace 40:17 144:3 149:11 market's 154:21 marking 166:6

Mark's 158:10 159:21 166:7 168:21 Marshall 2:20 Mary2:13 95:21 96:5 97:6 171:8 mat 17:19 match 204:20 matches 206:12 material 205:19 materials 207:3 210:12,21 212:10 math 19:16 matter 70:21 121:11 129:1 maximum124:2 128:10 may 15:22 24:9 25:11 30:9 39:22 41:10,20 42:6 43:7 46:14 51:20 53:1 55:6 56:2 64:21 74:19 85:12 97:14,15 104:22 113:7,14 117:5 124:8 127:15 134:6 140:12 150:5,6 161:7 169:18 180:4 182:2 183:11,12,13 184:22 196:20,21 197:9,10,21 198:17 200:11,12,13 210:10 212:12 214:16,20 maybe 6:3 19:20

20:7 23:8,10 33:9 34:21 35:3 44:7 49:19 63:3 65:18 71:5 80:13 82:12 93:21 94:6 96:21 102:8 106:20 112:14 113:8,18 115:5,8 127:9 134:1 135:7 136:4 137:10,11,15 151:12 152:6,22 164:17 170:19 186:20 189:11 195:12 196:18 214:5,8 McQuay 3:2 mean 6:3 16:22 17:10 26:12 31:4 32:14,17 33:15 36:15 42:14 45:2 48:20,22 50:9,13 51:18 52:22 55:12 58:18 59:3,5 60:15 64:8 65:20 66:9 69:8 70:14 76:14,16,18 79:5,7,12,14,16, 21 88:20 106:7 114:1 115:18 116:19 120:12 126:8,16 133:2,9 134:12,14 142:11 146:3 148:22 152:7 157:1 168:12 170:5 172:4,7,19 174:19,20 175:18 177:4 179:13 182:6,10,11 186:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 26

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 188:1,5,6,14 196:4 197:1 199:8,17 210:9 212:2 meaning 119:9 means 7:10 10:21 11:12 13:1 32:8 99:21 100:8 112:2 125:3 130:1 134:2 144:16 198:21 meant9:15 102:22 measuring 105:22 mechanic 165:14 mechanical105:12 201:4 mechanism 21:15 97:16,18 114:2,7 138:9 mechanisms 169:19 214:20 mechanistic 165:15 medium 87:11 meet 8:9 22:7 63:22 67:10 70:10,15 88:5,7 91:5,7 94:18 97:19 104:10 158:2 160:13,18,21 167:2 168:19 185:2 meeting1:4 4:8 5:14,17 7:7,11,15 8:5 20:11 21:1 22:11 132:21 135:7 136:19 216:2 meetings 175:1 176:13 189:13 meets 45:14 83:4 153:12 166:19 169:3 206:7 member 101:18 131:11 207:22 members 4:18 96:14 174:2,3 mentioned 5:16 6:22 19:22 140:10 170:11 188:21 191:2 mentioning 175:15 merchandisers 117:3 met 97:14 158:11 metaphor142:16 method 41:13 74:4 133:16 205:21 methodologies 105:7 methods 10:18 41:12 148:13 metric32:6 43:16 120:11,14 191:15 metrics 26:22 Meyers 3:5 5:18,22 35:16 36:16 44:2 48:12 90:11,13 131:3,6 133:19 140:6 151:14 156:6 161:8 172:10,20 173:14 178:3 184:3 MI 4:13 73:3 Michael 3:4,8 micro 117:12 microphone 162:4 mid-ground 132:13 midterm49:7 61:11 Midwest 86:9 Mike 3:15 30:18 49:8 82:19 93:3 95:9,22 98:8 102:2 104:12,18 105:15,20 107:17 150:17 153:13 154:9 159:14 168:22 169:22 174:4 176:5 186:8 190:7 202:18 206:22 211:10,11 212:1,14 Mike's 103:6 million 20:21 28:4 86:19,20,22 87:4 108:12,17 mimic 23:7 mind 10:17 15:17 27:17 28:11,17 56:9 57:22 111:8 130:6,7 138:18 minds 178:1 mine 160:12 Minimal 64:11 minimize 38:5 197:1,18 198:4 202:12 minimum 22:5,11,14 55:10,14 70:10,16 82:2,6 121:6,13 122:19 123:2,12 128:7,12 131:12 132:7,8 155:5,9,11,13,14 156:3 160:17,21 168:20 207:1 minimums 157:16 160:15 minute 186:4 213:6 minutes 201:15 215:6 miss 214:18 missed 41:20 51:20 189:11 misspoke 63:3 mistaken 116:1 misunderstood 62:1 176:1 Mitsubishi 2:15 42:7 83:16 148:17 212:22 mixed 199:15 Mm-hmm 159:13 185:4 model11:7 12:1,6,9,22 15:22 16:11 17:8,15 30:22 31:11,12,18 32:5,9,18 33:11 34:3,10,17 35:16,17,22 36:11,19 37:6,15,18 49:4 57:8 58:4,15 59:7,10,17,21 60:8 67:18 69:22 87:17 112:1

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 27

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 113:5,10,18 114:10,11 120:6 122:8,9,10 123:19 124:4,6,11,19,22 125:6,12,20 128:13,18 129:13,14,21 133:4,5,7,10,14, 15 134:15 138:4,5,21 139:18 140:1 146:8 148:16 155:9 180:12,13 194:10 195:5 196:6 199:15 200:13,14 201:22 206:17 208:18 210:21 211:1 212:21 models 9:22 10:2 15:19,20 16:4 19:14 24:20 26:3 29:17 30:21 31:5,20 33:5,15,16,20 34:6,9,19 35:8,14 36:17 44:21 54:2 58:3 68:15 70:2,4 73:6,8,15,17,22 74:7,8 78:5 112:19 113:12,16 114:8,10 117:20 121:6,9,12,13 122:15 123:2,5,14 125:13,17,18 128:8,11 129:1,2,4,12,16, 21 130:21 131:14 132:20 133:7,10,15 134:21 139:4,5,7,12,13 140:3 143:9 145:4 146:17 147:15 155:9 191:17 193:10 194:22 196:2,20 197:2,4,12,22 200:21 201:18 202:1 209:3 modest45:22 modified 206:18 Molvie 3:6 Monday 137:19 money19:7 47:17 48:8 52:9 185:13 monitored 16:10 monitoring 14:2 164:13 175:20 month 13:14 50:8 99:7 104:10,11 180:5 months 4:13,16,20 6:14 34:9 101:12,13 153:8 168:3 morning 119:4 motor 212:16 motors 212:4 214:4,5 move 202:3 multiple 65:1 114:14 117:14 186:13 multiplies 125:18 mute 72:16 Myers 3:7 9:14 15:3,6 17:4,14 36:22 46:17 54:7,20 67:4,11,14 68:12 69:12,15,21 70:2 71:9 98:17 107:9 112:17 114:5 116:7 120:19 121:2,17,19,22 122:3,19,22 128:4 130:6,7,15,20 134:18 144:21 145:14 148:8 149:7 163:14 164:10 173:18 181:12 185:6 188:19 189:6 190:17,21 203:11,17 207:5,9,11 N nameplate 212:6,15 national 2:11 27:13,20 42:4 55:2 natural 85:18 nature 60:18 74:2 103:3 117:19 Navigant 2:3,14 3:8,19,20 178:6 necessarily 25:4 28:6 33:16 35:21 39:19 66:12 82:17 88:20 94:21 98:1 119:21 139:6 156:4 198:22 necessary7:19 100:17 147:20 NEEA 137:9 138:22 170:13 201:2

negotiated 12:20 Neil 2:3 137:2 neither 217:7 newly 164:2 nice 85:21 126:9 night 4:8 Ninety 52:19 nobody 120:21 146:7 161:7 non 61:6 68:2,5,8 non-compliant 68:1 69:5 70:9 none 78:2 non-VICP 100:5 185:18 noodling 94:9 nope 12:9 nor 217:8 normal38:1 75:16 203:14 214:14 Northwest 3:14 note 128:5 215:5 noted 75:2 notes 71:15 nothing 9:5 26:14 31:11 133:2 212:18 notice 104:11 154:2 203:22 notification 61:10 74:18,20 100:20 168:4 215:3 notifications 74:16 notify 44:15 104:7,8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 28

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 notion 64:10 novel 142:14 nowhere 45:17 NRCanada 24:6,13 NRCanada's 23:16 n-th 86:13 nuclear 9:8 O objective 27:9 64:7 objectives 26:20 obligation 147:18 observation 42:1 obtained 169:17 obviousl y11:12 20:11 28:11 48:20 67:17 69:21 75:4,20 86:3,9 103:3 109:16 139:4 143:9 occurring 98:3 occurs 209:20 o'clock214:17 offer 76:13 197:3 offered 35:8 offers 74:9 oh 11:6 12:14 50:10 109:12 141:18 147:16 162:5 166:7 195:11 204:22 oil 85:18 128:19 old 155:20 one-off 30:19 109:10,16 123:19 124:5,11 125:10,22 126:5,17 127:4 one-offs 103:3 123:22 ones 48:8 60:13,19 65:13 74:10,11 83:11 136:13 139:8 161:21 185:15 195:22 197:14 one-third 131:13 ongoing 29:10,16 177:2 179:20 182:15 online 84:5 205:16 onto 156:10 open 47:2 61:6 87:11 110:10 142:3 144:4 171:15 183:12 187:21 205:3,18 operate 181:10 operated 181:21 operating 78:10 80:20 81:6 109:20 operator 111:21 146:11 147:5 opinion 35:5 opportunity14:17 oppose 42:6 opposed 41:15,21 54:22 102:1 125:12 137:14 183:19 opposition 41:20 option 9:8 30:14 36:5 106:8 167:8 168:8 181:6 185:20 optional 27:22 75:15 157:3 options 38:11 194:9 order 8:22 12:19 38:1 39:10 68:21 99:5,10 101:10,20 144:22 192:9 198:10 199:14 201:7 204:17 214:11 ordered 37:12 193:4 200:15 orders 127:7 199:7,12 200:12,17,19,21 organization 22:11 159:21 160:11 203:6 original 127:5 originally 119:11 ornery79:2 others 39:17 50:18,19,21 54:9 61:4 112:13 139:8,17 174:3 201:19 otherwise 50:7 196:4,5 ought 22:13 155:13,16 ours 172:2 ourselves 70:5 91:15 192:20 outside 18:15 19:9,17 20:2 74:6 75:16 108:14 192:11 outstanding 170:11 overall 52:21 overlap 179:15,17 overlaying 59:9 overseeing 160:7 161:12 overseer102:12 oversight 21:17 82:15 93:11,16 182:2 overstatement 112:4 overview 19:21 owner 160:4 161:5 P p.m 215:22 Pacific 2:20 package 8:20 164:15 204:12 210:13 packages 204:7 page 142:22 159:6,8,9,10 pages 137:1 188:21 paid 64:4 pain 61:16 parallel 117:6 parallels 117:7 Pardon 61:2 parity 120:8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 29

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 partially 161:11 participant 74:8 147:6 151:20,22 152:4,14 156:10,12,20,22 157:3,4 participants 2:5 3:1 57:21 61:6,7 73:21 83:11 99:20 144:16 145:6 151:15 152:18 185:18 participate 8:1 22:10 30:4,10,15 79:17 82:17 97:7 98:18 157:19 165:12 participating 21:10 29:7 78:11 97:18 166:4 participation 149:1 157:15 166:18 171:16 175:3 particular 31:13 47:13 93:1 103:5 111:19 112:1 113:17 180:12 193:5 207:11 particularly 13:13 18:13 45:20 71:1 80:5 parties 217:8 partly 190:7 party 28:20 75:1,15 83:3 88:2 90:1,5,14,18,19 91:4,7,12 92:11,12,17,19 94:3 96:18 100:1 101:19 106:1,7 150:16 167:21 168:1 173:10 175:13 188:4 192:11 205:9 party's 106:4 pass 57:13 65:11 passing 141:13 past 35:2 60:6 148:18 202:19 path 165:5 paths 145:2 166:9 patterns 50:4,11,12,13,15 Paul2:15 42:7,20 83:16 148:17 212:22 213:6 Pause 72:17 pay 18:21 28:6,10 63:21 132:10 157:13 199:18 202:6 paying 38:3 55:21 183:19,22 pays 18:20 62:11 63:16 peg 40:12 penalties 68:9 70:21 142:11,12 people 19:4,6 21:9 28:13 29:7 43:12 53:2,9 74:5 81:12,19 82:15 97:3 98:5 103:15,21 111:4 112:20 119:1 122:17 150:7 151:15,21 152:9,14 159:17 161:12 162:19 170:19 171:5,6,13 186:13 189:22 199:21 203:1,6,7 214:18 people's 178:1 per 30:21 38:10 87:14 122:1,13,14,15 128:10,12 129:5,16 131:16,19,20,21 141:12 142:19 172:15 percent19:13,15 23:19 24:13 27:16 28:15 32:9 34:4 35:13 52:17,19 55:7,8 73:3,9 76:2 87:7,13 99:1 111:9 112:2 119:17 129:21 130:10 131:12,16,18,21, 22 132:8 133:6,7 134:4 139:3 140:3 150:14 155:8,10,14 191:15 196:16,17 percentage 29:17 30:20 34:5 36:1,8 52:16 54:1 129:10 139:9 141:12 142:9 196:17 perfectly 206:13 performance 88:17 153:12 213:2 performs 174:21

perhaps 47:1 137:2 152:14 period 6:7,12 9:22 11:16 12:20 24:22 139:15 140:11 147:14 193:8 periodically 136:9 person 48:1,2 74:2 89:13 93:12 105:1 106:1 107:3 164:4 202:6 204:1 207:2 personnel 14:1 persons 74:3 perspective 146:11 153:21 186:19 194:1 Peter 3:6 PG&E 151:16 phase 118:5,11,12 Phillip 3:16 40:18 41:9 61:21 76:9 77:8 109:22 114:12 116:2 132:1 133:12 145:9 147:21 148:9 157:11 192:16 205:1 208:15 Phillips 40:7 phone 72:16 phrase 77:9 physical 108:13 149:21 213:13 physically108:8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 30

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 physics 115:18 pick18:19 45:7 47:15 49:13,22 50:8 51:18 70:2 74:11 82:4 172:14 177:10 196:12 202:8 203:5 209:3,7,8,10 picked 83:3 194:2 203:3 picking 108:15 193:10 203:9 picks 173:6,10 pieces 9:16 12:12 23:18 105:17 116:9,11 plan 30:10 61:12 82:8,14 97:8,17 157:20,22 158:16,17,20 165:9 166:21 169:20 172:12 189:19 planning 22:17 196:2 plans 6:20 82:16 plant 85:16 platform 140:12 play 43:1 49:16 100:10 128:16 136:7 player 80:9 playing 22:2 76:4 123:10 171:22 172:11 173:4 plays 120:21 142:5 Plaza 119:2 please 5:6 44:6 72:16 74:20 pockets 160:8 point 16:18 20:22 25:20 32:12 60:5,6 63:13,20 70:8 71:10 75:9 84:18 91:18,20,21 96:1 102:21 109:18 110:2 113:6 136:4 140:9 143:4,14,17 148:1 163:9,15 165:2 181:9 182:3 191:18 192:5 207:14 208:16 215:1 pointed 206:15 points 71:5 policy 47:20 74:7 pontificate 136:3 pontification 135:12 pool 39:12 195:7 pop 49:7 61:11 popular 200:16 portion 52:14 98:15 possibility 47:2 75:16 138:18,21 141:10 possible 24:2 35:19 36:6,18 48:13 52:9 61:22 69:9 71:13 82:8 103:15 168:16 169:20 possibly42:12 62:1 77:9 117:16 post 119:4 156:10

potential 87:12 185:1 189:14 potentially 23:22 127:20 132:12 181:10 182:14 198:3 power 24:2 51:8 105:21 106:9,12,22 practical 101:16 195:3 practicalities 195:19 practice 203:14 212:8 pre 109:7 196:12 preapproval 65:9 pre-approve 65:9 pre-check

144:5 preclude 98:1 184:12 predate 204:20 pre-existing 210:3 prefacing 25:14 prefer 168:9 prelude 178:1 premise 169:9 198:20 prep 202:4 prepackaged 38:12 prepare 7:12 prepared 105:2 prequalified 165:5 prescribing 94:20 presence 175:13 176:9 present 92:20 174:22 175:8 176:6 presented 15:1 pressure 46:12,13 pressuring 5:15 presumably 104:21 125:4 pretest65:10 pre-test105:5 pretty49:14 51:1 59:15 79:2 126:8 135:11 139:15 153:3 167:16 212:8 prevalently 51:17 previous 167:17 176:13 177:1 previously 45:4 117:16 148:18 price 155:20 primary211:5 213:2 principle 91:19 142:6 153:9 printed 71:15 prior 29:18 73:15 189:12 probably 32:4 34:4,14 51:17 73:11 85:12 86:18 95:17,18 104:16 108:4 113:17 126:11 129:10 134:8 193:2 194:10 196:20 197:5

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 31

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205:8 207:6 215:2 problem 24:4 33:5 42:9 68:1 85:6,8,10 86:12 91:14 99:13 100:2 113:4,7,15 116:17 123:17 141:15 149:14,18 164:6 170:22 193:6,12 201:6,20 205:6 problems 38:9 141:13 171:1 procedure 24:15 40:21 41:7 44:11 52:7 73:21 86:2 107:12,15 124:13 procedures 20:12 75:5 proceed 44:15,16 proceeding 217:3,4,5,7,9,10 process 4:11 8:1 11:11 15:16 16:8 30:1 41:2,6,12 42:8 43:21 44:8,16 46:21 47:3 48:13 50:22 51:2,22 53:2,4,6,8,11 54:15 57:17 58:8 61:5 65:9,17 84:13 86:4 103:16 104:2 105:5 123:20 127:9 136:8,17 137:17 141:6 153:2 165:8 167:19 173:10 175:6 179:21 184:14,19 191:19 processes 58:14 produce 163:2 produced 122:12 producing 38:19 127:14 product 3:6 4:16 10:5,6,7,13,14 11:8,14,22 12:4,6,19 13:5 20:2 31:12,19 33:3,10 36:20 37:1,4,12,16,18 38:3,20 39:1,18 40:19 43:3 44:19 45:9,14 47:10 49:4,21 50:4 52:15,18 53:18,19 54:16 55:7,11,20,22 56:13,15 57:12,14 58:6,7 60:4 66:7 67:8,17,21 68:1,3,5 73:9 74:8,9 75:4 76:2 77:4,6,15 84:2,12 87:7,12,16,20 98:14 99:1,17 101:9 103:18 109:20 110:20 111:2,10,11,13,1 5,19 112:1,3,9,11,12, 15,18,22 113:7,9,16 114:13,15,18 116:9,14,18 117:11,15,19 118:3 119:18,22 120:7 122:12 127:3,17 128:7 130:9,10,13,19 131:9,12,13 133:17 134:2,4,5,6,9 135:16 136:12 138:4 140:13,21,22 142:5 143:5,12 145:22 148:2 149:1,17 153:9 155:18 163:10 164:1,15,21 168:18 177:10 181:3 184:13,20 194:6 201:14 203:3,9 205:5,16 production 16:9,10 18:4 40:10,16 60:8 61:13,19 85:15 173:11 192:18 195:18 197:20 199:6,15 200:11 214:14 products 4:19 5:15 10:7,12,18 14:7 16:8 20:18 23:19 24:11,18 26:11,12,17 28:15 29:9 33:21 35:22 38:17 40:10,17 42:22 46:1,9 49:14,20 50:8,15,17 55:7 56:20,21 62:3 65:11 68:22 70:15 73:4 75:14 76:13,15,17 77:10 78:12,18 83:22 84:1 91:3,16 92:9 99:9 100:7,12 103:2,5 109:17 110:6,7

116:4,5,15 118:4 119:20 120:8 123:10 127:19 132:18 134:10 135:17 140:10,11 143:4 144:5,10 148:19 150:4,15 152:1,15 153:12 154:11 166:22 169:21 172:15 174:18 191:19 192:7,8 193:16,19 194:4,7 200:16 product's 140:14 Products 2:16 3:16 173:20 program 9:11 13:19,20 14:2 16:16 17:2,6,21 18:12,17 19:1,5,9,18 20:5,7 21:2,10,13,14,19 22:6,7,18,22 23:3,14,15 24:8 27:22 28:19 29:1,8,10,21 30:12,13 34:20 35:13 37:2,14,20 38:17 43:19 50:3 52:12 54:5 55:13,17 57:7,19 58:15,18 64:3,4 65:7,8,12,21 67:15 70:14 72:22 73:1,6,7,9,14,17, 20 74:3,4,5,6,12 75:10,15,18,21 76:6,13,21 77:3,6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 32

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78:2,7,8,10,13,1 9 79:2,8,14,19,21 81:16,19,20 82:7,18 83:1 84:3,11,16 88:3,4,19 93:4,9 94:1,3 96:9,10,11,20 97:4,17 99:20 100:8,14,16 102:5,12,16,18 103:1,7 105:21 106:13 107:1,10 111:21 112:7 128:2 130:3,5 132:18 133:2,6 137:14 141:21 143:6 145:7,18 146:12,15,16 147:6,12,14,19 154:8,16,18 155:7,11 156:1 157:2,20,21 158:9,12 159:18 160:4,19,20 161:17,18,19 162:10,12 163:4,5,19 164:12,17,20 165:12,13,18,19, 22 166:3,16,19 167:13 168:2 171:11,17 173:5 174:3 175:12,16,18 181:7,9,14 182:15 183:1,10 184:8 185:8,10,11 186:20,21 187:3,10 188:16 189:1,19 190:5 191:1,2,4 192:12 201:11 206:16,21 207:2,7,11 208:12 programs 14:11,13 16:18 23:17 26:12 42:5 53:21 56:10 58:1 59:8,15 65:12,15 79:17 81:20 83:14 88:5 93:22 100:6 101:7 102:14 133:16 134:14 142:1,2 154:7 164:10 173:19,20,22 176:2 183:16 185:15 186:2 187:5,9 195:4 progress 64:20 promoted 10:11 promoting 13:7 proper 93:16 107:15 155:18 properly 59:21 86:6 93:7 94:5 105:2 147:11 148:11 152:1,16 160:2 proportion 52:21 85:11 proportional 35:6,7 proposal 5:22 9:10 14:21 37:10 71:9,12 72:13 112:18 181:12 184:6 propose 99:22 192:17 proposed 10:15 37:2 75:13 84:6 100:21 110:1 154:2 proposing 14:19 38:22 188:22 proprietary 210:14 prosecute 70:11 protect129:3 144:16 protected 172:1 protects 170:18 prove 153:17 proves 180:16 provide 14:17 47:1,7 53:13 56:18 62:11 68:15 71:14 73:15 74:13 82:15 99:2,8 145:22 150:9 153:4 162:15 164:5,11 170:15 provided 46:22 67:14 74:16 141:8 160:20 164:3,22 166:1,12 185:19 210:8 provides 53:17 134:22 providing 18:5 provision 16:5 206:17 provisions 188:11 public 73:7 187:20,21 205:18 publication 57:10 publish 22:5

pull 24:22 25:6 95:18 98:6 183:11,12 184:12 201:22 202:1 210:11 pulled 34:11 110:2 139:14 184:20 195:7 pulling 161:21 185:20 pulls 195:12 pumps 141:3 punitive 68:17 purchase 51:21 purple 195:11 purpose 180:15 pursuant126:4 push 27:18 pushed 80:10 putting 86:19 122:20 152:13 PVI 3:7 9:14 17:4,14 54:7 67:4 98:17 112:17 116:7 128:4 130:7 134:18 144:21 148:8 149:7 163:14 173:18 185:6 190:17,21 207:5 Q qualif ication 57:1,17 59:19 73:21 83:10 99:20 151:11 152:5 153:2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 33

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 154:20 157:7 162:11 163:4,17 165:20 172:16 176:21 qualifications 154:7 qualified 74:1 85:11,12 88:16 101:2 147:19 151:15 qualify10:22 36:14 56:21 83:14 147:6 155:1 qualifying 154:16 155:22 156:12 quality 142:2 153:5,11 183:16 211:16,19,20 qualms 7:7 quantity 131:10 quarter 186:4 question 8:14 24:3,19 30:19 40:19 46:8 54:8 63:15 76:10 78:6 79:10 81:3,11,15 82:20 83:9 84:4 87:22 95:22 98:2 114:13 127:1 132:2 147:22 148:6 155:21 157:12 159:15 167:6 171:9,15 172:10 175:10 190:11 208:13 211:12 questionable 91:1 questions 5:12 8:2 15:14 24:14 87:6 191:12 202:15

quick74:20 100:20 103:11 144:12 173:8 186:3 211:12 212:6 quickly38:4 66:2 quiet 110:13 135:11,14 quit 200:1 quite 71:19 79:1 130:1 194:7 201:16,18 203:6 quiz 49:7 61:11 R race 154:15,22 raised 33:4 181:8 189:8 190:6 raising 32:2 random 16:5 45:1 47:14,19 48:14,21 49:12 51:5 54:2 55:5 60:21,22 64:16 182:12 183:16 192:2 193:6 194:13 195:5,14 202:22 randomly 11:1 49:14 61:16 83:2 153:18,19 179:3 197:11 randomness 202:11 range 118:10 134:10 193:7 194:6 rate 50:20 53:22 113:9 181:2 rated 17:12 50:20 113:13 152:1 153:14 rates 52:3 rather 51:11 52:13 61:18 86:19 106:14 119:17 120:15 131:8 138:11 156:12 184:13 193:20 209:12 rating 45:17 58:7 59:12,17,18 60:10 70:17 73:18,19 84:16 88:17,21 111:15 113:20,22 114:2 173:14,17 178:15 179:12 180:11,12 195:5 207:17 208:1 ratings 16:20 27:5 45:15 59:11 75:11,19 76:8 96:21 99:18 146:22 147:9 152:6 153:12 206:17 re 113:8 reach 6:1 9:6 215:15 reached 119:16 reaction 115:4 reactions 41:1 155:2 readily 212:5 readiness 104:15 reading 106:9,11,22 107:7 155:6

206:18 ready 8:3,11 72:10 119:5 140:3,4,5 real53:5 69:2 71:2 179:15 realistic 187:5 realistically 45:6 52:22 realities 85:7 reality 196:1 really 8:9 12:18 13:15 15:1 21:3,21 25:20 26:14 28:5,7 34:1 41:6 43:2 45:2,5,15 46:12 51:2 53:11 54:8 58:16 59:1 65:17 66:5 68:2 78:6 79:10 81:15 89:16 91:1 92:14 100:10 102:20 106:20 110:13 114:3,16 115:2 123:17 124:15 125:21 136:1,11 138:20 139:2 143:22 154:3 158:14 165:4 174:5 175:10 180:14 181:19 191:16 193:5 reason 37:21 42:6 46:11 61:11 67:8 68:4 138:3 160:9 185:16 190:10 208:3 reasonable 16:1 17:15 71:3,4,6,14 99:2

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 34

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127:22 reasonably 19:10 reasons 23:16 79:3 110:11 195:3 204:7 Recall 144:21 receive 46:5 101:10 received 64:15 recent110:4 recently85:6 recess 72:6,8,9 118:21 186:6 recognize 40:9 43:13 62:6 82:7 95:12 195:8 recognized 22:22 95:15 recognizing 16:17 38:19 139:19 recommend 56:11 recommendation 81:7 91:22 reconcile 130:1 reconvene 6:21 7:3,17 record 43:11 51:2 217:7 recorded 217:4 rectified 40:1 red 83:21 102:3 128:5 131:2 143:4 reduce 32:21 130:2 reduced 217:5 redundant 100:2,12 reeducated 41:4 reference 85:6 referenced 109:21 referring 176:2 178:11 reflect53:1 reflective 33:16 refrigeration 2:7,11 3:13 26:9 27:13,14 87:9 115:19 133:22 213:9 Refrigerators 166:15 reg 135:3 145:19 regardless 76:4 registration 151:8 165:16 regs 15:15 39:3,7 44:17 62:17 regular 54:15 regulated 76:17 77:5 regulation 25:15 54:18 59:11 78:16 80:17 126:13 137:14,17 regulations 23:16 26:6 27:6 32:12 58:19,21 63:8 68:20 78:5 124:20 146:20 177:4 regulatory 30:4 47:3 62:6 63:22 66:9,16 146:4 148:6

reinvent 95:18 relate 129:10,12 related 56:16 217:8 relates 39:17 relationship 133:4 relative 45:20 released 171:15 relevant 143:15 remains 97:4 remember 182:9 206:14 reminded 6:11 reminds 136:1 remote87:11 93:10 removal 73:18 99:18 111:16 remove68:11 96:11 112:11 143:17 removed67:18 removing 67:22 84:1 repeat5:5 11:10 46:18 repetition 196:18 repetitive 197:13,15 rephrase 181:15 replace 27:1 replica 156:4 report4:10 75:6,8 105:10 148:4 165:17 206:8,9 reported 1:17 12:8

Reporter 217:1,2,15 reporting 1:18 35:12 105:19 119:4 reports 50:5 205:16 represent193:1 representative 11:7,22 12:5,21 25:6 92:19 94:4 197:17 201:21 202:21 reputation 154:18 request 41:16 66:13 67:1 206:10 requests 171:14 require 73:18,20 99:18 107:22 125:3 144:15 157:7,18 184:22 required 9:18 14:3 47:7 54:17 62:11 66:6 77:19 83:10 89:16 96:10 146:2 166:2 requirement 30:4,6,8 62:6 63:22 73:2 76:11 78:8 88:4 97:7,19,22 100:11 102:1 103:1 110:9 113:18 121:5 144:2 145:21 146:8 147:11,20 148:6 149:5,8,9,22 156:1,8,9,16,17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 35

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 157:1 162:10 175:7 requirements 22:5,8,12,14 26:13 27:2,15 37:19 63:8 66:9 72:21 75:10,18 76:7 81:4,9,16 82:6 83:4 84:9 85:22 88:5,7 91:8 94:17,19 96:20 97:14 98:20 109:19 130:9 149:1 155:5 157:9 158:3,4,11 159:1 160:11,13,18,22 163:19 165:3 167:2 169:8 181:16,20,22 189:1 207:1 requires 21:16 165:6 209:1 requiring 21:11 23:19 66:17,18 111:15 145:11 165:11 166:18 170:15 re-rate113:4 re-rated 111:20 112:3 184:21 residential 41:17 68:19 203:13,17 resolution 8:20 resolve 188:9 resolved 91:21 115:17 190:9 resources 26:4 104:9 response 29:20,22 responsibility 80:8 156:11 159:17 responsible 135:4 161:18 rest4:4 46:19 131:1 restaurant 49:10 restrictions 182:18 result 53:8 112:8 results 44:13 71:6 105:10 110:4 141:8 retest122:10 retested 28:16 retesting 27:16 revenue 34:5 Reverse 4:14 review 7:21 14:2,12 24:17 99:3 135:7 136:9 170:11 reviewed 150:12 reviewing 135:19 revised 8:17 revisit 143:16 154:3 196:15 revoke 162:2 reward 141:20 rewards 142:4 Rheem 2:22 3:5 5:19 48:12 133:19 152:2 156:6 184:3 riff 154:5 rigorous 153:7 risk 154:18 Rivest 3:8

197:1,4,16 198:13,16 199:4 201:5,9 202:10,16 203:19 204:16 206:1 Robert3:21 Rod 84:4 role 84:20 85:1 151:12 roll 4:11,17 rolling 200:5 Ron 87:5 Ronald 3:11 rooftops 108:13 room 5:20 28:14 49:16 110:13 126:1 134:8 137:1 150:7 157:13 177:8 204:5 214:17 rotate 11:17 rotated 11:10 rotating 11:21 roughly 140:20,21 round 40:12 117:11 rounded 111:11 route 166:14 RTL 95:13,19 RTLs 107:19,20 ruinous 18:6 rule 4:22 5:8,10 6:20 7:9 8:14,17 38:9,18,19 51:22 76:20 77:1,11 rulemaking 1:3

7:1 8:21 108:10 154:2 183:5 187:12 216:1 rulemakings 45:13 52:6 64:14 rules 36:13 81:22 82:2,6 84:6 88:12 102:11,15 176:8 179:1 rumors 46:2 run 18:22 21:13,14 30:11,15 38:6 57:7 61:13 73:1 75:19 81:19 88:17,21 90:18 100:3 101:2 105:10 121:14 123:12 146:21 147:8,10 161:19 167:11,14 192:12 195:18 197:20 200:11 201:11 running 21:9,18 24:12 30:13 52:12 65:22 73:14 74:3 76:6 94:5 161:17 162:10 174:13 181:2 193:17 195:4 runs 18:16 73:1 rush 119:3 Russ 75:12 Rusty 3:17 4:9 22:3 35:10 72:18 92:5 93:18 95:7 102:19 109:15 117:9 131:4 139:17 144:1

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 36

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149:6 152:21 155:4,19 205:12 Rusty's 144:8 S S.W 1:7 Sachs 3:9 5:5 40:18 41:14 42:19 45:19 46:6,20 71:13,17,19 78:22 79:10,18 80:3 81:14 90:8 114:21 115:5,14,17,21 135:13 137:2,5 141:17,19 142:14,21 144:7 154:4 155:19 160:8 166:5 167:4,7,12 193:14 194:11 195:1 sacred 20:15 safety 163:9,10 204:7 205:9 210:3 sale 10:7 29:18 49:17 74:9 sales 33:17 35:6,11 36:8,9 50:13 sample 65:10 68:21 69:6,9,13,17 195:6,18 samples 25:6 65:1 sampling 51:15 53:22 satellite 88:3,19 93:9 101:3 satisfactory 88:8,10 120:1 satisfied 169:3 satisfy 204:16 save 86:18 135:21 saved 21:1 savings 42:4 saw 53:9 SBA 126:4 scale 19:10 129:9 scaling 138:3 schedule 103:17,21 167:19 199:6 scheduled 4:11 101:12 schedules 16:10 scheduling 4:7 105:18 108:22 195:20 scheme 21:7 scope 39:18 77:3,4 78:12 91:16 95:16 105:8 111:3 119:19 scratch 188:7 screen 120:22 122:18 scroll 10:4,16 12:17 scrutinize 18:10 scrutiny 149:13 152:19 170:5 seal 154:12 202:22 sealed 173:6,21 seat186:7 second 7:6 11:20 46:7 69:17 73:2,12 87:7 111:9,14 123:1 131:8 138:11 175:11 202:12 secondary 168:19 secret185:21 section 44:15 100:1,22 sections 192:17 seeing 66:12 96:7 154:6 166:8 seeking 70:20 seem 61:22 100:16 115:3 127:21 seems 40:22 41:3 48:21 54:20 91:11 95:3 99:2 103:8 106:17 114:17 119:17 125:11 132:13 136:5 138:9 139:6,9 154:9 170:14 171:3 172:16 seen 9:11 50:4,17,18 111:1 144:9 segment 162:21 seldomly 192:6 select11:3,6,7 12:21 17:8 44:21 47:9,10 60:7 61:16 152:15 197:22 selected 12:19 13:8 16:4 48:18 49:3 173:16,21 191:17 206:18 selecting 9:21

82:11 197:11 selection 10:14,18 12:8 38:14 47:14,20 48:14,21 86:4 172:19,22 187:1 192:2 195:4,6 201:12,13 204:1 207:18 208:10,17 209:11 215:3 selections 202:22 selector195:21 196:11 selects 196:13 self 167:4 181:21 self-assess 172:13 self-certification 166:11 167:7,14 self-contained 87:10 self-directed 208:11 self-operated 181:14 182:1 self-run 166:19 sell 35:22 36:3 60:4 99:6 123:9 144:12,22 sellable 47:1 selling 67:21 68:5,7,8 sells 34:6 semicolon 123:4 semi-customized 199:1,5 send 8:20 45:15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 37

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 83:1 146:18 149:12 156:13 164:14,19 167:18 168:3 202:2 sending 91:15 sense 26:5 52:11 120:12 133:8,11 138:20 140:16 146:12 150:2 164:1,14 180:10 187:16 190:15 senses 43:2 sent 105:22 106:10 109:4 137:3 145:15 196:5 198:14 sentence 121:3 123:1 215:12,15 separate 84:9 103:4 117:4 126:6 149:22 separated 128:5 separately 32:1 117:21 serial 202:1 Seriously 4:15 serves 211:19 service 154:11 services 80:1 147:18 setting 109:2 setup 168:2 176:6,10 177:16 seven 13:6 195:12 196:21 several47:12 65:22 150:7 189:13 191:2 197:2

Shakes 81:2 shape 208:1 Shebik 3:11 87:5,19,22 88:14,22 sheet212:15 shelf 49:22 shelves 38:13 ship 13:2 37:12 38:2 101:10 106:9,17 shipment 198:2,5 199:18 shipped 13:8,9 106:6 107:1 173:7 197:17 shorten 42:11 showed 203:2 shown 204:2 shows 195:21 208:8 sight 214:9 significant 27:17 28:15 29:2,12 56:18 57:20 134:20 significantly 128:22 132:19 similar 37:17,19 74:6 81:22 130:5 209:6 simple 11:2 41:10 127:14 188:12 simply 38:20 67:22 77:10 162:13 simultaneous 60:3 96:22 118:17 single 82:5 118:12 179:7 184:16 197:12 198:9 205:10 210:12 sit 49:13 110:16 213:10,15 site 59:4 93:6 208:9 sitting 200:4 situation 174:17 175:15 180:6 194:16 195:3 six 4:16 6:14,18 24:19 99:9 111:13 195:8,12 200:13 six-month 6:8,12 size 31:13 69:6,9 106:5 107:2 sizes 68:21 Sji 2:17 slapped 144:14 slice 38:2 128:22 slide 15:18 148:21 159:6,8,11 161:8 184:5,10 slides 136:21 188:6 slightly 127:7 154:19 166:6 slows 200:1 small34:3 35:20 36:2,5,13,14 37:1 38:2 43:15 52:20 68:13 123:21 126:2,3,7,8,16,2 2 127:6 141:22

smaller68:21 82:21 116:10 smart 52:8 smarter 137:6 Smith 104:6 sold 29:14,17 33:21 51:17 150:3 198:11 solely 33:6 solid 186:21 solid-doored 117:3 solution 33:1,18 139:2 148:22 solutions 103:9 somebody30:9 47:21 74:6 79:15 98:6 101:12 109:14 123:10 131:1 143:14 151:9 162:10 165:21 171:12 178:6 201:21 208:8 210:13 somehow 31:4 35:7 88:11 someone 34:5 52:15 78:10 93:5 121:11 163:22 197:19 sometime 48:19 somewhat 61:16 64:10 somewhere 18:5 34:9,18 39:12 86:9 165:16 206:9 sorry8:13 54:12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 38

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 79:6 90:13 104:13 121:19 122:5 196:7 sort33:5,8 54:11 59:2 73:20 85:19 86:11 102:20,22 138:9 144:2,5 145:19 155:14 157:19 165:15 184:18 199:5 204:6 sounds 28:8 118:16 143:20 203:13 source 141:3 168:19 205:10 sources 212:17 space 20:13 41:16 spacings 212:11 span 114:18 spanned 118:9 sparking 154:14 speak19:12 79:22 145:19 178:6 SPEAKER

27:10 48:10 72:18 74:17 90:12 119:6 131:18 137:20 156:18 159:3 161:5 174:19 211:6 speaking 207:12 214:6 special 214:13 specially 16:12 species 135:17 specific 61:20 95:10,19 104:14 105:7 133:18 205:13,14 212:20 specifically177:5 194:20 202:11 204:17 specification 46:22 107:12 specifications 16:11 specifics 83:7 specified 74:15 107:15 specify 204:9 spectrum 24:10 36:3 45:22 52:1 spelled 26:6 spend 19:7 32:4 34:4 spent 78:3 split 41:18 86:13 87:3 spot 62:18,22 65:3 66:17 179:8 182:11,20 183:8,9 184:16 185:9,14 187:14 spot-checking 182:12 spread 37:6 185:13 spreadsheet 168:5 209:4 springtime 49:18 square 40:12 stabilized 202:5 stacked 38:12 39:8 staff 60:15 stage 182:3

stance 176:13 177:17 stand 146:16 standard 23:22 40:10,16 61:15 67:7,10 70:10,16 71:5,6 120:4 126:12 185:2 192:18 204:6 standards 1:3 20:10,12 24:6,7 45:14 51:21 90:4 105:7 118:4,7,8 144:11 160:21 216:1 stands 9:4 Stanonik 3:12 25:13 58:10 59:6 60:14 61:2,5 63:2,6,18 64:7,11,19 65:5 77:22 78:21 80:12 81:3 91:10,17 111:17 146:5 176:22 177:14,21 178:4,9 179:16,19 180:1,9,20 181:4 194:18 195:2 196:14 200:9 Star 20:19 22:18,20,21 23:15,17,20,21 24:8,9,18,21 26:8,11 27:22 28:22 29:13,15 50:2,4,16,17 79:16,21 89:17 94:10 208:22 Starr 3:14 137:9 138:22 170:13 201:2,6 215:4 stars 142:15 Star's 27:1 128:2 start4:12 11:19 15:8,12 23:10 52:15 72:1 86:3 103:19 110:20 127:2 134:17 136:16 141:11 159:16,20 160:10 191:20 started 4:3 34:10 43:18 150:3 161:11 188:7 starting 16:18 23:9 75:9 96:8 163:15 192:5 214:18 starts 73:3 96:18 152:12 state 44:6 stated 114:6 statement

80:20 175:11 station 119:2,6,7 statistical 65:1 statistics 67:10 132:21 statute 47:8 statutory21:1 stay36:10 185:17 202:6 stays 188:3 steak 49:10 Stem 3:15 95:9 96:3 104:12 105:4 107:17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 39

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211:10,12 212:2 step 15:5 57:16 60:3 112:8 Stephens 3:16 40:7 41:9 61:21 62:8 76:9 77:8 109:22 114:12 116:2 132:1,8,14 133:12 142:18 145:9 147:21 148:12 157:11 170:10 191:22 192:16 205:1 208:15 stock 168:9 194:7 195:9 200:7,15,18 203:15 stockable 193:21 198:20 stocked 192:8 193:22 194:21,22 200:5 201:19 203:18 stone 215:9 stop 11:18 12:13,22 64:17 68:7 straight 200:17 straightforward 106:20 stretch 52:9 strict176:7 strikes 127:22 stringent 75:21 154:19 strongly 81:8 structure 40:15 structured 98:19 146:9 stuff 39:13 107:6,7 152:17 158:15 172:9 196:12 198:16,21 stupid 137:8 sub 111:14 sub-bullets 157:10 subject 14:2 30:11 55:15 59:1 68:9 76:18 118:19 140:18 142:10 185:1 subjected 30:16 183:2 206:10 submission 74:1 163:17 210:19 submit 36:7 110:3 150:4,8,11 165:6 167:22 168:9 208:8 submittal 57:2 submitted 24:21 172:12 submitting 57:6,8 113:12 162:21 163:12 166:15 subpart 131:9 subpoena 172:8 subpoenaed 172:5 subpoenaing 46:15,19 subsection 177:6 subsequent 58:17 substantial 42:3 substantiate 84:22 substitute 12:16 subvert 144:11 subway 119:2,6,7 successful 13:3 successfully 13:10 suddenly127:4,13 152:12 suggest 22:4 35:11 78:17 206:16 suggested 117:21 119:14 141:16 suggesting 146:7 suggestion 38:21 209:14,16 210:1 214:15 suggestions 4:8 188:17 suited 54:21 Summarize 100:19 summarized 75:7,8 summary 7:13 74:13 summer 86:10 super 125:9 supervised 94:11 supervising 94:13 210:2 supervision 95:8 96:18 98:3 107:22 164:13 170:3 174:13 181:11,18 182:2 supplied 53:15 supplier 153:2,4,8 suppliers 153:3 supply28:10 139:5

supplying 153:11 support 9:17 45:12 64:14 132:11 162:15 supports 59:18 suppose 69:19 supposed 130:20 145:15 154:21 159:22 160:6 207:4 212:20 sure 9:17 15:3 16:12 21:8,18 29:5 34:15 36:21 43:13,21 45:13 48:6 49:11 53:5,8 58:20 67:5 69:2 70:15,17,22 71:2 72:3 77:20 79:1 82:10,15 85:10 87:6 88:11 94:4 96:6 97:1,4 100:3,18 101:8 111:3 116:20 120:21 122:11 129:17 130:1,13 134:11 135:2,16 144:15,16,18 148:10 149:8 152:19 153:10 154:16,20 155:17 156:2 158:19 160:2 161:18 170:17 173:4,9,10 176:16 182:8 186:15 189:11 201:17 203:2,20 204:1 205:2 207:3,16 212:18 surface 188:7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 40

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211:7 surprise 193:5 surprised 8:1 survived 135:20 susceptible 50:20 suspect 34:18 54:9 85:10 116:16 suspicious 183:10 Swiss 86:14,16 sympathetic 135:18 sympathy42:20 system 31:14 164:2 168:15 213:9 systematic144:10 systems 14:16 41:18 109:20 210:14 T table 33:19 46:7 118:14 138:21 187:17 tack 152:22 tailored 51:3 taking 164:13 171:2 184:19 talk 4:6 15:2 16:4,7 26:7 28:13 32:13 48:10 59:7 60:14 111:4 112:20 117:22 138:19 143:12 186:14 192:21 194:20 talked 6:7 7:11 16:19 17:8,9,10 34:13 71:1 101:5 113:21 143:3,10 162:9,12,17 179:6 181:19 186:8,12 191:16 talking 9:20 15:8 17:6 18:2 20:2 26:10 29:6,15,16 32:5 35:1 38:13 39:15 50:13 53:22 54:13 56:7,8,9,13 57:19 58:1 59:8 68:18 77:12,18 78:1 84:10 94:8,11 95:4,11 96:8,19,20 97:6,21 98:9,16 103:14 104:19 110:20,22 118:3 124:20 128:9 129:11 132:3,19 134:3 135:17 139:22 150:19 151:11 156:21,22 157:5 158:5 159:7 164:4 166:17 170:1 176:17,19,20 178:13,16 179:20 182:6 190:13,22 193:18 194:4 198:20 201:8 212:3,9 214:10 target45:8 targeted 45:21 targeting 16:6 46:8 tear52:2 tear-downs 52:1 technical 64:6 204:2,6 technically 90:20 91:6 technique 203:12 technologies 2:21 40:11 technology 104:14 125:5 128:19,20 temp 87:11 ten 38:13 194:22 195:1 tenant 100:4 tenants 14:8 tend 87:1 114:5 123:22 193:19,21 211:15 tends 125:15,16 ten-minute 72:4 term32:7 45:20 79:1 120:6 213:18 terminology31:7 58:11 77:21 194:20 207:19 terms 6:19,20 9:11 16:17 21:8 23:6 25:19 26:3 29:6 44:1 60:16 78:7,15 100:4 120:16 129:2 146:9 154:15 179:9 181:6 186:22 188:12,18 territory148:19 test10:3 12:5,9,13,15 13:14,17

14:1,17,21 16:2 18:12,14 20:12 23:21 24:7,15,19 30:21 37:3,4,13,15 39:20 40:21 41:7,13 44:10,19,22 47:22 51:21 52:2,5,6 53:17 54:1 55:11 56:21 57:11,13 59:17,19,20 60:9,20 66:3,13,19 67:1,13 68:16 69:17 70:6 73:10,19 74:1 75:3,5,6,7,8 76:2 79:19 82:21 83:3 85:13,14,15,22 86:2 87:13 88:3,13,17,18 90:2,19 91:2,8 93:4,8 94:1,5 95:12,15 96:12 98:13 99:2,3,16,17,21 100:3 101:2,11,16,19 103:11,12,15,22 104:20 105:10 106:4 107:1,4,11,12,13 ,15 108:8,22 109:2,8 110:4 111:12,13 112:5,13 113:9,13,17,20 114:9 116:14 118:4 121:8,10,22 122:9,13,15 123:5,12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 41

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 124:10,13 127:11 128:3 129:4,20 130:2,10 131:12,13 132:19 140:4 141:8,15 145:4,5 146:1 147:13 148:4,10,15 149:10,12 150:9,10,12 152:3 153:19 155:8 157:22 162:15,21 163:12 164:3,11,15,19,2 2 165:4,6,9 166:11 170:15 171:2,9,11,14,17 172:15 173:8 175:4,8,9 177:11 178:15,19 183:14,19,22 184:20 185:21 190:2 195:6,15,18,22 196:6,20,21,22 197:5 202:11,12 203:1,2 205:15 206:9 211:15 212:12 214:13 tested 9:22 11:15 12:1 16:12 17:9,10 18:6 23:20 24:20,21 25:7,9 29:18 33:12 36:9 39:13 43:17 45:4,10,17 48:18 49:5 53:15 55:6,20 67:9 69:2,4 73:4,15,17 78:20 91:11 112:2,11 113:5 120:17 121:7 123:2 128:8 130:4 132:9 134:4 150:15 152:17 153:15 155:9 169:21 173:13 192:5 194:9 198:1 203:22 209:7,9 tester83:15 90:22 196:6 testers 188:4 testing 9:20 11:8,21 13:2,3,4,10,12,1 7 14:3,7 15:9,13,18 16:4,6,18,20 17:5,6,12,16 18:3,13,15,17,18 ,21 19:7 21:12,16 22:1,8 23:1,22 24:9 25:16,21 26:4 28:10,21 30:2,5,7,8,9,12,1 7 32:10,22 34:5 37:5,19 39:11,17 44:1,4,12,16 45:5,7,12 46:4 47:5,6 50:14,17 52:12,20,21 54:12,13,20,22 55:18 56:16 58:17 60:13 61:4,20 62:2,4,12,14,15, 19,21,22 63:1,10,14,16,20 ,21 64:2,8,9,13,14,1 7,22 65:1 66:5,9,11,17,18 67:6,19 68:4,10,13 70:9

73:16,22 74:5,13,22 75:4 76:1 80:11 82:10 83:11,13 84:21 85:2,9 87:8 88:1 90:13 91:22 92:7,8,10,16,18 93:6,12,15,18 94:11,13 95:1 96:17 98:2,3 99:12 100:4,10,19 101:6,15 103:19,20 104:3,9 105:7,18 106:7,8 112:10 119:21 126:5 127:21 132:12 139:3,14 141:6,9,11 145:6,8,14,16 150:6 151:19 153:18 159:22 160:2 165:6 168:1 171:1 174:7,8,11,21 175:2,5,20 176:15,17,20 177:2,15,20,22 178:2,7,12,14 179:3 180:3 181:3 182:21 183:3,4,5,20 184:2,14,22 185:2 187:2,8,12 188:13,16 189:14,15 190:1 192:15 194:3 195:20 196:16 202:4,20 207:18 208:21 209:1,15,19 210:2 211:14,17 213:10 214:3 215:3

testing's 169:2 tests 16:13 37:10 38:2,7 56:7 57:1,7,10 64:15 65:11,18 66:10 88:21 105:5 120:9 121:14,16 123:13 124:2 142:11 146:22 147:8,10 149:21 155:1 174:13 175:11,12 179:9 194:15 test-wise 127:8 text120:1 170:12 textbook 120:13 thank11:6 14:22 21:5 71:20 74:20 81:14 88:22 116:1 151:6 162:3 thanks 9:1 189:20 Tharp 3:17 4:9,15 5:7 6:11,15,17 22:3 35:10,17 44:21 72:20 73:5 74:18 75:8,17 76:3 80:1 84:15 92:5 95:7 102:19 109:15 112:14 113:11 117:9 131:4,7,20 141:1 144:1 149:6 152:21 155:4 168:21 205:12 206:3,6,13 207:8,10,17,22 208:14 211:4 that'd 127:11 that's 6:18 8:6,9

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 42

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 10:10,11 11:8,15 12:13 14:5,8,19,21 16:7 17:15 19:8 20:13,14 21:21 23:8 24:3 25:22 28:11 32:3,14,17,18 36:1 37:5,17,19 39:8 40:22 41:7,17,18 44:14 45:5,18 46:6 47:8 51:6,17 54:2 55:13,19 57:21 58:3,5,15,22 59:9 60:11 61:15 65:3 66:5,14 67:12 69:19 70:6 74:17,18 75:1,9 78:13 80:4 81:14 83:20 86:4,12 87:17,20 91:13 92:2,9,13 99:11 100:15,17 102:3 104:14,16 105:8 106:18,20 107:3,18 109:12 111:17 112:6 113:16 120:22 122:11 123:20 127:5 128:18 134:11 136:4,10 138:5,12 140:1,4 141:2,14,18 142:12 143:6 145:7,14 146:3 147:11,20 149:2 154:20 155:10,20 161:22 163:19 166:12 169:12 170:8 172:6,20 173:4,19 174:14 175:4,21 176:10 178:18 180:17,22 182:11 186:18 187:6,11,15,21 190:7,18 191:1,3,7 192:12 194:3,5 196:18 201:5 204:21 205:8,14,15,17 206:9 211:9 212:19,20 213:15 theirs 79:11 106:17 themselves 90:20 104:4 158:1 174:11 175:18 212:6 theory59:22 thereafter 217:5 there'd 7:14 182:18 therefore 118:6 197:18 there's 9:17 10:17 16:22 23:5,9 24:19 26:12,14,17 27:16 28:8,9 36:14,15 38:17 39:4,19 43:19 47:19 49:15 50:7 51:18 53:14 55:22 57:20 60:2 65:9 66:5,8 73:1 75:2 87:3 90:17 91:3 93:2,7 95:13 98:21 103:16 105:5,12 107:19 109:18 112:12 117:5 121:4 126:10 133:17 137:5 140:13 148:5 149:20 150:7 153:2 157:12 166:9,10 173:3 175:1,2 179:14,15,17 191:10 192:5 196:20 197:6 199:12 204:4 208:7,19 210:17 211:14 they'll 4:16 103:19 160:12 209:6,8 they're 13:6 23:18 24:12 29:1 30:22 31:2,3,22 38:3,12 50:19 51:17 55:21 58:20 62:16 68:9,17 71:4,5 77:6,7 78:20 90:4,21 99:15 103:13,16,18 117:6 121:13 122:7 126:20 127:7 133:16 135:8 137:8 145:11 149:11 151:16 159:17 160:5,7,14 164:4,13 165:22 166:1,3 170:22 171:17 174:11,12 190:19,20 194:8 199:14,15 200:3,18 213:13 they've 67:21 68:8 69:3 93:14 135:19 163:3,4,7,8,11 200:14,22 third 28:19 35:14 75:1,14 83:3,10 88:1 90:1,5,14,18,19 91:4,7,12 92:11,12,17,19 94:2,3 96:18 100:1 101:18 105:22 106:4,6 143:14 150:15 167:20 168:1 173:10 175:13 187:13 188:3 192:10 205:9 third-party 13:20 14:4 16:17 57:11 64:1 153:15 168:17 170:6 175:8 177:19 205:7 210:1 thoughts 17:3 20:6 129:6 thousands 10:2 threat144:17,18 three-day14:14 101:15 threshold 36:15 39:11 57:18 142:13 156:3 thresholds 39:2 throughout 179:4 throw 33:14 86:22 117:18 118:2 165:10 throwing 32:6 33:18 Thursday1:11 tighter 57:12,14,16 Tim 42:6 52:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 43

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 113:2 135:10 141:5,17 142:15 151:16 184:11 208:14 timeframe4:19 8:8 74:15 timeline 105:14 timelines 54:14 105:17,18 211:13 Timothy2:9 today 4:5 24:7 34:2 39:15,20 40:22 65:7 79:16 129:13,16,20 131:11 184:4 196:8 200:11 210:17 215:16 tolerance 57:12,14 107:15 tolerances 56:17,18 107:13 Tom 3:2 tomorrow 137:20,21,22 200:20 tomorrow's 200:11 ton 77:5 tons 118:5 198:9 to-order199:1 top 10:16 34:15 topic 135:11 toss 120:19 tossing 122:4 total24:13 36:7,9 totally 23:7 54:2 60:21 174:12 199:6

touch 111:7 touched 209:14 toward 119:17 towards 49:19 traced 106:10 track 51:1 trade 79:4 167:9 tradeoffs 138:7 training 14:13 101:7 Trane 2:19 89:2 108:6,14 139:11,22 transaction 155:21 transcript 217:6 transfer 3:16 211:5 translate 145:18 translating 145:19 transparency 15:10 transparent 48:16 Traulsen 2:13 95:21 171:8 travel93:5 106:21 treat80:3,5 treated 21:8,19 triggers 184:21 trips 203:4 Tritsis 3:18 94:7 109:18 176:4,5 trouble 129:8 true 2:18 51:18 82:8 145:14 173:19,20 194:6 217:6

truly 31:18 try6:4 35:6,7 45:3 58:6 129:10 134:1 145:20 146:12 157:17 192:21 trying 40:12 48:4 49:1 52:8,10 55:9 58:13 59:2 60:5 80:18 91:17 92:3,13 96:13 102:8 129:12 133:1 134:9 175:21 213:18 tube 213:8 Tucker 3:19 turning 163:20 tweak127:3 Twenty 140:3 twice 49:12 two-plate 117:11 two-week208:7 tying 198:15 type 45:9 72:14 73:11 87:2 109:17 121:3 126:17 129:9 130:5 152:19 153:8 155:16 205:15,21 206:19 typed 122:17 typewriting 217:5 typically 40:11 153:5 199:12 typing 128:6 U

U.S 2:8,10,12 144:11 150:3 UL 14:10 30:18 79:15,19 80:1,7 82:19 88:3,7,18,19 90:19 93:2,3,5 94:12,16 98:8 102:2 105:20 106:21 150:17 153:13 154:17 159:14 163:8,9 166:14 168:22 169:2,22 174:4 201:21 202:6,18,20 204:6,10 205:11 206:8,12,22 210:6,7 212:14 UL's 81:21 ultimate 106:11 180:15 umbrella 95:16 uncertainty 42:21 unclear 33:8 underlying 66:11 150:9,10 underneath 95:15 understand 7:22 15:11 17:16,19 18:2 19:3 29:5,12 32:7 40:19 79:1 87:6 88:22 99:3 105:15 132:16 136:15 139:21 142:17 149:8 174:16 187:18 189:21 190:3,12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 44

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 214:21 understanding 25:5 27:22 28:20 53:14 102:9 116:12 125:2 137:15 160:17 understandings 43:2 understands 43:22 understood 99:14 Underwriters 3:4 unfair 19:3,4,6 187:19 unfortunately 127:2 UNIDENTIFIED 27:10 48:10 72:18 74:17 90:12,16 119:6 131:18 137:20 156:18 159:3 161:5 174:19 211:6 uniqueness 103:5 unit 13:3 24:13,20 31:13,14,16 39:21 46:15,22 47:22 49:3,5 51:9 60:8 61:20 67:16 70:9 99:17 108:16 109:11,13 111:12 122:9 123:19 126:18 173:8 179:8 180:12 182:11,17 184:16 185:20 195:6,9,15 198:9 201:13,20 204:17,18 207:3,18 210:12 212:19 215:2 units 16:12 17:12 18:20 24:9 25:9 36:8 47:6,7 48:18 49:2 62:11 63:17 82:11 83:2 99:16 108:16,20,21 111:13 117:4 123:22 127:21 128:3,10 130:2,4 153:16,19 168:5 173:6,11,12,16 179:3 184:2,9 195:8 198:3,6 202:8 203:5 214:3 unless 5:8 66:13 75:2 81:12 110:8 170:2 194:16 unnecessary 186:2 unworkable 146:10 UOEOM 155:6 updates 208:6 upon 145:22 184:4 207:18 215:2 ups 92:22 usage 117:6 197:18 user 151:7 165:15 usually 45:15 53:16 107:5 utilities 85:17 utilizes 10:20 V vacation 189:19 valid 166:2 validate 65:19 84:22 145:5 148:3,9 153:4 validates 149:12 validation 145:11,13,16 149:10 176:21 valuable 61:12 value 68:16 184:15 197:8 variable 195:9 variants 127:19 variations 38:12 variety169:17 various 110:11 vary30:9 97:14 varying 4:15 vastly 192:20 venture 180:1,2 verb 182:2 verbiage 96:17 110:8 verification 8:12 9:11,20 11:7 13:3,4,17,19 15:13 16:15 17:12,16 18:17,22 19:11 20:19 21:12,16,22 22:6,9,12,14,21 24:21 26:16 27:1 28:19 29:6,18,21 30:5,7,8,17 32:10 36:19 37:13 38:15,20 39:2,13,16 41:12 50:3 53:21 54:5 55:17 56:8,14

57:13,19 58:12,14,17,22 59:1,2 60:11,13 61:4,20 62:2,14,22 63:8,13,20 66:18 70:13 72:21,22 73:6 74:13 75:10,18 76:7,19 78:2,7,10,18 79:1 80:1,9,22 81:5,16 83:5,12 84:3,11,16 85:2 91:7 92:7,8,10 97:7,13,19 98:10,15 100:5,13,16,19 102:5,12,14,16,1 8 103:1,7 110:3 141:11 142:2 143:2,6 145:8 147:14 157:20 165:12,13 166:18 168:1,18 169:21 174:7 175:2,6,16,17 176:17,20 177:5 178:19,20 179:9,11,12,19 180:3,6,11,13 181:6,7,14,21 182:14,22 183:2,9 184:7,8,18,20 186:18,20 187:5,8,9,10 188:13,16 189:14 192:11,12 201:11 206:16,20 208:12 verified 10:19 24:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 45

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29:9,14 73:10 78:19 83:4 87:8 95:5 99:1 107:14 166:22 168:1 191:16 verifier 167:21 verify 14:11,15 56:4 60:9 77:18 84:17 93:6 105:1,6 107:6 112:13 153:19 167:21 179:8 205:5 208:17 209:3 213:11 verifying 84:10 99:21 106:15 180:11 versa 115:10 version 110:5 versus 34:16 37:18 51:10,12 58:1 75:14 77:13 129:12 152:15 179:12 193:20,22 vetted 165:7 via 7:16 75:5 119:1 viable 168:15 vice 115:10 VICP 18:15 22:7,10 54:16 56:20 57:21 67:15 72:22 75:19,20 76:5 77:12,16 81:5,16,19,20 97:15 98:18,19,22 100:4,8,9 102:1 151:13 156:1,16 157:2,14,15 159:16,20 160:4,11 161:10,17 163:19,20,22 164:10,12 165:5 166:9 167:10 175:19 181:16 185:8,9,10,11,15 186:2 189:15,16 191:4 207:1 210:9,10 VICPs 18:14 56:12 80:16 132:4 155:22 156:8 163:15 186:14,15 VICP's 165:2 view 163:9 viewing 91:4 views 162:18 vindicate 70:5 violated 77:1 void 26:18 volts 214:4 volume 16:8 33:17 39:5,9,10,13 40:15 42:3 43:14 51:12 61:17 109:17 110:6 127:7 180:7,10 192:18 193:20 voluntarily 36:7 voluntary 19:4,18 21:10 29:8 56:10 82:22 96:9,19 97:4 137:14 145:18 148:22 154:7,16 171:10,16 VRF 41:2

vulnerable 66:4 W wait 57:3 101:18 166:7 213:6 waited 42:15 waiting 12:11 201:15 waiver 41:1,6,11,15,16 42:8,14 110:9 124:11,13 waivers 42:10,12 walk108:7 196:12 wandered 193:15 wandering 96:7 warehouse 173:12 196:7 warehouses 201:17 warehousing 200:8 202:3 warfare 135:20 warranted 41:19 Washington 1:9 119:4,11 wasn't43:3,4 81:20 114:4 122:2 143:15 166:7 wasted 196:5 watch 86:15,16 101:19 water 10:9 38:11 40:20 85:18 123:11 128:17,18 133:22 134:7

141:2 164:17 193:17 198:17 200:10 207:12 watts 214:3 ways 16:22 31:9 36:15 85:21 162:9,17 169:17 181:2 wayside 25:2 web 50:5 Weber 3:20 website 156:11 we'd 6:12 16:3,7 168:8 week4:17 5:16,17 6:3,4 8:3 35:4 99:10 138:19 208:7 215:21 weeks 101:11,13 104:10 108:20 174:6 196:10 200:5 weighted 49:19 weighting 51:7 we'll 4:12 5:13,18 9:13 15:5 16:16 23:8 25:8 51:22 69:1,4 71:22 99:4,16 138:18,19 154:22 186:14 187:11 205:21 211:17 we're 5:17 7:8 9:19 12:11 18:2 19:13 20:2,13 21:21 23:22 24:7,18 25:11 26:10,13

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 46

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29:5,15,16 32:3,11,15 34:20 36:22 37:8 38:9 39:15 42:17 43:5 49:6 51:6,22 52:4,5,7,21 54:13 55:16 56:8,9,13 57:5,8,19,22 58:13 59:1,8 60:6,7,9 61:10,14,19 64:17 65:11 69:2,3 77:20 78:1,9,14 79:13 80:18,20 82:3 84:9,10 86:14,15 91:5,11,18 92:13 94:8,9,10 95:4 96:7,8,15,16,19, 20 97:6 98:9,15,19 99:6 100:15,17 101:8 104:19 119:5 124:20 128:9 129:11 130:8,13 131:11 132:3,19 133:21 134:3,9 135:17 137:7 143:12 147:9,15,16,17 150:13 153:9 155:19 156:21,22 157:4 158:5 159:7 165:11 166:17 175:5 176:19 177:5 178:12,13 179:19 180:5 182:6 183:15,20 187:18 193:2,18 194:3,16 197:7,19 199:17,20 200:20 201:8 209:6 212:2 213:11 Wes 3:22 we've 9:6,13 15:9 20:17,18 28:18 34:8,10,11,21 36:16 39:6,18 40:22 41:1 43:19 45:18 50:2,4,17,18,22 53:22 56:7 68:22 69:2,3 71:1 75:2 85:8,9 87:10 111:1,18 116:22 117:2 119:22 124:4 127:8 133:5 138:6 152:2 162:8,17,18,19 174:14 183:9 187:3 188:7 189:3,16 191:14 196:15 whatever 8:21 10:8 12:10 19:15 20:13 21:15 26:20 28:10 97:17 154:13 155:15 157:21 160:1 161:19 165:19 172:13 173:12 182:2,12,17 191:15 196:16 199:1 200:17,20 201:7 203:9 Whatever's 203:18 whatsoever 175:3 176:14 178:8 wheel 95:18 whenever 45:14 58:4 164:19 165:20 203:8 whereas 170:22 Whereupon 72:6,9 118:21 186:6 215:22 whether 6:21 7:15,17,18 21:12 23:11 46:9 69:10 70:20 72:22 75:19 76:5 82:10 84:12 91:2 113:12,20 130:1 135:8 143:17 150:9 154:7 165:14,15 171:14 172:6 188:3 191:10 192:10 205:7,11 Whitwell 3:21 8:13 9:1 44:8 62:13,17,19 78:17 88:15 89:9,15,19 93:20,21 129:7,20 130:12,17 131:19 132:7 169:6 173:2,16 174:1,17 175:10,22 176:11,18 179:11,14,18 182:5,9 189:10,20 190:10 194:5 198:7 199:11 207:20 210:5,7,16 211:1,7 whoever 73:1,14 74:22 210:1 whoever's 76:6 81:6 161:17

whole 16:7 34:6 102:3 114:2 120:7 163:10 174:22 196:15 199:2 whom 131:3 217:3 whomever 160:20 who's 19:17 46:3 175:20 who've 151:18 widely 66:21 widget 124:17 125:9,12,14,20 willing 36:7 window 99:11 101:16 windows 99:10 winter 49:18 86:11 wise 144:3 wish 178:6 witness 93:4,6,18 95:8 103:11,15,21,22 104:9 105:9,21 106:4,7,8,13,22 107:4 175:9 176:10 190:2 witnessed 95:2,5 104:14 109:8 169:2 174:9 witnessed-type 105:4 witnessing 14:18 93:13 103:12 105:1 106:2 159:22 160:6 174:7 175:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 08-01-2013 Page 47

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 wonder41:5 wondering 5:17 139:5 wording 144:20 work8:9 23:8 33:1 83:7 90:15 99:4 114:17 137:13,16 154:21 168:12 170:7 186:18 189:17 199:22 200:1 208:10 214:22 worked 41:3 108:18 109:2 114:3 119:13 142:1 186:19 workforce 200:2 working 34:8 36:11 78:3 81:7,9,12 136:9 143:7 183:10 works 19:16 93:2 115:19 116:8,10 171:4 173:1 world 12:22 155:2 164:1 203:7 213:14 worried 154:14 worry 180:21 194:2 204:18 worse 34:2 Wostal 3:22 Wow 110:13 write 27:7 71:15 written 25:19 163:5 wrong 157:4 161:13 185:22 Y

yearly 93:17 year's 65:10 Yep 199:9 yesterday34:13 yet24:3 117:4 120:1 123:18 129:17 141:16 168:7 171:20 172:19 174:5 179:2 189:9 191:17 you'll 33:1 48:4 138:5 yourself 14:21 50:5 79:22 you've 15:1 48:18 58:11 65:15 69:4 80:13 111:18 112:4 125:9 160:19 164:16,18 178:15 185:21 191:2 209:13