1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

+ + + + + 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FOR 

CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

+ + + + + 

 PUBLIC MEETING 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

+ + + + + 

The Public Meeting convened in the 

Large Auditorium in the Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman,

Facilitator, presiding. 

PRESENT 

DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator

MIKE AGRONIN, D&R International

KARIM AMRANE, Air-Conditioning, Heating and

 Refrigeration Institute 

ERIC ANDERSEN, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory

VINCENT ANDERSON, Whirlpool

TIMOTHY BALLO, Earthjustice

DALE BASSO, WEG Electric Corp.

JEFF BAUMAN, Continental Refrigerator

DALE BENNET, Carrier Corporation

ROBERT BOTELER, Emerson Motor Technologies

BILL BROWN, General Electric

DEBRA BRUNK, Navigant Consulting

MILTON BUSH, American Council of Independent

Laboratories 

CHRISTOPHER K. CARR C2E2 Strategies, LLC 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2 

PRESENT (CONT.) 

CHRISTINE CHANG, National Resources Defense

Council 

KELLY-ANN CHISHOLM, Natural Resources Canada

JENNIFER CLEARY, Association of Home Appliance

 Manufacturers (AHAM) 

STEVE COMBS, International Cold Storage

KEITH COOK, Philips

GREG COULTER, Prolec General Electric

ELLIS CRAIG, Craig Industries

DANIEL CRONIN, ICF International

PAUL DANA, A.O. Smith Water Products Company

JOHN DAIVS, Traulsen

RONALD O. BAUBACH, Sylvania

ANDREW deLASKI, Appliance Standards Awareness

Project

PETE DeMARCO, International Association of

Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

(IAPMO)

MARY ANN DICKINSON, Alliance for Water

Efficiency

PAUL DOPPEL, Mitsubishi Electric

MARK DUFFY, General Electric Lighting

JAMES MICHAEL EDWARDS, BSH Home Appliances

DARYL ERBS, Manitowoc Ice

BARBARA FABIAN, Owens Corning

JOHN FICHERA, Osram Sylvania

JESSICA FREND, Steptoe & Johnson

JEFFERY GREENBLATT, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

DEREK GREENAUER, D&R International

DAVID BEN GRIFE, Arctic Industries

CHARLES GROSS, IAPMO

CHARLES HON, True Manufacturing Inc.

DIANE JAKOBS, Rheem

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, LG Electrics

BARRY KALIAN, Underwriters Laboratory

CLAIRE KAMMER, Underwriters Laboratory

BOB KELLER, Nanopore Insulation, LLC

MILEN KIRILOV, Carpenter Co.

KELLEY KLINE, General Electric Appliances and

Lighting

STEVE KOUSKI, Carpenter Co. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
3 

PRESENT (CONT.) 

FRANK LADONNE, Underwriters Laboratory

HARMON LEWIS, American Panel Corporation

JOHN MALINOWSKI, Baldor Electric Company

DAN MANOLE, Ingersoll Rand

JOSEPH MATTINGLY, Air-Conditioning, Heating,

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

JOANNA MAUER, Appliance Standards Awareness

Project

MARK MENZER, Intertek

FRED MINELLI, Kysor Panel Systems

ANDREW MOORE, Mitsubishi

JUSTIN NEUMANN, NEMA

JEFF NICHOLS, Johnson Controls, Inc.

MICHAEL PERRODIN, Hill Phoenix Watkins

SALLY REMEDIOS, Delta Faucet Company

R. DOUGLAS ROBERTS, ThermoCor

CHUCK SAMUELS, Association of Home Appliance

 Manufacturers (AHAM) 

TIM SCHUMANN, SEW Eurodrive

SRIRAM SOMASUNDARAM, Pacific Northwest

 National Laboratory 

FRANK STANONIK, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

MANFRED STAEBLER, BSH Home Appliance

Corporation

CHARLIE STEPHENS, Northwest Energy Efficiency

Alliance 

JOAN STERLING, Intertek Testing Services NA

BILL STOMPF, Bally Refrigerated Boxes

CHRIS STONE, Clasp

JACOB TALBOT, ACEEE

JOHN TALBOT 

BILL TRITSIS, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

JEFF VAN SLOUN, Owens Corning

JIM VERSHAW, Ingersoll Rand

SETH VOYLES, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue

 Association (HPBA) 

GREGORY WAGNER, Morrison Products, Inc.

KIMBERLY WAGONER, ERG

ROBERT WILBUR, North American Association of

Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
4 

PRESENT (CONT.) 

JIM WISEMAN, Schneider Electric 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STAFF 

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG 

LAURA BARHYDT 

TIMOTHY LYNCH 

MICHAEL McCABE 

STEPHANIE WEINER 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
5 

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 

Welcome - Energy-Efficiency and Renewable .. 6 

Energy and Office of the General Counsel 

Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review .. 15 

Doug Brookman 

Introduction - Ashley Armstrong and ....... 20 

Laura Barhydt 

Brief Opening Remarks from Interested .... 22 

Parties - Doug Brookman 

Scope, Reorganization of DOE's Existing .. 54 

CCE Regulations, Applying DOE's Existing

CCE Regulations to Other Covered

Products, and Basic Model Provisions -

Ashley Armstrong and Laura Barhydt 

Certification, Enforcement Testing, ...... 149 

Adjudications, Verification Testing,

Additional Product-Specific Discussion,

and Issues for which DOE Seeks Comments 

Ashley Armstrong and Laura Barhydt 

Closing Remarks and Questions from ...... 331 

Interested Parties - Doug Brookman 

Next Steps and Closing ................... 342 

Ashley Armstrong 

Adjourn 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
 

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

 

 

6

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

2 
 9:06 a.m. 

3 
 WELCOME 

4 
 MR. McCABE: Let's get started. 

5 
 Given the weather and the number of people and 

6 
 with the security here, I'll make apologies to 

7 
 folks who are not here in that there are still 

8 
 some who are checking through the security. 

9 
 But for those who are familiar with our 

10 
 regulatory process in public meetings, you'll 

11 
 recognize this is quite a bit different than 

12 what we've done in the past. 

13 
 And we've had about plus 150 

14 
 people have asked to -- have indicated they're 

15 
 going to be here today. And so we've moved to 

16 
 the large auditorium. Normally we're in a 

17 
 much more informal process. But we hope that 

18 
 we'll be able to continue some of the 

19 
 informality with a give and take, back and 

20 forth and trying to understand the issues. 

21 
 This is the first major revision 

22 
 that we have made to our certification and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

7 

1 
 enforcement rule. And actually I might even 

2 
 pause and back up. Some of you recognize and 

3 
 some of you don't even have a clue as to who I 

4 
 am. 

5 
 (Laughter.) 

6 
 I'm Michael McCabe. I am the 

7 
 Supervisor of the Department's Regulatory 

8 
 Programs here within the Building Technologies 

9 
 Program. In that capacity, I am responsible 

10 
 for the Department's Appliance Standards 

11 
 Program, the Test Procedures, our Energy Star 

12 
 Test Procedure activities as well as our 

13 
 Building Code activities. I've been 

14 
 associated with the -- for the Department's 

15 
 Appliance Standards Program for only a short 

16 
 while since as I like to put it tongue in 

17 cheek since February of 1979. 

18 
 When we had our first public 

19 
 meeting on certification enforcement which was 

20 
 August of 1980 we were in a very different 

21 
 auditorium, but it was even as crowded as 

22 
 we're expecting today to be. People were --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

8 

1 
 We had French doors in that auditorium. 

2 
 People were opening the doors, hanging 

3 
 outside, because that day in Washington was 

4 
 about 100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

5 
 Today is a little bit cooler, but 

6 
 a lot wetter. But with this we hope that it 

7 
 will be a lot more comfortable for everybody. 

8 
 But we do expect that there will be 

9 
 questions. There will be some frustrations. 

10 
 This is a significant issue for manufacturers 

11 and for others. 

12 
 We understand that there is a cost 

13 
 element here. The purpose of this meeting is 

14 
 to exchange information to get ideas with 

15 
 regards to the notice of proposed rulemaking 

16 that we've published. 

17 
 There have been -- There are a 

18 
 number of issues regarding certification 

19 
 enforcement that are not being addressed in 

20 
 this process. We expect as we discussed in 

21 
 the proposed rule to have a follow-on 

22 
 rulemaking that will get into some of the more 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

9 

1 
 product-specific issues so that I will 

2 
 constantly apologize. But I'll apologize in 

3 
 advance that if we get into a discussion that 

4 
 is outside the bounds of this rulemaking we 

5 
 may try -- we may cut it off and ask you to 

6 
 submit those comments in writing because 

7 
 they'll be useful for the next rulemaking. 

8 
 But if there's an issue that's 

9 
 beyond what we are able to address in this 

10 
 rulemaking, what we intend to address in this 

11 
 rulemaking, we're not going to be able to do 

12 
 anything with it in the final rule. And 

13 
 spending too much time on that while it's 

14 
 important for us to hear that for the upcoming 

15 
 activities it will take away from the person 

16 
 sitting next to you and sitting behind you who 

17 
 has issues regarding this rulemaking and the 

18 
 proposed rule that it may be questions. It 

19 
 may be information that is a relevance that 

20 
 could be enlightening to us that if we take 

21 
 away from that person being able to speak it 

22 will affect the quality of the rulemaking. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

10 

1 
 So please we encourage you. We 

2 
 ask you to focus on what is the subject of the 

3 
 today's notice of proposed rulemaking and we 

4 
 can focus on that. We encourage a full and 

5 
 open dialogue. We encourage different 

6 
 opinions because having that back and forth 

7 
 that we find in our normal environment, 

8 
 normally we have the normal layout for our 

9 
 public meetings. It's a U-shaped conference 

10 
 table. The interested parties sitting around 

11 
 that. We have an exchange back and forth. 

12 
 We're going to try to get some of that today, 

13 
 but just given the layout it's going to be 

14 very difficult. 

15 
 I'd like to -- With that, I'd like 

16 
 to introduce Tim Lynch who is -- I notice 

17 
 you're Assistant General Counsel or Deputy 

18 
 General Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement 

19 
 who is our partner in the Program Office in 

20 
 putting together the Certification Enforcement 

21 
 Program, the regulations and implementing it. 

22 So let me introduce Tim. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

11 

1 
 MR. LYNCH: Good morning. 

2 
 (Chorus of good mornings.) 

3 
 I'd like to begin by encouraging 

4 
 that people in the back to come forward. This 

5 
 isn't law school where you can be the back 

6 
 benchers. Come on up. Come on up sometime at 

7 
 least at some point during the day. 

8 
 My name is Timothy Lynch. I'm the 

9 
 Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and 

10 
 Enforcement in the Office of the General 

11 
 Counsel. And on behalf of the General 

12 
 Counsel, I'd like to welcome you today to this 

13 public forum on our proposed rule. 

14 
 I can tell you that this proposed 

15 
 rule is the product of literally hundreds of 

16 
 hours of work by attorneys, by engineers, by 

17 
 program staff. We have worked very hard on 

18 
 this proposed rule. I can tell you we've done 

19 our very best. 

20 
 And yet this is a human project. 

21 
 This is not perfect. And there may be things 

22 
 we didn't get it right. There may be things 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

12 

1 
 that are not clear. There may be things that 

2 
 we could improve upon. There may be technical 

3 
 changes. There may be substantive changes. 

4 
 We're very interested in learning your views 

5 
 on our proposed rule so that we can make it 

6 
 the best rule we can. And that's part of why 

7 
 we're doing this today and as well as why we 

8 
 will be reviewing all of the written comments 

9 
 as well. 

10 I want to talk to you just a 

11 
 little bit about the Office of Enforcement 

12 
 that we're building. As you probably know for 

13 
 many years there has not been a significant 

14 
 enforcement effort from the Department of 

15 
 Energy. And that has recently changed. And 

16 
 that change reflects the priorities of the 

17 
 General Counsel, Scott Harris, and the 

18 Secretary of Energy, Steve Chu, himself. 

19 
 As part of this renewed 

20 
 enforcement effort, we are making significant 

21 
 progress in enforcing our energy efficiency 

22 
 regulations. And in this past year we have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

13 

1 
 taken a number of steps to do this. I was 

2 
 brought in -- Before I came here, there was a 

3 
 deputy general counsel for litigation. My 

4 
 position was specifically created to add a 

5 
 deputy general counsel for litigation and 

6 
 enforcement. so that reflects the seriousness 

7 
 with which enforcement efforts are being 

8 
 taken. 

9 
 And in the past year we have built 

10 
 on that mandate. We have brought 76 

11 
 enforcement cases and investigations. Just 

12 
 three weeks ago we brought 27 enforcement 

13 
 cases on one day. These were certification 

14 
 violations and this was largest tranche of 

15 
 cases brought on one day in the Department's 

16 
 history. And of those 27 cases we've already 

17 
 settled 13 of them. 

18 
 We've secured over $300,000 in 

19 
 penalties. We are bringing more cases. Just 

20 
 to give you a sense of the resources that are 

21 
 being dedicated to enforcement issues, over 

22 
 the past few months more than 30 attorneys in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

14 

1 
 the Office of General Counsel have been 

2 
 working on enforcement, investigations and in 

3 
 cases. 

4 
 So this clearly is a priority of 

5 
 the Department. And one of the reasons it's a 

6 
 priority of the Department is that it's just 

7 
 time. It's time for this to take place. This 

8 
 is what Congress intended when it enacted our 

9 
 statute. It's what consumers want and what 

10 they deserve. 

11 
 And frankly one of the things 

12 
 we're learning is that it is what 

13 
 manufacturers want. We get a lot of our tips 

14 
 from you about other competitors who are not 

15 complying with the regs. 

16 
 And one of the reasons that's 

17 
 important is that competitors should not get 

18 
 an unfair competitive advantage by marketing 

19 
 their products and not complying with our 

20 
 regulation. So what we're doing is to try to 

21 
 make sure there's a level playing field among 

22 
 and between manufacturers and distributors and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

15 

1 
 making sure that these regs. are enforced. 

2 
 And part of this project today, 

3 
 this public rule, is part of this continuing 

4 
 effort on enforcement. We're looking to make 

5 
 improvements to the enforcement regulations 

6 
 and we're looking for your comments so that we 

7 
 can make them better. 

8 
 In particular, I've been working 

9 
 very closely with Laura Barhydt who you know 

10 
 who is helping me build this Office of 

11 
 Enforcement and we are very interested in your 

12 
 comments. I will tell you that I have 

13 
 meetings today. I'm going to be in and out. 

14 
 But I will be very interested in learning what 

15 you have to say. 

16 
 So thank you very much for your 

17 
 time. 

18 
 ATTENDEE INTRODUCTIONS AND AGENDA REVIEW 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, 

20 
 everyone. My name is Doug Brookman from 

21 
 Public Solutions in Baltimore. I'll be 

22 facilitating today's meeting. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

16 

1 
 I think all of you have received a 

2 
 packet of information as you came in the door. 

3 
 I'm going to be doing a very brief agenda 

4 
 review. You also received a packet of 

5 
 PowerPoint slide materials. That will be the 

6 
 material that will be flashed up on the 

7 
 screen. 

8 
 There are many people that are 

9 
 joining us by web for this conference today. 

10 
 So glad you could join us those of you who are 

11 listening in via the web. 

12 
 All of you have a copy of the 

13 
 agenda. As I said, immediately following this 

14 
 agenda review we'll have a brief introduction, 

15 perhaps an overview, from Ashley and Laura. 

16 
 Following that there's an opportunity 

17 
 for brief opening remarks from interested 

18 
 parties. That is summary statements, a minute, 

19 
 no more than two, perhaps at a high level we 

20 
 would hope on your key issues and concerns 

21 regarding this proposed rule. 

22 
 How many of you wish to make an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

17 

1 
 opening statement this morning? 

2 
 (Show of hands.) 

3 
 Not so awfully many. Okay. Well, 

4 
 we've allocated a significant amount of time 

5 
 to do this. But if you could keep them brief, 

6 
 that will make it easier to then get into the 

7 
 more detailed content. 

8 
 We intend to take a break 

9 
 midmorning around about 11:00 a.m. or so. 

10 
 We'll direct everyone to coffee at that point. 

11 (Background hammering noise.) 

12 
 Then immediately following the 

13 
 break we'll go into the scope, reorganization 

14 
 of DOE's existing CCE regulations, applying 

15 
 DOE's existing CCE regulations to other 

16 
 covered products, and basic model provisions. 

17 
 We'll see if we can stop the hammering that's 

18 going on. 

19 
 We'll take lunch midday around 

20 
 about noon. And then following lunch 

21 
 certification, enforcement testing, 

22 
 adjudications, verification testing, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

18 

1 
 additional product-specific discussion, and 

2 
 issues for which Doe seeks comment. The 

3 
 general format for this many of you are 

4 
 familiar with. How many of you are new to 

5 
 this kind of proceeding? 

6 
 (Show of hands.) 

7 
 Several of you. Perhaps one8 
 third. The way this generally works is that 

9 
 Department will push -- you'll have a flash on 

10 
 the screen -- information and a description of 

11 
 what it's trying to convey. And then we'll 

12 
 also create a comment box, a specific 

13 
 opportunity for you to comment on those 

14 
 issues. So we try and keep it organized in 

15 
 that fashion and it's easier for all the 

16 
 commentors to fit their comment in that 

17 
 segment if you're with me. And also it's 

18 
 easier for the Department to then interpret 

19 
 all the comments that it receives both here in 

20 
 this public meeting and in written form. 

21 
 We'll take a break mid afternoon 

22 
 around about 2:15 p.m. or so. Then after the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

19 

1 
 afternoon break there's yet an opportunity for 

2 
 closing remarks, other key issues that 

3 
 individuals wish to raise. The Department 

4 
 wants very much to provide an opportunity for 

5 
 you to have ample comment on these issues. 

6 
 These are important to you. That's what they 

7 
 want to do. 

8 
 We'll close this afternoon 

9 
 whenever we get there, 3:30 p.m., 4:00 p.m., 

10 
 whenever. The next steps and then also 

11 
 closing remarks. And as listed in the agenda 

12 
 we intend to adjourn today at 4:00 p.m. We'll 

13 see where we end up. Okay. 

14 
 Questions or comments before we 

15 proceed? 

16 (No verbal response.) 

17 
 So now we're going to have an 

18 introduction. Ashley Armstrong. 

19 
 Oh, I should say one more thing. 

20 
 You can see up here on this flip chart. It 

21 
 asks for your consideration. We've developed 

22 
 what I think is courtesy over the span of 15 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

20 

1 
 plus years in these Appliance Standards 

2 
 meetings if you could please speak one at a 

3 
 time. Each time you speak at the microphone -

4 
 - you see there are four of them around the 

5 
 room -- please say your name for the record so 

6 
 we know who's here. 

7 
 Typically we do introductions. 

8 
 But with 100 of us here in the room it's going 

9 
 to be hard to do. Everybody registered. So 

10 
 the Department has a complete record of who is 

11 
 here. I'm going to cuing people as best as 

12 
 possible. We also wish to encourage follow13 
 on. It will be literally a cue that will form 

14 
 behind each one of these microphones and we'll 

15 alternate them around the room. 

16 
 If you could try to be concise, 

17 
 share the air time and also keep the focus 

18 
 here. Please turn your cell phones on silent 

19 mode so we limit the interruptions. 

20 Ashley. 

21 
 INTRODUCTIONS 

22 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Good morning, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

21 

1 
 everyone. My name is Ashley Armstrong. For 

2 
 those who I haven't had the pleasure of 

3 
 meeting, I'm now in the Department of Energy 

4 
 in the Buildings Program. 

5 
 The purpose of today's public 

6 
 meeting is to present our proposed revisions 

7 
 to the Certification, Compliance and 

8 
 Enforcement Regulations, to seek comments from 

9 
 you guys as well as discuss specific questions 

10 
 raised. You'll notice as we go through the 

11 
 public meeting there will be issue boxes 

12 
 throughout the presentation for which will 

13 
 help facilitate a discussion of those issues. 

14 
 As you have questions as we go along, I would 

15 
 encourage you to make your way to the 

16 
 microphone so that everyone can hear you. And 

17 we'll go from there. 

18 
 Okay. So here are the steps of 

19 
 the current Certification and Compliance and 

20 
 Enforcement rulemaking. We've already 

21 
 published a notice of proposed rulemaking on 

22 
 September 16th. We're having the public 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

22 

1 
 meeting today. The comment period is open for 

2 
 written comments until October 18th. And we 

3 
 plan to review all the comments, both those 

4 
 from today's meeting as well as those written. 

5 
 And the final rule is expected to be issued 

6 
 by the end of the year. 

7 
 This slide just provides you with 

8 
 a little bit of a history regarding 

9 
 certification, compliance and enforcement for 

10 
 the covered products and covered equipment. 

11 
 It shows a variety of our existing provisions 

12 and method both in Parts 430 and 431. 

13 
 Now I'm going to let Doug 

14 
 facilitate a discussion of your opening 

15 
 remarks and your comments from interested 

16 parties. 

17 
 BRIEF OPENING REMARKS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So any 

19 
 of you that wish to do so please just come up 

20 
 to the microphone and let's get started with 

21 
 these comments. 

22 
 Yes please. And if you would say 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 

1 
 your name please. 

2 
 MR. CRAIG: My name is Ellis Craig 

3 
 with Craig Industries, Quincy, Illinois. And 

4 
 we have two or three comments. 

5 
 We're new to this. Our industry 

6 
 is fairly -- Well, it's not even totally 

7 
 regulated yet. But it's being worked on. And 

8 
 DOE is working on some projects that will 

9 
 affect our company quite a bit and the 

10 companies in our industry. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You have just a 

12 couple minutes worth of comments. 

13 MR. CRAIG: Yes. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. 

15 
 MR. CRAIG: I'm not reading this 

16 whole thing. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 
 MR. CRAIG: You're safe. I've just 

19 got some notes at the top of it. Okay. 

20 
 We have three areas that I just 

21 
 want to make real quick comments. One of them 

22 
 is our industry is full of small businesses. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

24 

1 
 Some have been recognized by the Department of 

2 
 Energy. But many have not. 

3 
 We show in your document that the 

4 
 Department of Energy has recognized around 45 

5 
 small businesses in the walk-in cooler 

6 
 business. And there are probably another 50 

7 
 to 100 that are small garage shop operations 

8 
 that build units one at a time, whatever, over 

9 
 the years. And all of these regulations bring 

10 
 a cost that will probably put 90 percent of 

11 
 those guys out of the business and of the 40 

12 
 left it should probably put about 75 percent 

13 
 of those out of the business by the time we 

14 
 add the cost involved with these regulations. 

15 
 And we think it's kinda unfairly damaging to 

16 
 small businesses. And we just want to bring 

17 
 that to the DOE's attention. 

18 
 Number two is we want to say that 

19 
 there's -- It was kinda thrown in, but in the 

20 
 document that we received on this no par, it 

21 
 talks about the description of who the 

22 
 manufacturer is in our industry. And in our 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

25 

1 
 industry we don't build a product, put it in a 

2 
 box, ship it out, plug it into the wall and it 

3 
 turns on. 

4 
 There are a lot of parties 

5 
 involved. DOE is recognizing that. But in 

6 
 the definition that we got that evidently 

7 
 legal wants to have some input on is that who 

8 
 that definition of the walk-in manufacturer is 

9 
 is anybody who has any input over the 

10 
 selection of the material that goes into a 

11 
 walk-in and makes that final decision is now 

12 
 defined as the manufacturer. And more or less 

13 
 that's kinda of simple definition the way we 

14 understand it. 

15 
 But they're excluding the 

16 
 installers who install this product in the 

17 
 field. And in the definition that the DOE is 

18 
 using it says that anybody who imports, 

19 
 manufactures -- They go through several and 

20 
 one of them is assembles walk-ins. 

21 
 But for some reason in this 

22 
 article that we -- in this document that we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

26 

1 
 were given they're excluding the installer 

2 
 unless the installer actually fixed the 

3 
 material that goes into the walk-in. And we 

4 
 as the manufacturer and other manufacturers 

5 
 have continually brought the attention to the 

6 
 DOE that the installers can have more of an 

7 
 impact on the energy use of that walk-in than 

8 
 probably the manufacturers can. 

9 
 So all the efforts that are going 

10 
 forth right now are based strictly on the 

11 
 people who build products but not the ones 

12 
 that are putting them together. And it's a 

13 
 great concern of ours that all the efforts 

14 
 that are going forth are probably not going -- 

15 
 Our big question is -- an example would be -- 

16 
 we can build the right product. We can meet 

17 
 the certification. 

18 
 We can send it out in the field, 

19 
 the guy who picks it -- whether we do or the 

20 
 guy in the field who picks it becomes the 

21 
 manufacturer which is fine. But when it goes 

22 
 to being installed if it's installed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

27 

1 
 incorrectly or not according to specifications 

2 
 and that's a noncompliant product out there 

3 
 and somebody complains to the DOE, who does 

4 
 the DOE Legal Department come after? As it is 

5 
 right now, the way this law is written, they 

6 
 don't go after the guy that installed it. 

7 
 They can only go after the manufacturer or the 

8 
 guy who selected the product. 

9 
 And that's a real concern to us 

10 
 because we're really building parts to be 

11 
 assembled as a walk-in in the field which 

12 
 really the person who is assembling it in the 

13 
 field can verify all the testing is being done 

14 by other people. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 
 MR. CRAIG: And I'm going to --

17 I'll jump on here. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 
 MR. CRAIG: Our concern is that. 

20 
 The last thing I wanted to say is we don't 

21 
 understand the basic unit concept in our 

22 
 industry. And I've read all the documents. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

28 

1 
 And I'm more confused now than I was at the 

2 
 beginning. We don't know what is going to be 

3 
 defined as a basic unit. Is there going to be 

4 
 100 basic units for us or not? We don't know. 

5 
 Because every walk-in -- Seventy percent of 

6 
 the walk-ins we build are custom. Okay. 

7 
 That's it. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You've participated 

9 
 in these proceedings previously? 

10 MR. CRAIG: Yes. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: So you know the 

12 
 Department wants to see your comments also in 

13 writing. 

14 
 MR. CRAIG: They're already in 

15 there. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. And also 

17 
 those specifics around employment impacts and 

18 
 that kind of stuff, how it will affect small 

19 
 businesses. That's stuff the Department 

20 really wants to see. 

21 
 MR. CRAIG: Yes. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

29 

1 
 Andrew, were you next? 

2 
 MR. deLASKI: Thanks Doug. And 

3 
 thanks to the Department for holding this 

4 
 workshop today on critical NOPR. I'm Andrew 

5 
 deLaski with the Appliance Standards Awareness 

6 
 Project. And I want to make a couple of high 

7 
 level comments with regard to the proposed 

8 
 rule today. And I'll look forward to 

9 
 participating in the detailed comments later 

10 on this afternoon or this morning. 

11 
 First, I want to congratulate the 

12 
 Department and thank you for advancing this 

13 
 proposed rule and for your actions as you 

14 
 described in the opening remarks to enhance 

15 
 enforcement of appliance standards. As it's 

16 
 been noted, it's long overdue and most welcome 

17 
 to have a more rigorous effort to make sure 

18 
 that we're getting the savings and a level 

19 
 playing field for manufacturers in setting 

20 appliance standards. 

21 
 The proposal before us today makes 

22 
 many critical strides forward. And I want to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

30 

1 
 highlight just a few strides forward although 

2 
 there's a lot. But I just want to emphasize 

3 
 three. 

4 
 One, it make clear that a change 

5 
 in efficiencies on a new basic model. That's 

6 
 a critical improvement. 

7 
 Secondly, it makes clear that DOE 

8 
 can initiate enforcement actions on its own 

9 
 volition, not with just a third party 

10 
 complaint. But DOE on its own can initiate 

11 enforcement actions. It's a critical reform. 

12 
 Third, it makes the certification 

13 data is subject to public disclosure. 

14 
 These are just three of the 

15 
 important reforms in the NOPR. There are many 

16 
 more. There's a lot of meat there. We think 

17 
 in general there's a lot of things here that 

18 are quite positive. 

19 
 But -- and I guess you knew this 

20 
 part was coming -- there are few places where 

21 
 it falls short. Some of which DOE 

22 
 acknowledges in the proposed rule in stating 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

31 

1 
 that you're deferring some critical issues to 

2 
 a sequent rulemaking. But some of which are 

3 
 almost the proposed rule was silent. There 

4 
 are quite a few, but I want to highlight just 

5 
 three in these opening remarks. 

6 
 First, we think this is absolutely 

7 
 critical to a successful enforcement effort is 

8 
 verification testing. The proposed rule says 

9 
 that you're going to defer verification 

10 testing to a subsequent rulemaking. 

11 
 We're concerned that this be put 

12 
 off too far into the future because the 

13 
 interaction of verification testing with 

14 
 what's in the rule today has critical 

15 
 implications for what's acceptable and what 

16 
 would work and what you're proposing today. 

17 
 You need to look no further than the 

18 
 preliminary results from DOE's first round of 

19 
 verification testing for the Energy Start 

20 
 Program to see that the critical need for 

21 check or spot testing is absolutely clear. 

22 
 We know it's preliminary testing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

32 

1 
 The sample sizes are small. The second round 

2 
 testing hasn't been done yet. But the 

3 
 preliminary testing certainly is alarming to 

4 
 what we're seeing in the Energy Star 

5 
 verification testing. 

6 
 If you don't do verification 

7 
 testing, you simply cannot answer the most 

8 
 basic questions about the integrity of 

9 
 national standards. Are our consumers getting 

10 
 the savings promised? Is the nation gaining 

11 
 energy reductions? The energy waste 

12 
 reductions intended? And are manufacturers 

13 
 most of whom play by the rules getting a level 

14 playing field on which to compete? 

15 
 Secondly, lab accreditation. In 

16 
 our view all labs must be accredited including 

17 
 and especially lab use for manufacturers self18 
 certification. But NOPR is silent on this 

19 
 question. Lab accreditation is a point of 

20 major concern for us. 

21 
 Thirdly, waivers. Last spring in 

22 
 the request for information DOE solicited 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

33 

1 
 comments on waivers. DOE asked "Should 

2 
 manufacturers be required to seek waivers when 

3 
 a test method does not reasonably represent a 

4 
 product's efficiency?" 

5 
 Right now, manufacturers have 

6 
 ample incentive to seek waivers if a method 

7 
 overestimates energy use or simply can't be 

8 
 tested under the test method but zero 

9 
 incentive to do so if it underestimates energy 

10 
 use. Now we've all heard stories of 

11 
 manufacturers who or at least a story of a 

12 
 manufacturer who specifically designed the 

13 
 product to trick the test method. Technology, 

14 
 software, smart products offer the potential 

15 
 for a product to simply detect test conditions 

16 and alter its operation. 

17 
 If DOE were to require that 

18 
 manufacturers seek waivers for products that 

19 
 the manufacturer knows significantly deferred 

20 
 from the tested results that would provide a 

21 
 mechanism to address the sort of deliberate 

22 circumvention of test methods. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

34 

1 
 In addition, the number of waivers 

2 
 alerts DOE of a problem with its test methods. 

3 
 DOE is giving much work into the test methods 

4 
 and that's very, very welcome. It's a 

5 
 welcomed change. But the number of waiver 

6 
 applications is a mechanism for DOE to 

7 
 determine which test methods are most need of 

8 
 attention for modification for updating. 

9 
 Those are my opening remarks. 

10 Thank you very much. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

12 
 I believe I'll go to here next. 

13 
 Is it Jennifer. Your name for the record 

14 
 please. And then after that we'll go to here 

15 and then back over here. 

16 
 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with 

17 
 the Association --

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Louder, Jennifer. 

19 
 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with 

20 
 the Association of Home Appliance 

21 
 Manufacturers. AHHM is a strong supporter of 

22 
 redoubling efforts to improve public 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
35 

1 
 confidence in reported energy use. 

2 
 Corporate integrity and competitor 

3 
 oversight have long provided an excellent 

4 
 record of compliance with Federal requirements 

5 
 in the appliance sector in particular. If 

6 
 tighter standards, changes in design and 

7 
 technology and public and government 

8 
 perception require additional assurance of 

9 
 certification and labeling compliance, we 

10 
 support development of appropriate programs 

11 
 and requirements and appreciate the 

12 
 opportunity to be involved in that 

13 development. 

14 
 It is critical, however, that 

15 
 enforcement regulations are not over 

16 
 burdensome in order to be successful and that 

17 
 they do not provide redundant and duplicative 

18 
 testing of the same product which only adds to 

19 
 cost with no complimentary gains in oversight. 

20 
 In that regard, AHHM strongly 

21 
 urges DOE to leverage third party verification 

22 
 programs developed by industry, trade 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

36 

1 
 associations such as AHHM. These independent 

2 
 programs often provide the most cost effective 

3 
 use of limited lab testing space and can 

4 
 provide a high level of competency yielding 

5 
 more accurate compliance oversight. 

6 
 We will further discuss this in 

7 
 our later comments. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

9 
 I believe you were next. Your 

10 name. 

11 
 MS. CHANG: My name is Christine 

12 
 Chang and I'm a legal fellow at the Natural 

13 Resources Defense Council. 

14 
 NRDC appreciates DOE's effort to 

15 
 revise and expand its regulations in this 

16 
 area. I would like to highlight today just a 

17 
 few areas that require further DOE 

18 
 consideration. 

19 
 The first is on verification 

20 
 testing. NRDC supports the development of a 

21 
 verification program. And I would like to 

22 
 emphasize what Andrew deLaski just said in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

37 

1 
 that it's critical for the verification 

2 
 program to be developed concurrently with this 

3 
 proposed rulemaking or shortly thereafter 

4 
 because of how interconnected the 

5 
 certification, compliance and enforcement 

6 
 mechanisms are. 

7 
 The interim results of Energy Star 

8 
 verification testing has showed that 17 

9 
 percent of the units tested exceed Energy Star 

10 
 usage specifications by five percent or more. 

11 
 These alarming results should provide DOE 

12 
 further motivation to develop their 

13 
 verification program now. I won't go into the 

14 
 details of what we suggest for a verification 

15 
 program but just want to emphasize that any 

16 
 verification testing should be done off the 

17 
 shelf and by independent, accredited 

18 
 laboratories. 

19 
 On recertification, DOE proposes 

20 
 an annual recertification requiring yearly 

21 
 resubmission of test data from the initial 

22 
 certification. Instead of this, NRDC believes 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
38 

1 
 that it would be more effective if there is 

2 
 regular recertification which would require 

3 
 new laboratory testing. The frequency of this 

4 
 recertification would depend on product5 
 specific factors as well as a production cycle 

6 
 and whether there is any change in energy 

7 
 usage above a de minimus threshold. And these 

8 
 would all be product-specific so as not to 

9 
 unduly burden manufacturers. We also support 

10 
 a laboratory accreditation program similar to 

11 the Energy Star accreditation program. 

12 
 Finally, on public disclosure, we 

13 
 urge DOE to clarify that manufacturers must 

14 
 submit full test data including actual 

15 
 performance results rather than just the final 

16 
 result that a given product meet the Federal 

17 
 minimum standard. In the development of a 

18 
 verification program, we would also like 

19 
 individual model data to all be made public. 

20 
 And we think that DOE should establish a 

21 
 public database to be the repository for all 

22 
 of this information to increase transparency 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

39 

1 
 and public access. 

2 
 We will be submitting written 

3 
 comments to further discuss these topics and I 

4 
 want to thank you for your time and for the 

5 
 opportunity to speak today. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 
 Tim, I think this gentleman was 

8 
 next. You're next. 

9 
 MR. DeMARCO: My name is Pete 

10 
 DeMarco. I'm with the International 

11 
 Association of Plumbing and Mechanical 

12 
 Officials. That's IAPMO. I'm here today 

13 
 representing IAPMO R&T which is a third party 

14 
 certifier of plumbing products. We are the 

15 
 largest third party certifier of plumbing 

16 products in North America. 

17 
 I'd like to applaud DOE for having 

18 
 this listening program and continuing the 

19 
 process of hearing your stakeholders. I think 

20 
 it's critical to arriving at the right balance 

21 
 in these deliberations. 

22 
 The scope of my comments should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

40 

1 
 limited to the consumer products that pertain 

2 
 the plumbing side of the equation here. So 

3 
 it's toilets, urinals, faucets and shower 

4 
 heads. 

5 
 We support the DOE's effort 

6 
 through this process to increase compliance. 

7 
 We think that's critical. I think there's 

8 
 been a lot of -- We think there's been a lot 

9 
 of confusion in the industry in terms of what 

10 
 those requirements are. And we feel that 

11 
 there is a need for DOE to provide additional 

12 
 clarity to manufacturers specifically into 

13 
 what those requirements are so they understand 

14 
 what they need to do in the reporting process. 

15 
 We support the goal of harmonizing 

16 
 reporting requirements with FTC reporting 

17 
 requirements in our industry. We think that's 

18 a great idea and support that concept. 

19 
 We support continuing allowing 

20 
 manufacturers in our industry to allow self21 
 testing and self-certification of these 

22 
 particular consumer products only because the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

41 

1 
 plumbing industry is already a very highly 

2 
 regulated industry for plumbing products. 

3 
 They already for code compliance. There's a 

4 
 need to independently test and certify all of 

5 
 those products with a third party 

6 
 certification entity already in place. That's 

7 
 been going on for years. 

8 
 And hence we don't feel that 

9 
 additional verification or testing 

10 
 independently is necessary. However, we do 

11 
 suggest that or recommend that when a third 

12 
 party provides those services to a 

13 
 manufacturer that the labs that are using or 

14 
 that have applied for that reporting be 

15 accredited laboratories. 

16 
 And finally once again we hope 

17 
 that DOE can once these rules have been 

18 
 arrived at that there is a greater outreach 

19 
 program to manufacturers so that they 

20 
 understand exactly what their requirements 

21 
 are. Previously before working with IAPMO, I 

22 
 worked for a long time with a plumbing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

42 

1 
 manufacturer and I happen to know that there's 

2 
 a lot of confusion among some of my colleagues 

3 
 in the industry as to what those requirements 

4 
 were. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So your 

6 
 written remarks in detail will be helpful for 

7 
 the Department. 

8 
 MR. DeMARCO: Will do. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 

10 
 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

11 
 EarthJustice. First, I just want to thank the 

12 
 Department for all the work you've done in 

13 
 putting this proposal together. I'd like to 

14 
 amplify or at least just second some comments 

15 
 that Natural Resources Defense Council and the 

16 
 Appliance Standards Awareness Project made 

17 particularly about annual certification. 

18 
 The determination of when 

19 
 something has been modified if anyone is 

20 
 familiar with the EPA's New Source Review 

21 
 Program under the Clean Air Act when something 

22 
 is modified can often be a very difficult 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

43 

1 
 determination to make. So we support an 

2 
 annual certification particularly in actual 

3 
 retesting to certify the products, not just a 

4 
 resubmission. 

5 
 Secondly, reading those the regs., 

6 
 folks may have seen me outside this morning as 

7 
 I went through them, there were some 

8 
 inconsistencies. For some products there is a 

9 
 NADRAB (phonetic) certification requirement 

10 
 for the certification testing. For example, 

11 
 many of the lighting products have to be --

12 the labs have to be NADRAB certified. 

13 
 Other products don't. We support 

14 
 NADRAB certification for all certification 

15 
 testing labs and the Department at least needs 

16 
 to explain why it believes that certification 

17 
 is necessary for some products and not for 

18 
 others. 

19 
 Secondly, the tolerances, the 

20 
 confidence intervals for our product specific 

21 
 they tend to vary quite a bit from 90 up to 99 

22 
 percent generally. There may be a valid 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

44 

1 
 justification for some of those variances. 

2 
 But we'd like to see a little more explanation 

3 
 of why the Department proposes to retain the 

4 
 wide variances in confidence intervals. And 

5 
 particularly for many of these confidence 

6 
 intervals they may have been set 10, 20, maybe 

7 
 30 years ago. And it was my assumption that 

8 
 manufacturing processes have improved in the 

9 
 interval such that the confidence intervals 

10 
 that would have been appropriate at the time 

11 
 these both were initially set may no longer be 

12 appropriate and need to be reexamined. 

13 
 And finally with regard to the 

14 
 alternative efficiency determination 

15 
 methodologies, they also tend to vary product 

16 
 to product. The Department maybe should look 

17 
 at harmonizing those to the extent possible. 

18 
 It might help simplify the regulations and 

19 
 make them more consistent. 

20 
 Thanks. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 Please. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

45 

1 
 MS. DICKINSON: Good morning. My 

2 
 name is Maryanne Dickinson. I'm the President 

3 
 and CEO of the Alliance for Water Efficiency 

4 
 which is a nonprofit, national stakeholder 

5 
 based organization comprised of 312 member 

6 
 organizations from water utilities, government 

7 
 agencies, business, industry, plumbing and 

8 
 appliance and irrigation manufacturers, 

9 
 retailers, environmental and energy efficiency 

10 
 advocates and other stakeholders. I'm very 

11 
 pleased to be here today at this DOE 

12 
 proceeding precisely because you are now 

13 
 considering issues related to water and we're 

14 very happy to see that. 

15 
 Since the addition of water 

16 
 consumption requirements in EPACT in the early 

17 
 1990s we feel that the water has not exactly 

18 
 been a priority for DOE enforcement or 

19 
 verification testing. We all know that a 

20 
 strong nexus exists between water and energy 

21 
 use in pumping, treatment, heating and cooling 

22 
 and especially in power production. The real 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

46 

1 
 loser in a lack of enforcement has been the 

2 
 consumer who knowingly or unknowingly wastes 

3 
 water and thus wastes energy. 

4 
 Manufacturers who have complied 

5 
 with the Federal requirements in good faith 

6 
 for water consumption have been put at a 

7 
 competitive disadvantage because of this lack 

8 
 of enforcement relative to those manufacturers 

9 
 particularly from out of the country who have 

10 
 not. Energy, water and waste water utilities 

11 
 have had to struggle with water capacity 

12 
 constraints or overbuild their infrastructure 

13 
 in part due to excess water use. The Federal 

14 
 Government and state and local government 

15 
 interests have also been impacted with water 

16 
 waste increasing the need for public funding 

17 
 and energy, water and waste water research and 

18 infrastructure projects. 

19 
 So thus we are pleased at the 

20 
 Alliance to CDOE take recent enforcement 

21 
 actions on certification during 2010. 

22 
 Hopefully, revised DOE rules will improve the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

47 

1 
 enforcement of applicable energy and water 

2 
 conservation standards for covered products. 

3 
 We are providing detailed comments 

4 
 per DOE's request. And we'd like to urge DOE 

5 
 to provide the necessary resources for 

6 
 continued enforcement particularly for 

7 
 verification testing based on the invisible 

8 
 and perhaps nonexistent enforcement of water 

9 
 provisions of EPACT over the past 16 years. 

10 
 In our detailed comments, we go 

11 
 through a number of issue areas and I won't 

12 
 take the time to do that here. It's all in 

13 
 writing, but there are four areas which DOE 

14 
 was seeking comments on which I just briefly 

15 want to make a few statements on. 

16 
 One concerns the basic model. An 

17 
 individual model-by-model declaration burdens 

18 
 we feel manufacturers with excess filings 

19 
 while not providing significant new 

20 
 information on all those different models. We 

21 
 believe you should allow manufacturers to 

22 
 group models having similar energy and water 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

48 

1 
 use characteristics and file them as one or 

2 
 more basic model bundles which would not 

3 
 require a refiling. 

4 
 Any model contained in a basic 

5 
 model bundle would need to meet DOE criteria, 

6 
 specification, testing results, etc. 

7 
 Manufacturers should be allowed to bundle 

8 
 their models with a not less than/not more 

9 
 than energy and water use designation as they 

10 
 prefer. It would be the manufacturer's 

11 
 responsibility to frequently update DOE on all 

12 
 individual models contained in that model 

13 
 bundle prior to initiating sales. We make 

14 
 this recommendation to try and ease the burden 

15 
 not only on the manufacturers but also on DOE 

16 oversight. 

17 
 The issue of verification testing 

18 
 has been raised by a number of speakers. And 

19 
 we would like to go on record as being 

20 
 strongly opposed to the concept of 

21 
 manufacturer self-testing and self22 
 certification especially given the prevalent, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

49 

1 
 unproven product claims that appear in today's 

2 
 marketplace. Instead we recommend that DOE 

3 
 look at US EPA's Water Sense Program model 

4 
 which requires independent third party testing 

5 
 by accredited certification bodies. 

6 
 DOE should randomly select product 

7 
 from retail distributors, importers or other 

8 
 outlets for periodic independent testing. 

9 
 Upon satisfactory testing the product could 

10 
 then be returned for retail distributors for a 

11 
 modest restocking fee. We recommend that 

12 
 testing not be conducted using a cherry-picked 

13 
 set of samples sent directly from 

14 manufacturers to their agents. 

15 
 Products that fail to meet DOE 

16 
 specifications after this initial testing 

17 
 would then enter a second round of testing 

18 
 which would include larger sample sizes from 

19 
 multiple retailers selected by an independent 

20 
 tester. And we go into more detail in our 

21 
 comments. 

22 And we have two more comments on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

50 

1 
 the DOE issues on which you were seeking 

2 
 comment, but I think in the interest of time I 

3 
 will stop here. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

5 
 MS. DICKINSON: Thank you. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: That's considerate. 

7 
 You're next. 

8 
 MR. KELLER: My name is Bob 

9 
 Keller. I'm with Nanopore Insulation. It's a 

10 
 joint venture between M4 Incorporated 

11 (phonetic) and CLR Incorporation (phonetic). 

12 
 The comments I liked to make may 

13 
 or may not be specific to this rulemaking. 

14 
 I'll keep them brief. But I think they are 

15 
 worthy of mention anyway. They are specific 

16 
 to validation testing and the actual 

17 specifications themselves. 

18 
 What we've seen and we do applaud 

19 
 of course the increase in the regulations 

20 
 which require energy efficiency. But what is 

21 
 most concerning to us is that there could be a 

22 glaring loophole that exists. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

51

1 
 Specifically in the area of 

2 
 lifetime performance, all the research we've 

3 
 done so far indicates that once an appliance 

4 
 passes it's expected to maintain that same 

5 
 level of energy efficiency over the lifetime 

6 
 of that model. Wherein, in fact, we are quite 

7 
 confident that many of the new insulating 

8 
 technologies that are being employed could 

9 
 have dropoffs of as much as 70 percent 

10 
 performance over a very short period of time, 

11 
 rendering that same product probably worse off 

12 
 than if we had enacted the legislation at all. 

13 
 So what I am suggesting is that 

14 
 there be some type of lifetime performance 

15 
 enacted or required that would make sure that 

16 
 any product that passes the test initially 

17 
 also passes after a six month, 12 month or 

18 whatever is most applicable. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

20 MR. KELLER: Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 
 So we have set aside -- Yes 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

52 

1 
 please. 

2 
 MR. LEWIS: Just didn't want to 

3 
 stand a long time. I'm Harmon Lewis with 

4 
 American Panel Corporation. We make walk-in 

5 
 coolers and freezers like many of the people 

6 
 attending here. I do echo Ellis Craig's 

7 
 opening remarks on walk-in coolers and 

8 
 freezers and their individuality. 

9 
 Additionally one thing we need to 

10 
 not lose sight of is walk-in coolers and 

11 
 freezers are concerned with food safety. Food 

12 
 safety is the overwhelming criteria for our 

13 
 design, both the envelope, the sizing of the 

14 
 refrigeration system and refrigeration must 

15 
 keep those food products safe or even on the 

16 
 hottest days of the year not just on the cool 

17 days. 

18 
 If air conditioning is undersized, 

19 
 you just get a little warm, maybe you 

20 
 perspired. If your walk-in cooler or freezer 

21 
 has undersized refrigeration your customers 

22 
 get sick. Maybe even they die just to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

53 

1 
 blunt. 

2 
 So walk-in coolers and freezers 

3 
 don't have basic models. We build over 1500 

4 
 each year and probably 1450 of them are 

5 
 different. So each jobsite is unique. 

6 
 Testing criteria must take into account that 

7 
 uniqueness and variability. Testing costs are 

8 
 very significant. Small manufacturers will be 

9 
 more overburdened as compared to large 

10 
 manufacturers. And as Ellis pointed out 

11 
 there's a lot more small manufacturers than 

12 
 large. So we want to keep the level playing 

13 field please. 

14 Thank you. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

16 
 Other commentors in the outset. 

17 
 There's time for this if you've got things to 

18 
 raise here at the outset. 

19 
 Nothing additional. Okay. So far 

20 
 as we know the web link is working okay. 

21 Right? Yes? Good. 

22 
 Okay. So then let's proceed with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

54 

1 
 the content. All of you have a copy of the 

2 
 agenda. You also have the presentation packet 

3 
 which has these slides if you want to be 

4 
 taking notes to yourself as the presentation 

5 
 proceeds. 

6 
 SCOPE, REORGANIZATION OF DOE'S EXISTING CCE 

7 
 REGULATIONS, APPLYING DOE'S EXISTING CCE 

8 
 REGULATIONS TO OTHER COVERED PRODUCTS AND 

9 
 BASIC MODEL PROVISIONS 

10 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So the 

11 
 first thing we're going to talk about is the 

12 
 scope of this rulemaking and some potential 

13 topics for the next rulemaking. 

14 
 The scope of this rulemaking is 

15 
 really there are visions to the existing 

16 
 certification, compliance and enforcement 

17 
 regulations currently found in 430 and 431. 

18 
 They're consolidated and being moved or 

19 
 proposed to being moved to a new Part 429. We 

20 
 did expand to include the EISA 2000 products 

21 
 for which we didn't currently have provisions. 

22 
 In the second round of rulemaking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

55 

1 
 we are going to consider provisions for 

2 
 electric motors. We did not move the 

3 
 provisions in 431 for electric motors 

4 
 currently or suggest any changes to those. 

5 
 Including potential are revisions 

6 
 to the sampling plans for certification and 

7 
 enforcement testing for all covered products 

8 
 and equipment. That will be a topic for round 

9 
 two including necessary changes to the 

10 potential tolerances. 

11 
 Compliance requirements for 

12 
 characteristics other than those for energy 

13 
 efficiency and water efficiency. And an 

14 
 example of that could be a compliance 

15 
 requirement for like the storage volume, the 

16 
 actual storage volume, of a water heater 

17 rather than just the rated storage volume. 

18 
 In addition, requirements for 

19 
 voluntary industry certification programs and 

20 
 how that might work with a DOE verification 

21 
 program. Laboratory accreditation is another 

22 
 one as well as there is a couple of other ones 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

56 

1 
 as stated on this slide. 

2 
 As you may have questions or 

3 
 comments to anything I'm saying just make your 

4 
 way to the side so I can see you and stop as 

5 
 I'm going. 

6 
 So the next slide is a brief 

7 
 explanation of what we've done with this 

8 
 notice of proposed rulemaking. As I said 

9 
 earlier we've taken the existing provisions in 

10 
 430 and 431 with the exception of motors and 

11 proposed to move it to a new Part 429. 

12 
 As an example, we have on this 

13 
 slide is the data submission requirements that 

14 
 are currently found in three different 

15 
 sections. They will now be housed for all 

16 
 covered products and all covered equipment 

17 
 with issuance of this rule in a new 10 CFR 

18 
 429.19. 

19 
 So the next one is we've expanded 

20 
 to a certain extent our existing 

21 
 certification, compliance and enforcement 

22 
 regulations to all covered products and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57 

1 
 covered equipment. That would include -- Yes. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have Manfred 

3 
 Wilhelm Staebler in the audience? 

4 
 MS. STAEBLER: Yes. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you join? 

6 
 (Off the record comment.) 

7 
 Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. 

8 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not a problem. 

9 
 So this slide just lists a handful 

10 
 of products that were added to DOE's authority 

11 
 either by EISA or by EPACT 05 and/or through 

12 
 DOE rulemakings for which we noted we added 

13 provisions to. 

14 
 Okay. The next topic is basic 

15 
 model certification. The intent here is that 

16 
 manufacturers will treat models that have 

17 
 essentially the same energy or water 

18 
 consumption characteristics as a basic model. 

19 So we provide an example of this. 

20 
 Models with different colors such 

21 
 as the different finish, one that is white 

22 
 versus stainless steel or versus black, could 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

58 

1 
 be considered the same basic model to the 

2 
 extent they have no impact on the energy or 

3 
 water use. What would not be a basic model is 

4 
 a model that has essentially the same internal 

5 
 components but employs a different control 

6 
 strategy that does affect the energy or water 

7 
 use. 

8 
 So with the next slide I'm going 

9 
 to pass the presentation to Doug. But we're 

10 
 interested in determining comments on how many 

11 
 factors determine what is a basic model, what 

12 
 in particular constitutes a basic model as 

13 
 well as there's a number of questions on this 

14 
 slide. So I would encourage you to provide us 

15 feedback and direction wherever possible. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: So this is your 

17 
 opportunity to respond specifically to these 

18 
 questions. Several of you referenced the 

19 
 issue of basic model in your opening remarks. 

20 Please. I see your name again, Ellis. 

21 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

22 Industries. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

59 

1 
 This is the point that we brought 

2 
 up in our opening statement and Harmon covered 

3 
 a little bit in his opening statement 

4 
 concerning basic models. Our industry doesn't 

5 
 like I say make standard products. So 

6 
 therefore we are having some real confusion on 

7 
 what's considered a basic model and what group 

8 
 that would be because like in a convenient 

9 
 store where you have an angle put into a walk10 
 in where this customer doesn't want a 

11 
 rectangular walk-in he wants an angled walk12 
 in, that would change maybe the efficiency of 

13 
 the unit because we have an angled walk-in is 

14 
 probably less, uses less energy than straight 

15 walls because of the square footage involved. 

16 
 So we would not be able to make 

17 
 maybe 50 to 70 percent of our products because 

18 
 we couldn't afford to go out and get basic 

19 
 model testing on each kind of system that we 

20 
 could manufacture. So this is a great concern 

21 
 to us that are basic models are based open a 

22 lot bigger. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

60 

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Could you describe 

2 
 how the Department might address this? 

3 
 MR. CRAIG: Well, when we first 

4 
 had our first NOPR the discussion there was 

5 
 that we would test the panels, the actual 

6 
 insulation inside the panels, that we would 

7 
 maybe work off a square foot rule or a cubic 

8 
 foot rule of the walk-in and going by that we 

9 
 could get an average energy use of that 

10 
 packet. If we went to that, that would be 

11 fine. 

12 
 But when you're testing a basic 

13 
 model and then applying it to just this 

14 
 certain criteria of walk-ins, we have 

15 
 thousands of them that we would have to test. 

16 
 And we couldn't afford to test any of them. 

17 
 So a formula would work well that 

18 
 we could apply according to the R value of the 

19 
 panels that we're manufacturing. That would be 

20 
 our recommendation. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

22 
 I'm going to Karim next. In these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

61 

1 
 comments if you could try to specifically 

2 
 address how you think the Department might 

3 
 address your concern then that would be a big 

4 
 help to them. 

5 
 Karim. 

6 
 MR. AMRANE: Yes. Karim Amrane. 

7 
 I'm with the Air Conditioning, Heating and 

8 
 Refrigeration Institute. 

9 
 We have some great concern about 

10 
 the definition of basic model groups as it 

11 
 applies to central air conditioners whether 

12 
 being split systems or variable refrigerant 

13 
 flow systems. And we feel in fact that what 

14 
 DOE is proposing here, what this is attempting 

15 
 the regulation, is in contradiction with DOE 

16 
 had done back in 1987 when NACA was 

17 
 established and where specifically for split 

18 
 system there was a definition of higher sales 

19 
 combination to recognize the fact that there 

20 
 were differences between the thousands and 

21 
 thousands of combinations you could have with 

22 
 split systems. So in fact that's why DOE 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

62 

1 
 required only the highest sales to be tested 

2 
 and allowed manufacturers to use an 

3 
 alternative rating method to rate those 

4 
 combinations. 

5 
 So HRI has been certifying air 

6 
 conditioning equipment and other equipment for 

7 
 over 50 years. And we have a definition for 

8 
 basic model groups that we will share with you 

9 
 and in writing I think of course. But 

10 
 basically we look at the components, the 

11 
 outdoor unit, the indoor unit. Those, yes, 

12 have to be similar. 

13 
 But then you could have regular 

14 
 variation in terms of expansion devices that 

15 
 you would use and so on. And even if you have 

16 
 slight variation in use here you could still 

17 
 list those models into your basic model group. 

18 
 But you would be subject to testing through 

19 
 our verification program and if one unit would 

20 
 fail then the entire basic model group would 

21 
 have to be rerated. 

22 
 So we feel that that's the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

63 

1 
 approach that DOE should look at seriously. 

2 
 And I have to point out again that FTC, if you 

3 
 look at the energy guide label of FTC, you 

4 
 will see that FTC requires the energy 

5 
 consumption or the rating to be only for the 

6 
 highest sales combination. And there is a 

7 
 disclaimer in the label that said that energy 

8 
 efficiency will be different for different 

9 
 combinations. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 Please. 

12 
 MR. VERSHAW: I am Jim Vershaw 

13 
 with Ingersoll Rand. We make Trane and 

14 
 American Standard residential air conditioning 

15 
 equipment. Just to help with what Karim just 

16 
 said, we have currently with the definition 

17 
 that's been used with DOE since the 1900s we 

18 
 have about 90 basic models of outdoor units 

19 
 which then when you match those with indoor 

20 
 units you get close to 200,000 different 

21 combinations with ratings. 

22 
 And we would hope that the DOE 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

64 

1 
 would continue on with the proposal for the 

2 
 way we've been doing the basic models over the 

3 
 last several years because it has been working 

4 
 in terms of verification testing we do with 

5 
 independent labs. And the changes we make 

6 
 when we make a change to a basic model, the 

7 
 outdoor unit, it does change the ratings and 

8 
 we will change the model number. 

9 
 Another area, if you get into 

10 
 commercial equipment, we have equipment that's 

11 
 up to about 100 tons which fills a whole 

12 
 flatbed on an 18 wheeler and costs $200,000 

13 
 for one of those things and it can't be tested 

14 
 anywhere. So as we get into annual 

15 
 recertification thought process, we want to 

16 
 make sure we look specifically at different 

17 
 types of products and what that effect might 

18 
 have on the manufacturers. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 
 Please. 

21 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with 

22 Mitsubishi Electric. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

65 

1 
 I just also want to add a little 

2 
 bit more to what Karim had said. Specifically 

3 
 with ductless, multi-splits and variable 

4 
 refrigerant flow systems, these are our 

5 
 complex systems. And there is currently a 

6 
 tested combination definition that's in Part 

7 
 430 for equipment less than 65,000 and we're 

8 
 going to be submitting comments on amending 

9 
 that definition for systems greater than 

10 
 65,000 to accommodate the more complexities of 

11 that. 

12 
 And that adds into the basic model 

13 
 group. Currently, multi-split systems under 

14 
 65,000 the outdoor unit is required to be 

15 
 tested ducted indoor units and nonducted 

16 
 because each has a different efficiency 

17 
 rating. So the current definition of basic 

18 
 model group says that that same outdoor unit 

19 
 would be in two different basic model groups. 

20 
 So we feel that that is sort of contradictory 

21 
 to what we've been doing within the 

22 regulations for testing our products. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

66

1 
 HRI system has developed several 

2 
 good, what we feel are good, basic model group 

3 
 definitions. And as Karim says and Jim also 

4 
 mentioned, we have defined what that basic 

5 
 model group is and we will submit that. 

6 
 But what happens is you get a 

7 
 larger number of models with the same general 

8 
 characteristics combinations. But that also 

9 
 creates a higher risk in that if there is a 

10 
 failure all of those have to be rerated. So 

11 
 while it appears that we are testing fewer we 

12 
 are actually putting the emphasis on the 

13 
 outdoor unit which in several documents from 

14 
 Department of Energy the energy driver is, has 

15 
 been identified, as the outdoor unit. So we 

16 
 feel that that should be taken in 

17 
 consideration that the outdoor unit is primary 

18 in defining what the basic model group is. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 
 Yes. 

21 
 MR. GRIFE: Good morning. My name 

22 
 is David Grife with Arctic Industries. We are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

67 

1 
 a manufacturer of walk-in coolers and freezers 

2 
 and we say modular panels. Looking around, it 

3 
 seems like there's a lot of people here from a 

4 
 lot of different agencies, a lot of different 

5 
 manufacturers and a lot of different 

6 
 associations. 

7 
 For the moment, I'm specifically 

8 
 talking about walk-in coolers. This basic 

9 
 model to listen to Ellis speak about the 

10 
 differences, there are none. There is 

11 
 absolutely no basic model in this industry. 

12 
 So to stand here and say that I can do that is 

13 
 something that would be untrue. Every single 

14 
 part of it is custom. Every single dimension. 

15 
 Every single refrigeration. Every door. 

16 Every metal. Every change. 

17 
 The thing that he did comment 

18 
 about, Mr. Ellis, was about the panel. That 

19 
 is something that we can work on, a cubic 

20 
 square feet, a formula. But there is no basic 

21 
 model. 

22 Before I came here today, I pulled 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

68 

1 
 up every single job that we have over the next 

2 
 two months. I could not find barely any that 

3 
 are identical. Every single one is different 

4 
 and our customers demand it based upon their 

5 
 requirement. A simple box as we would say of 

6 
 6' X 8' and someone says, "I want 6' X 9'" 

7 
 would have the same refrigeration due to a 

8 
 very small amount of change in the cubic foot. 

9 
 Therefore you could look at energy 

10 
 efficiency and they will be different. So 

11 
 this basic model does not work. I really want 

12 
 to make sure you hear it. It doesn't work for 

13 
 our particular industry and the idea is to 

14 
 help it work for us and our consumers which is 

15 businesses. 

16 
 Thank you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 
 Andrew. And I'd call your 

19 
 attention while Andrew is coming forward to 

20 
 this specific example that DOE has in this 

21 
 comment box so that some of you might address 

22 
 this if you're able. Should DOE contemplate 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

69 

1 
 proposing a specific regulation that requires 

2 
 a new basic model certification when a 

3 
 modification to a given basic model impacts 

4 
 the energy characteristics of the product by 

5 
 more than a de minimus percentage? So if 

6 
 there is a response to that. 

7 
 Andrew, you're next. 

8 
 MR. deLASKI: I will respond to 

9 
 that in a moment. But I want to ask actually 

10 
 if you could go back to slide 10. I actually 

11 
 was saving up a couple of comments on some of 

12 
 the things that you were moving through 

13 earlier. 

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: No problem. 

15 
 MR. deLASKI: Or actually slide 

16 eight. 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Tell me 

18 when it's up. 

19 
 MR. deLASKI: So in your second 

20 
 bullet there, in this proposed rule, you laid 

21 
 out that you decided to defer a number of 

22 
 issues. So I'd like to know. I'm interested 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 

1 
 in hearing why did you decide to defer 

2 
 addressing electric motors? 

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Go ahead. Yes, go 

4 
 ahead. 

5 
 MS. WEINER: I'm Stephanie --

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You need to get to 

7 
 the microphone. 

8 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right behind you 

9 
 is one if you want it. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

11 
 MS. WEINER: Hi. I'm Stephanie 

12 
 Weiner from the General Counsel's office. 

13 
 Electric motors as the rules are currently 

14 
 written include many unique characteristics 

15 
 and it's going to take more time to determine 

16 
 how to harmonize that approach with the other 

17 products. 

18 
 MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thank you. 

19 
 And in the same vein, I know there was lots of 

20 
 comment on the verification testing 

21 
 requirement or concept that was laid out in 

22 
 the RFI. Yet you decided to defer this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

71 

1 
 critical issue. Why? 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think that 

3 
 -- I think we needed more comments. So there's 

4 
 a number of issues we'll get to. There's a 

5 
 section in the presentation about verification 

6 
 testing specifically. And we're asking for 

7 
 additional comment and specifics on the 

8 
 verification testing program should the 

9 
 Department decide to propose one. 

10 
 MR. deLASKI: Okay. And just to 

11 
 echo some earlier comments, I mean one of the 

12 
 challenges for us trying to comment on your 

13 
 proposed rule today is that it lacks a 

14 verification testing program. 

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

16 
 MR. deLASKI: So to be explicit, 

17 
 you know, you might be willing to say, "Okay. 

18 
 The certification could be done for instance 

19 
 by manufacturers if we had a good verification 

20 
 program." You would be more concerned absent 

21 
 a verification program that there be a more 

22 
 perhaps rigorous initial certification and reNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

72 

1 
 certification absent the verification program. 

2 
 So you put us at a bit of a disadvantage in 

3 
 commenting on the NOPR today because we don't 

4 
 see the whole thing. 

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

6 
 MR. deLASKI: But I encourage the 

7 
 Department to move quickly to address how you 

8 
 would address your intent for how you would 

9 
 cope with the verification piece. And I would 

10 
 add that for laboratory accreditation as well. 

11 
 It's a critical piece for how these things fit 

12 
 together as well as the other bullets here 

13 
 that you've -- the VICP approach. These are 

14 
 all critical issues that need to be addressed 

15 quickly. 

16 The next issue is on page 10. 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Andrew, can I turn 

18 
 it around to you? To the extent that you have 

19 
 specific proposals on what you'd like to see 

20 
 the Department consider for any of those 

21 things I would encourage you to submit them. 

22 
 MR. deLASKI: Yes, and I would --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

73 

1 
 We have and we will. 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: And specifically 

4 
 other models that you've found to be 

5 
 successful, that sort of thing, that's 

6 
 especially helpful. 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 

8 
 MR. deLASKI: Yeah. 

9 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

10 
 McCabe. Adding to the request from Ashley 

11 
 both to you, Andrew, and to everybody, a 

12 
 number of these provisions that you've raised 

13 
 we have a lot of, a fair, amount of experience 

14 
 maybe with consumer products, for example, EPA 

15 
 with their Energy Stars, adding verification, 

16 laboratory accreditation. 

17 
 But I'll remind everybody that 

18 
 this program is dealing with consumer 

19 
 products, commercial and industrial products, 

20 
 plumbing products, dealing with SPAL, HVAC to 

21 
 under 65,000 BTUs to very large 200,000 BTUs. 

22 
 So as we move everything into one part in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

74 

1 
 trying to take into account the wide range of 

2 
 products we're needing to get additional 

3 
 information so that when you make some 

4 
 specific suggestions it would be particularly 

5 
 useful if you recognize, everybody recognize, 

6 
 that there are a wide range of products. 

7 
 So if it -- If the recommendation 

8 
 is appropriate for a particular type of 

9 
 product, a particular let's say consumer 

10 
 product, please identify that as for a 

11 
 consumer product. And if there might be 

12 
 something different that we should consider 

13 
 for commercial, industrial or lighting please 

14 highlight that. 

15 
 MR. deLASKI: Thanks, Michael, for 

16 
 that clarification. And I acknowledge. I 

17 
 think the Department currently has standards 

18 
 for I think by my count in the order of 50 

19 
 product categories and within each of those 

20 
 many subclasses. And I think that flexibility 

21 
 is critical. And I think any one commentor 

22 
 probably can't comment on the entire scope of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

75 

1 
 50 products and what's required as you've 

2 
 already heard this morning from the walk-in 

3 
 manufacturers and the air conditioner 

4 
 manufacturers. 

5 
 Each product requires some level 

6 
 of flexibility and some specificity. But what 

7 
 I also think it requires is transparency. So 

8 
 if you go to the next slide, the slide with 

9 
 the questions, you know I think it's -- I'm 

10 
 glad DOE is asking the question of how the 

11 
 manufacturer determines the basic model or 

12 change to the basic model. 

13 
 But I think ultimately it's a 

14 
 question for the Department to need to clarify 

15 
 through regulation. But we need transparent 

16 
 description of what is a change in basic model 

17 
 so that each stakeholder and a manufacturer 

18 
 are playing by the same rules. And the very 

19 
 part that the Department is asking the 

20 
 question indicates that we have a problem on 

21 
 our hands that the manufacturers are defining 

22 this. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

76 

1 
 And it may be very -- In the air 

2 
 conditioning for example the process may be 

3 
 very clear because there's a process carried 

4 
 out by the industry. But for some of the 

5 
 other products I think there may some real 

6 
 serious issues with regard to how the basic 

7 
 model is defined. 

8 
 And then to answer the question on 

9 
 the slide, yes. The Department certainly 

10 
 should propose specific regulations that 

11 
 require a new basic model certification when a 

12 
 modification impacts the energy 

13 
 characteristics. And what is the de minimus I 

14 
 think will have to be determined on a product15 by-product basis. There's no one answer. 

16 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: To follow on to 

17 
 Andrew's point, to the extent for which anyone 

18 
 in this room and/or listening by Webinar could 

19 
 provide the Department with the data or basis 

20 
 or an indication or a proposal as to what that 

21 
 percentage may be. That's kind of what we're 

22 looking for in C. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

77 

1 
 MR. deLASKI: And then one last 

2 
 question for clarification. Why were ballasts 

3 
 left out of the regulations up until now? You 

4 
 mentioned EPACT 05 and EPACT 07 you were 

5 
 filling in gaps. But yet ballasts date back 

6 
 to EPACT 92. 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: EISA -- Our 

8 
 proposal has ballasts in them today. 

9 
 MR. deLASKI: Okay. All right. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

12 You're next. 

13 
 MS. EARBS: Hello. My name is 

14 
 Daryl Earbs. I'm with Manitowoc Food Service. 

15 
 We're a manufacturer of various categories of 

16 
 commercial refrigeration equipment. I have 

17 
 two comments. 

18 
 The first one is on this slide 

19 
 where this is a question about requiring a new 

20 
 basic model certification if we make changes 

21 
 that impact energy characteristics. The 

22 
 regulations are really one-sided, right? So 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

78 

1 
 we have a confidence limit that we need to 

2 
 make sure that we can satisfy statistically in 

3 
 the products that we produce. 

4 
 And there may be cases where we'll 

5 
 improve the energy efficiency of the water use 

6 
 of a product by some amount so that we have 

7 
 better confidence. So we'll actually be 

8 
 exceeding that confidence limit that we have 

9 
 to satisfy relative to that metric. 

10 
 Generally, it's in our interest to 

11 
 report that to publish new performance 

12 
 specifications. But there are sometimes cases 

13 
 where because it's not a large enough change 

14 
 to justify the cost to reprinting literature 

15 
 and doing other things we may choose to give 

16 
 the consumer, the purchaser of the equipment, 

17 
 performance that exceeds what we're 

18 
 advertising. And I guess I question the value 

19 
 in forcing us to make that change if we as a 

20 
 business have reasons that we feel it's really 

21 not necessary to do that. 

22 
 And then the follow-on which is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

79 

1 
 even a bigger concern is where it's requiring 

2 
 that we change the model number if we make a 

3 
 change that would affect the energy or water 

4 
 use of one of our basic models. We often will 

5 
 change the product so that its performance is 

6 
 improved. But we want to use the same model 

7 
 number because those model numbers go into 

8 
 selling systems. They go into our ERP system. 

9 
 They have all sorts of system related cost if 

10 we change that model number. 

11 
 So in that case I would argue that 

12 
 we should be able to publish and certify new 

13 
 performance data but not be forced to change 

14 
 the model number. In effect, we can give you 

15 
 the new information for that model, but don't 

16 
 ask us to take on the cost of changing all of 

17 our systems to implement a new model number. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I 

19 
 thought Kelley was next, but in fact I think, 

20 Jennifer, you're next. Kelley corrected me. 

21 
 MS. CLEARY: We think that 

22 
 clearing uniform rules are really required in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

80 

1 
 this area to give clarity and transparency to 

2 
 the regulated industry. In fact, bright line 

3 
 tests may even be appropriate in this area in 

4 
 order to achieve that clarity. 

5 
 In addition, we think that to echo 

6 
 the comments of the gentleman before me that 

7 
 manufacturers should have discretion regarding 

8 
 rating so long as those ratings are supported 

9 
 by test results. In other words, 

10 
 manufacturers should retain the ability to 

11 
 rate conservatively. Conservative reporting 

12 
 must be permitted and encouraged to ensure 

13 
 full compliance with the labeled value and the 

14 Federal minimum or Energy Star limitation. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

16 Kelley. 

17 
 MS. KLINE: This is Kelley Kline 

18 
 from General Electric. Just to pick up on a 

19 
 couple of other comments. In terms of the 

20 
 definition of basic model, we would really 

21 
 urge DOE to think of it more in terms of a 

22 
 model family rather than a basic model. We 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

81 

1 
 think that's kind of a misnomer. I mean in 

2 
 addition to the examples that DOE mentions 

3 
 about changes like in handles and things like 

4 
 that you can see a group or a family of models 

5 
 that share a common energy platform that can 

6 
 have different feature and appearance 

7 
 packages, baskets. I mean there are a lot of 

8 
 different variables there that don't impact 

9 
 energy but that do fall into the same energy 

10 platform or model family. 

11 
 And I guess I wanted to also pick 

12 
 up on the last two comments and really 

13 
 reiterate how important we think the question 

14 
 is around the de minimus percentage question 

15 
 that DOE is asking there. We think DOE's 

16 
 interest really should be in ensuring that the 

17 
 standards are met and we would urge DOE to not 

18 
 take an overly restrictive approach for 

19 
 manufacturers who have tested values that are 

20 
 more efficient than the standard or the label. 

21 
 And requiring a very narrow definition of 

22 
 when a new model must be created for changes 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

82 

1 
 in a product that is more efficient than the 

2 
 standard in the label really could create a 

3 
 lot of burden on the manufacturing community. 

4 
 And we'll expand on this in our 

5 
 comments, but it's not just manufacturing 

6 
 expense but downstream expenses in terms of 

7 
 changing out floor models, things like that, 

8 
 that they really are quite significant 

9 
 implications from a too-restrictive approach 

10 
 so long as the manufacturer is, of course, 

11 
 meeting the minimum compliance standard by 

12 some margin. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

14 
 MR. McCABE: If I could follow up 

15 
 with a question to you, Kelley. And it's 

16 
 really -- This question is directed to all 

17 
 those who have commented about basic models 

18 
 and basic model families. 

19 
 When we came up 30 years ago with 

20 
 a concept of basic model it was in order to 

21 
 reduce testing costs in order to take products 

22 
 that have similar characteristics and the same 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

83 

1 
 energy efficiency. With the comments that 

2 
 have been made about taking or creating a 

3 
 basic model family, taking and collapsing 

4 
 basic models into a larger subset, is that not 

5 
 putting the manufacturer at risk because in 

6 
 one case you are reducing the testing cost? 

7 
 But if you've got a collection of units that 

8 
 may have different energy but similar energy 

9 
 characteristics it may be possible that you 

10 
 could end up having -- A unit could, this 

11 
 large basic model could, end up failing and 

12 
 the entire basic model could be found to be in 

13 
 noncompliance either for a representation or 

14 meeting the standard. 

15 
 And so in comments I'd like --

16 
 Think about it. Is there a risk to the 

17 
 manufacturer on the other side? And if there 

18 
 is, what would be a suggestion to deal with 

19 
 it? Because again the concept of basic model 

20 
 was to recognize testing burden, but also on 

21 
 the other side it's enforcement as well. 

22 
 MS. KLINE: Okay. We certainly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

84 

1 
 will think about that and respond with more 

2 
 detail in the comments. But I at least have 

3 
 always thought about that as the energy 

4 
 performance remaining constant within the 

5 
 model family and it really being the other 

6 
 features that are differentiated. 

7 
 MR. McCABE: Yeah. With some of 

8 
 the other industries and we talk about the 

9 
 basic model family within a split system 

10 
 central air conditioner where you may have 

11 
 different expansion devices you could end up 

12 
 having theoretically different efficiencies 

13 and a risk to the manufacturer. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

15 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

16 
 Baldor Electric Company. Just a comment, a 

17 
 question, on the new Part 429 and what's going 

18 
 to happen with motors. We'd like to know the 

19 timing on that as soon as possible. 

20 
 It seems like a lot of the changes 

21 
 that are happening on how we register motors a 

22 
 lot of things are happening here right at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

85 

1 
 end. We're 60 days from EISA compliance date. 

2 
 All of our motor companies have been working 

3 
 on changing our product lines over for three 

4 
 years and now the game plan is changing 60 

5 
 days out as to what we're expected to do and 

6 
 there's not a lot of clarification from DOE on 

7 
 what we're expected to do. 

8 
 The inconsistency of answers. 

9 
 There's no site to go to see what everything 

10 
 is supposed to be. We're sort of in a 

11 
 quandary as to what we're to do and now we're 

12 
 hearing a new Part 429 is going to be posted 

13 
 and we're going to talk about it later. Well, 

14 we're kinda running out of time. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

16 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I make one 

17 
 clarification there? So Part 429 as it's 

18 
 being proposed today and pending revisions as 

19 
 it will be finalized by the end of the year 

20 
 will not have any provisions for electric 

21 
 motors in it at that time. 

22 
 Now the second round of rulemaking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

86 

1 
 we'll consider proposed revisions to those 

2 
 that are currently found in 431. But at this 

3 
 time the proposals for CCE or the regulations 

4 
 for CCE for electric motors will stay in 431. 

5 
 That should help at least a little bit. 

6 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: That will help us 

7 
 a little bit. Thank you. 

8 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next please. 

10 
 MS. CHANG: Christine Chang from 

11 Natural Resources Defense Council. 

12 
 We agree that the basic model 

13 
 definition should not be overly broad because 

14 
 we want to make sure that when you test one 

15 
 product it accurately reflects the performance 

16 
 of another product that's under the same 

17 
 umbrella, under the same basic model umbrella. 

18 
 That way we can ensure that if one product 

19 
 fails then the entire basic model can be 

20 
 subject to enforcement. 

21 
 And I would like to point to the 

22 
 California definition of basic model under 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

87 

1 
 Title XX Section 602(a) a good model of how it 

2 
 should be defined. And it states, "All units 

3 
 of a given type of appliance or class thereof 

4 
 that are manufactured by one manufacturer that 

5 
 have the same primary energy source and that 

6 
 do not have any differing electrical, 

7 
 hydraulic, physical or functional 

8 
 characteristics that affect energy 

9 
 consumption." 

10 Also I wanted to address the 

11 
 specific question and say that NRDC supports 

12 
 new basic model certification whenever there 

13 
 is a change in energy usage, either an 

14 
 increase or a decrease, more than a de minimus 

15 
 threshold. And we would say that that would 

16 
 depend on, the threshold would depend, on 

17 
 which cover product you're dealing with. 

18 
 However that generally it should not exceed 

19 ten percent. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 
 Yes. 

22 
 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli, Kysor 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

88 

1 
 Panel Systems. We manufacture insulated 

2 
 panels for walk-in coolers and freezers. At 

3 
 Kysor, we do not manufacture refrigeration. 

4 
 We do not build basic models. All of our 

5 
 products are custom. We do not use model 

6 
 numbers. We only define the walk-in by the R 

7 
 value required. 

8 
 The R value doesn't change. If 

9 
 the box is 6' X 10' or 80' by 100' it's only R 

10 
 value. So I'm not sure how a basic model 

11 
 would apply to our product in this 

12 application. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 
 Harmon, I think you're next and 

15 then this gentleman. 

16 
 MR. LEWIS: Harmon Lewis with 

17 
 American Panel Corporation. Again, we walk-in 

18 
 coolers and freezers guys all sound like a 

19 
 broken record. But it's much the same. 

20 
 Our problem -- Our product we 

21 
 could set ten 6' X 8' walk-in coolers up here 

22 
 or we start building walk-ins that are as big 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

89 

1 
 as this room, as big as part of this building, 

2 
 and you can't lump them into a basic model. 

3 
 They do all come back to what is the 

4 
 functionality of the individual panels and you 

5 
 know we build about 2,000 panels every week. 

6 
 And they're distributed all over the place for 

7 
 size and shape. 

8 
 So it all comes back to insulating 

9 
 value. I know Doug's subcommittee if you can 

10 
 call it that has probably turned out 1,000 

11 
 pages from meetings that or Charles' that Doug 

12 
 has moderated there. In the Thursday, 

13 
 September 9th Federal Register there's a whole 

14 
 energy conservative program for walk-in 

15 
 coolers and freezers and the comments there 

16 
 that they're looking for. 

17 
 But that still doesn't quite come 

18 
 back to the basic model testing and what we 

19 
 probably need to do in looking at walk-ins is 

20 
 look at the insulating value of the panels and 

21 
 perhaps test one model size of a cooler, one 

22 
 model size of a freezer and something that is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

90 

1 
 an economical product, maybe 8' X 10' and 

2 
 determine what that energy usage is between 

3 
 the different manufacturers and do a rating 

4 
 there. But that 8' X 10' is not the same as 

5 
 an 80' X 100' or 100' X 300'. And we make all 

6 
 different sizes day in and day out. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

8 
 I believe you're next. 

9 
 MR. WISEMAN: Jim Wiseman, 

10 
 Schneider Electric, manufacturers of the 

11 
 Square D products, distribution transformers 

12 
 among many others. I guess my comments are 

13 
 probably most specific to distribution 

14 transformers. 

15 
 But what I'm hearing here is a lot 

16 
 of the same and similar concerns we have with 

17 
 the basic model designation. We do have basic 

18 
 models. We think we probably have on the order 

19 
 of 300. But if you throw in some of the 

20 
 things that we've seen for discussion it could 

21 
 be more on the order of 20,000 which gets to 

22 the point of having no basic model again. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

91 

1 
 So I think the work is going to 

2 
 have to be in some manner to get some 

3 
 specificity for the different product groups 

4 
 that are being talked about and as an example 

5 
 of that you know in the low voltage 

6 
 transformers for example we would certainly 

7 
 agree that as you change the number of phases, 

8 
 the KVA rating, the insulation system, the 

9 
 temperature rise rate and the winding 

10 
 material, those are all going to be different 

11 basic models. 

12 
 But unlike most other electrical 

13 
 equipment if you change the voltage it doesn't 

14 
 necessarily result in a change in energy 

15 
 consumption that's significant. And that's 

16 
 one of our main concerns is that we need to 

17 
 have some way of knowing that we will have the 

18 
 ability to change voltages without changing 

19 
 basic model. But we also feel the need to 

20 
 have a level field among the industry. We 

21 
 don't see how to get there unless there is 

22 something that says that within the rules. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

92 

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: So the specifics in 

2 
 writing. 

3 
 MR. WISEMAN: Yes. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

5 
 I believe this gentleman was next. 

6 
 Ellis, you're next. 

7 
 MR. COULTER: My name is Greg 

8 
 Coulter. I'm representing P:rolec General 

9 
 Electric, also a distribution transformer 

10 manufacturer. 

11 
 And my comments also have to do 

12 
 with basic model. It appears to us in the 

13 
 rewrite of all this they were still trying to 

14 
 carve out distribution transformers similar to 

15 
 the way it was in the previous regulations. 

16 
 And we find some inconsistencies there because 

17 
 as we read the new regulation it looks like we 

18 
 have to list every basic model inside a KVA 

19 where previously a KVA was the basic model. 

20 
 For a large percentage of our 

21 
 product, each unit is a basic model. So we 

22 
 would listing every unit model number. This 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

93 

1 
 now becomes public record. People will be 

2 
 able to tell every transformer we make. They 

3 
 would know our volume which is a big concern 

4 
 to us in a very competitive industry. 

5 
 We feel something similar to what 

6 
 was in the earlier rules where KVA was the 

7 
 basic model and then when we only had to list 

8 
 the least deficient KVAs, the least deficient 

9 
 models, inside the KVA and if any new least 

10 
 deficient model came along, we would then 

11 
 notify you. If we do it now every time we 

12 
 make a new model, it looks like we have to 

13 
 notify you which would be every week we're 

14 sending 150, 200 new notifications. 

15 
 We hope that this is just a 

16 
 problem with the rewrite rather than a basic 

17 change to the whole principle. 

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

20 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

21 
 Industries. 

22 I'm assuming that the whole 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

94 

1 
 purpose of this whole project we're working on 

2 
 is to reduce the energy usage of American 

3 
 industry and private use out there. And one 

4 
 thing that's concerning me with the basic 

5 
 model concept, there seems to be 

6 
 conservational ideas that if we get this more 

7 
 defined and more basic models tested that 

8 
 we'll have better control over this. 

9 
 But the more you define basic 

10 
 model to be tighter the more testing that's 

11 
 required. The more testing that's required 

12 
 then manufacturers have a lot less incentive 

13 
 to improve their products. Because if they do 

14 
 improve their products, it's going to cost a 

15 lot of money to have testing done again. 

16 
 So it's a concern of ours that the 

17 
 -- You know, we're a small company and if it 

18 
 costs us $100,000 to test our products and we 

19 
 come up with a great new idea that's a better 

20 
 insulator, we might want to go to vacuum pack 

21 
 or whatever we come up with that's in the 

22 
 industry that's lower in its price we have no 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

95 

1 
 incentive to go do it because it would cost so 

2 
 much money that we couldn't afford to do it 

3 
 again. So the net result is we end up with 

4 
 same old product out there for the next 20 or 

5 
 30 years because it costs too much money to 

6 
 innovate. So that's a concern of ours. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

8 
 Other comments on these slides? 

9 
 Yes, Harmon, and then we're going to move on. 

10 
 MR. LEWIS: Right. One quick one. 

11 
 Harmon Lewis from American Panel and putting 

12 
 on my refrigeration hat because we also build 

13 
 refrigeration systems, both packaged and 

14 
 split. I felt bad because we had 8,736 

15 
 different models and we're about a $24 million 

16 
 company annual sales. After hearing Ingersoll 

17 
 Rand's problem, I'm just going to ask him how 

18 
 he solves it and mimic it. 

19 
 But the testing on refrigeration 

20 
 will be just as awkward for the walk-in 

21 
 manufacturers that build them based on the 

22 
 total number of models involved and the size 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

96 

1 
 of the companies. The testing burden could put 

2 
 us out of business. 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

4 
 So I think final comments on this 

5 
 subject. I think we'll take one more series 

6 
 of slides and see where we are with respect to 

7 
 our break. 

8 
 Ashley. 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think it's just 

10 
 one more slide actually. So some of you 

11 
 touched on this in your comments. But basic 

12 
 model numbers. DOE is proposing in the NOPR 

13 
 to require manufacturers to change the basic 

14 
 model number whenever a new basic model is 

15 created. 

16 
 Define a manufacturer model number 

17 
 as the unique identifier by which the product 

18 
 is sold. DOE is not proposing a specific 

19 
 particular system. Manufacturers may do that 

20 
 at their discretion, just that it is unique 

21 
 and then in addition to that within each basic 

22 
 model numbering you would identify in your 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97 

1 
 certification report all the individual model 

2 
 numbers that fall under that basic model 

3 
 number. 

4 
 Comments? No? Great. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes please. Ellis. 

6 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

7 
 Industries. 

8 
 I want to make it very clear that 

9 
 in the walk-in business we don't have a model 

10 
 number number one at all right now. It would 

11 
 be impossible for us to come up with model 

12 
 numbers of walk-ins because everything is 

13 custom. It's been said but --

14 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: How do you track 

15 
 your walk-ins? What do you use? What 

16 systematic do you use to do that? 

17 
 MR. CRAIG: There -- Every one is 

18 
 built custom. So every systematic is 

19 different than the last systematic. 

20 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you use a name? 

21 What naming convention? 

22 
 MR. CRAIG: The only thing that we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98 

1 
 use is dimensions. That's it. So it's an 8' X 

2 
 10' X 7'6". 

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

4 
 MR. CRAIG: That's what we use. 

5 
 So in every walk-in that we manufacture is 

6 
 different than the last walk-in and it's all 

7 
 manufactured differently. So therefore we 

8 
 don't have -- No one calls in and says, "Give 

9 
 me a 1095." You know it just doesn't happen. 

10 
 We wish it did. Believe me. In 

11 
 our industry we would love to have that 

12 happen. 

13 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Maybe we can help 

14 you out. 

15 
 MR. CRAIG: It doesn't work that 

16 
 way. So this numbering system would be 

17 
 something it would not work the way we're 

18 
 doing business. I don't see how it could 

19 
 work. 

20 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I appreciate that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99 

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let this 

2 
 gentleman go next. Same subject I think. 

3 
 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli, Kysor 

4 
 Panel. 

5 
 I would just like to reiterate. We 

6 
 do not as Mr. Craig we do not use model 

7 
 numbers. Every job is drawn custom. The only 

8 
 separation for us in the panel business is 

9 
 panel thickness which is directly related to R 

10 
 value and we're doing a C518 to get R value. 

11 That is the basic model testing that we do. 

12 
 We do not build basic models. How 

13 
 can we test some predetermined or DOE 

14 
 determined box if it has nothing to do with 

15 the products we build? 

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

17 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Got it. 

18 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes. 

20 
 MR. BASSO: Dale Basso, WEG 

21 
 Electric. Also Vice Chairman of the NEMA 

22 Motor Generator section. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

100 

1 
 I know this is motors. I assume 

2 
 it still applies to your thinking though. 

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 

4 
 MR. BASSO: And speaking for motor 

5 
 manufacturers in general probably half our 

6 
 business is stock and model number type, stuff 

7 
 that can get in the catalog. But the other 

8 
 half is unique identifiers. And when we say 

9 
 it doesn't build off a smart part number 

10 
 because in the catalog in the last place I was 

11 
 we had 1025 possibilities of combinations and 

12 
 permutations of a product just by building a 

13 
 custom motor out of a catalog. So each one of 

14 
 them gets a serial number and that becomes the 

15 unique identifier. 

16 
 But you can't make that a smart 

17 
 part number that builds off a basic model. So 

18 
 it would become impossible. And as somebody 

19 
 else mentioned it would be a matter of us 

20 
 shipping or submitting data to you on a daily 

21 
 basis for all the motors we're shipping. It 

22 
 would be burdensome for both our companies and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

101 

1 
 for the DOE to manage. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

3 
 Frank Stanonik. 

4 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with 

5 
 HRI. 

6 
 Ashley, can you go back to the 

7 
 previous slide? The one that had your model 

8 
 number example. 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. We'll get 

10 there maybe. 

11 (Off the record comment.) 

12 
 MR. STANONIK: Well, why you're 

13 doing that -- Okay. There it was. 

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. 

15 
 MR. STANONIK: Lost it. My 

16 
 question is in the example you provided 

17 
 between the basic model and the associated 

18 
 models they all still had the same four or 

19 five same letters, numbers, at the beginning. 

20 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you want this 

21 one? Sixteen, that one? Is that the one? 

22 
 MR. STANONIK: That was the one 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102 

1 
 that she had up before that. 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: This one? 

3 
 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, that one. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: That one. 

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

6 
 MR. STANONIK: And I hope if I'm 

7 
 belaboring the obvious I'll apologize. But 

8 
 I'm assuming you just did that for 

9 
 illustration purposes. 

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 

11 
 MR. STANONIK: And it won't 

12 
 preclude a private brander who would have a 

13 
 totally different modeling number scheme but 

14 
 in fact clearly the model is associated in 

15 your case with ABC123. 

16 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. This is 

17 
 just illustrative completely. We're not 

18 proposing any specific scheme. 

19 
 MR. STANONIK: So DOE would only 

20 
 want to know the model numbers of the 

21 
 associated model. You don't have to --

22 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. We would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

103 

1 
 want to know how you mesh those together. In 

2 
 other words, which one is the basic model 

3 
 number and what are all the individual model 

4 
 numbers falling into that basic model number? 

5 
 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 

6 
 MR. McCABE: Following up on that 

7 
 and actually putting a question back to you 

8 
 and to everybody, but particularly for 

9 
 products such as where you have the motors and 

10 
 granted motors are not part of this, but we 

11 
 will be considering it. Distribution 

12 
 transformers are with the walk-in coolers, 

13 
 walk-in freezers. But central air, split 

14 
 systems and central air conditioners, all 

15 
 those products where either there are unique 

16 
 units, they're one of a kind, or you may have 

17 
 multiple -- The OEM may be shipping the 

18 
 product to different private labelers and they 

19 come up with different model numbers. 

20 
 A specific suggestion whether or 

21 
 not it's a product specific suggestion or a 

22 
 general suggestion as to how we can track 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

104 

1 
 those units that are part of that basic model, 

2 
 model family or whatever, because again this 

3 
 deals not only with reducing testing burden so 

4 
 that a basic model, a model family, whatever 

5 
 you test it as little as possible in order to 

6 
 ensure the rating compliance with the standard 

7 
 and that the rating on the energy guide label 

8 
 or representations of it are correct. 

9 
 You know we're looking to reduce 

10 
 the burden. But on the other hand we do not 

11 
 want to increase the cost and increase the 

12 
 risk to manufacturers. So if you have a 

13 
 number of individual units that really should 

14 
 be treated as a basic model, how do we 

15 
 identify those so that we don't end up going 

16 
 out and identifying far more products as being 

17 
 covered by an action, a negative action, that 

18 
 would have a cost as well to the manufacturers 

19 
 and disrupt not only the manufacturer's 

20 
 activities but also distributors and 

21 
 retailers? So how should we identify? How do 

22 
 we identify those unique products? How do we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

105 

1 
 identify those products that are made by one 

2 
 OEM and sold on a number of different labels? 

3 
 MR. STANONIK: Mike, at least 

4 
 speaking from AHI's experience certainly when 

5 
 it comes to models that are built in large 

6 
 quantities that's been a challenge for us 

7 
 since we've been running certifications 

8 
 programs either historically ARI or GAMMA. 

9 
 And so we can certainly give you some 

10 
 suggestions on how we've been wrestling with 

11 that. 

12 
 As far as the one-ofs, I'm going 

13 
 to say I don't have as much experience with 

14 
 that. But we'll see if we can offer some 

15 ideas. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you 

17 
 Yes. 

18 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with 

19 
 Mitsubishi Electric. 

20 
 It just seems that in requiring 

21 
 basic model definitions and then getting into 

22 
 specifics on model numbers as the example 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

106 

1 
 here, it's kinda of contradictory and limits 

2 
 the definition on the basic model group. 

3 
 Our suggestion would be that allow 

4 
 us to define the basic model groups and then 

5 
 submit a report to you listing what those 

6 
 basic models are. That would be far easier 

7 
 than trying to finagle something like the 

8 
 example here. Just a report listing basic 

9 
 model one, basic model two and everything 

10 that's included in that. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

12 Other comments on this subject? 

13 (No verbal response.) 

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Take a break. 

15 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let's take a 

16 
 break. Before anybody leaves, you need to -- 

17 
 Most of you when you came in got a visitor's 

18 
 badge. You need to have it on you. There's a 

19 
 coffee shop straight down the hallway this way 

20 
 (Indicating). A Dunkin Donuts and up the 

21 
 escalator right as you exit the door to the 

22 
 left there's a big cafeteria. So there's food 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

107 

1 
 and the like. I suspect we probably might go 

2 
 a little past noon and say 12:30 p.m. or maybe 

3 
 a little later before we break for lunch the 

4 
 way this is going. 

5 
 If there are foreign nationals 

6 
 here in attendance, I think you need an escort 

7 
 to be wandering around. I think that's the 

8 
 latest from Security. So find me in the front 

9 
 of the room. We'll get you an escort if 

10 you're a foreign national. 

11 
 We're going to break for 15 

12 
 minutes. It's now almost 10:40 a.m. So we'll 

13 resume at 10:55 a.m. Off the record. 

14 
 (Whereupon, a short recess was 

15 taken.) 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's get back to 

17 
 the matter at hand. We are on Slide 17 or so. 

18 
 And we're going to hear from Laura Barhydt, 

19 same basic configuration. Laura? 

20 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So as Ashley 

21 
 mentioned, most of the changes that are being 

22 
 proposed are not really changes. We're moving 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

108 

1 
 things around quite a bit. 

2 
 One of the things that we are 

3 
 proposing to change, however, is currently the 

4 
 regulations have more or less a one-time 

5 
 filing requirement. If you have a new basic 

6 
 model, it must be certified before it is 

7 
 distributed in commerce. And we are proposing 

8 
 to switch to an annual certification. 

9 
 We have proposed a schedule that 

10 
 would align that with the FTC's certification 

11 
 requirement for those products that are 

12 
 required to be certified to the Federal Trade 

13 
 Commission. And we are not proposing that you 

14 
 have to test it each year. We did get some 

15 
 initial comments that indicated that that may 

16 
 have been an area of confusion. So I wanted 

17 
 to clarify that. 

18 
 This is a subset of the 

19 
 certification schedule that we have proposed. 

20 
 And it has some of the different deadlines 

21 
 that we have proposed. This is only a subset. 

22 
 And we have tried to group the products so 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

109 

1 
 that similar products or the certification is 

2 
 due at the same time so that for any given 

3 
 manufacturer, hopefully they would only have 

4 
 to submit one certification report a year. 

5 
 Currently each manufacturer or 

6 
 private labeler must have a compliance 

7 
 statement on file as well as submit the 

8 
 certification report. We are proposing to 

9 
 change that so that the compliance statement 

10 
 is included on the certification report. It 

11 
 would not be a separate filing requirement any 

12 more. 

13 
 We are also standardizing some of 

14 
 the information that would be required to be 

15 
 reported. You can see a list there of some of 

16 the different types of information. 

17 
 Some of this is new information 

18 
 that is not currently required, such as 

19 
 information related to waivers, exemptions, 

20 and alternative rating methods. 

21 
 If you filled out the compliance 

22 
 statement previously, you see that it requires 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

110 

1 
 you to certify that you have done testing in 

2 
 accordance with DOE's test procedure. And 

3 
 obviously that is a problem if you have not 

4 
 done the testing in accordance with the DOE 

5 
 test procedure because the model is subject to 

6 
 a waiver or an exemption. So basically that 

7 
 change is just to reflect the reality that not 

8 
 everything has actually been tested in 

9 
 accordance with the DOE test procedure. 

10 
 Ashley already covered that we are 

11 
 proposing to require individual model numbers 

12 
 covered by a basic model to be reported. We 

13 
 are also adding the sample size, number of 

14 
 units tested, basically give us a little bit 

15 
 more information about what exactly is being 

16 
 tested and more information so that we can 

17 
 verify that the regulations are being 

18 
 followed. 

19 
 We are adding reporting 

20 
 requirements for products that were not 

21 
 previously subject to certification reporting 

22 
 requirements. And there are specific 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

111 

1 
 product-specific reporting requirements for 

2 
 all products now. Previously there were some 

3 
 products where you basically just had to 

4 
 certify that the models need to be standard. 

5 
 Particularly in situations where 

6 
 there was a design requirement, as opposed to 

7 
 a performance standard, now all products have 

8 
 specific information that we're proposing 

9 
 would have to be submitted. So you should 

10 
 look for your own individual products to the 

11 
 proposed 10 CFR 429.19(b)(13) for what those 

12 
 specific requirements would be for the 

13 products that are relevant to you. 

14 
 Currently each basic model must be 

15 
 certified. And that can be done by the 

16 
 manufacturer or by the private labeler. We 

17 
 would hold either party responsible. We are 

18 
 proposing to change that so that the 

19 manufacturer is the responsible party. 

20 
 Under the statute, manufacturer 

21 
 includes an importer. So if you're an 

22 
 importer, you're treated as the manufacturer. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

112 

1 
 And you would be subject to the reporting 

2 
 requirement. 

3 
 Private labelers would be 

4 
 permitted to do the certification on behalf of 

5 
 the manufacturer as a third party certifier, 

6 
 but they would not be the ones responsible if 

7 
 the certification was not filed. It would be 

8 
 the manufacturers. 

9 
 And if anyone has any questions or 

10 
 comments as I go through, feel free to stand 

11 up and move towards a microphone. 

12 
 So currently manufacturers or 

13 
 private labelers may use a third party to 

14 
 submit he certification reports to the 

15 
 Department of Energy. And that party is 

16 
 ultimately responsible for the submission of 

17 
 the certification report to DOE, not the third 

18 party certifier. 

19 
 Under the proposed requirement, we 

20 
 would continue to permit the third party 

21 
 certification. And the private labeler could 

22 act as that third party certifier. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

113 

1 
 One of the things that we are 

2 
 proposing to change is that a poor history of 

3 
 performance by a third party certification 

4 
 entity, we could refuse to accept that person 

5 
 as the third party certifier if they routinely 

6 
 either didn't submit or were submitting 

7 
 incorrect information. And that's really to 

8 
 protect the manufacturer from relying on 

9 
 somebody that DOE has determined is not 

10 reliable. 

11 
 Currently you can submit the 

12 
 certification reports and the compliance 

13 
 statements through certified mail, e-mail, and 

14 
 our new certification compliance management 

15 system, CCMS. 

16 
 That was a very recent change. If 

17 
 you flip back to the slide early on, that sort 

18 
 of had the history of the CCE rulemaking 

19 
 process. It was earlier this year that we 

20 added the new options. 

21 
 We're actually proposing to cut 

22 
 back so that CCMS will be the sole method of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

114 

1 
 submission. We have had very positive 

2 
 feedback from people using CCMS, and we think 

3 
 that that is the best way going forward. 

4 
 MR. DOPPEL: Laura? 

5 
 MS. BARHYDT: Yes? 

6 
 MR. DOPPEL: If you could go back? 

7 
 Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 

8 
 If you could go back just a couple 

9 
 of slides for what you're requiring on your 

10 
 certification statement. Right there. Okay. 

11 
 Right there it seems that you're asking us to 

12 
 identify everything that's within that basic 

13 model. 

14 
 That's what I was suggesting 

15 
 before, that, instead of trying to do some 

16 
 configuration of model numbers to -- you know, 

17 
 right here is where we would be telling you 

18 everything that's in that basic model. 

19 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 

20 
 MR. DOPPEL: So, rather than -- so 

21 
 our recommendation would be to just leave that 

22 model number part out. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

115 

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer? 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hang on one 

3 
 second, though. So, just as a clarifying 

4 
 point, I don't think the other slide is 

5 
 inconsistent with this slide. And the other 

6 
 slide is not proposing any specific basic 

7 
 model numbering system or model numbering 

8 
 system. 

9 
 It's saying the same thing. 

10 
 Basically any -- you identify the basic model 

11 
 number. And then you also identify all the 

12 
 individual model numbers that fall in that 

13 
 grouping. And that's what both slides were 

14 meant to show. 

15 
 MR. BROOKMAN: I see there are 

16 
 some other commenters. Jennifer? And then 

17 
 we'll go to this gentleman. 

18 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary. 

19 
 I think we will provide some 

20 
 written comments, but we do have concerns that 

21 
 some of this information, while it should 

22 
 certainly be reported to DOE, may be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

116 

1 
 confidential business information; for 

2 
 example, the private labeler in some 

3 
 circumstances. And we'll provide much more 

4 
 detail on that later. 

5 
 I was also wondering if you could 

6 
 give some insight as to why you would like to 

7 
 know the sample size. It would help us in our 

8 
 comments to know what the reasoning behind 

9 
 requesting that information is. 

10 
 MS. BARHYDT: One of the things 

11 
 that we have encountered is that people are 

12 
 not testing in accordance with our sampling 

13 
 plan. And so that is a way for us to actually 

14 verify compliance with the regulations. 

15 MS. CLEARY: Thank you. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

17 
 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

18 Manufacturing. 

19 
 Two comments. Number one is that, 

20 
 obviously, there is an issue of transparency 

21 
 here, when and if this material will be 

22 
 public. And if it is public, we just moved 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

117 

1 
 into a transparent mode. 

2 
 The annual reporting will be 

3 
 problematic because you could have 11, almost 

4 
 12 months later data on someone else's 

5 
 product, which is in the market but has not 

6 
 been reported until the August deadline if 

7 
 they introduce it September 1st as a product. 

8 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, to 

9 
 clarify, the requirement to certify a basic 

10 
 model before it enters commerce does not 

11 change. 

12 MR. HON: Okay. 

13 
 MS. BARHYDT: So you still have to 

14 
 certify before a model enters commerce. Then 

15 
 after that, there would be an annual reporting 

16 
 requirement. So we are not getting rid of the 

17 
 requirement to actually certify prior to 

18 
 introduction into commerce. 

19 
 MR. HON: Good. That is what we 

20 
 were hoping to hear. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes? Let 

22 this gentleman follow on. Yes? Go ahead. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

118 

1 
 MR. DOPPEL: Laura, you mentioned 

2 
 enter into. Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. 

3 
 You mentioned enter into commerce. 

4 
 And we've looked at the definition. And it's 

5 
 like wide open. So is there a way to get more 

6 
 clarification on exactly what you mean by it 

7 
 because with Mitsubishi, obviously we're 

8 
 importing some of our products? 

9 
 MS. BARHYDT: Introduction into 

10 commerce includes importation. 

11 
 MR. DOPPEL: Right. But if you 

12 
 have a meeting with distributors prior to 

13 
 certifying the product, is that introducing 

14 
 into commerce? Because that could be within 

15 your definition. 

16 
 MS. BARHYDT: I think we will have 

17 
 to learn more about the specifics of what 

18 
 you're envisioning because I'm not sure I 

19 understand. One other thing --

20 
 MR. DOPPEL: According to what you 

21 
 say, we cannot enter the comments before the 

22 product is certified to DOE. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

119 

1 
 MS. BARHYDT: Correct. 

2 
 MR. DOPPEL: So the way we read 

3 
 that, that would preclude us from having 

4 
 meetings with our distributors or with other 

5 
 groups to tell them about this product until 

6 
 -- and then a lot of times as you're 

7 
 developing products, testing is one of the 

8 
 last things that occurs prior to manufacturing 

9 
 or within a couple of months. 

10 
 So what you're saying would sort 

11 
 of prevent us from doing any preliminary 

12 
 introduction of the product, discussion of the 

13 
 product until it was certified. And then that 

14 
 limits our ability to talk to our 

15 
 distributors, talk to our contractors about 

16 
 the product to get them the information that 

17 they need. 

18 
 Especially if you're doing large 

19 
 commercial products, there's a six to 

20 
 nine-month lead time in designing for these 

21 systems. 

22 
 MS. BARHYDT: So currently this is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

120 

1 
 not a change in the requirement. So clearly 

2 


3 
 MR. DOPPEL: Well, commercial HVAC 

4 
 systems have not previously --

5 
 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, okay. So 

6 
 specifically for the commercial. 

7 
 MR. DOPPEL: -- been certified. 

8 
 So commercial HVAC systems, this could be a 

9 
 potential problem. 

10 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. If you'll 

11 
 provide all of that in your written comments, 

12 
 that would be great. 

13 
 MR. McCABE: This is Mike McCabe. 

14 
 And following up on that, are there other 

15 
 products for which that may be an issue as 

16 
 well? And given some of the discussion that 

17 
 took place in the previous session about the 

18 
 walk-in coolers, walk-in freezers, where 

19 
 everyone is different, that I presume that 

20 
 there may be some discussions that are taking 

21 
 place that would be of the same sort. 

22 
 Similarly with the transformers, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

121 

1 
 that may be the case as well. So I would ask 

2 
 for anybody who has an issue that follows 

3 
 along those lines, to let us know as far as 

4 
 for their products and offer any specific 

5 
 suggestions. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim, you're next. 

7 
 And any other persons who wish to comment on 

8 
 Michael's point, then, stand up. 

9 
 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

10 
 I have a question about the total 

11 
 number of tests performed. In the case of 

12 
 central A/C, split systems, in particular, you 

13 
 don't have to test everything. You have to 

14 
 test only the highest split combination. And 

15 
 then for the other combination, you can use an 

16 alternative working method. 

17 
 MS. BARHYDT: Right. So what 

18 
 we're proposing is that you would indicate 

19 
 that for this basic model, this is how many 

20 
 were actually tested and this is how many were 

21 
 -- these are the ones that were subject to an 

22 ARM. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

122 

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please? Your 

2 
 name? 

3 
 MR. NICHOLS: Jeff Nichols, 

4 
 Johnson Controls. 

5 
 Just kind of piling on with Mr. 

6 
 Doppel and Mr. Karim --

7 
 (Laughter.) 

8 
 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So total 

9 
 number of tests performed. So in the case of 

10 
 a split system, residential product, if it is 

11 
 a match that it was not the highest sales 

12 
 volume, cold combination, but it was done with 

13 
 ARM, that would be no on that basic model 

14 
 group that's listed zero test? And then you 

15 have to list your --

16 
 MS. BARHYDT: And then you would 

17 
 identify that that rating was based on an ARM. 

18 
 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So, then, 

19 
 based on an ARM or do we have to submit the 

20 
 letter that we have from DOE approving the ARM 

21 
 or --

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think -- and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

123 

1 
 this is off the top of my head. It's spelled 

2 
 out pretty specifically in the regulation or 

3 
 in the proposed regulations what we need, but 

4 
 I think it's the date of approval for the ARM. 

5 
 MR. NICHOLS: Date of approval for 

6 
 the ARM? 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Since the ARMs 

8 
 have to be approved prior to the --

9 
 MR. NICHOLS: And then on the 

10 
 promotion side of introducing, I'm going to 

11 
 say it this way. We would want to promote our 

12 
 product before we go to market to get it in 

13 
 front of our customers so that we can build 

14 some excitement. 

15 
 So the question is, do I have to 

16 
 hold off on promoting it until I have provided 

17 
 my certification? Because often the 

18 
 certification data won't be ready until just 

19 
 before we start building it and putting it 

20 into the marketplace. 

21 
 So that's the point of 

22 
 clarification we would like to -- I would like 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

124 

1 
 to understand. 

2 
 MS. BARHYDT: I don't think that I 

3 
 am going to be able to answer that one off the 

4 
 spot, but --

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I ask a 

6 
 question about that? When you promote your 

7 
 product, do you say anything about its energy 

8 
 efficiency characteristics in that promotion? 

9 
 MR. NICHOLS: Very often. We talk 

10 
 about generalities. And sometimes we may have 

11 
 details, but we may have finished the testing 

12 
 but have not done the submittal, the 

13 certification submittal. 

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

15 
 MR. NICHOLS: So I guess 

16 understanding the details there. 

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

18 
 MR. DOPPEL: That is along the 

19 
 same lines as I was talking about. And that 

20 
 would apply to residential systems as well as 

21 
 commercial systems in that you know what 

22 
 you're designing for efficiency-wise and you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

125 

1 
 have your target. But the actual final 

2 
 testing doesn't take place until maybe a 

3 
 couple of months prior to manufacture. 

4 
 But you need additional time to 

5 
 get the information out to get your customer 

6 
 base aware of this product so they can start 

7 
 preparing their contractors or engineers to 

8 
 use this product for wherever they're doing 

9 
 that. 

10 So without having clear definition 

11 
 of put into commerce and with certification 

12 tied to that, we're very hamstrung. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis? 

14 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

15 Industries. 

16 
 I also want to bring that affects 

17 
 out industry, can affect our industry, also, 

18 
 such as a new insulation material that became 

19 
 available. We can implement that new 

20 
 insulation material within a week technically, 

21 
 but now we can't even promote it until we --

22 
 even though the testing may be done on the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

126 

1 
 insulation, now we have to recertify it and go 

2 
 through all of this process, testing of the 

3 
 basis unit, or whatever we come up with. 

4 
 So we can't promote that product 

5 
 also until the -- the insulation may come out, 

6 
 but we can't do anything with it. If it's 

7 
 twice our value water, we couldn't do anything 

8 
 with it until we -- so this is a process that 

9 
 could affect us in being able to market the 

10 
 product on a timely basis, which would promote 

11 
 higher energy efficiency products in the 

12 field. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 Frank? 

15 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, 

16 
 AHRI. 

17 
 I just want to clarify because I 

18 
 really didn't get the answer on the number of 

19 
 tests. So let's say I'm testing a basic model 

20 
 of a water heater because I can talk about 

21 
 water heaters. So I've tested four units. 

22 And I tell DOE I've tested four units. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127 

1 
 DOE wants to know if I happen to 

2 
 have tested each of those units, let's say, 

3 
 two or three times? They need to know that? 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: No. So --

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is what we 

6 
 ask for. 

7 
 MR. STANONIK: Pardon me? 

8 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that is what it 

9 
 asks for, right? 

10 
 MR. STANONIK: That is what I am 

11 reading. And that's why I am confused. 

12 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what it 

13 asks for. 

14 
 MS. BARHYDT: Your certification 

15 
 is based on a calculation. What numbers did 

16 
 you put into that calculation? 

17 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

18 
 McCabe. 

19 
 MR. STANONIK: All right. Well --

20 
 MR. McCABE: If I may follow up on 

21 your question, Frank, --

22 MR. STANONIK: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

128 

1 
 MR. McCABE: -- because it wasn't 

2 
 clear. When you talked about a unit being 

3 
 tested multiple times, were you talking about 

4 
 an individual unit or a number of units, an 

5 
 individual unit to be tested multiple times, 

6 
 or were you talking about a number of units of 

7 
 the basic model being tested? 

8 
 MR. STANONIK: No. Okay. My 

9 
 sample is four. That doesn't vary. I was 

10 
 talking about that if I happened to decide 

11 
 that I wanted to test each of the samples 

12 
 three times to determine my rating; whereas, I 

13 
 really only need to test them each once, I 

14 then have to tell DOE that. 

15 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I mean, the 

16 
 answer is we are asking for that information 

17 
 to the extent for which you think we should 

18 
 rethink that. But I would say that there is 

19 
 some confusion about whether you test four 

20 
 samples or one sample four times. So this is 

21 
 a way for DOE to understand what is being 

22 done. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

129 

1 
 MR. STANONIK: Okay. All right. 

2 
 Well, certainly for residential products, I am 

3 
 not aware that any of our members had an 

4 
 impression that sampling testing allowed the 

5 
 possibility of taking one unit and just doing 

6 
 repeatability tests. 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: And it depends. 

8 
 Our sampling provisions are to a certain 

9 
 extent part-specific but usually are around 

10 sample size, not number --

11 
 MR. STANONIK: I would suggest at 

12 
 least the possibility that maybe that only 

13 
 needs to be recorded if, in fact, the 

14 
 manufacturer tested each unit more than once 

15 
 if that's really something that needs to be 

16 done, but --

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, then I will 

18 
 ask the question to you and the manufacturers 

19 
 in the room that when you determine the rating 

20 
 that you are going to certify to DOE, do you 

21 
 base it just on that single test or do you -- 

22 
 the single test for each sample or if you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

130 

1 
 happen to do three tests, do you take an 

2 
 average over those three tests for each sample 

3 
 and then some average there and then run the 

4 
 sampling procedures? We're trying to 

5 
 understand what people are doing. 

6 
 MR. STANONIK: Okay. And then a 

7 
 very different point here that has gnawed at 

8 
 me a little bit. There is certainly this 

9 
 indication that every basic model has to go 

10 through the sampling. Okay? 

11 
 And I would pose to you that there 

12 
 may be circumstances -- again, I have been a 

13 
 company that has been in business for 30-40 

14 
 years. And I have been dealing with 

15 
 efficiency regulations for as long as that. 

16 And so I know my product. Okay? 

17 
 And so I've got this model X. And 

18 
 for market reasons, I'm creating a new basic 

19 
 model, especially with this new definition. 

20 
 I'm creating a new basic model where I've just 

21 
 added some other feature, whatever. Okay? I 

22 
 have a wealth of data on model X. My new 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

131 

1 
 model I'm going to call Y. Okay? 

2 
 I believe that the manufacturer 

3 
 does have the option that he could test model 

4 
 Y once -- okay? -- and decide to 

5 
 conservatively rate. Again, his obligation is 

6 
 the rating has to be no more than he claims. 

7 
 Let me rephrase that. He can't overclaim his 

8 
 rating. Okay? 

9 
 But it seems to me a manufacturer 

10 
 does have an option. With knowledge, let's 

11 
 say, of similar designs and things, he could 

12 
 take this new model, test it once, and because 

13 
 of desires to get it to the market for other 

14 
 reasons, -- as much as energy efficiency is 

15 
 important, we do sell products for other 

16 
 reasons. Okay? -- and decide to 

17 
 conservatively rate it. I would say he is 

18 
 complying, but he hasn't done sampling in the 

19 
 rigorous definition I think we're seeing here. 

20 
 And I'm not sure that's right. 

21 
 I'm not sure it's right that he would have to 

22 do multiple testings. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

132 

1 
 We'll make a comment. 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. I look 

3 
 forward to it. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, Frank? Frank? 

5 
 Frank, I didn't quite get it. By telling the 

6 
 Department of Energy how you are doing your 

7 
 sampling, that is some additional burden? 

8 
 MR. STANONIK: No. I am saying if 

9 
 it was to be rigorously enforced, sampling 

10 
 certainly implies at least two tests and 

11 
 probably more. Okay? I am claiming that 

12 
 there are circumstances where a manufacturer 

13 
 could comply with the regulations and only 

14 
 test one unit of this new basic model one 

15 time. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 
 MR. STANONIK: You know, it would 

18 
 be a Saturday check that what he predicted or 

19 
 what he believed he had made, in fact, 

20 happened. 

21 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

22 McCabe, just following up on Frank. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

133 

1 
 So what you are describing one 

2 
 could say is that the manufacturer is 

3 
 considering that the new model to be the same 

4 
 basic model as another one based on the test 

5 
 that they could be using. And one scenario 

6 
 could be that the modified an existing basic 

7 
 model. 

8 
 Based on their knowledge, they 

9 
 understand the product that should be 

10 
 performing in the same way or similar to that 

11 
 of the basic model or, for whatever marketing 

12 
 reason, they're considering a different model 

13 
 and they're just testing one unit of that new 

14 model to verify their thoughts. 

15 
 And they're giving it a 

16 
 conservative rating, which is the same rating 

17 
 as that basic model that it grew out of and 

18 
 that, in effect, they're considering that to 

19 be part of the same basic model. 

20 
 MR. STANONIK: Mike, that is 

21 
 certainly a lot of it except that as currently 

22 
 constructed, they probably couldn't call it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

134 

1 
 the same basic model. You know, a lot of this 

2 
 goes back to the definition of basic model. 

3 
 But, you know, just as an example, 

4 
 talking about water heaters, you know, the 

5 
 Water Heater Institute was faced with a very 

6 
 difficult situation of providing special 

7 
 NOx-emitting product to Southern California -- 

8 
 okay? -- and recognizing that they did put in 

9 
 a different burner, but if they knew that 

10 
 otherwise this thing was going to perform the 

11 
 same as model whatever, you know, again, I 

12 
 think there are options available that they 

13 
 still could comply with the law and not 

14 
 necessarily have to in all cases with the 

15 
 current definition of basic model in all cases 

16 
 test multiple samples. 

17 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You are next. 

18 
 MS. CHANG: Christine Chang, 

19 
 Natural Resources Defense Council. 

20 
 One item that we don't see on this 

21 
 list for reporting requirements that we would 

22 like to see is full performance data. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

135 

1 
 MS. BARHYDT: This is the general 

2 
 information that is required of all products. 

3 
 Paragraph (b)(13) of 429.19 actually has all 

4 
 of the specific product information. And it's 

5 
 different because the performance requirements 

6 
 are different for every product. It's 

7 
 different for each one. 

8 
 MS. CHANG: Okay. 

9 
 MS. BARHYDT: And so definitely we 

10 
 have not gotten rid of the performance 

11 reporting requirements. 

12 
 MS. CHANG: Great. So the public 

13 
 will be able to see the extent at which the 

14 products meet the federal minimum standards? 

15 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 

16 
 MS. CHANG: Great. And then 

17 
 another comment I wanted to make on annual 

18 
 recertification, given that there also was a 

19 
 requirement in the proposed rulemaking for DOE 

20 
 to be notified whenever a product is 

21 
 discontinued, we were interested in hearing 

22 
 the reasoning behind wanting this annual 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

136 

1 
 recertification of old test data as we're not 

2 
 sure that that really provides any new 

3 
 information to DOE. And we think, instead, 

4 
 that some sort of regular recertification with 

5 
 new test data would be more helpful. 

6 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, okay. 

7 
 (Laughter.) 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

9 
 Let me note for those of you that 

10 
 are keeping track of the slides we backed up a 

11 few. 

12 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, we have. 

13 
 MR. BROOKMAN: The comments now, 

14 
 Laura has presented up to slide 24. So that 

15 
 sequence of slides if you have comments? Tim 

16 
 Ballo? 

17 
 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

18 
 EarthJustice. 

19 
 First, just a question. When 

20 
 talking about running more than one test on a 

21 
 particular unit within a basic model, I just 

22 
 want to be clear. Did DOE's regs or the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

137 

1 
 proposed regs at least mandate that you run 

2 
 the same number of tests on each unit within 

3 
 the sample of the basic model that you're 

4 
 testing? 

5 
 I guess my concern is you test 

6 
 them once and you have the sample of, say, 

7 
 four and then you run maybe a couple of more 

8 
 tests on the unit that tested really well and 

9 
 then you get your rating that way. 

10 
 MS. BARHYDT: The sampling plan is 

11 
 based on a statistical analysis of the number 

12 
 of units tested. And you would not be able to 

13 
 bump up the number of units tested just 

14 because you tested one unit multiple times. 

15 MR. BALLO: Okay. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes? 

17 
 MR. COULTER: Greg Coulter, Prolec 

18 
 General Electric. 

19 
 I am just using transformers, 

20 
 talking to those. We like the new CCMS 

21 
 approach, doing it electronically. Our 

22 
 problem is for distribution transformers, it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

138 

1 
 doesn't exist. And it looks like it's going 

2 
 to come out in the final regulations with no 

3 
 comment. If there's an error or a problem 

4 
 with it, we could be caught flat-footed here. 

5 
 We would kind of like to see it 

6 
 before it comes out and have a chance to 

7 
 comment to it. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Ashley? 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. So to the 

10 
 extent that the CCMS, the templates that you 

11 
 find online currently available for certain 

12 
 consumer products for which we collect 

13 
 information now, all it is is a format of the 

14 
 information we are requesting in our regs. So 

15 
 it's what we think is an easy format to fill 

16 
 out. 

17 
 To the extent that once it comes 

18 
 out -- the templates will come out with the 

19 
 final rule, with the information that we had 

20 
 gone final with collecting. To the extent you 

21 have feedback, you can contact me. 

22 MR. COULTER: We will. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

139 

1 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: but it's not --

2 
 MR. COULTER: We kind of --

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's not a formal 

4 
 iterative process. So I would suggest that if 

5 
 you have comments about the type of 

6 
 information DOE is collecting or what 

7 
 information it shouldn't be collecting, this 

8 
 is that process. Our regulations say what 

9 
 information. It's just we're making it pretty 

10 per se in an Excel template. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Other 

12 
 comments on these slides? Because we're going 

13 to keep going ahead. 

14 
 MS. BARHYDT: So lets see. We 

15 
 talked about the distribution, the commerce. 

16 
 Currently we do require that it must be 

17 
 reported to DOE when a model is discontinued. 

18 
 We are proposing that, rather than that being 

19 
 an ongoing rolling basis, as it is right now, 

20 
 you would be able to report when a model is 

21 
 discontinued as part of the annual 

22 certification. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

140 

1 
 This rule does not change the 

2 
 current status permitting manufacturers to do 

3 
 in-house testing. It does not require 

4 
 independent testing. We may look at that in 

5 
 the next rulemaking, but at this time we are 

6 
 not making any changes to that. 

7 
 The sampling provisions were 

8 
 scattered. And for consumer products, they 

9 
 were pretty much in one section, but for 

10 
 commercial products, they were scattered 

11 
 throughout part 431. And so we have 

12 
 consolidated all of the sampling procedures 

13 into proposed 429.9. 

14 
 We have also added some sampling 

15 
 provisions for products for which there 

16 previously were not sampling provisions. 

17 
 We did not make any changes to the 

18 
 sampling plans that had already been adopted, 

19 
 but we do have a lot of questions about how 

20 
 sampling plans perhaps could be improved. And 

21 
 we would be looking at those issues in the 

22 next rulemaking. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

141 

1 
 This is one of the issues that we 

2 
 had specific questions about where we're 

3 
 looking at the sampling plans and tolerances 

4 
 for other features of the covered products and 

5 
 covered equipment that impact the water energy 

6 
 characteristics of the product. 

7 
 We're also seeking comment on the 

8 
 approach that DOE has taken and the 

9 
 methodologies that we should consider if we 

10 
 decide to extend sampling provisions to 

11 features other than the regulatory metrics. 

12 
 For example, I think you used the 

13 
 storage volume of a water heater earlier. 

14 
 It's not a regulatory metric. But whether or 

15 
 not that is something that is actually 

16 
 representative across a number of samples we 

17 
 think that perhaps the sampling plan would be 

18 
 in order to ensure that the value being used 

19 
 in the calculation for efficiency is actually 

20 
 a valid metric. 

21 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. And this is 

22 
 Ashley. I'll take that a step further and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

142 

1 
 even saying, going to the question about -- 

2 
 right now I'll use an example of water 

3 
 heaters, going along with the theme. But 

4 
 right now the energy factor, which is the 

5 
 regulatory metric, is based on the rated 

6 
 storage volume. 

7 
 Then if DOE went down the pathway 

8 
 of adding sampling plans and tolerances for 

9 
 actual measured volume, then subsequently the 

10 
 standards could be based on that actual 

11 
 measured volume other than the rated storage 

12 volume. 

13 
 So this is asking whether that is 

14 
 appropriate, whether you agree or disagree. I 

15 see a lot of people staring at me. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: This gentleman I 

17 
 believe is first and then Ellis. 

18 
 MR. BROWN: Yes. This is Bill 

19 
 Brown with GE Appliances. 

20 
 The first comment I have regards 

21 
 the concept of discontinued model. If you can 

22 go back to that slide? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

143 

1 
 MS. BARHYDT: Sure. 

2 
 MR. BROWN: Just we have a 

3 
 difficulty with the current definition of 

4 
 discontinued model and being able to track 

5 
 when it is no longer being distributed or no 

6 
 longer for sale. 

7 
 We would suggest possibly a better 

8 
 way to look at a discontinued model is, you 

9 
 know, final production date. We can certainly 

10 
 track the final production date and give 

11 
 yourself enough time as well to let that model 

12 go through the process of being sold. 

13 
 We would suggest to be consistent 

14 
 with what the EPA does with EnergyStar, one 

15 
 year after final production would be 

16 
 considered to be discontinued model. We would 

17 
 like to offer that. 

18 
 The other question I have goes 

19 
 back to some other comments we had on number 

20 
 of tests per unit. I know you said that you 

21 
 asked for the sample size just to make sure 

22 
 that people were complying with minimum sample 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

144 

1 
 size. The number of tests per unit, I mean, 

2 
 it's been our reading of the document that you 

3 
 test each unit one time. 

4 
 Does DOE even offer the ability to 

5 
 test a unit multiple times? And then what do 

6 
 you do with that test? I mean, do you take 

7 
 max, min, average? 

8 
 My understanding is you test each 

9 
 unit one time. I don't see in the DOE 

10 
 documents today where it allows for multiple 

11 
 testing of the same unit. And if it did, what 

12 do you do with that data? 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Ashley Armstrong? 

14 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. So as far as 

15 
 testing a unit more than once, multiple times, 

16 
 I would say off the top of my head, I think 

17 
 for most products, DOE is silent on it. So we 

18 
 don't have explicit instructions on whether 

19 
 you test a unit once, whether you're 

20 
 prohibited to test a unit more than one time. 

21 
 We're trying to understand what people are 

22 actually doing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145 

1 
 MR. BROWN: What do you recommend? 

2 
 (Laughter.) 

3 
 MR. BROWN: I mean, there's one 

4 
 way to do it and --

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: What would you 

6 
 recommend doing? What do you do? 

7 
 MR. BROWN: We test each unit one 

8 
 time. 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

10 
 MR. BROWN: So everybody is going 

11 to do that now? 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

14 McCabe. 

15 
 I would like to just add to what 

16 
 Ashley said, that for some of the commercial 

17 
 products, where there is very low production 

18 
 volume, I believe that there in the 

19 
 enforcement testing, there is a provision for 

20 
 multiple testing of an individual unit. And 

21 
 so some of that consideration is what led to 

22 this. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

146 

1 
 But for the high volume products 

2 
 and for most anything for certification, we 

3 
 would expect that it would be a single test. 

4 
 But, as we were again reminding everybody that 

5 
 we're writing this for all the products. And 

6 
 the time that we spent working together to 

7 
 draft this, we were taking into consideration 

8 
 what was going on with transformers, what was 

9 
 going on with residential refrigerators in 

10 
 trying to draft something that seemed to make 

11 
 sense and then tailor it for the individual 

12 products. 

13 
 So as you're looking at these 

14 
 provisions, please think about it both with 

15 
 regards to the product or products that you 

16 
 produce, but also take a look at some of the 

17 
 other products for other industries and see 

18 
 whether or not there might be something there 

19 
 that would be applicable to your industry as 

20 
 well. 

21 
 MS. BARHYDT: One other thing. 

22 
 You mentioned the discontinued product and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

147 

1 
 making that more explicit as to when exactly a 

2 
 product was discontinued. And you suggested 

3 
 one year like it is for the EnergyStar 

4 
 program. 

5 
 For consumer products, perhaps one 

6 
 year is applicable. But my question would be, 

7 
 what about for commercial products? Would one 

8 
 year be a reasonable time frame? Would it be 

9 
 shorter? Would it be longer? And is one year 

10 good for all consumer products even? 

11 
 So if we were to go down the path 

12 
 of making that explicit, we would definitely 

13 
 need some information about what people 

14 
 thought was a reasonable time period for 

15 people to clear their stock. 

16 
 MR. BROWN: Okay. That is fair. 

17 
 Just the point I was making is that it is very 

18 
 difficult for us to track when the last model 

19 
 is out there being sold. 

20 
 And on our example, I can see 

21 
 where models being made eight years ago for 

22 
 sale in one place in the country, somebody 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

148 

1 
 still has that one unit. That's not what I 

2 
 want to track. And I don't think that DOE is 

3 
 looking to look for that one unit as what 

4 
 we're trying to sell. 

5 
 So one year for commercial 

6 
 appliances is a very reasonable time frame. 

7 
 I'm sure you'll be getting comments for other 

8 
 products as well that say what is a good time 

9 
 frame for them or if they can reasonably track 

10 
 this final sell, it may be easy for them as 

11 well. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer? 

13 
 MS. CLEARY: My question kind of 

14 
 echoes Mr. Brown's thoughts of trying to 

15 
 figure out, you know, a model is being 

16 
 discontinued when it is no longer being sold 

17 
 or held out for sale or distribution by the 

18 
 manufacturer or private labeler. I would 

19 
 interpret that to mean that being sold means 

20 
 being sold to whoever the manufacturer sells 

21 to, not being sold by --

22 MS. BARHYDT: Correct. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

149 

1 
 MS. CLEARY: -- X retailer. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

3 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, 

4 
 AHRI. 

5 
 I just want to go back briefly to 

6 
 this question of the sampling and the testing. 

7 
 And specifically I am going to specifically 

8 
 talk about the enforcement testing for 

9 
 consumer products, which has been a regulation 

10 since way back when. 

11 
 In that particular case, in fact, 

12 
 the current regulations for consumer products 

13 
 specified initial sampling of four units. And 

14 
 then if there is some disagreement as to the 

15 
 conclusion generated by those four units, 

16 
 there is an opportunity to test more samples. 

17 There is no opportunity to repeat the tests. 

18 
 So I think, at least on the aspect 

19 
 of the enforcement testing for consumer 

20 
 products, it is very clear there is no option 

21 to repeat the test of a test sample. 

22 
 If there is either not a clear 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

150 

1 
 conclusion or in the case of the manufacturer, 

2 
 it doesn't necessarily agree that the right 

3 
 answer has been achieved, they can ask for 

4 
 more tests, but they don't have an opportunity 

5 
 to say, "Oh, can you test that one again or 

6 
 maybe run it two or three more times?" 

7 
 So I think, at least from that 

8 
 aspect of the rules, the perspective that we 

9 
 have always used I think is there that when 

10 
 you are doing sampling testing, you only get 

11 
 to test each sample once. And that was part 

12 of, still part of, my confusion. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

14 
 Additional comments on this, 

15 please? 

16 
 MS. STERLING: Yes. I would like 

17 
 to move forward to the certification testing 

18 
 slide. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you see what it 

20 
 is? 

21 
 MR. McCABE: This is Joan 

22 Sterling. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

151 

1 
 MS. STERLING: Joan Sterling with 

2 
 Intertek. 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: Slide number --

5 
 MS. STERLING: In-house versus 

6 
 independent testing. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Twenty-six. 

8 
 MS. STERLING: We would like to 

9 
 request -- and it will become more significant 

10 
 in the future rulemaking -- that the 

11 
 terminology be addressed properly and using 

12 
 ISO ISE guide 2 that we will talk about not in 

13 
 in-house testing but first party testing 

14 
 versus third party testing and not independent 

15 
 testing as such. So if we're starting to use 

16 
 the correct terminology, it will be more clear 

17 
 to the industry exactly what we're talking 

18 
 about. 

19 
 And in other spots in the 

20 
 presentation, there was made mention of 

21 
 self-certification, which, in fact, doesn't 

22 
 exist. I think the appropriate term is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

152 

1 
 supplier's declaration of conformity. 

2 
 So I think it will become more 

3 
 important in the second rulemaking. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That is 

5 
 helpful. Thank you. 

6 
 Karim? 

7 
 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

8 
 I have a question for Ashley. 

9 
 Regarding the tolerances for 

10 
 metrics, are you talking about existing 

11 
 metric, like CE, or are you talking about like 

12 the volume for water heaters? 

13 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. This is 

14 Ashley. 

15 
 Our sampling plans currently 

16 
 revolve around the regulatory, the existing 

17 
 regulatory metrics, like CE, like EER, like 

18 
 energy factor, one of our -- we're talking 

19 about -- well, that's one of the issues. 

20 
 But we're talking about in the 

21 
 specific slide, should DOE add tolerances 

22 
 and/or sampling plans for non-regulatory 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

153 

1 
 metrics, like storage volume, like cooling 

2 
 capacity, like a number of terms for which the 

3 
 standards depend upon. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You can see 

5 
 there and it's on the screen issue number 4. 

6 
 Any additional comments adding sampling plans 

7 
 and tolerances for other features of current 

8 
 products and current work that would impact 

9 
 the water or energy characteristics of a 

10 product? Additional comments? 

11 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Karim, back to 

12 
 you. You're shaking your head. Does that 

13 mean you agree that DOE should? 

14 MR. AMRANE: No, no. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

17 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, 

18 
 AHRI. 

19 
 Let me specifically ask. We 

20 
 certainly don't agree that you need to be 

21 
 worried about water heater volume. There are 

22 
 other standards, other market forces that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

154 

1 
 regulate to what degree the actual volume 

2 
 might vary from the rated volume. 

3 
 We have been down that road with 

4 
 the California Energy Commission quite a few 

5 
 years ago. And it just adds a lot more 

6 
 complication and no improvement in ultimately 

7 
 regulating the efficiency of water heaters. 

8 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

9 
 McCabe. Following up on your comment, Frank, 

10 
 and, again, I'll make it very broad that when 

11 
 you -- the other products as well. In most of 

12 
 the products or many of the products, there's 

13 
 a measure of capacity that is required to be 

14 reported. 

15 
 Many of the products, 

16 
 refrigerators, water heaters, the standard is 

17 
 a function of capacity. There are, looking at 

18 
 room air conditioners, for example, there is 

19 
 some shorthand information that is out there 

20 
 that says that the EER is the equivalent of 

21 capacity divided by wattage. 

22 
 And so the question, just to make 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

155 

1 
 sure that everybody is very clear, it's a very 

2 
 broad question. So it's measures of capacity 

3 
 that we're asking manufacturers to certify to 

4 
 DOE. Should those be subject to the same 

5 
 tolerance, testing requirements? 

6 
 But I would even go beyond that to 

7 
 think about the values that would appear in 

8 
 representations that, as Ashley said, relate 

9 
 to efficiency. So taking clothes washers, for 

10 
 example, since the modified energy factor, 

11 
 there is a relationship between the volume of 

12 
 the clothes washer, and the energy use. You 

13 
 know, should tub volume be subject to the same 

14 sampling? 

15 
 So please think about it very 

16 broadly, not very narrowly, in this request. 

17 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You are next. 

18 
 MR. VerSHAW: Jim VerShaw, 

19 Ingersoll Rand. 

20 
 Yes. We would prefer that you 

21 
 would stick with the regulatory metrics and 

22 
 the sampling that we have. You know, we do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

156 

1 
 capacity. We do capacity on air conditioners 

2 
 as well as the SEER and the EER and the like. 

3 
 How far can we go on different things? I 

4 
 think you get too broad, and there are too 

5 
 many things going on. We need to stick with 

6 
 the regulatory metric. 

7 
 MR. McCABE: Again, Michael 

8 
 McCabe. 

9 
 Following up on that, I think I 

10 
 failed to make the request to Frank that in 

11 
 your submittal, you talked about some of the 

12 
 exchange with the California Energy 

13 
 Commission. If you could go into that 

14 
 experience, both what the back and forth was 

15 
 and what the final decision was and what the 

16 
 basis of that decision was, it would be 

17 
 useful. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Final 

19 comments on this segment? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

22 
 MS. BARHYDT: So we are also 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
157 

1 
 proposing specific provisions for commercial 

2 
 HVAC and water heater equipment. Currently 

3 
 sampling procedures allow the use of an AEDM. 

4 
 And the sampling procedures are actually more 

5 
 stringent for manufacturers that do not 

6 
 participate in an approved VICP. 

7 
 The proposal is basically getting 

8 
 rid of that distinction. And the requirements 

9 
 would be the same for all manufacturers 

10 
 independent of whether they were participating 

11 in a VICP or not. 

12 
 The sampling procedures that would 

13 
 apply are those that are currently the ones 

14 
 that currently apply to nonmembers of VICPs. 

15 
 So they're not completely new. They're just 

16 
 the ones that were in use before for people 

17 who were not participating in VICPs. 

18 
 And manufacturers may use both 

19 
 in-house and independent testing labs for 

20 
 certification testing. And we would still 

21 
 allow the third party certification for those 

22 people who were participating a VICP. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

158

1 
 And then under the next 

2 
 rulemaking, we will be looking at provisions 

3 
 surrounding the VICPs for all covered products 

4 
 and covered equipment and what parameters 

5 
 might should apply to those programs that 

6 
 would actually warrant possibly differential 

7 
 treatment. 

8 
 This is another one where we have 

9 
 sought specific comment, particularly on the 

10 
 criteria defining VICPs and their use in 

11 
 certification compliance and enforcement. 

12 
 And I already see people standing 

13 
 up. 

14 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

15 
 McCabe. 

16 
 If I may add to what Laura has 

17 
 said that, as I would describe it, we are 

18 
 essentially wiping the slate clean for the 

19 
 VICPs at this point. And, as Laura said, we 

20 
 are looking at it for all the products for the 

21 
 subsequent rulemaking. 

22 
 So this should not be viewed as a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

159 

1 
 comment, a negative comment, on the VICPs but, 

2 
 rather, preparing the rulemaking for 

3 
 consideration in the next step. 

4 
 And while there are regs right now 

5 
 for VICPs' recognition within the regulations, 

6 
 we would encourage every industry, every 

7 
 product line to take a look at this with an 

8 
 eye towards the next rulemaking. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

10 
 MR. EARBS: Yes. Daryl Earbs, 

11 Manitowoc. 

12 
 I think the proposal makes it 

13 
 clear to me that VICP really no longer -- it 

14 
 plays a rule in certification, but a 

15 
 manufacturer can go ahead and do their 

16 
 certification without a VICP. 

17 
 But the VICPs, at least some of 

18 
 them, the ones that I am familiar with, do, in 

19 
 fact, go through a verification process, which 

20 
 to me is basically your enforcement mechanism, 

21 
 right? They use an independent laboratory. 

22 
 They go in, and they take random samples of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

160 

1 
 products. 

2 
 And so what I would be looking for 

3 
 is a manufacturer who participates in a VICP 

4 
 who is already going through every year an 

5 
 enforcement activity through that VICP be 

6 
 relieved of any additional burden on the part 

7 
 of DOE to go through some additional 

8 
 enforcement because if we have someone who is 

9 
 already doing it through a voluntary program 

10 
 and it satisfies at least the basic sampling 

11 
 requirements that DOE would be looking for, we 

12 shouldn't have to do it again. 

13 
 MS. BARHYDT: So are you 

14 
 suggesting that the VICP should provide the 

15 
 information to the Department of Energy about 

16 whether products pass or fail? 

17 
 MR. EARBS: I think in the case 

18 
 that a product would fall below a minimum 

19 
 requirement, then that's appropriate. We list 

20 
 products that are above the minimum. They may 

21 
 be between EnergyStar and minimum. We may be 

22 
 required to re-rate. But if it's still above 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

161 

1 
 the minimum, I don't know that there is any 

2 
 good reason why they would supply that 

3 
 information to DOE. 

4 
 But if you fall below a minimum, 

5 
 then I think, yeah, that would be appropriate. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

7 
 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

8 
 I would like to second what Daryl 

9 
 just said. I guess we don't understand this 

10 
 action by DOE at this point in time, frankly. 

11 
 It's a disincentive for those who are 

12 
 currently in the VICP to continue to be in a 

13 VICP for commercial product. 

14 
 I think when DOE will issue this 

15 
 rulemaking on VICP, maybe that will be the 

16 
 time to put all products the same 

17 
 requirements, but right now doing it today 

18 
 while we don't know when this rule will be 

19 
 eventually finalized and published, I think 

20 it's premature. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 Yes? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

162

1 
 MR. VerSHAW: Jim VerShaw, 

2 
 Ingersoll Rand. 

3 
 In terms of commercial air 

4 
 conditioning and -- first of all, we support 

5 
 VICPs. We have been long-term members with 

6 
 AHRI on all of our products. 

7 
 The problem with commercial air 

8 
 conditioning, as I mentioned earlier, is that 

9 
 some of these units can get very big. 

10 
 And they are not on stock. 

11 
 They're special ordered. So if you wanted to 

12 
 do a random sampling of the 100-ton rooftop, 

13 
 you're going to have to order it. And it's 

14 
 going to cost $150,000. And there is no place 

15 in the country you can test it independently. 

16 
 So as you move forward with these 

17 
 rules and regulations, you need to make sure 

18 
 that we can actually do the things that are 

19 
 liked to have been done and that they're 

20 
 reasonable. 

21 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Just to follow up 

22 
 on that, to the extent that a VICP -- whether 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

163 

1 
 they currently do or in the future, to the 

2 
 extent that they alleviate those problems, I 

3 
 mean, how do they test or how do they 

4 
 spot-check 100-ton units? 

5 
 MR. VerSHAW: They have to come to 

6 
 our lab. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on 

8 
 this section? 

9 
 (No response.) 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

11 
 MS. BARHYDT: The current 

12 
 regulations require maintenance of records for 

13 
 two years after the production has ceased and 

14 
 is no longer being distributed by the 

15 manufacturer. 

16 
 And we're not making any changes 

17 
 to that. We are clarifying the information 

18 
 that DOE believes are public records within 

19 
 the certification data. And that information 

20 
 is listed here. 

21 
 And I think that's about it on 

22 
 that slide. Anything else, any other 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

164 

1 
 comments, on certification? 

2 
 MR. McCABE: Laura, if we could 

3 
 back up to the previous slide? 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: Sure. 

5 
 MR. McCABE: I would like to point 

6 
 out it is all product-specific information 

7 
 submitted in the certification report. So 

8 
 reviews would be public record. That would 

9 
 mean that anybody coming in and asking for it 

10 
 would have the right to see the information 

11 
 and that we would have the responsibility to 

12 
 provide them with that information upon 

13 request. 

14 
 When we looked at the information 

15 
 that we had listed before as far as that we 

16 
 were looking for it to be submitted, we talked 

17 
 about generally and then for each product, 

18 there is some specific information. 

19 
 We recognize that from some of the 

20 
 comments made today and discussions had over 

21 
 my 30-year tenure of the program, that some 

22 may view some of that as being proprietary. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

165

1 
 We have reviewed the information. 

2 
 We do not consider it to be, but I would ask. 

3 
 I want to point it out and make sure that you 

4 
 do comment on it and offer your rationale as 

5 
 to why. If there is any that you would 

6 
 consider to be proprietary, what was the basis 

7 
 of that consideration? 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

9 
 MS. BARHYDT: So we have also 

10 
 proposed to change the way enforcement testing 

11 
 is set up. In the current regulation, it 

12 
 states that DOE must receive written 

13 
 information that a covered product or covered 

14 
 equipment may be violating a standard before 

15 DOE can conduct enforcement testing. 

16 
 We are proposing to change that so 

17 
 that we can request data, test, or examine in 

18 
 another format the standards compliance of any 

19 
 covered product or covered equipment at any 

20 
 time. 

21 
 We may initiate enforcement 

22 
 testing without written information from a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

166 

1 
 third party. And this proposal aligns the 

2 
 regulations with the statutory authority 

3 
 Congress provided to DOE in EPCA. The 

4 
 previous regulation was far more narrow than 

5 
 the actual statutory authority. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim? 

7 
 MR. VerSHAW: Yes. Jim VerShaw, 

8 
 Ingersoll Rand. 

9 
 Could you go through how you would 

10 
 decide to initiate enforcement testing without 

11 
 written information? Are you going to use 

12 
 that based on the bullet in front of that or 

13 
 just that you just decide that you're going to 

14 check somebody? 

15 
 MS. BARHYDT: I think we are 

16 
 probably going to answer that question as we 

17 go further through the process. 

18 MR. VerSHAW: All right. 

19 
 MS. BARHYDT: So if we can table 

20 
 that for now? And then if we end up not 

21 
 answering the question, by all means, raise it 

22 again. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

167 

1 
 MR. STANONIK: Excuse me? Excuse 

2 
 me? 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Frank? 

4 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, 

5 
 AHRI. 

6 
 Under the current enforcement 

7 
 process, if DOE does initiate, again, current 

8 
 products or consumer products, if DOE does 

9 
 initiate an enforcement proceeding, the 

10 
 regulations do provide an opportunity for the 

11 
 manufacturer to meet with DOE and provide any 

12 
 data they might have on testing of that unit 

13 
 and have some opportunity to discuss whatever 

14 
 information DOE has that initiated the process 

15 before they go to testing. 

16 
 Is this proposal eliminating that 

17 
 opportunity for the manufacturer to perhaps 

18 
 first meet with DOE and provide whatever data 

19 
 they might have before we immediately go to 

20 doing tests? 

21 
 MS. BARHYDT: I don't believe that 

22 
 it is changing that, but I've got to double 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

168 

1 
 check. I've got to look back for the text 

2 
 that we proposed again. 

3 
 MR. STANONIK: All right. Thanks. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

5 
 MR. EARBS: Yes. I was actually on 

6 
 to the next slide. 

7 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

8 
 MR. EARBS: I don't know if we can 

9 
 move forward to the -- the majority of our 

10 
 products are basically a build-to-order 

11 
 situation. So we receive orders. And 

12 
 depending on the type of product, we may have 

13 
 lead times as short as five days. But there 

14 
 are other ones that are -- we would describe 

15 them as special orders-type models. 

16 
 And so I think this really comes 

17 
 out of the consumer area, but I think you 

18 
 really have to differentiate between 

19 
 consumer-type, which would be a make-to-stop 

20 
 versus a build-to-order-type product. Two 

21 
 days is just completely unrealistic in terms 

22 
 of our ability to make samples available with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

169 

1 
 that kind of promise. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Chuck Samuels? 

3 
 MR. SAMUELS: I am Chuck Samuels. 

4 
 I'm counsel to AHAM. 

5 
 First of all, this is an excellent 

6 
 hearing, very well-organized. You're to be 

7 
 commended on it. 

8 
 As Jennifer and Ellis mentioned, 

9 
 we are very supportive of DOE being proactive 

10 
 in this area. And we ourselves are developing 

11 
 verification programs in order to meet the 

12 need. 

13 
 I do want to talk now that we're 

14 
 in this enforcement testing area about two 

15 
 issues that I find to be troubling and that 

16 
 aren't raised in your proposed regulations or 

17 
 the slides but really ought to be subject to 

18 
 discussion. 

19 
 The first thing is what appears to 

20 
 be a trend that often without any notice to 

21 
 the manufacturer, a complaint is issued that 

22 
 is made public, thereby creating adverse 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

170 

1 
 publicity before the manufacturer has had any 

2 
 opportunity to respond to the Department or 

3 
 certainly be engaged in any kind of procedure, 

4 
 including adjudicatory procedure. Now, when 

5 
 these complaints are closed, favorably or 

6 
 unfavorably, that's also publicized. 

7 
 But some of these involve mistaken 

8 
 understandings and trivial errors. You just, 

9 
 for example, closed a number of cases, two of 

10 
 which you recognized that, in fact, the 

11 
 manufacturer had sent the certification data 

12 
 in to the Department, although perhaps it was 

13 
 mislaid or perhaps it was not totally done to 

14 
 the right office or electronically. It 

15 
 doesn't seem like that ought to be subject to 

16 
 a press release, particularly if you have 

17 
 given no opportunity to the manufacturer to 

18 respond to this at all. 

19 
 The second this is I have noticed 

20 
 that the form of these complaints is not a 

21 
 form that says, "We have noticed that, as far 

22 
 as we can tell, you haven't sent in a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

171 

1 
 certification form. If this is the case, this 

2 
 is a problem. If you disagree, please let us 

3 
 know." 

4 
 No. It's written "We have made a 

5 
 finding that you are in noncompliance. You 

6 
 are liable potentially in penalties for X, but 

7 
 we are going to do you a favor. And if you 

8 
 respond within X days, then it's going to be X 

9 
 - Y." 

10 I mean, this obviously is done in 

11 
 a coercive format that doesn't actually even 

12 
 give the companies the information. And this 

13 
 is particularly applicable to small 

14 
 businesses, that if they think there has been 

15 
 an error or a misunderstanding or they have 

16 
 got contrary data, that they have the full 

17 
 opportunity, hopefully informally, although 

18 
 you have already bypassed that by making it 

19 
 public to some extent, but certainly formally 

20 to show that to the Department. 

21 
 So I think that it is a very 

22 
 positive thing that the Program Office and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

172 

1 
 General Counsel's Office are aggressively 

2 
 enforcing the standards and the ancillary 

3 
 requirements, but I think you really ought to 

4 
 be rethinking some of these procedures. 

5 
 And I find it interesting that 

6 
 these procedures are not to be proposed to be 

7 
 part of either guidelines or the regulations 

8 
 but just totally at the whim and discretion of 

9 
 the Department's. I think that is something 

10 
 to think about and we should be talking about. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

12 Ellis? 

13 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

14 Industries. 

15 
 We manufacture walk-in coolers and 

16 
 freezers, as you know. And our understanding 

17 
 here with this sample basic model identified 

18 
 shipping within two days, we may walk-in 

19 
 coolers and freezers. 

20 
 The standard since we make 

21 
 everything custom -- it's not there are 40 of 

22 
 them sitting on the shelf somewhere, we can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

173 

1 
 just pull one off and send to you -- it 

2 
 actually has to be manufactured. And part of 

3 
 the manufacturing process takes a certain 

4 
 amount of aging and processes that have to go 

5 
 through before the product chemically can be 

6 
 ready to be tested. 

7 
 So I hope there is consideration 

8 
 taken into some of the manufacturing process 

9 
 involved in some of these products that we 

10 manufacture. This just wouldn't work. 

11 
 I'm assuming you're saying here 

12 
 that you call us up one day and say we need a 

13 
 test and we've got to ship it in two days, 

14 right? 

15 
 MS. BARHYDT: It is a little more 

16 
 complicated than that, but that's the general 

17 
 gist of it. Actually, a few slides further 

18 
 in, we talk about how we select units for 

19 
 testing. And so that may address some of this 

20 shipping issue. 

21 
 MR. CRAIG: So do we get notified 

22 
 and then within two days have to respond or do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

174 

1 
 we get notified before we get notified? I 

2 
 mean, what is that saying? 

3 
 (Laughter.) 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, again, 

5 
 further in the presentation --

6 
 MR. CRAIG: Okay. 

7 
 MS. BARHYDT: -- we're going to go 

8 
 through the whole process. 

9 
 MR. CRAIG: Then I will yield to 

10 that. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on 

12 this segment here? Yes, Jennifer? 

13 
 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with 

14 AHAM. 

15 
 We also have concerns about this 

16 
 change to two days. The five-day requirement 

17 
 is hard enough for manufacturers to meet now. 

18 
 It's very burdensome. Going to two days with 

19 
 -- the reasoning, I believe, in the NOPR was 

20 
 to increase the efficiency of the enforcement 

21 process. 

22 
 And while we agree it should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

175 

1 
 efficient, we hardly see how the difference of 

2 
 three days is significantly more efficient, 

3 
 especially given the significant increased 

4 
 burden that that will place on manufacturers, 

5 
 particularly in light of the ramped-up 

6 
 enforcement and liability that goes along with 

7 
 that. 

8 
 We don't want to create a 

9 
 requirement that is next to impossible to 

10 meet. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

12 Yes? 

13 
 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli, Kysor. 

14 
 I also have serious problems with 

15 
 these short times. At certain times of the 

16 
 year, our lead times are out to as much as 12 

17 
 weeks. So to turn some special project over 

18 in two days is nearly impossible. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 
 Paul? 

21 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, 

22 Mitsubishi Electric. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

176 

1 
 The time of year has a great 

2 
 impact on that because in the heat of the 

3 
 summer, it may be impossible to have any 

4 
 products even available in stock due to 

5 
 consumer demand. 

6 
 And also with importing products, 

7 
 you know, sometimes products are hung up in 

8 
 port or things like that. So there are 

9 
 circumstances where we can't -- it would be 

10 
 impossible to comply with even the five days, 

11 let alone the two days. 

12 
 And hopefully the days are 

13 considered working days and not weekends. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for the 

17 clarification. Okay. 

18 
 Other comments on these? 

19 
 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, 

20 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

21 
 It strikes me that if the concern 

22 
 the Department is trying to get at -- I'm not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

177 

1 
 sure what it is by shortening this time 

2 
 period, but if the concern is cherry-picking, 

3 
 I don't think this solves the problem. 

4 
 I think the way you solve the 

5 
 problem with cherry-picking is that you select 

6 
 your units from the market, as opposed to the 

7 
 manufacturer. You get them from retail. You 

8 
 get them from distribution. That is the way 

9 
 to address the problem with cherry-picking if 

10 that is what you are after. 

11 Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

13 Okay. We're moving on. 

14 
 MS. BARHYDT: So the current 

15 
 requirement for consumer products is an 

16 
 initial sample of 4 products with the second 

17 
 sample size about the 16 units depending on 

18 
 the standard deviation of the initial sample. 

19 
 We're proposing to modify this to account for 

20 
 low-volume and built-to-order basic models. 

21 
 We're basing our proposal on 

22 
 existing sampling provisions for commercial 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

178 

1 
 industrial equipment. And the way it's set 

2 
 up, DOE will have discretion to determine 

3 
 whether a basic model qualifies as low-volume 

4 
 or built-to-order based on the specific facts 

5 
 of the case. 

6 
 And some of the things we will 

7 
 look at are the number of units that are 

8 
 actually available at the manufacturer's site 

9 
 and at all distributors. 

10 
 This is a summary of the sampling 

11 
 procedures for enforcement testing. These are 

12 
 not the sampling plans for certification 

13 obviously. 

14 
 And so for most products, the 

15 
 first sample is four units. Of those, maximum 

16 
 sample size will be no more than 21 units. 

17 
 The old regulations had it at 20, but some of 

18 
 the lighting products actually require a 

19 
 sample size of 21. So we have changed that to 

20 reflect that specific scenario. 

21 
 And for some of the products, 

22 
 we're proposing that the first sample would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

179 

1 
 not be more than four units. And there are a 

2 
 variety of different exceptions provided. For 

3 
 distribution transformers, the first sample 

4 
 would be not more than five units. 

5 
 We have posted a new online 

6 
 database that provides guidance and 

7 
 clarification on DOE's test procedures. And 

8 
 it is publicly accessible and searchable. 

9 
 The process is that anyone can 

10 
 submit questions they have about the test 

11 
 procedures. And we will develop draft 

12 
 interpretive guidance, which we will then post 

13 
 on the website and make it open for public 

14 
 comment for 30 days. And then we will 

15 
 finalize the guidance and post it on the 

16 
 website. 

17 
 So guidance that is marked as 

18 
 final represents the official interpretation 

19 
 by DOE. And it may be relied on by industry 

20 
 and members of the public in terms of how DOE 

21 interprets its test procedures. 

22 So the -- sorry? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

180 

1 
 MS. CLEARY: This is Jennifer 

2 
 Cleary with AHAM. I do have a comment on that 

3 
 website. 

4 
 The guidance website is a great 

5 
 thing, but it doesn't work. 

6 
 (Laughter.) 

7 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

8 
 MS. CLEARY: So you can't search. 

9 
 You can't pull up any guidance, even if you 

10 
 search for guidance that you know exists. In 

11 
 order for this to work, the website really 

12 does need to function properly. 

13 
 And also it would be very helpful 

14 
 if the Department could come up with some way 

15 
 to give notice to stakeholders when you issue 

16 
 a draft guidance for comment, for example, and 

17 when the final guidance is issued. 

18 
 Right now we are finding these 

19 
 mainly by going to the website each day. And 

20 
 that doesn't really help with effective 

21 compliance. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

181 

1 
 MS. BARHYDT: So currently the way 

2 
 we select units for testing, for enforcement 

3 
 testing, we actually go to the manufacturer's 

4 
 warehouse or a warehouse that they designate 

5 
 for us. And we select the units for testing. 

6 
 We are proposing to broaden that 

7 
 to reflect the fact that some products are 

8 
 built to order, there are none in warehouses, 

9 
 and to reflect the low volume that some 

10 
 manufacturers actually keep on hand. It may 

11 
 not be sufficient for us to do enforcement 

12 testing. 

13 
 And so what we are proposing is 

14 
 that we may select units of a basic model from 

15 
 the manufacturer, a distributor, or from 

16 
 retail, and that for low-volume or 

17 
 built-to-order products, we'll determine the 

18 
 most reliable approach for selecting 

19 
 representative units. So for 

20 
 low-volume/built-to-order, we may or may not 

21 get those directly from the manufacturer. 

22 
 The batch samples are not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

182 

1 
 necessary when the units are selected from 

2 
 retail. So right now we go out and we mark 20 

3 
 units. Four of those get shipped off for 

4 
 testing. And the other 16 have to be held. 

5 
 If the testing is not conclusive 

6 
 based on the first four, then more from --

7 
 this thing moves. From the other 16, those 

8 
 get shipped off for testing to meet the 

9 
 requirements of the sampling. 

10 
 We would not use that batch sample 

11 
 concept if we were selecting from retail 

12 
 because it doesn't carry the issue of 

13 
 cherry-picking. And we are also clarifying 

14 
 that DOE can actually make a determination of 

15 
 compliance when a statistically valid sample 

16 
 size cannot be obtained. And we have an 

17 
 explanation of exactly how we would do that. 

18 
 We also made explicit that we can 

19 
 use testing performed by other agencies that 

20 
 were done in accordance with the DOE test 

21 
 procedure to count towards the ultimate number 

22 
 of units tested. And under the current 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

183 

1 
 regulations, manufacturers assumed the expense 

2 
 of supplying basic models for enforcement 

3 
 testing. 

4 
 And we maintain that requirement 

5 
 under these new regulations, regardless of 

6 
 where we obtained the units from. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Let's pause 

8 
 there. Frank Stanonik? 

9 
 MR. STANONIK: Just a couple of 

10 
 issues on this proposed enforcement testing. 

11 
 Again, with consumer products, under the 

12 
 current regulations, even if the sample of 

13 
 four, the first sample of four, indicated 

14 
 noncompliance, the manufacturer currently does 

15 
 have an option to ask for more tests. And, as 

16 I read this proposal, that's been eliminated. 

17 
 I am certainly not in agreement 

18 
 with that. I think I have done this, but you 

19 
 can predict, looking at the numbers, you can 

20 
 predict, whether more samples have a chance of 

21 changing a decision based on four units. 

22 
 So there are some cases where, in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

184 

1 
 fact, more sampling should be allowed as an 

2 
 option because it is a better statistical 

3 
 sample. There will be other cases where the 

4 
 result is such that you could test 100 units 

5 
 and you're never going to get into compliance. 

6 
 That can be mathematically determined. So I 

7 
 think DOE has gone a little bit too far on 

8 
 this. 

9 
 And then in the proposed rule, 

10 
 relative to this idea that you are going to 

11 
 pick up a unit at retail and then the 

12 
 manufacturer is being -- it is indicated that 

13 
 the manufacturer will reimburse the retailer. 

14 
 Since DOE has entered into that, I hope that 

15 
 they would perhaps clarify that reimbursement 

16 
 means simply replacing the unit that was 

17 
 selected, as opposed to paying the retailer 

18 
 the value of what he sells it for, as opposed 

19 
 to what the manufacturer sold it to the 

20 
 retailer for. 

21 
 Those are two very different 

22 
 things. And it should be adequate that if the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

185 

1 
 manufacturer gives the retailer another unit 

2 
 of that same model, that is reimbursement 

3 
 without other things. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis? 

5 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

6 
 Industries. 

7 
 Our products since we don't stock 

8 
 them, we don't make them, we don't have 

9 
 models, you're asking us to build you a unit 

10 
 and ship it to you at our expense. The 

11 
 average cost of our product is probably $6,000 

12 
 a unit. And if you decide you want four of 

13 
 them, you know, then we're talking some real 

14 
 money. And if you wanted 16 more the next 

15 
 test you did, you know, that's talking some 

16 bigger money. 

17 
 And everything has to be created. 

18 
 It's not something I can put back on our 

19 
 shelves. So I hope that's taken into 

20 
 consideration. 

21 
 It's not the fact that today in 

22 
 this room you're intending to do any of that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

186 

1 
 We all know how laws are when they get passed 

2 
 and regulations get implemented that down the 

3 
 road, somebody might decide to just be ornery 

4 
 and make us make four of them and send them to 

5 
 you. 

6 
 And that bothers us that we are in 

7 
 a position that we are actually having to 

8 
 produce a lot of product and send it to the 

9 
 Department of Energy at our cost. Delivery 

10 alone can cost $1,000 for one unit. 

11 
 So I think it would hurt small 

12 
 business and hurt the people who really can't 

13 
 afford to do it quite as easy. So I think 

14 
 there needs to be some consideration or some 

15 
 kind of limitation to this or it will be too 

16 
 burdensome on our industry. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 
 Paul? 

19 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, 

20 
 Mitsubishi Electric. 

21 
 A couple of things. First of all, 

22 
 for VRF equipment, variable speed, multi-split 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

187 

1 
 ductless systems, the cost of these products 

2 
 can get very high, especially on the VRF 

3 
 systems, up to $20,000 per system. So the 

4 
 manufacturer would have to absorb the cost of 

5 
 that because once these products are tested, 

6 
 they can no longer be sold. So that's just a 

7 
 lost cost. 

8 
 Now, the other question I have is, 

9 
 who pays for the testing? 

10 
 MS. BARHYDT: DOE pays for the 

11 testing. 

12 
 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. Because for 

13 
 the larger VRF-type systems, our testing costs 

14 
 have been estimated up to 25 to 30 thousand 

15 
 dollars per system. So these tests are quite 

16 expensive. 

17 
 Additionally, for a lot of these 

18 
 systems, we have to bring an engineer from 

19 
 Japan in order to set the various speeds that 

20 
 are required to do these. Variable speed 

21 
 systems less than 65,000 require 10 different 

22 
 test settings. And the inverter system has to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

188 

1 
 be set in order to run the compressor at 

2 
 various speeds. So that sometimes takes an 

3 
 engineer from Japan. 

4 
 So that would be additional cost 

5 
 to the manufacturer to provide engineering 

6 
 support to do the testing. So I just wanted 

7 
 to make sure that you understood that it's 

8 
 very expensive for the manufacturer just from 

9 
 the equipment basis alone. And also if we 

10 
 have to bring support personnel, that's 

11 
 additional cost on the manufacturer in order 

12 to comply with this. 

13 
 MS. BARHYDT: You mentioned that 

14 the products cannot be restocked. 

15 
 MR. DOPPEL: This is true. Once 

16 
 the product is set up for testing, it involves 

17 
 braising or mechanically joining the systems 

18 
 together. And in some cases, you have to do 

19 
 drilling into the cover of the ductless system 

20 
 in order to do a test button that we have 

21 
 provided. 

22 So none of the equipment can be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

189 

1 
 resold. And when we do our annual 

2 
 certification testing, generally those systems 

3 
 are like donated to different universities who 

4 
 have or colleges that have programs for HVAC 

5 
 techs, things of that nature. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Please? 

7 
 MR. DeMARCO: Pete DeMarco, IAPMO 

8 
 ORT. I have a question regarding, well, 

9 
 regardless of where the sample was selected, 

10 
 how will the Department determine what third 

11 party test lab that it will be tested at? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Please? Yes? 

13 
 MS. WEINER: Hi. This is 

14 
 Stephanie Weiner from the General Counsel's 

15 Office. 

16 
 The test labs will be identified 

17 
 through the procurement process. 

18 
 MR. DeMARCO: I am sorry. Through 

19 
 what? 

20 
 MS. WEINER: The procurement 

21 
 process. We will enter into contracts with 

22 test labs to test. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

190 

1 
 MR. DeMARCO: So will there be one 

2 
 test lab identified for that particular line 

3 
 of products that will, unfortunately, always 

4 
 go to that particular test lab? 

5 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

6 
 McCabe. 

7 
 Not necessarily because given how 

8 
 the industry works, how the products are, you 

9 
 know, at present we have undertaken some 

10 
 contracts for some of the consumer products. 

11 
 And we have multiple laboratories. As to 

12 
 which lab would end up being used, we would 

13 
 certainly have to consider a number of 

14 
 factors, including whether or not there is any 

15 
 relationship, for example, between that 

16 laboratory and the manufacturer. 

17 
 MR. DeMARCO: Okay. Very well. 

18 
 And will those processes be put available 

19 
 online for us to be able to understand as well 

20 
 as the rest of this process as a third party 

21 
 certifier, we certainly would like to be aware 

22 of how that all is going to happen. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

191 

1 
 MS. WEINER: We can look into 

2 
 whether the procurement contracts are made 

3 
 public. I don't know the answer to that 

4 
 question. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 
 MR. DeMARCO: One further comment. 

7 
 We certainly would, especially as it pertains 

8 
 to plumbing products, recommend that the 

9 
 manufacturer have some input as to the test 

10 
 lab that they would choose to work with. 

11 
 Familiarity with product designs tends to come 

12 
 into play in some of these plumbing products, 

13 
 specifically with toilets more than anything 

14 else. 

15 
 And in order to create consistency 

16 
 in how those products were tested, there is 

17 
 some value and familiarity with those 

18 
 products. So we hope that you could take that 

19 
 into account as well. 

20 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 
 Yes? 

22 
 MR. BASSO: Dale Basso, WEG and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

192 

1 
 NEMA motor manufacturers. 

2 
 The question I have is -- and I 

3 
 know it's motors and you don't want to hear 

4 
 about motors, but it might apply to some of 

5 
 your other stuff -- in the selection of the 

6 
 testing process, one of our biggest concerns 

7 
 as motor manufacturers is that you focus on 

8 
 the motors, but a lot of the issues or 

9 
 violations could come from imported product 

10 that has motors contained in the product. 

11 
 Those motors could have a CC 

12 
 number and be a certified product, but they 

13 
 could also not. And so the concern is when 

14 
 you are looking for verification testing, how 

15 
 do you make the selection when you think about 

16 the fact that the motor is on a compressor? 

17 
 It may be a $10,000 part of a 

18 
 $100,000 piece of equipment and fans and other 

19 
 things or would you avoid enforcing imported 

20 
 product with motors in it and only pick on the 

21 
 motor manufacturers directly? So I guess our 

22 
 concern is, how would you make those 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

193 

1 
 decisions? 

2 
 And then who is responsible to 

3 
 pay? You did say an importer is the 

4 
 manufacturer. So that means the compressor 

5 
 manufacturer is the manufacturer, but maybe 

6 
 it's a motor manufacturer with a compliant 

7 
 motor. So who are you going to make pay for 

8 
 the $100,000 compressor: the compressor guy 

9 
 or the motor guy that's on there? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes? Go ahead. 

11 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

12 McCabe. 

13 
 You know, we have started some 

14 
 discussions with Customs, but those are some 

15 
 very valid points. And as the program looks 

16 
 to other products that may be issues as well, 

17 
 I would encourage you to provide and comment 

18 
 on this proposed rule since specific 

19 
 recommendations as to how we could address 

20 
 that. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

22 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

194

1 
 If I understand this slide 

2 
 correctly, are you saying that DOE could 

3 
 supplement its own testing by using tests done 

4 
 by other agencies? And my question is, are 

5 
 they going to be used -- you know, are those 

6 
 agencies using the same labs or DOE is going 

7 
 to be testing products in one lab and using 

8 
 test reports coming from a different lab and 

9 
 assessing --

10 MS. BARHYDT: This is where we can 

11 
 verify that the test was done in accordance 

12 with the DOE test procedure. 

13 
 MR. AMRANE: But the DOE test 

14 
 procedure is not sufficient. I mean, there 

15 
 are variations among labs. So, you know, that 

16 
 is something that DOE needs to consider very 

17 
 seriously here because just testing to the DOE 

18 
 test procedure doesn't mean that the lab A is 

19 
 going to get you exactly the same result as 

20 
 lab B. There needs to be some correlation 

21 
 among the labs. 

22 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

195 

1 
 McCabe. 

2 
 That is an issue that we have had 

3 
 some discussions with regards to verification 

4 
 testing. Karim, do you have a specific 

5 
 proposal as far as how that can be 

6 
 accomplished? 

7 
 MR. AMRANE: At least in this 

8 
 particular case, I think the test reports 

9 
 should come from the same lab, at least to be 

10 
 consistent, but maybe a broader picture would 

11 
 be for DOE to do some correlations among the 

12 
 labs to make sure that the labs are, you know, 

13 at the same levels of testing that occurs. 

14 
 MR. McCABE: A round robin testing 

15 program? 

16 
 MR. AMRANE: Round robin testing, 

17 yes, would be a recommendation, yes. 

18 
 MR. McCABE: So if I understood 

19 
 you correctly -- and please think about this 

20 
 as far as in a written comment, but I 

21 
 understood you to say -- and I'm 

22 
 extrapolating. So I apologize if I am going 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

196 

1 
 wrong -- that you would recommend or consider 

2 
 recommending something that for any laboratory 

3 
 that DOE would accept information from, 

4 
 whether or not it's a DOE-contracted or 

5 
 another federal agency, that the lab had been 

6 
 in a round robin test program or the same lab 

7 
 that DOE is using? 

8 
 MR. AMRANE: That is correct. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, you're next. 

10 
 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli with 

11 Kysor. 

12 
 There is a lot of confusion 

13 
 because we're discussing so many different 

14 
 products, but, just to clarify, for walk-in 

15 
 coolers, we're talking about 4 or as many as 

16 
 21 panels to check for R value, not 4 to 21 

17 completed walk-ins with refrigeration? 

18 
 In this current rulemaking, is 

19 
 that what we're discussing or are you actually 

20 talking about 4 to 21 complete walk-ins? 

21 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

22 McCabe. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

197 

1 
 At this point in time, the walk-in 

2 
 cooler, walk-in freezer standard is a design 

3 
 standard. So it's calls for the R value for 

4 
 the walls. It calls for, I believe, air 

5 
 curtains or quick-closing doors. 

6 
 It is a prescriptive standard on 

7 
 components. So we would not be -- given the 

8 
 current standard, it certainly would not be 

9 
 requiring manufacturers to produce an entire 

10 
 system and test it because the standard does 

11 not call for that. 

12 
 There is a rulemaking that is 

13 
 underway, as you are well-aware, for walk-in 

14 
 coolers, walk-in freezers where performance 

15 
 requirements are being looked at. And that is 

16 
 certainly something that we are going to have 

17 
 to examine. 

18 
 And the comments received today 

19 
 and written comments will be guiding us not 

20 
 only as far as the current rulemaking but also 

21 
 the future rulemaking as far as what kind of 

22 
 standard and whether or not any additional 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

198 

1 
 provisions need to be added that would be 

2 
 unique for walk-in coolers, walk-in freezers 

3 
 for the future standard. 

4 
 MR. MINELLI: Thank you. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

6 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

7 
 Baldor Electric Company and NEMA. 

8 
 Another comment on motors. The 

9 
 scope of motors covered is 1 through 500 

10 
 horsepower. And it will not be common for all 

11 
 manufacturers to have the larger ratings in 

12 
 stock and certainly not in the volumes that 

13 
 you might want for sampling. Lead time to do 

14 
 something like that might be as long as 26 

15 weeks from some manufacturers. 

16 
 When you look at third party 

17 
 testing of an electric motor, there is no 

18 
 third party tester, to the industry's 

19 
 knowledge, that has the capacity to test 

20 electric motors to 500 horsepower. 

21 
 One tester can do about 200 horse. 

22 
 I think CSA can do about 60 horse. UL is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

199 

1 
 just starting their test program. And that's 

2 
 about it. So if you choose something out of 

3 
 that scope, you know, good luck in finding a 

4 
 tester. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 
 Ellis, you're next. 

7 
 MR. CRAIG: It's Ellis Craig, 

8 
 Craig Industries, on walk-ins. 

9 
 Part of the testing, there are 

10 
 three tests that the DOE is proposing right 

11 
 now. One of them is, of course, insulation 

12 
 testing on an R value test. There is a thin 

13 
 test that has to do with out-gassing. And 

14 
 then there's another test. It's a box test 

15 and infiltration test. 

16 
 The infiltration test is a 

17 
 completed walk-in. So if the complaint comes 

18 
 from the field that, hey, this unit out here 

19 
 is letting air in too bad and I can't hold the 

20 
 R value on it and the DOE goes to investigate 

21 
 that, the only way they're going to 

22 
 investigate infiltration losses is if they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

200 

1 
 test for infiltration losses. 

2 
 So since right now the installer 

3 
 in the field is not held accountable and now 

4 
 we have to test this unit, it will include a 

5 
 complete walk-in be sent to the Department of 

6 
 Energy to be tested or it has to be tested in 

7 
 our plant because the tests that they're 

8 
 coming out for those -- and there's also a box 

9 
 test now that has to do with structural 

10 members. 

11 
 So there are several test 

12 
 procedures that require different products. 

13 
 But I know that that test that they've got 

14 
 proposed right now for the infiltration loss 

15 
 is actually setting the walk-in up. And they 

16 
 put a gas in it. And then they wait, and they 

17 
 test that gas that when it leaves the box in 

18 that period of time, test how long. 

19 
 So it would be full box testing 

20 
 required to be shipped to the Department of 

21 
 Energy or their testing lab, which could be 4 

22 to 21 units. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

201 

1 
 So that was our concern. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

3 
 Yes, please? 

4 
 MS. KAMMER: Yes. Claire Kammer 

5 
 with Underwriter Laboratories. 

6 
 I just wanted to go back to your 

7 
 question about accreditations and the existing 

8 
 systems that can be leveraged to kind of 

9 
 baseline the qualifications for labs, either 

10 
 submitting the initial test data, doing the 

11 
 enforcement testing, or being part of an 

12 ongoing verification program. 

13 
 We encourage DOE to leverage those 

14 
 existing accreditation programs where 

15 
 appropriate. 17-025 is a great one for 

16 
 technical competencies specific to a 

17 particular set of tasks. 

18 
 Round robin may be part of that, 

19 
 but on its own, round robin is just round 

20 
 robin. So building a round robin system off 

21 
 of an existing accreditation, like 17-025, 

22 
 which can be applicable to both in-house test 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

202 

1 
 laboratories, first party, as well as third 

2 
 party is a tool that can be used. 

3 
 For programs like enforcement 

4 
 testing or verification testing, where you are 

5 
 looking to include authentic third party 

6 
 schemes, guide 65 and some other 

7 
 qualifications of labs on top of that can be 

8 
 looked at that for that. 

9 
 So we just encourage you to look 

10 
 to those type programs and leverage them where 

11 appropriate. 

12 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me just make a 

13 
 process note. For those of you who are 

14 
 curious, we're going to pause shortly for 

15 
 lunch, so if you're hungry. We're going to 

16 
 get through the enforcement testing section. 

17 At that point we'll pause. 

18 But you're next. 

19 
 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, 

20 International Cold Storage. 

21 
 Regarding walk-in coolers and 

22 
 freezers and the testing that is proposed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

203 

1 
 specifically under the supplementary NOPR that 

2 
 is coming out, I would strongly urge the 

3 
 Department to look at the time frame that is 

4 
 to be considered with this testing process. 

5 
 There is a limited number in my 

6 
 experience, limited number, of laboratories 

7 
 around the country that are capable of testing 

8 
 a complete walk-in cooler/freezer unit. And 

9 
 most of those have queues for the testing that 

10 can get as much as six months. 

11 
 So we do not want to put the 

12 
 manufacturers at an unnecessary risk of not 

13 
 being able to sell a product just while we're 

14 
 waiting for the testing to be completed on 

15 that. 

16 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 
 Written comments with specifics? 

18 
 Yes? 

19 
 MR. COULTER: Greg Coulter, Prolec 

20 
 General Electric. 

21 
 I'm going to talk about 

22 
 distribution transformers again. And I'm 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

204 

1 
 going to cover a couple of different things 

2 
 you've covered in here. One is samples at 

3 
 manufacturers' expense. 

4 
 We're basically a made-to-order 

5 
 business also. We have plans to make 

6 
 transformers that may start at $50,000 and go 

7 
 up from there, made-to-order. 

8 
 It's tough to supply these things 

9 
 at our expenses. We've also found it's tough 

10 
 to get them, let's say, the end-user. Let's 

11 
 say you want to go out and get them from the 

12 
 end-user. Talk about him doing them. They've 

13 
 been made to order, specifically showing up at 

14 a certain time for him to us. 

15 
 We notice that this is at DOE's 

16 
 prerogative of how this goes about. You could 

17 
 choose the right unit and we might have it 

18 
 currently available, but you choose wrong 

19 
 units or wrong types of units, it could be 

20 
 very difficult to come up with a unit. And 

21 
 the expense could get very difficult, as I 

22 mentioned. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

205 

1 
 If you choose it from somebody 

2 
 other than us, we have a hard time being able 

3 
 to obtain it. You want to go to an end-user 

4 
 or a distributor. We don't own the unit. We 

5 
 have no ability to get it to you or no legal 

6 
 way to get it to you. We can't yank it away 

7 
 from him. 

8 
 And, finally, I would like to 

9 
 comment about testing. I have been in this 

10 
 business over 40 years. If there is any one 

11 
 area where we have problems when it comes to 

12 
 testing, most people in distribution 

13 
 transformers, like motors probably, these big 

14 things can be very difficult to test. 

15 
 And generally when there are 

16 
 disagreements, it gets down to how the testing 

17 
 was done. And we found a lot of laboratories 

18 
 who say they are very good at this who have 

19 
 been dead wrong. And you can follow the DOE 

20 
 rules, but, you know, the DOE rules are you 

21 
 are basically covering for transformers how 

22 you certify your own lab. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

206 

1 
 As far as testing goes, it can get 

2 
 real difficult. And we found it to be a lot 

3 
 of problems. And right now we don't have any 

4 
 way in your proposed rule change to even 

5 
 challenge that. 

6 
 They come up with something. 

7 
 We're guilty as charged at that point with no 

8 
 recourse. And this is an area that we find 

9 
 could be real problematic, especially for 

10 
 distribution transformers. There's such a 

11 
 special product that we think there ought to 

12 
 be some ability to even modify the testing or 

13 
 participate in the testing of these very large 

14 
 transformers to make sure they are done 

15 correctly. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 Jim, do you have a --

18 
 MR. VerSHAW: I'm waiting on a 

19 
 slide. 

20 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Are there 

21 
 others? Others of you who are standing, do 

22 
 you wish to comment? Otherwise we're moving 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

207 

1 
 on. 

2 
 (No response.) 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: We're moving on. 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: The current 

5 
 regulation allows for manufacturers to request 

6 
 testing at the manufacturer's expense of 

7 
 additional units if DOE determines the basic 

8 
 model is non-compliant. And DOE must follow 

9 
 the unfortunate sampling requirements, 

10 
 resulting in a potential total sample size of 

11 
 20 units. And these sections don't allow the 

12 
 manufacturers to retest the units DOE has 

13 tested. 

14 
 Under the prepossessed 

15 
 regulations, we're looking at removing 

16 
 430.70(a)(6) and 431.383(f). So we would not 

17 
 be permitting manufacturers to request 

18 additional testing. 

19 
 We believe the additional testing 

20 
 delays the enforcement process. By the time 

21 
 we have reached this point in the process, the 

22 
 manufacturer has already provided us with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

208 

1 
 their own test data. We have obtained units. 

2 
 We have done testing. We have had 

3 
 discussions about the testing. And we have 

4 
 obtained a result that in most cases, it would 

5 
 be based on a statistically valid sample size. 

6 
 So additional testing just adds additional 

7 
 testing. 

8 
 Manufacturers may perform testing 

9 
 on their units at any time. And that is at 

10 
 their discretion. If they want to provide 

11 
 additional data at a later point, they 

12 certainly can. 

13 
 And there is an adjudication 

14 
 process to challenge our conclusions. But 

15 
 doing additional testing after we have already 

16 
 gone through the entire sampling process and 

17 
 done testing, we just don't see that that 

18 
 really adds a lot of value to the enforcement 

19 process. 

20 
 I'm guessing that somebody is 

21 going to respond. 

22 
 MR. VerSHAW: Yes. Jim VerShaw, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

209 

1 
 Ingersoll Rand. 

2 
 I want to go back to slide 33. 

3 
 And I didn't hear what the process is that DOE 

4 
 is going to use to decide to do initiate 

5 
 enforcement testing. 

6 
 MS. BARHYDT: That is actually in 

7 
 the next section. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: So after lunch. 

9 
 MR. VerSHAW: After lunch. I'll 

10 have to come back after? Okay. 

11 
 So let's say a split system. You 

12 
 want to do enforcement testing on a split 

13 
 system air conditioner and then you ask for 

14 
 four samples of this system. And you'll test 

15 
 those four samples. And if it doesn't come 

16 
 out to be the level, that's it. There are not 

17 16 more samples that we can run tests on. 

18 
 MS. BARHYDT: So there is an 

19 
 enforcement sampling plan that has the 

20 
 statistical calculation of whether or not the 

21 
 variability in the test results was too great 

22 
 for us to make a conclusive determination. So 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

210 

1 
 that is what determines whether we test the 

2 
 four or we test more. 

3 
 MR. VerSHAW: Okay. So you test 

4 
 four, look at statistics, and see if you 

5 
 needed to do more testing? 

6 
 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 

7 
 MR. VerSHAW: And there is ability 

8 
 for the manufacturer to discuss the results 

9 
 because laboratories sometimes get their 

10 
 energy balances off and they don't install the 

11 
 unit correctly, hit the wrong charge level in, 

12 et cetera. Is there some --

13 
 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, as we go 

14 
 through the process, we provide the test 

15 
 results to the company. The company does get 

16 
 to see the test results. 

17 
 It's not like we just come to you 

18 
 and say, "Oh, you failed." I mean, you get to 

19 
 see the full test data and all the test 

20 
 reports that are generated by the lab. 

21 
 MR. VerSHAW: So then you collect 

22 the fine, and then we appeal? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

211 

1 
 MS. BARHYDT: Well, actually --

2 
 (Laughter.) 

3 
 MS. BARHYDT: -- the way --

4 
 MR. McCABE: If you are offering 

5 
 it. 

6 
 (Laughter.) 

7 
 MS. BARHYDT: This is all in the 

8 
 next section for after lunch. 

9 
 MR. VerSHAW: All right. I will 

10 be back. 

11 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. 

13 Frank Stanonik? 

14 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

15 
 McCabe. If I may? And I'm looking at you, 

16 Frank, since you raised this issue before. 

17 
 The sampling plan, as Laura said, 

18 
 calls for setting aside for the consumer 

19 
 products -- focus again, reiterates consumer 

20 
 products -- setting aside the 21 units. The 

21 
 current calls for setting aside 20. You test 

22 
 the first four. And if you have a wide 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

212 

1 
 distribution or variability or your main is 

2 
 way off the standard, you can immediately 

3 
 fail. 

4 
 If it is above -- we have built 

5 
 into our enforcement testing a five percent 

6 
 tolerance. So if you're 95 percent or better 

7 
 of the standard, there are provisions where 

8 
 you can pass. And when you fall in between 

9 
 those two scenarios is where depending upon 

10 
 the variability, it's either one or under the 

11 current rules 15 more units to be tested. 

12 
 With that five percent tolerance 

13 
 that is built into the enforcement testing, as 

14 
 you see it in the appendix B, the subpart E of 

15 
 429, it is not clear to us that any additional 

16 
 testing at a manufacturer's option would make 

17 
 a difference in the conclusion. 

18 
 Particularly, as Laura said, at 

19 
 that point, we have already had numerous 

20 
 exchanges with a manufacturer over our initial 

21 
 data that comes to the complaint, whatever 

22 
 form it is in. And the subsequent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

213 

1 
 conversations that the additional testing at a 

2 
 manufacturer's options, so far we have not 

3 
 seen a situation where that would make a 

4 
 difference. 

5 
 So following up on your comment 

6 
 earlier, are there any situations that 

7 
 reasonably could exist where manufacturer 

8 
 testing would make a difference? 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank Stanonik? 

10 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, 

11 AHRI. 

12 
 I will answer that immediate 

13 
 question first. Specifically because we do 

14 
 and did operate a water heater, residential 

15 
 water heat, efficiency certification program 

16 
 and for many years for that program, in 

17 
 particular, if there was a question of a 

18 
 rating, we used the DOE enforcement testing. 

19 We immediately went to testing four samples. 

20 
 And that's why I mentioned I've 

21 
 had some experience with trying to determine, 

22 
 is there a chance that more tests will change 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

214 

1 
 the result or not. 

2 
 Mike, there is at least one 

3 
 situation I recall where more testing did turn 

4 
 results around. Now, my problem is, as 

5 
 probably I hope everybody can relate to, we 

6 
 have record retention policies. And I'm sure 

7 
 that this one did not happen in the last five 

8 
 or six years. 

9 
 If I can find that test result, I 

10 
 don't think there's any problem in providing 

11 
 it to DOE, but in all those years, I can 

12 
 recall one where I think we went to like it 

13 
 was seven or eight. And, lo and behold, the 

14 
 statistics changed. And at this point, it's 

15 anecdotal. I understand that. 

16 
 MS. BARHYDT: But that is in 

17 
 addition to the initial four, right? Because, 

18 
 I mean --

19 
 MR. STANONIK: Right. 

20 
 MS. BARHYDT: -- what we're 

21 
 talking about with removing the additional 

22 
 manufacturer testing, that's the testing in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

215 

1 
 excess of the possible 21. Would anything 

2 
 even beyond that -- because that's the part of 

3 
 the testing that we're talking about removing. 

4 
 MR. STANONIK: Okay. Then I 

5 
 apologize because I misread this proposal that 

6 
 if the results of four samples, result of four 

7 
 samples, said you failed, that the 

8 
 manufacturer no longer had an option to say, 

9 
 "Wait a minute. I want you to test more 

10 units." 

11 
 MS. BARHYDT: It is a conclusive 

12 
 determination that it failed based on the 

13 
 statistical analysis. So you're saying that 

14 
 the statistical analysis actually came out and 

15 
 said that they failed and then you did 

16 additional testing and that that failed. 

17 
 MR. STANONIK: Yes. And, 

18 
 actually, my initial reason for standing up 

19 
 here is that -- and I'm not a statistician. 

20 
 So, you know, I am going to give you the 

21 simple version of statistical theory. Okay? 

22 
 The idea that you have tested four 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

216 

1 
 samples says that I have a certain level of 

2 
 confidence that the result of the four samples 

3 
 gives me the true answer. All right? 

4 
 And in most cases, that's correct. 

5 
 All right? But, in fact, there is -- and I 

6 
 don't know the exact number, but there is, in 

7 
 fact, some probability that that four-unit 

8 
 sample gave you if you are looking to enforce 

9 
 a false negative; in other words, failure that 

10 wasn't a failure. 

11 
 And so the idea of allowing the 

12 
 manufacturer to ask for more units be tested 

13 
 was, in fact, this check, if you will, that if 

14 
 there was in the manufacturer's eyes a real 

15 
 question this model shouldn't be failing, that 

16 
 they could -- by increasing the sample size, 

17 
 you increased the likelihood that the answer 

18 you get is, in fact, the correct answer. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: And if you get all 

20 the way to 21, that still doesn't do it? 

21 
 MR. STANONIK: Well, but at 21 --

22 
 again, at 20 because for our covered products, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

217 

1 
 consumer products, it was 20. At 20 it gets 

2 
 to the point where it's been acknowledged that 

3 
 additional testing will not change your 

4 
 results. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

6 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

7 
 McCabe. 

8 
 Picking up on the false negative, 

9 
 we have that five percent built into the 

10 
 enforcement testing in order to avoid a false 

11 negative. 

12 
 So what you're describing, Frank, 

13 
 is a situation where there may have been a 

14 
 case, one case, where the testing, additional 

15 
 testing, at manufacturer's option may have 

16 
 brought it from being at 96 percent of an 

17 
 efficiency standard to 94 percent or 95. So 

18 
 it would have been within that five percent 

19 
 tolerance. 

20 
 But I think a statistician may 

21 
 very well have said that if you tested all 21, 

22 
 20-21, or you test the entire sample, that by 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

218 

1 
 the time you get given the data at the initial 

2 
 testing, that the true mean would still be 

3 
 below the standard. 

4 
 And so if you tested everything, 

5 
 they would have failed the standard. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

7 
 MS. FABIAN: Yes. Barbara Fabian 

8 
 with Owens Corning. 

9 
 I would like to speak from a 

10 
 testing perspective. I'm a leader of a R&D 

11 
 laboratory. And one thing that is certain is 

12 
 that manufacturers understand their products. 

13 
 And when you take the testing to an outside 

14 
 laboratory, they don't know your product as 

15 well as you do. 

16 
 And it's imperative for the 

17 
 manufacturers to have the ability if a product 

18 
 is out of spec by a third party laboratory, 

19 
 that if it is a nondestructive test, that they 

20 
 be allowed to retest that product and see what 

21 
 their determinations tell. 

22 
 And at that point, you can make a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

219 

1 
 determination as to whether it was the product 

2 
 or the test that was at fault. And you can 

3 
 investigate it further. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

5 
 MS. FABIAN: And interpretation of 

6 
 the test method is also very critical at that 

7 
 point in time because a lot of methodologies 

8 
 leave interpretation very broad and can be 

9 
 interpreted by various laboratories. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

11 You're next. 

12 
 MR. NICHOLS: I guess the question 

13 
 that I have on the ability to retest, one, are 

14 
 there break-in periods that are allowed to 

15 
 happen before the testing would start in that 

16 
 we know for a fact that we have components in 

17 
 the system that are -- when you first start it 

18 
 up through what a typical test profile would 

19 
 be, they're still wearing together. And their 

20 
 efficiency and their performance improves with 

21 
 time. So after a certain period of time, you 

22 
 would have a much better performance, upwards 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

220 

1 
 of two percent or more. 

2 
 So, one, if there is a break-in 

3 
 that a manufacturer can supply of running it 

4 
 this long before the test starts, that's one 

5 
 thing. And if it's not, you're going to see 

6 
 manufacturers, especially the guys who have 

7 
 scroll products in their systems, are going to 

8 
 want to retest if they fall just short because 

9 
 they know they're on the first part of that 

10 burn-in time. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

12 
 MR. NICHOLS: Also, there are 

13 
 going to be instances where you just find a 

14 
 defective component in one of the samples, 

15 
 which could dramatically affect the average. 

16 
 And I think it would be reasonable to address 

17 
 the defective component and retest the product 

18 
 as well. 

19 
 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. 

20 
 Could you elaborate more on 

21 
 defective component and also look at AHRI and 

22 
 the water heaters? I'll use that as an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

221 

1 
 example, but there may be other products as 

2 
 well. 

3 
 With any product that have foam 

4 
 insulation, you could have voids in the foam 

5 
 of any size. And, from what I understand, 

6 
 those products may be sold into the 

7 
 marketplace and not replaced. The consumer 

8 
 wouldn't find out about it. 

9 
 So it is a product that is sold to 

10 
 the consumer. It is not detected. It is 

11 
 representative of what is sold to the 

12 consumer. 

13 
 If you have a situation where you 

14 
 might have a unit that doesn't, a component 

15 
 that does not perform as designed but is 

16 
 representative of what may be manufactured and 

17 
 sold to the consumer, should that not be a 

18 unit that is subject to test? 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: This is an 

20 
 important question. Another important 

21 
 question is whether we should pause for lunch, 

22 
 Because I note that there are six 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

222 

1 
 or seven individuals who wish to speak and 

2 
 this is a really important topic, we don't 

3 
 want to diminish anyone's capacity to comment. 

4 
 Do you want to keep going or do you want to 

5 
 pause for lunch? Lunch? Lunch? Let's pause 

6 
 for lunch. 

7 
 And then when we resume, when we 

8 
 come back from lunch, we will take up exactly 

9 
 as we were in this segment here. Pay 

10 
 attention. You need to have these 

11 instructions. Don't go anywhere yet. 

12 
 It's five minutes until 1:00 

13 
 almost. We're ahead of schedule. Please 

14 
 quiet. We're ahead of schedule. That's the 

15 
 good news. There are a lot of important 

16 topics yet to be discussed. 

17 
 Foreign nationals need an escort. 

18 
 The cafeteria is out the door to the left up 

19 
 the stairs. It's a big cafeteria. It's a 

20 
 really rainy day. So it's going to be 

21 
 crowded. Let's go for an hour for lunch, 

22 which means we'll resume at 2:00 o'clock. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

223 

1 
 There is also a Subway shop down 

2 
 the hallway this way, almost 100 yards. 

3 
 Please make sure you wear your badges in the 

4 
 building. 

5 
 When you come back out of the big 

6 
 cafeteria up the escalator, you will need to 

7 
 pass back through the X-ray machine just so 

8 
 you understand that that is the way they do 

9 
 security there. 

10 
 This room will be -- we can't lock 

11 
 it because there will be people in here 

12 
 supervising this stuff. So you can keep your 

13 materials here in the room. 

14 
 And also there is a business card 

15 
 summary, a Xerox copy of all the attendees, 

16 
 out there on the registration table for those 

17 of you who wish to pick it up. 

18 
 So we will resume at 2:00. 

19 
 Thanks. We have covered a lot of ground 

20 already. 

21 
 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was 

22 taken at 12:52 p.m.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

224

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for coming 

2 
 back and being on time. We're going to 

3 
 resume, and, as promised, we're going to pick 

4 
 up just where we left off before lunch. By my 

5 
 record, we have the correct slide up here on 

6 
 the screen, Enforcement Testing, Testing at 

7 
 Manufacturer's Option. There were several 

8 
 commentors that were wanting to speak, so I 

9 
 think you're next. Were you finished? 

10 (Off the record comments.) 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want them to 

12 
 respond to Defective Component now, or wait 

13 for Michael to get back? 

14 
 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. I would like to 

15 
 continue discussing the Defect Component 

16 
 issue. 

17 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's do that. 

18 
 Okay. So, then please identify yourselves. 

19 
 And, as I understand it, you've kind of put 

20 
 your heads together with respect to Defective 

21 Components? 

22 MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

225 

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: So, then tell us 

2 
 what you're thinking. 

3 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, 

4 
 Mitsubishi Electric. I've had several 

5 
 experiences in testing over the last, I don't 

6 
 want to say how many years, but where during 

7 
 the test, it was revealed that one of the 

8 
 components actually was defective either by 

9 
 handling damage, or some other issue. Anyway, 

10 
 AHRI has a provision that allows for a re-look 

11 
 at a unit that has -- that experiences like 

12 
 more than 20 percent, so if it's only at an 80 

13 
 percent level, obviously, there is a gross 

14 
 problem with that. But it may be 80-85 

15 
 percent, I don't remember exactly what it is 

16 
 off the top of my head. But that account for 

17 
 like a thermal expansion valve, or compressor, 

18 
 or fan motor not operating properly. And 

19 
 those things, and even in a sampling, that 

20 
 rare one somehow has the propensity to be the 

21 
 one that's selected. 

22 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Paul, are you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

226 

1 
 speaking on behalf of your company, or are you 

2 
 reflecting the views of AHRI? 

3 
 MR. DOPPEL: My company. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Your company. 

5 
 MR. DOPPEL: Right. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Are there others 

7 
 that wish to weigh in on this subject of 

8 
 defective components? Let's do so now, 

9 
 please. Your name. 

10 
 MR. TRITSIS: Bill Tritsis, AHRI. 

11 
 We can certainly provide you with some of our 

12 
 guidelines and processes that have been 

13 
 established, again, after 40, 50 years of our 

14 
 experience running certification programs. 

15 
 And there are cases where during shipment, a 

16 
 component could be damaged, and it's not 

17 visible; however, it affects the performance. 

18 
 MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 

19 
 MR. TRITSIS: And our regulations 

20 
 do allow one defective claim; however, only at 

21 
 our discretion to decide whether, indeed, it 

22 
 was a defective component issue, or a quality 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

227 

1 
 issue. So, again, it's not -- we receive some 

2 
 documentation and we judge whether it is, or 

3 
 not, but the cases do occur. 

4 
 MR. DOPPEL: The issue that Mike 

5 
 McCabe was raising was whether that's 

6 
 something that would be reflective of 

7 
 everything that's in stock, or everything --

8 
 in most cases or not, I did have the 

9 
 experience one time, however, where a 

10 
 compressor manufacturer knowingly shipped us 

11 
 compressors that were out of their 

12 
 specification for a certain period, so that 

13 
 would have been the situation that those were 

14 
 out of spec. And it was -- I mean, it was not 

15 
 anything that we could have known, because we 

16 
 rely on the compressor manufacturer, or other 

17 
 component manufacturers to supply products 

18 
 that are within those specifications. So, in 

19 
 cases like this, then it goes back to the 

20 
 supplier, and you have to question whether the 

21 
 manufacturer can be fully held accountable if 

22 
 what they're getting is defective unknown to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

228 

1 
 them, a small percentage unknown to them. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to ask 

3 
 any additional questions, Laura? 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. I think the way 

5 
 that we got on to the subject of defective 

6 
 components was someone was making -- was 

7 
 saying that it would be necessary for 

8 
 manufacturers to test the same units that we 

9 
 had tested in order for there to be a 

10 
 determination that a component was defective. 

11 
 And what I was wondering was, is that 

12 
 something you cannot tell by looking at the 

13 
 test data to see that there was a defective 

14 
 component, and that's why that unit tested so 

15 far off? 

16 
 MR. NICHOLS: Jeff Nichols, Johnson 

17 
 Controls. Sometimes you can see it in the 

18 
 test data, and sometimes you have to fiddle 

19 
 with it to find it. You get into diagnostic 

20 
 activity. Often, the test data indicates two 

21 
 or three things that you might think are 

22 
 defective, but you don't know definitively 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

229 

1 
 until you've examined it, and/or replaced the 

2 
 component. 

3 
 MS. BARHYDT: Thank you. 

4 
 MR. DOPPEL: In the case of this 

5 
 compressor problem that we had, it was only 

6 
 through extensive diagnostic testing that we 

7 
 were able to determine. And the percentage 

8 
 off was like 10, 12 percent, so it wasn't a 

9 
 lot, it wasn't like at the 80 percent level. 

10 
 So, that was a particularly troubling 

11 situation, it took some time to resolve. 

12 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I, 

13 
 actually, think this gentleman here is next 

14 
 and then I'm coming back to you. Yes, you're 

15 next. 

16 
 MR. DUFFY: Thank you. Oh, Mark 

17 
 Duffy, GE Lighting. Before lunch, the topic 

18 
 that had triggered my thoughts had to do with 

19 
 the sampling plans and certification 

20 
 requirements. And, of course, we want to urge 

21 
 you to make acceptable ones, and we'll provide 

22 
 comment on it. However, the enforcement 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

230 

1 
 provisions that are in the NOPR should avoid 

2 
 false triggers by random sampling variation. 

3 
 One in particular that concerns the lighting 

4 
 industry is lamplight. It is very prone to 

5 
 small statistical samplings, 10 lamps, so 

6 
 forth, reaching the wrong conclusion. So, 

7 
 ultimately, we would like to see a high degree 

8 
 of confidence to determine non-compliance, and 

9 
 encourage the DOE to do computer simulation of 

10 
 this before concluding that they have a high 

11 
 degree of confidence that they won't have a 

12 false signal of non-compliance. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

14 MR. DUFFY: Thank you. 

15 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next, and 

16 then to Kelley. 

17 
 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

18 
 Manufacturing. There are several issues here 

19 
 that need to be discussed. Number one is, on 

20 
 one of your previous slides you discussed how 

21 
 often you tested the same unit. That is a 

22 
 critical component, because under commercial 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

231 

1 
 refrigeration rules you have a test condition 

2 
 of 38 degrees plus or minus 2 internal 

3 
 temperature shift. We've run tests on units 

4 
 which we've notified different groups over the 

5 
 years, because we've seen a 7 to 8 percent 

6 
 shift in the test data within those 

7 
 temperature ranges easily, and we've seen as 

8 
 high as 12 percent shift in temperature range 

9 
 from one extreme of the test condition to the 

10 
 other. So, you've got to be very cognizant of 

11 
 how the test is run, and that's one of the 

12 
 discussions we have to be very careful of. 

13 
 And, also, component variation is still there. 

14 
 I think if we're doing our job right as 

15 
 engineers, we should be taking in all the 

16 standard component variations. 

17 
 MR. BROOKMAN: In your comment, did 

18 
 you say how you thought the Department should 

19 address it, because I wasn't sure. 

20 
 MR. HON: I didn't. We do not know 

21 
 how to address that. 

22 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

232 

1 
 That's important here. To the extent we can 

2 
 identify it, right. 

3 
 MR. HON: Because the 5 percent 

4 
 variation, which they have put on, is the same 

5 
 as UL has put on, and several other test 

6 
 organizations have put into their standards, 

7 
 is that during recertification testing, if 

8 
 you're within 5 percent, it works. And we 

9 
 don't have a problem, because somebody has to 

10 draw a line someplace. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

12 
 MR. HON: But you have to 

13 
 understand that there is variation within 

14 
 those tests. And the manufacturers are 

15 
 inherently going to run the test on the warm 

16 
 end of the specification because it makes us 

17 look better in published data. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Kelley. 

19 
 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline, GE 

20 
 Appliances & Lighting. Just a couple of 

21 
 points here as DOE considers its position on 

22 
 not allowing additional testing at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

233 

1 
 manufacturer's request, and also the retest of 

2 
 units that DOE has already tested. 

3 
 I'd just point out here that I 

4 
 think two really important considerations 

5 
 there are the test procedure variability 

6 
 issues, or interpretation issues that may be 

7 
 out there, and also what was hit upon, and 

8 
 there was some discussion on earlier about the 

9 
 validating the results through round-robin 

10 
 testing or otherwise at the test labs. And 

11 
 I'm thinking here, in particular, about some 

12 
 examples of where labs can test the same or 

13 
 similar product and get very different 

14 
 results. And I think that so long as those 

15 
 variability questions exist among labs, and 

16 
 also questions exist around test procedures, 

17 
 it does put manufacturers in very difficult 

18 
 situations at some time to be able to feel 

19 
 comfortable and validate those results. So, 

20 I'd just DOE to consider that. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl. 

22 
 MR. EARBS: Hi, Daryl Earbs, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

234 

1 
 Manitowoc Food Service. I just -- my concern 

2 
 I think is the same, that if we have defective 

3 
 components, and we do from time to time, the 

4 
 question about whether that would be 

5 
 detectible by the end-user, in most cases it 

6 
 is, it would result in a warranty call to our 

7 
 company, and then we have a corrective action 

8 
 process. So, if we can't retest, then the 

9 
 other question would be, well, will you just 

10 
 throw that result out, and how would you know 

11 
 what result to throw out? But, clearly, if 

12 
 there's a defective component that has a 

13 
 significant impact on the performance, putting 

14 
 that into the distribution is going to really 

15 
 skew it. And I don't think that's what you 

16 
 want to do. 

17 
 If it's a test lab that doesn't 

18 
 know some of the nuances of a piece of 

19 
 equipment that they've tested, something they 

20 
 haven't tested before, so that there's a 

21 
 fairly complex process to figure out what's 

22 
 wrong, they might just accept it not knowing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

235 

1 
 that it was really not performing correctly. 

2 
 So, I think it's something where industry 

3 
 should be allowed to somehow interact in the 

4 
 process before any judgment is passed, because 

5 
 once you include that data and say it can't be 

6 
 taken out, then it really gets difficult to 

7 
 undo that effect. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Chuck 

9 
 Samuels. 

10 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. Chuck 

11 
 Samuels, AHAM Council. I understand the 

12 
 interest in trimming down the section of the 

13 
 CFR that you've got up there right now, but we 

14 
 have to recognize that minimizing delay in the 

15 
 enforcement process isn't the only, or even 

16 
 the highest value here. The highest value 

17 
 here is being fair and getting good and 

18 
 accurate results. So, although it's true 

19 
 manufacturers may perform testing on the units 

20 
 at any time, you need to build in a process 

21 
 where that can be accommodated before you come 

22 
 to a final decision, because it doesn't do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

236 

1 
 them any good after-the-fact, after the next 

2 
 press release has gone out, or after penalties 

3 
 have been levied to do the testing. It should 

4 
 be built in fairly early, it should be 

5 
 expeditious. You can't let these things lag 

6 
 forever, but you've got to integrate it into 

7 
 your process so that it's real, and 

8 
 meaningful, and not just some theoretical 

9 
 right. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jim. 

11 
 MR. VERSHAW: Jim Vershaw, 

12 
 Ingersoll Rand. One of the key things in 

13 
 taking data is to make sure that you've got 

14 
 good gauge R&R on your test equipment, and in 

15 
 your measurement techniques. And when you get 

16 
 to the serious point of enforcement testing, 

17 
 you test four units, and you fall out of bed 

18 
 in terms of where you should be below 5 

19 
 percent. I think there ought to be a way to go 

20 
 back and make sure that the lab is actually 

21 
 where it should be. In other words, you test 

22 
 one of those four units four times, or five 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

237 

1 
 times, get a gauge R&R, make sure it's not a 

2 
 lab issue, not a setup issue, not a technician 

3 
 issue, because we're way down the line here. 

4 
 The next step from here is losing product for 

5 
 commerce and clients, so we want to make sure 

6 
 that there isn't some kind of false reading in 

7 
 here that's causing --

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you suggesting 

9 
 how the Department should do that? 

10 
 MR. VERSHAW: Yes, I just did. 

11 
 Yes, I think they ought to run -- I think up 

12 
 gauge R&R on the test facility on those units 

13 that they run through enforcement testing. 

14 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Actually, 

15 Harmon I think was first. Yes. 

16 
 MR. LEWIS: I want to say amen to 

17 
 the last couple of folks. One thing, are we 

18 
 adopting the policy that you're guilty until 

19 
 proven innocent, or you're going to be 

20 
 innocent until proven guilty? Because it 

21 
 sounds like we're the former, and that, to me, 

22 doesn't sound right being an American. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

238

1 
 Second point, no ask, just 

2 
 serious. I would suggest that you build into 

3 
 the regulation that the manufacturer witness 

4 
 the testing. Don't just send me test data, 

5 
 because I'm like Mr. Ingersoll Rand there, 

6 
 test data doesn't mean anything if the test is 

7 
 set up wrong. So, let the people participate, 

8 
 let us see it, because you're taking away 

9 
 livelihood when you judge us guilty, so let us 

10 prove innocence. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Andrew 

12 DeLaski. 

13 
 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, 

14 
 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. One of 

15 
 the themes that I've been hearing consistently 

16 
 is this notion that there's variability, or 

17 
 there's uncertainty in how to conduct the 

18 
 test, that a given lab might not conduct the 

19 
 test the way the manufacturer happens to 

20 
 conduct it, as was said a moment ago, that the 

21 
 manufacturers might tend to use the warm part 

22 
 of the test method to give them the results 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

239 

1 
 that best -- they might test a bunch of units 

2 
 and find which ones get them the best results. 

3 
 They know how to do these test methods, and 

4 
 they have found the ways that give them the 

5 
 results that are within what their 

6 
 interpretation of the regulation that is 

7 
 consistent. 

8 
 And what I'm hearing is a concern 

9 
 that any given lab, talk about the Department, 

10 
 might not do it the way they do it. So, I'm 

11 
 not sure where this belongs in this 

12 
 conversation, but it brings us back to the 

13 
 very test method, itself; that if there is 

14 
 this kind of uncertainty in the test method, 

15 
 this is a trigger to the Department to open a 

16 
 rulemaking and fix the test method so that 

17 
 there's transparency in how testing is done. 

18 
 And if a manufacturer has concern that an 

19 
 enforcement proceeding could be triggered 

20 
 around a test method that they're interpreting 

21 
 in a way that is, perhaps, warm, then they 

22 
 ought to look for guidance before they're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

240 

1 
 conducting that test in that fashion. So, I 

2 
 think what we're seeing here is, over many, 

3 
 many years, over decades that we have these 

4 
 test methods, and there's lots of experience 

5 
 in this room in independent labs, and how to 

6 
 do them, but we need to be identifying where 

7 
 is this uncertainty, so that there's 

8 
 transparency, one, in how testing is 

9 
 conducted; and, two, how do we fix it so that 

10 
 we're getting results that are consistent. I 

11 
 don't know how that fits into this overall 

12 
 discussion, but we have to go back to the 

13 
 methods, themselves, and their 

14 interpretations. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

16 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: And just to follow 

17 
 on that point, I mean that is the whole 

18 
 premise behind our test procedure guidance 

19 
 website. If there are areas for which 

20 
 manufacturers, and/or labs, and/or any party 

21 
 feels that there needs to be guidance, or an 

22 
 interpretation made by the Department such 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

241 

1 
 that ambiguities can be further investigated, 

2 
 that is the premise behind the test procedure 

3 
 guidance website that is now available for all 

4 
 products. 

5 
 MR. DeLASKI: And just to follow 

6 
 on, this is Andrew, again. I mean, it also 

7 
 speaks to the basic fundamental issue of 

8 
 fairness that was also just raised, that are 

9 
 we providing -- is the government providing a 

10 
 level playing field? If one manufacturer 

11 
 found a way to make the test method work to 

12 
 get a better result, then the others are 

13 
 disadvantaged by that, and so is the public in 

14 
 terms of, potentially, in terms of energy 

15 
 savings. So, I think it's sort of a very 

16 
 fundamental issue. I think the guidance issue 

17 
 is a start, but so is also making sure that we 

18 
 have a mechanism to -- for the industry to 

19 
 come forward with these issues, and have them 

20 
 addressed in a way that is proactive, not just 

21 in a way which is here comes the fine. 

22 
 MR. BROOKMAN: The speaker behind 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

242 

1 
 you is first. Yes. 

2 
 MS. KAMMER: Yes. Claire Kammer 

3 
 with Underwriters Laboratories, building on 

4 
 make sure that the standards themselves are in 

5 
 place in the guidance documents. There's been 

6 
 a lot of talk about the technical competency 

7 
 of labs making determinations, whether they be 

8 
 the manufacturers' labs, first-person labs, or 

9 
 third-party labs. All of that comes with 

10 
 accreditations like 1702-5, so things like 

11 
 gauge R&R are built into 1702-5. So, if 

12 
 you're looking for some sort of metrics to 

13 
 make sure that labs are performing in a 

14 
 consistent way with the technical competency 

15 
 specific to that standard, then accreditations 

16 
 are the tool to be able to do that, and they 

17 
 build in all of those aspects of best 

18 practices across the industry. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 
 MS. BARHYDT: That, actually, leads 

21 
 into the question I had listening to several 

22 
 of you. Would -- lab accreditation is one of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

243 

1 
 the things we have in mind for a future 

2 
 rulemaking, and my question is, would having 

3 
 lab accreditation in place and having 

4 
 enforcement testing be done in those 

5 
 accredited labs, would that alleviate a lot of 

6 
 your concerns, some of you who have already --

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're first in the 

8 
 queue, go ahead. 

9 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

10 Baldor Electric. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: For those of you 

12 
 that are listening on the webinar, the reason 

13 
 for the laugh was a bunch of individuals just 

14 stood up. Go ahead. 

15 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

16 
 Baldor Electric Company, and also NEMA member. 

17 
 To your point on accreditation, first of all 

18 
 to answer that question, several years ago we 

19 
 did a round-robin motor test study, same motor 

20 
 sent to seven or eight of our companies that 

21 
 are all NAB Lab certified facilities. The 

22 
 test deviation we got was about 10 percent, so 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

244 

1 
 your 5 percent really isn't going to work, so 

2 
 that's a little bit tight. 

3 
 The other question I have is, on 

4 
 testing, besides motors, there's probably a 

5 
 lot of these other products that are quite 

6 
 large and not feasible to ship to a third7 
 party laboratory for testing. There's 

8 
 companies like UL, CSA, other test companies 

9 
 that, potentially, could come in and do a 

10 
 witness test. Is that going to be considered 

11 
 a third-party test, even though the 

12 
 manufacturer is testing it in his own NAB Lab 

13 
 Certified laboratory. You have a witness 

14 
 there from a third-party organization that 

15 
 would be overlooking the testing. Is that 

16 third-party enough for DOE? 

17 
 MR. VERSHAW: Jim Vershaw, 

18 Ingersoll Rand. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim, the Department 

20 
 is deciding whether they want to respond to 

21 this, or not. 

22 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: His comment was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

245 

1 
 specific to motors, but I think he's asking 

2 
 more generally for products that it may be 

3 
 applicable to, if I understood you correctly. 

4 
 I don't think we -- I think it's fair to say 

5 
 we could take it under consideration. At this 

6 
 point, I don't think our regs are third-party 

7 
 for enforcement testing. To the extent that 

8 
 that is what you're suggesting, we could take 

9 
 it into consideration. 

10 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: There's going to 

11 
 be labs that aren't going to be able to want 

12 
 the test, large HVAC unit, or a walk-in 

13 cooler, big motor. 

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 

15 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: Volume is not 

16 
 there. 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Understand. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Okay. 

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. Jim. 

20 
 MR. VERSHAW: Yes. Jim Vershaw, 

21 
 Ingersoll Rand. I don't want people to get 

22 
 the impression that manufacturers learned how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
246 

1 
 to tweak the test conditions in order to drive 

2 
 efficiency numbers higher. That wasn't the 

3 
 point I was trying to make. You know, in 

4 
 terms of air conditioning, there's so many 

5 
 different things in play in terms of the 

6 
 indoor room temperature and humidity, the 

7 
 outdoor room temperature. You've got three 

8 
 different motors, you've got a compressor, 

9 
 you've got two different fans, you have coils, 

10 
 you have how much charge is put in the unit by 

11 
 the person who installs it, so this isn't a 

12 
 situation where we know how to magically make 

13 
 the test work and the test labs don't. We, 

14 
 actually, hold tighter challenges on energy 

15 
 balance. We do certain things that we find 

16 
 that when we do the third-party verification 

17 
 testing, that the variation we're getting on 

18 
 those are higher than what we get in our labs. 

19 
 And if you dig into it, you find that well, 

20 
 they couldn't quite set that one unit up 

21 
 vertically because there wasn't room in that 

22 
 test room, they had to lay it on its side, or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

247 

1 
 they didn't have the thermal couplers right, 

2 
 or they didn't quite get the charge right. 

3 
 And, as a result, you get variation. And we 

4 
 could live with that through the third-party 

5 
 verification testing process, and 

6 
 qualification process, but when we get into 

7 
 enforcement testing, that's pretty serious, 

8 
 and that's where you want to make sure that 

9 
 you're not getting fined after four tests, and 

10 
 there was a problem in the lab; which an ISO 

11 
 verification says you've got processes that 

12 
 have been verified, but doesn't mean you 

13 
 follow them everyday, or that particular 

14 
 technician that day was doing everything 

15 correctly. 

16 
 And I know that labs we work with 

17 
 have labs different parts of the country, they 

18 
 can't correlate their test rooms with one 

19 
 piece of equipment yet. So, there's a lot in 

20 
 there that has to be looked out for. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl. 

22 Actually, Daryl, Kelley is next. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

248 

1 
 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline, GE. I 

2 
 was just going to actually agree, Andrew, with 

3 
 what you were saying about the need for DOE to 

4 
 really approach some of the test procedure 

5 
 resolution of interpretation issues through 

6 
 revisions to the test procedure, itself. I 

7 
 think it's in everybody's interest to have 

8 
 very real clear guidance. 

9 
 And to pick up on something you 

10 
 said, and what the last gentleman said, the 

11 
 issue I was trying to highlight was not really 

12 
 the differences between a manufacturer lab and 

13 
 a third-party lab, was that even these 

14 
 differences will exist between third-party 

15 
 labs, where you'll see test procedure 

16 
 interpretation issues, or just ways the labs 

17 do it differently, showing different results. 

18 
 And going back to the guidance, 

19 
 the DOE guidance site, I think that's a really 

20 
 great start. One thing I think that DOE needs 

21 
 to be mindful of there, though, as guidance is 

22 
 issued on some of these test procedure areas 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

249 

1 
 where there's not been a lot of clarity in the 

2 
 past, at some points that may amount to really 

3 
 new guidance, or a new set of interpretation, 

4 
 or eyes on the test procedure where 

5 
 manufacturers may not have been interpreting 

6 
 it that way in the past. And I think in some 

7 
 instances may need -- may beg for some period 

8 
 of time for manufacturers to adjust plans for 

9 
 existing product, and begin to look at the 

10 
 test procedure the same way it's been 

11 
 interpreted on the DOE website, so that's, I 

12 
 think, a tension between the website and the 

13 
 rulemaking process that would need to be 

14 resolved. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl. 

16 
 MR. EARBS: Yes, I just wanted to 

17 address the question --

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Excuse me, Daryl. 

19 It seems we have an interpretation from GC. 

20 
 MS. WEINER: Stephanie Weiner from 

21 
 the Department of Energy. Kelley, I just 

22 
 wanted to mention that as part of that test 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

250 

1 
 procedure guidance database, there will be in 

2 
 most cases an opportunity for comments on the 

3 
 guidance in which folks could weigh in on 

4 
 issues that they feel will require time to 

5 
 implement. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. Thank you. 

7 
 MR. EARBS: Okay, Daryl Earbs. I 

8 
 just wanted to address a question on 

9 
 accreditation as a solution, and we've spent a 

10 
 lot of time looking into accreditation. It 

11 
 was really driven by some of the proposed 

12 
 changes around Energy Star, because that's one 

13 
 of the areas that they've looked at. And I 

14 
 think it's a perfectly valid solution for 

15 
 companies that that makes sense for. It's not 

16 
 a simple process, it's something that -- we've 

17 
 gone through ISO accreditation against other 

18 
 standards to do 17025 is no small undertaking. 

19 
 There are a limited number of bodies that are 

20 
 available to do those accreditations. There 

21 
 are other solutions, some of which involve the 

22 nationally recognized test laboratories. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

251 

1 
 We follow all of those practices 

2 
 today, but to go through a formal 

3 
 accreditation requires a lot of paperwork, a 

4 
 lot of people's time. And I'd just like to 

5 
 make sure that we have other options that give 

6 
 you equivalent confidence, and traceability to 

7 
 calibration, and gauge R&R and all the other 

8 
 things. So, as long as we don't view that as 

9 
 the only solution, then I think it's fine to 

10 
 include that. But if we limit the options, 

11 
 then I think that's going to slow the process 

12 
 down, and become more of a hardship for 

13 manufacturers. 

14 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I believe 

15 
 you were next. Do you want him to go first? 

16 All right. 

17 
 MR. DeMARCO: Pete DeMarco with 

18 
 IAPMO Warranty. Perhaps I could provide a 

19 
 little bit of a balanced perspective on this. 

20 
 Prior to working for IAPMO, I worked for a 

21 
 manufacturer for over 30 years, so I'm kind of 

22 
 understanding of both sides of this equation a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
252 

1 
 little bit. And, first of all, I agree with 

2 
 the comments that were made by UL. And 

3 
 requiring labs that are certified to ISO 17025 

4 
 is an important criteria. It does indicate 

5 
 the labs are competent to run these tests. 

6 
 They interpret the standards properly, and run 

7 
 these tests, as they are intended to be run. 

8 
 Having said that, from a 

9 
 manufacturer's perspective, I think it's also 

10 
 important to point out that while the sampling 

11 
 schemes that are in place for these particular 

12 
 product segments do establish a particular 

13 
 sampling scheme that has a confidence level 

14 
 assigned to it, that those were assigned to 

15 
 those particular product segments with the 

16 
 understanding that those would be conducted in 

17 
 the manufacturer's test facilities. Now, if 

18 
 you're going to add to that, changing 

19 
 laboratories, changing technicians, and the 

20 
 possibility of perhaps labs that are 

21 
 unfamiliar with the products, testing these 

22 
 samples, now the error bars increase. And you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

253 

1 
 may need to revisit, in some cases, those 

2 
 confidence levels. 

3 
 I, also, would like to point out 

4 
 that the higher the complexity, or the more 

5 
 variability that's inherent to a product, 

6 
 either through the material, or the 

7 
 components, sometimes it's even the opposite 

8 
 of complexity, sometimes the simplicity of a 

9 
 product. If you think about a toilet with a 

10 
 simple flush valve that opens and closes, it 

11 
 doesn't meter water by a hundredth of a 

12 
 gallon. It meters water as good as it can for 

13 
 its intended purpose. So, there's variability 

14 
 that's inherent to these things, so trying to 

15 
 revisit those, or to think that there may be a 

16 
 opportunity to tighten those just because time 

17 
 has gone on may not be appropriate. So, from 

18 
 a manufacturer's standpoint that kind of 

19 
 balances it out. But, certainly, 17025 is a 

20 big cogent to this equation. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me before you 

22 
 leave, and for the others standing, and maybe 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

254 

1 
 there will be others that want to respond to 

2 
 this, you'll recall that one issue that was 

3 
 left on the table was whether testing with 

4 
 witness, presumably a qualified witness should 

5 
 qualify as a third-party, so if you've got 

6 
 additional comments on that, I think the 

7 
 Department would welcome those. 

8 
 MR. DeMARCO: Are you addressing me 

9 
 on that? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: If you wish to. I 

11 think others will, as well. 

12 
 MR. DeMARCO: Witness testing is 

13 
 something that we at IAPMO do offer our 

14 
 clients for certification to the plumbing 

15 
 code. That may be different from different 

16 
 from this enforcement testing. I would 

17 
 encourage that we, on a case-by-case business, 

18 
 that be considered. And I think for plumbing 

19 products, it probably would be acceptable. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 
 MS. STERLING: Joan Sterling with 

22 
 Intertek. I'd like to address a couple of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

255 

1 
 issues. Let me take the one you just 

2 
 mentioned first, supervised manufacturer 

3 
 testing, or witness testing, which is a common 

4 
 practice by many accredited labs and 

5 
 certification bodies. And, in fact, the IACCB 

6 
 scheme even has a whole set up to deal with 

7 
 that, so it's very common, and it is based on 

8 
 specific individual requirements, and the best 

9 
 way that they can be satisfied. So, all those 

10 
 checks and balances can be built into an 

11 
 accreditation requirement, whether it's 17025 

12 
 or Guide 65, which is in the process of being 

13 
 revised by ISO for certification bodies. So 

14 
 there's, essentially, two levels of 

15 
 accreditation; of course, one for 

16 
 laboratories, and then one for certification 

17 
 bodies that takes it to another level. 

18 
 The issue with test standards, and 

19 
 product standards is significant, and if a 

20 
 standard is written properly, everybody should 

21 
 be able to test the same way to that standard. 

22 
 There are issues that do need to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

256 

1 
 addressed, and addressing them initially on 

2 
 your website is one thing, but the bigger 

3 
 picture is that those standards need to be 

4 
 taken into account, and, potentially, revised 

5 
 to produce reproducible results from all 

6 
 qualified laboratories. 

7 
 Accreditation in the big picture 

8 
 there are a number of qualified bodies that 

9 
 provide accreditation services, and from a 

10 
 test lab standpoint, our preference for that 

11 
 is to be able to choose a qualified 

12 
 accreditation body, whether it's NAB Lab or 

13 
 A2LA, or ANSI, or OSHA under the NRTL program 

14 
 that provides certain things. But it is up to 

15 
 DOE to write into their program what they need 

16 
 and the confidence level from an accredited 

17 
 organization from a test laboratory or a 

18 certification body. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I 

20 
 believe you are next, and then back to 

21 
 Charlie. 

22 MR. WAGNER: Greg Wagner, Morrison 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

257 

1 
 Products. To dovetail with what was just 

2 
 said, even within the framework of accredited 

3 
 labs that comply with those standards, you'll 

4 
 find that there's variation beyond the 5 

5 
 percent as recommended. And I can speak to 

6 
 one, that's airflow measurement. AMCA, who is 

7 
 a recognized leader in terms of airflow 

8 
 measurement will tell you that it's greater 

9 
 than 5 percent for measuring both airflow and 

10 the power to drive the fan system. 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you recommend 

12 
 a threshold, would you give a number for DOE's 

13 consideration? 

14 
 MR. WAGNER: I think that would 

15 
 have to go case-by-case, depending upon what 

16 
 you're measuring, what you're trying to 

17 
 accomplish. Certainly, airflow goes into air 

18 
 conditioning systems and other products like 

19 
 that. You're going to have variations 

20 
 associated with that air moving measurement in 

21 
 and of itself that's greater than the 5 

22 percent tolerance you talked about. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

258

1 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

2 
 MR. WAGNER: I think there are many 

3 
 studies that cover these things to measure how 

4 
 much variation is in a given appliance, and 

5 
 then you can establish confidence levels based 

6 
 upon that evaluation, but it needs to be more 

7 
 in depth than just saying 5 percent across the 

8 
 board. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 
 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

11 
 Manufacturing, but I'm going to be speaking 

12 
 now from a different perspective. I'm also 

13 
 Chairman of the ASHRAE 72 Test Standard, which 

14 
 is the test standard used for commercial 

15 
 refrigeration. We have received, and I want 

16 
 to compliment DOE and several other 

17 
 organizations, because we've received a lot of 

18 
 activity recently from DOE-associated groups, 

19 
 like the National Testing Labs, Northwest 

20 
 National Testing Labs, and several others, 

21 
 actively pursuing tightening these test 

22 
 standards. They're working very closely with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

259 

1 
 us on that, and they are really drawing a 

2 
 great amount of information before they come 

3 
 to us and try and just make some ridiculous 

4 
 remark. They're coming with sound engineering 

5 
 judgments at this time, so I want to thank you 

6 
 for that. And they are heavily involved 

7 
 trying to get where they can guarantee that 

8 
 that 5 percent could be met. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

10 Paul. 

11 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, 

12 
 Mitsubishi Electric. Just a quick point of 

13 
 clarification. I failed to mention that the 

14 
 compressor, defective compressor example I 

15 
 gave was with a company I used to work for, 

16 
 not with Mitsubishi Electric. We make our own 

17 
 compressors, and we have no problems. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: We welcome these 

19 
 clarifications. So, I think that that's the 

20 
 final commenting on this enforcement testing. 

21 We're going to move on then to adjudication. 

22 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, we're only 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

260 

1 
 proposing slight changes to the current 

2 
 adjudication process. However, currently, if 

3 
 you look at the adjudication regulations, 

4 
 there is not much there, so a lot of what 

5 
 we're doing is actually trying to clarify the 

6 
 process and make it transparent to everyone 

7 
 about what they could expect if they were to 

8 
 become involved in an enforcement action. 

9 
 First of all, we're clarifying the 

10 
 different types of actions that are violations 

11 
 of the regulations, and those include improper 

12 
 certification, failure to test, and 

13 
 distribution in commerce after we've made a 

14 
 determination of non-compliance. There are 

15 
 many more, like failure to certify, and 

16 
 failure to meet the standard, but those are 

17 
 some that we've clarified explicitly in the 

18 
 proposal. In addition, knowing 

19 
 misrepresentation, and we're proposing to make 

20 
 it explicit that making a representation about 

21 the efficiency of a product is a violation. 

22 
 With regard to civil penalties, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

261 

1 
 each unit of a covered product or covered 

2 
 equipment found to be in violation of a 

3 
 prohibited act, such as failure to meet an 

4 
 applicable conservation standard, constitutes 

5 
 a separate violation. For the certification 

6 
 requirements, the penalty is calculated for 

7 
 each day a manufacturer distributes each basic 

8 
 model in commerce without having submitted a 

9 
 certification report. That's by the statute. 

10 
 That is the way that that is calculated, and 

11 those penalties can get very high. 

12 
 What we have done is, we have 

13 
 issued penalty guidance saying that we will 

14 
 consider a number of factors when assessing 

15 
 civil penalties, including the nature and 

16 
 scope of the violation, the provision that's 

17 
 been violated, the violator's history of 

18 
 compliance, the size of the business, and the 

19 
 ability to pay, timely self-reporting, and any 

20 
 self-initiated corrective actions that were 

21 
 taken. So, the statutory calculation is the 

22 
 maximum penalty, and we do take a lot of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
262 

1 
 factors into consideration when determining an 

2 
 appropriate penalty. 

3 
 Another provision that we have 

4 
 proposed is that in addition to assessing a 

5 
 civil penalty, where we feel that a 

6 
 manufacturer has been making the -- submitting 

7 
 a certification that it meets the standard, 

8 
 and we've determined that that is, in fact, 

9 
 not true, and that they are selling products 

10 
 that don't meet the standard, we're proposing 

11 
 that we may require independent third-party 

12 
 testing for certification. So, as opposed to 

13 
 requiring everyone to have independent third14 
 party testing, we're saying that as a result 

15 
 of an enforcement action, we may impose that 

16 as a requirement for future certifications. 

17 
 In addition, there's already a 

18 
 provision in the statute, and in our current 

19 
 regulations saying that DOE may compromise, or 

20 
 settle a penalty amount, and that provision we 

21 
 have retained. We've added a few more 

22 
 paragraphs to make it a little more clear 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

263 

1 
 about how that works, but the basic part of 

2 
 that has not changed. 

3 
 Any questions on adjudication? 

4 
 MS. KAMMER: I just have something 

5 
 very quickly that wasn't addressed, but it's 

6 
 kind of adjudication-related. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: State your name 

8 
 again, please. 

9 
 MS. KAMMER: Oh, Claire Kammer 

10 
 with Underwriters Laboratories. You mentioned 

11 
 in the notice that you would remove 

12 
 certification bodies from recognition if there 

13 
 were incidents of poor reporting, or slow 

14 
 reporting, or different criteria like that. 

15 
 We just urge DOE to look, and actually outline 

16 
 that criteria very explicitly, because similar 

17 
 to what's being talked about for 

18 
 manufacturers, certification bodies, 

19 
 themselves, have to have parameters to make 

20 
 sure that they're working within your 

21 
 expectations and guidelines, versus just 

22 
 making that an arbitrary statement that we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

264 

1 
 could do it, just put in print kind of the 

2 
 finite details around that. 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim. 

4 
 MR. VERSHAW: Jim Vershaw, 

5 
 Ingersoll Rand, again. Back to Slide 33, it 

6 
 says, "DOE may initiate enforcement testing 

7 
 without written information from a third8 
 party." 

9 
 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 

10 
 MR. VERSHAW: Okay. So, what are 

11 
 the rules and processes that you're going to 

12 do to initiate an enforcement test? 

13 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, 

14 
 enforcement testing would be initiated when -- 

15 
 under the proposal, we may initiate 

16 
 enforcement testing at any time. It's pretty 

17 straightforward that --

18 
 MR. VERSHAW: Well, it sounds like 

19 
 you can just wake up one morning and decide 

20 
 okay, I'm going to enforcement test these guys 

21 
 over here. Is there some criteria that you 

22 
 have to go through to say this has to happen, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
265 

1 
 or this has to happen, this has to happen. 

2 
 And if all those things happen, then we will 

3 
 initiate enforcement action, some internal 

4 
 rules that you follow, or is it just whatever? 

5 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

6 
 McCabe. That's one that if you had some 

7 
 language to offer, I would appreciate it. 

8 
 However, we have not been able to come up with 

9 
 anything, because it's really on a case-by10 
 case basis. We do not anticipate doing C 

11 
 just randomly selecting units for the purposes 

12 
 of testing for verification, but we do see 

13 
 that we could end up doing that. But, for the 

14 
 most part, it's going to be that there's going 

15 
 to be some reason why we would initiate that. 

16 
 There could be some exchange with another 

17 
 agency, could be another program, the research 

18 
 activity where they've torn down a unit. It's 

19 
 impossible -- we have found it so far 

20 
 impossible to identify it. But, principally, 

21 
 we'd see that there would be some reason that 

22 
 we would do it. We also are leaving it open 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

266 

1 
 that we may, particularly when you look at 

2 
 what's happened with the Energy Star testing, 

3 
 that there has been -- roughly, 20 percent of 

4 
 the units have failed to achieve that, that 

5 
 that may influence in itself us to go out and 

6 
 do some random testing. So, it's what the 

7 
 situation, conditions with that product could 

8 
 dictate whether or not we're going to --

9 
 MR. VERSHAW: That says that you 

10 
 may test something, decide to test something, 

11 and then find a problem, as opposed to --

12 MR. McCABE: There could be --

13 
 MR. VERSHAW: -- some sort of 

14 internal process --

15 
 MR. McCABE: There could be that 

16 
 case, but for the most part, initially, we'd 

17 
 expect that we would find -- there would be 

18 
 some reason, some problem that would lead us 

19 
 to take that action. But, as I said, just 

20 
 with the Energy Star verification testing, we 

21 
 have found some questions which could, in 

22 
 itself, lead us to decide maybe we should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

267 

1 
 doing random testing for determining 

2 
 compliance with the standard. 

3 
 MR. VERSHAW: So, would you use an 

4 
 independent third-party lab for that testing? 

5 
 MR. McCABE: At this point in time, 

6 
 the plan is yes. 

7 
 MR. VERSHAW: Okay. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Harmon. 

9 
 MR. LEWIS: Harmon Lewis with 

10 
 American Panel. I think you ought to do the 

11 
 testing random, and start with the Zs and work 

12 your way back to American Panel at A. 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 
 MR. LEWIS: I'd also like to turn 

15 
 in all my competitors first, test them, and 

16 
 then come find me. There's got to be, in 

17 
 seriousness, there's got to be a reason for 

18 
 that testing not just that you distrust the 

19 
 whole world. In all seriousness, these are 

20 
 extreme costs to most of us in the room, and 

21 
 we're almost all of us small manufacturers 

22 
 with very limited pockets, and the consumer is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

268 

1 
 going to be the one at fault. Almost all of 

2 
 us, if not all of us, try to follow all the 

3 
 rules, all the procedures, will do anything 

4 
 that's lined out, we appreciate that we're 

5 
 part of the process, but there's also got to 

6 
 be some protection from frivolous turn-in, 

7 
 because I can just pick any one of them and 

8 
 say, you know, I think he's doing wrong. But 

9 
 if he's doing right, the people that say 

10 
 they're doing wrong ought to be bearing the 

11 
 expense, just like frivolous lawsuits. And 

12 
 there's got to be some adequate ways to 

13 protect yourself. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 

15 
 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

16 
 Earthjustice. This is just a suggestion. On 

17 
 Slide 44, you list a whole bunch of different 

18 
 factors you will look at for assessing civil 

19 
 penalties. And I realize the Department has 

20 
 some discretion here. It seems to me, though, 

21 
 that the more factors you put in makes it sort 

22 
 of a judgment call to decide how much the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
269 

1 
 penalties will be. You know, that might not, 

2 
 necessarily, be the most fair thing, if 

3 
 certain manufacturers have a better 

4 
 relationship with folks at DOE than others. It 

5 
 seems to me that you calculate in developing 

6 
 the Energy Conservation Standards, the 

7 
 manufacturer's markup across the industry for 

8 
 a product. It seems to me that you can use 

9 
 that type of data to relatively, within a 

10 
 certain degree of accuracy, figure out how 

11 
 much the manufacturer has actually benefitted 

12 
 from selling a product that may not comply, 

13 
 and maybe that should be sort of your starting 

14 point for developing the penalty amount. 

15 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie 

16 Stephens. 

17 
 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, 

18 
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. We're a 

19 
 party that actually has done a fair amount of, 

20 
 I guess what I would call based on what I've 

21 
 heard today, verification testing. We can use 

22 
 the same methodologies that DOE uses, and use 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

270 

1 
 the same statistical analysis to come up with 

2 
 the same results. And, as a side note, we've 

3 
 actually been pretty pleased to see that most 

4 
 of the time we get what the manufacturers are 

5 
 telling us we should expect, defect parts 

6 
 notwithstanding. 

7 
 But I think in that case, if we 

8 
 find something in our own verification 

9 
 testing, and we're using DOE's methodologies 

10 
 to do this, we're not just going to sit there, 

11 
 I suspect. We'll probably let somebody know 

12 
 that our verification testing has 

13 
 statistically highlighted an issue. Now, I 

14 
 don't know whether DOE would act on that basis 

15 
 alone, or not, but it would -- to me, 

16 
 enforcement testing would likely come out of 

17 
 verification testing that went badly, or 

18 
 something along those lines, or at least that 

19 
 would be a logical thing to expect. And we 

20 
 would hope that if we reported that through 

21 
 our own verification testing, that something 

22 would happen. Am I wrong? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

271 

1 
 MS. BARHYDT: Right now, we do, 

2 
 actually, have a place on our website where 

3 
 people can report that sort of thing, where 

4 
 they've done testing, and they found that a 

5 
 product appears not to meet the standard. And 

6 
 that is the sort of thing that we have been 

7 
 using up until now as the basis for our 

8 
 enforcement actions. 

9 
 I understand the concerns with the 

10 
 open-ended language, but as Michael said, 

11 
 there are a lot of different factors that go 

12 
 into it, and we have limited resources. We're 

13 
 not looking to just bring cases against 

14 
 everyone. We're looking to bring cases 

15 
 against people that we believe are in 

16 
 violation. So, it's not the sort of thing 

17 where we're picking names out of a hat. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

19 
 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, ICS. I 

20 
 have a question on Slide 45, the last bullet 

21 
 point, goes into compromise and settlement. 

22 
 You say that DOE will outline the steps to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

272 

1 
 taken by both parties once a settlement offer 

2 
 has been made. It sounds like we've gone from 

3 
 trying to bring a product into compliance to a 

4 
 lawsuit there. Who is the other party that we 

5 
 would be settling with? 

6 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. So, when we 

7 
 bring a civil penalty action against a 

8 
 manufacturer for failure to comply, if we are 

9 
 able to reach an agreement where the -- say 

10 
 the non-compliant products are no longer on 

11 
 the shelf, and they've been pulled off the 

12 
 shelf, and the product is now being produced 

13 
 in such a way that it complies, and we've been 

14 
 able to verify that, we may settle the case 

15 
 for some agreed upon amount, and based on 

16 
 those terms. The statute actually requires 

17 
 all cases to go to an Administrative Law 

18 
 Judge, so settlement means we're not going 

19 through that process. 

20 
 MR. COMBS: So, the two parties 

21 
 would be the manufacturer --

22 
 MS. BARHYDT: And the Department of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

273 

1 
 Energy. 

2 
 MR. COMBS: And the Department of 

3 
 Energy. Thank you. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

5 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

6 
 Industries. You know, I appreciate the 

7 
 Department of Energy's desire to not having 

8 
 strings attached. With our company, I kind of 

9 
 wish we didn't have all these strings attached 

10 
 that we seem to be adding on. But to 

11 
 arbitrarily leave this open without any 

12 
 specification on what brings forth a complaint 

13 
 to the Department of Energy lends for abuse, 

14 
 maybe not this group, but somebody down in the 

15 future, because it's a blank check. 

16 
 MS. BARHYDT: Do you have criteria 

17 that you would suggest? 

18 
 MR. CRAIG: I would suggest that 

19 
 whatever criteria you're going to use to make 

20 
 a decision as to who you call in for testing, 

21 
 that you itemize that decision making process, 

22 
 and publish it, at least so that we can be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

274 

1 
 assured that there is a process going that's 

2 
 consistent with all parties involved. It 

3 
 seems like a logical approach. Yes, it 

4 
 probably will lend itself to not giving you 

5 
 the flexibility you want, but I would like to 

6 
 have a blank check to be able to make any kind 

7 
 of walk-in I want without having to worry 

8 
 about the DOE telling me how to do it, but 

9 
 that isn't the way it works out. I think the 

10 
 DOE has some responsibility to us to at least 

11 
 let us know how these decisions are being 

12 
 made, or the process that you go through to 

13 make it. Okay? Thank you. 

14 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

15 
 Other comments on adjudication? Ashley 

16 Armstrong. 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hi, everyone. 

18 
 Okay. So, this is more an interactive thing. 

19 
 We're going to talk about the potential for 

20 
 DOE to create a verification program. We've 

21 
 heard a lot about it today. We'd like to hear 

22 
 more about it, so we're requesting 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

275 

1 
 information. We haven't made a determination 

2 
 yet on the role of verification testing as it 

3 
 relates to DOE's certification, compliance, 

4 
 and enforcement efforts. We're seeking 

5 
 additional comments from everyone here, as 

6 
 well as additional comments from everyone on 

7 
 the webinar in writing. So, some specific 

8 
 proposals. 

9 
 What should DOE consider as it's 

10 
 thinking about a verification testing program? 

11 
 Some examples could include considerations 

12 
 for identification of products, the percentage 

13 
 of basic models that should be tested on a per 

14 
 product basis. What type of roles could 

15 
 voluntary industry certifications have with 

16 
 DOE's verification program? What sample size 

17 
 should be tested for verification? Any 

18 
 comments, any thoughts inside that scope, 

19 
 outside that scope, we'd appreciate. This is 

20 when you run to the microphone. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 

22 
 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

276 

1 
 AHAM. We, certainly, think that DOE should 

2 
 leverage existing third-party verification 

3 
 programs that are developed by industry trade 

4 
 associations, such as AHAM. These 

5 
 associations, I know AHAM considers all of the 

6 
 issues that you just raised, and is happy to 

7 
 discuss them with DOE, as we have with EPA, 

8 
 for example. Such programs often provide the 

9 
 most cost-effective use of limited lab testing 

10 
 space, and can also provide a high level of 

11 
 competency, which will yield the most accurate 

12 
 oversight, which I believe is the goal here. 

13 
 In fact, AHAM is currently developing and 

14 
 revising existing programs expressly for this 

15 
 purpose, as well as to help out with the 

16 Energy Star enhanced testing. 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So, a 

18 
 follow-up question for you, and you don't have 

19 
 to answer this on the spot here, but I would 

20 
 be interested to know how you make these types 

21 
 of decisions for your verification programs, 

22 
 the percentage of units you guys plan to test, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

277 

1 
 how do you determine which units should be 

2 
 tested? I mean, this isn't applicable just to 

3 
 AHAM, this goes to anyone that is involved in 

4 
 any type of verification program, whether it 

5 
 be industry, whether it be voluntary other 

6 
 type. 

7 
 MS. CLEARY: And we'll certainly 

8 
 follow-up with that in our written comments. 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: That would be 

10 great. 

11 
 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. 

12 
 Adding to that would be the elements of a 

13 
 third-party verification program that DOE 

14 
 could stipulate. Should a qualified program, 

15 
 DOE qualified program be one that would 

16 
 provide DOE access to witness testing, DOE 

17 
 access to records? How open should the 

18 
 program be to DOE's inspection and comment, 

19 
 would be examples of some issues we should be 

20 interested in receiving some comment on. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Claire. 

22 
 MS. KAMMER: Yes, Claire Kammer 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

278 

1 
 with Underwriters Laboratories. To that 

2 
 point, what's being put in place for 

3 
 enhancement to Energy Star will actually give 

4 
 you guys some of those tools to be able to do 

5 
 some of that. One of the -- I actually got up 

6 
 to speak a little bit to the concept that for 

7 
 verification testing, you should recognize 

8 
 programs are in existence for certification to 

9 
 energy efficiency requirements, as they are 

10 
 today. So, programs like UL had previously, 

11 
 and many people know this from the safety 

12 
 space, will have annual retesting, or four 

13 
 times a year looking at products, for every 

14 
 product, or every family of products. For 

15 
 Energy Star and the enhancements there, our 

16 
 Energy Star certification model is actually 

17 
 going to go to the sample size dictated by 

18 
 that program. So, there is some room to be 

19 
 able to move within that, and that can be 

20 calculated into a program. 

21 
 I did want to call out, though, 

22 
 that there should be recognition and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
279 

1 
 encouragement for those products and those 

2 
 manufacturers that choose to go to an 

3 
 independent third-party certification scheme. 

4 
 And, currently, in your motor program, and I 

5 
 know motors are out now, but maybe harmonized 

6 
 within, you guys actually have recognition of 

7 
 products in the most case that are certified 

8 
 by labs like Underwriters Laboratories, or 

9 
 CSA. They're then exempt from a traditional 

10 
 sample modeling, maybe run out of DOE, because 

11 
 you recognize and are assured that that 

12 
 verification sampling through the closed loop 

13 
 system that's part of the Guide 65 

14 
 requirements is in place, and it is happening, 

15 
 and the reporting now goes into place. So, 

16 
 for anything you do for the requirements for 

17 
 mandatory efficiency requirements under the 

18 
 Consumer Goods, you should recognize kind of 

19 
 what you've done, and what's worked in that 

20 
 motor space, and calculate that in to make 

21 
 sure that that verification model is 

22 
 recognized on the front end, and that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

280 

1 
 manufacturers who choose to use independent 

2 
 test labs aren't disincentivized from doing 

3 
 so. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim. 

5 
 MR. VERSHAW: Jim Vershaw, 

6 
 Ingersoll Rand. We've been using the AHRI 

7 
 programs for residential and commercial HVAC 

8 
 for quite a while, and we think those are the 

9 
 type of attributes you ought to be looking for 

10 
 in a third-party verification program for 

11 HVAC. 

12 The other thing is --

13 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Could you explain 

14 to me what some of those attributes might be? 

15 
 MR. VERSHAW: Well, there's a basic 

16 
 model group. They randomly select 30 percent 

17 
 of the basic model groups to be tested every 

18 
 year, and they have a criteria where it's 

19 
 either they do it by random, they do it for 

20 
 cause, they do it for new models. And they 

21 
 run them through, actually, I think it's ITS 

22 
 Labs do all the testing. There's a -- it's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
281 

1 
 the same tolerances that are used for the DOE 

2 
 program, 5 percent. And there's penalties if 

3 
 you have too many failures. And, of course, 

4 
 if you drop below the minimum, you've got to 

5 
 discontinue models, and do all kinds of 

6 
 things, so it's very similar to what the EPA 

7 
 has been looking for in terms of their 

8 
 verification programs, which leads to my next 

9 
 statement. 

10 Don't create a third-party 

11 
 verification at DOE that's different than what 

12 
 Energy Star is doing, such that we end up 

13 
 doing double verification testing. We're 

14 
 already doing -- I'm doing about 100 tests 

15 
 right now on split systems, and another 30, or 

16 
 40, or 50 on furnaces. That adds up to a lot 

17 
 of equipment, a lot of time, and a lot of 

18 
 money. And now if the EPA comes in and throw 

19 
 in Energy Star verification testing from a 

20 
 different subset, and we end up doubling that, 

21 
 I mean, what's the value for us to be Energy 

22 
 Star, that kind of thing? So, you guys need 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

282 

1 
 to work together. You have an understanding 

2 
 put together between you guys and EPA on 

3 
 Energy Star. They ought to have the same type 

4 
 of program in here, and use those results for 

5 
 both. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Christina. 

7 
 MS. CHANG: Christine Chang, 

8 
 Natural Resources Defense Council. I just 

9 
 wanted to list a few aspects of a verification 

10 
 program that we think should be put in place. 

11 
 The first is that there should be a clear and 

12 
 published protocol that requires off-the-shelf 

13 
 testing, where possible, and establishes 

14 
 alternative protocols for products with 

15 
 special considerations, where off-the-shelf 

16 testing isn't feasible. 

17 
 The second is that testing should 

18 
 be done by independent accredited labs, and I 

19 
 think accreditation will help to ameliorate a 

20 
 lot of the concerns that parties here have 

21 
 raised about consistency of laboratory 

22 testing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

283

1 
 Product selection for verification 

2 
 should be done based on a combination of, one, 

3 
 random selection, and, two, more targeted 

4 
 selection of products for verification testing 

5 
 based on direct input from DOE, and other 

6 
 stakeholders. 

7 
 And last, just as with 

8 
 certification testing, verification testing 

9 
 data, including individual model results, 

10 
 should be made publicly available in some sort 

11 of public database or website. Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Karim. 

13 
 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

14 
 Well, we know AHRI has been running 

15 
 verification programs, as you call it, we call 

16 
 it certification program for over 50 years, 

17 
 and I thought that those were known to you, 

18 but, apparently, they are not. 

19 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have to ask you 

20 on the record. Right? 

21 
 MR. AMRANE: All of our programs 

22 
 are available online, so you can look at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

284 

1 
 documents. We'll be more than happy to share 

2 
 them with you. So, we don't want the DOE to 

3 
 reinvent the wheel here, if you can leverage 

4 
 those programs already in place that were 

5 
 established, and have proven themselves for 

6 
 the last 50 years, or so. 

7 
 However, in establishing those 

8 
 programs, if it becomes a requirement, we want 

9 
 to make sure that the DOE doesn't lower the 

10 
 bar. Okay? So, we're talking a lot about 

11 
 Energy Star, but Energy Star, if you look at 

12 
 what they've done at this point for equipment, 

13 
 their requirements are less stringent than 

14 
 what we have currently in our program. So, 

15 
 again, make sure that there's a level playing 

16 
 field here, that what the industry has been 

17 doing for the last 50 years is not lost in --

18 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: To the extent you 

19 
 can provide examples of how the proposed, or 

20 
 the potential Energy Star verification program 

21 
 is different than yours, and where you think 

22 
 differences should be rectified, that would be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

285 

1 
 great. 

2 
 MR. AMRANE: Sure, we will do that. 

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Pete. 

5 
 MR. DeMARCO: Thank you. Pete 

6 
 DeMarco, IAPMO, and I certainly encourage the 

7 
 Department to -- we certainly encourage the 

8 
 Department to take advantage of existing 

9 
 certification processes that are already in 

10 
 place for industries. As part of our 

11 
 certification process, and our continuous 

12 
 compliance process, we send inspectors to the 

13 
 point of manufacture, each plant that a 

14 
 manufacturer has unannounced and select 

15 
 product from packed inventory. That selection 

16 
 process is as good, and as valid as taking 

17 
 product from a distributor, or from a 

18 
 retailer, and certainly less costly and 

19 
 disruptive to the marketplace. And we 

20 
 encourage the consideration of that practice 

21 going forward for this verification program. 

22 
 And as I mentioned earlier, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

286 

1 
 plumbing industry is pretty well regulated, 

2 
 and manufacturers are doing their due 

3 
 diligence every day, the good actors, anyway, 

4 
 are, and we encourage that the DOE take 

5 
 advantage of these processes that are in 

6 
 place, and are working for these 

7 
 manufacturers. 

8 
 In cases where products may not be 

9 
 part of a recognized third-party certification 

10 
 program, and that could be evidenced by a lack 

11 
 of market conformity on a product, in that 

12 
 case, then we do suggest that products be 

13 
 selected out of retail, or out of point of 

14 
 distribution, and testing be conducted on 

15 
 those products due to a lack of evidence of a 

16 independence compliance process. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Paul. 

18 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul DOPPEL, 

19 
 Mitsubishi Electric. One of the things that I 

20 
 think is important for DOE to keep in mind is 

21 
 the fact that all this testing costs a lot of 

22 
 money to manufacturers, especially if you have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

287 

1 
 larger commercial equipment, especially the 

2 
 variable refrigerant flow type systems. Some 

3 
 of our systems with the cost of the equipment 

4 
 and the cost of the testing is like $50-70,000 

5 
 per test. And it gets to a point where you're 

6 
 spending so much money on testing that it 

7 
 starts affecting the bottom line, and it 

8 
 becomes a disincentive. 

9 
 In developing the BRF testing 

10 
 program at AHRI, one of the things we looked 

11 
 at, and this is speaking for Mitsubishi, not 

12 
 AHRI perspective, one of the things we looked 

13 
 at was balancing between doing enough testing 

14 
 so that people will be part of the program, 

15 
 the certification, voluntary certification 

16 
 program, and not testing so much that it costs 

17 
 the company too much money, and people may not 

18 
 want to participate, and try to do a self19 
 certification. 

20 
 So, there's a -- while we 

21 
 encourage DOE to do this, we also want to keep 

22 
 in mind that -- ask you to keep in mind that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

288 

1 
 it is expensive for large commercial 

2 
 manufacturers of HVAC. 

3 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

4 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

5 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 

6 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Moving on. I'm 

7 
 just going to mention a couple of product8 
 specific things, one that I know will get some 

9 
 attention, in particular. So, as we noted 

10 
 earlier, the Energy Independence and Security 

11 
 Act of 2007 added prescriptive design 

12 
 standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. 

13 
 In this rulemaking, we are proposing to 

14 
 clarify the entity responsible for certifying 

15 
 compliance with the Department for walk-in 

16 
 coolers and freezers. Currently, that 

17 
 certification and our regulations are just for 

18 
 those design standards. I understand that 

19 
 test procedure rulemaking and energy 

20 
 performance standard rulemaking is underway, 

21 
 but as applicable here, it's only for 

22 
 certifying compliance, if it is actually 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

289 

1 
 adopted in the final rule, only for certifying 

2 
 compliance to those prescriptive standards on 

3 
 the books currently. 

4 
 So, you can read our proposed 

5 
 definition of the entity responsible for 

6 
 compliance for walk-ins, and I'm going to open 

7 
 the floor, because I see there's a line 

8 
 already. 

9 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

10 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

11 
 Industries. I brought this up at the first of 

12 
 the meeting, but I'd like to reinforce it a 

13 
 little bit. This has been a point of 

14 
 discussion since the first NOPR on this 

15 
 definition, that the law was written in a way 

16 
 that manufacturer wasn't defined, and that 

17 
 leaves it open to interpretation, especially 

18 
 in our industry, where we really make parts 

19 
 and ship them to people, and people put the 

20 
 parts together, and it becomes a walk-in 

21 
 cooler with a whole system. So, it's very 

22 
 complicated for the DOE to come up with a way 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

290 

1 
 to apply this like you would a refrigerator, 

2 
 because it's not assembled. 

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 

4 
 MR. CRAIG: From the definition of 

5 
 this proposed compliance, I agree with the DOE 

6 
 that it would be pretty hard to be doing 

7 
 testing in the field where the part is 

8 
 actually assembled, and to assure that 

9 
 compliance is made by that person out there, 

10 
 and do all this testing would be probably very 

11 
 hard to do. But with the testing being done 

12 
 by the people who make the parts that make up 

13 
 the assembly in the field, the new proposal 

14 
 here, or the proposal in this NOPR projects 

15 
 that the installer is not included in this. 

16 
 And I'm confused a little bit, and that was 

17 
 the first thing that hit my mind because of 

18 
 the definition that the DOE came up from legal 

19 
 was that a person who manufactures, produces, 

20 
 assembles, or imports a walk-in cooler 

21 
 freezer. And assembles, to me, means who puts 

22 
 it together, and yet we're one moment saying 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

291 

1 
 that's the definition of a manufacturer that 

2 
 we're going to use, and then in the next 

3 
 minute we say but we're not going to put 

4 
 anybody in there that installs it, which is 

5 
 the assembler. So, I'd like some 

6 
 clarification on how the DOE is choosing to 

7 
 let the installer not be a part of this, when 

8 
 he's defined in the definition of the DOE on 

9 
 who the manufacturer is. 

10 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. So, my 

11 
 first response would be, to the extent that 

12 
 you could provide revisions as to what you 

13 
 would think the definition of entity 

14 
 responsible, revision to the definition, we 

15 
 would welcome. If you believe that the 

16 
 definition of the assembler includes that of 

17 
 the installer, I think from a certain 

18 
 perspective, DOE is thinking assembler may 

19 
 mean the person who spec'd out the machine, so 

20 
 maybe not physically installs, but physically 

21 
 specs out. But to the extent you agree, or 

22 
 disagree, we would appreciate those comments 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

292 

1 
 in writing. 

2 
 MR. CRAIG: Okay. We've submitted 

3 
 those in writing. 

4 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 

5 
 MR. CRAIG: But I really feel like 

6 
 I have one other question, that if you're 

7 
 enforcing these regulations, and we sell the 

8 
 walk-in to a dealer, and only the walk-in, and 

9 
 the dealer decides to buy refrigeration from 

10 
 somebody else, and he puts that in the unit, 

11 
 and then he goes out and he hires an installer 

12 
 to install it, a refrigeration contractor, a 

13 
 licensed refrigeration contractor to install 

14 
 it, and the installer does it incorrectly 

15 
 according to specifications, who's going to be 

16 
 liable for the product not being compliant on 

17 
 site? 

18 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think I can 

19 
 answer that right on the spot here, because 

20 
 there's a lot of pathways, but I have to think 

21 
 about it on a case-by-case basis. But we 

22 could follow-up. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

293 

1 
 MR. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you. 

2 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 

3 
 MR. GRIFE: I'm David Grife from 

4 
 Arctic Industries. I hope you do follow-up, 

5 
 because probably that critical path is really 

6 
 what we're all about. There are too many 

7 
 critical paths to this. One of the things I'm 

8 
 not sure is, are there multiple manufacturers? 

9 
 Can there be more than one? For example, for 

10 
 manufacturing the box, and the refrigeration 

11 
 come from somebody else, and the glass door 

12 
 comes from somebody else, and then somebody 

13 
 else installs it, and there's a problem. Are 

14 
 we responsible? Is every single person 

15 
 responsible? Is there one manufacturer, or 

16 
 can there multiple at the end of the day on 

17 one product? 

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

19 
 MR. GRIFE: I'd like to really 

20 
 understand that, because I'm trying to make 

21 
 sure -- we also have to make sure you know, we 

22 
 also have consultants out there who start when 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

294 

1 
 a cheesecake factory decides that they want to 

2 
 open a restaurant, we get a spec, and they say 

3 
 this is what we want. I am a food service 

4 
 consultant, and this is what I want for my 

5 
 restaurant, my hotel, my hospital. So, we're 

6 
 not spec'ing that, we're making them make the 

7 
 choice. Do I have to send them a waiver and 

8 
 say please sign this and say that you are 

9 
 responsible, not me, so now you're the 

10 
 manufacturer, or do I have to now put together 

11 
 a group of documents to kind of push along the 

12 path of who is responsible? 

13 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, to the extent -

14 
 - who do you feel should be responsible? 

15 
 MR. GRIFE: The person who specs 

16 
 it. 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

18 
 MR. GRIFE: At times, they come to 

19 
 us and say please provide us this information. 

20 
 And you know what, we take responsibility now 

21 
 because we're giving information based upon 

22 
 our manufacturing process, our refrigeration, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

295 

1 
 they send everything to us. If they break it 

2 
 apart, I don't know what they do. 

3 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: And to the extent 

4 
 there's a clear way to differentiate who 

5 
 spec'd out that, we'd appreciate that 

6 
 information. 

7 
 MR. GRIFE: Okay. We'll send you 

8 
 some comments. 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

11 
 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, 

12 
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. I'm a 

13 
 little concerned about this particular 

14 
 definition, and I do have a lot of written 

15 
 comments that I have submitted, and I will 

16 
 submit, but a year ago, based on your 

17 
 definitions here in number four, I became a 

18 
 walk-in manufacturer, me. So, I'm a little 

19 
 concerned about a definition that would make 

20 
 me a manufacturer of these things. 

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

296 

1 
 MR. EARBS: Hi, Daryl Earbs. I 

2 
 think at the beginning you prefaced it saying 

3 
 that you really wanted to focus on how this 

4 
 applies to the prescriptive regulations that 

5 
 are currently in effect, and when I look at 

6 
 this, and I will submit some written comments, 

7 
 but today what we have are prescriptive 

8 
 requirements that relate to the components of 

9 
 the walk-in. They actually do not relate to 

10 
 the entire assembly, so I'm not sure it's very 

11 
 meaningful to talk about someone who does it 

12 
 in its entirety, that could work, but it 

13 
 really comes down to -- I think it's much more 

14 
 manageable today, so the panel has to satisfy 

15 
 a certain R value. Well, we know who made the 

16 
 panel. I think the person who made the panel 

17 
 is accountable that it satisfies that R value. 

18 
 The fan motor has to be an ECM, or 

19 
 brushless DC, or whatever we call it these 

20 
 days. We know who put that fan motor inside 

21 
 the unit cooler that went inside that walk-in. 

22 
 And I don't see a big issue when you're at an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

297 

1 
 individual component level that's fairly 

2 
 concisely defined. I think there was 

3 
 something about the infiltration reducing 

4 
 meanings that were still a little bit 

5 
 confusing, but a lot of them are pretty 

6 
 straightforward. 

7 
 I think you really have to think 

8 
 about where we're headed, though, with the 

9 
 performance standards. And if we continue 

10 
 down the path of trying to define the total 

11 
 energy consumption of the assembly, that all 

12 
 these issues that are coming up, all of this 

13 
 concern over who's going to be held 

14 
 accountable, it's going to blow back up on us. 

15 
 So, I, actually -- I'm more concerned about 

16 
 us managing the performance standards effort, 

17 
 so that we don't turn it into something that's 

18 impossible to enforce. 

19 
 I think by properly working on the 

20 
 definition here, the current regulations can 

21 
 actually be managed effectively. I don't know 

22 
 how you're going to handle the certification 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

298 

1 
 and the actual, I mean talk about enforcement 

2 
 nightmares, I mean, here you're going to have 

3 
 a lot of people to chase down on every single 

4 
 installation, so I think that's an issue for 

5 
 you, but I think it's something that, from a 

6 
 regulatory standpoint, is workable. 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Thank you. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments, 

9 
 perhaps final comments on these walk-in cooler 

10 and freezer issues? Okay. 

11 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. This one is 

12 
 pretty straightforward. We're just proposing 

13 
 data submission and requirements for the 

14 
 fluorescent lamp ballasts. They were 

15 
 originally proposed as part of a ballast 

16 
 rulemaking, they have subsequently been pulled 

17 
 in this one, and this is just to make everyone 

18 
 aware that the proposals do reside in the CC&E 

19 
 rulemaking, and they're similar to those that 

20 were proposed. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 

22 
 MR. COOK: Keith Cook from Philips 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

299 

1 
 Lighting. 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

3 
 MR. COOK: This may not be 

4 
 possible, and, quite simply, it's because of 

5 
 the fact that even though we do test all of 

6 
 our ballasts through the manufacturing process 

7 
 to these requirements, usually it's a go/no8 
 go. We're not, necessarily, collecting 

9 
 specific data; and, yet, that's what's 

10 
 required for this submission. So, there's 

11 
 hundreds of basic models, and some of them we 

12 
 only run every few months because they're low 

13 
 volume applications. So, it may not be 

14 
 possible to even do what you're asking in a 

15 30-day period. 

16 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. To the extent 

17 
 you could explain why it's not possible, 

18 
 either in writing, or here, that would be 

19 helpful. 

20 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, so suggest to 

21 the Department what they should do. 

22 
 MR. COOK: Yes. Well, it's a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

300 

1 
 matter of time. 

2 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So, another 

3 
 topic that has been queued up for round two is 

4 
 the certification, compliance, and enforcement 

5 
 with respect to electric motors. 

6 
 We have acknowledged that DOE 

7 
 plans to consider similar provisions that 

8 
 we've discussed today for electric motors in 

9 
 the second round of rulemaking. And we might 

10 
 also consider issues specific to electric 

11 
 motors, including the certification 

12 
 requirements, and the certification compliance 

13 
 numbers as they relate to different types of 

14 electric motors. 

15 
 To the extent that you have 

16 
 specific comments, ideas, proposals for those, 

17 
 we welcome them in preparation for round two. 

18 
 Don't feel the need to stand up, if you want 

19 to. There we go. 

20 
 MR. BASSO: I feel so honored. Dale 

21 
 Basso, WEG. We've seen the issue about the 

22 
 compliance number, and coming up with a new 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

301 

1 
 number. And, I guess, our thought process is 

2 
 why do that? It's the same test standard. 

3 
 It's just a higher level of efficiency. In 

4 
 cases, in fact, it's kind of late in the 

5 
 process, because of the fact that we're 

6 
 already shipping compliant product. We're 

7 
 already manufacturing compliant product for 

8 
 EISA, so in changing the number, we'd have to 

9 
 distinguish, tell customers why there's a new 

10 
 number on this one, that's exactly the same as 

11 
 this one. I'm not sure we understand the 

12 
 benefit of that, but we will add the 

13 
 additional numbers to the system on the 

14 
 compliance, your online system. Which, by the 

15 
 way, doesn't allow us to distinguish Type I 

16 
 from Type II motors, but we'll just double up 

17 
 the number we have. 

18 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

19 
 MR. McCABE: Before you sit down, 

20 
 this is Michael McCabe. If I could ask, make 

21 
 a request, the electric motors is the only 

22 
 product for which we have -- DOE received 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

302 

1 
 applications from the manufacturers for 

2 
 compliance number, and then we issue a 

3 
 compliance number, which the manufacturer is 

4 
 required to put on the product, whether or not 

5 
 it's an imported product, or a product 

6 
 manufactured, they're all treated the same. 

7 
 The other industries that are here, 

8 
 representatives of the other industries that 

9 
 are here may not even be aware of that. And 

10 
 if you could take a couple of minutes and 

11 
 offer your perspective as to what its values 

12 
 are, what its detriments are, what your 

13 
 thoughts are as far as that, because it would 

14 
 be useful to get a larger dialogue on the 

15 subject of compliance numbers. 

16 
 MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso. 

17 
 The compliance number, itself, has been 

18 
 helpful from a standpoint of being able to 

19 
 advise that we have a certified product, 

20 
 especially when there's a lot of equipment 

21 
 coming in from offshore, it's highlighted if 

22 
 it was missing, that maybe it was not a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

303 

1 
 compliant product. Although, enforcement was 

2 
 rather lacking. 

3 
 The downside of it is that we're 

4 
 not sure what it means when you put it on. If 

5 
 the compliance number says it's the minimum 

6 
 efficiency product, but we've been selling 

7 
 higher efficiency products with the same 

8 
 number on it, so it really doesn't 

9 
 distinguish. And there are products that are 

10 
 exempt that are, for example, special shafts, 

11 
 or special flanges that aren't exempt from the 

12 
 certification at all, and sometimes it's on 

13 
 there, sometimes it's not. So, in itself it 

14 
 needs some tweaking as to the usefulness of 

15 
 the number, itself. Having a certification 

16 
 number for a manufacturer, which is what we 

17 
 have, is just a way of distinguishing if you 

18 
 put a third-party name plate on your motor, 

19 
 you might have the same certification, so you 

20 
 could tell who the manufacturer is. But it 

21 
 doesn't drive it down to the basic model, or 

22 
 anything, so I'm not sure how useful. I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

304 

1 
 I can go either way on it, to be honest. But 

2 
 I think changing it, at this point, is going 

3 
 to confuse the market more than help the 

4 
 market, because compliant product that was 

5 
 previously compliant before EISA has the old 

6 
 number on it, and if you put a new number on 

7 
 the product, the old product is still legal to 

8 
 sell, so it could be in the market for a 

9 
 couple of years, and there'll be confusion of 

10 
 is this allowed, what does this mean, what's 

11 
 the difference? So, I think that if we're 

12 
 going to have a number, I don't really see an 

13 
 advantage to changing it. I'm not sure what 

14 it would tell us. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

16 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

17 
 Baldor Electric Company. We are unique in 

18 
 that we have been doing this for quite a long 

19 
 time, as far as putting the number on our 

20 
 motors. We've expanded our program at NEMA 

21 
 where we have our own internal verification 

22 
 process, and testing of our motors to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
305 

1 
 certified under the NEMA Premium License, and 

2 
 it is third-party testing up to the extent 

3 
 that third-parties can test the motors, and 

4 
 with the same problems that DOE would be 

5 
 faced, should a 500 horsepower medium voltage 

6 
 motor get chosen for testing, and lead time in 

7 
 getting it, and so forth. So, we're doing a 

8 
 pretty good job internally of the 14 members 

9 
 of NEMA, which include some manufacturers that 

10 build product overseas. 

11 
 Where we're seeing the problem, 

12 
 where motors are coming in under the radar, is 

13 
 from the non-NEMA members, and in a larger 

14 
 sense, motors coming in on OEM equipment that 

15 
 just comes right through Customs without any 

16 
 challenge as to compliance. So, how you would 

17 
 tie whatever laws we already have in place 

18 
 together with enough people in Customs that 

19 
 would actually be able to looks at the 

20 
 products and verify them. I mean, we could 

21 
 turn in -- I could turn in a list of 20 

22 
 manufacturers today that are sending motors in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

306 

1 
 that are not compliant with today's rules, and 

2 
 have no chance in being compliant with the 

3 
 rules that are coming up in December. I mean, 

4 
 it's going to happen, but they're going to 

5 
 come in because nothing is being challenged by 

6 
 them as far as coming in through Customs. 

7 
 People are putting motors on pumps or 

8 
 compressors, or what have you in Europe, or in 

9 
 China, or India, or South America, and they're 

10 
 coming in, and it's making it uncompetitive 

11 
 for our domestic manufacturers that are buying 

12 
 motors domestically here, that are compliant 

13 
 motors, and it puts them at a 30 percent or 

14 
 larger disadvantage monetarily. So, we've got 

15 
 some problems there, a lot of big challenges 

16 
 that we don't have the Customs manpower, 

17 
 probably, to do that. So, it's something our 

18 
 industry has worked well with DOE in the past 

19 
 to do, and we want to continue working with 

20 you in the future. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 
 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

307 

1 
 Underwriters Laboratories. I really wanted to 

2 
 -- I really came with the intent of making one 

3 
 comment, but my colleague prompted a couple of 

4 
 other thoughts. One is that, to the last 

5 
 point that he made, UL has been very 

6 
 successful in partnering with Customs. And I 

7 
 think Customs looks forward to people to 

8 
 partner with them, so we've done that. In the 

9 
 cases where manufacturers previously were 

10 
 bringing in products with counterfeit UL 

11 
 marks, we partnered with Customs, and that has 

12 
 been very successful. And I would encourage 

13 
 DOE to partner with Customs in a similar 

14 fashion. 

15 
 MS. BARHYDT: We are, actually, 

16 
 actively -- this is Laura Barhydt. We are, 

17 
 actually, actively working with Customs at 

18 
 this time. 

19 
 MR. LADONNE: Okay. The second 

20 
 point is that in terms of the levels of 

21 
 efficiency changing, this is something that we 

22 
 encounter all the time, because, certainly, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

308 

1 
 the levels of safety in our standards changes 

2 
 all of the time. And the way we deal with it 

3 
 is not through a number, or through a mark, 

4 
 but it's through our public database, our LIS 

5 
 database which has all the listings, today has 

6 
 all of the motor energy efficiency numbers for 

7 
 those motors that we test. Okay? So, that 

8 
 information is readily available, so anyone 

9 
 can look up and determine does it comply with 

10 
 today's requirements, or does it comply with 

11 
 yesterday's requirements? So, I think the 

12 
 public database would go a long way to 

13 addressing that issue. 

14 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tim 

15 Ballo. 

16 
 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

17 
 Earthjustice. No one has mentioned the small 

18 
 motors yet, and my recollection is that DOE 

19 
 was heading in the direction of not doing for 

20 
 the small motors what it does for the integral 

21 
 horsepower motors. I'm wondering if that 

22 
 makes sense, either as a legal or policy 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

309 

1 
 matter, to have a separate regulatory regime 

2 
 for compliance of the small motors? It 

3 
 doesn't strike me that it does, but I don't 

4 
 know if the manufacturers feel that way. 

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Thank you. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on 

7 
 motors? Okay. 

8 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Fairly good 

9 
 segue, enforcement for imports and exports. 

10 
 DOE is proposed to add a label on imported 

11 
 products intended for export to say "NOT FOR 

12 
 SALE IN THE UNITED STATES." However, DOE is 

13 
 also interested in seeking comment from all of 

14 
 you on how DOE could modify its CC&E 

15 
 regulations to more effectively enforce at the 

16 
 border. So, to the extent that anyone has 

17 
 suggestions or experiences, that would be 

18 great. 

19 
 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

20 
 Underwriters Laboratories. Just a fast 

21 
 comment. Within the past several months, I 

22 
 would say that DOE has been very effective in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

310 

1 
 getting this message out. We're hearing from 

2 
 motor manufacturers loud and clear in Asia and 

3 
 Europe, who are just scrambling because 

4 
 they're understanding now that DOE is getting 

5 
 very serious in terms of enforcement. So, I 

6 
 think that message is out loud and clear, 

7 
 pretty much worldwide. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Tim. 

9 
 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

10 
 Earthjustice. Just to follow-up, you all have 

11 
 mentioned a couple of times that you've been 

12 
 talking to the Customs Service, to Homeland 

13 
 Security. I wonder if you can elaborate a 

14 little bit, what have they been telling you? 

15 
 MS. BARHYDT: I'm hesitant to put 

16 
 words in Customs' mouth publicly. I think that 

17 
 it would be inappropriate for me to speak to 

18 
 that. 

19 
 MR. BALLO: Okay. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

21 
 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. I 

22 
 think it would be fair to say that they are -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

311 

1 
 the dialogues are continuing, they're open to 

2 
 the discussion and the ideas as far as how to 

3 
 make it work, so we're not facing any 

4 
 roadblocks, or any reluctance on their part to 

5 
 solve this issue. It's just working out the 

6 
 details. 

7 
 MR. COULTER: Greg Coulter, Prolec 

8 
 General Electric. We are a large importer of 

9 
 distribution transformers. We are a large 

10 
 exporter of distribution transformers. We 

11 kind of see both sides of this issue. 

12 
 We would propose that you look at 

13 
 having importers put some kind of statement on 

14 
 all their products, maybe even a symbol that 

15 
 says it meets the DOE efficiency requirements. 

16 
 We have transformers coming to the U.S. that 

17 
 have to meet them, we have transformers that 

18 
 are coming to the U.S. that are going to be 

19 
 consolidated for shipment outside the U.S. 

20 
 Although they fall under DOE rules, as far as 

21 
 kVAs and voltages, and everything you require, 

22 
 they're not going to be used for sale in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

312 

1 
 United States, so we like them to be so 

2 
 labeled as "NOT FOR SALE IN THE UNITED 

3 
 STATES." 

4 
 We have other ones that are going 

5 
 to be for sale, and then we have some that are 

6 
 just going to be consolidated for shipment, 

7 
 and don't have to meet DOE rules. They look 

8 
 like every other transformer, and we're 

9 
 finding -- we're dealing with Customs on 

10 
 thousands of units a day, that they would know 

11 
 that this is not even included in the DOE 

12 
 rules, even though it is just like every other 

13 
 distribution transformer that they see, so 

14 
 that it has really three classifications, and 

15 
 that somehow they be noted on the product so 

16 
 any importer would say hey, it is for sale in 

17 
 the U.S., and it meets DOE, it must be DOE. 

18 
 Coming to the U.S., and it's not going to be 

19 
 used in the U.S. for later export, and then 

20 
 the third category is it's coming it, but it 

21 
 doesn't have to meet DOE. And maybe if we 

22 
 could have this pre-done, it would help us 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

313 

1 
 with Customs, although we haven't run into 

2 
 problems yet. We're dealing so much, and 

3 
 we're dealing with Customs all the time, we 

4 
 know that could be an issue. We give them 

5 
 reams of paper now to get units into the U.S. 

6 
 It would be -- we don't think it would be 

7 
 that hard to add this to the unit. Matter of 

8 
 fact, we'd like to see some kind of symbol on 

9 
 these transformers saying they are DOE 

10 compliant. 

11 
 MS. BARHYDT: So, a lot of consumer 

12 
 products are subject to the Federal Trade 

13 
 Commission labeling requirements. Are you 

14 
 suggesting that we adopt some sort of a 

15 
 labeling requirement for commercial products 

16 
 that would explicitly state that it was 

17 
 compliant with the Energy Efficiency 

18 regulations? 

19 
 MR. COULTER: Yes. We have 

20 
 customers asking for that, and we're afraid 

21 
 they're going to come up with their own set of 

22 
 requirements now. It would nice to have a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

314 

1 
 common requirement. 

2 
 What we would like not to see on 

3 
 the transformer is have us do like motors, and 

4 
 put the efficiency on it. The reason being, 

5 
 we sell a heck of a lot of transformers that 

6 
 are much more efficient than what the DOE 

7 
 requirements are, and it's kind of like down8 
 selling your product. We would like people to 

9 
 know that they're much more efficient than 

10 maybe what DOE requires, when we do that. 

11 (Off the record comment.) 

12 
 MR. COULTER: We would like not to 

13 
 get into that at all, because what that 

14 
 requires is yet another level of stuff we have 

15 
 to put on it. We'd like to just say hey, it's 

16 
 DOE -- meets DOE efficiency, or whatever words 

17 
 we could agree on. We'd kind of like a 

18 
 symbol, or something like that, and then go 

19 
 from there. 

20 
 MS. BARHYDT: What was your third 

21 
 category? There were the products imported 

22 
 for sale in the U.S., products imported for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

315 

1 
 export, and what was the third category? 

2 
 MR. COULTER: Products imported to 

3 
 U.S. that don't have to meet DOE efficiency. 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: So, they're just not 

5 
 regulated? 

6 
 MR. COULTER: That's right. They 

7 
 fall outside the category. 

8 
 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

9 
 MR. COULTER: For instance, you 

10 
 have voltage -- has to fit in with certain 

11 
 voltages. We could sell a transformer outside 

12 
 that voltage. It looks just like every other 

13 transformer, but doesn't have to meet DOE. 

14 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

16 
 MS. CHISOLM: Hi. Kelly-Ann 

17 
 Chisolm, Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural 

18 
 Sources Canada. We currently have a program 

19 
 in place since 1995, and as you can 

20 
 appreciate, our market is highly imports that 

21 
 come in, so we have an extensive amount of 

22 
 experience with imports. And what we do, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

316 

1 
 I don't know if DOE is planning on doing this, 

2 
 or they're currently doing this, but we 

3 
 require the dealer to provide NRCAN with five 

4 
 data elements as they import the product, or 

5 
 before the product is imported, so there's 

6 
 items like -- information, such as model 

7 
 number, type of product, brand name, address 

8 
 of dealer, and one of the items is purpose of 

9 
 import. And as the gentleman just before me 

10 
 explained, there could be three types of 

11 
 purposes of import. One is for sale or lease 

12 
 in Canada, one is doesn't meet the current 

13 
 standards, but will be modified, I'm not sure 

14 
 of the current terminology, or it doesn't meet 

15 
 the standard, has a reason for export. For 

16 
 instance, it's going to be included in a 

17 
 product that's going to be assembled in 

18 Canada, and exported out of the country. 

19 
 So, I'm not sure if your 

20 
 discussions with Customs included that. We 

21 
 work very closely with the Canadian Border 

22 
 Services Agency, and they administer part of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

317 

1 
 our legislation at the border for us. We, 

2 
 actually, have the ability to stop product at 

3 
 the border that doesn't meet the requirements. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

5 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

6 
 Baldor Electric Company. I just -- the "NOT 

7 
 FOR SALE IN THE UNITED STATES," wording is 

8 
 just something that I guess not really 

9 
 comfortable with. We have cases where, as 

10 
 motor manufacturers, we sell non-compliant 

11 
 motors to OEMs domestically, that they put 

12 
 with a pump, or a compressor, or a machine, or 

13 
 something intended for export, so it's really 

14 
 for sale in the U.S., but not for use in the 

15 
 U.S. So, if it, perhaps, would say "NOT FOR 

16 
 USE IN THE U.S.," that might work better, as a 

17 
 clarification. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

19 
 MR. MALINOWSKI: And to add to the 

20 
 comments about NRCAN, the motor regulations 

21 
 between what's required here and in Canada 

22 
 have been harmonized since, about since 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
318 

1 
 forever. Reporting is very similar. There 

2 
 was a new form introduced by NRCAN where they 

3 
 wanted more data than the basic data, and we 

4 
 were hesitant to do that, because of 

5 
 additional reporting. It's something that DOE 

6 
 suggested we might do, as far as adding not 

7 
 only horsepower speed, enclosure and such, if 

8 
 we were to add mounting, and some other 

9 
 attributes. If that were something that would 

10 
 be more useable to make it easier for Customs 

11 
 to control motors coming in, it would be 

12 
 something that, perhaps, we would open up a 

13 
 dialogue and talk more about. If it's not 

14 
 going to be used by Customs, if it doesn't 

15 
 serve a purpose, it wouldn't really be 

16 
 something we would be interested in doing the 

17 
 extra work, because what that would mean is a 

18 
 company like Baldor, instead of reporting a 

19 
 couple of hundred model identifiers, as we 

20 
 would under EISA, we've got 150,000 motors, 

21 
 and it would be this business where we'd be 

22 
 adding hundreds of motors a week to that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

319 

1 
 database as we would design new, unique model 

2 
 numbers for custom applications. We would be 

3 
 willing to consider doing that, if it's 

4 
 actually going to get used, and we could close 

5 
 the door with Customs, and keep non-compliant 

6 
 product out of the U.S. Thank you. 

7 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

8 
 Additional comments here? 

9 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are there 

10 additional comments all together? 

11 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. So, now is an 

12 
 opportunity for anybody that wishes to do so, 

13 
 to make additional comments, issues that have 

14 
 not been covered fully, issues that haven't 

15 
 been covered at all, issues that are germane 

16 
 to this subject matter, as succinctly, as 

17 possible. Frank Stanonik. 

18 
 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, 

19 
 AHRI. This is an issue that hasn't been 

20 
 covered, and, admittedly, is, perhaps, a finer 

21 
 point, but in the enforcement regulations for 

22 
 commercial industrial equipment, particularly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

320 

1 
 the one ofs, the build-to-order models, the 

2 
 proposed rules acknowledge that DOE in an 

3 
 enforcement proceeding may test more -- I'm 

4 
 sorry, less than two units, and less than two 

5 
 would be one, okay? And, yet, when you get 

6 
 further down in reading the rules, it tells 

7 
 you that the determination of compliance of 

8 
 this one unit will be based on the sampling 

9 
 plan in Appendix B. You can't apply sampling 

10 
 statistics to a test of one unit. And I'll 

11 
 tell you, I've read it more than once trying 

12 
 to see what's there, so I think there's 

13 
 something that needs to be added to better 

14 
 address, hopefully, that very rare 

15 
 circumstance where you are testing, 

16 
 enforcement testing a model that is, 

17 
 basically, built-to-order, and you've only got 

18 
 one sample to test, and how the decision will 

19 
 be made. 

20 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Fred. 

22 
 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli, Kaiser 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

321 

1 
 Panel. Just wanted to add one more comment, or 

2 
 a question really on Slide 50. The last 

3 
 meeting, or the meeting before, there was 

4 
 discussion of manufacturers, component 

5 
 manufacturers would provide component data 

6 
 points for their product, and all of this 

7 
 information would go to this entity, whoever 

8 
 this person would be. And that they would 

9 
 input the data into a DOE assembled computer 

10 
 program, or website. And that that's the way 

11 
 the system was going to be handled, since 

12 
 there's so many different components, and 

13 
 manufacturers involved in this overall 

14 
 process. Just wondered, it doesn't seem that 

15 
 that is part of what we're discussing today. 

16 Has that whole process changed? 

17 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know what 

18 
 was discussed at the previous meeting, so I 

19 
 can't speak to that. But, as far as what's 

20 
 being proposed today, it's an entity that is 

21 
 going to be responsible for the compliance of 

22 
 walk-ins, and that entity would provide the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

322 

1 
 data to DOE through the -- with the proposal 

2 
 through the CCMS online system. 

3 
 MR. MINELLI: Okay. That's the way 

4 
 I understood it. 

5 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

6 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Paul. 

7 
 MR. DOPPEL: Paul DOPPEL, 

8 
 Mitsubishi Electric. On Slide 25 is where you 

9 
 had the definition for distributing to 

10 
 commerce, and I think it would be good, just 

11 
 so you understand exactly the phrase that is 

12 causing issues. 

13 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'll get there, 

14 
 eventually. You can keep going, if you'd like. 

15 
 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. It is the part 

16 
 that says, that's the bottom, last bullet. 

17 
 "To introduce or deliver for introduction into 

18 
 commerce." That is the part that is just so 

19 
 wide open that, again, it's causing us concern 

20 
 about, if we have to certify before we can do 

21 
 that activity, which is unknown, so we don't 

22 
 want to put ourselves in situations where 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

323 

1 
 we're trying to provide information to our 

2 
 distribution base, because of the long-term it 

3 
 takes to get the product specified and 

4 
 installed, or we're in violation of something 

5 
 that we think is okay, but could be 

6 
 interpreted many different ways in there. 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have the 

9 
 words for that? Okay. 

10 
 MR. DOPPEL: Well, we could just -- 

11 
 I mean, our suggestion would be to de-link 

12 
 certification with distribute into commerce, 

13 because it's just -- it's too encumbering. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

15 
 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, 

16 
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. I have 

17 
 two comments, one in response to Mitsubishi's 

18 
 comment here. I agree with what he's saying, 

19 
 in part, from a selfish reason. Part of what 

20 
 we do is, we look for emerging technologies, 

21 
 and opportunities for large savings in the 

22 
 near term. We frequently partner with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

324 

1 
 manufacturers of various things to bring demo 

2 
 systems in, and actually install them to find 

3 
 out if they're even going to be compatible 

4 
 with other systems, with our buildings, with 

5 
 other components that we're promoting before 

6 
 they're actually willing to bring that stuff 

7 
 in on a long-term basis. We may get 10 units 

8 
 brought in just to demonstrate, as 

9 
 experimental, you might say. And, as I read 

10 
 your regulations as they're written, that 

11 
 would trigger certification, as well. And, in 

12 
 some cases, it's before the manufacturer even 

13 makes a decision to bring them here. 

14 
 MS. BARHYDT: If these are new 

15 technologies, are they covered products? 

16 
 MR. STEPHENS: That would be C in 

17 
 one case I can think of right off the top of 

18 
 my head, they may not be, but they might be, 

19 
 but no determination has been made. It's one 

20 
 of those things that would probably end up 

21 getting a waiver. 

22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

325 

1 
 MR. STEPHENS: But they would have 

2 
 to apply for the waiver at some point to get 

3 
 it. I mean, so there's this -- DOE has 

4 
 processes, but sometimes the manufacturer 

5 
 wants to know if they even want to try it, 

6 
 given the cost, and whether or not there's a 

7 
 market for it, will it fly? And they may 

8 
 decide never to, at least for now, bring it 

9 
 in. That's happened. But it would trigger 

10 
 your certification requirement, I think, under 

11 those circumstances. 

12 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

13 
 McCabe. I think the key is treading into the 

14 
 law and engineering background didn't prepare 

15 
 me for that, even though I claim it does, as 

16 
 to what is the definition of distributed into 

17 
 commerce. In answer to your question, there 

18 
 are products which manufacturers, for example, 

19 
 field test before they offer it for sale. And 

20 
 what you're describing, Charlie, sounds very 

21 
 similar to a manufacturer field testing a 

22 
 product before they're offering it for sale. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

326 

1 
 And distributing it in commerce, I've always 

2 
 understood that as being offered for sale, but 

3 
 there are products which are not offered for 

4 
 sale, but are field tested that have --

5 
 MR. STEPHENS: The word "introduce" 

6 
 doesn't have that same connotation about 

7 
 commerce, in my mind. So, anyway, I think 

8 
 there's some work that could be -- I agree, 

9 
 there could be some work on the language. 

10 
 The other thing I wanted to note 

11 
 here today is that this is probably the most 

12 
 important rulemaking for my constituency that 

13 
 we've seen from DOE right now, because I have 

14 
 assembled here a collection of manufacturers 

15 
 of things that represents my constituency's 

16 
 interest, which is anything that uses 

17 
 electricity. I participate in a lot of 

18 
 rulemakings here that's a very narrow subset 

19 
 of what uses electricity one at a time, and I 

20 
 think everybody sees these things from a very 

21 
 narrow perspective of this is one product that 

22 
 uses a small amount of electricity in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
327 

1 
 United States. It's 3 percent of industrial 

2 
 electricity use, or whatever it is. What 

3 
 we're seeing here today is a collection of 

4 
 people who build things that could comprise an 

5 
 enormous fraction of the electricity used in 

6 
 the United States, and DOE's own rulemakings 

7 
 have showed us how big some of those numbers 

8 
 can be. And I would suggest that what we're 

9 
 interested in from this rulemaking is that 

10 
 when we go through all the trouble to analyze 

11 
 these things in these other rulemakings, and 

12 
 try to understand how much energy they use, 

13 
 and why they use it, and how they use it, and 

14 
 what it costs to get it to use less, that what 

15 
 we end up with in the economy of the United 

16 
 States mostly resembles that. It's pretty 

17 
 close to that, because if isn't, the 

18 
 alternative is that my constituency, 139 

19 
 utilities, electric utilities in the 

20 
 Northwest, have to misallocate an enormous of 

21 
 resources to generate the electricity to make 

22 
 up for that failure. And I would suggest to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

328 

1 
 you that that is a huge misallocation of 

2 
 resources. And that the resources would could 

3 
 allocate simply to make this all work better 

4 
 are much smaller than that misallocation of 

5 
 resources. So, I'm really pleased to see this 

6 
 going on, and will help however we can. Thank 

7 
 you. 

8 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ellis. 

9 
 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig 

10 
 Industries. I just have one question. 

11 
 Realizing that the proposal and the definition 

12 
 of the person responsible for this, what is -- 

13 
 and I've asked in writing about four months 

14 
 ago, and I still haven't gotten any results 

15 
 from it. What is the definition of a 

16 
 manufacturer as concern to the EISA law that's 

17 
 presently in effect today? Who is the 

18 
 manufacturer? 

19 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is our 

20 
 proposal of who that entity is. 

21 
 MR. CRAIG: I know it's a proposal, 

22 
 but to enforce it, you have to have something 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

329 

1 
 in place today, surely, or you can't enforce 

2 
 the law. Am I right on that? I mean, you 

3 
 have -- if I called somebody and said hey, 

4 
 this guy is messing up out there. You, 

5 
 evidently, have to know whether he's the 

6 
 manufacturer, or not, wouldn't you? 

7 
 Otherwise, it's not being enforced. 

8 
 MS. WEINER: This is Stephanie 

9 
 Weiner from the General Counsel's office. As 

10 
 I understand what's being described here, is 

11 
 putting in place a service location 

12 
 requirement for that design standard. At this 

13 
 point, were the Department to initiate an 

14 
 investigation of walk-in cooler and freezer 

15 
 that did not comply with the prescriptive 

16 
 standards that are in place, we would need to 

17 
 make a determination, this is where we are now 

18 
 on the definition in this notice of proposed 

19 
 rulemaking. So, if you have comments on that 

20 
 as you have expressed today, we encourage you 

21 to put them in the record. 

22 
 MR. CRAIG: Is there a definition 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

330 

1 
 of manufacturer on file today? 

2 
 MS. WEINER: There is the 

3 
 definition in the statute. That is what we 

4 
 would use. 

5 
 MR. CRAIG: And what is it? 

6 
 MS. WEINER: I believe it was on 

7 
 one of the earlier slides. 

8 
 MR. CRAIG: It's the one where the 

9 
 assembler, the manufacturer --

10 
 MS. WEINER: The definition in the 

11 
 statute, as it would in any event, would 

12 control. 

13 
 MR. CRAIG: So, it's up to 

14 interpretation what that means. 

15 
 MS. WEINER: Yes. And this is our 

16 
 notice of proposed rulemaking today for the 

17 
 certification requirement, the proposal that 

18 
 we have discussed already is the Department's 

19 
 proposed tentative conclusion as to its 

20 
 interpretation of how that statutory 

21 definition would apply in this context. 

22 
 MR. CRAIG: Would the Department of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

331 

1 
 Energy's judicial people be able to, if I 

2 
 brought you somebody and said this person is 

3 
 selling walk-ins out there that are not 

4 
 compliant, could you make that interpretation 

5 
 today? 

6 
 MS. WEINER: We would encourage 

7 
 you, if you do want to identify someone, I 

8 
 believe it was mentioned we have a place on 

9 
 our website to report that alleged violation, 

10 
 and then we would follow-up with you. And, of 

11 
 course, we would want to know all of the 

12 
 information that you had on which you based 

13 your conclusion. 

14 
 MR. CRAIG: So, you do have a 

15 definition of --

16 
 MS. WEINER: We have the definition 

17 
 in the statute. 

18 
 MR. CRAIG: All right. Thank you. 

19 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

20 
 MR. NICHOLAS: Okay. Three closing 

21 
 items. Jeff Nichols from Johnson Controls. 

22 
 The reason I think Paul and I probably keep 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

332 

1 
 coming back to distributed in commerce is on 

2 
 page 44 of the presentation under 

3 
 "Adjudication," it's saying from each day from 

4 
 when we distribute it in commerce there will 

5 
 be a penalty, so really we want to make sure 

6 
 it's clear to everybody what that means, 

7 
 because there's civil penalties that are 

8 
 associated with that. 

9 
 Number two, minor detail, but on 

10 
 the enforcement testing, number of days going 

11 
 from five to two, where you have to ship the 

12 
 equipment, two days, a lot of manufacturers 

13 
 just because of the significant cost of doing 

14 
 an enforcement program, your shipping in two 

15 
 days is going to require that people often 

16 
 have to pay for special shipping and expedite 

17 product. 

18 
 MS. BARHYDT: It's not that it has 

19 
 to be delivered to the destination in two 

20 
 days, it's that it needs to actually be picked 

21 up and in the mail, so to speak, in two days. 

22 
 MR. NICHOLAS: Okay. So, then along 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

333 

1 
 with that, just processing the paperwork 

2 
 through an internal system, people are going 

3 
 to have to step outside their normal -- the 

4 
 business isn't going to work the way the 

5 
 business normally flows. You're going to have 

6 
 to do expediting activities. I don't know 

7 
 that anything is being gained by going from 

8 
 five to two. 

9 
 And then the last thing is, just 

10 
 for my clarification on basic groups on page 

11 
 14, for split systems, residential splits, 

12 
 it's saying "Manufacturers treat models that 

13 
 have, essentially basic, essentially identical 

14 
 energy or water consumption characteristics is 

15 
 a basic model." Are you all seeing that as 

16 
 the entire system, indoor and outdoor 

17 
 together, or are they outdoor units by itself? 

18 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

19 
 McCabe. With split system central air 

20 
 conditioners, as the whole body of the 

21 
 regulation is written for the highest sales 

22 
 combination to be the tested unit, we would be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

334 

1 
 looking at the outdoor unit, focusing on the 

2 
 outdoor unit for testing. 

3 
 MR. NICHOLAS: Okay. Thank you. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please. 

5 
 MS. REMEDIOS: Thank you. Sally 

6 
 Remedios with Delta Faucet Company. I'll make 

7 
 one comment, and I have one question. The 

8 
 comment reiterates something that was said 

9 
 earlier today about the requirement that when 

10 
 you make any change, you have to renumber your 

11 
 model. For our particular industry, that's a 

12 
 huge task, and it's certainly not what the 

13 
 retail industry wants, either. They would 

14 
 like to keep model numbers similar, even 

15 
 though you do make a slight change, so we'd 

16 
 like to reiterate that that would be one of 

17 
 our comments back. 

18 
 My second is a question, and that 

19 
 is, for the last several years, we've been 

20 
 trying to get information about our industry, 

21 
 how many people are actually submitting 

22 
 certification reports? Will that information 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

335 

1 
 be more available now under the new rule, that 

2 
 we will be able to find out how many 

3 
 manufacturers are submitting reports to the 

4 
 Department? 

5 
 MS. BARHYDT: The final rule is 

6 
 anticipated to be issued in December. I 

7 
 wouldn't say that it would be immediately 

8 
 available, but definitely in the next six to 

9 
 eight months. After that, I would expect that 

10 
 a lot more information will be publicly 

11 available. 

12 MS. REMEDIOS: Thank you. 

13 
 MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

14 
 McCabe. Adding to what Laura said, this is 

15 
 actually part of a process so that the 

16 
 electronics reporting system that has been 

17 
 discussed, the CCMS, will facilitate our being 

18 
 able to answer questions such as that. The 

19 
 paper system that we've had heretofore, has 

20 made much of that very difficult. 

21 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim. 

22 
 MR. VERSHAW: Jim Vershaw, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

336 

1 
 Ingersoll Rand. I guess to summarize what I 

2 
 heard today, for our standpoint, if the basic 

3 
 model group definition for split system air 

4 
 conditioners doesn't change from what it is 

5 
 today, we're in good shape on that. If it is 

6 
 changing, this could be problematic. We do, 

7 
 as Jeff said, we do need to define the "put 

8 
 into commerce" in such a way that we can let 

9 
 our distribution know that we have products 

10 
 coming. We may not have the actual ratings in 

11 
 there yet for what the energy is, but at least 

12 
 they know we have a new air handler coming, we 

13 
 have a new outdoor unit coming, we have a new 

14 
 furnace coming. We have to let our people 

15 
 know in advance, and you don't have the final 

16 
 tests done at that point, because it's too 

17 
 early. It's just a matter of putting it all 

18 together. 

19 
 And the only one is the 

20 
 enforcement testing. How you get into 

21 
 enforcement testing, have a better definition 

22 
 of what will trigger a need for enforcement 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

337 

1 
 testing, and then to make sure that when that 

2 
 enforcement testing is done, that it's done to 

3 
 the point where it's fair for all sides. 

4 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. A final 

5 
 comment. 

6 
 MS. REMEDIOS: Sally Remedios, 

7 
 Delta Faucet. One more quick question. 

8 
 There's an indication in this rulemaking that 

9 
 you are going to try to work with FTC, with 

10 
 respect to us being able to have one report 

11 
 for both bodies. Is that feasible? Is it 

12 about to be done? What's the time frame? 

13 
 MS. BARHYDT: We're still working 

14 
 with the Federal Trade Commission, and it 

15 
 would not be immediately following this rule. 

16 
 I would anticipate that it would be probably 

17 
 more along the -- in conjunction with the 

18 
 following rulemaking, because it would also 

19 
 require changes from the Federal Trade 

20 
 Commission, and so I can't speak to what their 

21 
 time frame would be. But I would expect that 

22 
 it would be with the next rulemaking, not as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

338 

1 
 part of this one, but we are working with the 

2 
 Federal Trade Commission. 

3 
 MS. REMEDIOS: Thank you. 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: I have a question 

5 
 related to, a number of people have commented 

6 
 that the -- our suggestion that renumbering 

7 
 models when there was a basic model change, or 

8 
 a change in energy efficiency, is problematic, 

9 
 both from the marketing retail side, as well 

10 
 as from the manufacturing marketing materials. 

11 
 Would -- and I don't, necessarily, expect 

12 
 everyone to jump up because this isn't 

13 
 something that we had put out there before. 

14 
 But in the conversations today, would it 

15 
 simplify the process if you were reporting say 

16 
 the initial serial number when that change 

17 
 occurred, rather than creating some sort of 

18 
 artificial model number scheme? So, 

19 
 certainly, you don't have to comment on it 

20 
 right now, but if in your written comments, if 

21 
 maybe you could think about that, and address 

22 
 whether that might be a solution, or if you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

339 

1 
 have other suggestions for how we might deal 

2 
 with that. 

3 
 Our goal is to be able to track 

4 
 when energy efficiency changes are happening, 

5 
 and being able to tie that back to a 

6 
 particular product in the marketplace. What 

7 
 we've seen is that we can pull five units that 

8 
 were manufactured over the course of a year, 

9 
 and they all have the same model number on 

10 
 them, but they don't all have the same 

11 
 efficiency. And for enforcement purposes, 

12 
 that creates a real problem. We need to be 

13 
 able to know that we're actually testing the 

14 
 same basic, when we pull things that have the 

15 
 same model number. So, if there are other 

16 
 ways for us to get at that information, that 

17 is what we're trying to find. 

18 
 MS. JAKOBS: Hi, I'm Diane Jakobs 

19 
 from Rheem Manufacturing. And when I 

20 
 submitted -- when we submitted written 

21 
 comments before, one of the situations we had 

22 
 is a furnace or air conditioner has a number 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
340 

1 
 of components from different manufacturers, 

2 
 and different vendors. And it could be in our 

3 
 Bill of Material that we have a certain 

4 
 component from two different vendors, and it 

5 
 could affect the efficiency, which one you 

6 
 use, so we would list the equipment with the 

7 
 lower efficiency, but somehow in procurement, 

8 
 or based on pricing, we might purchase a more 

9 
 efficient one. And that can change day to 

10 
 day, week to week, so that would be something 

11 
 that would be difficult to document. So, your 

12 
 de minimus, whatever that word was, that would 

13 
 have an effect. If you're talking about 10 

14 
 percent, that won't happen. If you're talking 

15 
 about small efficiency changes, it's possible 

16 
 just from the selection of components we put 

17 together. 

18 
 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments? 

19 
 That's it for my part, I'll turn it back to 

20 
 the DOE folks. I'd just like to thank all of 

21 
 you. It's been a very, very productive day. 

22 
 I really appreciate the spirit of openness and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

341 

1 
 ready exchange of information. It's very 

2 
 helpful to the Department, and I'll turn it 

3 
 back to Ashley, and Laura, and Michael. 

4 
 MS. BARHYDT: Actually, I think 

5 
 Stephanie wanted to --

6 
 MS. WEINER: I just wanted to say, 

7 
 as is evident, and as was said earlier today, 

8 
 the Department takes energy efficiency 

9 
 seriously, and as is clear, we are taking the 

10 
 enforcement of our energy efficiency 

11 
 regulations seriously, as well. And that's 

12 
 not only because it's our obligation under the 

13 
 statute to do so, but, also, because it's 

14 central to the mission of the Department. 

15 
 That said, the comments today have 

16 
 been very helpful to us as we work through the 

17 
 proposals that we've put forth. And from the 

18 
 General Counsel's office, we welcome after 

19 
 today, if folks want to come in as part of the 

20 
 ex parte process to meet with us to discuss 

21 
 particular things in more detail, there's 

22 
 guidance about how to do that on our website, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

342 

1 
 but we would encourage people to come in to 

2 
 talk to us further, if they feel as though 

3 
 there are issues particular to their products, 

4 
 or issues that they feel were not sort of 

5 
 fully addressed, or would like to have more of 

6 
 a dialogue on. Thank you. 

7 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you want to say 

8 
 anything? 

9 
 MR. McCABE: This is your 

10 rulemaking. This is --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great, thanks. 

12 
 MR. McCABE: Our working together 

13 
 at times, don't know which one is which, but 

14 this is yours. 

15 
 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So, pretty 

16 
 straightforward how to submit comments. I'll 

17 
 remind you that they close by October 18th, so 

18 
 any that you wish to submit early, we always 

19 
 appreciate that. Most of you know how to get 

20 
 a hold of me, if you have any questions. If 

21 
 not, my name is on the website, along with my 

22 contact information. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
343

1 
 We appreciate you coming today, 

2 
 and all the comments that we have received. 

3 
 To the extent you have additional questions 

4 
 that we can help work through, I encourage you 

5 
 to reach out. Safe travels home. 

6 
 (Applause.) 

7 
 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

8 
 off the record at 3:59 p.m.) 

9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


22 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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