### Page 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY + + + + + PUBLIC MEETING ON THE TEST PROCEDURE FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

+ + + + +

FRIDAY APRIL 29, 2011 The Public Meeting convened in Room 8E-089 of the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman, Facilitator, presiding. PRESENT: DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions, Facilitator CHARLES LLENZA, U.S. Department of Energy SARAH WIDDER, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory MATT ALLISON, Scotsman Ice Systems ARI ALTMAN, U.S. Department of Energy KARIM AMRANE, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute TIMOTHY BALLO, Earthjustice BRYAN BERRINGER, U.S. Department of Energy ROBERT E. BITTNER, II, Howe Corporation MICHELLE BRITT, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory DARYL ERBS, Manitowoc Ice MARY C. HOWE, Howe Corporation CHRISTOPHER KENT, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GREGORY MAPLES, Hoshizaki America JOANNA MAUER, Appliance Standards Awareness Project EDWARD R. OSANN, Natural Resources Defense Council CASEY J. PERKINS, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 2 PRESENT(Cont'd): ERICA PORRAS, ICF International RICHARD SKINNER, ICF International CHARLIE STEPHENS, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 3 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S Welcome and Introductions .................... 4 Doug Brookman Rulemaking History & Timeline ................ 4 Charles Llenza

Sarah Widder Proposed Test Procedure Amendments ......... 16

Other Test Procedure Issues ................. 96 Sarah Widder

Sarah Widder Burden of Testing & Regulatory Review .... 172

Closing Remarks, Information & Contacts .. 188 Doug Brookman Adjournment ................................ 189

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 9:01 a.m.

MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning everyone, welcome. This is the U. S. Department of Energy's public meeting on the test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers. Today is Friday, April 29, 2011 here in Washington, D.C. My name is Doug Brookman from Public Solutions in Baltimore. Glad to see you here; glad we're getting an early start on the day. We're going to start off this morning with welcoming remarks from Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: I welcome you to the Department of Energy, and these are the proceedings for the automatic ice makers, test procedure NOPR, Notice of Proposal Rulemaking, and it will seem that we have a brief but informative meeting. Hopefully, we'll be out of here before 1:00 today. So I welcome you to the Department. MR. BROOKMAN: It's our tradition Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 5 to do introductions right here at the outset, so we're going to start on this side of the room. If you'd say your name and organizational affiliation, and you can also get used to turning these microphones on and off; the little green LED button needs to be illuminated. Your name and organizational affiliation. MR. BITTNER: My name is Robert Bittner, I'm with Howe Corporation. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. ALLISON: My name is Matt Allison, and I'm with Scotsman Ice Systems. MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs with Manitowoc Ice. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance Standards Awareness Project. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, Air Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 6 Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman with the DOE General Counsel's Office. MS. WIDDER: Sarah Widder with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. MS. BRITT: Michelle Britt, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. MR. PERKINS: Casey Perkins, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. MS. HOWE: Mary Howe, Howe Corporation. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, do you want to introduce yourself? Do you wish to -- MR. MAPLES: I'm Greg Maples from Hoshizaki America. MR. BROOKMAN: Grant? MR. MAPLES: Greg. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. Thank you. Okay. I think all of you received a packet of information as you checked in this morning, and cleared through security; I'm going do a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 7 very brief agenda review. You can see -- I think all of you have a copy of this. Immediately following this agenda review, there is a little bit of information on the rulemaking history. There's also an opportunity, I'm not quite sure what the sequence is, for anybody that wishes to do so to make brief opening remarks, key issues from your perspective that you wish to raise here at the outset. Following that, we're going to delve into the detailed information, proposed test procedure amendments. We'll take a break mid-morning, around about 11:00 or so, and then we'll proceed with other test procedure issues, and the burden of testing, the regulatory review, as Charles Llenza said earlier, we probably will finish today around about 12:45, 1:00 or so. So that's the plan for today. Questions and comments on any of that? I'd ask for your consideration if you each today speak one at a time, please say your name for Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 8 the record each time you speak, you don't need to say your organizational affiliation unless you're in the habit of doing so. I'm going to be cueing individuals by name as best I can to speak. I also wish to encourage follow on comments; that's sometimes very useful for the Department to hear the back and forth. Please try and say your name; it's expected there will be a full transcript of this meeting, and that will be posted on the EERE website. And if you could keep the focus here during the proceeding today. Please turn your cell phones on silent mode, and minimize the sidebar conversations. I think that's all I intended to cover at this point. Questions? Any additional questions or comments? Then to Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: Okay, I'm Charles Llenza. I'm the project manager for the automatic ice maker rulemaking, and today's meeting is to present DOE's proposed amendments to the automatic ice maker test Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 9 procedure, discuss the notice of the proposed rulemaking that we published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2011, and to answer your questions , seek comments and your participation at DOE's proceedings here today. And we also have a comment period that extends until June 3, 2011, so we encourage people to send in additional comments and/or your comments in written form. Documents and material for today's public meeting are available on line, and as you can see, there's the website. Again, I think we went over a little bit of the rules, the introductions, and the role of the facilitator, and these are some of the ground rules. At this point, I would request -- I would like to note that you will see these boxes, and these boxes are the issue boxes that we have throughout the public meeting, and through the public presentation. And these are the boxes where we raise particular questions that we would like Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 10 stakeholders to provide us further comment or clarification to the Department. And at this time, so I would welcome opening remarks from all the parties that are attending here. MR. BROOKMAN: I would also just break in to welcome anybody that's joining this proceeding via the web. The Department is trying to make these meetings web accessible and also trying to provide an opportunity for those participating by the web to ask questions. So if you have questions, please send them in the GoToMeeting format, and we'll try to wedge them in where it's appropriate. So now is an opportunity for anybody that wishes to do so to make brief remarks here at the outset. MR. LLENZA: I also wanted to interject, the parties that are sitting in the back, if -- you're welcome, we have plenty of space at the table, you're more than welcome to join us at the table if you desire to do so. So, opening remarks. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 11 MR. BROOKMAN: No opening remarks this morning? Okay, then we're going to proceed with the content that's in your packet. I think all of you received a copy of these PowerPoint slides, and that will be the basis for the presentation and discussion. MR. LLENZA: Okay. Let me just proceed a little bit with the rulemaking history and time lines. We all know that EPCA of 1975, established the energy conservation standard, and we know that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, EPACT 2005, amended EPCA to prescribe standards for cube icemakers with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24

- hour period, effective January 1, 2010. We've provided some backup slides with this information, I won't scroll right now, but it's slide 58, are the prescribed standards. And this also authorizes the Department of Energy to issue standards for automatic ice makers that are not covered by the prescribed standards, and directed the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 12 Department to do so by January 1, 2015. So subsequently, also the Department is ongoing on the energy conservation standards rulemaking, as opposed to the proceedings today, which is the test procedures for these energy conservation standards. DOE is considering, for the energy conservation standards, also standards for batch type ice makers that produce cube type with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 pounds. Batch type ice makers that produce other than cube type, with capacities between -- oh, I'm sorry, there's a mistake in the slide; I just noticed that. It's between 50 and 4,000 pounds, that's what it should be saying here, in the first secondary bullet. MS. WIDDER: Go ahead. MR. ALTMAN: DOE regulates 50 to 2,500 pound cube type ice under the statute, so this is just the additional -- MR. LLENZA: Okay, this is the increment -- Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 13 MR. ALTMAN: -- this is what we're considering. MR. LLENZA: Okay. MS. WIDDER: These are our new standards. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. LLENZA: All right. It's somewhat confusing; we'll correct it on the record. I don't like the way it reads, sorry. Let's just proceed. Batch type ice makers that produce other than cube ice with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds per 24 hours, and we are considering also continuous type ice makers equipment with capacities between 50 and 4,000 per 24 hours. Okay. In terms of the test procedure regulatory history, EPCA amended and directs compliance for energy conservation standards using the prescribed test procedure, ARI Standard 810-2003, and the thing to note is also that the Department incorporated this test procedure in the En Masse Final Rule in Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 14 December 8, 2006. We adopted ARI Standard 810-2003 as part of the DOE test procedure to be used for automatic ice makers. Okay, so the authority to amend the automatic ice maker test procedure, EPCA stated that if ARI 810-2003 is revised, the Secretary will amend the DOE test procedures as necessary to be consistent with the amended ARI standard, unless to do so would not meet the requirements for the test procedures set forth in EPCA. We also have a seven-year look back provision, which means that once we issue the test procedure, we will be revising the test procedure subsequently, or looking into revising the test procedure at a seven-year mark, and one of the things to be considered in this process is that we have reasonably designed to reflect energy and water use during the representative cycle of use and that this shall not be overly burdensome to conduct. Okay, so let me talk about a little Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 15 bit about the process here in general for both the test procedure and the standards, and we use the chevrons, or these are actually these bent chevrons, and as you can see in the first row, for the energy conservation standard, we conducted a framework document, public meeting back in December, and we will be conducting a preliminary analysis, then a NOPR, and a final rule in terms of the process for the energy conservation standards. Subsequently and in parallel, you will see what we will be conducting for the test procedure as of today. Today's the NOPR public meeting, and then we will have a final rule that will be within the time frame of the energy conservation standard as we're developing that. Okay, and here's a comprehensive time line of how that will be working together. As you can notice, the public meetings are in the green boxes on the bottom. We're at the TP NOPR public meeting April 29. We expect to have published a public meeting Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 16for the energy conservation standard preanalysis in summer this year, and then energy conservation standard NOPR public meeting in spring of 2012. In terms of the test procedure, we were expecting to conduct a final rule for test procedure winter of 2011. We have -- this is one of the rulemakings that the Department has started a year in advance that we would normally do, because we usually use a three-year period, but we also are experimenting with compressing the time frame from three years to two years, so that's part of what we are doing through our scheduling process here. And as you can see, the final rule is planned for fall of 2012, with an effective date of three years later, of January 1, 2015. Okay so now I will hand off the next section to Sarah Widder, my colleague. MS. WIDDER: Thanks, Charlie, and thanks everyone for coming. I'm going to start off this morning by talking about the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 17 proposed revisions to the DOE test procedure, which Charlie outlined are ARI Standard 810

- 2003 and ASHRAE Standard 29, the 1988 version which was reaffirmed in 2005. And so these amendments are changing that current test procedure. This is just a brief list of the itemized revisions that DOE is proposing. I'll run through them now and then elaborate on each of them in the coming slides. First, we'll update the references to the newest versions of the industry test procedures that also will have the DOE test procedure expand in scope to cover equipment from 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. Right now, the DOE test procedure and the ARI, similar to the ARI standard 810-2003 only covered cube type ice machines that have capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds per day. Bullet number three, similar also to the updates that the ARI and ASHRAE Standards had in their revisions, will provide test procedures for the continuous type ice makers Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 18 with capacities similar to cube type ice machines, 50 to 4,000 pounds per day, per 24 hours. Additionally, the DOE proposes to enact another test for cube type ice machines that would normalize the energy and condenser water consumption of those machines based on their ice quality, and we'll talk more about that later. We will also propose to clarify the test method and reporting requirements for remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers that are connected -- designed to be connected to a remote rack system, such that you might find in a grocery store, and connected to other commercial refrigeration equipment or walk-in coolers and freezers. And also to specify an optional test method for modulating capacity ice makers and discontinue the use of a clarified energy use rate equation, which was adopted when DOE initially published a test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers back in 2006. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 19 They clarified the way that energy use would be calculated, and we've determined that that's no longer necessary. And just to outline again, to make sure we're all on the same page in terms of what we used to -- what the scope of the ice maker test procedure used to cover, and what the proposed scope of the DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers will cover. The previous or current DOE test procedure covered automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice only, from 50 to 2,500 pounds per day, per 24 hours, and we're proposing to cover batch type and continuous type ice makers, and batch type would include cube type ice, but also batch type ice makers that produce other than cube type ice, any type of ice that operates in a batch ice making mode. And that would be alternating between harvesting and ice making periods, with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds per 24 hours. So that's -- as Charlie Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 20 outlined earlier, that's three different ways that we're expanding in scope. One of the provisions of EPCA states that any test procedure rulemaking must determine how the amended test procedure will affect the measured energy and water consumption of a covered product. So looking at the amendments that DOE has proposed, there are three amendments that relate to equipment with standards that are currently in place that were promulgated in EPCA, or in EPACT 2005, and those are to update the reference to industry test procedures; to clarify the test method and reporting requirements for remote condensing in automatic commercial ice makers, and the discontinuance of the clarified energy use rate equation. DOE believes that these will not affect the measured energy and water consumption of covered equipment, but there are three additional provisions that will affect equipment for which standards are not Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 21 currently in place, and that's either equipment with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 pounds per day, or continuous type ice makers where there are not currently standards in place. And so because of this table, DOE believes that the test procedure amendments will not impact the measured energy or water consumption of any covered product, and will take no further action on that EPCA requirement. The first amendment that DOE is proposing is to update the industry test procedures to the most current version. The updated, as I mentioned, ARI has updated a new standard, AHRI Standard 810-2007. This standard references the previous version of ASHRAE since the revised version of ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 wasn't available yet. DOE proposes to reference the revised version of both test procedures, both AHRI Standard 810

- 2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. The ASHRAE and ARI standards both Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 22 updated their test procedures in the following ways: they expanded the upper capacity range of equipment to 4,000 pounds per day from 2,500 pounds per day; provided definitions and specific test procedures for cube type or batch type and continuous type ice makers; and provided a definition for ice hardness factor, which is a measure of ice quality, or the percentage of solid ice as opposed to liquid water in the ice product of continuous type ice machines. And both standards reflect those changes. As I mentioned, DOE proposes referencing these two updated standards in the DOE test procedure, and similarly proposes to increase the scope of covered equipment to batch type and continuous type ice makers, regardless of ice type, with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds per day. DOE requests comment on updating the referenced industry test procedures to the most current version and increasing the scope of covered Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 23 equipment. MR. ERBS: Hi, Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. I’ll just go on record saying I'm, you know, actually not only in support of it, but I think it's absolutely essential that we update the DOE regulations to basically reflect what industry's already doing. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Karim -- MR. ERBS: And in terms of the expanded scope I guess was the second question, I still feel that that's an appropriate range to be covered for this type of equipment. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, that's helpful. Now Karim. DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. As we already stated before, we support the updates that DOE is proposing with the new ARI standard. As for the scope, we are also on record supporting the extension to the 4,000 pounds harvest rate. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

MS. WIDDER: Thank you very much. I'm just going to talk a little bit more. Daryl mentioned the expansion of scope and 4,000 being an appropriate level. At the framework document public meeting, DOE considered expanding the scope beyond 4,000 pounds per day. Following that framework public meeting, we received a number of comments and did some research about what type of equipment exists in the greater than 4,000 pounds per day range. DOE did find some automatic commercial ice makers that are sold for use in commercial applications with capacities greater than 4,000 pounds per 24 hours; however these machines represented a very small percentage of the market, and we found that these types of machines were primarily used for industrial applications. Because of that, DOE is proposing to maintain the scope between 50 and 4,000 pounds per day, similar to what ASHRAE and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 25 AHRI have in their standards. DOE requests comments in expanding the capacity range from 50 to 2,500 pounds of ice per 24 hours to 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: I have a question. Does this one percent represent unit sales, or does it represent energy consumption? MS. WIDDER: That was unit sales. MR. OSANN: Did the Department collect data on energy consumption? MS. WIDDER: The Department does not have data on energy consumption. MR. BROOKMAN: So there you see the comment box requesting comments specifically on going from 2,500 pounds to 4,000 pounds per 24 hour period. Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens; I've got just one quick question. Could you, Sarah, tell me what you mean by the term industrial as it applies to ice makers? MS. WIDDER: Yes. There's -- when Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 26 we think about commercial ice makers, that's the type that's used in hotels or in restaurants. These larger capacity ice makers are typically used either in an ice making plant, where then it's packaged and sold, or in concrete manufacturing, or other -- it's used in a commercial application, but not the end product. So it's a larger scale use, and it's not a commodity in that sense. Does that make sense? Perhaps one of the manufacturers can help clarify, but it's not intended for use as beverage ice. MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs. That would be my view as well. I mean, there are some other industrial applications, especially when you get into continuous type, but for the cube type, I mean predominately it's ice plants or maybe an airport or somewhere that has, you know, very high consumption of ice and they'll centralize it, and that's a very small percentage of the total installations. The other comment relative to the question Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 27 about whether DOE looked at energy efficiency is when you get above 4,000 pounds per day, the equipment is actually quite efficient already. I mean they're very large, industrial type machines and so I think you'd see that the amount of energy they consume per pound of ice is actually less than what you're regulating. MR. STEPHENS: Okay, thank you. MS. WIDDER: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments in response to this issue box number three? MS. WIDDER: All right. Thank you. Also similar to the updates that Standard 810, AHRI Standard 810 and ASHRAE Standard 29 received, DOE proposes to expand scope to cover continuous type ice makers. DOE proposes to do this by referencing the test procedures in AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, and DOE also proposes to adopt the following definitions for batch Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 28 type and continuous type ice maker. A batch type ice maker means an ice maker having alternate freezing and harvesting periods. This includes automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice, tube type commercial automatic commercial ice makers and other batch technologies. DOE also wanted to clarify that this is referred to as a cube type ice maker in AHRI Standard 810

- 2007. AHRI Standard 810-2007's definition also clarify that cube does not reference a specific size or shape, and includes all commercial ice makers with alternate freezing and harvesting periods, but there does seem to be a discontinuity in the terminology, and DOE chose to use batch type ice maker as descriptive of the ice making process. And then for continuous type ice maker, the definition is an ice maker that continuously freezes and harvests ice at the same time. DOE requests comment on providing test methods for continuous type ice makers, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 29 and the definitions that I just read. Okay, if there's no comment, I'll just -- MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna Mauer. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a quick question. Are these definitions for the purposes of determining which test method is appropriate for a particular machine? MS. WIDDER: That's exactly correct. And that is why we're providing the more lengthy and descriptive definition in batch type, because by referencing AHRI Standard 810-2007, where they mentioned cube type ice maker, that is to be interpreted as batch type ice maker for the purposes of the DOE test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: So in -- just referring back to this comment box, it's useful for the Department to have comment, yea or nay on definitions that they're offering. Anybody wishes -- yes, Daryl Erbs. Matt, please. MR. ALLISON: Yes, Scotsman Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 30 supports these definitions; we worked with AHRI to develop them, and they make perfect

sense. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You understand why -- that's what we're here for, Daryl. MR. ERBS: I do. So we fully support the definitions, and actually from my perspective, it really goes to the actual test method, the ASHRAE standard. I mean the primary difference is in how you sample and collect information, and there's a fundamental difference with what you need to do with a batch machine. You essentially need to capture each batch of ice, and the energy and water associated with each batch. The continuous type machines, there's a sampling period that's defined, but just by the nature of how the ice comes out of the machine, it is important that they be classified into two separate categories. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 31 Additional comments? Yes, is it Mary? MS. HOWE: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Please turn the microphone on. MS. HOWE: Howe Corporation disagrees with the definition of continuous type ice machines using the test method proposed by the DOE. MR. BROOKMAN: Can you be more specific? MS. HOWE: There are differences between commercial type ice machines and industrial type ice machines based on the ice quality that the machines produce. There are machines that produce close to 100% ice; there are machines that produce much less than that. And there are -- the proposed testing does not include the machines that produce subcooled 100% ice. MR. BROOKMAN: So then can you go so far as to say how the Department might fix these definitions? Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 32 MS. HOWE: I can turn it over to my associate, Bob Bittner. MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? MR. BITTNER: Yes. Pieces of the test procedure where a non-perforated container is used, we would recommend that a perforated container be used to discard the chilled water content that is, in fact, not ice, in the collection procedure, which is different than what's stated in the present ASHRAE 29. MS. WIDDER: I'm sorry, just a question. The DOE is also proposing, which we'll get to in a few slides -- MR. BITTNER: Right, and I knew that, and that's why I didn't want to -- MS. WIDDER: Okay. MR. BITTNER: I knew you were going to get to those nut and bolt details, okay, and I think that's okay. MS. WIDDER: Okay. MR. BITTNER: So let's wait for Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 33 that. MS. WIDDER: Okay, great. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks for that. Other comments related to this inquiry here? Okay. MS. WIDDER: Okay. And that was a perfect lead in for my next slide, which is that in addition to the standard, AHRI Standard 810-2007 test procedure, DOE is proposing an additional test for continuous type ice makers that would normalize the energy and condenser water consumption values to -- based on ice quality. And as Howe Corporation has mentioned, there's a difference between continuous type ice makers and within continuous type ice makers. Ice makers -- continuous type ice makers produce ice that is not completely frozen; there's an ice portion and a water portion. The fraction of ice that is completely -- the fraction of ice product that's completely frozen is typically defined as ice hardness or ice Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 34 quality, and we're going to talk about it as ice quality here. And ice quality, this is important for the DOE test procedure because ice quality is directly related to energy consumption of the unit. A unit that produces 100% ice quality or 100% solid ice will use more energy than one that produces only 50% solid ice, and that's because it takes that much more energy to freeze that additional 50% of water. And there's also this slide mentions, but Howe has also mentioned that the range could be greater than 70 to 85% of solid ice in the ice product that is produced by continuous type ice makers. DOE is proposing to normalize the energy consumption and condenser water use of continuous type ice machines with respect to ice quality relative to the energy required to produce an equivalent mass of ice that is 32 degrees Fahrenheit with no liquid water content, starting with 70 degrees Fahrenheit water, which is what is required by the test Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 35 procedure. And now in the next couple of slides, I'll go into the nuts and bolts of how that calculation is performed, and then take any comments. The first step, DOE is referencing Normative Annex A, the method of calorimetry, and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. The first step is performing sections A.1 and A.2, which are a method to calibrate the calorimeter and make sure that your calorimetry set up is appropriate. The main deciding factor is that the calorimeter constant should not be greater than 1.02 in this step, and that's to be performed with completely frozen block ice. And so if you're performing this, and you have completely frozen block ice, you should get a value of 1.0 if it's perfect, and that 1.02 just provides a level of accuracy to the test procedure. Section A.3 is where you're actually measuring the ice quality in the ice Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 36 product, and you'll put the entire content of ice product, ice and water, in your calorimeter to determine the calorimeter constant in Table A1, which is in ASHRAE, and it's a long table that's in my view very robust, and it accounts for the heat that comes from the room into the water during the melting process, and all of the heat flows that are part of this measurement, and it accounts for all that energy. So I think that it does a good job of getting the accurate result. The calorimeter constant, which is the end game of this Table A1 is basically a ratio of the heat content of solid 32 degree Fahrenheit ice, which is 144 BTUs per pound, and the heat content of the ice water product, the ice product from a continuous type ice maker. And as I mentioned, that will be 1 for solid ice, and greater than 1 for ice with some liquid water content. After you've determined the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 37 calorimetry constant, you can take that value to determine what the DOE has defined, this is a DOE term, the ice quality adjustment factor. And this is based on the energy to cool water from 70 degrees to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, since our incoming water in the test procedure is 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and then the latent heat capacity to freeze the ice, and then the -- that's the numerator, and the denominator here is that same value adjusted for the heat that is required to cool incoming water to 32 degrees and freeze the portion of ice that will be frozen for continuous type ice. And that's where the calorimeter constant comes in on the bottom there. And then in this case, this number will be 1.04 for solid ice, and less than 1 for ice with some liquid water content. And the last step is to multiply the energy or water use measured using AHRI Standard 810-2007, just as you would normally measure it, by the ice quality adjustment Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 38 factor that you've just determined. DOE requests comment on the proposed method to normalize energy and condenser water consumption to 32 degrees Fahrenheit water with no water content. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Matt. MR. ALLISON: Yes, Matt Allison. I want to talk first about the term quality versus hardness. MS. WIDDER: Okay. MR. ALLISON: When you went through the setting before, quality implies a lot of things to a lot of different people, and I think for the most part, people wouldn't associate quality with the water ice content of the product being produced, which is why we chose to go with hardness instead. So I'd like that to be considered as part of this. Quality can mean level of sanitation, it could mean clarity of the ice, it could mean a lot of different things, so -- MS. WIDDER: Thank you. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 39 MR. ALLISON: -- that was one part of it. The other part is this whole, the part of normalization of the heat within the ice. Also, you need to consider that when people actually consume the ice and use it, they usually do it based on volume. So they fill their cup half full of ice before they put their beverage in it and whatnot, in which case, really the heat content doesn't matter, it's more the weight of the ice that's in the cup that's relevant and what's used. So when you normalize it like this, it could end up changing the selection of the machine and changing how the consumers actually end up using the ice in a way that would ultimately result in more energy consumption rather than less. MS. WIDDER: Thank you for your comment. The Department will consider it. I would like to mention just to clarify for everyone, this test procedure won't make -- it will increase the reported energy consumption Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 40 of continuous type ice makers, but it will not increase it beyond that which would be 100% ice, so beyond what is the same for cube type ice machines or, you know, it's not inflating that rating. And so it -- I don't think it will limit the selection of ice makers, but the Department will definitely consider your comment. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. I support the comment around perhaps changing the descriptor, that quality may be misconstrued. I think the important thing is that there's just a proper definition of the metric. I'm not sure that we always know how people are going to use ice, and in fact continuous ice in some cases is used purely to provide a cooling effect, so I guess I would take the position that it does matter sometimes what the ice hardness is in terms of the net cooling effect that you get out of a particular mass of end product. And maybe Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 41 more importantly I guess from my perspective is this rulemaking is all about efficiency standards, and there's a very direct correlation between the amount of energy that an ice machine requires and the amount of the water that it converts from a liquid form to a solid form. So by not including an adjustment, I think it really distorts the whole purpose of an efficiency standard around, you know, we want to have products that may be alternate products for same end use to be compared on an equal basis, and by not including that correction in the energy efficiency metric, I think it's not an apples to apples comparison anymore, and so that would be, I think, the primary reason not to do that. I'm probably going to pre-empt some comments from Howe, but actually, there is an issue here which is -- I think the ASHRAE standard, I'd have to go back and read it, but if you produce ice that is 100% frozen and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 42 subcooled, then in theory it actually has a hardness that's greater than one, right, because really hardness in the end is a measurement of the cooling effect that a particular mass of ice produces, and the assumption has always been that it's the best you can get is 32 degrees and completely frozen. But in fact, you could even produce batch ice in addition to continuous type through a process where the cubes would be below 32 degrees when they left the ice machine, because I don't think we want to limit it, and you could do a calorimetry measurement that would actually take that into account, because the calorimetry measurement, you just measure the heat absorbed by the ice as it melts. And if it's subcooled, you'll actually capture that effect. But we need to make sure the standards don't limit the factor to one, right, it should be able to be in excess of one to take into account the cooling effect that's provided by a subcooled mass of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 43 ice. And I think that's something that would have to be addressed at the ASHRAE 29 level if there is, in fact, any kind of a limit. I think we should look at that. MS. WIDDER: I -- MR. ERBS: And then I'm not sure that 810 actually would care. MR. BROOKMAN: Sarah, you want to follow on? MS. WIDDER: Oh yes, sure. So I probably would have to look back more precisely as well. I did look into the prevalence of subcooled ice when I was thinking about this test procedure, and wasn't able to identify -- the Department wasn't able to identify a lot of subcooled ice being sold in the market, but perhaps we are not looking in the right places, but I do believe that this test procedure could be adapted to, as Daryl has mentioned, incorporate subcooled ice with a calorimetry constant greater than one, and that limit that I mentioned before of 1.02 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 44 is only for the purposes of calibrating. It's not limited during the conduction of the test procedure to measure the ice, the heat content of the ice you're measuring. So I think that this calorimetry procedure could be adapted or actually just performed on subcooled ice to determine the heat content, and similarly applied, but perhaps if written comments would be very helpful if this test procedure should be applied to cube type ice machines or batch type ice machines also. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's see if -- do we have other comments from members of industry? Charles? MR. LLENZA: I just wanted to make -- reiterate what Sarah has just mentioned. We would really appreciate written comments in great detail. Don't spare us any of the detail. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: I'm Greg Maples, I would also like to reiterate what the Scotsman Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 45 -- Manitowoc representatives said about the nomenclature of ice quality versus ice hardness. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. MAPLES: Likewise, we support an apples to apples comparison of our ice hardness values, and we don't want to discount the water. There's an 80% ice, 20% water, there's value in that to our customers as well as an ice of lower quality and higher quality, or higher hardness lower hardness, however you want to describe it. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, and Bob. MR. BITTNER: Yes, Howe Corporation agrees with the consideration if there is subcooled ice that the market demands for various applications, and when we get to the ASHRAE 29, we have our comments with respect to that, as far as the test procedures, but to limit that and not have a number that's greater than the value of the subcooled would Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 46 be, we think, is the correct direction to go. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. BITTNER: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I would just like to try and make sure I'm understanding this, and get the terminology straight when we talk about the test procedure. I'm hearing that you can use the test procedure to derive appropriate values for subcooled ice, but it's a matter of which types of ice you apply it to, batch or continuous or both. And then I'm also hearing that it can be adapted, the test procedure can be adapted or adjusted, and I guess I'm kind of curious as to which it is. MS. WIDDER: That -- I believe -- MR. LLENZA: Let me just -- MS. WIDDER: -- okay, go ahead Charlie. MR. LLENZA: -- interrupt. This is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. We Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 47 basically take the industry's test procedures and the Department through the proceedings and through the interfaces with the actual stakeholders and manufacturers. If we find that there are certain tweaks that we need to make to the test procedure so that it's clear when we adopt the industry test procedure, we, through the test procedure process and the rule, we can make adjustments within the DOE test procedure rule to incorporate certain peculiarities that we would like to define more specifically for the test procedure to clarify some of these issues. So that's why it's important I think that the industry provide us in great detail what they would like to see, because we have greater authority to amend further these test procedures that we're adopting to incorporate particulars that the industry would want to see. MR. BROOKMAN: I think Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: I -- Charlie again. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 48 I guess I should clarify my question then. I guess my question is I'd like to hear from industry, people who are familiar with the test procedure as to whether they think those adjustments need to be made or they don't. MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. MR. BITTNER: Yes, I had mentioned earlier one component of the test procedure specifically where there's a differentiation between batch ice and continuous ice, the container which is used for continuous ice we believe should be a perforated container rather than a solid container, and that would discard chilled water that's not usable ice from the test procedure process. So the test procedure shows a differentiation clearly between continuous and batch, but that one piece of how the sample is collected is where we believe that the container should be different than what's presently specified in the standard for continuous ice makers. MS. WIDDER: Can I have a follow on Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 49 comment? MR. BROOKMAN: Sure. MS. WIDDER: This is Sarah. My question -- and please respond to this in written comments if that's more appropriate -- would be if we're discarding the cooled water, and that water was cooled from 70 to 32, and then performing this calorimetry measurement, are we discrediting or discounting that cooled water? So we're not giving continuous ice makers credit for cooling water and the cooling capacity of that 32 degree water that they produced. And so perhaps if that might be another method in substitution instead of in addition to this calorimetry method. MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead Bob. MR. BITTNER: Sarah, yes that's correct, you are discarding that water, but the energy input to the ice making machine was consumed to produce that chilled water that's discarded. We have calculations that show that that's as great as 6% of the energy input Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 50 to the machine to chill that water down to the near 32 degree level, and then it's discarded. So if you measure the energy input to the machine, you measure the energy that it used to make that water, but the water shouldn't be considered useful end product. So therefore, the water's discarded, yes, but the energy used to chill the water is not discarded, it's accounted for. MS. WIDDER: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: I see I think -- out of the three of you, which of you wants to go first? Matt, go ahead. MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison. As far as the specifics on the test procedure go of using a perforated versus a non-perforated container, I don't know about the practicality of using a perforated container to capture continuous type ice, because this water drainage that was referenced takes hours. This ice is actually -- that water is infused in the ice, and it takes a long time for it to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 51 drain out, and the ice in fact would melt over that period of time. So I don't think that that is very practical to do. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's go to Greg next. MR. MAPLES: This is Greg Maples. A couple of things. First off, with a perforated container, you have to define the perforations for one thing, because there's going to be small amounts, bits of ice that we call dust ice that may fall through the perforations, and then you're losing good quality ice. Second of all, the ASHRAE 29, you're calculating an ice hardness value, and it's going to accommodate for that chilled water that goes into the test when you do it, because you're putting it in the bucket with your test sample. So in essence, it would drop your percentage down. So you're going to rate the capacity of ice poundage that it produces as well as the hardness factor for it, so you're giving both values. You're not Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 52 covering anything up when you give that to your customer. You give them the pounds, and you give them a percentage; it's tested for and accounted for. Whereas, if you're producing high hardness ice, your percentage will reflect that. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: Yes, I'd reflect the same comments. I mean, the ASHRAE 29 procedure for continuous type was developed really out of, you know, practicality. We had perforated pans for batch type ice and with the perforations in those pans, a lot of the continuous product, especially flake, you know, would fall through. I think it would get difficult to try and get to a point where you could always insure that you had some means of letting any water that wasn't somehow incorporated into the continuous ice, and quite honestly, I don't know of any continuous type ice machine today where there's actually water that's, you know, completely separate Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 53 from the ice. They're, as Matt mentioned, over a long enough period of time, some of the water may leach out, but that takes this regulation into a whole different space, and so I think for the practical use of the ice today, I think that the current approach is appropriate and works well for all types of continuous ice. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. It seems to me that one consideration in deciding whether to use a perforated or unperforated container is what are the end users in the field putting the ice into when they get it out of the machine. Are they getting the water out of it, or are they just using it as it comes out? I don't know, but it seems like a consideration. MR. BROOKMAN: Mary Howe. MS. HOWE: The ice falls into an ice storage bin, and the ice storage bin is required to have a drain, so it drains into Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 54 the sanitary sewer. MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna Mauer. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I was just wondering if any of the manufacturers could comment on whether there are specific applications for subcooled ice. MR. BROOKMAN: Mary Howe. MS. HOWE: Subcooled ice goes into different applications from beverage ice. It's kind of a different animal. It goes into food processing, food holding, food transport; it's used as ingredient ice for different products. It could be bread or sausage, hot dogs, all those have ice used in the process of manufacture. Now the idea in those specific processes are to lower the heat of the product as rapidly as possible, so the subcooled ice is used to do that. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, other comments on these issues before we move on? MS. WIDDER: I would actually, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 55 before we move on, like to ask other -- or request other comments about the usefulness of the chilled water. We did hear some comments about the technical difficulty or perhaps the best test method for accounting for the percentage of ice versus percentage of water, but Howe has mentioned the usefulness of that chilled water product, and I'd invite other comments either now or in written comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: I can give you one other example. I mean a common application, even for continuous, particularly nugget ice, is in a beverage dispenser, and in fact, in that beverage dispenser, ice serves two purposes. One purpose is it goes into the cup and it provides cooling of the beverage over time after dispense. But there's also a cold plate at the bottom of that beverage dispenser, and that cold plate serves to cool the water and the flavored syrups that go into making that post mix beverage. And all of the ice that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 56 goes into that bin basically either the ice itself falls onto the cold plate or the melt water. Both of those provide a cooling function to that cold plate, so in that case, even though you might have some water that's coming out of the ice over time, it's -- the value of that water being cold is still useful to that application. So again, it wouldn't be appropriate to discount that energy. MS. WIDDER: Thank you Daryl. MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. MR. BITTNER: Yes, so if there was something that would limit or segregate for beverage dispensing applications that Daryl described, certainly you could say that there's a value to it, but beyond beverage dispensing, obviously this product is used for various applications beyond the beverage dispensing. I see no useful value of the water content. MR. BROOKMAN: Back to Daryl. MR. ERBS: I'll give you another Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 57 example. Flake ice, whether it's subcooled or hardness less than one, is often used for quick chilling of fish when it comes off a boat, or even on the boat. Again, when you're packing fish in flaked ice, you're trying to cool it down from its normal body temperature to something, you know, around the freezing point. That happens in a very short period of time; the water that's in the ice provides part of that cooling function, and I could probably come up with some more examples. So I feel it's going to be very difficult to try and sort out the time dependent nature of how the ice is used. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Matt. MR. ALLISON: I want to reiterate it really gets down to the time dependency, because if the ice is consumed or used relatively soon after it's made, and that could be hours, that water has some cooling effect. And even on these scale ice machines, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 58 or the ones that offer the subcooled ice, it really gets down to how quickly that ice is used, too, because it's not subcooled forever. As soon as it comes off, it begins to warm up. So it really works both ways, and I think to try to factor the time dependency of this in I think would be really burdensome and difficult to do. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. MS. WIDDER: Thank you for those comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. WIDDER: Okay? MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. MS. WIDDER: The next proposed amendment to the DOE test procedure is not really a proposed change in the CFR, but just to clarify the test requirements for automatic commercial ice makers that are designed to be connected to remote condensing racks. So this is just a diagram that depicts the different types of remote condensing automatic Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 59 commercial ice makers. The DOE differentiates, or the current DOE regulations differentiate two different types of remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers; those that have the ice making head and compressor in one section, and then just a remote condenser that's dedicated to that automatic commercial ice maker, and then remote condensing and remote compressor automatic commercial ice makers where the ice making mechanism is separate from a dedicated remote condensing unit that has a compressor and a condenser in it. Another iteration of that type, too, would be to take that same ice making mechanism and attach it to a remote condensing rack which also has compressing and condensing functions of the refrigeration cycle, but is typically a larger unit and serves many types of refrigeration equipment. This application typically occurs in grocery stores where there's an existing compressor rack, and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 60 further the compressor rack is almost always, if not always, supplied by a different manufacturer, and not within the purview of automatic commercial ice maker manufacturers. The DOE -- this issue came up because the DOE determined that there's an inconsistency in the reporting requirements for remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers. Those with dedicated remote condensing units were reporting the energy consumption of the ice making mechanism, the compressor and the condenser, and those that were designed to be connected to a remote compressor rack, since the remote condenser was not dedicated or part of the ice making manufacturer's inventory, they were reporting only the energy consumption of the ice making mechanism, which is much less. To address this issue, DOE considered three potential options. The first is similar to the test procedure for remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 61 where a default factor that's representative of the energy use of the remote condensing rack is added to the energy use of the ice making mechanism, and that's based on the amount of cooling that's provided to cool the given quantity of ice, and that requires a measurement of the refrigerant flow, and then a similar assumption for compressor rack efficiency. Since refrigerant flow is not already measured as part of the DOE test procedure, DOE thought that that option was -- added additional burden to the test procedure. The second option was to test the ice making mechanism with just a dedicated remote condensing unit, similar to how that ice making mechanism would be sold if it was to an application that didn't have a remote condensing rack. And DOE has received comments from manufacturers that the ice making mechanism is very similar, if not exactly the same, in both of these applications, those connected to a dedicated Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 62 remote condensing unit, and those connected to a remote condensing rack, so DOE believes that this option would provide a representation of energy use that was minimally burdensome, but also provided, you know, a picture of the entire energy use of the ice maker, not just the ice making mechanism, since that's such a small portion. And then the third option is to continue to measure only the ice -- the energy consumption of the ice making mechanism, which DOE didn't believe was representative of the energy consumption of that unit, since a refrigeration system is required to operate it, and also would require, from a standards perspective, would require an entirely separate standard for it in order to be covered. Because of the reasons that I just outlined, DOE proposes that all remote condensing and remote compressor ice makers be tested with a dedicated remote condensing unit, and report the energy use of the ice Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 63 making mechanism, the compressor, and the condenser. DOE requests comment on the proposal to require testing of remote condensing unit automatic commercial ice makers in this way. MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. MR. BITTNER: Howe Company agrees with the application of taking the air cooled dedicated condensing unit capacities and assigning those values, even though it's on -- in remote, field-erected, multiple compressor rack or compressor application. The variables throughout the industry on those remote air cooled compressor racks are appreciable, and there is no practical way to measure mass flow rate or refrigerant enthalpy differences across evaporators and things of that nature. The way the industry actually applies those now is they take that dedicated condensing unit, test the capacity, and they use that BTU value, BTU's prior value, and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 64 that saturated suction temperature value and that's what the system designers that do these parallel racks -- I've done that for nearly 40 years, I'm a licensed engineer -- and that's how it's actually done. So it would make perfect sense to just use those dedicated condensing unit test values and assign that to the ice machine head itself. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: Again, I'll just say I'm fully in support of what's been proposed. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: I'm Charlie Stephens. Our -- in the Northwest and in California, they've done a lot of work with these systems, and I agree that this is how it's done and engineered in the field. How well they do and how well it performs over time varies a lot, but because it varies a lot, I think this is the most practical way to do this. So we're very much in support of it. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 65 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Yes, Joanna Mauer. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So the test procedure would specify characteristics of the dedicated remote condensing unit that would be used to be tested with ice making mechanisms? MS. WIDDER: No. There's typically a dedicated remote condensing unit is sized based on the capacity of the ice making mechanism, and there's not a wide variety of options. There's typically just one dedicated remote condensing unit that serves the ice making mechanism and it doesn't -- the DOE did not feel the need to clarify further or specify for manufacturers exactly what type of dedicated condensing unit they would need to

use. MS. MAUER: Is there any range in efficiency of dedicated remote condensing units? MS. WIDDER: There is a range in Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 66 efficiency of dedicated remote condensing units similar to the range in efficiency that you see in products throughout the marketplace, but in DOE's research, a specific manufacturer typically partners an ice making mechanism with a specific dedicated remote condenser and it's meant to be operated with just that one dedicated remote condenser, and that is the dedicated remote condenser it would be tested with. So it's a matched pair sort of situation. MS. MAUER: But this case would be ice making mechanisms that won't actually be operated with a dedicated remote condensing unit in the field? They're designed to be operated with a rack system? MS. WIDDER: Right, but manufacturers, again, from DOE's research and conversations with manufacturers, those ice making mechanisms are typically very similar, if not exactly the same, as another ice making mechanism that is designed to be sold with a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 67 remote condenser. So this isn't a very large part of the market, it's just if someone -- if a grocery store already has a remote condensing rack, then they can just buy the ice making mechanism and hook it up, instead of buying a whole new refrigeration system. And so it's not a whole separately engineered unit. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: I'm Greg Maples. I just want to concur that generally, yes, a rack unit ice machine is similar in construction to another ice machine that's either designed as an air cooled or remote cooled or a remote condensing unit cooled, but that's not necessarily the case every time. I know you can have rack units that do not have a manufacturer-produced mating condensing unit to go with it, and are designed specifically to be sold to say, a supermarket with a rack system. And on a large capacity machine that's built that way, I know for us, we do Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 68 not have a condensing unit to go with our largest rack unit machine; we would have to come up with one, and this guideline is kind of vague as far as how we select one. Would it not be sensible to propose the specifications for the remote cooled unit of the similar size capacity, and just use the same values across it, rather than specifically go and make a condensing unit that we're not going to manufacture and produce for sale to use with it? MR. BROOKMAN: This kind of information is very helpful to the Department, so specifics in writing will be helpful to them in your comments. MR. MAPLES: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: Question for further clarification on this. Are you envisioning that the remote condensing -- the contribution of remote condensing to energy consumption would be assumed without testing, or would it Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 69 be subject to testing as well? MS. WIDDER: I'm sorry. Let me see if I can clarify your question, if I didn't understand it properly, please correct me. Are you asking that if the dedicated remote condensing unit that we're connecting the ice making mechanism to in this proposed test method, if both energy consumption values will be tested and reported? MR. OSANN: Yes. MS. WIDDER: Yes, that's correct. MR. OSANN: So the manufacturers, to conduct this test procedure, will have to have a specific remote unit identified for each ice-making head that gets tested? MS. WIDDER: Yes. Yes. MR. OSANN: Can you sort of compare and contrast this with the approach that's undertaken with split system central air conditioning units, where there are -- there's an air handler, and then there's an outdoor component, and there's a matching or pairing Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 70 up process that goes on? Is this the same as that, or is this somehow -- is this in some ways different from that? MS. WIDDER: This is in some ways different than that because there's a lot more variety and matching between manufacturers, and just a lot more variables in the air conditioner market. I'm not an expert in air conditioners by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I know of that test procedure, they had to accommodate all the different pairs that were being come up with from different manufacturers and it's my understanding, or it's the Department's understanding that that's not the case in this market, that typically an ice-making head is sold with a dedicated remote condensing unit from that same manufacturer, and I'm not aware of, or I do not believe that there's a significant extent of matching across manufacturers. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 71 MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs. Yes, I would say it's not a good analogy to compare ice machines to the unitary split systems and all of the mix matching that occurs. Actually, the analogy that you could take on the specific case of an ice-making head for a supermarket that was really designed for that dedicated purpose, so that there wasn't a reason to have a dedicated remote condensing, and it would be actually display cases, and I guess from my perspective, I -- the first thing I'll have to remind everyone is we've said that we're using AHRI 810 and ASHRAE 29 as the basis for the test. That test standard and that rating standard, neither of those have any provisions in them for testing an ice making head stand alone without connecting it to a refrigeration unit. So I think what you end up with is a situation where if you have an ice-making head that has no dedicated condensing unit available to connect it up to, I don't think Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 72 it's within the scope of this rulemaking. I'm probably stepping on Ari's toes here, but I don't know how we would manage that. So I think most of the time, for most manufacturers, it's very difficult to create an ice-making head that you sell without a condensing unit, but obviously there are cases, so I think that those have to be managed somehow differently, and we're still going to cover the majority of the products if we just stick with the current standards that we have. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's see if we have -- Matt. MR. ALLISON: Yes, I want to mirror some of the Hoshizaki comments. We too offer products that are meant to be connected to rack systems that we do not offer a dedicated condensing unit for, and it would be trouble for us to come up with a condensing unit for that, and would really be arbitrary because it wouldn't be anything we would actually ever Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 73 sell, there's just not a market for it. I do agree with the approach actually of perhaps using the remote, the standard remote configuration as the energy consumption for that particular one. Usually the energy consumption between the just the remote condenser and the remote compressor and condenser, there's a difference, but it's pretty small, and for this little piece of the market, would probably be good enough I would think. MR. ERBS: I thought Greg's comments were a little more specific than that, but I was wondering -- MR. ALLISON: Sorry, I don't understand. MR. ERBS: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Did you want to comment, Bob? MS. WIDDER: I have a question, but if you want to -- we'll take the rest of the comments first. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 74 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I just wanted to get all the manufacturers into the same slot here. Go ahead, Bob. MR. BITTNER: I'm unclear on what you're saying. You're saying that a remote condenser application rather than a remote condensing unit application? MR. ALLISON: Yes. MR. BITTNER: So in other words, the compressor resides on the ice machine, and it has a remote condenser -- MR. ALLISON: Correct. MR. BITTNER: -- rather than a remote condensing unit -- MR. ALLISON: Remote condensing unit, yes. MR. BITTNER: I -- MR. ALLISON: We do have that configuration -- MR. BITTNER: Yes, and I -- to me, I would have no disagreements with that, especially because the energy, the compression Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 75 energy, meaning compressor/condenser energy, is all accounted for, so -- MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, I saw both Charlie and Tim. MR. BALLO: Ed brought up the split system air conditioning test procedure, and the regulations in the CFR there, it's actually spelled out explicitly how you select which complimentary component you test with the component that you manufacture. I didn't see that in the proposed regulations that come with the proposed rule, because it seems there is some potential for confusion here. It might be helpful to spell that out a little more clearly in the regs, whatever DOE ultimately comes up with. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Yes, there is some good analogy there. I mean, the way the -- if I'm not, Karim can probably correct me here, but I think the way Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 76 they're selected is that the ones that are actually tested are the highest volume ones that they actually ship, and then the rest are calculated essentially. But there are a large number of combinations of indoor air handling units that can go with any given outdoor compressor in an air conditioning system, and I -- they all have a little bit different efficiency, and so the efficiency can wander around a little bit, but you do measure in that test the output if you will. In the case of an air conditioner, it's cool air, capacity of that cool evaporator. In the ice machine, it's pounds of ice, and I think ultimately you can mess around with the capacity of the compressor and condenser, but you're going to change the output of the product ultimately as well. And I think there is some merit to -- and the manufacturers will probably see it -- to matching things as reasonably as you can to do the test, because the head will perform differently if you start messing too much with Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 77 the capacity of the other end of the machine. So again, I think there's a fairly practical reason for doing it the way it has been suggested, and I don't see that the results would bias things in enough of a way that I would be worried about it. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: Yes, this is Charles Llenza. The Department would request that if the parties attending would provide us what they would like to see at a minimum described in the test procedure in terms of requirements for this kind of particular issue. So, I mean, we're going to face, I think as just mentioned, we're going to face situations where it's not described, and there's probably somebody that's going to require some further clarification. So I have to tend to agree that it would be beneficial if we don't restrict the sizing up to some description the Department has, but we do have some alternate description on how to do that if somebody is Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 78 faced with that issue, so that we don't end up having a void in the actual test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Final comments on this? MS. WIDDER: Just one more request for comment. If you could also provide comments about how you currently test those units that don't have dedicated remote condensers, we'd like to -- the Department, as much as possible, would like to mirror what industry does to test those units already, so as not to add significant burden. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: This is Greg Maples. For our large capacity rack units that do not have condenser units available to them, we just confirm that they're operable on our assembly line, and then they're to be field adjusted. They have an evaporative pressure regulator when they attach to a rack system in the field, and they're to be adjusted to our set points. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 79 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Matt.

MR. ALLISON: Scotsman uses the same process that Hoshizaki does there, we just verify that the ice making mechanism itself is functioning properly without refrigerant flow. MS. WIDDER: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Bob, please. MR. BITTNER: Howe Corporation does the same thing; however, the Howe Corporation's capacities that they're providing to the central station field erected rack engineer are the numbers that they back tested with the remote condensing unit. They're the exact numbers, they're not in any way altered. So the process is similar to what Matt and Greg described, but it just happens to be connected to a remote rack, rather than a remote condensing unit. MS. WIDDER: All right, great. Thank you. Moving on, another proposal that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 80 the DOE would like to incorporate into the amended DOE test procedure, is a potential for modulating capacity ice makers. The Department could not identify any commercially-available multiple capacity ice makers or prototypes available, but identified this as a potential option in the future, using single compressors capable of variable capacities or multiple capacity compressors. This could be attractive since ice makers don't always operate at full capacity; actually, rarely operate at full capacity all the time, and then this staged approach could save energy by matching the compressor energy with the capacity that the ice maker operates at more regularly. The DOE proposes a pretty simple adjustment for this type of system. Multiple capacity systems could be rated under the current test procedure under the maximum capacity rating, and that value submitted to the Department. This is the only rating Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 81 that's required; however, if a manufacturer wanted to take advantage of a multiple capacity unit and the energy savings that it achieved, the manufacturer could test at both the maximum and minimum capacity settings. It is currently proposed that those values, the maximum and minimum capacity settings would be averaged. This test procedure provides an opportunity for and incentivizes the future development of this type of system. DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow for an optional test procedure for modulating capacity automatic commercial ice makers, and specifically, as I mentioned, DOE is currently proposing that these values would be averaged. That perhaps might not be the best weighting of those values, and DOE requests comment on the proper weighting of the maximum and minimum energy consumption values. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: So I'm a big fan of bringing new technology in and improving Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 82 energy efficiency, but I'm very concerned about the limited knowledge we have of how ice capacity is actually used. I mean, and I have a little bit of knowledge, and I would agree that not every ice machine runs 100% of the time. Although we have some that do, we always go to our customers and encourage them to buy another one when they reach 100%, because that's usually a bad thing, but there's, again, it's in this time dependency category where even though you might look at an ice machine over the course of a year and say it only runs 50% of the time, of the 50% of the time, it's basically just trying to keep up with peak loads in a restaurant or ice loading of a display area, or -- so before you would, I think -- before it would be appropriate to give credit for increased energy efficiency at a lower output and lower operating speed, you really need to make sure that that's representative of how it will be used, you know, in real applications. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 83 Otherwise, what I would be concerned about is if we're talking again, about either minimum efficiency or even energy star ratings, that if we allow someone to add in part load capacity that's much higher efficiency, and that gets averaged in, and that doesn't really reflect what happens, it becomes a convenient way for someone to meet a minimum energy efficiency standard. And it may not really be representative of what happens. So I -- yes, I don't want to say we shouldn't do this, but I think this requires a lot more investigation to come up with an appropriate process. I mean, I had experience on the air conditioning side with two speed and I petitioned DOE for the first variable speed rating system many, many years ago. There's at least some argument to be made in terms of building load versus temperature, right? You can establish a reasonable relationship between load and equipment. With an ice machine, it's not that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 84 clear to me what the relationship is, and I think until we would establish that, it becomes difficult to put into an efficiency standard some provision. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments? Matt. MR. ALLISON: Yes, Matt Allison. This one's probably never going to be easy. I agree with the point of putting something in there to incentivize people to do it, but there's likely to be at the end of the day, if the manufacturers choose to go down this road, there's probably going to be as many different approaches as there are manufacturers, and there's probably not going to be a one size fits all kind of a thing that we can put around it. So, in some respect it's almost arbitrary, you know, what we choose as far as the weighting goes, but I think having something in there would be appropriate to do. MR. BROOKMAN: You wouldn't suggest what the weighting should be, how that might Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 85 be approached? MR. ALLISON: I don't really have enough data sitting here to really support a specific weighting right now. I think you could come up with a relatively simple weighting with some data gathering, but sitting here, I don't know what those numbers would be. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Karim. DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I support what Daryl just said. I think DOE is ahead of the game here. I think it's believe premature at this point in time to suggest anything like this before really looking into the issue and studying very thoroughly. We don't want DOE to encourage something and then we'll be subject to interpretation waivers or even gaming by the industry. So I think these kinds of issues are better left for industry to handle through ASHRAE 29, through AHRI, and when there will be equipment capable of doing part load and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433 I

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 86 things like that. I think industry on its own will come up with a test procedure that will address that, so. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I -- as I looked at this, I noticed that DOE didn't really discuss what they have discussed in some other rulemakings, which is that one of the triggers for this sort of a thing is often petitions for a waiver, because somebody wants to test a machine with capabilities that the test procedure can't measure. We saw that with multi-stage heat pumps, for instance. And I'm inclined, not knowing like Daryl says, just what the weights would be, because I couldn't imagine -- I sat on the airplane on the way here trying to imagine how an ice maker would operate at some reduced capacity, and I couldn't -- you know, I'm not that knowledgeable about them -- but I couldn't figure out, even as an engineer, how that might work. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 87 But if somebody does figure it out and they think it would provide an advantage, then I would think they would petition the Department for a waiver to test it in a different way, and that of course would then trigger this other process of where we'd have to maybe decide just how it would be tested and maybe this would be the result of that. But I'm not sure the Department really needs to do this right now myself. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl also. MR. ERBS: Yes, I was actually going to make exactly the same comment, that just as in the air conditioning industry, as people developed multi-speed and other ways of modulating capacity, the first step was in fact to submit a waiver, which led to modification, not only in the regulations, but in the underlying test standards. And I think that worked very well. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Joanna. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 88 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I was wondering if you could just describe a little bit about what a modulating capacity would mean in terms of how the ice maker would actually be operating. MS. WIDDER: Yes, the -- there's a little bit more in this bullet. The way that it would save energy is -- and I agree with you, Charlie, it took me a long time to sort of wrap my head around how would this -- once it was proposed as a concept for me to consider in the -- for the Department to consider in the test procedure, I had to think for a long time about how this would work and would it be helpful. But I did determine that I think it would be helpful because you would have more surface area available on the evaporator plate relative to the mass flow of refrigerant. So you would have a reduced mass flow of refrigerant, but you would have still the same surface area, and so perhaps larger cooling capacity. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 89 MS. MAUER: So in other words, the rate of actually making the ice would be lower? Take a longer time to make the same quantity of ice? MS. WIDDER: Yes. MS. MAUER: Okay. MS. WIDDER: Exactly. MS. MAUER: And I was also just wondering if you could explain what minimum capacity refers to exactly? MS. WIDDER: Well in the context of a modulating capacity unit, which as I mentioned initially, there isn't one commercially available, it would be whatever the lowest rating, the lowest capacity setting of that unit would be, and I -- the Department inserted minimum in this sense in case there was more than two. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. MAUER: Thank you. MR. OSANN: And what would the units of that -- Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 90 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann.

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann with NRDC. What would the units of that -- MS. WIDDER: Minimum and maximum? MR. OSANN: Yes. MS. WIDDER: Would be pounds per day, of capacity. MR. OSANN: Pounds per day? MS. WIDDER: Yes. Pounds per 24 hours, to be specific. MR. BROOKMAN: Are we ready to move on? I think so. MS. WIDDER: Okay, great. This is the last proposed amendment to the DOE test procedure, and then we'll take a brief break I think? MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. MS. WIDDER: And hopefully this one will be easy. In the DOE test procedure in 2006, DOE chose to include a clarified calculation for determining the energy consumption of automatic commercial ice Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 91 makers, because they believed ambiguity existed in the ASHRAE 29 standard description of how energy -- the energy used was to be calculated. This top box is what is currently in the CFR. There's beyond -- if we didn't discontinue it, there are some corrections that would need to be made, but DOE, in looking at that equation, determined that -- and then in looking at the ASHRAE Standard 29, determined that we don't know where the ambiguity came from, and believes that it's fairly clear and straightforward how energy use is to be calculated, and is proposing to just remove this equation entirely. This box below is how energy consumption is proposed to be calculated in ASHRAE test procedure. This is energy consumption; this is the verbatim equation, 8.4a refers to a section which measures the power in kilowatt hours, and the 8.2a refers to the weight in pounds of each intercepted sample, times 100 as opposed to 100%. As I Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 92 mentioned, DOE re-examined ASHRAE and believed that this method of calculation was clear, and that there was no need for the clarification, the clarified equation, and that the times 100% was also incorrect. DOE requests comment on removing this equation and referencing only ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 and AHRI Standard 810

- 2007 as the calculation for energy consumption. MR. LLENZA: Yes, I want to point out -- MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. A typo on slide 33, it should say on that third bullet, when you go down to say, in ASHRAE Standard 29, it should say 1988 RA 2005. So there's a typo, there's a nine missing. MS. WIDDER: Yes. MR. LLENZA: So it should say ASHRAE Standard 29-1988. We'll make the corrections onto the website. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 93 MR. BROOKMAN: The correction is (RA 2009)? MS. WIDDER: No. MR. BROOKMAN: What's the correction? Say it again.

MS. WIDDER: Inserting between the one and the eight. a nine

MS. LLENZA: Yes, there's just a -- we just missed a nine. We just noticed that. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. So comments on this proposed test procedure amendment. Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: So Manitowoc would fully support the declarification step. MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. MR. ALLISON: Yes, Scotsman also supports it. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Greg. Greg as well, yes, okay, thank you. Then final comments on this segment and anything that preceded it, because we're about to take a break. So let's do that. It's Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 94 10:40 almost. We'll take a 15 minute break, which means we'll resume at 10:55, whatever 15 minutes is on your watch, be back here in 15. I think all of you are familiar with -- many of you, at least are familiar with the way it works here at Forrestal. You must wear a badge, a visitor's badge visible while you are in the building. There are restrooms on both ends of the hall, there's a coffee shop down on the ground floor, take the elevator down and hang a left, and -- but go quickly, because sometimes it's busy and it may take you fully 10 minutes to get your coffee, and we'll see you back here in 15. MR. ERBS: And it's ground floor, not the basement. MR. BROOKMAN: Did I say -- MR. ERBS: No, you got it right, but some people get in the elevator and -- MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. We had a good start on the day; we'll continue when we return in 15. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 95 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:40 a.m. and resumed at 10:59 a.m.) MR. BROOKMAN: Some individuals just came into the room just immediately as we were finishing, and they've been participating in the meeting today, and I wanted to provide an opportunity for those that have not done so already to introduce themselves. So let's -- please say your name and organizational affiliation. MR. KENT: Christopher Kent, EPA Energy Star Program. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please. MS. PORRAS: Erica Porras with ICF International. MR. SKINNER: Richard Skinner with ICF International. MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, Department of Energy, Energy Star Test Procedures. MR. BROOKMAN: I notice that Ed has Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 96 left the room, Ed Osann from NRDC, representing NRDC. I think that's everyone. Okay, then we really made a lot of good progress in the morning before the break, now we're going to continue. Sarah. MS. WIDDER: All right. Welcome back. The next section I'm going to use to talk about issues that the Department considered in developing the amendments to the test procedure rulemaking that we're discussing today, but did not include explicitly in its amendments. And a lot of these are issues that were raised at the Ice Maker Energy Conservation Standards Framework Document public meeting, and that the DOE further considered in this test procedure rule making, but has not included in any of the amendments. Okay, there we go. The first is treatment of other batch type ice makers, and you've heard me reference this earlier, that we're treating batch type ice makers as those that produce Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 97 cube type ice and other types of ice that are not cube in shape. DOE has found, or believes that the AHRI 810-2007 test procedure can be applied to non-cube batch type ice machines, and has clarified in its definition of batch type ice maker that the DOE test procedure for batch type ice makers should be applied to cube type ice makers and batch type ice makers that make other than cube type ice, any batch type ice maker. DOE requests comment on its proposal to test all batch type ice makers using the batch type test method. MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison. Scotsman supports this approach. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl. MR. ERBS: Yes, I don't see any reason not to treat all batch production systems equally. MS. WIDDER: Great, thank you. The next issue is quantification of auxiliary energy use. DOE found that the current test Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 98 procedure does not account for all energy consuming phases of operation; namely, it does not quantify energy that's consumed during non-ice making periods that might be due to sensors or controllers that trigger the ice making mechanism to turn on, or other lighting or things like that. Although DOE is not required to quantify this auxiliary energy use, DOE is not prohibited from doing so, either. So in considering incorporation of this type of energy consumption into the test procedure, DOE did a little analysis of how big an issue this was. How much energy are we talking about saving? DOE Found that energy due to controls and electrical sensors during non-ice making periods contributed to one percent or less of total energy consumption of the ice maker, and given the small magnitude of this energy use, DOE believes that it is not justified in quantifying it at this time. DOE requests comment on its determination that an additional test Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 99 procedure to quantify auxiliary energy use during non ice making periods is not justified. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. You don't have it on the slide here, but in the NOPR, there was a reference to a 10-watt order of magnitude. I think you'll find the annual percentage of energy use for a furnace is probably less than one percent by quite a bit, but we don't regard one percent as that trivial, and we don't regard 10 watts as that trivial, especially when we're deliberating over three and four watts of the standby energy use of a wide range of other products here at DOE. So I don't necessarily buy those arguments. The other thing is that ice making is a batch-type process in many cases, and oddly enough, we've been using batch ice making to offset cooling loads in buildings for quite a long time now. In that regard, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 100 it's likely to be subject to utilities interest, my utilities interest. I represent 135 of them. In terms of the smart grid and what might be messed with in terms of energy consumption and off peak versus on peak hours, and there are more consumptive and less consumptive ways to arrange that for these machines, you know, you can use two or three watts, or you can use 10 watts, and to us, that makes a difference. And so we're very much interested in this energy use, and will say so in our written comments, and explain why. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: Yes, this is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. One of our main focuses for the test procedure is to not overburden industry with test procedures, et cetera, but when you do comment, can you provide us a little bit of information in terms of whatever burden that you may see that that has or does not have, and for us to be Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 101 able to quantify that. And that would be part of our analysis. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: Yes, Ed Osann. Is the one percent reference here, is this simply an observation by the Department, or is this viewed as some sort of benchmark? MS. WIDDER: This is not a benchmark. This is -- MR. OSANN: Just an observation? MS. WIDDER: -- a little bit more than a back of the envelope calculation from looking at the types of sensors and monitoring a small, small sample of ice makers, looking at their auxiliary energy consumption, and using information that we've gained from manufacturers, and an assumption about how often they're in an ice-making mode versus non ice-making mode. And also that's somewhat informed by data as well. But again, it's been limited to because of the scope of this rulemaking and the scope of DOE to, in this Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 102 rulemaking, to collect data. That's not part of what we do for rulemakings typically, so it's a very preliminary calculation. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: Yes, I just want to elaborate on that. I think the position of the Department is that we don't have really have a good data set on the impact of that particular issue, and our back of the envelope calculations indicated one percent. So again, here I think it's a combination of getting better information, and then quantification, and then some kind of idea of the cost, the burden of testing, in order to put it with the complete package with the rest of the equipment for the testing and all that. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Does the Department have any data that correlates pounds per day capacity and hours per day of refrigeration system operation in order to produce those pounds per day? Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 103 MS. WIDDER: No.

MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? MR. ERBS: So a couple of comments. One is the comment about furnaces only being one percent, I guess I -- I mean we're talking about the standby losses being one percent of the wattage that the ice machine uses when it's running, not one percent of the total electrical use in the U.S. So in terms of burden, because our ice machines are generally drawing in the multiple kilowatt range when we're testing them, you know our instrumentation, the watt hour meters that we use and the other types of instruments, they're not capable of measuring things down in the single watt range, and so there would be a burden. It would require us to go out and buy additional measurement hardware that we don't currently have in our labs to measure something that's one percent of a total for an ice machine that represents out of the total grid usage, I would guess a pretty small Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 104 percentage. So you know, in terms of what net impact that has, I think DOE would need to really roll up those numbers before we could understand the potential value versus the incremental cost to the manufacturers. And then the last thing I'll point out is once again, we don't have a test method or a rating method that takes it into account, and it gets back to this whole question of what's the time dependency of the ice machine running versus being idle, you know, we often assume when we design our ice machines, they're running 80% of the time. And so I think we would want to see some real hard evidence that it's a much smaller percent of the time before it would make sense to me to start to make these kinds of measurements. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: If it's not tested for now, and the equipment to do so is not commonly available, where does the one percent Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 105 come from? MS. WIDDER: The one percent comes from probably a meter that the manufacturers don't already use. The one percent comes from, as I said, some information from manufacturers that they gave us about assumptions about what the standby power would be, and also some limited testing that we've done with just typical watt hour meters on ice machines that are available to us, to the Department. MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I'd like to second what just Daryl said, it's going to be, first of all, it's a very small portion, you know, one percent of all the energy consumption of the ice makers. And that overall represents a very small portion of the electric usage in the U.S. But secondly, besides this argument, we don't believe that we have the authority to study standby power losses for ice makers. Whatever Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 106 was in the legislation that was passed by Congress specifically focused on residential product. So let's be clear, I mean, we don't even have that authority. MR. BROOKMAN: Ari. MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman, General Counsel's office. I would agree that the statute does specifically mention residential use for standby power, and we mentioned that in the NOPR specifically. I added that sentence to make clear that we understand that the statute provides authority for residential uses in standby power use. In regard to whether -- I don't think we're really even calling this standby power, maybe Sarah can specify the difference. MS. WIDDER: That's correct. We tried to not call this standby power on purpose, because we don't want that confusion. This was looking at an auxiliary energy consumption of the ice maker, and I don't -- Ari, I'm sorry, I don't know if there's a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 107 specific line, I think it is sort of a gray area in terms of what is standby and what is not standby. But the clearer point is Karim is correct. We are not required to quantify this, and I did make that clear, and the DOE does not propose to quantify this, either. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: Okay, this has just been expressed two different ways, not having the authority, and not required to, and the direction, statutory direction with regard to standby for consumer products is a requirement that it has to be rotated into the revisions of the test procedures. That does not preclude the Department from considering standby or other aspects of auxiliary energy use in commercial products. MS. WIDDER: That's -- sorry, go ahead Ari. MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman, GC's Office. I think that's a good distinction to make, the difference between the Department of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 108 Energy voluntarily looking at an issue versus being required to by Congress. And so, indeed, we are not required to look at standby power for commercial appliances, but we do have to distinguish whether or not first -- and so you know, if there are comments on this issue, please submit them in writing. I think it's a two-part question. First of all, is this an issue of standby power? And second of all, if there is a question about whether or not there's authority, AHRI has suggested there is, please submit that as well, and we'll consider that. I don't believe at the outset that we specifically do not have authority to regulate standby power of commercial appliances, but again, this is something that we could take comment on, because first of all, this may not be an issue of standby power; and second of all, if there is a question about the authority, we'll consider it and we'll look at it. I can't answer it Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 109 right now. I believe -- at the outset I can say there is no specific statutory language that bars us from doing so. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: I think from a technical point of view, we go back to the details on what we're measuring, how big of a measurement it is. I think it's clear that industry has stated some concern about having to go down to that level of measurement, and I think that if other people have ideas on this, that we get written comments with specifics on what they feel that -- how much of a problem or how much of an energy usage this additional power is. And the Department will make some decisions based on the information it receives. What I think Sarah has stated through this presentation is that we just don't have anything that indicates to us that this is a big issue. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: And I just -- you Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 110 pointed out some semantics here that I think are very important. This is not auxiliary, and that's a big distinction. So you know, if you're looking at a gas fired appliance, and you have an electric inducer fan, that's auxiliary energy. We're talking about an electrically-powered ice machine, and we're measuring all of the electricity while it's running, and so the consideration of auxiliary doesn't come into play here, and that's the classical issue when you have dual fuel types of pieces of equipment, where you may be measuring on the basis of its efficiency relative to gas consumption, but there's a bunch of electricity that goes into play, and that may affect how efficient it is on its primary fuel metric. We don't have that issue here; it's all electricity, and so the only potential area that there's any question is consumption of electricity during a period where it's not actually producing any useful output. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 111 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna.

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a question. Are these controls and sensors also consuming energy during ice making periods, or -- yes, so -- MS. WIDDER: Yes. MS. MAUER: -- it would consume the same amount of energy? MS. WIDDER: It would be quantified during the test procedure, during the ice making phases as well. MS. MAUER: Okay. Thanks. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Are we all set? MS. WIDDER: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. WIDDER: Thank you. The next issue that the DOE considered in amending the test procedure is storage bin effectiveness, or the meltage of ice that occurs in the storage bin once it's produced. And this is again an issue of the time dependency of ice. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 112 The meltage of ice in a storage bin is typically defined in terms of storage bin effectiveness as a theoretical expression of the fraction of ice that under a specified rating condition, would be expected to remain in the ice storage bin after 24 hours. And so it's just a description of how insulating your storage bin is. AHRI has a standard, 820

- 2000, Ice Storage Bins, that describes a test method for quantifying the effectiveness of storage bin and DOE did consider that standard when they were looking at incorporating the storage bin effectiveness into the test procedure. Storage bin effectiveness is also currently quantified in the Canadian and Australian standards and test procedures for automatic commercial ice makers, and the DOE did, again, some preliminary calculations that ice meltage in the storage bin could represent 10% or more additional ice production per 24 hours, and upon further testing after this Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 113 NOPR and the slides were prepared, that number varies widely. There's a large variation in the effectiveness of storage bins, and it's based a lot on the size of the storage bin, which makes sense. However, the Department has, when thinking about the burden associated with incorporating a measurement of storage bins, and the way that would be incorporated into the standard, it would cause an inconsistencybetween the burden and the standards for selfcontained and remote condensing ice makers or ice making heads. So to be clear, storage bins are only within the scope of automatic commercial ice makers as defined by EPCA for self-contained units, because it's part of the self-contained ice maker. When a remote condensing ice maker is put on top of a separate, self-contained -- a separate storage bin, that storage bin is not part of the ice maker and is not part of the DOE's scope in this rulemaking. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 114 So, incorporating storage bin effectiveness just for self-contained units would cause an inconsistency and a burden in the standards. Because of this, DOE chose not to include a qualification of meltage in the storage bin at this time, but DOE does request comment on both that decision, and the appropriate test method and metric for storage bin effectiveness, and specifically, how it could be incorporated into a standard if that were to be considered in the future. MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on both those elements. Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: This isn’t a question for this in particular, but draws more generally; and that is, to what extent are you pre-judging decisions in the standard setting process itself here in the proposed rule? When you have -- I'm reading the second bullet, "DOE will not include a quantification of meltage in the storage bin at this time." Doesn't that suggest that if you make that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 115 decision with regard to test procedure, you're pre-judging the outcome of the standard setting process itself? MS. WIDDER: That is correct. If we do not include a quantification of something in the DOE test procedure, we are not able to consider the energy consuming effects of that in the standards setting process. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. MR. ERBS: So, I think it's again, a bit of a question of scope. You know, from my perspective, this rulemaking is about taking the standards that existed, which have from the beginning been a measurement of the efficiency in production of ice. And so we're measuring a machine that produces ice, and how much energy and water does it consume in the production of a quantity of ice. The storagebin, even though in the case of a selfcontained unit, it's integral to the selfcontained unit, that's a matter of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 116 convenience. There's no reason that all ice

-

- you could give someone the same exact device that was made up of two pieces that fit together. And so by bringing in the effect of the storage device into an energy efficiency standard, that's really all about the efficiency of production, in my opinion is expanding the scope. Now DOE may choose to do that, but then I think I would prefer that we look at the storage devices as a separate rulemaking, as a separate standard, as a separate type of regulation, and that would have to be justified on the same basis of any new rulemaking. MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. That's the same analogy that the Department went through, that we didn't -- we decided at this time that we didn't have enough information to expand the scope, in addition to the fact that that's not what they asked us to do. So we look at the point of delivery of making the ice, not so Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 117 much the storage, the meltage retention rate of the ice actual. So we didn't think that was part of the scope of what we were supposed to be doing this time around. MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess it's a question for DOE. Do you believe that you have the authority to regulate the energy consumption with the ice storage bins? Because we don't believe that you do. MR. ALTMAN: This is Ari Altman, the General Counsel's office. That's a valid question. I don't know that it comes up in this case, because we're not assuming to have the authority. Certainly if there are parties here who believe that we do have the authority or the requirement, for that matter, submit that in written comments. Our initial impression is that -- well, we're choosing not to. So, we're not going to take a stance at this point on whether or not we have authority to do so. There's certainly time in both Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 118 rulemaking processes for comments to be taken and heard and considered, but yes, you could read the slide as suggesting that the standard process will likewise not include a storage bin effectiveness calculation. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I assumed on, if I read the previous slide correctly, there's an AHRI test method for this. I presume that it's the Canadian's -- that the Canadian standards use that test method to get the ratings that they get. Am I wrong in assuming that manufacturers who participate in the Canadian market have to do these tests and report these values in accordance with that test method? Is that true? MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. MR. ERBS: Yes, that's true, and so when we're talking about Canada and the regulations, well, you know, we comply with their regulations. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 119 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann.

MR. OSANN: Yes, again, I'm going back to the larger issue of the sequencing of the decision making here. I mean, there are arguments here, you can call this one a ball or call it a strike, but my question is in the course of the rulemaking for the test procedure, don't you need to keep options open for the final resolution of the standard itself? MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. I think, again, I go back to what I think is the regulatory requirement. The regulation, again, is asking us to consider the production of ice. In the production of ice, it does not consider the storage. That's a separate issue. So I think that in looking at the test procedure, we certainly could put that in there, I mean the Department does have the option of adding this in there, except when it comes down to the energy conservation standard, the Department Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 120 does not see that their authority from the legislation goes into the actual storage of the ice. So it's one of those things that I made the decision that we just didn't need to collect the information for something that we were not going to pursue in the standard. Now, that doesn't mean things cannot change if we have enough pushback from the stakeholders and manufacturers. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice. On the subject of push back, the automatic commercial ice maker definition in the statute does say that it may include a means for storing ice, dispensing ice or storing and dispensing ice. And while it's true that Congress did not establish standards applicable to the storage of ice, it did provide DOE with a requirement to amend standards for automatic commercial ice makers, and if the storage capacity, the storage function is a part of the ice maker, clearly I Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 121 think the Department had the authority. Whether or not you feel you have enough information to do it, I think the authority is there. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on this -- it's really a series of issues, isn't it? Yes. DR. AMRANE: This Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess wh at would be the purpose? I mean, we would establish what kind of standard? Let's say energy efficiency standard. We would basically establish some requirements as to how much, how efficient those stage bins can hold the ice? I mean, on what basis? Do you have the data for this? How would you do that? MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: I mean, the issue gets a little bit complicated. There could berefrigerated storage, there could be nonrefrigerated storage. So now how are we going to decide -- are we going to put an additional Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 122requirement now on the equipment that is selfcontained, what storage bin has to have a refrigeration unit on the storage portion of this? So when they did not specifically tell the Department to go after storage bins, although we may have the authority, there is somewhat of a complication, because how are you going to quantify those that have mayberefrigerated storage bins versus nonrefrigerated storage bins? And then what about units that don't have any kind of storage bin? So now are we going to break these down into separate categories and then have different rating systems for -- depending on what they carry and not carry? I mean, the issue is a lot more complicated than just do you have a refrigerated storage bin, and the issue I think -- I clearly saw it as in the production of the ice, not in the keeping the ice in that form over time. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 123 MR. OSANN: Just by way of some rough analogy, just to point to the provisions in the Standards and Test Procedures for Clothes Washers, where credit is provided for reducing moisture content that, where there is inferred energy savings from another appliance, from the dryer. But yet that's credited into the energy efficiency assessment of the washer itself, and I don't think the concept is entirely different here. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I -- there's a couple of comments. I think we heard from the manufacturers in the past session that to their knowledge at the time, there were no refrigerated ice containers associated with self-contained ice makers. So I don't think that plays into this at all. On the other hand, with the advent of vacuum insulated panels and other advanced insulation systems, I mean those things can hold two degrees Celsius for 30 days when they're sealed up. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 124 There's quite a range of performance potentially associated with just the storage bin. And I'm not inclined to just gloss this

over. There's a test procedure, the Canadians require it, it's not like this is some unknown thing. We know how to do it, and it's just a matter of rating it. But we'll make our comments in writing. I think there's a substantial case to be made that there's energy savings associated here with the extra 10% or whatever it is in compressor run time that we're going to see when the ice melts. I don't lose any ice out of my machine, but then it's refrigerated. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: This is Greg Maples. I just want to make a comment in regards to the ice bins and the storage effectiveness. We all rate, we do the test to perform the storage effectiveness of our ice bins, and again, the conjunction of a storage bin with Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 125 the ice machine I believe is outside the scope of this rulemaking proposal on the basis that, I mean, we make it -- for Hoshizaki we make a variety of storage bins, and you can put in whatever combination you want, and they don't all have the same storage effectiveness. And we could put on a rating that you put every ice machine with our most efficient storage bin, and that would be our recommendation leaving the factory, but you can put them in whatever combination you want. So we should just be real with what's actually going to happen. And you rate the bin, and you rate the ice machine, and how they go together is how they go together. I don't know how much you want to put into it. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Daryl. MR. ERBS: Just one other comment. Even in self-contained, we will make models that have the same ice production output, but will have different volumes of storage or even Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 126 different aspect ratios. So again, I just would encourage DOE and other stakeholders to think through the potential complexities, and also, you know, how is this going to drive behaviors of not only manufacturers, but purchasers, especially if you create a double standard. You could do it on self-contained, you cannot do it on ice-making heads or remote systems because we have no control over the purchase of the bin versus the purchase of the ice machine. In a lot of cases, an ice making head is purchased as a replacement because the life of an ice maker may be less than the life of a storage bin. So people are replacing ice making heads, not doing anything about the storage bin. So they don't, in many cases, purchase them as a matched pair, right, they're being purchased independently, and if you try to combine the two together , I'm just concerned about where that's going to end up in terms of the complexity, right. I don't Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 127 want another unitary system process unless there's absolutely really good reasons to justify it. I think, again, I don't have any issue with another rulemaking that would consider bin efficiency, right. Let's have that discussion, and make sure we do the same kind of legwork on that. But to sort of bring this in on the side to me is going to be very disruptive, and I'm not sure where it will drive us in terms of what we do for equipment. MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. MR. ALLISON: I also would mirror the comments of it being a complex thing to do, just because there are so many different combinations of ice machines and bins that can be put together, and to try to come up with energy ratings for the pairs would be extremely difficult to do. I would also add that our customers want a degree of meltage of this ice. As the ice ages, it picks up odors and whatnot that are in the air, and they actually want some of it to go away over time Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 128 if it's not used. So that's something that would also need to be considered in anything that we did. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. First, just a question. Does the AHRI test procedure for storage bins specifically define the bins as unrefrigerated? MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. DR. AMRANE: I not familiar the standard, to be honest with you. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. MR. ERBS: You know I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure it does, but because it has no mechanism to measure energy input. So if you were to have a refrigerated bin, you'd have a refrigeration system, you'd have to measure electrical input. So even if it's not explicitly stated, I don't have it memorized, it has no means to accomplish that in terms of the actual test procedure, and -- but it at Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 129 least provides a basis of comparison. People do understand what the impact is; it's something that at least, for those manufacturers that participate in a certification program, it's information that is available to consumers. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just to follow on, I think we'd encourage DOE to include a measure of storage bin effectiveness in the test procedure, just to, at a minimum, allow for the option of a potential standard, and I think we'd also encourage the Department to look at the Canadian standards to see if that's a viable option, and how those standards are working. MS. WIDDER: Thank you. I would also just encourage comments to consider whether this rulemaking about automatic commercial ice makers or a separate rulemaking is the most appropriate venue for that. And if this rulemaking is, in fact, the preferred path, why and how it might be incorporated. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 130 That would be very helpful to the Department. If there's no other comments, moving on. The Department also considered, at the framework document public meeting, a method to calculate the total water of automatic -- consumption of automatic commercial ice makers, and that would include the condenser water use, which is currently quantified in the DOE test procedure, as well as potable water use that's used in making ice. So the water that enters the machine and becomes ice, or cooled water in the case of a continuous machine, that's part of the ice product. DOE determined that it does not have -- that EPCA prescribes only standards for condenser water use, and specifies that condenser water use does not include potable water used to make ice, and does not propose to include a metric for potable water in the test procedure at this time. DOE requests comment on not including potable water use in Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 131 making ice. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. The Federal Register notice seemed awfully carefully worded on this point, and it seemed to me to suggest that only that the Department believes it is not required to set a potable water standard. Is that the actual position of the Department, or do you all think that you don't actually have the authority to do a potable water standard? MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman, General Counsel's office. That's a good question, and I think it's a gray area. Congress specifically left out potable water use when they set standards by statute for cube type ice. Congress didn't set standards for the other types of ice that we're looking at, and there's certainly a question of whether or not our authority to amend allows us to amend what Congress specifically left out. And that's for cube type ice. Now for the other type of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 132 ice that there were no standards set, at this point, we're using -- we're kind of following the same decision making process that Congress did in setting the standard for cube type ice. So to that effect, we essentially believe that we don't have authority to bring in potable water use. It's a gray area; Congress didn't specifically state that we don't for other types of ice, but we did read the footnote to the table at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), as suggesting that Congress specifically considered potable water use, and excluded it. MR. BROOKMAN: Mary Howe. MS. HOWE: Howe Corporation believes that there should be a calculation for potable water use in the ice machines. The DOE is looking at what I guess they're going to term as water hardness, but is water quality, and they are putting a method in to determine the water quality of ice. You know, in some of these ice machines, 20 to 30 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 133 percent of the water going through is coming out in low-quality ice. Low quality ice is water that's going down the sanitary sewer. There should be a method of calculating how much water goes to make each 100 pounds of ice. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Daryl. MR. ERBS: I guess from my perspective, I think on the continuous type, one of the considerations has to be what the end uses are. There are sometimes very good reasons that people want to have ice that is not just solid crystal in form, that they want to have moisture in that ice. Again, it's very dependent on the application. And my concern would be if there were regulations introduced that would somehow limit the amount of potable water that could go into a continuous type ice, then you might limit some end uses by not allowing there to be a ice hardness that's in a target range. It's not Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 134 always the case that people want the absolute highest hardness that they can get. They specifically specify ice hardness at lower values, again depending on the application, and I would be concerned that we would limit certain perfectly legitimate applications by restricting how much water can go into making that ice. MR. BROOKMAN: Mary Howe, and then back to Ed. MS. HOWE: I wasn't talking about limiting the applications or limiting the availability of the equipment. I think it's something that the manufacturers need to state somewhere, how much water is used to make each 100 pounds of ice. MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Yes, I think the previous comment from Manitowoc seems to leap ahead to a particular level, that if there is a measurement of potable water use, then there will be a -- from that will flow a standard that will have deleterious effects. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 135 The ice -- the water content of the ice is -- I think the point has been made here that it may well impart characteristics that some customers find desirable for some applications. But that's distinct from the dump water at the machine, and some measure of potable water consumption need not result in DOE setting a standard for that consumption that is inappropriate or compromises the functionality of the equipment in the marketplace. MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead Daryl. MR. ERBS: So I -- yes, I did make that leap of faith, but quite honestly, and maybe it's my misunderstanding, I thought these proceedings were all about DOE ultimately setting standards, minimum levels of metrics that will be legally required. So that's how these things normally turn out, and so if I misunderstood the intent here, then you know, I can withdraw my comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 136 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. That actually isn't the way it always goes. A lot of the time, there are simply published numbers that come out of this, and they aren't regulated. They're just published so that we know what they are. And I might -- and of course you can't publish anything so that people know what they are if you haven't measured them and you haven't provided a test procedure that allows them to be measured, so I'm not necessarily one who would jump right out there and propose standards for potable water use, either. But given that my wastewater treatment rates will double over the period of the next 15 years, I am concerned about how much water goes down my drain, and so I would like to at least have the option of knowing, for any given type of machine that delivers any given type of product, how much water does it use in the process, or what is the range of water use that it could use in the process, and I would Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 137 like to have a standard to be able to measure that, a test procedure to measure it. That's not to say that I would want, right off the bat, unless I saw something really egregious, that there should be standards down the road. But I think we're talking here about a test procedure that measures stuff, and I'd like to see it measured. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. I think we have some interesting issues with water use. We don't necessarily have determined the flush rates of toilets, for example, because those were handed down by Congress to the Department. We did codify the rules, because we're responsible for toilets, believe it or not, and so -- but those flush rates were handed down by Congress. For shower heads, it's similar. We did not come up with the standard; we codified the standards that were Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 138 handed down to the Department. If you go into washing machines and some other pieces of equipment, there is somewhat more flexibility with what the Department's done with the standards, and I have -- I can say that the issue with the potable water is a lot more complicated. I do like the idea that maybe the Department could measure it to provide a range without having to actually regulate a minimum amount of use or a maximum amount of use. I think from that perspective, I think we could take it under advisement to see that at least measuring it, so that if we provide a label for the equipment at some point, that that would be something that we could have on the label in terms of a range. And in terms of a consumer, even if the Department doesn't regulate the water use, the consumer would have the information available for them to look at, and if that's what they wanted to use as a criteria, that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 139 range of water that the equipment could use. So I could see that potential, but I would see some additional problems the Department would face in terms of trying to regulate water, because that may not be something DOE wants to do at this time -- there's a lot of state issues involved. MR. BROOKMAN: Sarah, did you have a follow on? MS. WIDDER: No, I'm happy to accept these comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name for the record. MS. PORRAS: Erica Porras with ICF International. It's my understanding that the AHRI already posts those potable water use numbers. DR. AMRANE: And that's why -- actually, thank you for jumping here. It's something that's already available. So if the information is there, and I would really speak against DOE trying to do anything here, or Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 140 trying to require anything on that issue, because it's very simple to say well, you know, it's just something that people would have to report. But again, there are enforcement regulations now in place at DOE that requires manufacturers to test every basic model at least twice to establish those ratings. So there are a lot of tremendous costs involved with testing. So I would speak against requiring it. It's available, you can look at it, it's on the database, it's public domain, anybody can look at it. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. MR. STEPHENS: Karim, how did those numbers that are available come to be without testing? DR. AMRANE: They are tested, but again, for DOE, they are requirements here. And that's why maybe -- a lot of people here are not aware of what's going on with the enforcement and certification requirements that DOE has put in place. Now every model Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 141 now that manufacturers make must be tested at least twice each month, establish a rating based on two tests, which is not necessarily what manufacturers do today. So now we are adding an additional burden on manufacturers that we are dealing separately in the directions for dealing with DOE right now, but

MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you follow on. Yes, please. MS. PORRAS: This is Erica Porras. I was just going to say that it's currently part of the ENERGY STAR specification as a requirement to receive the ENERGY STAR label, to meet our potable water use levels. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: So just to be clear with regard to the test procedures, the updated industry test procedures that the Department is proposing to reference with this revision of the test procedures, the ARI Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 142 Standard and the -- AHRI and ASHRAE, these provide for -- they provide for measurement of potable water now? MS. WIDDER: Yes, that's correct. MR. OSANN: So in the course of performing the tests that will be called for under this when this rule is finalized, manufacturers will be measuring potable water? MS. WIDDER: From the perspective of the DOE test procedure, collection and -- MR. LLENZA: Let me just talk to that. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: The test procedure is the boilerplate for the data that's collected. It's a methodology on how we would collect data on anything for that particular equipment. Okay. So yes, we could put that in there. But the problem I see is down the line, when we're talking about the standards. It could be in the test procedure, but we would never invoke it because we would not Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 143 implement it at the standards level. We wouldn't say that there's a standard to go measure that information, because it's the Department's position, which I think is pretty firm, that we are not going to require potable water, there's not a requirement being looked at for the standard, then we wouldn't invoke that part of the test procedure. So it becomes irrelevant that it's there or not. Now, if legislation came along that said we had to regulate that, then we would have to have a test procedure for it. But what we're asking -- you're asking the Department to do is to have a measurement for something that the Department's not being asked to do because of the way we interpret the legislation. MR. OSANN: My question is a little bit different, and that is, in the sequencing of the -- to produce the results that the Department will require, in the sequencing of steps through the test procedure, do these Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 144 updated test procedures call for the measurement of potable water? MS. WIDDER: It's not necessary to produce the results that the Department is asking for, so the AHRI and ASHRAE tests can be performed collecting only data relevant to energy and condenser water consumption, and not collecting data relevant to potable water consumption. However, I will reiterate that the determination of not including a potable water metric in the test procedure was not a decision based significantly on the burden; it was based more significantly on what EPCA has in its regulations with respect to this type of equipment and other complexities associated with regulating potable water. MR. LLENZA: But I think -- Charles Llenza, Department of Energy -- what AHRI has stated that there would be additional burden associated with the collection of that information because the requirements are there for the Department to verify that, and you Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 145 have to verify that in multiple testing requirements for the basic model. So don't ask us to do something that's going to cost the industry thousands of dollars to do. This is dangerous only from that perspective. I want you guys to think about this. We'll do what you urge us to do and if everybody comes to consensus here and says we should be doing this, then fine. But you're going to be stuck with the cost for this. So I'm trying to be conservative in my approach, and trying to stick to what the legislation asked us to do. We don't see that they asked us to set standards for potable water. If there's push back, and our position is not seen from the industry point of view and the stakeholders here as being appropriate then we can change our current position. But this could cost the industry money. MR. BROOKMAN: Mary Howe. MS. HOWE: What I find confusing is because of the test method that has been set Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 146 up for continuous production ice machines, potable water is now being -- chilled waste water is now being collected along with ice, and measured into the production capacity of the machine, and the efficiency of the machine. If potable water is not going to be recognized, why is it being -- why is wastewater being collected as a part of this formula? MS. WIDDER: Well, we've discussed previously, and I invite additional written comments, that in some applications, that chilled water is useful and is not regarded as waste. For example, the ice maker that exists in my office building, people typically have water and ice that comes out of the machine, and both are valuable to them. And so perhaps there's a need to differentiate between continuous type ice makers where the wastewater is in fact not useful, and continuous type ice makers where the wastewater is useful. That seems an important Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 147 clarification in this discussion. And also, I don't -- the energy consumed in that wastewater is quantified for both cube type and purge, in the purge water, the energy consumed to chill that water is part of the test procedure and is the same for continuous. And I understand your concern with ice makers where the water is part of the product, but it's not part of the useful product. And if you could clarify what types of ice makers those are, and if there needs to be further differentiation in that market, the Department welcomes those comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: Yes, this is Greg Maples. My only comment is that with ASHRAE 29 as we've accepted ASHRAE 29 as the standard we're referencing for this meeting, and it seems like your major issue is with the standard, not necessarily with the DOE's stance right now. So I mean we should -- if the concern is with wastewater going down the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 148 drain, we should address the test standard that we've accepted, not necessarily in the scope of this meeting. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles, do you want to add on here? MR. LLENZA: Well, the only difference I think is we're using the value of the energy of that potable water, as opposed to the actual consumption rates of that water; is that correct? MS. WIDDER: Yes; we're not quantifying potable water at all. MR. LLENZA: Right, so I think if there's a slight differentiation in terms of the energy use of chilling that water, and how much water we're putting into the system. So I think there's a slight difference there, but this is also part of -- we're still interested in the energy use of using whatever amount of water, but we're not locked into if we have to use more water or less water, and that's a fine distinction. Now, I may be wrong, but if Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 149 people see something a little different, we would appreciate written comments to that effect. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. In a little bit I think we should -- we're starting to double back on ourselves here I think. Ed. MR. OSANN: Yes, I was puzzled a little bit earlier by Charles' comments about the complexities of addressing water and the possible complications with state law. If I could just point out that, for the record, for this proceeding, we don't agree with that. EPCA itself has, as a statutory purpose, the conservation of energy and water through standard setting. We don't see any conflict with state -- any kind of state law on this matter relating to your ability to set a standard -- MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. MR. OSANN: -- for water consumption. MR. BALLO: One quick point, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 150 leaving aside the issue of authority for standards. The general standard that applies to the test procedures the Department issues is that they have to depict energy or water consumption over a representative use cycle or a period of use. If potable water is a significant portion of the water use, it should be reflected, because it is something that consumers will experience in the field. MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I just want to make sure I understand, based on what DOE is proposing today in the NOPR, do we have the option of establishing a potable water use standard, or would that no longer -- would that possibility be excluded based on the proposals here related to the test procedure? MR. ALTMAN: This is Ari Altman, General Counsel's office. Good question. Yes, if a test procedure is not established through this rulemaking process, then we would not be able to establish a standard until we Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 151 did an amended rulemaking, an SNOPR on the test procedure itself. So, in essence, it would be delayed. It doesn't mean we couldn't set a standard for potable water use. MS. MAUER: And so even though DOE is proposing to reference the AHRI and ASHRAE Standards that include a measurement of potable water use, effectively that portion is being excluded, or -- MR. LLENZA: Again, I'm going back to the utility of having that in the test procedure if we're not looking to use it in the standard. The utility of having that in the test procedure gives you flexibility, but for what? If we don't use it -- MS. MAUER: I'm just trying to understand, since it's in the AHRI and ASHRAE standards, what is -- MR. LLENZA: The process normally in adopting industry standards is that we can pick and choose what we would like to adopt from that industry standard. So it doesn't Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 152 mean that we have to accept the entire test procedure, but we could take sections of the test procedure. And because we didn't see this within our scope of work for the standard, that's why we haven't picked this particular segment of the test procedure. Now, again, your comments will be greatly appreciated on this, and they will be considered. We're not set in stone, but this is our interpretation, and if we find that the arguments against our interpretation are pretty strong, then we'll have to re-evaluate it. MR. BROOKMAN: So that last comment from Charles Llenza. Are we ready to move on now? I think so. MS. WIDDER: All right. Great. The next issue that the DOE had examined when they were considering test procedure amendments is the issue of standardized water hardness, or how water hardness effects the energy and water consumption of an ice Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 153 machine. DOE understands that water hardness can have a significant effect on the energy consumption, but it's uncertain, it appears to be uncertain what the specific relationship is between total dissolved solids, ion concentration or other factors that impact water quality or water hardness, and how those relate to the energy or water consumption. Which of those are more important, and what that relationship is seem to be quite complex and is not fully understood. Specifying the appropriate standardized water hardness for use in the test procedure would require additional data of looking at those types of issues, as well as the magnitude of the effects on energy consumption of the ice maker, and specifying a test method that would produce repeatable results. This bullet is looking at if the Department were to specify a specific water hardness concentration or characteristic that would be required to be used when testing an Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 154 ice maker. DOE proposes not to address water hardness in the test procedure due to this uncertainty, but does request additional data that would support the evaluation of the need for this type of test in the future. If there's no comments, I'll carry on. MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl Erbs. MR. ERBS: I just again would express my support for DOE's recommendation that we not bring water hardness into the rulemaking. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments? Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: Did the Department consider the possibility of a range, rather than specifying a point, possibly more exclusionary, setting an acceptable band and eliminating outliers, rather than setting a point, which could accommodate perhaps a wider range of test conditions? MS. WIDDER: That's a very good suggestion. My immediate concern is that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 155 Karim has brought up very many times the Department's certification and compliance and enforcement activities, and there's a strong need there to be able to produce repeatable results that both the manufacturer would average and supply to DOE, as well as the DOE could repeat those results in any verification activities. And if there's a range, there's already been issues raised in that certification compliance and enforcement rulemaking related to tolerances that are allowed around a specific point value. I think that especially since we don't understand completely how much water hardness effects energy and water consumption, it would be difficult to set an appropriate range. MR. OSANN: But how does having no range improve the replicability and the repeatability? MR. LLENZA: Well I think -- MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 156 Department of Energy. That's certainly one of the problems, but the additional burden is I think that when you're equipment is not in that range, and we go back and can’t repeat it in the test, we can pull the equipment’s certification because it's not in that range. You're going to get fined. So the question that I have is okay, it seems to be a good idea, but how -- how will we actually go past beyond setting the range, and then we have an enforcement issue here at the Department, where the Department could test the equipment, and if the equipment ended up being out of that range, the manufacturers could be fined, or they could decertify the equipment. So I think that part of our mandate has changed here now that we're being -- we're trying to be more cautious about just asking the manufacturers to do things, because while we're asking them to do certain things and providing means to go test these things, part of the problem will be then in the compliance Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 157 and certification process, where we're going to go out there and pull a certain amount of equipment to see if it's meeting the tolerances that we have set forth. If those specifications set forth, even though you have a range, what about the tolerances for those ranges, and then does that make any sense. MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. LLENZA: So I mean, we're asking for help here, because we just don't know how to do it right now. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I -- when I read the NOPR, I didn't sense that DOE knows very much about the relationship between water hardness and energy efficiency or energy use. I guess in the absence of knowing that, I'm not sure why you would chase after it unless you had data that suggested that there was enough of an impact that it mattered. And I don't know, and I'd welcome anybody who has some data that says, you know, that they do know. But I didn't see any of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 158 that, and in the absence of that, you know, it's hard to justify chasing after something we're just not sure of. MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison. Scotsman doesn't have any data that supports one way or another whether it makes a difference or not, but I would support what Charles was saying earlier, in that's it's going to fall out in the actual auditing of the products. I mean, it's going to have to fall into the range of what you've specified, right. So we're going to specify a particular energy consumption for our machines; if they're going to be audited, they have to fall in that range. If water hardness is a factor that we're not aware of, it's going to fail, and we're going to have to rewrite anyway, and it's going to drop out. So I think it's just another variable that we would have to somehow control and somehow measure, but at the end of the day I don't see how it would change Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 159 anything when we actually rated the machines and tested them. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg, did you want in here? Did I leave you out? No? Daryl. MR. ERBS: I don't know if this helps, but the only clearly understood variable is if you have too much dissolved solid, if you have very high mineral content water, it will hurt the performance of the ice machine. So at some point, you start depressing the freezing point, and you create other issues with the ability to actually form nice, hard, clear ice. No manufacturer in their right mind would intentionally test their machines with very hard water, because it's going to be a negative. So the only concern I would have would be if there were, just to make sure that in the verification process, that DOE or their appointed labs would just stay within what we consider to be sort of a normal range of dissolved solids in the water, and then I think it's really Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 160 immaterial to the performance of the machine

-

- MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. MR. ERBS: -- in the normal range. MR. STEPHENS: To follow up on what Daryl was saying, I think -- I'm aware of what scale will do to a heat exchanger and that sort of thing, and over time I'm sure you can degrade the performance of the machine. Water heaters, you know, are much the same. If you scale those things up, they're not going to perform the way they did when they were new, either. But I really don't think that's how we're testing things here. We're testing things as they come off the production line, and whether or not they deliver the energy performance they were designed to deliver and were rated to deliver before they scale up. So I'm not really bent on looking for this. I would only look for the effect of, you know, how much longer does it take to freeze the ice if there's some minimal amount Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 161 of a hardness in the water. If you really have to make the stuff almost to the point where you can chew the water before you get an impact, you know, I don't care. So I think I'm not inclined to chase after this for very much longer. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. I'm wanting us to keep moving ahead as well. Ed, go ahead. MR. OSANN: Just a follow up point. If the manufacturers want to be assured that when DOE tests their products for verification, that they are not disadvantaging them with a particularly high TDS, doesn't that have to be written into the test procedure? Because you're going to be wanting to use -- you're going to test to a test procedure; you want them to test to the same test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: Yes, this is Greg Maples, I just have a -- just in addition to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 162 what Daryl said, if you specify on the high end of a hardness ratio and the low end of a hardness ratio, and if we're going to -- if you consider making a band of water hardness that you're going to test within, make sure that that band is geographically available everywhere across the United States, just for instance, If it says, you know, there is an extreme of being too high, but if there's a limit that you say you want to be in this band is -- I know where our factory is, we have really good water, and don't make it so that the band is a higher hardness than we can geographically get. That's all. MR. LLENZA: Well -- this is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. We would welcome information on this, because the problem is for us to put a range that we have no knowledge of, I mean I don't think we're water experts. I don't know if EPA would have any additional information from our end. So the question becomes, you know we're not Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 163 against it, but we just don't know exactly what we should be establishing in terms of a reasonable band. Now I could understand the problem and you want to -- you want to be able to have at least a metric that puts a limit, a low and a high end limit so that you're not -- you're within some reasonable bound, but I don't think we know what is a reasonable bound for this. But my point is, give us something that we can put on the books that's reasonable, that we're going to be able to meet in most markets, and that's really going to be where the cut off point for any piece of equipment performing or not performing is going to be. We just don't know. MR. BROOKMAN: Are we ready to move on now? Let's go. MS. WIDDER: All right. Thank you. The next issue that the Department considered in amending the test procedure is what purge setting to test automatic commercial ice makers at. Both AHRI 810-2007 and ASHRAE Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 164 Standard 29 require that ice makers be set up pursuant to the manufacturer's instruction. This may not capture the maximum potable water consumption of the unit for units that have multiple purge settings. DOE has not -- in a preliminary market analysis, DOE has not determined a wide availability of units that have multiple purge settings. There's one major manufacturer that DOE has identified, but this is definitely a concern. However, because DOE is not regulating potable water, this measure would have the greatest impact on potable water, and minimal impact on energy consumption and condenser water use. There's also not sufficient data available to validate how ice makers are installed in the field, and so DOE at this time is proposing not to require testing of automatic ice makers at the highest purge setting, but DOE will continue to investigate this issue by gathering data related to national water hardness, the difference Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 165 between manufacturer specified and maximum purge settings, and the way ice makers are typically installed in the field. And DOE requests comment on testing units at the highest water consumption setting, and specifically, data related to its further analysis. MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. MR. MAPLES: Hoshizaki supports testing our ice machines how they leave the factory. That's how we design them to be run. We have a control circuit that covers many different machines, and each one is different. So we can't -- there may be a maximum purge setting that's available to you, but we send it out of the factory as we intend for it to be installed. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Excuse me one second. (Off the record comments) MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't we take a five minute break, but I don't want to take Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 166 too much of a break, because we're very close to -- we're getting toward the tail end of this meeting. MS. WIDDER: Yes. How about can we -- can I suggest that we finish this slide and take any other comments, and then we're at a good breaking point? MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. That sounds good. So let's -- and I guess they can't hear us on the web; we'll make our apologies when they return. MS. WIDDER: Right, and ask them if they have any comments on this. MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Could any of the manufacturers comment on how the maximum purge settings compare to the settings that machines are typically shipped in? MR. ALLISON: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison from Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 167 Scotsman. Yes, the purge level settings on our machines, they can actually go up or down from the as-shipped position. So you know, it can go up, I don't know, a few percent, maybe two, three percent kind of a situation. If it goes up, it can also go down by that much, if it reduces. So if DOE is going to consider some sort of standard where the variability of this is considered, we would advocate more testing at a high maximum flush level setting as well as a minimum flush level setting, and give us credit for that, too. MS. WIDDER: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just to follow up. So you're saying that the difference in water consumption at the high setting is only on the order of three percent higher than the typical setting you ship it in? MR. ALLISON: No, I should clarify. The resulting energy use, I would say of the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 168 machines would vary by about that much. In a worse case type of scenario, we have a lot of machines too where we turn the flush level up and the energy consumption doesn't go up at all. There is a bit of a variance with it. MS. MAUER: Thank you. Could you comment at all on the water consumption difference at different purge settings? The potable water consumption? MR. ALLISON: Yes. The potable water consumption can go up on the order of probably 20 percent. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Greg, did you want to -- MR. ALLISON: And down, yes, it'll go down actually about 30 percent, yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. Pardon me, Greg. Go ahead. MR. MAPLES: Yes, Greg Maples. I was just going to say that our ice machines, you can program them, it's basically per cycle that they pump out, and it can be as much as Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 169 1 every cycle you can pump out, or as little as th 2 every 10 cycle you can pump out. It's 3 basically there as an option depending on your 4 water conditions. If you're in a high scale 5 area, you need to pump out more to protect the 6 ice machine. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 8 comments on this? Daryl. 9 MR. ERBS: A quick comment, yes. I 10 think it's, again, going to be difficult to 11 sort out why this happened, and I would 12 support just as-shipped. I mean, we have a 13 setting, people who have deionized water, we 14 have a setting zero dump. Don't dump 15 anything, because they have water that is so 16 clean that there's no need to. But those are 17 very special situations, and again, I would be 18 concerned about limiting our ability to put in 19 special settings to deal with circumstances 20 out in the real world and confusing that with 21 trying to characterize kind of the typical 22 performance of an ice machine as applied.

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 170 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let's take a five minute break and hope that the telephone line is restored, and we have fewer than 10 slides left. MS. WIDDER: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: So don't go far, stand up, stretch. We hope to resume in literally five minutes. (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 12:20 p.m. and resumed at 12:28 p.m.) MR. BROOKMAN: Our apologies to those that have been joining us online. Apparently the telephone feed in the back room, in the control room has somehow gone down, and they're working on it right now. So maybe it will be restored, we hope it will be. And for everybody listening in or everybody in the room of course, there will be a complete transcript of this meeting available, it will be posted on the EERE website, so -- MR. LLENZA: We also get a video Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 171 disc -- MR. BROOKMAN: Microphone. MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza. We also get a video disc, so I guess we could end up mailing out video disc for those parties who'd like to hear what they missed out. MR. BROOKMAN: It's an actual CD? MR. LLENZA: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Okay. (Off the record comment) MS. WIDDER: No. MR. LLENZA: No. (Off the record comment) MR. LLENZA: No, it's just audio, thank God. MR. BROOKMAN: All of us would have to -- go ahead. Charlie Stephens? No? Okay. So then we're going to proceed. MS. WIDDER: Yes, through the very last section of the presentation today, and this is discussing the burden of testing and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 172 regulatory review. Specifically, this section focuses on the regulatory flexibility analysis, where DOE is required to quantify the burden of testing for small businesses. Under the regulatory flexibility analysis, DOE must determine whether the rule would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE used the Small Business Administration definition of small entities, as shown here, and DOE -- it was difficult to determine what classification automatic commercial ice makers should fall into, but DOE determined to use the air conditioning, warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing classification. The SBA standard for small entities in this industry is less than 750 employees. MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza. I just want to make a little comment also. The definition of Small Businessess Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 173 hasn't changed in the last 20 some odd years, so we're using very outdated definition, but it's what's in the statute, so we're stuck with that. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. WIDDER: Right, this is -- yes. Thank you for that clarification, Charles. DOE found eight manufacturers that fit this description. This is a review, we've already seen this slide, but I just wanted to reiterate, because it's pertinent for this discussion, that in the regulatory flexibility analysis, DOE looks at incremental burden increases. So for the -- because the proposed test procedure amendments would not change significantly the test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds per day, they are not included in this analysis, because DOE determined that they did not have a significant increase in scope or in burden. Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 174 The types of equipment that will have new test procedures established in this proposed rulemaking are batch type ice makers with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours, batch type ice machines that produce other than cube type ice with capacities between 50 pounds and 4,000 pounds per 24 hours, and continuous type ice machines with the same capacity range. So those are the three types of ice makers that we'll be focusing on in the regulatory flexibility analysis. So in the assessment of burden, you can see those three types of ice machines on the left hand side that I just listed, and then this is the incremental testing burden that DOE has determined based on the proposed test procedure. For batch type ice makers with a larger capacity range and batch type ice makers that make other than cube type ice, the incremental testing burden is just performing AHRI Standard 810-2007 like the 50 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 175 to 2,500 pound per day cube type ice machines do already. For continuous type ice makers, the incremental standard will be performing the AHRI 810 standard as well as the standardization of ice quality test. The potential burden for performing AHRI Standard 810 was determined and quantified based on the number of ice makers that would be subject to these new testing requirements that are produced by small manufacturers, and the costs associated with performing that test. DOE, in analyzing the market and from publicly available information, determined that 30 models would be subject to -- 30 currently available models would be subject to new testing requirements. That's an aggregation of all eight small manufacturers, and each company would introduce a new base model each year. Thatwas an assumption that DOE made during a fiveyear analysis time horizon. And DOE did that to try to amortize the testing cost over a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 176 time period, instead of having -- just looking at that one first test requirement year. The costs associated with testing, DOE estimated range between $5,000 and $7,500 to perform the AHRI test, and annual review and filing costs, as two hours of an engineer's time to communicate with the laboratory and file the report, and all annual costs for this calculation are discounted using a seven percent real discount rate as recommended by OMB. For continuous type ice makers, in addition to the additional testing requirements I just described in the previous slide, this slide is just about the ice quality test. So DOE estimates that 20% -- 28% of all automatic commercial ice makers would be subject to this additional test procedure, but when you're looking at the 30 machines that are subject to new requirements, that's 28% of 30, since I'll remind us that we're just talking about small manufacturers Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 177 that are producing automatic ice makers right now. DOE is aware that there are a lot more models of continuous ice makers offered. For the cost associated with this test, DOE estimates that performing this test will require two additional hours of laboratory time to perform the necessary calculations per unit, and estimates that that cost would be an incremental 10% of the cost to perform AHRI, which would be between $500 and $740. These costs would not include those associated with transportation, because DOE assumed the unit would already be there for performing the AHRI test, and this would be incremental on top of that, and again use the seven percent real discount rate. This table is also available in the NOPR, and I'll point out that there was an error in the table published in the NOPR; I'm terribly sorry about that. I don't know if anyone realized it, but the total column here doesn't represent the totals -- or the total Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 178 row doesn't represent the total of the columns in the NOPR. There was an error in copying; I'm sorry about that, and it will be rectified and published for you to reference, but it's also available here correct on this slide. And these costs represent -- this first year is for all small businesses, so all 30 of those models. These are not per small business. This first year is higher because that's testing all 30 of those models for the eight small businesses. And then each year after that is equivalent, because we're assuming each small business introduces one new model that would require testing. And then they're summed on the bottom and this number on the bottom here is the average cost per small business over that entire five-year period. DOE seeks comment on its estimated additional cost of testing due to the new requirements. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the impacts of these additional costs to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 179 small businesses. MR. BROOKMAN: The slide that is in the packet, the photocopy, that's correct. MS. WIDDER: That's correct. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza. My apologies, we did make a mistake in the publication slide, so. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, but the ones we do have in front of you, those are correct. MR. LLENZA: It's been updated. MS. WIDDER: Karim. DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I think the issue is not conducting the test itself. I think the issue is complying with the DOE certification and enforcement requirements, and that's what DOE needs to look at. What will be cost on manufacturers to comply with the federal standard? This is not what you're showing here on the slide, it should be multiplied by a factor of 10 or 100. I don't know, but it's Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 180 not what you have on the slide. With the definition that DOE has on basic model, almost every model that the manufacturer manufactures will have to be tested, in a case the minimum of two tests per model, okay, to establish the ratings. And that has to be somehow factored in, because we are talking about a tremendous cost to the industry. And one solution that could be used, like this alternative energy determination method that exists for other products, is not applicable to ice makers today. So manufacturers have no option to comply with the federal regulation but to test two models of anything they manufacture. And that has not been captured in this slide or any of your analysis. MS. WIDDER: If you have specific recommendations about different numbers we should use or additional burdens that we've not accounted for, I would welcome those recommendations. Also I would, although this Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 181 is not the appropriate venue, I think, Charlie, we would also welcome comments on the definition of a basic model for ice makers. MR. LLENZA: There's two things here. MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, Department of Energy. I think this is just an illustrative sampling of what the testing burden would look for the manufacturers in terms of up and running, getting your testing program up and running. But yes, I think Karim is right that there's an additional testing burden requirement that has been instituted from the compliance and certification program, which I think is not in the OMB circular. So what this table is illustrating is what we have to, at a minimum, put together because of the OMB circular on of the burden of testing for small businesses. The problem is that this is augmented by the compliance and certification Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 182 testing program here at the Department. So I think the numbers are just illustrative, but it gives you an idea, and I think that we would welcome written comment as to the additional burden of testing based on the certification and compliance program the Department has taken upon itself. MR. BROOKMAN: So other additional comments on this table and other costs associated with compliance. MS. WIDDER: Okay. In addition to quantifying the costs, DOE also has to determine, per EPCA, the significance of that cost on small businesses. DOE determined in this rulemaking the significance by comparing the incremental cost of performing the tests to the net profit of small manufacturers. The average industry net profit margin was estimated at 7.74%, and this is all from publicly available information. And the total increase in testing burden amounts to, by a calculation, .8% or 1.2% for the low and high Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 183 end testing cost estimates. DOE has determined that the proposed test procedure, with these incremental burdens, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis beyond what has already been performed is not warranted. DOE seeks comment on its reasoning that the proposed test procedure would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. MR. BROOKMAN: Comments in response to item 15? MS. WIDDER: All right, thank you. And we've reached the end of the meeting. Charlie. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Charles. MS. WIDDER: Charles has a few more -- do you want to go to CCE? Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to pass around this evaluation form also. But Charles Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 184 has a few more issues that he wishes to raise. MR. LLENZA: Okay, I think before we go to any closing remarks from the parties attending, I just wanted to point out a couple of things. We have a method of providing comments, and here's the different e-mail or you could hand deliver something via courier. There's the e-mail link, or you could also send us something by mail. And just please make sure that you're including the title, the docket number and the regulatory RIN number so that we have it cataloged the right way. Also, please note that the comment period ends June 3. There's additional links here in the presentation on slide 54 here, where we will provide either updates to the presentation or to the material that was handed out today. We will also post additional information on the actual rulemaking, so you know, these are the links. You certainly can send me an e-mail with your inputs, complaints, additional information, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 185 and I've also provided my supervisor, the Supervisor for Appliance Standards, for any comments if that's needed. In terms of the backup slides, we've provided a bit on the definitions. Some of the nomenclature we added. I wanted to take note here that the prescribed standards are out there, and they have been effective since January 1, 2010, which brings up the issue of reporting requirements. And while it's not the intent of this particular meeting, we have certification requirements, and to please go to www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms for electronic submissions on the compliance for -- on the reporting requirements for the prescribed standards for automatic ice makers. In addition, we -- Karim had spoken about the initiative on DOE's AEDM/ARM program, and we're seeking input on that -- well, yes, we're seeking input on that. While there isn't anything established right now for Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 186 automatic ice makers, one of the things the parties here attending today should be considering is, in terms of basic model, if instead of having all these testing burden requirements, having to test two basic models, et cetera, the Department has an alternative method for certifying equipment based on models that you create, that then you certify, that then you can use in calculating and certifying your equipment. So I would certainly welcome you guys to look at the different websites for the compliance and testing and certification enforcement, and the waiver request also, which is another particular methodology here. So I've included all this in the packet, I just wanted to make sure people did not miss this part; that it's part of the program here at the Department of Energy. So at this point now, we can go to closing remarks. MR. BROOKMAN: Brief summary Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 187 remarks, issues that haven't been covered sufficiently. Joanna. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just one last quick question. Are combination soda ice machines tested just as any other ice maker is tested? Combination soda ice machines, are they tested just as any -- MR. LLENZA: Oh, you mean like when you have a dispensing refreshment, and you push, ice comes in? MS. MAUER: Yes. MR. LLENZA: Is that part of what we're doing? Go ahead. MS. WIDDER: Well I'll let Daryl -- Daryl, were you going to clarify the difference? MR. ERBS: Well, I mean they're -- I know we had an ill-fated attempt with one, but there's -- I don't know, there's probably still maybe a model or two that's truly an integrated, and I mean I know back when we had Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 188 one, we would have tested it just like a normal ice maker relative to its ice making. But I mean, the vast majority of ice beverage dispensers, even though they may look to be integrated, are actually separate pieces that are put together, so the ice making head would just be tested as an ice making head. MS. WIDDER: I don't have anything else to add; that's what I was going to say, but I thought you could as well. Thanks very much. MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments or issues that anybody wishes to raise at this point. Okay, so well then, for my part I'll just thanks to all of you, a very productive meeting, very efficient, and then back to Charles Llenza for thank yous. MR. LLENZA: Okay, well thanks for attending today's proceedings; we do welcome your comments. We are at the stage of listening, and so no comment is too trivial. We also would very much welcome further detail Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 189 on a lot of the issues that we talked about today. Once again, thank you for attending the proceedings today, and the Department welcomes your comments. (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 12:49 p.m.)

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 190 added 61:3,12 advisement 138:13 Alliance 2:3 5:21 amount 27:6 41:4,5 A 106:10 185:6 advocate 167:9 Allison 1:13 5:12 61:5 111:8 133:18 ability149:17 adding 119:20 AEDM/ARM 5:13 29:22 38:7,7 138:10,11 148:19

159:12 169:18 141:5 185:19 38:11 39:1 50:14 157:2 160:22 able 42:20 43:15,15 addition 33:8 42:9 affect 20:6,19,22 50:14 57:17 72:15 amounts 51:10

101:1 115:7 137:1 49:15 116:20 110:16 73:15 74:8,12,15 182:21 150:22 155:4 161:22 176:13 affiliation 5:4,8 8:2 74:18 79:2 84:7,7 Amrane 1:14 5:22 163:4,11 182:11 185:18 95:11 85:2 93:16 97:14 5:22 23:17,17 above-entitled 95:1 additional 8:16 9:8 Agency1:19 97:14 127:12 85:10,10 105:13

170:9 12:20 20:21 31:1 agenda 7:1,3 158:5,5 166:20,22 105:13 117:6,6 absence 157:16 33:10 34:10 61:12 ages 127:20 166:22 167:21 121:8,8 128:11

158:1 98:22 103:18 aggregation 175:17 168:10,15 139:18 140:17 absolute 134:1 109:14 112:21 ago 83:17 allow 81:11 83:4 179:13,13 absolutely23:5 121:22 139:3 agree 64:17 73:2 129:11 analogy 71:2,5

127:2 141:5 144:19 77:18 82:4 84:9 allowed 155:12 75:20 116:17 absorbed 42:16 146:11 153:14 88:8 106:7 149:12 allowing 133:21 123:2 accept 139:11 154:3 156:2 agrees 45:16 63:7 allows 131:20 analysis 15:8 16:2

152:1 162:21 169:7 ahead 12:17 46:19 136:10 98:12 101:2 164:6 acceptable 154:17 176:13,18 177:6 49:16 50:13 74:3 altered 79:17 165:7 172:3,6 accepted 147:17 178:20,22 180:20 85:12 107:19 alternate 28:3,13 173:13,20 174:12

148:2 181:14 182:5,8 134:19 135:12 41:11 77:21 175:21 180:17 accessible 10:9 184:14,19,22 161:8,9 168:18 alternating 19:20 183:7 accommodate 188:12 171:18 187:14 alternative 180:10 analyzing 175:12

51:15 70:11 Additionally18:4 AHRI 21:15,20 186:6 and/or 9:8 154:19 address 60:19 86:3 23:17 25:1 27:16 Altman 1:13 6:3,3 animal 54:10 accomplish 128:21 148:1 154:1 27:20 28:9,10 12:18 13:1 106:6 Annex 35:6 account 42:15,21 addressed 43:2 29:11 30:2 33:8 106:6 107:20,20 annual 99:9 176:5

98:1 104:9 addressing 149:9 37:20 71:13 85:10 117:11,11 131:12 176:8 accounted 50:9 Adjournment 3:11 85:21 92:7 97:3 131:12 150:18,18 answer 9:3 108:22

52:4 75:2 180:21 adjusted 37:10 105:13 108:11 ambiguity 91:1,11 anybody7:7 10:6 accounting 55:5 46:15 78:19,21 112:8 117:6 118:9 amend 14:4,7 10:15 29:20 accounts 36:6,10 adjustment 37:3,22 121:9 128:7 47:17 120:19 140:12 157:21 accuracy 35:19 41:8 80:18 139:16 142:1 131:20,20 188:13 accurate 36:11 adjustments 47:9 144:5,18 151:6,17 amended 11:12 anymore 41:15 achieved 81:4 48:5 163:22 174:22 13:17 14:8 20:5 anyway158:18 Act 11:12 Administration 175:4,7 176:5 80:2 151:1 apologies 166:11 action 21:9 172:9 177:10,14 179:13 amending 111:18 170:12 179:7 activities 155:3,8 adopt 27:22 47:7 air 5:22 63:8,14 163:20 Apparently 170:14 actual 30:9 47:3 151:21 67:14 69:19,21 amendment 21:11 appears 153:3

78:2 117:2 120:2 adopted 14:1 18:20 70:7,8 75:6 76:5,7 58:16 90:14 93:12 apples 41:14,15 128:22 131:8 adopting 47:18 76:12,12 83:15 amendments 3:5 45:6,6 148:9 158:10 151:20 87:14 127:21 7:12 8:22 17:5 appliance 1:20 171:8 184:19 advance 16:8 172:14,14 20:8,9 21:6 96:9 5:18 110:4 123:7 adapted 43:19 44:5 advanced 123:20 airplane 86:16 96:12,18 152:20 185:2

46:14,15 advantage 81:2 airport 26:18 173:15 appliances 108:4 add 78:12 83:4 87:2 Air-Conditioning America 1:19 6:16 108:17

127:18 148:5 advent 123:19 1:14 amortize 175:22 applicable 120:18 188:9 

### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 191 180:12 Ari 1:13 6:3 13:19 61:8 101:17 available 9:11 120:10,11,11 application 26:7 14:1,6,9 17:2,15 175:20 21:18 71:22 78:16 131:2,3,3 149:19

55:12 56:8 59:20 17:16,20 21:14,22 assumptions 105:7 80:6 88:17 89:14 149:22 61:17 63:8,12 23:19 106:5,6,22 assured 161:11 104:22 105:10 Baltimore 4:9 74:6,7 133:16 107:19,20 117:11 as-shipped 167:3 129:6 138:21 band 154:17 162:4 134:4 131:12 141:22 169:12 139:20 140:10,15 162:6,10,13 163:3 applications 24:14 150:18 attach 59:16 78:20 162:6 164:16 bars 109:3

24:19 26:15 45:18 Ari's 72:2 attempt 187:19 165:15 170:20 base 175:19 54:6,9 56:14,18 arrange 100:7 attending 10:4 175:13,15 177:17 based 18:7 31:13 61:22 82:22 134:6 ASHRAE 17:3,20 77:10 184:4 186:2 178:5 182:20 33:13 37:4 39:6 134:12 135:5 21:17,17,21,22 188:19 189:2 Avenue 1:8 61:4 65:10 109:16 146:12 24:22 27:16,21 attractive 80:10 average 155:6 113:4 141:3 applied 44:8,10 30:10 32:11 35:7 audio 171:15 178:16 182:18 144:12,13 150:12

97:4,7 169:22 36:4 41:20 43:2 audited 158:15 averaged 81:8,15 150:16 174:17 applies 25:21 63:20 45:19 51:13 52:9 auditing 158:10 83:6 175:8 182:5 186:7

150:2 71:13 85:21 91:2 augmented 181:22 aware 70:18 140:20 basement 94:16 apply46:12 91:9,17 92:1,7,16 Australian 112:17 158:17 160:6 basic 140:7 145:2 appointed 159:19 92:21 142:1 144:5 authority14:4 177:2 180:2 181:3 186:3 appreciable 63:15 147:16,17 151:6 47:16 105:21 Awareness 1:20 186:5 appreciate 44:17 151:17 163:22 106:4,12 107:10 5:19 basically 23:6

149:2 aside 150:1 108:11,15,21 awfully131:4 36:14 47:1 56:1 appreciated 152:8 asked 116:21 117:8,15,16,21 a.m 1:8 4:2 95:2,3 82:14 121:12 approach 53:6 143:16 145:12,13 120:1 121:1,3 A.1 35:8 168:21 169:3

69:18 73:2 80:13 asking 69:5 119:14 122:6 131:10,20 A.2 35:8 basis 11:6 41:12 97:15 145:11 143:13,13 144:5 132:6 150:1 A.3 35:21 71:14 110:13 approached 85:1 156:18,20 157:10 authorizes 11:19 A1 36:4,14 116:13 121:15 approaches 84:14 aspect 126:1 automatic 1:3 4:6 125:2 129:1 B appropriate 10:14 aspects 107:16 4:16 8:20,22 bat 137:4 back 8:7 10:19 23:12 24:5 29:7 assembly78:18 11:21 14:3,5 batch 12:8,10 14:12 15:7 18:22 35:11 46:10 49:5 assessment 123:8 18:11,22 19:9,11 13:10 19:14,15,16 29:17 41:21 43:11 53:7 56:9 82:18 174:13 20:15 24:13 28:4 19:19 22:6,17 56:21 79:14 94:3 83:14 84:20 114:8 assign 64:7 28:6 58:18,22 27:22 28:2,7,16 94:14 96:7 101:12 129:20 145:17 assigning 63:10 59:4,8,10 60:4,8 29:11,14 30:14,15 102:9 104:10 153:12 155:16 associate 32:2 63:4 81:13 90:22 30:16 42:9 44:10 109:6 119:3,13 181:1 38:15 112:18 113:14 46:12 48:10,17 120:12 134:10 April 1:6 4:7 9:3 associated 30:16 120:13,20 129:18 52:12 96:20,22 145:15 149:6 15:21 113:7 123:16 130:6,6 163:21 97:4,5,7,8,9,11,12 151:10 156:4 arbitrary72:21 124:2,11 144:15 164:19 172:12 97:18 99:20 174:3 170:14 187:22 84:18 144:20 175:11 173:16 176:17 174:5,18,19 188:16 area 82:16 88:17 176:3 177:4,12 177:1 185:17 batch-type 99:19 backup 11:16 88:21 107:2 182:10 186:1 beginning 115:15 185:4 110:20 131:14 assume 104:12 auxiliary97:21 begins 58:4 bad 82:9 132:8 169:5 assumed 68:22 98:8 99:1 101:15 behaviors 126:5 badge 94:7,7 argument 83:18 118:8 177:13 106:20 107:16 believe 43:18 46:17 ball 119:5 105:20 assuming 117:14 110:2,6,9 48:12,19 62:12 Ballo 1:15 5:16,16 arguments 99:17 118:13 178:13 availability134:13 70:19 85:13 53:9,10,10 75:5 119:5 152:11 assumption 42:6 164:7 105:21 108:14



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 192 109:1 117:7,10,16 115:12 121:19 10:5 11:1 13:6 155:21 157:8 Businessess 172:22 125:1 132:5 143:19 149:5,8 23:8,14 24:1 25:5 158:4 159:3 160:3 busy94:12 137:18 168:5 185:5 25:14 27:11 29:3 161:7,20 163:16 button 5:6 believed 91:1 92:1 bits 51:10 29:16 30:4,22 165:8,18,21 166:8 buy67:4 82:8 believes 20:18 21:6 Bittner 1:16 5:9,10 31:3,9,20 32:3 166:14,21 167:14 99:16 103:18

62:2 91:11 97:2 32:2,4,15,18,22 33:3 38:6 40:9 168:13,17 169:7 buying 67:6 98:19 131:6 132:16 45:15 46:3 48:7 49:17 56:12 63:7 43:8 44:12,20 45:4,13 46:2,4 170:1,6,12 171:2 171:8,10,17 173:5 C benchmark 101:7 74:4,9,13,17,20 47:20 48:6 49:2 179:2,5,9 181:6 C 1:18 101:9 79:10 49:16 50:11 51:4 182:8 183:13,18 calculate 130:5 beneficial 77:19 block 35:15,17 52:7 53:9,19 54:2 183:21 186:22 calculated 19:2 bent 15:4 160:19 boat 57:4,4 54:7,19 55:10 188:12 76:4 91:4,13,16 Berringer 1:15 Bob 32:2,3 45:14 56:11,21 57:15 brought 75:5 155:1 calculating 51:14

95:19,19 48:6 49:16 56:11 58:9,12,14 63:6 Bryan 1:15 95:19 133:4 186:9 best 8:4 42:6 55:5 63:6 73:19 74:3 64:9,12 65:1 67:9 BTU 63:22 calculation 35:4

81:16 79:9 68:12,17 70:22 BTUs 36:16 90:21 92:2,8 better 85:20 102:12 body 57:6 72:13 73:18 74:1 BTU's 63:22 101:12 102:3 beverage 26:12 boilerplate 142:15 75:3,17 77:7 78:3 bucket 51:17 118:5 132:16

39:8 54:9 55:14 bolt 32:19 78:13 79:1,8 building 83:19 94:8 176:9 182:22 55:15,17,19,22 bolts 35:3 81:20 84:5,21 146:15 calculations 49:21 56:14,16,18 188:3 books 163:10 85:9 86:4 87:11 buildings 99:21 102:10 112:19 beyond 24:7 40:2,3 bottom 15:20 37:15 87:21 89:19 90:1 built 67:22 177:8

56:16,18 91:5 55:19 178:15,16 90:11,17 92:12 bullet 12:16 17:19 calibrate 35:9 156:10 183:7 bound 163:7,8 93:1,4,10,15,18 88:7 92:15 114:20 calibrating 44:1 bias 77:5 box 25:15 27:12 94:17,20 95:4,14 153:19 California 64:16 big 81:21 98:13 29:17 91:4,15 95:22 97:13,16 bunch 110:15 call 51:11 106:18 109:7,20 110:3 boxes 9:18,18,19 99:4 100:14 101:3 burden 3:8 7:15 119:5,6 144:1 bin 53:21,21 56:1 9:21 15:20 102:4,17 103:2 61:12 78:12 called 142:6 111:19,21 112:1,2 bread 54:13 104:19 105:12 100:21 102:14 calling 106:15 112:6,8,11,13,15 break 7:12 10:6 106:5 107:7 109:4 103:10,17 113:7 calorimeter 35:10 112:20 113:4,20 90:15 93:22 94:1 109:21 111:1,13 113:11 114:3 35:12 36:3,3,13 113:20 114:1,6,9 96:4 122:12 111:16 114:12 141:5 144:12,19 37:14 114:21 115:20 165:22 166:1 115:10 117:5 156:2 171:22 calorimetry 35:7 118:5 122:2,12,18 170:2 118:6,18 119:1 172:4 173:13,22 35:11 37:1 42:13 124:3,22 125:9,13 breaking 166:7 120:10 121:5,17 174:13,16,21 42:15 43:21 44:5 126:10,15,17 brief 4:18 7:1,8 122:22 123:11 175:6 181:10,14 49:8,15 127:5 128:17 10:15 17:6 90:15 124:16 125:17 181:20 182:5,21 Canada 118:20 129:9 186:22 127:11 128:4,10 186:4 Canadian 112:16 bins 112:9 113:3,8 bring 127:7 132:6 128:13 131:2 burdens 180:20 118:11,14 129:13 113:14 117:9 154:10 132:14 133:7 183:4 Canadians 124:6 121:14 122:5,9,10 bringing 81:22 134:9 135:12,22 burdensome 14:20 Canadian's 118:10 124:19,21 125:4 116:4 137:10 139:8,12 58:7 62:4 can’t 156:4 127:15 128:8,8 brings 185:9 140:13 141:9,16 business 172:9 capabilities 86:11 bit 7:4 9:14 11:8 Britt 1:16 6:7,7 142:13 145:20 178:9,13,17 capable 80:8 85:22 15:1 24:3 76:8,10 Brookman 1:8,11 147:14 148:4 businesses 172:4 103:15 82:4 88:3,7 99:11 3:2,10 4:3,8,22 149:4,19 150:10 178:7,11 179:1 capacities 11:14 100:20 101:11 5:11 6:13,17,19 152:14 154:7,12 181:20 182:14 12:9,12 13:12,14



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 193 17:18 18:1 19:21 certain 47:5,10 183:18,19,22 187:16 127:16 136:4 21:2 22:18 24:15 134:6 156:20 188:17 clarity38:20 137:21 140:15 63:9 79:12 80:9 157:2 Charlie 2:3 5:20 classical 110:11 160:15 173:18 174:4,7 certainly56:15 16:20 17:2 19:22 classification comes 30:19 36:7 capacity18:18 22:2 117:15,22 119:19 25:17,18 46:4,5 172:12,17 37:14 53:17 57:3

25:2 26:3 37:8 131:19 156:1 46:20 47:20,22 classified 30:20 58:4 75:16 105:2 49:12 51:20 63:21 184:21 186:11 64:13,14 75:4,17 clean 169:16 105:4 117:13 65:10 67:21 68:7 certification 129:5 75:19 86:4,5 88:9 clear 47:6 84:1 119:21 145:7 76:12,15 77:1 140:21 155:2,10 99:4,5 102:17,18 91:12 92:2 106:3 146:16 187:11 78:15 80:3,5,9,11 156:6 157:1 118:6,7 123:11 106:11 107:5 coming 16:21 17:9 80:12,15,19,21 179:16 181:16,22 135:22 136:1 109:8 113:13 56:6 133:1 81:3,5,7,13 82:3 182:6 185:12 140:13 157:8,12 141:18 159:13 comment 9:6 10:1 83:5 86:18 87:16 186:13 160:3 171:18 cleared 6:22 22:20 25:15 26:22 88:3,22 89:10,12 certify186:8 181:2 183:17 clearer 107:3 28:21 29:2,17,18 89:15 90:7 102:20 certifying 186:7,10 chase 157:17 161:5 clearly48:16 75:15 38:2 39:19 40:8 120:21 146:4 cetera 100:19 chasing 158:2 120:22 122:19 40:11 49:1 54:5 174:9,19 186:6 checked 6:21 159:6 63:2 73:19 78:6 capture 30:15 CFR 58:17 75:7 chevrons 15:3,4 close 31:15 166:1 81:11,17 87:13 42:18 50:18 164:3 91:5 chew 161:3 closing 3:9 184:3 92:5 97:10 98:21 captured 180:16 change 58:17 76:17 chill 50:1,8 147:5 186:20 100:19 103:4 care 43:7 161:4 120:8 145:17 chilled 32:8 48:14 Clothes 123:4 108:18 114:7 carefully131:4 158:22 173:15 49:20 51:15 55:3 codified 137:22 124:18 125:19 carry 122:15,15 changed 156:17 55:8 146:2,13 codify137:17 130:22 134:18

154:6 173:1 chilling 57:3 coffee 94:9,13 147:16 152:14 case 37:15 39:9 changes 22:12 148:15 cold 55:18,20 56:2 165:4 166:16

56:4 66:12 67:16 changing 17:5 choose 84:12,18 56:4,7 168:7 169:9 70:15 71:6 76:11 39:13,14 40:11 116:8 151:21 colleague 16:19 171:11,14 172:21 89:17 115:20 characteristic choosing 117:19 collect 25:11 30:12 178:19,21 182:4 117:14 124:10 153:21 chose 28:16 38:17 102:1 120:5 183:9 184:13 130:12 134:1 characteristics 90:20 114:4 142:16 188:21 168:2 180:4 65:4 135:3 Christopher 1:18 collected 48:18 comments 7:20 8:6 cases 40:17 71:10 characterize 95:12 142:15 146:3,8 8:16 9:4,8,9 24:10

72:8 99:19 126:12 169:21 circuit 165:12 collecting 144:6,8 25:2,15 27:12 126:17 Charles 1:11 3:4 circular 181:17,19 collection 32:9 31:1 33:4 35:5 Casey1:22 6:9 4:13 7:16 8:17,18 circumstances 142:10 144:20 41:19 44:8,13,17 cataloged 184:12 44:14 46:22 77:7 169:19 column 177:21 45:19 49:5 52:9 categories 30:21 77:8 92:12,13 clarification 10:2 columns 178:1 54:20 55:2,3,9,9

122:13 100:14,15 102:4 68:19 77:18 92:3 combination 58:11 61:19 68:15 category 82:11 109:4 116:15 147:1 173:7 102:11 125:5,11 72:16 73:13,22 cause 113:10 114:3 119:11 121:17 clarified 18:19 19:1 187:5,7 78:4,7 84:6 93:11 cautious 156:18 137:10,11 142:13 20:16 90:20 92:4 combinations 76:5 93:20 100:12 CCE 183:20 144:17 148:4 97:5 127:15 103:3 108:6 CD 171:8 149:8 152:15 clarify18:9 20:13 combine 126:20 109:12 114:12 cell 8:12 155:21,22 158:9 26:11 28:8,11 come 57:11 68:3 117:18 118:1 Celsius 123:22 162:16 171:3 39:20 47:13 48:1 70:12 72:20 75:11 121:6 123:13 central 69:19 79:13 172:20 173:7 58:18 65:15 69:3 83:13 85:5 86:2 124:9 127:13 centralize 26:20 179:6 181:6,7 147:10 167:21 105:1 110:10 129:17 130:2



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 194 135:21 139:11 153:10 83:2 126:21 134:5 conflict 149:15 107:15 152:19 146:12 147:13 complexities 126:3 136:16 169:18 confusing 13:8 186:3 149:2,8 152:7 144:15 149:9 concluded 189:5 145:21 169:20 consistent 14:8 154:6,13 165:20 complexity126:22 concrete 26:6 confusion 75:13 constant 35:13 166:6,13 169:8 compliance 13:18 concur 67:11 106:19 36:4,13 37:1,14 181:2 182:9 155:2,10 156:22 condenser 18:6 Congress 106:2 43:21 183:13 184:6 181:15,22 182:6 33:12 34:16 38:3 108:2 120:17 construction 67:13 185:3 188:12,20 182:10 185:15 59:7,13 60:12,14 131:14,17,21 consume 27:6 39:5 189:4 186:12 63:2 66:7,8,9 67:1 132:3,8,12 137:16 111:7 115:18 commercial 1:3 4:6 complicated 73:7,8 74:6,11 137:20 consumed 49:20

18:11,15,22 19:9 121:19 122:17 76:16 78:16 130:8 conjunction 124:22 57:19 98:3 147:2 19:11 20:15 24:13 138:7 130:17,18 144:7 connect 71:22 147:5 24:14 26:1,7 28:4 complication 122:7 164:14 connected 18:12,13 consumer 107:12 28:6,6,13 31:12 complications condensers 78:9 18:15 58:20 60:13 138:18,20 58:19 59:1,4,8,10 149:10 condensing 18:11 61:22 62:1 72:17 consumers 39:14 60:4,8,22 63:4 complimentary 20:15 58:20,22 79:19 129:6 150:9 81:13 90:22 75:9 59:4,9,12,16,17 connecting 69:6 consuming 98:2 107:17 108:4,16 comply118:21 60:8,10,22 61:2 71:17 111:4 115:7 112:18 113:15 179:19 180:14 61:15,18 62:1,2 consensus 145:8 consumption 18:7 120:13,20 129:19 complying 179:15 62:20,21 63:4,9 conservation 11:10 20:7,20 21:8 25:8 130:7 163:21 component 48:8 63:21 64:7 65:5,9 11:12 12:3,6,7 25:11,13 26:19 172:12,15 173:17 69:22 75:9,10 65:13,17,20 66:1 13:18 15:5,10,15 33:12 34:5,16 176:17 comprehensive 66:14 67:4,15,18 16:1,3 96:14 38:4 39:16,22 commercially 15:17 68:1,9,20,21 69:6 119:22 149:14 60:11,17 62:11,13

89:14 compressing 16:11 70:17 71:9,21 conservative 68:21 69:8 73:4,6 commercially-av... 59:17 72:7,19,20 74:7 145:11 81:19 90:22 91:16

80:5 compression 74:22 74:14,15 79:15,20 consider 39:4,19 91:18 92:9 98:11 commodity26:9 compressor 59:6,9 113:12,18 40:7 88:12,13 98:17 100:5 common 55:12 59:12,22 60:1,12 condition 112:5 108:13,21 112:11 101:15 105:17 commonly104:22 60:14 61:8 62:20 conditioner 70:8 115:7 119:15,16 106:21 110:14,20 communicate 63:1,11,12,14 76:12 127:5 129:17 117:9 130:6 135:7

176:7 73:7 74:10 76:7 conditioners 70:9 154:15 159:20 135:8 144:7,9 company63:7 76:16 80:14 conditioning 6:1 162:4 167:7 148:9 149:21

175:18 124:12 69:20 75:6 76:7 consideration 7:21 150:5 152:22 compare 69:17 compressors 80:8,9 83:15 87:14 45:16 53:12,18 153:3,8,17 155:15

71:2 166:17 compressor/cond... 172:14 110:9 158:14 164:4,14 compared 41:12 75:1 conditions 154:20 considerations 165:5 167:17 comparing 182:15 compromises 135:9 169:4 133:11 168:4,7,9,11 comparison 41:15 concentration conduct 14:21 16:5 considered 14:16 consumptive 100:6

45:6 129:1 153:6,21 69:13 24:7 38:18 50:6 100:7 complaints 184:22 concept 88:11 conducted 15:6 60:20 96:9,16 Contacts 3:9 complete 102:15 123:10 conducting 15:7,12 111:18 114:11 contained 113:12

170:19 concern 109:9 179:14 118:2 128:2 130:3 115:21,22 122:2 completely33:18 133:17 147:7,22 conduction 44:2 132:13 152:9 container 32:6,7

33:20,21 35:15,16 154:22 159:17 configuration 73:4 163:19 167:9 48:11,12,13,19 42:7 52:22 155:14 164:10 74:19 considering 12:7 50:17,18 51:8 complex 127:13 concerned 82:1 confirm 78:17 13:2,13 98:10 53:13



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 195 containers 123:16 67:15 68:6 130:12 119:7 136:7 142:5 150:5 168:21 53:12 content 11:3 32:8 coolers 18:16 170:19 169:1,2 decision 114:7

34:21 36:1,15,17 cooling 40:18,21 cover 8:15 17:13 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 115:1 119:4 120:4 36:21 37:18 38:5 42:4,21 49:11,12 19:7,10,14 27:18 3:1 132:3 144:12 38:15 39:9 44:3,7 55:17 56:3 57:10 72:10 decisions 109:16 D 56:20 123:5 135:1 57:21 61:5 88:22 covered 11:21 114:17 dangerous 145:5 159:8 99:21 17:17 19:11 20:7 declarification Daryl 1:17 5:14 context 89:11 copy7:2 11:4 20:20 21:8 22:16 93:14 23:2 24:4 26:13 continue 62:10 copying 178:2 22:22 23:12 62:18 dedicated 59:7,11 29:20 30:6 40:9 94:21 96:5 164:20 Corporation 1:16 187:1 60:9,15 61:14,22 40:10 43:20 52:7 continuous 13:13 1:18 5:10 6:12 covering 52:1 62:21 63:9,20 55:10 56:10,14,21 17:22 19:15 21:3 31:5 33:14 45:15 covers 165:12 64:6 65:5,9,12,17 64:9 70:22 71:1 22:6,10,17 26:16 79:10 132:15 create 72:5 126:6 65:20 66:1,6,8,9 81:20 85:11 86:14 27:18 28:1,18,22 Corporation's 159:11 186:8 66:14 69:5 70:17 87:11 93:12 97:16 30:17 31:6 33:10 79:12 credit 49:11 82:18 71:8,9,21 72:18 103:2 105:14 33:15,16,17 34:14 correct 13:8 29:9 123:4 167:12 78:8 109:21 115:10 34:17 36:18 37:13 46:1 49:18 69:4 credited 123:8 default 61:1 118:18 125:18 40:1,16 42:9 69:11 74:12 75:22 criteria 138:22 Defense 1:21 128:13 133:8 46:13 48:10,11,17 106:17 107:4 crystal 133:14 define 47:11 51:8 135:12 154:7 48:21 49:10 50:19 115:4 142:4 cube 11:13 12:9,11 128:8 159:4 160:6 162:1 52:10,14,19,20 148:10 178:5 12:19 13:11 17:17 defined 30:18 169:8 187:15,16 53:8 55:13 130:13 179:3,4,10 18:1,5 19:12,16 33:22 37:2 112:2 data 25:11,13 85:3 133:10,20 146:1 correction 41:13 19:17 22:5 26:17 113:15 85:6 101:20 102:1 146:19,21 147:6 93:1,5 28:5,9,11 29:12 definitely 40:7 102:8,19 121:15 174:8 175:2 corrections 91:6 40:3 44:10 97:1,2 164:10 142:15,17 144:6,8 176:12 177:3 92:22 97:8,9 131:16,22 definition 22:7 153:14 154:3 continuously28:20 correctly118:9 132:4 147:3 28:10,19 29:10 157:18,21 158:6 contrast 69:18 correlates 102:20 173:17 174:6,20 31:6 40:14 97:5 164:15,21 165:6 contributed 98:16 correlation 41:4 175:1 120:13 172:10,22 database 140:11 contribution 68:20 cost 102:13 104:6 cubes 42:10 173:2 180:2 181:3 date 16:17 control 126:9 145:3,10,18 cueing 8:4 definitions 22:4 day4:11 17:19 18:2 158:21 165:12 175:22 177:4,9,9 cup 39:7,11 55:16 27:22 29:1,5,19 19:13 21:3 22:3,4 170:15 178:16,20 179:18 curious 46:16 30:1,8 31:22 22:19 24:8,12,22 controllers 98:5 180:9 182:14,16 current 17:5 19:10 185:5 27:2 84:11 90:7,8 controls 98:15 183:1 21:13 22:21 53:6 degrade 160:9 94:21 102:20,21 111:3 costs 140:9 175:11 59:2 72:11 80:20 degree 36:15 49:12 102:22 158:22 convened 1:7 176:3,6,9 177:11 97:22 145:18 50:2 127:19 173:19 175:1 convenience 116:1 178:6,22 182:9,12 currently 20:10 degrees 34:20,21 days 123:22 convenient 83:8 Council 1:21 21:1,4 78:7 81:6 37:5,5,7,12 38:4 deal 169:19 conversations 8:14 Counsel's 6:4 81:14 91:4 103:19 42:7,11 123:21 dealing 141:6,7 66:19 106:7 117:12 112:16 130:8 deionized 169:13 December 14:1 converts 41:6 131:13 150:19 141:12 175:15 delayed 151:3 15:7 cool 37:4,11 55:20 couple 35:2 51:7 customer 52:2 deleterious 134:22 decertify156:15 57:6 61:5 76:12 103:3 123:13 customers 45:9 deliberating 99:13 decide 87:7 121:22 76:13 184:4 82:7 127:19 135:4 deliver 160:16,17 decided 116:18 cooled 49:6,7,9 courier 184:7 cut 163:13 160:18 184:7 deciding 35:12 63:8,14 67:14,15 course 82:12 87:5 cycle 14:19 59:18 delivers 136:19



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 196 delivery116:22 describe 45:12 88:2 devices 116:10 74:21 17:15 18:4,20 delve 7:11 described 56:15 diagram 58:21 disagrees 31:6 19:8,10 20:8,18 demands 45:17 77:11,16 79:18 difference 30:11,13 disc 171:1,4,5 21:5,11,18 22:13 denominator 37:9 176:14 33:15 73:8 100:10 discard 32:7 48:14 22:15,19 23:6,19 Department 1:1,7 describes 112:9 106:16 107:22 discarded 49:21 24:6,12,20 25:1 1:11,13,15 4:5,15 description 77:20 148:7,17 158:8 50:2,7,8 27:1,17,18,21 4:21 8:7 10:2,7 77:22 91:2 112:7 164:22 167:17 discarding 49:6,18 28:7,15,21 29:15 11:20 12:1,2 173:9 168:8 187:17 discontinuance 31:8 32:13 33:9 13:21 16:8 25:10 descriptive 28:17 differences 31:11 20:16 34:4,15 35:5 37:2 25:12 29:18 31:21 29:10 63:17 discontinue 18:19 37:3 38:1 47:9 39:19 40:7 43:15 descriptor 40:12 different 20:1 91:6 58:16 59:1,2 60:5 46:22 47:2 68:13 design 104:13 32:10 38:13,21 discontinuity28:15 60:6,19 61:10,11 77:9,21 78:9 80:4 165:11 48:20 53:4 54:9 discount 45:7 56:9 61:18 62:2,12,19 80:22 87:4,9 designed 14:18 54:10,12 58:21 176:10 177:16 63:2 65:14 75:15 88:12 89:16 92:14 18:12 58:19 60:13 59:3 60:2 70:3,5 discounted 176:9 80:1,2,17 81:10 95:20 96:8 100:16 66:15,22 67:14,19 70:12,13 76:8 discounting 49:9 81:14,17 83:16 101:6 102:7,19 71:7 160:17 84:13 87:5 107:9 discrediting 49:9 85:11,16 86:6 105:11 107:15,22 designers 64:2 122:14 123:10 discuss 9:1 86:7 90:14,19,20 91:7 109:15 113:6 desirable 135:4 125:22 126:1 discussed 86:7 92:1,5 96:15 97:2 116:16,17 119:12 desire 10:21 127:14 143:19 146:10 97:6,10,22 98:7,9 119:20,22 121:1 detail 44:18,19 149:1 165:13,13 discussing 96:11 98:12,14,19,21 122:5 129:12 47:15 188:22 168:8 180:19 171:22 99:16 101:22 130:1,3 131:6,9 detailed 7:11 184:6 186:12 discussion 11:6 104:3 107:5 137:12,17 138:1,8 details 32:19 109:7 differentiate 59:3 127:6 147:1 111:18 112:11,18 138:19 139:3 determination 146:18 173:12 114:4,6,20 115:6 141:21 143:14,21 98:22 144:10 differentiates 59:2 dispense 55:18 116:8 117:7 144:4,18,22 180:11 differentiation dispenser 55:14,15 120:19 126:2 147:12 150:3 determine 20:5 48:9,16 147:12 55:19 129:8 130:9,15,21 153:20 154:14 36:3 37:2 44:7 148:14 dispensers 188:4 132:18 135:8,16 156:1,11,12 88:15 132:21 differently72:9 dispensing 56:14 139:5,22 140:5,18 162:16 163:19 172:6,11 182:13 76:22 56:17,19 120:15 140:22 141:7 181:8 182:1,7 determined 19:2 difficult 52:16 120:16 187:10 142:10 150:13 186:6,19 189:3 36:22 38:1 60:6 57:12 58:7 72:5 display71:10 82:16 151:5 152:18 Department's 91:8,10 130:15 84:3 127:18 disruptive 127:9 153:1 154:1 155:6

70:14 138:5 143:4 137:14 164:7 155:16 169:10 dissolved 153:5 155:6 157:14 143:15 155:2 172:13 173:20 172:11 159:7,21 159:19 161:12 dependency57:18 174:17 175:7,14 difficulty55:4 distinct 135:5 164:5,6,9,11,17

58:6 82:10 104:11 182:14 183:2 direct 41:3 distinction 107:21 164:20 165:3 111:22 determining 29:6 directed 11:22 110:3 148:22 167:7 172:3,6,8 dependent 57:13 90:21 direction 46:1 distinguish 108:5 172:11,13 173:8

133:16 develop 30:2 107:11,11 distorts 41:8 173:13,20 174:17 depending 122:14 developed 52:10 directions 141:7 docket 184:11 175:12,20,21

134:4 169:3 87:15 directly34:5 document 15:6 176:4,16 177:2,5 depict 150:4 developing 15:16 directs 13:17 24:6 96:15 130:4 177:12 178:19,21 depicts 58:21 96:9 disadvantaging Documents 9:9 179:16,17 180:2 depressing 159:11 development 81:10 161:13 DOE 6:4 12:6,18 182:12,14 183:2,9 derive 46:10 device 116:2,5 disagreements 14:2,7 17:1,7,12 DOE's 8:21 9:5



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 197 66:4,18 113:21 Ed 25:5 68:17 75:5 102:6 98:17,19 99:1,9 20:11 147:20 154:9 90:1,2 95:22 96:1 electric 105:19 99:15 100:4,11,16 EPCA 11:9,12 185:19 101:3,4 104:19 110:5 101:15 105:17 13:17 14:5,11 dogs 54:14 107:7 114:13 electrical 98:15 106:20 107:16 20:3,11 21:9 doing 8:3 16:13 119:1 122:22 103:9 128:19 108:1 109:14 113:15 130:16

23:7 77:3 85:22 134:10,17 141:16 electrically-powe... 110:6 111:4,8 144:13 149:13 98:9 109:3 117:4 149:4,6 154:13 110:7 115:7,18 116:5,16 182:13 126:16 145:8 161:7,8 electricity 110:8,15 117:9 119:12,22 equal 41:12 187:14 EDWARD 1:21 110:19,21 121:11 123:6,8 equally97:19 dollars 145:4 EERE 8:10 170:21 electronic 185:14 124:11 127:17 equation 18:20 domain 140:12 effect 40:18,21 42:4 elements 114:13 128:16 137:12 20:17 91:8,14,18 double 126:6 42:18,22 57:22 elevator 94:10,19 141:13,14 144:7 92:4,6

136:14 149:6 116:4 132:5 149:3 eliminating 154:18 144:18 147:2,4 equipment 13:14 Doug 1:8,11 3:2,10 153:2 160:20 employees 172:19 148:8,15,19 17:13 18:16 20:9

4:8 effective 11:15 En 13:22 149:14 150:4 20:20,22 21:2 DR 23:17 85:10 16:16 185:8 enact 18:5 152:22 153:2,8,16 22:3,16 23:1,13 105:13 117:6 effectively151:8 encourage 8:5 9:7 155:15 156:1 24:11 27:3 59:20 121:8 128:11 effectiveness 82:7 85:16 126:2 157:15,16 158:14 60:22 83:22 85:22 139:18 140:17 111:19 112:3,10 129:8,12,17 160:16 162:16 102:16 104:21 179:13 112:13,15 113:3 ended 156:13 164:13 167:22 110:12 122:1 drain 51:1 53:22 114:2,9 118:5 ends 94:9 184:14 168:4 180:10 127:10 134:13

136:17 148:1 124:19,21 125:6 energy 1:1,7,11,13 181:8 186:19 135:10 138:3,15 drainage 50:20 129:9 1:15 2:3 4:15 Energy's 4:5 139:1 142:18 drains 53:22 effects 115:8 5:21 11:10,11,20 enforcement 140:5 144:15 156:3,12 drawing 103:11 134:22 152:21 12:3,6,7 13:18 140:21 155:3,10 156:13,15 157:3 draws 114:15 153:16 155:15 14:18 15:5,9,15 156:11 179:16 163:14 172:15,16 drive 126:4 127:10 efficiency2:3 5:21 16:1,2 18:6,19 186:13 174:1 186:7,10 drop 51:19 158:19 27:1 41:2,9,14 19:1 20:6,16,19 engineer 64:4 equipment’s 156:5 dryer 123:7 61:9 65:20 66:1,2 21:7 25:8,11,13 79:14 86:21 equivalent 34:19 dual 110:11 76:9,9 82:1,19 27:1,6 30:15 engineered 64:18 178:12 due 98:4,15 154:2 83:3,6,9 84:3 33:12 34:5,7,9,16 67:7 Erbs 1:17 5:14,14

178:20 110:13 115:16 34:18 36:10 37:4 engineer's 176:7 23:2,2,9 26:13,13 dump 135:6 169:14 116:5,7 121:11 37:20 38:3 39:16 enters 130:11 29:20 30:7 40:10

169:14 123:8 127:5 146:5 39:22 41:4,13 enthalpy63:16 40:10 43:6 52:7,8 dust 51:11 157:15 46:22 49:19,22 entire 36:1 62:6 55:10,11 56:22 D.C 1:8 4:8 efficient 27:3 50:3,4,7 56:9 152:1 178:17 64:9,10 70:22 110:16 121:13 60:10,17 61:2,3 entirely62:16 71:1,1 73:12,17 E 125:8 188:16 62:4,6,10,13,22 91:14 123:10 81:20,21 87:12 E 1:16 egregious 137:5 68:21 69:8 73:4,5 entities 172:8,10,18 93:12,13 94:15,18 earlier 7:17 20:1 eight 93:7 173:8 74:22 75:1,1 183:6,12 97:17 103:3

48:8 96:21 149:8 175:17 178:11 80:14,14 81:3,19 envelope 101:12 109:21,22 115:11 158:9 either 21:1 26:4 82:1,19 83:3,9 102:9 118:19 125:19 early4:10 55:9 56:1 67:14 88:8 90:21 91:3,3 Environmental 128:14 133:9 Earth 5:16 53:10 83:3 98:10 107:6 91:12,15,17 92:8 1:18 135:13 154:7,8 120:11 136:13 160:13 92:14 95:13,20,20 envisioning 68:19 159:5 160:4 169:9 Earthjustice 1:15 184:16 96:14 97:22 98:1 EPA 95:12 162:20 187:18 easy84:8 90:19 elaborate 17:8 98:3,8,11,13,14 EPACT 11:12 erected 79:13



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 198 Erica 2:2 95:15 exclusionary 116:20 129:21 47:4 99:8 135:4 22:1 24:8 27:22 139:14 141:11 154:17 146:20 145:21 152:10 132:2 error 177:19 178:2 Excuse 165:18 factor 22:7 35:12 fine 145:9 148:22 food 54:11,11,11 especially26:15 existed 91:2 115:14 37:3 38:1 42:19 fined 156:7,14 footnote 132:10

52:14 74:22 99:13 existing 59:22 51:21 58:6 61:1 finish 7:17 166:5 forever 58:3 126:6 155:13 exists 24:11 146:14 158:16 179:22 finishing 95:6 form 9:9 41:6,7 essence 51:18 180:11 factored 180:7 fired 110:4 122:21 133:14

151:2 expand 17:13 factors 153:6 firm 143:5 159:12 183:22 essential 23:5 27:17 116:19 factory125:10 first 12:16 15:4 format 10:12 essentially30:14 expanded 22:2 162:11 165:11,16 17:10 21:11 35:5 formula 146:9

76:4 132:5 23:10 Fahrenheit 34:20 35:8 38:8 50:13 Forrestal 94:6 establish 83:20 expanding 20:2 34:21 36:16 37:5 51:7 60:20 71:11 forth 8:7 14:11

84:2 120:17 24:7 25:2 116:8 37:7 38:4 73:22 83:16 87:16 157:4,5 121:10,12 140:7 expansion 24:4 fail 158:17 96:19 105:15 found 24:18 97:2 141:2 150:22 expect 15:22 fairly77:2 91:12 108:5,8,18 128:6 97:22 98:14 173:8 180:5 expected 8:8 112:5 faith 135:14 176:2 178:6,9 four 99:14 established 11:10 expecting 16:5 fall 16:16 51:11 fish 57:3,5 fraction 33:19,20

150:20 174:2 experience 83:14 52:15 158:10,12 fit 116:3 173:8 112:4 185:22 150:9 158:15 172:13 fits 84:16 frame 15:15 16:11 establishing 150:14 experimenting falls 53:20 56:2 five 165:22 170:2,8 framework 15:6 163:2 16:11 familiar 48:3 94:4 175:20 24:6,8 96:14 estimated 176:4 expert 70:8 94:5 128:11 five-year 178:17 130:4

178:19 182:19 experts 162:20 fan 81:21 110:5 fix 31:21 freeze 34:10 37:8 estimates 176:16 explain 89:9 far 31:21 45:20 flake 52:14 57:1 37:12 160:22

177:5,8 183:1 100:12 50:14 68:4 84:18 flaked 57:5 freezers 18:16 et 100:18 186:6 explicitly75:8 170:6 flavored 55:21 freezes 28:20 evaluation 154:4 96:12 128:20 federal 9:2 131:3 flexibility138:4 freezing 28:3,13

183:22 express 154:9 179:19 180:14 151:14 172:2,5 57:7 159:11 evaporative 78:19 expressed 107:9 feed 170:14 173:12 174:11 Friday1:5 4:7 evaporator 76:13 expression 112:3 feel 23:11 57:12 183:7 front 179:10

88:18 extends 9:6 65:15 109:13 floor 94:10,15 frozen 33:18,21 evaporators 63:17 extension 23:21 121:2 flow 61:7,9 63:16 35:15,17 37:13 everybody145:7 extent 70:20 fewer 170:3 79:6 88:18,20 41:22 42:8

170:18,18 114:16 field 53:14 64:18 134:21 fuel 110:11,17 evidence 104:15 extra 124:11 66:15 78:18,21 flows 36:8 full 8:9 39:7 80:11 exact 79:16 116:2 extreme 162:9 79:13 150:9 flush 137:14,19 80:12 exactly29:8 61:21 extremely127:18 164:17 165:3 167:10,11 168:3 fully30:7 64:11

65:16 66:21 87:13 e-mail 184:6,8,21 field-erected 63:11 focus 8:11 93:13 94:13 89:7,10 163:1 examined 152:18 F figure 86:21 87:1 file 176:8 focused 106:2 focuses 100:17 153:11 function 56:4 57:10 example 55:12 57:1 face 77:14,15 139:4 filing 176:6 172:2 120:22

137:15 146:14 faced 78:1 fill 39:6 focusing 174:11 functionality examples 57:11 facilitator 1:8,11 final 13:22 15:8,14 follow 8:5 43:9 135:10 excess 42:21 9:15 16:6,15 78:3 48:22 129:8 139:9 functioning 79:5 exchanger 160:7 fact 32:8 40:16 93:20 119:9 141:9 160:5 functions 59:18 excluded 132:13 42:8 43:3 51:1 finalized 142:7 161:10 167:16 fundamental 30:12

150:16 151:9 55:14 87:17 find 18:14 24:12 following 7:3,10 furnace 99:9



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 199 furnaces 103:4 122:5 125:14,15 good 4:3 36:11 guys 145:6 186:11 heard 96:20 118:2 further 10:1 21:9 127:22 133:19 51:12 71:2 73:10 123:13 H 47:17 60:1 65:15 134:7 135:12 75:20 94:21 96:3 hearing 46:9,13 habit 8:3 68:18 77:17 96:16 138:2 143:2 156:4 102:8 107:21 heat 36:6,8,15,17 half 39:7 112:22 147:11 156:9,21 157:2 127:2 131:13 37:8,10 39:3,9 hall 94:9 165:6 188:22 161:9 163:17 133:12 150:19 42:16 44:3,7 hand 16:18 123:19 future 80:7 81:9 167:2,4,6 168:4 154:21 156:8 54:16 86:13 160:7 174:15 184:7 114:11 154:5 168:11,16,18 162:12 166:7,9 heaters 160:10 handed 137:16,20 170:6 171:18 GoToMeeting heating 1:14 6:1 G 138:1 184:18 183:20 184:3 10:12 172:14 gained 101:16 handle 85:20 185:13 186:20 Grant 6:17 help 26:11 157:10 game 36:14 85:12 handler 69:21 187:14 gray107:1 131:14 helpful 23:15 44:9 gaming 85:18 handling 76:5 God 171:16 132:8 68:13,14 75:14 gas 110:4,14 hang 94:11 goes 30:9 51:16 great 33:2 44:18 88:15,16 130:1 gathering 85:6 happen 125:13 54:8,10 55:16 47:15 49:22 79:21 helps 159:6 164:21 happened 169:11 56:1 70:1 84:19 90:13 97:20 Hi 23:2 GC's 107:20 happens 57:8 79:19 110:15 120:2 152:17 high 26:19 52:5 general 6:4 15:1 83:7,11 133:5 136:2,16 greater 24:11,15 159:8 161:14 106:6 117:12 happy139:10 167:6 34:12 35:13 36:20 162:1,9 163:6 131:12 150:2,19 hard 104:15 158:2 going 4:11 5:2 6:22 42:2 43:21 45:22 167:10,17 169:4 generally67:11 159:13,15 7:10 8:3 11:2 47:16 182:22 103:10 114:16 hardness 22:7 16:21 24:3 25:16 greatest 164:12 higher 45:10,11 geographically 33:22 38:9,17 32:18 34:1 40:16 greatly152:7 83:5 162:13 162:6,14 40:20 42:2,3 45:3 41:18 51:10,15,19 green 5:6 15:20 167:19 178:9 getting 4:10 36:11 45:7,11,11 51:14 57:12 68:10 72:10 Greg 6:15,18,19 highest 76:2 134:2 53:16 102:11 51:21 52:5 57:2 76:16 77:14,15,17 44:20,21 51:5,6 164:19 165:5 166:2 181:12 132:19 133:22 84:8,13,15 87:13 67:9,10 78:13,14 history3:3 7:5 11:9 give 52:1,2,3 55:11 134:2,3 152:21,21 96:5,7 105:15 79:18 93:19,19 13:17 56:22 82:18 116:2 153:1,7,13,21 117:20 119:2 124:16,17 147:14 hold 121:14 123:21 163:9 167:12 154:2,10 155:14 120:6 121:21,22 147:15 159:3 holding 54:11 given 61:6 76:6 157:15 158:16 122:8,12 124:13 161:20,21 165:8 honest 128:12 98:18 136:13,18 161:1 162:2,3,4 125:12 126:4,21 168:13,18,19 honestly52:20 136:19 162:13 164:22 127:8 132:19 GREGORY 1:19 135:14 gives 151:14 182:3 hardware 103:18 133:1,3 140:20 Greg's 73:12 hook 67:5 giving 49:10 51:22 harvest 23:22 141:12 143:5 grid 100:3 103:22 hope 170:2,7,17 glad 4:9,10 harvesting 19:20 145:3,9 146:6 grocery18:14 hopefully4:19 gloss 124:3 28:3,14 147:22 151:10 59:21 67:3 90:18 go 12:17 23:3 31:20 harvests 28:20 156:7 157:1 ground 9:16 94:10 horizon 175:21 35:3 38:17 41:21 head 59:5 64:8 158:10,11,13,15 94:15 Hoshizaki 1:19 46:1,19 49:16 69:15 70:16 71:6 158:17,18,19 guess 23:10 40:18 6:16 72:16 79:3 50:12,13,15 51:4 71:17,21 72:6 159:16 160:11 41:1 46:15 48:1,2 125:3 165:9 55:21 67:19 68:1 76:21 88:10 161:16,17 162:3,5 71:11 103:5,22 hot 54:13 68:9 74:3 76:6 126:13 188:6,7 163:11,12,15 117:7 121:9 hotels 26:2 82:7 84:12 92:15 heads 113:13 126:8 167:7 168:20 132:18 133:9 hour 11:15 25:17 94:11 96:18 126:16 137:20 169:10 171:19 157:16 166:9 103:13 105:9 103:17 107:18 hear 8:7 48:2 55:3 183:21 187:16 171:4 hours 13:13,15 109:6,10 119:13 166:10 171:6 188:9 guideline 68:3 17:14 18:3 19:13



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 200 19:22 24:16 25:3 39:10,15 40:1,3,4 120:13,15,15,16 idle 104:12 184:10 25:4 50:20 57:21 40:6,16,16,20 120:18,20,22 II 1:16 incoming 37:6,11 90:10 91:20 100:5 41:5,22 42:5,9,11 121:14 122:20,20 illuminated 5:7 inconsistency 60:7 102:20 112:6,22 42:16 43:1,13,16 123:16,17 124:13 illustrating 181:18 113:10 114:3 174:5,8 176:6 43:20 44:3,4,6,10 124:14,19,21 illustrative 181:9 incorporate 43:20 177:6 44:11 45:2,2,6,8 125:1,8,14,21 182:2 47:10,18 80:1 Howe 1:16,18,18 45:10,17 46:11,12 126:11,12,14,15 ill-fated 187:19 incorporated 13:21

5:10 6:11,11,11 48:10,10,11,14,21 127:15,20,20 imagination 70:10 52:19 113:9 31:2,5,5,11 32:1 49:10,19 50:19,21 129:19 130:7,11 imagine 86:16,17 114:10 129:22 33:13 34:11 41:19 50:22 51:1,10,11 130:12,13,19 immaterial 160:1 incorporating 45:15 53:19,20 51:13,14,20 52:5 131:1,17,18,22 immediate 154:22 112:12 113:8 54:7,8 55:7 63:7 52:12,19,21 53:1 132:1,4,10,17,21 immediately7:3 114:1 79:10,11 132:14 53:5,8,14,20,21 132:22 133:2,2,6 95:5 incorporation 132:15,15 134:9 53:21 54:6,8,9,12 133:13,15,20,21 impact 21:7 102:8 98:10 134:11 145:20,21 54:14,18 55:6,13 134:3,8,16 135:1 104:3 129:2 153:6 incorrect 92:5 hurt 159:9 55:15,22 56:1,6 135:1 146:1,3,14 157:19 161:4 increase 22:16 I 57:1,5,9,14,19,22 58:1,2,19 59:1,4,5 146:16,19,21 147:7,10 152:22 164:12,13 172:7 183:5,11 39:22 40:2 173:21 182:21 ice 1:3,13,17 4:6,16 59:8,10,10,15 153:17 154:1 impacts 178:22 increased 82:18

5:13,15 8:20,22 60:4,8,11,15,17 159:9,13 160:22 impart 135:3 increases 173:14 11:21 12:8,11,19 61:3,6,13,15,19 163:21 164:1,16 implement 143:1 increasing 22:22 13:10,11,14 14:3 62:6,7,10,11,20 164:19 165:2,10 implies 38:12 increment 12:22 14:5 17:14,17,22 62:22 63:4 64:8 168:20 169:6,22 important 30:20 incremental 104:6 18:1,5,8,11,18,22 65:6,10,13 66:5 172:12 173:17,18 34:3 40:13 47:14 173:13 174:16,21 19:6,9,11,12,15 66:13,19,21 67:5 174:3,5,5,6,8,10 110:2 146:22 175:3 177:9,15 19:16,17,18,18,19 67:12,13 69:6 174:14,18,20,20 153:9 182:16 183:4 19:20 20:15 21:3 71:3,16 74:10 175:1,2,5,8 importantly41:1 Independence 1:8 22:6,7,8,9,10,11 76:13,14 79:4 176:12,15,17 impression 117:19 independently 22:17,18 23:3 80:3,5,10,15 177:1,3 180:12 improve 155:18 126:19 24:13 25:3,4,21 81:13 82:2,5,12 181:3 185:17 improving 81:22 indicated 102:10 26:1,3,4,12,17,19 82:15 83:22 86:17 186:1 187:6,6,7 inappropriate indicates 109:19 27:7,18 28:1,2,2,5 88:4 89:2,4 90:22 187:11 188:2,2,3 135:9 individuals 8:4 28:5,6,9,13,16,17 96:13,20,22 97:1 188:6,7 incentivize 84:10 95:4 28:18,19,20,22 97:1,4,6,7,8,8,9 icemakers 11:13 incentivizes 81:9 indoor 76:5 29:13,14 30:15,19 97:10,11 98:5,18 ice-making 69:15 inclined 86:14 inducer 110:5 31:7,12,13,13,15 99:2,18,20 101:14 70:16 71:6,20 124:3 161:5 industrial 24:19 31:19 32:9 33:11 103:7,10,21 72:6 101:18,19 include 19:16 25:21 26:15 27:5 33:13,15,16,16,17 104:11,13 105:9 126:8 31:18 90:20 96:11 31:13 172:15 33:18,19,20,21,22 105:17,22 106:21 ICF 2:2,2 95:15,18 114:5,20 115:5 industry17:11 33:22 34:2,3,4,6,7 110:7 111:4,10,20 139:14 118:4 120:14 20:13 21:12 22:21 34:8,13,13,14,17 111:22 112:1,4,6 idea 54:15 102:13 129:9 130:7,18,20 44:14 47:7,14,19 34:18,19 35:15,17 112:9,18,20,21 138:8 156:9 182:3 151:7 177:11 48:3 63:13,19 35:22,22 36:2,2 113:12,13,15,17 ideas 109:11 included 96:17 78:11 85:19,20 36:16,17,18,18,20 113:18,20 115:16 identified 69:14 173:19 186:16 86:1 87:14 100:18 36:20 37:3,8,12 115:17,19 116:1 80:6 164:9 includes 28:4,12 109:9 141:20 37:13,16,17,22 116:22 117:2,9 identify 43:15,16 including 41:7,13 145:4,16,19 38:15,20 39:3,5,7 119:15,16 120:3 80:4 130:22 144:10 151:20,22 172:18



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 201 180:9 182:18 integrated 187:22 111:22 119:3,17 107:3 117:5,6 knowledge 82:2,4 industry's 23:7 188:5 121:18 122:16,18 121:8 128:10 123:15 162:19

47:1 intend 165:16 127:4 138:6 140:1 140:14 155:1 knowledgeable inferred 123:6 intended 8:15 147:19 150:1 179:12,13 181:13 86:20 inflating 40:4 26:11 152:18,20 156:11 185:18 knows 157:14 information 3:9 intent 135:20 163:19 164:21 keep 8:11 82:15 L

6:21 7:4,11 11:17 185:11 179:14,15 185:10 119:8 161:8 label 138:14,16 30:12 68:13 intentionally issues 3:6 7:8,15 keeping 122:20 141:14 100:20 101:16 159:14 47:13 54:20 85:19 Kent 1:18 95:12,12 laboratory 1:12,17 102:12 105:5 intercepted 91:21 96:8,13 121:7 key7:8 1:22 6:6,8,10 109:16 116:19 interest 100:2,2 137:13 139:7 kilowatt 91:20 176:8 177:7 labs 103:19 159:19 120:5 121:3 129:5 interested 100:11 150:3 153:15 103:11 138:20 139:21 148:18 155:9 159:12 kind 43:3 46:15 language 109:2 large 27:4 67:1,21 143:3 144:21 interesting 137:13 184:1 187:1 54:10 68:3,12 162:17,21 175:14 interfaces 47:3 188:13 189:1 77:13 84:16 76:4 78:15 113:2 larger 26:3,8 59:19 182:20 184:19,22 interject 10:18 item 183:14 102:13 121:10 informative 4:19 International 2:2,2 itemized 17:7 122:11 127:7 informed 101:20 88:21 119:3 95:16,18 139:15 iteration 59:14 132:2 149:16 174:19 infused 50:21 interpret 143:16 it'll 168:15 167:5 169:21 ingredient 54:12 largest 68:2 latent 37:7 interpretation I’ll 23:3 kinds 85:19 104:17 initial 117:18 85:18 152:10,11 knew 32:15,18 J law 149:10,16 J1:22 initially18:21 interpreted 29:13 know 11:9,11 23:4 leach 53:3

89:13 interrupt 46:21 26:19 40:4,15 initiative 185:19 January11:15 12:1 lead 33:7 introduce 6:14 41:10 50:17 52:11 16:17 185:9 leap 134:19 135:14 input 49:19,22 50:3 95:9 175:19 52:15,20,22 53:17 128:16,19 185:20 Joanna 1:20 5:18 leave 159:4 165:10 29:3,4 54:2,3 65:2 introduced 133:18 57:7 62:5 67:17 leaving 125:10 185:21 introduces 178:13 67:22 70:10 72:3 inputs 184:22 65:3 87:22 88:1 150:1 111:1,2 128:5,6 introductions 3:2 82:22 84:18 85:7 led 5:6 87:17 inquiry33:5 5:1 9:14 86:19 91:10 100:8 inserted 89:17 129:7 150:10,11 left 42:11 85:20 166:14,15 167:14 inventory60:16 103:12 104:2,12 94:11 96:1 131:15 Inserting 93:6 investigate 164:20 105:16 106:22 installations 26:21 167:15 187:3,4 131:21 170:4 job 36:11 investigation 83:13 108:6 110:3 174:15 installed 164:17 invite 55:8 146:11 115:12 117:13 165:3,17 join 10:21 legally135:18 joining 10:6 170:13 invoke 142:22 118:21 124:7 legislation 106:1 instance 86:13 143:8 125:15 126:4 jump 136:11 120:2 143:10,17 jumping 139:19 162:8 involved 139:7 128:14 132:21 145:12 Institute 1:14 6:2 140:9 135:21 136:6,8 instituted 181:15 June 9:7 184:14 legitimate 134:6 Justice 5:17 53:11 ion 153:5 140:3 157:11,20 legwork 127:7 instruction 164:2 irrelevant 143:9 157:21,22 158:1 120:12 lengthy 29:10 justified 98:20 99:3 instrumentation isn’t 114:14 159:5 160:10,21 letting 52:18 103:13 issue 9:19 11:20 161:4 162:8,11,20 instruments 103:14 116:13 let's 13:10 32:22 justify127:3 158:2 14:12 27:12 41:20 162:22 163:1,8,15 44:12 51:4 72:13 insulated 123:19 60:5,19 77:13 167:3,4 177:20 insulating 112:7 93:22 95:9 106:3 78:1 85:15 97:21 179:22 184:20 K 121:11 127:5 insulation 123:20 98:13 102:9 108:1 187:19,20,22 Karim 1:14 5:22 163:17 166:9

23:8,16,17 75:21 insure 52:17 108:7,9,19 109:20 knowing 86:14 170:1 integral 115:21 110:11,18 111:18 136:18 157:17 85:9,10 105:12,13 

### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 202 level 24:5 35:19 77:7,8,9 92:10,12 looks 173:13 127:15 132:17,22 113:12,15 120:20

38:19 43:2 50:2 92:13,13,20 93:8 lose 124:14 138:2 146:1 123:17 129:19 109:10 134:19 100:14,15,16 losing 51:12 158:14 159:1,15 130:7 146:19,21 143:1 167:1,10,11 102:4,5 109:4,5 losses 103:6 105:22 165:10,13 166:18 147:7,10 163:22 168:3 116:15,16 119:11 lot 38:12,13,20 167:2 168:1,3,20 164:1,16,19 165:2 levels 135:17 119:12 121:17,18 43:16 52:13 64:16 174:5,8,14 175:1 172:12 173:17 141:15 137:10,11,12 64:20,21 70:5,7 176:20 187:6,8 174:3,10,18,20 licensed 64:4 142:11,13,14 83:13 96:3,12 magnitude 98:18 175:2,8 176:12,17 life 126:14,14 144:17,18 148:6 113:4 122:16 99:8 153:16 177:1,3 180:12 lighting 98:6 148:13 151:10,19 126:12 136:3 mail 184:9 181:3 185:17 likewise 45:5 118:4 152:15 155:20,21 138:7 139:6 140:8 mailing 171:5 186:1 limit 40:6 42:13,19 155:22,22 157:9 140:19 168:2 main 35:11 100:16 making 19:19,20

43:3,22 45:21 162:15,16 170:22 177:2 189:1 maintain 24:21 26:4 28:17 49:19 56:13 133:18,20 171:3,4,9,13,15 low 133:2 162:2 major 147:19 55:21 59:5,11,15 134:5 162:10 172:20,21 179:6,7 163:6 182:22 164:9 60:11,15,17 61:4 163:5,6 179:11 181:4,6,7 lower 45:10,11 majority72:10 61:13,16,20 62:7 limited 44:2 82:2 181:8 184:2 187:9 54:16 82:19,19 188:3 62:11 63:1 65:6 101:21 105:8 187:13 188:17,18 89:3 134:3 maker 8:20,22 14:5 65:10,14 66:5,13 limiting 134:12,12 load 83:5,19,21 lowest 89:15,15 19:7 28:1,2,3,9,16 66:20,21 67:5 169:18 85:22 low-quality133:2 28:19,19 29:13,14 69:7 71:17 79:4 line 9:11 15:18 loading 82:16 36:19 59:8 60:4 89:2 96:17 98:4,6 M 78:18 107:1 loads 82:15 99:21 62:6 80:15 86:18 98:16 99:2,18,21 machine 29:7 142:20 160:15 locked 148:20 88:4 96:14 97:6 111:4,11 113:13 30:14,19 39:13 170:3 long 36:5 50:22 97:10 98:18 116:22 119:4 41:5 42:12 49:19 lines 11:9 53:2 88:9,14 106:21 113:17,18 126:12,16 130:10 50:1,4 52:21 link 184:8 99:22 113:21 120:13,22 131:1 132:3 134:7 53:15 64:8 67:12 links 184:14,20 longer 19:3 89:3 126:14 146:14 162:4 188:2,6,7 67:13,21 68:2 liquid 22:9 34:20 150:15 160:21 153:17 154:1 manage 72:3 74:10 76:13 77:1 36:21 37:17 41:6 161:6 187:7 188:2 managed 72:9 82:5,12 83:22 list 17:6 look 14:11 43:4,11 makers 1:3 4:7,16 manager 8:19 86:11 103:7,21 listed 174:15 43:12 82:11 108:3 11:21 12:9,11 mandate 156:16 104:11 110:7 listening 170:18 108:22 116:10,21 13:10,14 14:3 Manitowoc 1:17 115:17 124:14 188:21 129:13 138:21 17:22 18:12,18,22 5:15 23:3 45:1 125:1,8,14 126:11 literally170:8 140:11,12 160:20 19:9,12,15,17 93:13 134:18 130:11,13 135:6 little 5:6 7:4 9:14 179:18 181:10 20:15 21:4 22:6 manufacture 54:15 136:19 146:5,6,16 11:8 14:22 24:3 186:11 188:4 22:17 24:13 25:21 68:10 75:10 153:1 159:10 73:9,13 75:14 looked 27:1 86:6 26:1,3 27:18 28:5 180:15 160:1,9 169:6,22 76:8,10 82:4 88:2 143:7 28:7,13,22 33:11 manufacturer 60:3 machines 17:17 88:7 98:12 100:20 looking 14:14 20:7 33:15,16,17,17 66:5 70:18 81:1,4 18:2,5,7 22:11 101:11 121:19 43:17 85:15 91:8 34:15 40:1,6 155:5 159:13 24:16,18 27:5 143:18 149:1,5,8 91:9 101:13,14 48:21 49:11 58:19 164:9 165:1 180:3 30:17 31:7,12,13 169:1 172:21 106:20 108:1 59:1,4,10 60:9 manufacturers 31:14,15,16,18 Llenza 1:11 3:4 110:4 112:12 62:20 63:5 80:3,6 26:10 47:4 54:4 34:17 40:4 44:10 4:13,14 7:16 8:17 119:18 131:18 80:10 81:13 91:1 60:4 61:19 65:16 44:11 57:22 71:3 8:18,19 10:17 132:18 151:12 96:20,22 97:7,8,8 66:18,19 69:12 97:4 100:8 103:10 11:7 12:21 13:3,7 153:15,19 160:19 97:11 101:14 70:6,13,21 72:5 104:13 105:10 44:15 46:18,21,22 176:1,19 105:17,22 112:18 74:2 76:19 84:12



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 203 84:14 101:17 126:18 169:12 187:9,18 9:20 15:6,13,21 142:16 186:15 104:6 105:3,6 matching 69:22 187:22 188:3 15:22 16:3 24:6,9 methods 28:22 118:13 120:9 70:6,20 71:4 meaning 75:1 95:7 96:15 130:4 metric 40:14 41:14 123:14 126:5 76:20 80:14 means 14:12 28:2 147:18 148:3 110:17 114:8 129:4 134:14 material 9:10 52:18 94:2 120:15 157:3 166:3 130:20 144:11 140:6 141:1,4,5 184:17 128:21 156:21 170:20 183:16 163:5 142:8 156:14,19 mating 67:18 meant 66:7 72:17 185:12 188:16 metrics 135:18 161:11 166:16 Matt 1:13 5:12 measure 22:8 189:5 Michelle 1:16 6:7 173:8 175:11,18 29:20 38:6,7 37:22 42:16 44:3 meetings 10:8 microphone 31:4 176:22 179:18 50:13,14 53:1 50:3,4 62:10 15:20 171:2 180:13 181:11 57:16 72:14 79:1 63:16 76:10 86:12 melt 51:1 56:2 microphones 5:5 182:17 79:18 84:6,7 103:19 128:16,18 meltage 111:20 mid-morning 7:13 manufacturer's 93:15 97:13,14 129:9 135:6 137:1 112:1,20 114:5,21 mind 159:14

60:16 164:2 127:11 158:4,5 137:2 138:9 143:3 117:1 127:19 mineral 159:8 manufacturer-pr... 166:21,22 168:17 158:21 164:12 melting 36:8 minimal 160:22

67:18 matter 39:9 40:19 measured 20:6,19 melts 42:17 124:13 164:13 manufactures 46:11 95:2 115:22 21:7 37:20 61:10 members 44:13 minimally62:4

180:3 117:17 124:8 136:9,10 137:9 memorized 128:20 minimize 8:13 manufacturing 149:17 170:10 146:4 mention 39:20 minimum 77:11

26:6 172:16 mattered 157:20 measurement 36:9 106:8 81:5,7,19 83:3,9 Maples 1:19 6:15 Mauer 1:20 5:18 42:4,14,15 49:8 mentioned 21:14 89:9,17 90:4

6:15,18 44:21,21 5:18 29:3,4,4 54:2 61:7 103:18 109:8 22:13 24:4 29:12 129:10 135:17 45:5 51:6,6 67:10 54:3,3 65:2,3,3,19 109:10 113:8 33:14 34:12 36:19 138:10 167:11 67:10 68:16 78:14 66:12 88:1,1 89:1 115:15 134:20 43:20,22 44:16 180:4 181:18 78:14 124:17,17 89:6,8,20 111:2,2 142:2 143:14 48:7 53:1 55:7 minute 94:1 165:22 147:15,16 161:21 111:7,12 128:6,6 144:2 151:7 77:15 81:14 89:13 170:2 161:22 165:9 129:7,7 150:11,11 measurements 92:1 106:9 minutes 94:3,13 168:19,19 151:5,16 166:15 104:18 mentions 34:11 170:8 margin 182:18 166:15 167:15,15 measures 91:19 merit 76:18 mirror 72:15 78:10 mark 14:16 168:6 187:4,4,12 137:8 mess 76:15 127:12 market 24:17 maximum 80:20 measuring 35:22 messed 100:4 misconstrued

43:17 45:17 67:2 81:5,7,18 90:4 44:4 103:15 109:7 messing 76:22 40:12 70:8,16 73:1,10 138:11 164:3 110:8,13 115:17 meter 105:3 missed 93:9 171:7 118:14 147:12 165:1,14 166:17 138:13 142:8 meters 103:13 missing 92:18 164:6 175:13 167:10 mechanism 59:11 105:9 mistake 12:13 marketplace 66:4 mean 25:20 26:14 59:16 60:11,18 method 18:10,17 179:7

135:11 26:17 27:4 30:10 61:4,14,16,20 20:14 29:6 30:10 misunderstanding markets 163:12 38:19,20,20 52:9 62:7,11 63:1 31:7 35:6,9 38:2 135:15 Mary1:18 6:11 55:12 75:21 77:14 65:11,14 66:6,22 49:14,15 55:5 misunderstood

31:1 53:19 54:7 82:3 83:14 88:4 67:5 69:7 79:4 69:8 92:2 97:12 135:20 132:14 134:9 103:5 106:3 119:4 98:6 128:16 104:8,9 112:10 mix 55:22 71:4 145:20 119:19 120:7 mechanisms 65:7 114:8 118:9,12,16 mode 8:13 19:19 mass 34:19 40:22 121:10,14,18 66:13,20 130:5 132:20 101:18,19

42:5,22 63:16 122:16 123:21 meet 14:9 83:8 133:4 145:22 model 140:7,22 88:18,19 125:3 147:21 141:15 163:12 153:18 180:11 145:2 175:19 Masse 13:22 151:3 152:1 157:9 meeting 1:3,7 4:5 184:5 186:7 178:14 180:2,3,5 matched 66:10 158:11 162:19 4:19 8:9,21 9:10 methodology 181:3 186:3



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 204 187:21 necessary14:8 normally16:9 oh 12:12 43:10 66:16 models 125:20 19:3 144:3 177:7 37:21 135:19 187:9 operates 19:18

175:14,15 177:3 need 8:1 30:13,14 151:19 okay6:20 8:18 11:2 80:15 178:8,10 180:15 39:4 42:18 47:5 Normative 35:6 11:7 12:21 13:3,6 operating 82:20 186:5,8 48:5 65:15,17 Northwest 1:12,16 13:15 14:4,22 88:5 modification 87:18 82:20 91:7 92:3 1:22 2:3 5:21 6:6 15:17 16:18 24:1 operation 98:2 modulating 18:18 104:3 119:8 120:4 6:8,10 64:15 27:9,11 29:1 102:21

80:3 81:12 87:16 128:2 134:14 note 9:17 13:20 30:22 32:17,19,20 opinion 116:7 88:3 89:12 135:7 146:18 184:13 185:7 32:21 33:2,3,4,5,6 opportunity 7:6 moisture 123:5 154:4 155:4 169:5 notice 4:17 9:1 38:10 45:4 46:19 10:10,14 81:9

133:15 169:16 15:19 95:22 131:4 50:10 51:4 54:19 95:8 money145:19 needed 185:3 noticed 12:13 86:6 57:15 58:9,12,13 opposed 12:4 22:9 monitoring 101:13 needs 5:6 87:9 93:9 64:12 65:1 68:16 91:22 148:8 month 141:2 147:11 179:17 NRDC 90:2 96:1,2 68:17 73:17 75:3 option 61:11,13 morning 4:3,12 negative 159:16 nugget 55:13 75:17 78:3 79:1,7 62:3,9 80:7

6:21 11:2 16:22 neither 71:15 number 17:19 24:9 79:8 84:5 85:9 119:20 129:11,14 96:4 net 40:20 104:2 27:12 37:16 45:21 87:21 89:6,19 136:18 150:14 move 54:20 55:1 182:17,18 76:5 113:1 172:8 90:13 93:10,18,19 169:3 180:13

90:11 152:15 never 84:8 142:22 175:8 178:16 96:3,18 107:8 optional 18:17 163:16 new 13:4 21:14 183:5,11 184:11 111:12,13,15,16 81:12 moving 79:22 23:19 67:6 81:22 184:11 125:17 128:4 options 60:20

130:2 161:8 116:14 160:12 numbers 79:14,16 133:7 141:16 65:12 119:8 multiple 63:11 80:5 174:2 175:9,16,19 85:7 104:4 136:4 142:18 156:8 order 62:17 99:8

80:9,18 81:2 176:20 178:14,20 139:17 140:15 165:18 166:8 102:14,22 167:18 103:11 145:1 newest 17:11 180:19 182:2 168:13 169:7 168:11 164:5,8 nice 159:13 numerator 37:9 170:1 171:10,18 organizational 5:4 multiplied 179:21 nine 92:18 93:6,9 nut 32:19 173:5 179:5,9 5:7 8:2 95:10 multiply37:19 nomenclature 45:2 nuts 35:3 180:5 182:11 Osann 1:21 25:5,6 multi-speed 87:15 185:6 183:20 184:2 25:10 68:17,18 O multi-stage 86:13 non 99:2 101:18 188:14,18 69:10,12,17 89:21 observation 101:6 121:20 122:9 OMB 176:11 90:1,2,2,5,8 96:1 N 101:10 non-cube 97:4 181:17,19 101:3,4,4,10 name 4:8 5:3,7,9,12 obviously56:17 non-ice 98:4,16 once 14:12 88:10 104:19,20 107:7,8 7:22 8:4,8 95:10 72:7 non-perforated 104:7 111:21 114:13,14 119:1,2 139:12 occurs 59:21 71:4 32:5 50:16 189:2 122:22 123:1 national 1:12,16,22 111:20 NOPR 4:17 15:8,13 ones 58:1 76:1,2 134:17,17 141:17 6:6,8,10 164:22 odd 173:1 15:21 16:3 99:7 179:9 141:18 142:5 Natural 1:21 oddly99:20 106:10 113:1 one's 84:8 143:18 149:4,7,20 nature 30:18 57:13 odors 127:20 150:13 157:13 ongoing 12:2 154:13,14 155:17 63:18 offer 58:1 72:16,18 177:18,19 178:2 online 170:13 161:7,10 nay29:19 offered 177:3 normal 57:6 open 119:8 outcome 115:2 near 50:2 offering 29:19 159:21 160:4 opening 7:8 10:3 outdated 173:2 nearly64:3 office 6:4 106:7 188:2 10:22 11:1 outdoor 69:21 76:6 necessarily67:16 107:21 117:12 normalization 39:3 operable 78:17 outliers 154:18 99:16 136:11 131:13 146:15 normalize 18:6 operate 62:14 outline 19:4 137:14 141:3 150:19 33:11 34:15 38:3 80:11,12 86:18 outlined 17:2 20:1 147:20 148:2 offset 99:21 39:12 operated 66:7,14 62:19



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 205 output 76:11,17 73:5 77:13 102:9 124:20 160:12 planned 16:16 posted 8:10 170:21

82:19 110:22 114:15 134:19 176:5 177:7,10 plant 26:5 posts 139:16 125:21 142:17 152:6 performance 124:1 plants 26:18 potable 130:10,18 outset 5:1 7:10 158:13 185:11 159:9 160:1,9,17 plate 55:18,20 56:2 130:20,22 131:7

10:16 108:14 186:15 169:22 56:4 88:18 131:10,15 132:6 109:1 particularly55:13 performed 35:4,14 play 110:10,15 132:13,17 133:19 outside 125:1 161:14 44:6 144:6 183:8 plays 123:18 134:20 135:7 overall 105:18 particulars 47:18 performing 35:8 please 7:22 8:7,12 136:12 138:7 overburden 100:18 parties 10:4,18 35:16 49:8 142:6 10:12 29:21 31:3 139:16 141:15 overly14:20 77:10 117:15 163:14,14 174:22 49:4 69:4 79:9 142:3,8 143:6 171:6 184:3 186:2 175:3,6,12 177:5 95:10,14 108:7,12 144:2,8,10,16 P partners 66:5 177:14 182:16 139:12 141:10 145:14 146:2,6 Pacific 1:12,16,22 pass 183:21 performs 64:19 184:9,13 185:13 148:8,12 150:6,14

6:6,7,10 passed 106:1 period 9:6 11:15 plenty 10:19 151:4,8 164:3,11 package 102:15 path 129:22 16:10 25:17 30:18 point 8:15 9:16 164:13 168:9,10 packaged 26:5 peak 82:15 100:5,5 51:2 53:2 57:8 52:16 57:8 84:9 potential 60:20 packet 6:20 11:4 peculiarities 47:11 110:21 136:15 85:13 92:10 104:7 75:13 80:2,7 179:3 186:17 people 9:7 38:13,14 150:6 176:1 107:3 109:6 104:5 110:19 packing 57:5 39:4 40:15 48:3 178:18 184:14 116:22 117:21 126:3 129:11 page 19:5 84:10 87:15 94:19 periods 19:21 28:4 123:2 131:5 132:2 139:2 175:6 pair 66:10 126:18 109:11 126:15 28:14 98:4,16 135:2 138:15 potentially124:2 pairing 69:22 129:1 133:13 99:2 111:4 145:16 149:11,22 pound 12:19 27:7 pairs 70:12 127:17 134:1 136:8 140:3 Perkins 1:22 6:9,9 154:16,19 155:12 36:16 175:1 panels 123:20 140:19 146:15 perspective 7:9 159:10,11 161:2 poundage 51:20 pans 52:12,13 149:1 169:13 30:9 41:1 62:16 161:10 163:9,13 pounds 11:14 parallel 15:11 64:3 186:17 71:11 115:13 166:7 177:18 12:10,14 13:12 Pardon 168:17 percent 25:7 98:17 133:10 138:12 184:4 186:20 17:14,18 18:2 part 14:2 16:12 99:10,11 101:5 142:9 145:5 188:14 19:13,22 21:3

36:9 38:14,18 102:10 103:5,6,8 pertinent 173:11 pointed 110:1 22:3,4,19 23:22 39:1,2,2 57:10 103:20 104:16,22 petition 87:3 points 78:22 24:8,12,15,22 60:15 61:10 67:2 105:2,4,16 133:1 petitioned 83:16 Policy11:11 25:3,4,16,16 27:2 83:5 85:22 101:1 167:4,5,18 168:12 petitions 86:10 Porras 2:2 95:15 52:2 76:14 90:6,8 102:1 113:16,20 168:16 176:10 phases 98:2 111:11 95:15 139:14,14 90:9 91:21 102:20 113:21 117:3 177:16 phones 8:13 141:11,11 102:22 133:5 120:22 130:13 percentage 22:9 photocopy179:3 portion 33:19,19 134:16 173:19 141:13 143:8 24:17 26:21 51:19 pick 151:21 37:12 62:8 105:16 174:4,7,7 146:8 147:5,8,9 52:3,5 55:6,6 99:9 picked 152:5 105:18 122:3 power 91:20 105:7 148:18 156:16,21 104:1 picks 127:20 150:7 151:8 105:22 106:9,13 186:18,18 187:13 perfect 30:2 33:7 picture 62:5 position 40:19 106:15,18 108:4,9 188:14 35:18 64:6 piece 48:18 73:9 102:6 131:8 143:4 108:16,20 109:15 participate 118:14 perfectly 134:6 163:13 145:15,18 167:3 PowerPoint 11:5 129:4 perforated 32:7 pieces 32:4 110:12 possibility150:16 practical 51:3 53:5 participating 10:10 48:12 50:16,18 116:3 138:3 188:5 154:15 63:15 64:21 77:3

95:6 51:8 52:12 53:13 place 20:10 21:1,5 possible 54:17 practicality50:17 participation 9:5 perforations 51:9 140:5,22 78:10 149:10 52:11 particular 9:22 51:12 52:13 places 43:18 possibly154:16 pre 16:1

29:7 40:22 42:5 perform 76:21 plan 7:19 post 55:22 184:18 preceded 93:21



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 206 precisely43:12 84:13,15 99:10 176:19 183:3,10 42:5 51:21 115:17 90:14 91:16 93:11 preclude 107:15 105:3 168:12 procedures 12:5 producing 52:5 114:18 173:14 predominately 187:20 14:7,10 17:12,22 110:22 177:1 174:3,17 183:3,10

26:17 problem 109:13 20:13 21:13,20 product 20:7 21:8 proposes 18:4 prefer 116:9 142:19 156:22 22:1,5,21 27:20 22:10 26:8 33:21 21:19 22:13,15 preferred 129:21 162:18 163:4 45:20 47:1,17 34:13 36:1,2,17 27:17,19,21 62:19 preliminary15:8 181:21 95:21 100:18 36:18 38:16 40:22 80:17 154:1 102:3 112:19 problems 139:3 107:14 112:17 50:6 52:14 54:17 proposing 17:7 164:6 156:2 123:3 141:19,20 55:8 56:17 76:17 19:14 21:12 23:19 premature 85:13 procedure 1:3 3:5 141:22 144:1 106:3 130:14 24:20 32:13 33:10 preparation 183:6 3:6 4:6,17 7:12,14 150:3 174:2 136:20 147:8,9 34:15 81:15 91:13 prepared 113:1 9:1 13:16,19,22 proceed 7:14 11:3 production 97:18 141:21 150:13 prescribe 11:13 14:2,5,13,14,15 11:8 13:10 171:19 112:21 115:16,19 151:6 164:18 prescribed 11:18 15:2,12 16:5,6 proceeding 8:12 116:7 119:15,16 protect 169:5 11:22 13:19 185:7 17:1,6,13,15 10:7 149:12 122:19 125:21 Protection 1:19 185:16 18:21 19:7,8,11 proceedings 4:16 146:1,4 160:15 prototypes 80:6 prescribes 130:16 20:4,5 21:6 22:15 9:5 12:4 47:2 productive 188:15 provide 10:1,9 present 1:10 8:21 29:15 32:5,9 33:9 135:16 188:19 products 41:10,11 17:21 40:17 47:15

32:10 34:4 35:1,20 37:6 189:3 54:13 66:3 72:10 56:3 62:3 77:10 presentation 9:20 39:21 43:14,19 process 14:17 15:1 72:17 99:15 78:6 87:2 95:7 11:6 109:18 44:3,5,9 46:9,10 15:9 16:14 28:17 107:12,17 158:11 100:20 120:19 171:21 184:15,17 46:14 47:6,7,8,10 36:8 42:10 47:8 161:12 180:12 138:9,14 142:2,2 presently48:20 47:12 48:4,8,15 48:15 54:14 70:1 profit 182:17,18 184:16 PRESENT(Cont'... 48:16 50:15 52:10 79:3,17 83:14 program 95:13 provided 11:16

2:1 58:16 60:21 61:11 87:6 99:19 114:18 129:5 168:21 22:4,7 42:22 61:5 presiding 1:9 61:12 65:4 69:13 115:3,9 118:4 181:12,16 182:1,6 62:5 123:4 136:9 pressure 78:19 70:11 75:6 77:12 127:1 132:3 185:20 186:19 185:1,5 presume 118:10 78:2 80:2,20 81:8 136:21,22 150:21 progress 96:4 provides 35:19 pretty73:9 80:17 81:12 86:2,12 151:19 157:1 prohibited 98:9 55:17 57:9 81:8 103:22 128:15 88:13 90:15,19 159:19 project 1:20 5:19 106:12 129:1 143:4 152:12 91:17 93:11 96:10 processes 54:16 8:19 providing 28:21 prevalence 43:13 96:16 97:3,6 98:1 118:1 promulgated 20:11 29:9 79:13 156:21 previous 19:10 98:12 99:1 100:17 processing 54:11 proper 40:14 81:18 184:5

21:16 118:8 111:10,19 112:14 produce 12:9,11 properly69:4 79:5 provision 14:12 134:18 176:14 115:1,6 119:8,18 13:11 19:12,17 proposal 4:17 63:3 84:4 previously146:11 124:5 128:7,22 28:5 31:14,15,16 79:22 81:11 97:11 provisions 20:3,21 pre-empt 41:18 129:10 130:9,21 31:18 33:17 34:19 125:2 71:16 123:2 pre-judging 114:17 136:10 137:2,7 41:22 42:8 49:20 proposals 150:17 public 1:3,7,11 4:5 115:2 142:10,14,21 68:11 96:22 propose 18:9 68:5 4:9 9:10,19,20 primarily24:19 143:8,12,22 102:22 143:20 107:6 130:19 15:6,13,19,21,22 primary30:11 144:11 147:6 144:4 153:18 136:12 16:3 24:6,9 96:15

41:16 110:17 150:17,20 151:2 155:4 173:17 proposed 3:5 7:11 130:4 140:11 prior 63:22 151:12,14 152:2,3 174:6 8:21 9:1 17:1 publication 179:8 probably7:17 152:6,19 153:14 produced 34:14 19:8 20:8 31:8,17 publicly175:13

41:18 43:11 57:11 154:2 161:16,18 38:16 49:13 38:2 58:15,17 182:20 72:2 73:10 75:22 161:19 163:20 111:21 175:10 64:11 69:7 75:11 publish 136:7 76:19 77:16 84:8 173:15,16 174:18 produces 34:6,8 75:12 81:6 88:11 published 9:2



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 207 15:22 18:21 136:3 124:1 135:14 ratings 83:4 118:12 recommendation Q 136:5 177:19 153:10 127:17 140:8 125:9 154:9 qualification 114:5 178:4 180:6 recommendations quality18:8 22:8 R pull 156:5 157:2 ratio 36:15 162:2,3 180:19,22 31:14 33:13 34:1 R 1:21 pump 168:22 169:1 ratios 126:1 recommended 34:2,3,4,7,18 RA 92:17 93:2 169:2,5 reach 82:8 176:11 35:22 37:3,22 rack 18:13 59:17 pumps 86:13 reached 183:16 record 8:1 13:9 38:8,12,15,19 59:22 60:1,14 purchase 126:10 read 29:1 41:21 23:3,21 95:2 40:12 45:2,10,10 61:3,8,18 62:2 126:10,18 118:3,8 132:10 139:13 149:11 51:13 132:20,21 63:12 66:16 67:4 purchased 126:13 157:13 165:20 170:10 133:2 153:7 175:5 67:12,17,20 68:2 126:19 reading 114:19 171:11,14 176:16 72:18 78:15,20 purchasers 126:6 reads 13:9 rectified 178:3 quantification 79:14,19 purely40:17 ready90:11 152:15 reduced 86:18 97:21 102:12 racks 58:20 63:14 purge 147:4,4 163:16 88:19 114:20 115:5 64:3 163:20 164:5,8,19 reaffirmed 17:4 reduces 167:7 quantified 111:9 raise 7:9 9:21 184:1 165:2,14 166:17 real 82:22 104:15 reducing 123:5 112:16 130:9 188:13 167:1 168:8 125:12 169:20 reference 20:12 147:3 175:8 raised 96:13 155:9 purpose 41:9 55:16 176:10 177:16 21:19 28:11 96:21 quantify 98:3,8 range 22:2 23:12 71:8 106:19 121:9 realized 177:21 99:7 101:5 141:21 99:1 101:1 107:4 24:12 25:2 34:12 149:13 really30:9 39:9 151:6 178:4 107:6 122:8 172:3 65:19,22 66:2 purposes 29:6,14 41:8 42:3 44:17 referenced 22:20 quantifying 98:20 99:15 103:11,16 44:1 55:15 52:11 57:18 58:2 50:20 112:10 148:12 124:1 133:22 pursuant 164:2 58:5,7,17 71:7 references 17:10 182:12 136:21 138:9,17 pursue 120:6 72:21 82:20 83:7 21:16 quantity61:6 89:4 139:1 154:15,20 purview 60:3 83:10 85:2,3,14 referencing 22:14 115:19 155:8,16,18 156:4 push 120:12 145:14 86:7 87:9 96:3 27:19 29:11 35:6 question 23:11 156:6,10,14 157:6 187:11 102:7 104:4 92:6 147:18 25:6,19 26:22 158:12,16 159:21 pushback 120:8 106:14 116:6 referred 28:8 29:5 32:13 48:1,2 160:4 162:18 put 36:1 39:7 84:3 121:6 127:2 137:5 referring 29:17 49:4 68:18 69:3 174:9,19 176:4 84:16 102:14 139:21 159:22 refers 89:10 91:19 73:20 104:10 ranges 157:7 113:18 119:19 160:13,19 161:1 91:20 108:8,10,21 rapidly54:17 121:22 125:4,7,7 162:12 163:12 reflect 14:18 22:11 110:20 111:3 rarely80:12 125:10,16 127:16 reason 41:16 71:9 23:7 52:6,8 83:7 114:14 115:12 rate 18:20 20:17 140:22 142:18 77:3 97:18 116:1 reflected 150:8 117:7,13 119:6 23:22 51:20 63:16 162:18 163:10 reasonable 83:21 refreshment 128:7 131:13,19 89:2 117:1 124:20 169:18 181:19 163:3,7,8,11 187:10 143:18 150:19 125:13,13 176:10 188:6 reasonably14:17 refrigerant 61:7,9 156:7 162:22 177:16 puts 163:5 76:20 63:16 79:6 88:19 187:5 rated 80:19 159:1 putting 51:17 reasoning 183:9 88:20 questions 7:20 8:15 160:18 53:14 84:9 132:20 reasons 62:18 refrigerated 8:16 9:4,22 10:11 rates 136:14 148:16 127:2 133:13 121:20,21 122:9 10:11 137:15,19 148:9 puzzled 149:7 receive 141:14 122:10,18 123:16 quick 25:19 29:5 rating 40:5 71:15 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-... received 6:20 11:4 124:15 128:17 57:3 149:22 169:9 80:21,22 83:17 4:1 24:9 27:17 61:18 refrigeration 1:14 187:5 89:15 104:8 112:5 p.m 170:10,11 receives 109:17 6:1 18:15 59:18 quickly 58:2 94:11 122:14 124:8 189:6 recognized 146:7 59:20 60:22 62:14 quite 7:6 27:3 125:7 141:2 recommend 32:6 67:6 71:18 102:21

52:20 99:10,22 

### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 208 122:3 128:18 85:5 177:22 178:1,6 185:16 186:5 re-examined 92:1 172:16 relevant 39:11 representation requires 41:5 61:6 Richard 2:2 95:17 regard 99:11,12,22 144:6,8 62:3 83:12 140:6 right 5:1 11:17

106:13 107:11 remain 112:5 representative requiring 140:10 13:7 17:15 27:14 115:1 141:19 remarks 3:9 4:12 14:19 61:1 62:12 research 24:10 32:15 42:2,20 regarded 146:13 7:8 10:3,16,22 82:21 83:10 150:5 66:4,18 43:18 66:17 79:21 regardless 22:18 11:1 184:3 186:21 representatives residential 106:2,8 83:20 85:4 87:10 regards 124:18 187:1 45:1 106:12 94:18 96:6 109:1 Register 9:3 131:4 remind 71:12 represented 24:16 resides 74:10 126:18,22 127:5 regs 75:15 176:21 representing 96:2 resolution 119:9 136:11 137:4 regularly80:16 remote 18:11,13 represents 103:21 Resources 1:21 141:7 147:21 regulate 108:16 20:14 58:20,22 105:18 respect 34:17 45:19 148:13 152:17

117:8 138:10,19 59:3,7,9,9,12,16 request 9:17 55:2 84:17 144:14 157:11 158:13 139:4 143:11 60:8,9,13,14,21 77:9 78:5 114:6 respond 49:4 159:14 163:18 regulated 136:5 61:2,14,17 62:1,2 154:3 186:14 response 27:12 166:12 170:16 regulates 12:18 62:19,20,21 63:3 requesting 25:15 183:13 173:6 177:1 regulating 27:8 63:11,14 65:5,9 requests 22:20 25:1 responsible 137:18 181:13 183:15

144:16 164:11 65:13,20 66:1,6,8 28:21 38:2 63:2 rest 73:21 76:3 184:12 185:22 regulation 53:4 66:9,14 67:1,3,14 81:11,17 92:5 102:15 RIN 184:11

116:12 119:14 67:15 68:6,20,21 97:10 98:21 restaurant 82:15 road 84:12 137:6 180:14 69:5,14 70:17 130:21 165:4 restaurants 26:3 Robert 1:16 5:9 regulations 23:6 71:9 73:3,3,6,7 require 62:15,16 restored 170:3,17 robust 36:6

59:2 75:7,11 74:5,6,11,14,15 63:3 77:17 103:17 restrict 77:20 role 9:15 87:18 118:21,22 78:8 79:15,19,20 124:6 140:1 143:5 restricting 134:7 roll 104:4 133:17 140:5 113:12,17 126:8 143:21 153:14 restrooms 94:8 room 1:7 5:3 36:7 144:14 remove 91:14 164:1,18 177:6 result 36:12 39:16 95:5 96:1 170:15 regulator 78:20 removing 92:6 178:14 87:8 135:7 172:7 170:15,19 regulatory3:8 7:16 repeat 155:7 156:4 required 34:18,22 resulting 167:22 rotated 107:13

13:17 119:13 repeatability 37:11 53:22 62:14 results 77:5 143:20 rough 123:2 172:1,2,5 173:12 155:19 81:1 98:8 107:4 144:4 153:19 row 15:5 178:1 174:11 183:7 repeatable 153:18 107:10 108:2,3 155:5,7 rule 13:22 15:9,14 184:11 155:4 131:7 135:18 resume 94:2 170:7 16:6,15 47:9,10 reiterate 44:16,22 replacement 153:22 172:3 resumed 95:3 75:12 96:16

57:17 144:9 126:13 requirement 21:10 170:11 114:18 142:7 173:11 replacing 126:15 107:12 117:17 retention 117:1 172:6 relate 20:9 153:8 replicability 119:14 120:19 return 94:22 rulemaking 3:3 related 33:4 34:5 155:18 122:1 141:14 166:11 4:17 7:5 8:20 9:2

150:17 155:11 report 62:22 143:6 176:2 review 3:8 7:1,3,16 11:8 12:4 20:4 164:21 165:6 118:15 140:4 181:14 172:1 173:9 176:5 41:2 72:1 96:10 relating 149:17 176:8 requirements revised 14:6 21:17 101:22 102:1 relationship 83:21 reported 39:22 14:10 18:10 20:14 21:19 113:22 115:13

84:1 153:4,10 69:9 58:18 60:7 77:12 revising 14:13,15 116:11,14 118:1 157:14 reporting 18:10 121:13 140:18,21 revision 141:22 119:7 125:2 127:4 relative 26:22 20:14 60:7,10,16 144:21 145:2 revisions 17:1,7,21 129:18,19,21

34:18 88:18 185:10,16 175:10,16 176:14 107:13 150:21 151:1 110:14 188:2 represent 25:7,8 176:20 178:21 rewrite 158:18 154:11 155:11 relatively57:20 100:2 112:20 179:17 185:10,12 re-evaluate 152:12 174:3 182:15



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 209 184:20 scope 17:13 19:6,8 seen 145:15 173:10 164:1 simple 80:17 85:5 rulemakings 16:7 20:2 22:16,22 segment 93:20 setting 38:12 89:15 140:2

86:8 102:2 23:10,20 24:4,7 152:6 114:17 115:3,8 simply101:5 136:3 rules 9:14,16 24:21 27:17 72:1 segregate 56:13 132:4 135:8,17 single 80:8 103:16

137:17 101:21,22 113:14 select 68:4 75:8 149:15 154:17,18 sitting 10:18 85:3,7 run 17:8 124:12 113:21 115:12 selected 76:1 156:10 163:21 situation 66:11

165:11 116:8,20 117:3 selection 39:13 164:20 165:5,15 71:20 167:5 running 103:8 125:1 148:3 152:4 40:6 167:10,11,18,19 situations 77:15

104:11,13 110:9 173:21 self 113:11 115:20 169:13,14 169:17 181:11,12 Scotsman 1:13 115:21 122:1 settings 81:5,7 size 28:12 68:7 runs 82:5,13 5:13 29:22 44:22 self-contained 164:5,8 165:2 84:15 113:4 79:2 93:16 97:15 113:16,17,19 166:17,18 167:1 sized 65:9 S 158:6 167:1 114:2 123:17 168:8 169:19 sizing 77:20 S 4:4 scroll 11:17 125:20 126:7 seven 176:10 Skinner 2:2 95:17 sale 68:11 sealed 123:22 sell 72:6 73:1 177:16 95:17 sales 25:7,9 second 23:10 51:13 semantics 110:1 seven-year 14:11 slide 11:18 12:13 sample 30:11 48:18 61:13 105:14 send 9:8 10:12 14:15 33:7 34:11 92:14

51:18 91:22 108:9,20 114:19 165:15 184:9,21 sewer 54:1 133:3 99:6 118:3,8 101:14 165:19 sense 26:9,10 30:3 shape 28:12 97:2 166:5 173:10 sampling 30:17 secondary12:16 64:6 89:17 104:17 ship 76:3 167:19 176:15,15 178:5

181:9 secondly105:20 113:5 157:7,13 shipped 166:18 179:2,8,21 180:1 sanitary54:1 133:3 Secretary 14:7 sensible 68:5 shop 94:9 180:16 184:15 sanitation 38:19 section 16:18 35:21 sensors 98:5,15 short 57:8 slides 11:5,16 17:9 Sarah 1:12 3:5,7,8 59:6 91:19 96:7 101:13 111:3 show 49:21 32:14 35:3 113:1

6:5 16:19 25:20 171:21 172:1 sentence 106:11 shower 137:20 170:4 185:4 43:8 44:16 49:3 sections 35:8 152:2 separate 30:21 showing 179:20 slight 148:14,17 49:17 96:5 106:15 security6:22 52:22 59:11 62:17 shown 172:10 slot 74:3 109:17 139:8 see 4:10 7:1 9:11,18 113:19,19 116:10 shows 48:16 small 24:17 26:21 sat 86:16 15:4,11 16:15 116:11,12 119:17 side 5:2 83:15 51:10 62:8 73:9 saturated 64:1 25:14 27:6 44:12 122:13 129:19 127:8 174:15 98:18 101:14,14 sausage 54:13 47:16,19 50:11 188:5 sidebar 8:14 103:22 105:15,18 save 80:14 88:8 56:19 66:3 69:2 separately67:7 significance 182:13 172:4,8,9,10,17 saving 98:14 72:13 75:11 76:19 141:6 182:15 172:22 175:10,17 savings 81:3 123:6 77:4,11 94:14 sequence 7:7 significant 70:20 176:22 178:7,8,11

124:11 97:17 100:21 sequencing 119:3 78:12 150:7 153:2 178:13,17 179:1 saw 75:3 86:12 104:15 120:1 143:19,21 172:7 173:21 181:20 182:14,17

122:19 137:4 124:13 129:13 series 121:6 183:5,11 183:6,12 saying 12:15 23:3 137:8 138:13 serves 55:15,20 significantly smaller 104:16

74:5,5 158:9 139:2,2 142:19 59:19 65:13 144:12,13 173:16 smart 100:3 160:6 167:16 145:13 149:1,15 session 123:14 silent 8:13 SNOPR 151:1 says 86:14 145:8 152:3 157:3,22 set 14:10 35:11 similar 17:16,19 soda 187:5,7

157:21 162:8 158:22 171:10 78:22 102:8 18:1 24:22 27:15 sold 24:13 26:5 SBA 172:17 174:14 111:14 131:7,16 60:21 61:8,15,20 43:16 61:16 66:22 scale 26:8 57:22 seek 9:4 131:17 132:1 66:2,20 67:12 67:20 70:17 160:7,11,18 169:4 seeking 185:20,21 145:13,22 149:17 68:7 79:17 137:21 solid 22:9 34:7,8,13 scenario 168:2 seeks 178:19,21 151:4 152:9 similarly22:15 36:15,20 37:16 scheduling 16:13 183:9 155:16 157:4,5 44:7 41:7 48:13 133:14



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 210 159:8 specified 48:20 132:4 134:22 state 132:9 134:14 129:9 solids 153:5 159:21 112:4 158:12 135:8 137:1,22 139:6 149:10,16 store 18:14 67:3 solution 180:9 165:1 142:1 143:2,7 149:16 stores 59:21 Solutions 1:11 4:9 specifies 130:17 147:17,20 148:1 stated 14:6 23:18 storing 120:15,16 somebody 77:17,22 specify18:17 65:4 149:15,18 150:2 32:10 109:9,17 straight 46:8

86:10 87:1 65:16 106:16 150:15,22 151:4 128:20 144:19 straightforward somewhat 13:8 134:3 153:20 151:13,22 152:5 states 20:4 162:7 91:12

101:19 122:7 158:13 162:1 164:1 167:8 station 79:13 stretch 70:9 170:7 138:4 specifying 153:12 172:17 174:22 statute 12:19 106:8 strike 119:6 soon 57:20 58:4 153:17 154:16 175:3,4,7 179:19 106:12 120:14 strong 152:12 sorry12:12 13:9 speed 82:20 83:15 standardization 131:16 173:3 155:3

32:12 69:2 73:15 83:17 175:5 statutory107:11 stuck 145:9 173:3 106:22 107:18 spell 75:14 standardized 109:2 149:13 study105:21 177:20 178:3 spelled 75:8 152:20 153:13 stay159:20 studying 85:15 sort 57:13 66:11 split 69:19 71:3 standards 1:20 step 35:5,8,14 stuff 137:8 161:2 69:17 86:9 88:9 75:5 5:19 11:13,18,20 37:19 87:16 93:14 subcooled 31:18 101:7 107:1 127:7 spoken 185:18 11:22 12:3,6,8,8 Stephens 2:3 5:20 42:1,17,22 43:13 159:21 160:8 spring 16:4 13:5,18 15:2,10 5:20 25:17,18,18 43:16,20 44:6 167:8 169:11 stage 121:14 17:20 20:10,22 27:9 46:4,5,5 45:17,22 46:11 sounds 166:9 188:20 21:4,22 22:11,14 47:21,22 64:13,14 54:6,8,18 57:1 space 10:20 53:4 staged 80:13 25:1 41:3 42:19 64:15 75:18,19,19 58:1,3 spare 44:18 stakeholders 10:1 62:15 72:11 87:19 86:4,5,5 99:4,5,5 subject 69:1 85:17 speak 7:22 8:1,5 47:4 120:9 126:2 96:14 112:17 102:17,18,18 100:1 120:12

139:21 140:9 145:16 113:11 114:4 118:6,7,7 123:11 175:9,15,16 special 169:17,19 stance 117:20 115:8,14 118:11 123:12 135:22 176:18,20 specific 22:5 28:12 147:21 120:17,20 123:3 136:1,1 140:14 submissions 185:15

31:10 54:5,16 stand 71:17 170:7 129:13,15 130:16 157:8,12,12 160:3 submit 87:17 108:7 66:4,6 69:14 71:6 standard 11:11 131:16,17 132:1 160:5 171:18 108:12 117:17 73:13 85:4 90:10 13:20 14:1,9 15:5 135:17 136:12 stepping 72:2 submitted 80:21 107:1 109:2 153:4 15:15 16:1,3 17:2 137:6,22 138:5 steps 143:22 subsequently 12:2 153:20 155:12 17:3,16 21:15,15 142:20 143:1 stick 72:11 145:12 14:14 15:10 180:18 21:16,18,20,21 145:14 150:2 stone 152:9 substantial 124:10 specifically25:15 23:20 27:15,16,16 151:7,18,20 185:2 storage 53:21,21 172:8 183:5,11

47:12 48:9 67:19 27:20,21 28:9,10 185:7,17 111:19,21 112:1,2 substitution 49:14 68:9 81:14 106:2 29:12 30:10 33:8 standby99:14 112:6,8,9,11,13 suction 64:1 106:8,10 108:15 33:9 35:7 37:21 103:6 105:7,22 112:15,20 113:3,4 sufficient 164:15 114:9 122:4 128:8 41:9,21 48:21 106:9,13,15,18 113:8,13,19,20 sufficiently187:2 131:15,21 132:9 62:17 71:14,15 107:2,3,12,16 114:1,6,8,21 suggest 84:21 132:12 134:3 73:3 83:9 84:4 108:3,9,16,19 115:19 116:5,10 85:14 114:22 165:6 172:1 91:2,9 92:7,7,16 star 83:4 95:13,20 117:1,9 118:5 131:6 166:5 178:21 92:21 112:8,11 141:13,14 119:17 120:2,18 suggested 77:4 specification 113:10 114:10,17 start 4:11,11 5:2 120:21,21 121:20 108:11 157:18

141:13 115:2 116:6,11 16:22 76:22 94:21 121:21 122:2,3,5 suggesting 118:3 specifications 68:6 118:4 119:9,22 104:17 159:10 122:9,10,12,18 132:12

157:5 120:6 121:11,12 started 16:8 124:2,19,21,22 suggestion 154:22 specifics 50:15 126:7 128:12 starting 34:21 125:4,6,8,22 summary 186:22

68:14 109:12 129:11 131:8,11 149:5 126:15,17 128:8 summed 178:15



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 211

summer 16:2 take 7:12 21:9 35:4 186:3 142:10,14,21 13:6 23:8,14 24:1 supermarket 67:20 37:1 40:18 42:14 terribly177:20 143:8,12,22 144:1 24:2 27:9,14 30:4

71:7 42:21 47:1 59:15 test 1:3 3:5,6 4:6,16 144:11 145:22 30:22 33:3 38:22 supervisor 185:1,2 63:20 71:5 73:21 7:12,14 8:22 12:5 147:6 148:1 150:3 39:18 45:13 46:2 supplied 60:2 81:2 89:3 90:15 13:16,19,22 14:2 150:17,20 151:2 46:3 54:19 56:10 supply155:6 93:22 94:1,10,12 14:5,7,10,13,14 151:11,14 152:1,3 57:15 58:9,10 support 23:4,18 108:18 117:20 14:15 15:2,12 152:6,19 153:14 64:12 65:1 79:8

30:8 40:10 45:5 138:12 152:2 16:4,6 17:1,5,11 153:18 154:2,5,20 79:22 87:21 89:20 64:11,22 85:3,11 160:21 165:21,22 17:12,15,21 18:5 156:5,12,21 93:10,18,19 95:14 93:14 154:4,9 166:6 170:1 185:7 18:10,17,21 19:7 159:14 161:15,17 97:16,20 111:17 158:8 169:12 taken 118:1 182:7 19:8,10 20:4,5,13 161:17,18,19 121:5 125:17 supporting 23:21 takes 34:9 50:20,22 20:13 21:6,12,20 162:5 163:20,21 128:4 129:16 supports 30:1 53:3 104:9 22:1,5,15,21 173:15,16 174:2 133:7 139:19

93:17 97:15 158:6 talk 14:22 18:8 27:19 28:22 29:6 174:18 175:5,12 141:16 154:12 165:9 24:3 34:1 38:8 29:15 30:9 31:7 176:2,5,16,18 163:18 167:13 supposed 117:3 46:8 96:8 142:11 32:5 33:9,10 34:4 177:5,5,14 179:14 168:6 171:16 sure 7:6 19:5 35:10 talked 189:1 34:22 35:19 37:6 180:14 183:3,10 173:7 183:15

40:15 42:19 43:6 talking 16:22 83:2 39:21 43:14,19 186:5 188:17 189:2 43:10 46:6 49:2 98:14 103:5 110:6 44:2,9 45:20 46:8 tested 52:3 62:21 thanks 16:20,21 82:20 87:9 127:6 118:20 134:11 46:10,14 47:1,6,7 65:6 66:10 69:9 33:4 94:20 111:12 127:9 128:14,15 137:7 142:20 47:8,10,12,17 69:15 76:2 79:15 188:10,15,18 150:12 157:17 176:22 180:8 48:4,8,15,15 87:7 104:20 theoretical 112:3 158:3 159:18 target 133:22 50:15 51:16,18 140:17 141:1 theory42:1 160:8 162:5 TDS 161:14 55:5 58:16,18 159:2 180:4 187:6 thing 13:20 40:13 184:10 186:17 technical 55:4 60:21 61:10,12,13 187:7,8 188:1,7 51:9 71:12 79:11 surface 88:17,21 109:6 63:21 64:7 65:4 testing 3:8 7:15 82:9 84:16 86:9 syrups 55:21 technologies 28:7 69:7,13 70:10 31:17 63:3 68:22 99:18 104:7 124:7 system 18:13 62:14 technology81:22 71:14,14 75:6,9 69:1 71:16 102:14 127:13 160:8

64:2 66:16 67:6 telephone 170:3,14 76:11,21 77:12 102:16 103:12 things 14:16 38:13 67:21 69:19 75:6 tell 25:20 122:4 78:2,7,11 80:2,20 105:8 112:22 38:21 51:7 63:17 76:7 78:20 80:18 temperature 57:6 81:4,8,12 86:2,11 140:9,16 145:1 76:20 77:5 86:1 81:10 83:17 64:1 83:20 86:12 87:4,19 153:22 160:14,14 98:7 103:15 120:3 102:21 127:1 tend 77:18 88:13 90:14,19 164:18 165:4,10 120:7 123:21 128:18 148:16 term 25:20 37:3 91:17 93:11 95:20 167:10 171:22 135:19 156:19,20 systems 1:13 5:13 38:8 132:19 96:10,16 97:3,6 172:4 174:16,21 156:21 160:11,14

64:17 71:3 72:18 terminology28:15 97:11,12,22 98:11 175:9,16,22 176:3 160:15 181:4 80:19 97:19 46:7 98:22 100:17,18 176:13 178:10,14 184:5 186:1 122:14 123:20 terms 13:16 15:9 104:8 107:14 178:20 181:10,12 think 6:20 7:2 8:14 126:9 16:4 19:5 23:9 111:10,19 112:9 181:14,20 182:1,5 9:13 11:4 23:5 S.W 1:8 40:20 77:12 83:19 112:13,17 114:8 182:21 183:1 26:1 27:5 32:20 88:4 100:3,4,21 115:1,6 118:9,11 186:4,13 36:10 38:14 40:5 T 103:9 104:2 107:2 118:16 119:7,18 tests 118:15 141:3 40:13 41:8,14,16 table 10:20,21 21:5 112:2 126:22 123:3 124:5,20 142:6 144:5 41:20 42:12 43:1

36:4,5,14 132:11 127:10 128:21 128:7,22 129:10 161:12 180:5 43:4 44:4 46:1 177:17,19 181:17 138:17,18 139:4 130:9,21 136:9 182:16 47:14,20 48:4 182:9 148:14 163:2 137:2,7 140:6 th 169:1 50:11 51:2 52:15 tail 166:2 181:11 185:4 141:19,20,22 thank 5:11 6:19 53:5,6 58:5,7



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 212 64:21 71:19,22 three-year 16:10 178:1 182:20 187:21 typo 92:14,17 72:4,8 73:11 Tim 5:16 53:9,10 totals 177:22 two-part 108:8 U 75:22 76:14,18 75:4 120:10,11 TP 15:21 type 12:8,9,10,11 77:2,14 82:17 U 4:4 ultimately 39:15 131:2,3 149:19 tradition 4:22 12:19 13:10,14 83:12 84:2,19 time 7:22 8:1 10:3 transcript 8:9 17:17,22 18:1,5 85:4,11,12,19 75:16 76:14,17 11:9 15:15,18 170:20 19:12,14,15,15,16 135:17 86:1 87:2,3,19 16:11 28:21 50:22 transport 54:11 19:17,18,18 21:3 88:13,16 90:12,16 uncertain 153:3,4 uncertainty154:3 51:2 53:2 55:17 transportation 22:5,6,6,10,17,17 94:4 96:2 99:8 56:6 57:9,13,18 177:12 22:18 23:12 24:10 102:6,11 104:3,14 unclear 74:4 underlying 87:19 58:6 64:20 67:16 treat 97:18 26:2,16,17 27:5 106:14 107:1,21 72:4 80:13 82:6 treating 96:21 27:18 28:1,1,2,5,6 understand 30:5 108:7 109:5,8,11 82:10,13,14 85:13 treatment 96:19 28:9,16,18,22 69:4 73:16 104:5 109:17 110:1 88:9,14 89:3 136:14 29:11,13,14 30:17 106:11 129:2 115:11 116:9 98:20 99:22 tremendous 140:8 31:7,12,13 33:11 147:7 150:12 117:2 119:12,13 104:10,14,16 180:8 33:15,16,17 34:14 151:17 155:14 119:17 121:1,3 111:22 114:6,21 tried 106:18 34:17 36:18 37:13 163:3 122:19 123:9,13 116:18 117:4,22 trigger 87:6 98:5 40:1,3 42:9 44:10 understanding 123:17 124:9 122:21 123:15 triggers 86:9 44:11 50:19 52:10 46:7 70:14,15 126:3 127:3 129:8 124:12 127:22 trivial 99:12,13 52:12,21 59:14 139:15 understands 153:1 129:12 131:9,14 130:21 136:3 188:21 65:16 80:18 81:10 133:10 134:13,17 139:6 160:8 trouble 72:19 96:20,22 97:1,4,6 understood 153:11 135:2 137:6,12 164:18 175:21 true 118:17,19 97:7,8,8,9,10,11 159:6 138:11,12 143:4 176:1,7 177:7 120:17 97:12 98:11 undertaken 69:19 unit 25:7,9 34:6,6 144:17 145:6 Timeline 3:3 truly187:21 116:12 131:16,22 148:7,13,17 149:5 times 91:22 92:4 try8:8 10:13 46:6 131:22 132:4 59:12,19 61:15 62:1,13,22 63:4,9 149:6 152:16 155:1 52:16 57:12 58:6 133:10,20 136:18 155:13,20 156:3 TIMOTHY 1:15 126:20 127:16 136:19 144:14 63:21 64:7 65:5,9 65:13,17 66:15 156:16 158:19 title 184:10 175:22 146:19,21 147:3 159:22 160:6,13 today 4:7,20 7:17 trying 10:8,9 57:5 154:5 168:2 67:8,12,15,18 68:1,2,6,9 69:6,14 161:4 162:19 7:19,21 8:12 9:5 82:14 86:17 139:4 173:17 174:3,5,6 163:8 169:10 12:5 15:12 52:21 139:22 140:1 174:8,18,19,20 179:14,15 181:1,8 70:17 71:18,21 72:7,19,20 74:7 53:6 95:7 96:11 145:10,11 151:16 175:1,2 176:12 181:13,16 182:2,3 141:4 150:13 156:18 169:21 types 24:18 46:12 74:14,16 79:15,20 184:2 171:21 180:13 tube 28:5 53:7 58:22 59:3 81:3 89:12,16 thinking 43:14 184:18 186:2 turn 8:12 31:3 32:1 59:19 97:1 101:13 115:21,22 122:3 113:7 189:2,3 98:6 135:19 168:3 103:14 110:11 164:4 177:8,13 third 62:9 92:15 today's 8:20 9:10 turning 5:5 131:18 132:10 thoroughly85:16 unitary71:3 127:1 United 162:7 15:13 188:19 tweaks 47:5 147:10 153:15 thought 61:11 toes 72:2 twice 140:7 141:2 174:1,10,14 units 60:10 65:21

73:12 135:15 toilets 137:15,18 two 16:12 22:14 typical 105:9 66:2 67:17 69:20 188:10 tolerances 155:11 30:20 55:15 59:3 167:19 169:21 thousands 145:4 76:6 78:8,11,15 157:4,6 83:15 89:18 100:8 typically26:4 78:16 89:22 90:3 three 16:12,17 top 91:4 113:18 107:9 116:3 33:22 59:19,21 113:16 114:2 17:19 20:1,9,21 177:15 123:21 126:20 65:8,12 66:5,20 122:11 164:4,7 27:13 50:12 60:20 total 26:21 98:17 141:3 167:5 176:6 70:16 102:2 112:2 165:4 unknown 124:7 99:14 100:8 167:5 103:8,20,21 130:5 177:6 180:5,15 146:15 165:3 167:18 174:10,14 153:5 177:21,22 181:4 186:5 166:18



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 213 unperforated 177:15 180:20 56:18 133:14 134:1 130:19,20,22

53:13 186:9 vary168:1 137:4 145:6 148:4 131:7,11,15 132:7 unrefrigerated useful 8:6 29:18 vast 188:3 150:12 159:3 132:13,17,19,19 128:9 50:6 56:7,19 venue 129:20 181:1 161:11,18 162:10 132:21 133:1,3,5 update 17:10 20:12 110:22 146:13,20 verbatim 91:18 163:4,4 165:22 133:19 134:7,15

21:12 23:6 146:22 147:9 verification 155:7 168:14 172:21 134:20 135:1,6,7 updated 21:14,14 usefulness 55:2,7 159:18 161:13 183:20 136:13,16,20,21

22:1,14 141:20 users 53:14 verify79:4 144:22 wanted 10:17 28:8 137:13 138:7,19 144:1 179:11 uses 79:2 103:7 145:1 44:15 74:1 81:2 139:1,4,16 141:15 updates 17:20 106:13 133:12,21 version 17:3 21:13 95:7 138:22 142:3,8 143:6

23:19 27:15 usually16:9 39:6 21:16,17,19 22:22 173:10 184:4 144:2,7,8,11,16 184:16 73:5 82:9 versions 17:11 185:6 186:17 145:14 146:2,3,6 updating 22:20 utilities 100:1,2 versus 38:9 45:2 wanting 161:8,16 146:13,16 147:4,5 upper 22:2 utility 151:11,13 50:16 55:6 83:19 wants 50:12 86:11 147:8 148:8,9,12 urge 145:7 U.S 1:1,7,11,13,15 100:5 101:18 139:5 148:15,16,20,21 usable 48:14 1:18 103:9 105:19 104:5,11 108:1 warm 58:4 172:14 148:21 149:9,14 usage 103:22 U.S.C 132:11 122:9 126:10 warranted 183:8 149:20 150:4,6,7 105:19 109:14 viable 129:14 washer 123:9 150:14 151:4,8 V use 14:18,19 15:3 video 170:22 171:4 Washers 123:4 152:20,21,22 vacuum 123:19 16:10 18:19,19 171:5 washing 138:2 153:1,7,7,8,13,20 vague 68:4 19:1 20:17 24:14 view 26:14 36:5 Washington 1:8 154:1,10 155:14 valid 117:12 26:8,12 28:16 109:6 145:16 4:8 155:15 157:15 validate 164:16 34:7,16 37:20 viewed 101:7 wasn't 21:18 43:14 158:16 159:9,15 valuable 146:17 39:5 40:16 41:12 visible 94:7 43:15 52:18 71:8 159:22 160:9 value 35:17 37:1,10 46:9 53:5,12 61:2 visitor's 94:7 134:11 161:1,3 162:4,12 45:9,22 51:14 61:3 62:4,6,22 void 78:2 waste 146:2,14 162:20 164:3,11 56:7,16,19 63:22 63:22 64:6 65:18 volume 39:6 76:2 wastewater 136:14 164:13,14,22 63:22 64:1 80:21 68:7,11 91:13 volumes 125:22 146:8,20,22 147:3 165:5 167:17 104:5 148:7 96:7 97:22 98:9 voluntarily108:1 147:22 168:7,9,11 169:4 155:12 98:19 99:1,9,15 watch 94:3 169:13,15 W values 33:12 45:7 100:8,9,11 103:9 water 14:18 18:7 water's 50:7 46:10 51:22 63:10 wait 32:22 103:14 105:4 20:6,19 21:7 watt 103:13,16 64:7 68:8 69:8 waiver 86:10 87:4 106:9,13 107:17 22:10 30:16 32:8 105:9 81:6,15,17,19 87:17 186:14 118:11 130:8,10 33:12,19 34:10,16 wattage 103:7 118:15 134:4 waivers 85:18 130:17,18,22 34:20,22 36:2,7 watts 99:12,14 variability167:8 walk-in 18:16 131:15 132:7,13 36:17,21 37:4,6 100:9,9 variable 80:8 83:16 wander 76:9 132:17 134:20 37:11,17,20 38:3 way13:9 19:1 158:20 159:7 want 6:13 32:16 136:13,20,21,22 38:4,5,15 41:6 39:15 63:5,15,19 variables 63:13 38:8 41:10 42:12 137:13 138:10,11 45:8,8 48:14 49:6 64:21 67:22 75:21 70:7 43:8 45:7,12 138:19,22 139:1 49:7,10,11,12,18 75:22 77:3,5 variance 168:5 47:19 57:17 67:11 139:16 141:15 49:20 50:1,5,5,8 79:17 83:8 86:17 variation 113:2 72:15 73:18,21 148:15,19,21 50:19,21 51:16 87:5 88:7 94:5 varies 64:20,20 83:11 85:16 92:10 150:5,6,7,14 52:18,22 53:3,16 113:9 123:1 136:2 113:2 102:5 104:14 151:4,8,12,15 55:3,6,8,20 56:3,5 143:16 158:7 variety65:11 70:6 106:19 124:18 153:13 157:16 56:7,20 57:9,21 160:12 165:2 125:4 125:5,11,16 127:1 161:17 164:14 115:18 130:5,8,10 184:12 various 45:18 127:19,22 133:13 167:22 172:13 130:11,12,17,18 ways 20:1 22:2



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 214 58:5 70:3,4 87:15 117:20 118:20 129:16 139:10 www.regulations... 12:28 170:11 100:7 107:9 124:13 131:18 142:4,9 144:3 185:14 12:45 7:18 wear 94:6 web 10:7,8,10 132:2,2 137:6,18 142:20 143:13 146:10 148:11 152:17 154:21 Y 12:49 189:6 135 100:3 166:10 147:18 148:7,11 163:18 166:4,12 yea 29:18 144 36:16 website 8:10 9:12 148:16,18,20 167:13 170:5 year 16:2,8 82:12 15 94:1,2,3,14,22

92:22 170:21 149:5 151:12 171:12,20 173:6 175:19,21 176:2 136:15 183:14 websites 186:12 152:9 156:17,17 179:4,12 180:18 178:6,9,11 16 3:5 wedge 10:13 156:20 157:1,9 182:11 183:15,19 years 16:12,12,17 172 3:8 weight 39:10 91:21 158:3,13,17,18 187:15 188:8 64:4 83:17 136:15 188 3:9 weighting 81:16,18 160:14,14 162:3 wide 65:11 99:15 173:1 189 3:11

84:19,22 85:4,6 162:19,22 163:11 164:7 yous 188:17 1975 11:10 weights 86:15 welcome 3:2 4:4,14

4:20 10:3,6,19,20 166:1,2,6 171:19 173:2,3 176:22 178:12 185:20,21 widely113:2 wider 154:19 winter 16:6 Z zero 169:14 1988 17:3 92:17 2 96:6 157:20 162:17 180:21 181:2 182:4 186:11 188:19,22 welcomes 147:13 189:4 187:14 we've 11:15 19:2

71:12 99:20 101:16 105:8 146:10 147:17 148:2 173:9 wish 6:14 7:9 8:5 wishes 7:7 10:15

29:20 184:1 188:13 withdraw 135:21 wondering 54:4 $ $5,000 176:4 $500 177:10 $7,500 176:4 $740 177:11 2,500 11:14 12:10 12:19 17:18 19:13 21:2 22:4 25:3,16 173:18 174:4 175:1 20 132:22 168:12 welcoming 4:12 went 9:13 38:11

95:2 116:17 170:10 we'll 4:19 7:12,14 10:13 13:8 17:10 18:8 32:14 73:21 85:17 90:15 92:21 94:1,2,14,21 108:13,21,22 124:8 145:6 152:12 166:10 174:10 we're 4:10,11 5:2

7:10 11:2 13:1 15:16,21 19:5,14 20:2 29:9 30:5 34:1 47:18 49:6 49:10 64:22 68:10 69:6 71:13 72:9 77:14,15 83:2 93:21 96:5,10,21 99:13 100:10 103:5,12 106:14 109:7 110:6,7 115:16 117:14,19 180:20 183:16 185:5 whatnot 39:8 127:21 Widder 1:12 3:5,7

3:8 6:5,5 12:17 13:4 16:19,20 24:2 25:9,12,22 27:10,14 29:8 32:12,17,21 33:2 33:6 38:10,22 39:18 43:5,10 46:17,19 48:22 49:3 50:10 54:22 56:10 58:10,13,15 65:8,22 66:17 69:2,11,16 70:4 73:20 78:5 79:7 79:21 88:6 89:5,7 89:11 90:4,6,9,13 90:18 92:19 93:3 93:6 96:6 97:20 101:8,11 103:1 105:2 106:17 107:18 111:6,9,15 111:17 115:4 73:14 88:2 89:9 worded 131:5 words 74:9 89:1 work 64:16 86:22 88:14 152:4 worked 30:1 87:20 working 15:18 129:15 170:16 works 53:7 58:5

94:6 world 169:20 worried 77:6 worse 168:2 wouldn't 38:14

56:8 72:22 84:21 143:2,7 wrap 88:10 writing 68:14 108:7 124:9 written 9:9 44:8,17

49:5 55:9 100:12 109:12 117:18 146:11 149:2 161:15 182:4 wrong 118:13 148:22 1 1 11:15 12:1 16:17

36:19,20 37:17 185:9 1.0 35:18 1.02 35:13,18 43:22 1.04 37:16 1.2 182:22 1:00 4:20 7:18 10 94:13 99:12

100:9 169:2 170:4 179:22 10% 112:21 124:12

177:9 10-watt 99:7 10:40 94:1 95:2 10:55 94:2 10:59 95:3 100 91:22 133:5

134:16 179:22 100% 31:15,19

34:6,7 40:2 41:22 82:5,8 91:22 92:5 1000 1:7 11:00 7:13 12:20 170:10 173:1 20% 45:8 176:16 2000 112:9 2003 17:3 2005 11:12 17:4

20:12 92:17 2006 14:1 18:22

90:20 2007 21:21 28:10

92:8 2009 93:2 2010 11:15 185:9 2011 1:6 4:7 9:3,7 16:6 2012 16:4,16 2015 12:1 16:17 24 11:14 13:12,15 17:14 18:2 19:13 19:22 24:15 25:3 25:4,17 90:9 112:6,21 174:5,8 28% 176:17,21 29 1:6 4:7 15:21 17:3 27:16 32:11 43:2 45:19 51:13 52:9 71:13 85:21



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### Page 215 91:2,9 92:16 70 34:13,21 37:5,7 147:17,17 164:1 49:7 29-1988 92:21 750 172:18 29-2009 21:18,21 8

27:21 35:7 92:7 8 14:1 3 8E-089 1:7 3 9:7 184:14 8% 182:22 30 123:22 132:22 8.2a 91:20 168:16 175:14,15 8.4a 91:19 176:19,21 178:7 80% 45:8 104:13 178:10 810 17:2 21:20 32 34:19 36:15 37:5 27:15,16 28:9

37:11 38:4 42:7 43:7 71:13 92:7 42:11 49:7,12 175:4,7 50:2 810-2003 13:20 33 92:14 14:2,6 17:16 810-2007 21:15 4 27:20 29:12 33:9 4 3:2,3 9:3 37:21 97:3 163:22 4,000 12:10,14 174:22 13:12,15 17:14 810-2007's 28:10 18:2 19:21 21:3 820 112:8 22:3,19 23:21 85% 34:13 24:5,7,11,15,21 25:4,16 27:2 9 174:4,7 9:00 1:8 40 64:3 9:01 4:2 42 132:11 96 3:6 5 50 11:14 12:14,18

13:12,15 17:14,18 18:2 19:13,21 22:19 24:21 25:3 25:3 173:18 174:7 174:22 50% 34:8,10 82:13

82:13 54 184:15 58 11:18 6 6% 49:22 6313(d)(1) 132:11 7 7.74 182:19 

### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433216

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript

In the matter of: Test Procedure for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Before: UD DOE

Date: 04-29-11

Place: Washington, DC

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under my direction; further, that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.

----------------------- Court Reporter

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com