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 16 

for 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 inconsistency 

between 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 storage 

bin, 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 what 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 be 

refrigerated 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 122 

requirement 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 maybe 

refrigerated 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. That 

was 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 

A added 61:3,12 advisement 138:13 Alliance 2:3 5:21 amount 27:6 41:4,5

106:10 185:6 advocate 167:9 Allison 1:13 5:12 61:5 111:8 133:18 ability 149:17 

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 Agency 1:19 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 absolutely 23:5 

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 

Additionally 18:4 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 anybody 7:7 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 

Act 48:5 163:22 174:22 13:17 14:8 20:5 anyway 158:18 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 

apply 46:12 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 authority 14:4 177:2 180:2 181:3 186:3 

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 awfully 131:4 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 

appropriate 10:14 aspects 107:16 4:16 8:20,22 B bat 137:4 

23:12 24:5 29:7 assembly back 8:7 10:19 78:18 11:21 14:3,5 batch 12:8,10

35:11 46:10 49:5 assessment 14:12 15:7 18:22 123:8 18:11,22 19:9,11 13:10 19:14,15,16

53:7 56:9 82:18 174:13 20:15 24:13 28:4 29:17 41:21 43:11 19:19 22:6,17

83:14 84:20 114:8 assign 56:21 79:14 94:3 64:7 28:6 58:18,22 27:22 28:2,7,16

129:20 145:17 assigning 94:14 96:7 101:12 63:10 59:4,8,10 60:4,8 29:11,14 30:14,15 

153:12 155:16 associate 32:2 63:4 81:13 90:22 102:9 104:10 30:16 42:9 44:10 

181:1 38:15 112:18 113:14 109:6 119:3,13 46:12 48:10,17

April 1:6 4:7 9:3 associated 30:16 120:13,20 129:18 120:12 134:10 52:12 96:20,22

15:21 113:7 123:16 130:6,6 163:21 145:15 149:6 97:4,5,7,8,9,11,12

arbitrary 72:21 124:2,11 144:15 164:19 172:12 151:10 156:4 97:18 99:20 174:3 

84:18 144:20 175:11 173:16 176:17 170:14 187:22 174:5,18,19

area 82:16 88:17 176:3 177:4,12 177:1 185:17 188:16 batch-type 99:19 

88:21 107:2 182:10 186:1 backup 11:16 beginning 115:15 

110:20 131:14 assume 104:12 auxiliary 97:21 185:4 begins 58:4 

132:8 169:5 assumed 68:22 98:8 99:1 101:15 bad 82:9 behaviors 126:5 

argument 83:18 118:8 177:13 106:20 107:16 badge 94:7,7 believe 43:18 46:17 

105:20 assuming 117:14 110:2,6,9 ball 119:5 48:12,19 62:12 

arguments Ballo 1:15 5:16,16 99:17 118:13 178:13 availability 134:13 70:19 85:13 

119:5 152:11 assumption 53:9,10,10 75:5 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 busy 94:12 

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 buy 67:4 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 clarity 38:20 137:21 140:15 

63:9 79:12 80:9 157:2 Charlie 2:3 5:20 classical 110:11 160:15 

173:18 174:4,7 certainly 56:15 16:20 17:2 19:22 classification comes 30:19 36:7 

capacity 18:18 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 certify 186:8 181:2 183:17 clearer 107:3 28:21 29:2,17,18 

89:15 90:7 102:20 certifying 186:7,10 chase 157:17 161:5 clearly 48:16 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 

carefully 131:4 158:22 173:15 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 codify 137:17 130:22 134:18 

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 

Casey 1:22 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 clarify 18:9 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 complexity 126:22 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 comply 118:21 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 

commodity 26:9 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 

commonly 104:22 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 

company 63:7 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 

completely 33:18 133:17 147:7,22 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 

56:20 123:5 135:1 57:21 61:5 88:22 covered 11:21 D 114:17 

159:8 99:21 17:17 19:11 20:7 dangerous 145:5 declarification

context Daryl 1:17 5:14 89:11 copy 7:2 11:4 20:20 21:8 22:16 93:14 

continue 23:2 24:4 26:13 62:10 copying 178:2 22:22 23:12 62:18 dedicated 59:7,11

94:21 96:5 164:20 Corporation 29:20 30:6 40:9 1:16 187:1 60:9,15 61:14,22 

continuous 40:10 43:20 52:7 13:13 1:18 5:10 6:12 covering 52:1 62:21 63:9,20

17:22 19:15 21:3 31:5 33:14 45:15 covers 165:12 55:10 56:10,14,21 64:6 65:5,9,12,17

22:6,10,17 26:16 79:10 132:15 create 64:9 70:22 71:1 72:5 126:6 65:20 66:1,6,8,9

27:18 28:1,18,22 Corporation's 159:11 186:8 81:20 85:11 86:14 66:14 69:5 70:17 

30:17 31:6 33:10 79:12 credit 87:11 93:12 97:16 49:11 82:18 71:8,9,21 72:18 

33:15,16,17 34:14 correct 13:8 29:9 123:4 167:12 103:2 105:14 78:8 

34:17 36:18 37:13 46:1 49:18 69:4 credited 123:8 109:21 115:10 default 61:1 

40:1,16 42:9 69:11 74:12 75:22 criteria 138:22 118:18 125:18 Defense 1:21 

46:13 48:10,11,17 106:17 107:4 crystal 133:14 128:13 133:8 define 47:11 51:8 

48:21 49:10 50:19 115:4 142:4 cube 11:13 12:9,11 135:12 154:7 128:8 

52:10,14,19,20 148:10 178:5 12:19 13:11 17:17 159:4 160:6 162:1 defined 30:18 

53:8 55:13 130:13 179:3,4,10 18:1,5 19:12,16 169:8 187:15,16 33:22 37:2 112:2 

133:10,20 146:1 correction data 25:11,13 85:3 41:13 19:17 22:5 26:17 113:15 

146:19,21 147:6 93:1,5 28:5,9,11 29:12 85:6 101:20 102:1 definitely 40:7 

174:8 175:2 corrections 102:8,19 121:15 91:6 40:3 44:10 97:1,2 164:10 

176:12 177:3 92:22 97:8,9 131:16,22 142:15,17 144:6,8 definition 22:7 

continuously 28:20 correctly 118:9 132:4 147:3 153:14 154:3 28:10,19 29:10 

contrast 157:18,21 158:6 69:18 correlates 102:20 173:17 174:6,20 31:6 40:14 97:5 

contributed 164:15,21 165:6 98:16 correlation 41:4 175:1 120:13 172:10,22

contribution 68:20 cost 102:13 104:6 cubes 42:10 database 140:11 173:2 180:2 181:3 

control 126:9 145:3,10,18 cueing 8:4 date 16:17 definitions 22:4 

158:21 165:12 175:22 177:4,9,9 cup 39:7,11 55:16 day 4:11 17:19 18:2 27:22 29:1,5,19

170:15 178:16,20 179:18 curious 19:13 21:3 22:3,4 46:16 30:1,8 31:22 

controllers 98:5 180:9 182:14,16 current 17:5 19:10 22:19 24:8,12,22 185:5 

controls 27:2 84:11 90:7,8 98:15 183:1 21:13 22:21 53:6 degrade 160:9 

111:3 costs 140:9 175:11 59:2 72:11 80:20 94:21 102:20,21 degree 36:15 49:12 

convened 1:7 176:3,6,9 177:11 97:22 145:18 102:22 158:22 50:2 127:19 

convenience 116:1 178:6,22 182:9,12 currently 20:10 173:19 175:1 degrees 34:20,21

convenient 83:8 Council 1:21 21:1,4 78:7 81:6 days 123:22 37:5,5,7,12 38:4 

conversations 8:14 Counsel's 6:4 81:14 91:4 103:19 deal 169:19 42:7,11 123:21 

66:19 106:7 117:12 112:16 130:8 dealing 141:6,7 deionized 169:13 

converts 41:6 131:13 150:19 141:12 175:15 December 14:1 delayed 151:3 

cool 37:4,11 55:20 couple 35:2 51:7 customer 52:2 15:7 deleterious 134:22 

57:6 61:5 76:12 103:3 123:13 customers 45:9 decertify 156:15 deliberating 99:13 

76:13 184:4 82:7 127:19 135:4 decide 87:7 121:22 deliver 160:16,17

cooled 49:6,7,9 courier 184:7 cut 163:13 decided 116:18 160:18 184:7 

63:8,14 67:14,15 course 82:12 87:5 cycle 14:19 59:18 deciding 35:12 delivers 136:19 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 196 

delivery 116:22 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 discontinuity 28:15 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 differently 72:9 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 display 71:10 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 

dependency 57:18 174:17 175:7,14 difficulty 55:4 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 directly 34:5 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 equally 97:19 

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 effectively 151:8 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 efficiency 2:3 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 enthalpy 63:16 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 entirely 62:16 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 

early 4:10 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 

easy 84:8 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 

especially 26:15 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 factory 125:10 first 12:16 15:4 format 10:12 

essentially 30:14 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 fairly 77:2 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 explicitly 75:8 170:6 flavored 55:21 freezes 28:20 

evaluation 154:4 96:12 128:20 federal 9:2 131:3 flexibility 138:4 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 Friday 1:5 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 

everybody 145:7 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 

exactly 29:8 61:21 extremely 127:18 164:17 165:3 167:10,11 168:3 fully 30:7 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 

47:17 60:1 65:15 134:7 135:12 75:20 94:21 96:3 H hearing 46:9,13

68:18 77:17 96:16 138:2 143:2 156:4 102:8 107:21 habit 8:3 heat 36:6,8,15,17

112:22 147:11 156:9,21 157:2 127:2 131:13 half 39:7 37:8,10 39:3,9 

165:6 188:22 161:9 163:17 133:12 150:19 hall 94:9 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 

114:11 154:5 168:11,16,18 162:12 166:7,9 174:15 184:7 heaters 160:10 

170:6 171:18 GoToMeeting handed 137:16,20 heating 1:14 6:1 

G 183:20 184:3 10:12 138:1 184:18 172:14 

gained 101:16 185:13 186:20 Grant 6:17 handle 85:20 help 26:11 157:10 

game 36:14 85:12 187:14 gray 107:1 131:14 handler 69:21 helpful 23:15 44:9 

gaming 85:18 God 171:16 132:8 handling 76:5 68:13,14 75:14 

gas 110:4,14 goes 30:9 51:16 great 33:2 44:18 hang 94:11 88:15,16 130:1 

gathering 85:6 54:8,10 55:16 47:15 49:22 79:21 happen 125:13 helps 159:6 

164:21 56:1 70:1 84:19 90:13 97:20 happened 169:11 Hi 23:2 

GC's 107:20 110:15 120:2 152:17 happens 57:8 79:19 high 26:19 52:5 

general 6:4 15:1 133:5 136:2,16 greater 24:11,15 83:7,11 159:8 161:14 

106:6 117:12 167:6 34:12 35:13 36:20 happy 139:10 162:1,9 163:6 

131:12 150:2,19 going hard 104:15 158:2 4:11 5:2 6:22 42:2 43:21 45:22 167:10,17 169:4 

generally 67:11 7:10 8:3 11:2 47:16 159:13,15 182:22 

103:10 114:16 16:21 24:3 25:16 greatest 164:12 hardness 22:7 higher 45:10,11

geographically 32:18 34:1 40:16 greatly 152:7 33:22 38:9,17 83:5 162:13 

162:6,14 41:18 51:10,15,19 green 40:20 42:2,3 45:3 5:6 15:20 167:19 178:9 

getting 4:10 36:11 57:12 68:10 72:10 Greg 6:15,18,19 45:7,11,11 51:14 highest 76:2 134:2 

53:16 102:11 76:16 77:14,15,17 44:20,21 51:5,6 51:21 52:5 57:2 164:19 165:5 

166:2 181:12 84:8,13,15 87:13 67:9,10 78:13,14 132:19 133:22 history 3:3 7:5 11:9 

give 52:1,2,3 55:11 96:5,7 105:15 79:18 93:19,19 134:2,3 152:21,21 13:17 

56:22 82:18 116:2 117:20 119:2 124:16,17 147:14 153:1,7,13,21 hold 121:14 123:21 

163:9 167:12 120:6 121:21,22 147:15 159:3 154:2,10 155:14 holding 54:11 

given 61:6 76:6 122:8,12 124:13 161:20,21 165:8 157:15 158:16 honest 128:12 

98:18 136:13,18 125:12 126:4,21 168:13,18,19 161:1 162:2,3,4 honestly 52:20 

136:19 127:8 132:19 GREGORY 1:19 162:13 164:22 135:14 

gives 151:14 182:3 133:1,3 140:20 Greg's 73:12 hardware 103:18 hook 67:5 

giving 49:10 51:22 141:12 143:5 grid 100:3 103:22 harvest 23:22 hope 170:2,7,17

glad 4:9,10 145:3,9 146:6 grocery 18:14 harvesting 19:20 hopefully 4:19 

gloss 124:3 147:22 151:10 59:21 67:3 28:3,14 90:18 

go 12:17 23:3 31:20 156:7 157:1 ground 9:16 94:10 harvests 28:20 horizon 175:21 

35:3 38:17 41:21 158:10,11,13,15 94:15 head 59:5 64:8 Hoshizaki 1:19 

46:1,19 49:16 158:17,18,19 guess 69:15 70:16 71:6 23:10 40:18 6:16 72:16 79:3 

50:12,13,15 51:4 159:16 160:11 41:1 46:15 48:1,2 71:17,21 72:6 125:3 165:9 

55:21 67:19 68:1 161:16,17 162:3,5 71:11 103:5,22 76:21 88:10 hot 54:13 

68:9 74:3 76:6 163:11,12,15 117:7 121:9 126:13 188:6,7 hotels 26:2 

82:7 84:12 92:15 167:7 168:20 132:18 133:9 heads 113:13 126:8 hour 11:15 25:17 

94:11 96:18 169:10 171:19 157:16 166:9 126:16 137:20 103:13 105:9 

103:17 107:18 183:21 187:16 171:4 hear 8:7 48:2 55:3 hours 13:13,15

109:6,10 119:13 188:9 guideline 68:3 166:10 171:6 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 immediately 7:3 114:1 

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 importantly 41:1 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 industry 17:11 

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 

6:21 7:4,11 11:17 185:11 179:14,15 185:10 119:8 161:8 L

30:12 68:13 intentionally issues 3:6 7:8,15 keeping 122:20 label 138:14,16

100:20 101:16 159:14 47:13 54:20 85:19 Kent 1:18 95:12,12 141:14

102:12 105:5 intercepted 91:21 96:8,13 121:7 key 7:8 laboratory 1:12,17

109:16 116:19 interest 100:2,2 137:13 139:7 kilowatt 91:20 1:22 6:6,8,10

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 95:16,18 139:15 iteration 59:14 132:2 149:16 88:21 119:3

infused 50:21 interpret 143:16 it'll 168:15 167:5 169:21 174:19

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 

J 1:22

initially 18:21 interpreted 29:13 know 11:9,11 23:4 

89:13 interrupt 46:21 26:19 40:4,15 leach 53:3

initiative 185:19 introduce 6:14 January 11:15 12:1 41:10 50:17 52:11 lead 33:7

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 

185:21 introduces 178:13 67:22 70:10 72:3 leaving 125:10

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 inquiry 33:5 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 

inventory 60:16 103:12 104:2,12 

Inserting 94:11 96:1 131:15 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 

installed 164:17 invite 55:8 146:11 115:12 117:13 174:15

165:3,17 join 10:21 legally 135:18 

joining 10:6 170:13 

invoke 142:22 118:21 124:7 

instance 86:13 143:8 125:15 126:4 legislation 106:1

jump 136:11 120:2 143:10,17 

jumping 139:19 

162:8 involved 139:7 128:14 132:21 

Institute 1:14 6:2 140:9 135:21 136:6,8 145:12

instituted 181:15 June 9:7 184:14 legitimate 134:6 

Justice 5:17 53:11 

ion 153:5 140:3 157:11,20 

instruction 164:2 irrelevant 143:9 157:21,22 158:1 legwork 127:7

120:12 lengthy 29:10 

justified 98:20 99:3 

instrumentation isn’t 114:14 159:5 160:10,21 

103:13 issue 9:19 11:20 161:4 162:8,11,20 letting 52:18

instruments 103:14 116:13 let's 13:10 32:22 

justify 127:3 158:2 

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 78:1 85:15 97:21 179:22 184:20 93:22 95:9 106:3 

insulation 123:20 98:13 102:9 108:1 K 187:19,20,22 121:11 127:5

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 

integral 115:21 110:11,18 111:18 136:18 157:17 170:1

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 majority 72:10 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-quality 133:2 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 

78:18 107:1 loads 82:15 99:21 M 62:6 80:15 86:18 98:16 99:2,18,21

142:20 160:15 locked 148:20 machine 29:7 88:4 96:14 97:6 111:4,11 113:13 

170:3 30:14,19 39:13 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 

36:21 37:17 41:6 161:6 74:10 76:13 77:1 187:7 188:2 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 

listed 174:15 43:12 82:11 108:3 86:11 103:7,21 11:21 12:9,11 mandate 156:16 

listening 170:18 108:22 116:10,21 104:11 110:7 13:10,14 14:3 Manitowoc 1:17 

188:21 129:13 138:21 115:17 124:14 17:22 18:12,18,22 5:15 23:3 45:1 

125:1,8,14 126:11 literally 170:8 140:11,12 160:20 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 

11:8 14:22 24:3 186:11 188:4 136:19 146:5,6,16 22:17 24:13 25:21 68:10 75:10 

73:9,13 75:14 looked 27:1 86:6 153:1 159:10 26:1,3 27:18 28:5 180:15 

76:8,10 82:4 88:2 143:7 160:1,9 169:6,22 28:7,13,22 33:11 manufacturer 60:3 

88:7 98:12 100:20 looking 14:14 20:7 machines 17:17 33:15,16,17,17 66:5 70:18 81:1,4 

101:11 121:19 43:17 85:15 91:8 18:2,5,7 22:11 34:15 40:1,6 155:5 159:13 

143:18 149:1,5,8 91:9 101:13,14 24:16,18 27:5 48:21 49:11 58:19 164:9 165:1 180:3 

169:1 172:21 106:20 108:1 30:17 31:7,12,13 59:1,4,10 60:9 manufacturers

Llenza 1:11 3:4 110:4 112:12 31:14,15,16,18 62:20 63:5 80:3,6 26:10 47:4 54:4 

4:13,14 7:16 8:17 119:18 131:18 34:17 40:4 44:10 80:10 81:13 91:1 60:4 61:19 65:16 

8:18,19 10:17 132:18 151:12 44:11 57:22 71:3 96:20,22 97:7,8,8 66:18,19 69:12 

11:7 12:21 13:3,7 153:15,19 160:19 97:4 100:8 103:10 97:11 101:14 70:6,13,21 72:5 

44:15 46:18,21,22 176:1,19 104:13 105:10 105:17,22 112:18 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 minimally 62:4 

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 

Mary 1:18 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 necessary 14:8 normally 16:9 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 okay 6:20 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 

money 145:19 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 

multiply 37:19 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

multi-stage 86:13 non 99:2 101:18 O 188:14,18 69:10,12,17 89:21 

121:20 122:9 observation 101:6 OMB 176:11 90:1,2,2,5,8 96:1 N non-cube 97:4 101:10 181:17,19 101:3,4,4,10 

name 4:8 5:3,7,9,12 non-ice 98:4,16 obviously 56:17 once 14:12 88:10 104:19,20 107:7,8 

7:22 8:4,8 95:10 non-perforated 72:7 104:7 111:21 114:13,14 119:1,2 

139:12 32:5 50:16 occurs 59:21 71:4 189:2 122:22 123:1 

national 1:12,16,22 NOPR 4:17 15:8,13 111:20 ones 58:1 76:1,2 134:17,17 141:17 

6:6,8,10 164:22 15:21 16:3 99:7 odd 173:1 179:9 141:18 142:5 

Natural 1:21 106:10 113:1 oddly 99:20 one's 84:8 143:18 149:4,7,20 

nature 30:18 57:13 150:13 157:13 odors 127:20 ongoing 12:2 154:13,14 155:17 

63:18 177:18,19 178:2 offer 58:1 72:16,18 online 170:13 161:7,10 

nay 29:19 normal 57:6 offered 177:3 open 119:8 outcome 115:2 

near 50:2 159:21 160:4 offering 29:19 opening 7:8 10:3 outdated 173:2 

nearly 64:3 188:2 office 6:4 106:7 10:22 11:1 outdoor 69:21 76:6 

necessarily 67:16 normalization 39:3 107:21 117:12 operable 78:17 outliers 154:18 

99:16 136:11 normalize 18:6 131:13 146:15 operate 62:14 outline 19:4 

137:14 141:3 33:11 34:15 38:3 150:19 80:11,12 86:18 outlined 17:2 20:1 

147:20 148:2 39:12 offset 99:21 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 particularly 55:13 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 

overly 14:20 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 potentially 124:2 

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 Policy 11:11 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 photocopy 179:3 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 possibility 150:16 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 practicality 50:17 

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 possibly 154:16 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 

precisely 43:12 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 

preliminary 15:8 181:21 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 

presently 48:20 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 

pretty 73:9 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 properly 69:4 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 

previously 146:11 124:5 128:7,22 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 

primarily 24:19 143:8,12,22 102:22 143:20 107:6 130:19 15:6,13,19,21,22 

primary 30:11 144:11 147:6 144:4 153:18 136:12 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 

probably 7:17 152:6,19 153:14 produced 34:14 19:8 20:8 31:8,17 publicly 175:13 

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 Q 124:1 135:14 ratings 83:4 118:12 recommendation

136:5 177:19 153:10 127:17 140:8 125:9 154:9 qualification 114:5 

178:4 180:6 recommendations quality 18:8 22:8 

pull 156:5 157:2 R ratio 36:15 162:2,3 180:19,22 31:14 33:13 34:1 

pump 168:22 169:1 R 1:21 ratios 126:1 recommended 34:2,3,4,7,18 169:2,5 RA 92:17 93:2 reach 82:8 176:11 35:22 37:3,22 

pumps rack 18:13 59:17 86:13 reached 183:16 record 8:1 13:9 38:8,12,15,19 

purchase 126:10 59:22 60:1,14 read 29:1 41:21 23:3,21 95:2 40:12 45:2,10,10 126:10,18 61:3,8,18 62:2 118:3,8 132:10 139:13 149:11 51:13 132:20,21 

purchased 63:12 66:16 67:4 126:13 157:13 165:20 170:10 133:2 153:7 175:5 

126:19 67:12,17,20 68:2 reading 114:19 171:11,14 176:16 

purchasers 126:6 72:18 78:15,20 reads 13:9 rectified 178:3 quantification purely 40:17 79:14,19 ready 90:11 152:15 reduced 86:18 97:21 102:12 

purge 147:4,4 racks 58:20 63:14 163:16 88:19 114:20 115:5 

163:20 164:5,8,19 64:3 reaffirmed 17:4 reduces 167:7 quantified 111:9 

165:2,14 166:17 raise 7:9 9:21 184:1 real 82:22 104:15 reducing 123:5 112:16 130:9 

167:1 168:8 188:13 125:12 169:20 reference 20:12 147:3 175:8 

purpose raised 96:13 155:9 41:9 55:16 176:10 177:16 21:19 28:11 96:21 quantify 98:3,8 71:8 106:19 121:9 range 22:2 23:12 realized 177:21 99:7 101:5 141:21 99:1 101:1 107:4 

149:13 24:12 25:2 34:12 really 30:9 39:9 151:6 178:4 107:6 122:8 172:3 

purposes 29:6,14 65:19,22 66:2 41:8 42:3 44:17 referenced 22:20 quantifying 98:20 

44:1 55:15 99:15 103:11,16 52:11 57:18 58:2 50:20 112:10 148:12 

pursuant 164:2 124:1 133:22 58:5,7,17 71:7 references 17:10 182:12 

pursue 120:6 136:21 138:9,17 72:21 82:20 83:7 21:16 quantity 61:6 89:4 

purview 60:3 139:1 154:15,20 83:10 85:2,3,14 referencing 22:14 115:19 

push 155:8,16,18 156:4 120:12 145:14 86:7 87:9 96:3 27:19 29:11 35:6 question 23:11 

187:11 156:6,10,14 157:6 102:7 104:4 92:6 147:18 25:6,19 26:22 

pushback 158:12,16 159:21 120:8 106:14 116:6 referred 28:8 29:5 32:13 48:1,2 

put 36:1 39:7 84:3 160:4 162:18 121:6 127:2 137:5 referring 29:17 49:4 68:18 69:3 

84:16 102:14 174:9,19 176:4 139:21 159:22 refers 89:10 91:19 73:20 104:10 

113:18 119:19 ranges 157:7 160:13,19 161:1 91:20 108:8,10,21 121:22 125:4,7,7 rapidly 54:17 162:12 163:12 reflect 14:18 22:11 110:20 111:3 

125:10,16 127:16 rarely 80:12 reason 41:16 71:9 23:7 52:6,8 83:7 114:14 115:12 

140:22 142:18 rate 18:20 20:17 77:3 97:18 116:1 reflected 150:8 117:7,13 119:6 162:18 163:10 23:22 51:20 63:16 reasonable 83:21 refreshment 128:7 131:13,19 169:18 181:19 89:2 117:1 124:20 163:3,7,8,11 187:10 143:18 150:19 

188:6 125:13,13 176:10 reasonably 14:17 refrigerant 61:7,9 156:7 162:22 

puts 163:5 177:16 76:20 63:16 79:6 88:19 187:5 

putting rated 80:19 159:1 51:17 reasoning 183:9 88:20 questions 7:20 8:15 

53:14 84:9 132:20 160:18 reasons 62:18 refrigerated 8:16 9:4,22 10:11 148:16 rates 136:14 127:2 133:13 121:20,21 122:9 10:11 

puzzled 137:15,19 148:9 149:7 receive 141:14 122:10,18 123:16 quick 25:19 29:5 

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-... rating 40:5 71:15 received 6:20 11:4 124:15 128:17 57:3 149:22 169:9 

4:1 80:21,22 83:17 24:9 27:17 61:18 refrigeration 1:14 187:5 

p.m 170:10,11 89:15 104:8 112:5 receives 109:17 6:1 18:15 59:18 quickly 58:2 94:11 

189:6 122:14 124:8 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 

regularly 80:16 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 

regulatory 3:8 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 

relatively 57:20 100:2 112:20 179:17 185:10,12 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 simply 101:5 136:3 

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 secondary 12:16 64:6 89:17 104:17 ship 76:3 167:19 176:15,15 178:5 

181:9 secondly 105:20 113:5 157:7,13 shipped 166:18 179:2,8,21 180:1 

sanitary 54:1 133:3 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 security 6:22 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 separately 67:7 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 similarly 22:15 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 specify 18:17 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 

sorry 12:12 13:9 speed 82:20 83:15 standardization 131:16 173:3 155:3 

32:12 69:2 73:15 83:17 175:5 statutory 107:11 stuck 145:9 173:3 

106:22 107:18 spell 75:14 standardized 109:2 149:13 study 105:21 

177:20 178:3 spelled 75:8 152:20 153:13 stay 159:20 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 

specifically 25:15 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 standby 99:14 112:6,8,9,11,13 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 sufficiently 187:2 

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 terribly 177:20 143:8,12,22 144:1 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 

supply 155:6 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 theory 42:1 

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 technology 81:22 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 terminology 28:15 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 

75:22 76:14,18 75:4 120:10,11 TP 15:21 type 12:8,9,10,11 U

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 11:9 15:15,18 170:20 19:12,14,15,15,16 75:16 76:14,17

86:1 87:2,3,19 16:11 28:21 50:22 transport 54:11 19:17,18,18 21:3 135:17

88:13,16 90:12,16 uncertain 153:3,4 

uncertainty 154:3 

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 

108:7 109:5,8,11 82:10,13,14 85:13 treatment 96:19 28:9,16,18,22 understand 30:5

109:17 110:1 88:9,14 89:3 136:14 29:11,13,14 30:17 69:4 73:16 104:5 

115:11 116:9 98:20 99:22 tremendous 140:8 31:7,12,13 33:11 106:11 129:2

117:2 119:12,13 104:10,14,16 180:8 33:15,16,17 34:14 147:7 150:12

119:17 121:1,3 111:22 114:6,21 tried 106:18 34:17 36:18 37:13 151:17 155:14

122:19 123:9,13 116:18 117:4,22 trigger 87:6 98:5 40:1,3 42:9 44:10 163:3

123:17 124:9 122:21 123:15 triggers 86:9 44:11 50:19 52:10 understanding

126:3 127:3 129:8 124:12 127:22 trivial 99:12,13 52:12,21 59:14 46:7 70:14,15

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 

135:2 137:6,12 164:18 175:21 true 118:17,19 97:7,8,8,9,10,11 understood 153:11

138:11,12 143:4 176:1,7 177:7 120:17 97:12 98:11 159:6

undertaken 69:19 

unit 25:7,9 34:6,6 

144:17 145:6 Timeline 3:3 truly 187:21 116:12 131:16,22 

148:7,13,17 149:5 times 91:22 92:4 try 8:8 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 

184:2 171:21 180:13 74:14,16 79:15,20 tube 28:5 53:7 58:22 59:3 

thinking 43:14 184:18 186:2 turn 8:12 31:3 32:1 59:19 97:1 101:13 81:3 89:12,16

113:7 189:2,3 98:6 135:19 168:3 103:14 110:11 115:21,22 122:3 

third 62:9 92:15 today's 8:20 9:10 turning 5:5 131:18 132:10 164:4 177:8,13

thoroughly 85:16 unitary 71:3 127:1 

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 

73:12 135:15 units 60:10 65:21 toilets 137:15,18 two 16:12 22:14 typical 105:9 

188:10 66:2 67:17 69:20 tolerances 155:11 30:20 55:15 59:3 167:19 169:21 

thousands 145:4 157:4,6 83:15 89:18 100:8 typically 26:4 76:6 78:8,11,15

78:16 89:22 90:3 three 16:12,17 top 91:4 113:18 107:9 116:3 33:22 59:19,21 

17:19 20:1,9,21 177:15 123:21 126:20 65:8,12 66:5,20 113:16 114:2

27:13 50:12 60:20 total 26:21 98:17 141:3 167:5 176:6 70:16 102:2 112:2 122:11 164:4,7

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 vary 168:1 137:4 145:6 148:4 131:7,11,15 132:7 

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 verify 79:4 144:22 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 usually 16:9 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

use 14:18,19 15:3 V video 170:22 171:4 Washers 123:4 152:20,21,22 

16:10 18:19,19 vacuum 123:19 171:5 washing 138:2 153:1,7,7,8,13,20 

19:1 20:17 24:14 vague 68:4 view 26:14 36:5 Washington 1:8 154:1,10 155:14 

26:8,12 28:16 valid 117:12 109:6 145:16 4:8 155:15 157:15 

34:7,16 37:20 validate 164:16 viewed 101:7 wasn't 21:18 43:14 158:16 159:9,15

39:5 40:16 41:12 valuable 146:17 visible 94:7 43:15 52:18 71:8 159:22 160:9 

46:9 53:5,12 61:2 value 35:17 37:1,10 visitor's 94:7 134:11 161:1,3 162:4,12 

61:3 62:4,6,22 45:9,22 51:14 void 78:2 waste 146:2,14 162:20 164:3,11

63:22 64:6 65:18 56:7,16,19 63:22 volume 39:6 76:2 wastewater 136:14 164:13,14,22

68:7,11 91:13 63:22 64:1 80:21 volumes 125:22 146:8,20,22 147:3 165:5 167:17 

96:7 97:22 98:9 104:5 148:7 voluntarily 108:1 147:22 168:7,9,11 169:4 

98:19 99:1,9,15 155:12 watch 94:3 169:13,15

100:8,9,11 103:9 values 33:12 45:7 W water 14:18 18:7 water's 50:7 

103:14 105:4 46:10 51:22 63:10 wait 32:22 20:6,19 21:7 watt 103:13,16

106:9,13 107:17 64:7 68:8 69:8 waiver 86:10 87:4 22:10 30:16 32:8 105:9 

118:11 130:8,10 81:6,15,17,19 87:17 186:14 33:12,19 34:10,16 wattage 103:7 

130:17,18,22 118:15 134:4 waivers 85:18 34:20,22 36:2,7 watts 99:12,14

131:15 132:7,13 variability 167:8 walk-in 18:16 36:17,21 37:4,6 100:9,9

132:17 134:20 variable 80:8 83:16 wander 76:9 37:11,17,20 38:3 way 13:9 19:1 

136:13,20,21,22 158:20 159:7 want 6:13 32:16 38:4,5,15 41:6 39:15 63:5,15,19

137:13 138:10,11 variables 63:13 38:8 41:10 42:12 45:8,8 48:14 49:6 64:21 67:22 75:21 

138:19,22 139:1 70:7 43:8 45:7,12 49:7,10,11,12,18 75:22 77:3,5

139:16 141:15 variance 168:5 47:19 57:17 67:11 49:20 50:1,5,5,8 79:17 83:8 86:17 

148:15,19,21 variation 113:2 72:15 73:18,21 50:19,21 51:16 87:5 88:7 94:5 

150:5,6,7,14 varies 64:20,20 83:11 85:16 92:10 52:18,22 53:3,16 113:9 123:1 136:2 

151:4,8,12,15 113:2 102:5 104:14 55:3,6,8,20 56:3,5 143:16 158:7 

153:13 157:16 variety 65:11 70:6 106:19 124:18 56:7,20 57:9,21 160:12 165:2 

161:17 164:14 125:4 125:5,11,16 127:1 115:18 130:5,8,10 184:12 

167:22 172:13 various 45:18 127:19,22 133:13 130:11,12,17,18 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 

widely 113:2 

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.

202-234-4433
 

216

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