PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS

The interviews will gather detailed information for.two parts of the process improvement activities: the retrospective- analysis and review of standards development process and methodology. Retrospective Analysis: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is seeking to document the impacts of some existing standards on a number of factors such as energy use, product features, industry structure, and. overall competitive environment. Information for thisanalysis will be gained through a series of'interviews with affected stakeholders as well as indepth analysis of additional data provided by industry. _ Some of the following issues to be reviewed in the retrospective analysis are: the impacts resulting from standards that are of concern to consumers, manufacturers, and industry, the benefits as compared to-the burdens and how these can be quantified, and the evidence to indicate whether identified impacts were caused by the standards? Review of Standards Rulemaking Process and Methodology: The second area to be studied is the standards development process, with a focus on the analytical methodology. The review also will examine ways to improve stakeholder interface to ensure that the concerns of each group are identified and properly addressed. The Department is seeking input on creative ways to streamline the standard development process. Some of the following issues will be covered in the review of the standards rulemaking process and methodology: Process Has the process identified and properly addressed the concerns of each group?

If not, how can the process be redesigned to achieve those goals? How should the Department deal with concerns among one stakeholder group when there may not be an agreement ? How can the process be streamlined ? Analysis • What factors should the Department consider in the development of standards? • What are the impacts that the Department should assess? • How should the Department assess the impact on manufacturers given that each may be affected differently because of market share, size, financial situation, etc.? • What additional analyses should the Department conduct to develop standards? PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS

.The interviews will gather detailed information for .two parts of the process improvement

activities: the ·retrospective analysis and review of standards development process and methodology.

. Retrospective Analysis: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is seeking to document the impacts of some existing standards on a number of factprs such as energy use, product features, industry structure, and overall competitive environment. Iriformation for this analysis will be gained through a series of ·interviews with affected stakeholders as well as indepth analysis of additional data provided by industry. Some of the following issues to be reviewed in the retrospective analysis are: the impacts resulting from standards that are of concern to consumers, manufacturers, and industry, the benefits as compared to _the burdens and how these can be quantified, and the evidence to indicate whether identified impacts were caused by the standards? Review of Standards Rulemaking Process and Methodology: The second area to be studied is the standards development process, with a focus on the analytical methodology. The review also will examine ways to improve stakeholder interface to ensure that the concerns of each group are identified and properly addressed. The Department is seeking input on creative ways to streamline the· standard development process. Some of the following issues will be covered in the review of the standards rulemaking process and methodology: Process Has the process identified and properly addressed the concerns of each group? If not, how can the process be redesigned to achieve those goals? How should the Department deal with concerns among one stakeholder group when there may not be an agreement ') • How can the process be streamlined ? Analysis • What factors should the Department consider in the development of standards? What are the impacts that the Department should assess? • How should the Department assess the impact on manufacturers given that each may be affected differently because of market share, size, financial situation, etc.? What additional analyses should the Department conduct to develop standards?Interview Questions Under Consideration : Revision 4, October 5th, 1995

Task 1: Retrospective Analysis 1. What do you think has been the impact of standards on U.S. consumers ? Can you supply data that supports your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated? a. Have retail prices changed? b. Is the variety of available models the same? c. Have the number of product features changed? d. Has product utility changed? e. Is there a noticeable change in product reliability? f. Has product life changed? g. Has energy performance changed? h. Has customer satisfaction changed? 2. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US manufacturers ? Are there other factors that have significant influence? Can you supply data that supports your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated? a. Has total product sales revenue changed? b. Have, wholesale prices changed? Why'? c. Have production costs increased? d. Has the number of units shipped changed? e. Have appliance saturation levels changed? f. Have market shares of the various manufacturers changed? Who gained? Who lost? Why? g. Are gross margins different? h. Was return-on-equity affected? Net income? i. Have total assets changed? Interview Questions Under Consideration: Revision 4, October 5th, 1995

Task 1: Retrospective Analysis
1. What do you think has been the impact of standards on U.S. consumers? Can you supply data that supports yourjudgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated?

a. Hav,e retail prices changed? b. Is the variety of availilble models the same? c. Have the number of product features changed? d. Has product utility changed? e. Is there a noticeable change in product reliability?

. f. Has product life changed?

g. Has energy performance changed? h. Has customer satisfaction changed? 2. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US manufacturers? Are there other factors that have significant influence? 

## em you supply data that supports yourjudgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated?

a. Has total product sales revenue changed? b. Have wholesale prices changed? Why? c. Have production costs increased? d. Has the number of units shipped changed? e. Have appliance saturation levels changed? f. Have market shares of the various manufacturers changed? Who gained? Who lost? Why? g. Are gross margins different? h. Was return-on-equity affected? Net income? 1. Have total assets changed?3. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US industry structure? Canyou

supply data that could support your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated? a. Have there been changes in distribution channels? b. Were resulting technologies protected by proprietary technologies/patents? c. 'How important were the technology development costs such as research and training? d. Were the new technologies more capital intensive? e. Have higher product costs led customers to switch to substitute goods? Has higher efficiency and thus lower operating costs caused customers to switch from substitute products? Did the standards result in fuel switching? f. Have the number of suppliers increased or decreased? Have there been mergers and acquisitions? Bankruptcies? Plant closings? Cost cutting measures? Are the trends different from those of previous periods (absent trends)? Which products and what markets? g. Did you notice a shift to foreign production sources? Have imports of appliances or components changed? Is this change different for regulated and unregulated appliances ? Have product exports changed? Does having higher product efficiency standards change the competitive position of U.S. manufacturers internationally? h. Are U.S. industry employment levels changed?
4. How would you compare the impact of DSM programs on industry with the impacts of product standards? Which contributes most to improved energy efficiency? What features of each program type do you like'? Dislike? 5. Did DSM significantly alter the product offerings on the market? Relative market shares? Competition from foreign manufacturers? Were major capital investments required to change product technologies? Did the price of products increase? 6. Have you been involved in any voluntary, collaborative programs such as Green Lights? Which ones? Did you find these effective 7. To what extent have economic conditions and technology changes influenced the industry (excluding the effect of standards)? 8. Have you noticed a tendency for US companies to shift production to other countries as a result of globalization of markets? 

### 3. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US industry structure? Canyou supply data that could support yourjudgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated?

a. Have**~here** 

### been changes in distribution channels? b. Were resulting technologies protected by proprietary technologies/patents? c. How important**wer~** 

### tp.e technology development costs such as research and training? d. Were the new technologies more capital intensive? e. Have higher product costs led customers to switch to substitute goods? Has higher efficiency and thus lower operating costs caused customers to switch from substitute products? Did the standards result in fuel switching? 

### f. Have the number of suppliers increased or decreased? Have there been mergers and acquisitions? Bankruptcies? Plant closings? Cost cutting measures? Are the trends different from those of previous periods (absent trends)? Which products and what markets?

. g. Did you notice a shift to foreign production sources? Have imports of appliances or components changed? Is this change different for regulated and unregulated appliances? Have product exports changed? Does having higher product efficiency standards change the competitive position of U.S. manufacturers internationally? h. Are U.S. industry employment levels changed?

. 4. How would you compare the impact of DSM programs on industry with the impacts of

product standards? Which contributes most to improved energy efficiency? What features of each program type do you like? Dislike? 5. Did DSM significantly alter the product offerings on the market? Relative market shares? Competition from foreign manufacturers? Were major capital investments required to change product technologies? Did the price of products increase? 6. Have you been involved in any voluntary, collaborative programs such as Green Lights? Which ones? Did you find these effective 7. To what extent have economic conditions and technology changes influenced the industry (excluding the effect of standards)? 8. Have you noticed a tendency for US companies to shift production to other countries as a result of globalization of markets?Task 2: Review of Standards Rulemaking Processes/Methodology

1. Have you been personally involved in DOE's appliance standards rulemaking process? In what circumstances '? What was your role? Have you been personally involved in state appliance standards rulemaking processes? In what circumstances ? What was your role? How is the DOE process in comparison to state processes? In what ways is the DOE process better'? In what ways is the DOE process worse?
2. How do you perceive the process? Do you have different appreciation's for the various steps, the ANOPR, NOPR. and the Final Rule? 3. Are you aware of the legislation that mandates the process ? (EPCA. 1975 as amended by NECPA, 1978 and NAECA. 1987,1988 and EPAct 1992). 4. What do you think needs to be changed in the process'? 5. Do you feel the process is necessary? Why? (or why not?). What other mechanisms can be used to develop and promulgate standards? 6 Who are the people you know at DOE and at the national labs? 7. Have you attended any DOE sponsored technical sessions or workshops'? Which ones? Which sessions did, you know about and did not attend? Why?

a. Did they improve your understanding of DOE's standards process? b. Did they improve your understanding of other stakeholders' concerns? c. Did the sessions give rise to valuable alternatives to proposed standards? d. What do you think is the appropriate level of participation from DOE in these sessions? Full participation? Preparation and technical support?

e. Should the department use outside facilitators to manage the sessions? f. Will you continue to attend? For refrigerators and freezers, did you participate in the'informal negotiation? How did this process compare to the formal rulemaking process? Advantages? Disadvantages? 8. Have you held discussions with other stakeholders or stakeholder groups? If so, with whom? 9. How would you position the various participants on issues such as energy-efficiency, the environment and economic issues? 

### Task 2: Review of Standards Rulemaking ProcesseslMethodology
1. Have you been personally involved in DOE's appliance standards rulemaking process? In what circumstances? What was your role? Have you been personally involved in state appliance standards rulemaking processes? In what circumstances? What was your role? How is the DOE process in comparison to**~tate** processes? In what ways is the DOE process better'? In what ways is the DOE process worse?

2. How do you perceive the process? Do you have different appreciation's for the various steps, the ANOPR. NOPR. and the Final Rule? 3. Are you aware of the legislation that mandates the process? (EPCA.1975 as amended by NECPA. 1978 and NAECA.1987.1988 and EPAct 1992). 4. What do you think needs to be changed in the process? 5. I;>o you feel the process is necessary? Why? (or why not?). What other mechanisms can be used to develop and promulgate standards? 6 Who are the people you know at DOE and at the national labs? 7. Have you attended any DOE sponsored technical sessions or workshops? Which ones? Which sessions did you know about and did not attend? Why?

a. Did they improve your understanding of DOE's standards process? b. Did they improve your understanding of other stakeholders' concerns? c. Did the sessions give rise to valuable alternatives to proposed standards? d. What do you think is the appropriate level of participation from DOE in these sessions? Full participation? Preparation and technical support? e. Should the department use outside facilitators to manage the sessions? f. Will you continue to attend? For refrigerators and freezers, did you participate in the'infonnal negotiation? How did this process compare to the formal rulemaking process? Advantages? Disadvantages? 8. Have you held discussions with other stakeholders or stakeholder groups? If so, with whom? 9. How would you position the various participants on issues such as energy-efficiency, the environment and economic issues?10. What should/can be done to gain broad

-based support of standards amongst energy

efficiency advocates , consumers , and manufacturers ? Do you think the existing process is conducive to reaching consensus? At what point in the process (ANOPR. NOPR, FRM) should stakeholders be involved? What role could they play? 11. Federal legislation requires that any new standard be technologically feasible and economically justified. Federal legislation requires that before DOE establishes a standard it must determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burden, based on the weighing of seven factors. (EPCA sec 325) I) the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard; ii) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the hype (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; iii) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; iv) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; v) , the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; vi) the need for national energy conservation; and vii) other factors the Secretary considers relevant. What other factors might be considered for standards development? Public availability of hard data has limited the extent of analysis possible. How can DOE obtain the data necessary to conduct the legislated analysis? If hard data is unavailable, what alternatives exist? What information should be exchanged? Have you made confidentiality agreements with LBNL or DOE in order to provide data? Did that arrangement work satisfactorily? If so, what where the advantages ? If not, what were the disadvantages? How would you suggest this process be improved? 10. 

### What should/can be done to gain broad-based support of standards amongst energy efficiency advocates, consumers, and manufacturers? Do you think the existing process is conducive to reaching consensus? At what point in the process (ANOPR. NOPR, FRM) should stakeholders be involved? What role could they play? 11. 

### Federal legislation requires that any new standard be technologically feasible and economically justified. Federal legislation requires that before DOE establishes a standard it must detennine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burden, based on the weighing of seven factors. (EPCA sec 325) l) the economic impact ofthe standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe products subject to such standard: in the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life ofthe covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial chargesfor, or maintenance expenses ot: the covered products which are likely to resultfrom the imposition ofthe standard; iii) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directlyfrom the imposition ofthe standard; iv) any lessening ofthe utility or the performance of the coveredproducts likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard;

v) I the impact of any lessening ofcompetition, ,as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to resultfrom the imposition ofthe standard; vi) the needfor national energy conservation; and vii) other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

### What other factors might be considered for standards development? Public availability of hard data has limited the**ext~nt** 

### of analysis possible. How can DOE obtain the data necessary to conduct the legislated analysis? If 

### hard data is -unavailable, what alternatives exist? What information should be exchanged? Have you made confidentiality agreements with LBNL or DOE in order to provide data? Did that arrangement work satisfactorily? If 

### so, what where the advantages? If

### not, what were the disadvantages? How would you suggest this process be improved?12. DOE conducts the following analysis during a rulemaking:

a. Engineering analysis of the cost and performance of design options b. Forecasts of the number and average efficiency of the products sold with and without federal regulations c. The determination of the quantity of energy the products will consume, product price and operating costs d. The change in investment , revenues, and costs to manufacturers of the products e. The cost/benefit calculation for consumers f. The cost/benefit calculation for utilities g. The cost/benefit calculation for the nation h. The assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed rules Do you feel the technical and economic analysis methods used by DOE are acceptable? How can they be improved? Do we need to use these methods? Are there credible alternatives to rigorous methodology'? 13. What role should professional organizations play in standards setting? Do you feel consensus standards (such as ANSI, ASHRAE etc.) should be the basis for standards? 14. Do you think that DOE's selection of standard levels shows a favoritism ? Explain. 15. Do you think the process involves the affected industries sufficiently? What data do individual manufacturers keep`? How available is this data? Which do you believe are relevant to rulemaking? 16. Do you feel standards affect all consumers equitably? Are some groups more advantaged by standards than others? Disadvantaged? What groups? How different are the impacts? What data/information is available to document these effects? Or how could the process include these effects in the future? 17. Do you think the present process is effective in including feedback from the various stakeholders? Does the process make a good use of the available resources within DOE and outside DOE? Do you have any suggestions to future staffing criteria DOE might consider to improve the program? 19. What measures could be taken to improve the level of communication between DOE and the various stakeholders? For example how, effective is the present process for: a. Informing stakeholders about the status of rulemakings? b. Meeting schedules? c. Clearly communicating the process and results? d. Performing engineering and economic analysis? 

### 12. DOE conducts the following analysis during a rulemaking:



### a. Engineering analysis ofthe cost andperformance of design options h. Forecasts of the number and average efficiency of the products sold with and without federal regulations 

### c. The determination ofthe quantity of energy the products will consume. productprice and operating costs 

### d. The change in 

### investment, revenues, and costs to manufacturers of theproducts e. The costlbenefit calculationfor consumers 

## J. The costlbenefit calculationfor utilities g. The costlbenefit calculationfor the nation h. The assessment ofthe environmental impacts ofthe proposed rules Do you feel the technical and economic analysis methods used by DOE are acceptable? How can they be improved? Do we need to use these methods? Are there credible alternatives to rigorous methodology? 13. What role should professional organizations play in standards setting? Do you feel consensus standards (such as ANSI, ASHRAE etc.) should be the basis for standards? 14. Do you think that DOE's selection of standard levels shows a favoritism? Explain. 15. Do you think the process involves the affected industries sufficiently? What data do individual manufacturers keep? How available is this data? Which do you believe are relevant to rulemaking? 16. Do you feel standards affect all consumers equitably? Are some groups more advantaged by standards than others? Disadvantaged? What groups? How different are the impacts? What data/information is available to document these effects? Or how could the process include these effects in the future? 17. Do you think the present process is effective in including feedback from the various stakeholders? Does the process make a good use of the available resources within DOE and outside DOE? Do you have any suggestions to future staffing criteria DOE might consider to improve the program? 19. What measures could be taken to improve the level of communication between DOE and the various stakeholders? For example how effective is the present process for: a. Informing stakeholders about the status of rulemclkings? h. Meeting schedules? c. Clearly communicating the process and results? d. Performing engineering and economic analysis?20. DOE is considering setting up an inclusive steering committee to participate in reviewing

the rulemaking process/methodology for energy efficient products. Would your organization be interested in serving on this committee? a. Who else do you think should be represented on this committee? b. What elements might be included in a mission statement for this committee? c. What should this group do in particular? e.g. review analysis, solicit inputs from other groups, work in drafting documents? 

### 20. DOE is considering setting up an inclusive steering committee to participate in reviewing .the rulemaking process/methodology for energy efficient products. Would your organization be interested in serving on this committee? a. Who else do you think should be represented on this committee? b. What elements might be included in a mission statement for this committee? c. What should this group do in particular? e.g. review analysis, solicit inputs from other groups, work in drafting docuf!1ents?Interview Participants

A B 1 corftd C D Title E F G Com pa ny

/Grou p H I J K Interest L M N 0 P
2 Mr. Kyle Pdlsor Mor, Government Affairs National Electrical Man ufacturers Association 3 Rita M

. Harrold IlluminatiEn ineri Society Ballast test standards 4 Norm Grlnshaw Director, Technical Relations Advance Transformer Company Ballast Manufacturer 5 Arthur Botts Ma rketing Manager, DSM Phil ips L hti Cc n y Ballast Manufacturer 6 . Prideaux Valmount Electric Ballast Manufacturer 7 Robert Kim President Goldstar / And Tech Foreign Ballast Manulachn heprosentatlw 8 Mr: Wayne Causey V.P. Ballasts E no . and Purchasi Howard Industries, Inc. Ballast Manufacturer μ;, c 3 9 r. Scott Seete oundti GELighting Ballast Manufacturer 10 Peter A. Bleasby Director of Industry Relatkms and Standards Osrar /S Ivania Ballast Manufacturer 11 [Ga ry Gro Vice
- President Electronic Industries Association Represent Ballast Manufacturers 2 Robert Burke Vice-President , Electronic Prod. Ma netex Ballast manufacturer 13 David Goldstein

. E P Director Natural Resources Defense Council Ener effide Advocat 14 Mr

. Michael L E er Cosorll um For Ene rgy Efficiency Golden Carrot Pr ram 15 Mr

. Michael Martin odes and Standards Coo California Energy, Commision State Ene rgy Offic 16 Gene Foley Lighti ng and Ballasts Alliance to Save i_ ns Energy ell Advocat 17 Steve NadellHoward Geller Deputy Director American Council for an Energy-E fficient Econom Energy elficiecy Advocat 18 M. Mattingly Director, Gow. Affairs & Gen. Coun

. AMA Water Heater 19 Pauf Wiekenson AGA Water Healer 20 ad Hiller Manager. Residential System EPRI Heat pu npteleolAc resistance water heaters 2L A. Joseph Van den Berg Director, Technical Services Edison Electric Institute Water heaters 22 Robert J

. He mphi ll Princi ple Product Manager Gas Research Institute Water healers 23' Michael E. Gains Vice President American Petroleum Institute Water heaters 24 Mr

. Jacob Hill Senior ProE ngineer Rheem Manufacturi Co. Waterheater rnanutacturer 25 Mr

. Eric M

. Lannes VP Eng ineering Bradford White 5th largest WH manufacturer 28 Mr

. Hen ry Moore VP E ngineeri ng Water Heater Grou p Waferheater manufacturer 27 James Va , Ill President Va h Manufacturi ng Small FWWH manu facturer 28 Jay Hrmsj VP Marketi A.O. Smith Water Heater Manufacturer 29 John C

. Bock Presldent/CEO Bock Water Heaters , Inc 0111 Flred(Wallor Nader Manufctuw 30 Robert Jewell Senior Vice President of Operations State Industries Largest marAftchumv of siorege water heaters in the world 31 Mr

. Jo L, Welch Man nar. Reaulatory Affairs Detroit Edison utility 32 Pacific Gas & Electric utility 33 Marlon ('Nei Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Utlli 34 ra McNair Vice-President, high Division Penns teems Power & Light Utilit

raon at na ura ectric rative sociati on Util ity Representative 36 Date M. Crawford Ente rgy Services , Inc Utility owned ESCO 37 Mr
- Jim Wyatt Senior B uyer Montgome ry Ward Retailer 38 Ma- Sara Cooper National Consumers Lea ue Must investi gate? 39 Mr

. John Hugies, Director , Technical Affairs Electric ity Consumers Resource Council Represent Nation 's tar electrici consumers 40 R. Cra ig Smith

. Manager, Conservation and Load Mg mt Tennessee Valley Authority 41 Mr

. Ron Button Director National Association of Home Builders 42 Ba Moline Mana r, DSM r rams American Public Power Association 43 Dr

. Robed Koger President Alternative Energy Co raii rpo Appointed by Hazel O'Leary to DOE's State Energy Advisory Board 44 Llack Welzerock Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers R/F association representatives 45 Mr

. Lawrence R. Weth a Dk, Public Affairs & Technical SyppLd Air-Conditions & Refrige ration Institute WF association representallv40 46 Mr

. Bruce A. Desig n E ngineer , RIF Products Amana Refrigeration, Inc Refrigerator manufacturer 47 . T V

. Thiele Senior Council General Electric Cc n Refrigerator manufacturer 48 r. Richard E. Stilwell Maytag Co oration Refrigerator manufacturer 49 Mr

. Makowski Fr' idaire Co

. Freezer Products Refrigerator manufacturer 50 Mr

. Aden Wilkins VP. E ineeri Sub-Zero Freezer Co., Inc Refr1991ttor mantfaclw r •. ,.^ 51 Mr

. Michael C. n Director , Government Relat ions Whirlpool Ref rator manufacturer 52 lased udel Lawrence Barkley Laborato ry 53 J ames E. McMahon Staff Scientist Lawrence Berldey Laborato ry 54 Ronald E

. Jarna Senior Research E ng ineer Battelle/PNL ASHRAE Chairman 90.1 Standard 55 E. , AlA Manager Buildis Program Battelle /PNL ASHRAE President 90.1 Standard s6 Program M Appliance Division DOE Codes and Standards Product Manage r. water heaters 57 Program Manager, Applia nce Division DOE Codes and Standards Product Manage r, ballasts

__ 58 Pr ram Manage r. Appliance Division DOE Codes and Standards Product Mana ge r, refrige rators I

9/27/952:52 PM 

# - Interview Participants

9127/952 :52 PM**aS8oo~ltlor1** represenlatlvea:· ' reprasentallYet manufacturer manufacturer manufacturer manufacturerInterview Participants

Q R S T U V W X Y Z 1 ax Address - 2 202 457.8400 2101 L St.. NW, Suite 300 , Washin gton DC,20037 3 (2121 248
- M 120 Wall St., Floor 17,New York , NY 10005 4 390

.5079

(M 390.5383

M) 10275 West H Ins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018 5 906 563

. 3680 908 563.3104 FrsnkNn re , Somerset, NJ 08825 5 ^ ^ ` 1800531

.7822 EI Paso, Texas 7 201 896-9119 202 896

.8580 125 E

. Union avenue , East Rutherford , NJ 07073 P.O. Box 1590, Laurel , MS, 39441 9 218 266
-3947 216 268-3381 1975 Boble Park, Cleveland , OH 44112 10 (508)777-11900 508 7502972 100 Endicott Street , Danvers , MA 01923 11 (MA 807
-7500 703 907-7501 2500 Wilson Boulevard , Ad on , Vi rg inia 22201 12 615 316

.5100 26 Century Boulevard

. Nashville TN 37229 13 415 777

.0220 415 495.5996 71 Stevenson St., San Francka , CA 94105 14 61 330.9755 61854

.7414 60 Stall St., Boston MA 02109 15 918 854
-4039 918 854-4304 1516 9th St., MS-42 , Sacramento,CA 18 17 (202)429-8873 202 429 -2248 1001 Connecticut NW Washi ngto n DC 20036 18 703 526

.9565 703825

. 8169 1901 North Moore St., Ad , Virg inia, 22209 19 703 841.8400 1515 Wilson Boulevard , Arftion, VA 22209 20 (415) 855
-8950 3412 HilIview avenue

. room 7-126 21 202 508-5000 202 508.5554 701 Pennsylvania Ave ., NW. Washin gton , D.C., 20004-5000 22 312 389 8250 312 399-8170 8600 West Brjm Mawr Ave., Chicago, IL 60631 23 202 682

. 8000 1220 L St. NW , Washi ngton D.C. 24 334 2601352 334 260.1350 2600 Gunther Pk. Dr

. E., Mon

. AL, 36109-1413 2$ 618 795

.3364 618 795

.2165 200 Lafayette St., Mlddleville, MI 26 829-1756

: : 1752 Cloverfleld Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90404 27 83 K Box 5431 , Salisb u

. MA 1952 28 53 7 1E 7: 4 5605 N. MacArthur, Suite 360 , living, TX 75038 29 (608)257-2225 608 257
-5304 110 S

. Dickinson St., MADISON, WI 30 1 1 815 792 8272 615 792

. 9202 500 8 Pass Rd ., Ashland City, TN 31 Second Avenue , Detroit, Mich' an 48226 321 1 33 80 Park Plaza , Newark, New Jersey 34 351 t NW, Was h i ngton, 38 25 West C ap ital Avenue , Little Rock , AR 72203 37 312 467-7906 38 39 202 682

. 1390 1333 H Street , NW, 8th Floor

. Washington DC, 20005 40 41 (202) 822
-0200 (202) 822-0559 42 (202) 775

.8300 301 M Street , NW, Washington D.C., 20037-1484 43 44 202 434-7484 701 Pennsylv ania Avenue

. N.W., Suite 900, Washi ngton, DC 45 (703) 524
- 8800 703 528

.3816 301 North Fairax Drive , Suite 425 , Arli ngton , Vi rg inia 22203 48 47 502 452.4078 502 452
-0397 Louisville , KY 40225 48 (515)791
-8853 ndaWli Sq uare , Newton, IA 50208 49 701 33rd Ave., North, St. Cloud , MN 56303 50 r .. 51 618923

.4647 701 Main St

. (9025). St-Jose ph , MI 49085 52 (510) 488-8493 (510) 486-6696 USC , Buildi ng 90

. 4000, Berkley CA 94720 53 (510) 486-6049 510 486-6696 USC

. Buildi ng 90

.4000, Berkley CA 94720 54 (509)375-3813 5W 75.3614 Battelle Boulevard, Richland, Was ' on 99352 55 (5091372-4499 (509)376-3614 Battelle Boulevard , Richland, Washi on 99352 66 202 588
. 0371

- - 202 586-4617 57 - 2l^ 5064617 58 202 586.4617

9/27/952:52 PM Interview Participants

1

111 Q PI!< 120 45, (21 241l (70**~507** 190 3-: 12011: 119
'1.: 6- 0 :41 m... 161 1330-1 751 191 1654-< 031 s T U Fax
(708) 390-5383 (908) 563- 3104 (g<l2) 896-11580
12161266-:1381 15061750-2972 17031907·7501 v I W X Y 

# ,...

. S'

. NYI •Sutte 00, DC 03; 75 West Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018 ()(I Franklin SQuare, lamerset, NJ 08825 /

'aao, reX8S E. Union venue, East , NJ 07073 ".I

.Box IS! ,Laure, MS ,39441 97H BobIe P rk, Cleveland, OH 44112 00 Endicott lJeeI, Danvers, MA 01 92 2500 WIlSOn iOuIeYard, AIIin!lIon, Virginia 2:1201 26 Centurv IIoulevard, Neshvllle**l'N~12~** (415) 495-5996 71 Stevenson St., San FrancIco, CA9410S (6m 654·7414 SOSlete St., Boston MA02109 (916) 654-4304 1516 9th SI

. M5-42, r.A / / 8873 12021429-2248 100 I NW DC: 2003

. 141 !-6B83 IX ;431, Salisbury, M .I: I z



# .**g~~** (31C 1629-1756 1752 Cloverfleid Blvd. ian I Monica, CA 9(404

. ..**11717~~~~**__**-w.~~~=-~~~~M~a~~U~~'~SU~~~~lrvm~Q'~_7~50~** ________________**~** A (606) 257·:i304 Dlc:klnson SI. A[ ON. WI (615) 792· 9202 Iy Pa!lllRd., Ashland \Y, TN 2C Second Avenue, Detro Michigan 48226 I 80 Park Plaza, Newark, New Jersey I I 112(2) 232- 1200**I~** 111m :>1 NW, ,u.v.,**4~** West I :apital Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72203 13121 467·7908 I I I 112021 682··I39Cl /1333 H Street, NW, 8th Floor, 101 .20005 112(2) 822-0200 1(202) n5-83()O 1(202) 822-'.0559 I 12301 M Street, NW, I

.. ·

..**;,··'.~i~ti'~:t** :(202) 434·7.a4 1701 1 A\ienue, N.W. Suite 900.' i ,DC 

# I**:;!:t';:S~~~~~:?:~~'I;;:;;=;I= ;~+.8800I853;:;;;-78--tIi;;-(I502703=-:)';** **:~:~:~:---;I;-::=~North:;;;::-le.-';;** I'I('

## ~;;-, 4O=mx

22 :

### Drc.:-SIv+--18'. s_ulte l

_ 42-t-J5'. A_rling-tton,:_ Virgl_nlal22_203

____ -J

1\" .,,'

...... :lne I**'~uare,** Newton, IA 50208**~., ;~!,ii~** __ -+--
__**~**__**~~---F17~~I~3&d~I,~~ve** ..**,~North~"~fl..C~IoUd~,,~~NI563~0~3**______________**~ ~** **"f';';ii;:'~;'** 1701 Main SI. (9025), St·Joseph, MI 49085**~** 6696 IUSC, Building 90-4000, Berkley GA 94720 );S 51' 4!6 6696 USC, Building 90-4000, Berklev CA 94720**i~ ~~~14** **.~~ard,R~~, 1003~**  15**~** 3614 BelleHe Boulevard, Richland, I 00352 56 1516-0 1516-4617 ,LI I 57 I 12021**~17** I I 58 (2)58§-4617 / / I

91271952:52 PM