UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING 

ON

DIRECT HEATING EQUIPMENT ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARD

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Room 8

th Floor

Thursday

September 1, 2011

Chair:

John Cymbalsky

Facilitator:

Doug Brookman

Public Solutions

Baltimore, MD
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

2

Participants Identified: 

Timothy Ballo

EarthJustice

1625 Massachusetts Avenue

Suite 702

Washington, DC 20036

Jane Bauer

Empire Comfort Systems

918 Freeberg Avenue

Belleville, IL 62220

Kenneth Belding

Empire Comfort Systems

918 Freeberg Avenue

Belleville, IL 62220

Leslie Bortz

President

RH Peterson Co.

14724 East Proctor Ave

City of Industry, CA 91746

W. Allan Cagnoli

Director, Government Affairs

HPBA

1901 North Moore Street

Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22209

Ryan Carroll

Manager of Government Affairs

1901 North Moore Street

Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22209

Barton Day

Counsel

Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association

Robert Elliott

National Propane Gas Association

Jack Goldman
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

3

President

HPBA

1901 North Moore Street

Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22209

Benjamin Longstreth

Attorney

National Resources Defense Council

1152 15th Street NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)

529 14th St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20045

Tim Perrin

Legislative Director

Polsinelli Shughart

1152 15th Street NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

James A. Ranfone

AGA

400 N. Capitol St. NW

Washington, DC 20001

Rett Rasmussen, III

12228 Philadelphia Street

Whittier, CA 90601

Raymond T. Reott

Reott Law Offices, LLC

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 850

Chicago, IL 60601

Jerry Scott

Robert H. Peterson Company

14724 East Proctor Ave

City of Industry, CA 91746

Frank Stanonik
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

4

Chief Technical Advisor

Air conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute

2111 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22201

Thomas Stroud

Senior Manager, Codes and Standards

HPBA

1901 North Moore Street

Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22209

Participants from Navigant:

Rob Carmichael

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Adam Darlington

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

5

Participants from DOE:

Ashley Armstrong

Department of Energy

Chris Calamita

Department of Energy

Dan Cohen

DOE General Counsel’s office.

Mohammed Khan

Department of Energy

Michael Kido

DOE General Counsel’s office

Francine Pinto

DOE General Counsel’s office

Eric Stas

DOE General Counsel’s office

Presenter:

John Cymbalsky

Department of Energy
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

6

AGENDA

 ITEM PAGE

Welcome, Doug Brookman 7

Opening Remarks, Mr. Cymbalsky 7

Introductions 9

Agenda Review, Doug Brookman 11

Opening Statements 14

Mr. Goldman 15

Mr. Elliott 30

Mr. Bortz 36

Ms. Bauer 59

Mr. Rasmussen 65

Mr. Ranfone 86

Regulatory History 90

Amended Definitions 103

Analysis of National Energy Savings 122

Small Business Impact 129

Submitting Written Comments 135

Closing Remarks 142
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

7

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

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning everybody and 

3 welcome. This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

4 Direct Heating Equipment Energy Conservation 

5 Standards Notice of Proposed Rulemaking meeting. 

6 Today is September 1, 2011. My name is Doug 

7 Brookman from Public Solutions. I welcome you, glad 

8 you’re here this morning. We’re going to start off 

9 this morning with welcoming remarks by John 

10 Cymbalsky.

11 Welcoming Remarks

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thanks, Doug. My name is 

13 John Cymbalsky. I am the supervisor of the 

14 Appliance Standards Program here at DOE. I’ve been 

15 on the job about a year and a half now, so I’d like 

16 to welcome everybody here to this public meeting to 

17 discuss the July 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

18 for Vented Hearth Heaters. 

19 As many of you know, the Department of 

20 Energy is currently in litigation regarding the 

21 April 2010 rule establishing the efficiency 

22 standards for direct heating equipment. Today’s 

23 public meeting is for the purpose of hearing public 

24 comment on our July 2011 Notice of Proposed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

8

1 Rulemaking for vented hearth heaters, and we’re not 

2 here to talk about the April 2010 rule or the 

3 litigation surrounding it. So with that, I’ll turn 

4 it back to Doug.

5 Agenda Review

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. If all of you have 

7 received a packet when you walked in the door, if 

8 you’ll take a peek at that and turn to Page 2, 

9 please, you can see there the public meeting agenda. 

10 This is how we intend to do the meeting today. 

11 After this agenda review, everyone has a 

12 chance to introduce him or herself. Please say your 

13 name and your organizational affiliation. 

14 Immediately following the introductions, there’s an 

15 opportunity to make brief opening remarks or summary 

16 statements. It’s our tradition here to try and get 

17 folks to make brief remarks. I understand some of 

18 you might wish to make extended remarks this 

19 morning. To the extent you can summarize, that’s 

20 great. To the extent you can’t, I understand. 

21 However, let me say your complete statements, 

22 written, can be inserted in their full lengths as 

23 you’ve written them, in the record of the meeting 

24 today, so there’s an option for you if you can find 

25 a way to summarize your remarks.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

9

1 Following those opening remarks, we’re 

2 going to have a summary of the regulatory history, 

3 and following that, proposed amended definition of 

4 vented hearth heater as you see in the agenda here. 

5 Following that, analysis of national energy savings, 

6 and then small business impacts, with yet another 

7 opportunity for any sort of comment, closing remarks 

8 that anybody wishes to say at the end of the day.

9 We’ll take a break mid-morning, about 

10 10:30-ish. We’ll pause for lunch, when the 

11 appropriate time falls on us, and we’ll just try to 

12 be as efficient as we can as the day goes on. 

13 So questions and comments about the plan 

14 for the day? 

15 So I’d ask your consideration over the 

16 span of many years, these have emerged as norms. 

17 Please speak one at a time. These microphones that 

18 you see before you, you need to push the button and 

19 get the little green LED button working in order for 

20 you to be captured in the record. 

21 There will be a complete transcript of 

22 this public meeting today, and that will be 

23 available and we’ll describe where you can find it.

24 Please say your name for the record each 

25 time you speak. You can say your organizational 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

10

1 affiliation if you wish, but say your name, please, 

2 each time. Please keep the focus here. Turn your 

3 cell phones on silent mode. Limit sidebar 

4 conversations. If you need to have a lengthy talk 

5 with the person next to you, it’s okay to take it 

6 out of the room and then come on back.

7 I’m going to be cueing individuals as best 

8 I can to speak one by one. I also wish to encourage 

9 follow-on remarks. Sometimes the back and forth 

10 between individuals can be very helpful to the 

11 Department as they try to detangle these issues. 

12 And if you could, please be concise, share the air 

13 time. There’s a lot to be said here today, I’m 

14 sure, that’s what we’ll be trying to do as the day 

15 goes on.

16 So, that is what I have to say here at the 

17 outset. Do you have any summary comments at this 

18 point, John?

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: No, I think we should do 

20 introductions at this point.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s do 

22 introductions around the room. Name, and 

23 organizational affiliation.

24 Introductions

25 MR. GOLDMAN: Sure. Jack Goldman, Hearth, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

11

1 Patio and Barbecue Association.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

3 MR. DAY: Barton Day, Counsel for Hearth, 

4 Patio and Barbecue Association.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Robert Elliott, National 

6 Propane Gas Association.

7 MS. BAUER: Jane Bauer, Empire Comfort 

8 Systems.

9 MR. BORTZ: Leslie Bortz, The Robert H. 

10 Peterson company.

11 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen, Rasmussen 

12 Gas Logs and Grills.

13 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, with the 

14 American Gas Association.

15 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

16 Standards Awareness Project.

17 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, Air 

18 Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute.

19 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice.

20 MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, General 

21 Counsel’s office, DOE.

22 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE General 

23 Counsel’s office.

24 MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan, Department of 

25 Energy, Building Technologies.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

12

1 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE General 

2 Counsel’s office.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Please stand up.

4 MR. DARLINGTON: Adam Darlington, Navigant 

5 Consulting.

6 MR. CARMICHAEL: Rob Carmichael, Navigant.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, you.

8 MR. CAGNOLI: Adam Cagnoli, HPBA.

9 MR. STROUD: Tom Stroud, HPBA.

10 MR. CARROLL: Ryan Carroll, HPBA.

11 MR. SCOTT: Jerry Scott, Robert H. 

12 Peterson Company.

13 MR. REOTT: Ray Reott, Robert H. Peterson.

14 MR. BELDING: Ken Belding, Empire Comfort 

15 Systems.

16 MR. LONGSTRETH: Ben Longstreth, National 

17 Resources Defense Council.

18 MR. CALAMITA: Chris Calamita, DOE.

19 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido (off mic)

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So thanks to all of 

21 you, and we have a few individuals that are just 

22 joining us now and as soon as they get seated and 

23 comfortable, they can introduce themselves.

24 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Doug went over the 

25 agenda for today, so, as I said, I’m John Cymbalsky, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

13

1 supervisor of the Appliance Standards Program. I’m 

2 going to take you through the presentation, and as 

3 we go along, there’ll be some issue boxes where 

4 we’ll allow time for comment.

5 Purpose of Public Meeting

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: So the purpose of this 

7 public meeting. We’re here today to present the 

8 analysis and justification for amending the 

9 definition of vented hearth heaters. We’re here 

10 also to inform interested parties and facilitate the 

11 rulemaking process. Thirdly, provide a forum for 

12 public comment on rulemaking issues, specifically, 

13 for vented hearth heaters. And finally, we 

14 encourage interested parties to submit data, 

15 information, and written comments. And for us, 

16 particularly, we’re going to talk a lot here today, 

17 and we will hear your comments, but we also would 

18 really like your comments to be in written form.

19 First issue box. At this time, DOE 

20 welcomes comment on its Notice of Proposed 

21 Rulemaking for direct heating equipment. Throughout 

22 this presentation, specific issues will be raised 

23 for comment on slides with issue boxes such as this, 

24 with identifying numbers, corresponding to those in 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from July 22nd 25 . 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

14

1 Nonetheless, comments concerning any part of that 

2 document or this presentation are welcome.

3 At this time we welcome opening statements 

4 from anyone in the group who wishes to make them. 

5 You can come up to this microphone, sit at the 

6 table, or take the two mikes in the back.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let me just get a 

8 brief show of hands. How many of you wish to make 

9 opening statements? One, two, three, four, five, 

10 six or so. Okay. So then, why don’t I just go 

11 right down the line here, and I’ll start with Jack.

12 Opening Remarks

13 MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. I’m Jack 

14 Goldman, President and CEO of the Hearth, Patio, and 

15 Barbecue Association. 

16 This rulemaking is fatally defective and 

17 the Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association requests 

18 that it be terminated immediately. HPBA will be 

19 submitting this request in writing to Secretary Chu.

20 Agencies have a clear and legal obligation 

21 to provide a cogent explanation of the legal and 

22 factual basis for their proposed actions, and in 

23 particular, Executive Order 13563 specifically 

24 directs that a proposed rule should be issued only 

25 upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

15

1 justify its costs.

2 It is obvious that the Department of 

3 Energy issued this proposed rule without even the 

4 basic information necessary to understand the 

5 consequences of the results it seeks to impose. In 

6 particular, the proposed rule is based upon a 

7 materially inaccurate understanding of the nature, 

8 characteristics, and use of the products at issue, 

9 and upon key assumptions and factual assertions that 

10 are unsubstantiated and in some cases, clearly 

11 false.

12 Consequently, the assessment of the 

13 purported benefits and costs of the proposed rule 

14 are entirely without basis. Moreover, the Notice 

15 itself fails to provide any adequate explanation of 

16 DOE’s analysis. DOE has filed exactly two pages, 

17 two fingers here, two pages in the rulemaking 

18 records to support this rule, and those pages deal 

19 with whether the proposal must be subject to the 

20 provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

21 The proposal was published 41 days ago. As of 

22 today, the day of the hearing, a deadline for the 

23 regulated community in the process, and with only 19 

24 more days until comments are due, the Department’s 

25 placing absolutely no backup materials, including 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

16

1 but not limited to, supporting data, technical 

2 support documents, and the economic impact analysis 

3 into the rulemaking record, is legally inadequate to 

4 satisfy the requirements for notice and comment 

5 rulemaking.

6 Indeed, how can we adequately comment on 

7 DOE’s analysis of regulatory impacts, when no 

8 analysis is provided?

9 HPBA will continue its testimony at this 

10 hearing, bearing in mind that it is responding 

11 solely to the information in the Federal Register 

notice published on July 22nd 12 . HPBA reserves its 

13 right to submit comments to the rulemaking record 

14 when or if DOE’s analyses are even made available.

15 Given DOE’s unexplained departure from its 

16 normal rulemaking procedures as outlined in Appendix 

17 A to Subpart C of 10CFR430, there is no reasonable 

18 way for DOE to overcome lack of information and 

19 analysis reflected in the proposed rule. The 

20 asserted factual basis of the proposed rule is so 

21 riddled with error that any final rule would have to 

22 rest on evidence and conclusions entirely different 

23 from those presented in the proposed rule. There is 

24 simply no justification for this expedited 

25 rulemaking. The proposed rule will not provide an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

17

1 adequate remedy to the problems created by the April 

2 16, 2010 final rule. The proposed rule will not 

3 eliminate the need to resolve HPBA’s pending 

4 petition for review of that rule. 

5 DOE is simply rushing to adopt a rule that 

6 would be based on a status quo entity, the April 16, 

7 2010 final rule that is unlikely to survive judicial 

8 review. By rushing through this rulemaking, DOE is 

9 denying the regulated community and the public their 

10 access to the Department’s data and analyses 

11 undergirding the proposal. 

12 DOE created enormous problems for this 

13 industry by making a precipitous and uninformed 

14 decision to regulate decorative gas fireplaces as 

15 though they were direct heating equipment. DOE 

16 should not compound its error with a precipitous and 

17 uninformed decision to regulate gas log sets as 

18 direct heating equipment. 

19 DOE should terminate this regulation and 

20 rulemaking immediately.

21 At this point, HPBA will provide comments 

22 on the four questions posed by DOE in the proposal 

23 under protest, because of the lack of background 

24 information available. Based on our limited 

25 understanding of DOE’s thinking and reasoning, HPBA 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

18

1 reserves the right to amend its testimony and 

2 comments when or if DOE files the background 

3 information that it is obligated to file as part of 

4 this rulemaking.

5 First issue, direct heating equipment. 

6 Decorative vented gas fireplaces and gas log sets 

7 are plainly not direct heating equipment. The 

8 statute specifically identifies the categories of 

9 products that are DHE, and provides specific energy 

10 efficiency standards for each of these categories. 

11 Both decorative gas fireplaces and gas log sets 

12 existed at the time of the amendment to the statute 

13 and were not identified or regulated as DHE by the 

14 statute. 

15 The statute provides standards and 

16 procedures through which DOE can regulate consumer 

17 products not covered by the statute. DOE is 

18 circumventing the statutory process to regulate 

19 products that are not covered by the statute. The 

20 proposal grossly mischaracterizes the nature of the 

21 products. DOE’s statement that, quote, “hearth 

22 products are intended to be used to either as only a 

23 heat source or as a heat source with aesthetic 

24 appeal,” unquote, is patently false. No hearth 

25 product at issue here is intended solely for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

19

1 heating. All of the products are intended for their 

2 aesthetics. Heater rated products are intended for 

3 providing heat and aesthetic appeal. I ask the 

4 Department to produce a vented gas hearth product 

5 intended for heating but not aesthetic purposes. 

6 There is no such product.

7 DOE also states that DHE is not dependent 

8 on a manufacturer’s principal intention in 

9 designing, manufacturing, or marketing the product. 

10 This interpretation is irrational in the context of 

11 efficiency regulation, because by definition, the 

12 efficiency of a product can be determined only by 

13 reference to how efficiently it serves its intended 

14 function.

15 Similarly, DOE asserts that products can 

16 be classified by DHE simply because they provide, 

17 quote, “some amount of heat to the living space,” 

18 unquote. But many products, such as kitchen stoves, 

19 refrigerators, incandescent light bulbs, circulating 

20 air fans, and desk top computers, to name just a 

21 few, provide some amount of heat to the living space 

22 but cannot reasonably considered to be direct 

23 heating equipment.

24 With respect to the compliance date. 

25 Number two. The proposed compliance dates are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

20

1 illegal and non-achievable. The proposal 

2 effectively makes the regulations applicable to gas 

3 log sets as of April 16, 2013. The April 16, 2010 

4 final rule did not apply to gas log sets, so the 

5 April 2013 deadline does not apply. The pilot light 

6 restriction would be a new energy conservation 

7 standard that could only take five years from the 

8 date of any final rule imposing it.

9 With respect to both decorative gas 

10 fireplaces and gas log sets, there’s absolutely no 

11 basis provided by DOE for the July 1, 2014 effective 

12 date for its proposed pilot light restrictions. It 

13 is a completely arbitrary date.

14 Further, Executive Order 13563 emphasizes 

15 the need for agencies to consider the cumulative 

16 impact of regulations. DOE has already imposed 

17 burdensome regulations on the hearth industry for 

18 heater rated products, and is now adding regulations 

19 for gas log sets as well. The proposed effective 

20 date would be an issue for the industry due to an 

21 anticipated backlog at the few independent testing 

22 labs that certify hearth products. More products 

23 would have to be certified, and the current capacity 

24 of the labs is insufficient to absorb a significant 

25 increase in the number of products that would have 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

21

1 to be certified. Although the labs can currently 

2 keep up with the demand created by the U.S. 

3 Environmental Protection Agency, and the new source 

4 perform standards for wood-burning products and the 

5 fraction of gas appliances currently listed, the 

6 labs will simply not be able to handle the surge in 

7 requests that will occur when the NSPs goes into 

8 effect, and if more gas products have to be 

9 certified or recertified with new DOE regulations, 

10 as a result, some products will be significantly 

11 delayed in getting to market, which by itself could 

12 be a fatal blow to the future of a product since, 

13 under the proposal, it could not be sold after July 

14 2014 without certification, and to companies that 

15 make them.

16 DOE has not taken into account this 

17 critical choke point, which by itself, will be a 

18 huge impediment.

19 Item three. Proposed exclusion. DOE has 

20 no lawful basis to impose heating efficiency 

21 standards for decorative gas fireplaces and gas log 

22 sets. Accordingly, it has no basis to impose 

23 conditions for any exclusion from such requirements. 

24 Since decorative gas fireplaces and gas log sets are 

25 not DHE, the products cannot reasonably be subjected 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

22

1 to energy efficiency standards. Further, DOE cannot 

2 impose an energy efficiency standard for a product 

3 unless there is an applicable efficiency test method 

4 for the product. And there are no such test methods 

5 for decorative fireplaces and gas log sets. The 

6 AFUE methodology is inapplicable to decorative gas 

7 fireplaces and gas log sets and cannot even be 

8 conducted on a gas log set.

9 DOE may not impose heating efficiency 

10 standards without determining that such standards 

11 are technologically feasible and economically 

12 justified. And DOE has never made such a 

13 determination for decorative gas fireplaces or gas 

14 log sets. In fact, the heating efficiency standards 

15 are not achievable for gas log sets and many 

16 decorative gas fireplaces.

17 The terms of the proposed exclusion are 

18 also unreasonable and unjustified. There is a 

19 serious misstatement of the consequences of the 

20 requirement to list decorative gas fireplaces to 

21 Z21.50 and gas log sets to Z21.60. DOE states that, 

22 quote, “DOE is not aware of any vented hearth 

23 products on the market that are not already 

24 certified to” unquote, one of these two standards. 

25 HPBA has submitted information to DOE that there are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

23

1 decorative gas fireplaces that are not certified to 

2 Z21.50, the standard covering decorative gas 

3 fireplaces. 

4 Further, a substantial proportion of gas 

5 log sets are not, and cannot be certified to Z21.60. 

6 The market and products manufactured is more complex 

7 than for decorative gas fireplaces, and there are 

8 products that are regulated to Z21.60, Z21.84, for 

9 RADCO standard, and many are not certified at all. 

10 If the proposal is finalized requiring Z21.60 for 

11 all gas logs, would result in match light systems 

12 which do not use a standing pilot light, and cannot 

13 be certified to Z21.60 being outlawed.

14 There is no credible basis for the 

15 purported energy conservation benefits cited in the 

16 proposal. There is no basis provided regarding 

17 pilot light use. DOE makes the premise that 75% of 

18 pilot lights on decorative gas fireplaces are on all 

19 of the time, and that none are off most or all of 

20 the time. DOE’s assertion is baseless, 

21 unreasonable, and arbitrary. Information and 

22 experience in the industry indicate that DOE’s 

23 assumption is absurdly high. DOE failed to fulfill 

24 its obligation to consider other less costly 

25 conservation alternatives to the prohibition of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

24

1 standing pilot lights. The Department does not even 

2 appear to have considered the possibility that equal 

3 or even greater energy conservation benefits might 

4 be achieved by providing information to the public, 

5 to make appropriate energy conservation decisions.

6 Item 4. Impacts on small business 

7 manufacturers. The proposed rule cites 14 small 

8 business manufacturers that will be adversely 

9 affected by the new regulation. The estimate is not 

10 credible and appears to be low by at least a factor 

11 of three. In addition, there are thousands of small 

12 business specialty retailers, as well as 

13 distributors who would be adversely affected by the 

14 proposed regulation.

15 There is no recent assessment of costs or 

16 other impacts in the proposal or the record. DOE 

17 assumes that there will be no regulatory burdens 

18 associated with certification to Z21.50 or Z21.60 

19 because it claims that all existing decorative 

20 products are already certified to those standards. 

21 This is a false assumption. There are significant 

22 numbers of decorative vented hardware products that 

23 are not certified to either standard, including a 

24 substantial number of gas log sets that cannot be 

25 certified to Z21.60 and hence would be banned 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

25

1 outright. For those companies that can certify 

2 their products to one of the standards, even if they 

3 have to recertify their products, the assumptions in 

4 the proposal are incorrectly low.

5 DOE states that compliance cost for gas 

6 log sets, quote, “can be reasonably assumed to be 

7 largely the same as the compliance costs of small 

8 business manufacturers” of decorative gas 

9 fireplaces. There is no basis for this assumption. 

10 In fact, gas log sets are significantly different 

11 from decorative gas fireplaces. The market is more 

12 complex in terms of geography, types of products, 

13 and certifications obtained. There are a variety of 

14 ignition systems and the gas log sets are designed 

15 to be installed into pre-existing wood-burning 

16 fireplaces, which create a host of installation and 

17 design issues not faced by decorative fireplaces.

18 DOE appears to have no understanding of 

19 these issues. The Department states that it, quote, 

20 “attempted to contact,” unquote, four manufacturers. 

21 DOE did not attempt to consult HPBA and did not 

22 communicate with any gas log set manufacturers. 

23 HPBA is hereby requesting to know the identity of 

24 those four manufacturers that DOE attempted to 

25 contact, how DOE attempted to contact them, and when 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

26

1 those contacts were attempted. And again, I can’t 

2 find it in the record, because there is no record.

3 DOE also erroneously understates the

4 economic impact on the hearth industry by stating 

5 that 80 percent of gas log sets already have 

6 electronic or other intermittent ignition systems. 

7 In fact, fewer than five percent of gas log sets 

8 have electronic ignition systems, and the balance is 

9 approximately evenly distributed between match light 

10 systems and standing pilot lights. DOE has not even 

11 identified match light systems as a major ignition 

12 system used in the industry. The reality is that 

13 the overwhelming majority, 95 percent of the gas log 

14 set market will have to be reengineered and 

15 certified, and match light systems cannot be listed 

16 to the Z21.60 standard. As a result, there will be 

17 a substantial cost to the industry to come into 

18 compliance with the proposal.

19 DOE further states that, quote, “the 

20 elimination of standing pilot lights would only 

21 result in product conversion costs associated with 

22 testing and recertification to ANSI safety 

23 standards.” Unquote. This assumption is 

24 unreasonable and incorrect. First, design changes 

25 will be needed, especially for gas log sets. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

27

1 Electronic ignition is required for gas log sets, 

2 whether or not it is feasible, and it is not. Over 

3 90 percent of the products in the market would need 

4 to be redesigned. The cost of redesign and all at 

5 once to meet an arbitrary compliance date are not 

6 insignificant, especially for an industry that has 

7 yet to recover from the recession.

8 Second, there will be backlogs in getting 

9 product recertified with the potential for many 

10 products not being able to reach markets in time.

11 Third, as discussed earlier, the costs of 

12 recertification are not insignificant.

13 Fourth, elimination of standing pilot 

14 lights would, in some cases, have a significant 

15 effect on product pricing, causing reduction in 

16 sales, margins, or both. 

17 The assumption by DOE in the proposal is 

18 again a clear example of the Department having not 

19 done the proper due diligence before it regulates an 

20 industry. Finally, DOE has not looked at the 

21 cumulative regulatory impacts and costs on small 

22 businesses as the Executive Order directs it to do. 

23 In considering the economic justification 

24 of any requirements, DOE must consider the economic 

25 condition of the hearth industry. The industry is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

28

1 highly and directly dependent on the health of the 

2 housing market. Total product shipments for vented 

3 hearth gas hearth products fell by a third from 2005 

4 to 2007, and by an additional half, or a total of 

5 two-thirds, between 2005 and 2009. The industry 

6 sales have not recovered from the weak 2009 levels. 

7 This industry is struggling to survive, and the 

8 potential of a large market -- excuse me -- and the 

9 potential elimination of a large market will result 

10 in even more job losses in this industry and the 

11 general economy.

12 In conclusion, when one testifies at a 

13 hearing, it is common practice for the person 

14 testifying to thank the agency for the opportunity 

15 to testify. I cannot thank DOE for that opportunity 

16 today. I cannot do so because DOE has not provided 

17 the regulated community and the public with the 

18 information they need and that DOE is required by 

19 law to provide, to facilitate effective comment on 

20 the proposal. We have been put in the position of 

21 responding to black boxes and items behind the 

22 curtain. This is not what the Administrator 

23 Procedure Act or DOE’s own regulations governing 

24 rulemakings require. We again request that DOE 

25 terminate this rulemaking. Thank you.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

29

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I think many or 

2 most of you have a copy of these written remarks and 

3 I just wanted, for those of you who don’t have a 

4 copy yet, I think we have some additional copies. I 

5 have four written copies here in front of me and 

6 going down the line, Robert, do you wish to go next?

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Robert Elliott, National 

8 Propane Gas Association. The National Propane Gas 

9 Association is a national trade association of 

10 propane industry, having a membership of 

11 approximately 3200 companies with 39 state and 

12 regional associations represented in all 50 states. 

13 While NPGA’s membership covers a broad section of 

14 categories, over 90 percent of our members are 

15 retail marketers of propane gas, who deliver the 

16 fuel to the end user. However, our membership also 

17 includes suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors 

18 of appliances, including decorative vented and non19 vented fireplaces and gas log sets. 

20 Propane represents a small, but important 

21 part of the US energy sector, and our industry is 

22 both directly and significantly affected by the 

23 Department of Energy’s proposed energy conservation 

24 standards for direct heating equipment.

25 NPGA is concerned with the development of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

30

1 the recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 

2 July 22, 2011 in the Federal Register. As you know, 

3 the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of December 11, 

4 2009 proposed two new definitions defining direct 

5 heating equipment as both vented and unvented home 

6 heating equipment. The Notice of Proposed 

7 Rulemaking also proposed to expand the product class 

8 of covered products as follows: vented hearth 

9 heaters to include vented fireplace heaters or gas 

10 fireplace inserts or gas stoves which simulate a 

11 solid fuel fireplace and is designed to furnish warm 

12 air without ducts to the space in which it is 

13 installed.

14 However, the April 2010 final rule 

15 expanded the proposed definition to include, and I 

16 quote, “Those heaters with a maximum input capacity 

17 less than or equal to 9000 BTU per hour as measured 

18 using DOE’s test procedure for vented home heating 

19 equipment are considered purely decorative and are 

20 excluded from DOE’s regulations.”

21 NPGA supports DOE’s efforts to develop and 

22 promote energy conservation standards for the 

23 consumer products covered under the Energy Policy 

24 and Conservation Act, however, we are opposed to the 

25 proposed inclusion of decorative vented hearth 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

31

1 products and gas log sets as defined by DOE in the 

2 covered product class of direct heating equipment. 

3 Decorative hearth products are not designed to 

4 furnish warm air to the surrounding living space. 

5 NPGA contends that heat generated by these 

6 decorative products is produced incidentally, as the 

7 primary design and function is for aesthetics and 

8 ambiance. 

9 NPGA believes several administrative and 

10 procedural errors have occurred in the development 

11 of the definition. NPGA finds reason for rulemaking 

12 based on uncorroborated assumptions, and a mix of 

13 misinformation. It is the opinion of NPGA that the 

14 requirements for the Administrative Procedures Act 

15 have not been met. The April 2010 final rule, 

16 promulgated a definition that was not included in 

17 the December 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

18 Therefore, the affected public was not provided the

19 opportunity to comment on the rule.

20 Further, it goes to reason that if the 

21 underlying final rule was procedurally in error, 

22 then the subsequent July 2011 Notice of Proposed 

23 Rulemaking seeking to amend the April 2010 final 

24 rule is also in error.

25 NPGA is also concerned that the current 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

32

1 rulemaking process does not meet the relevant 

2 standards of Executive Orders 12988, Civil Justice 

3 Reform, or Executive Order 13563 that requires 

4 agencies to use the best available techniques to 

5 quantify and anticipate present and future benefits 

6 and costs as accurately as possible.

7 With regards to Executive Order 12988 that 

8 requires federal agencies to write regulations to 

9 minimize litigation. Clearly this is not the case 

10 as the HPBA has brought suit and other stakeholders, 

11 such as NPGA, believe they have standing. EO 12988 

12 also requires that key terms be adequately defined. 

13 We argue that the proposed definitions being 

14 promulgated and amended by the Department of Energy 

15 for direct heating equipment are not adequately 

16 defined.

17 Regarding Executive Order 13563, NPGA 

18 believes that the average annual energy savings for 

19 both vented hearth products and vented gas log sets 

20 are erroneously skewed and anecdotal at best. The 

21 July 2011 rulemaking states, and I quote, “DOE 

22 assumes that pilot lights operate year-round, 365 

23 days a year, 24/7 for 75 percent of installations, 

24 and the remaining 25 percent of consumers operate 

25 their pilot lights one-fourth of the year.” Based 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

33

1 upon service call information supplied to NPGA by 

2 our membership, we believe that only about 25 

3 percent of all installations for vented hearth 

4 products and vented gas log sets remain on year5 round. The remaining 75 percent of consumers keep 

6 their pilot lights on for three or four months of 

7 the year. This is completely opposite to your 

8 assumptions.

9 Therefore, NPGA believes that DOE has not 

10 sufficiently met the criteria found in Executive 

11 Order 13563 and it is questionable whether the 

12 standard is economically justified. 

13 NPGA also believes that DOE has not met 

14 several requirements of the Energy Policy and 

15 Conservation Act. 42 US Code 6295 states that the 

16 Secretary of Energy is required to determine that 

17 the benefits of the standard must exceed the burdens 

18 and that the standard is technologically and 

19 economically justified. As stated earlier, we 

20 believe the economic justification based upon DOE 

21 assumptions is questionable at best.

22 Under Section 42 of the US Code 629503(a) 

23 requires DOE to establish the test procedure for any 

24 prescribed or amended standards. DOE test procedure 

25 for vented home heating equipment states, and I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

34

1 quote, “Install thermocouples for measuring 

2 condition to warm air temperature.” And the test 

3 also requires one to, quote, “Establish the 

4 temperature of inlet air by means of a thermocouple 

5 suitably shielded from direct radiation and located 

6 in the center of the plane of heat and lit opening.” 

7 Then if you look at Title 10 CFR 430.2 for 

8 definitions, it states that vented home heating be 

9 designed to furnish warm air to the living space of 

10 a residence. We question whether this test method 

11 determines to any degree the intent to be designed 

12 to furnish warm air. NPGA does not believe these 

13 products are designed to furnish warm air, and 

14 therefore this test procedure is not valid for 

15 prescribing or amending direct heating equipment 

16 standards.

17 In conclusion, NPGA does not believe that 

18 Congress intended for decorative hearth products to 

19 be included as a covered product of direct heating 

20 equipment. We believe the heat generated from the 

21 flame is produced incidentally, and not by specific 

22 design. It is also the opinion of NPGA that several 

23 procedural and administrative errors have occurred 

24 in the promulgation of the standard and its most 

25 recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We therefore 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

35

1 respectfully request that decorative hearth products 

2 and gas log sets be excluded from the definition of 

3 direct heating equipment.

4 NPGA thanks you for this opportunity to 

5 express our comments and we will be providing more 

6 detail in our written comments.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I think Leslie, 

8 you indicated that you wish to speak as well. I’m 

9 looking at your statement. I notice there’s 14 

10 pages here. Do you wish to read all of this into 

11 the record?

12 MR. BORTZ: I do.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Please proceed.

14 MR. BORTZ: My name is Leslie Bortz. I am 

15 the President of the R.H. Peterson Company, which is 

16 among the larger manufacturers of vented gas logs in 

17 the United States. We’ve been in business since 

18 1949, and I have been an owner of the business for 

19 34 years. While our volume constitutes a 

20 significant portion of our industry, we are still a 

21 relatively small business, with approximately 220 

22 employees. Almost all of our employees are based in 

23 California, where we have our manufacturing facility 

24 just outside L.A.

25 I have traveled here today to respond to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

36

1 the many incorrect statements and conclusions based 

2 on so-called DOE research placed into its Notice of 

3 Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on July 22nd 4 .

5 The Department of Energy was correct in 

6 April 2010 as noted in the FAQ published 

7 contemporaneously with the original DOE rulemaking. 

8 Gas log sets have specific characteristics that 

9 differentiate them from gas fireplaces, gas 

10 fireplace inserts, and gas stoves. In 2010, DOE 

11 continued, they do not provide the same heating 

12 function as those appliances which are constructed 

13 as closed systems, and stated DOE believes that gas 

14 log set products are intended to be installed for 

15 decorative purposes. As a result, DOE interpreted 

16 its definition of a vented hearth heater as not 

17 covering vented log sets. 

18 Nothing has changed since April 2010 to 

19 make gas log sets any more of a heating appliance. 

20 Now, however, the DOE asserts that because gas log 

21 sets employ a flame, that they necessarily heat the 

22 room in which they’re located. In terms of gas log 

23 sets, DOE recognized in 2010, there is no 

24 significant heating function for the room. Gas log 

25 sets are not even able to be tested using the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

37

1 standard AFUE test applied to direct heating 

2 equipment to measure the output of heated air.

3 Gas log sets will generate radiant heat 

4 like other appliances, such as computers or light 

5 bulbs, which warm the objects that are nearby, but 

6 not the room air. For the first time, DOE purports 

7 to regulate appliances producing radiant heat as 

8 direct heating equipment, but there is no approved 

9 test for the efficiency of radiant heat.

10 The statute says that where there is no 

11 approved efficiency test method, DOE is not allowed 

12 to adopt a standard. Here, however, DOE is 

13 recommending a standard which would impose 

14 catastrophic costs upon the industry and would harm 

15 consumers.

16 As I explained below, the standard DOE 

17 proposes to adopt for vented gas logs would not 

18 result in any significant energy savings, which is 

19 the threshold that DOE must meet to justify imposing 

20 any standard. DOE is not going to meet the stated 

21 goals of this program, and in fact, will undermine 

22 those same very goals by limiting consumer 

23 alternatives and depriving consumers of a more 

24 efficient option, gas logs, which generate less 

25 pollution from the existing wood burning fireplaces.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

38

1 DOE had the opportunity to ask the gas log 

2 industry for the factual information which would 

3 have enabled it to identify these issues before 

4 issuing the NOPR. Despite having access to the 

5 membership list for our trade association, which 

6 identifies all of the significant gas log 

7 manufacturers, DOE did not contact any of these 

8 significant gas log manufacturers. And it appears 

9 quite obvious to our industry that DOE made no 

10 serious effort to do so. Even a simple Google 

11 search for gas logs could not have missed us. There 

12 is simply no basis for failing to gather necessary 

13 information about gas log sets. It would have been 

14 readily available through discussions with any 

15 manufacturers like us.

16 DOE made mistaken statements and 

17 conclusions. The mistakes in the NOPR are based on 

18 massive research errors, leading to totally 

19 unsupported conclusion. The errors are so large 

20 that random guessing would have been twice as close 

21 on average. Random guessing would have been twice 

22 as close on average.

23 DOE also assumed incorrectly that gas logs 

24 have similar characteristics to decorative 

25 fireplaces. Gas log sets can only be used in wood 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

39

1 burning fireplaces. While DOE states that they are 

2 difficult to distinguish, anyone who is making a 

3 purchase, could easily distinguish them from 

4 decorative gas fireplaces. Anyone investigating 

5 them thoroughly would know that there are many 

6 issues, like pilot lights and certifications, where 

7 the two appliances have markedly different 

8 characteristics.

9 I’m now going to address several major 

10 topics. Number one, gas log sets are in fact an 

11 efficient substitute for consumers with wood burning 

12 fireplaces, which is the only place where gas log 

13 sets can be used. Gas logs are efficient and better 

14 for the environment. On Page 43945 of the proposed 

15 rule, DOE states that gas log sets are relatively 

16 inefficient products. How did DOE determine this? 

17 Relative to what? 

18 First, gas log sets are not designed, 

19 intended, marketed, or purchased to provide heat. 

20 They are decorative to provide a realistic 

21 simulation of a wood burning fire in a wood burning 

22 fireplace. There is no DOE approved test to measure 

23 the heating efficiency of a vented log set, making 

24 DOE’s interpretation that they are a type of direct 

25 heating equipment unreasonable on its face. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

40

1 As DOE has recognized, however, houses 

2 with gas log sets are more whole-home efficient than 

3 houses with the products with which they compete. 

4 Gas log sets compete with wood, wax logs, and coal. 

5 When a consumer has a wood-burning fire, they 

6 consume more BTUs per hour of use, about three times 

7 the amount, and take more heated home air out of the 

8 house to achieve the same aesthetic appeal. Many 

9 wood-burning fireplaces also use log lighters that 

10 burn large amounts of natural gas to light the wood. 

11 In addition, consumers will leave the flue fully 

12 open overnight following a wood-burning fire, 

13 allowing the home to vent heated indoor air to the 

14 outside all night. 

15 In contrast, gas logs and decorative 

16 fireplaces are instant on, instant off. The flue 

17 does not stay fully open beyond the period of usage. 

18 Based on our consumer feedback, consumers with gas 

19 log sets like them because they replicate a wood 

20 fire. They are not bought to heat a room. If they 

21 want to heat, they buy a different product.

22 Consumers buy our vented log sets for 

23 several reasons. 

24 Number one, safety. There are no dangerous 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

41

1 sparks coming from a gas log set, no chimney 

2 fires, no hot ashes spilling into the room. 

3 Number two, cleanliness. There’s improved air 

4 quality. There are no bugs. There’s no dirt. 

5 Health. There are no toxins in the wood, no 

6 allergens, no particulates, no asthma. 

7 Convenience. Instant on/off, low maintenance, 

8 low service needs.

9 Inexpensive. Gas logs are the least expensive 

10 product to buy to convert your fireplace, and 

11 they are the least expensive to use. Fire wood 

12 is three to four times per hour more expensive 

13 than gas. They buy gas log sets because it 

14 saves trees. They buy gas log sets because it 

15 uses a fuel abundant in the United States.

16 The proposed rule will interfere with all 

17 of these advantages by making the units 

18 prohibitively expensive. Gas log sets are far 

19 cleaner from an environmental perspective than the 

20 product they are replacing. As US EPA has 

21 recognized in its Burn Wise Program, consumers would 

22 be well advised to shift from wood-burning fires to 

23 gas log sets in terms of an overall reduction in 

24 critical air pollutants.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

42

1 In its analysis, DOE is assuming that 

2 there is some environmental benefit from limiting 

3 gas log sets. To the contrary, anything which 

4 discourages people from making the transition from 

5 gas log sets -- excuse me -- to gas log sets from 

6 wood-burning, wax log-burning, or coal-burning, will 

7 have an immediate and major negative effect on the 

8 environment.

9 Many state environmental agencies and 

10 other environmental and health groups, like the NRDC 

11 and the American Lung Association, have adopted the 

12 same environmental position endorsed by US EPA, 

13 favoring the transition to gas log sets. As an 

14 example, the leading air quality agency in the 

15 country in charge of improving air quality, in the 

16 difficult Los Angels region, has what it calls 

17 “Healthy Hearths Program.” As part of that program 

18 to improve public health, the South Coast Air 

19 Quality Management District actually pays consumers 

20 to change out their wood-burning fireplaces and to 

21 use gas log sets. The agency adopted this position 

22 after an extensive rulemaking examining health and 

23 environmental benefits of this transition to gas log 

24 sets, and they partially used the analysis done by 

25 the very experts cited by you, the DOE, Jim Hauck.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

43

1 DOE has simply assumed a non-existent 

2 environmental benefit in its analysis, and ignored 

3 the considerable environmental detriment that will 

4 come about by making gas log sets three times as 

5 expensive as they are now. When properly accounted 

6 for, the net environmental impact of the rule is 

7 negative and would trigger requirements that DOE 

8 evaluate the rule under the National Environmental 

9 Policy Act.

10 My second topic is standing pilots. DOE 

11 simply does not understand how standing pilots work 

12 in gas log sets. The type of pilot is restricted by 

13 the pre-existing wood-burning fireplace, and the 

14 heat in the fireplace when the fireplace is being 

15 used.

16 First, based upon purported consultation 

17 of the various websites with wholly ambiguous 

18 information, DOE has decided to use 1250 BTUs per 

19 hour as the pilot light gas consumption rate use for 

20 vented gas log sets. DOE chose the wrong rate, 

21 based upon the use of five websites listed in the 

22 proposed rule, none of which provide BTU usage 

23 numbers for vented gas logs. I have the information 

24 here, I will talk to you later about all five of the 

25 places which you looked in the internet were not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

44

1 correct, could not give you the information that you 

2 said they gave you.

3 For gas log sets, typical low BTU pilots 

4 allow for low BTU consumption per hour. Peterson 

5 recently tested its most common low BTU pilot on an 

6 ANSI Z21.60 set, found the pilot light consumes 562 

7 BTUs per hour at 4.5 inches of water column 

8 pressure, and just slightly higher, 599 BTUs per 

9 hour at the highest natural gas pressure we see in 

10 the market. This rate is less than half of the 

11 amount that DOE assumed. This one change cuts the 

12 theoretical gas savings from the proposed DOE rule 

13 by about 55 percent.

14 To put that number in perspective, at the 

15 current consumer price of natural gas, which is 65 

16 to 68 cents, it costs approximately $32 per year to 

17 burn vented log sets low BTU pilot for the entire 

18 year, assuming that you’re one of the minority of 

19 customers to do so.

20 DOE also assumed that gas log sets would 

21 last approximately 15 years. Our typical warranty 

22 for gas log burners is five to seven years. Our 

23 experience, a consumer who uses his or her gas log 

24 sets will replace them or stop using them in less 

25 than ten years. Fifteen years is really a long time 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

45

1 for doing that. This also cuts the potential gas 

2 savings of the proposed rule by an additional third.

3 In terms of energy usage from standing 

4 pilots, DOE assumes 75 percent of the standing pilot 

5 users leave their standing pilot ignited 365 days 

6 each year, and 25 percent leave the standing pilot 

7 ignited only seasonally during the months when 

8 they’re more likely to have a reason to use the gas 

9 log set. Based upon our experience in the industry, 

10 we believe that DOE has these percentages wrong. We 

11 estimate that a minority of the consumers on natural 

12 gas leave their gas log sets’ standing pilots on 

13 year round. Most operate the standing pilots 

14 seasonally and extinguish the standing pilot and 

15 close the gas valve at the end of the season. Our 

16 systems are designed to make this easy to do, and we 

17 provide clear instructions for how to reignite the 

18 pilot after the consumer has extinguished the pilot. 

19 Consumers are moving in that direction. 

20 For example, our VP of sales, who is here, recently 

21 returned from Alabama where the local gas company is 

22 teaching consumers to turn off their pilots in the 

23 off-season, and offering a free light-up service in 

24 the fall. We will be happy to recommend consumers 

25 operate their units in this manner, which would be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

46

1 far more cost effective solution than charging a 

2 seasonal user $600 extra to save them $8 worth of 

3 gas a year.

4 DOE did not address specifically the issue 

5 of standing pilots for liquid propane or LP units. 

6 Approximately 15 percent of our market involves the 

7 sale of gas log sets that will be fueled by propane. 

8 Very few LP customers use their standing pilots year 

9 round. Almost everyone turns off the pilot when

10 done using the LP unit.

11 These erroneous assumptions by DOE 

12 drastically overstate the energy savings for the 

13 proposed rule. While DOE did not provide all of its 

14 assumptions, if you use the same number of units in 

15 service with pilot lights, but adjust for the 

16 reduced number of years, adjust for the reduced low 

17 BTU pilot usage, and adjust for the more common 

18 seasonal consumer usage of the products, we estimate 

19 that the total energy savings from this NOPR for 

20 vented gas log sets would be less than 20 percent of 

21 DOE’s estimate. DOE’s estimate is more than five 

22 times too high.

23 In addition, natural gas is plentiful in 

24 the United States. Unlike oil, natural gas reserves 

25 are higher now than they’ve been at any time in our 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

47

1 history. Natural gas prices are dropping each year 

2 as we find more sources for natural gas, at a rate 

3 that exceeds consumption. In addition, natural gas 

4 is a local fuel with virtually all of the United 

5 States natural gas consumption coming from sources 

6 within North America. 

7 DOE’s proposal would add about $600 per 

8 unit to the cost of a gas log set. There’s no 

9 payback for the consumer if you force them to accept 

10 electronic ignition system that markets have already 

11 shown the consumer doesn’t want.

12 DOE also assumed, based on a 1997, 14 year 

13 old study, that intermittent ignition systems 

14 already are common. This may be true for 

15 fireplaces, not true for gas log sets. We probably 

16 sell more intermittent ignition sets than anyone in 

17 the vented gas log industry, but we sell six to 

18 seven percent of our units that way. No one else 

19 that I know sells over five percent that way. 

20 Several reasons for the unpopularity of 

21 intermittent ignition systems with consumers. First 

22 is obviously that the cost would triple the cost of 

23 the most common gas log set sizes, and there’s no 

24 significant savings. Critically, however, is the 

25 difficulty of installation. Gas log sets must fit 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

48

1 into an existing wood-burning fireplace. Over 95 

2 percent of our sales are to retrofit it to an 

3 existing wood-burning fireplace. Unlike a 

4 decorative fireplace, which has spaces within its 

5 design to house and protect an intermittent pilot 

6 unit, gas log sets have no such area. 

7 In most installations of gas logs the 

8 intermittent ignition system needs to be in the same 

9 wood-burning firebox where it is difficult to 

10 protect it from the surrounding flames. In many 

11 installations, adding the intermittent pilot system 

12 often causes the gas logs to go off center within 

13 the fireplace. That, along with the battery pack 

14 and box that houses the pilot, reduces the aesthetic 

15 appeal for the unit. Consumers want our product to 

16 look like a wood-burning fire and wood-burning fires 

17 do not have large battery packs in them.

18 Finally, in many shallow wood-burning 

19 fireplaces, there’s simply no room to add an 

20 intermittent pilot system. To compete in the 

21 market, gas log sets must be able to be installed in 

22 a wide variety of circumstances. DOE’s proposed 

23 rule would greatly restrict the number of wood24 burning fireplaces that could accept gas log sets.

25 As DOE recognized in is Q&A to the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

49

1 original 2010 rule, unlike decorative fireplaces, 

2 gas log sets are not constructed as a part of an 

3 entire enclosure. A gas log manufacturer cannot 

4 control the size and shape of the wood-burning 

5 fireplace in which the gas logs will be installed. 

6 To accommodate this market, we sell 20 different 

7 types of burners, ten to 12 different sizes, 600 

8 different log sets and another several thousand add9 on options, including many different pilots to meet 

10 the needs of consumers. In the face of this broad11 range of installation requirements, DOE is 

12 attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all solution 

13 which will restrict consumer choice.

14 Certification requirements. Once again, 

15 based on its familiarity with decorative fireplaces, 

16 DOE wrongly assumed that the certification practices 

17 of the gas log industry were the same. While it may 

18 be true that most of the decorative gas fireplaces 

19 are certified to an ANSI standard, this is not true 

20 for gas logs. There is no universal certification 

21 for gas log sets. Gas log sets are regulated 

22 differently by different cities and states. 

23 The ANSI Z21.60 standard is really only a 

24 regional standard. For example, in the United 

25 States, our company sells 21 percent of its gas log 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

50

1 sets certified to Z21.60. DOE assumes that all gas 

2 log sets were already certified to Z21.60, and the 

3 new rule would therefore impose few certification 

4 costs on manufacturers. This is clearly incorrect. 

5 Over 75 percent of Peterson’s United States sales of 

6 vented gas logs as listed to what is known as the 

7 RADCO standard, or are sold uncertified.

8 For gas log sets the certification issue 

9 is very different than for gas fireplaces. 

10 Fireplaces must contain the fire being built within 

11 them. Accordingly, the code-setting agencies have 

12 generally regulated those fireplaces strictly. In 

13 contrast, gas log sets are designed to go into a 

14 wood-burning fireplace that itself is constructed to 

15 meet the various codes. Consequently, building 

16 standard agencies around the country treat gas log 

17 sets very differently and quite inconsistently. The 

18 standard that applies in one state or city is not 

19 used by other states or cities. DOE’s attempt to 

20 have a one-size-fits-all approach to the 

21 certification issue will necessarily conflict with 

22 the certification practices already in place in many 

23 states and cities.

24 Directly contrary to DOE’s unsupported 

25 conclusion, the ANSI Z21.60 standard represents a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

51

1 change in design for over 75 percent of Peterson’s 

2 gas log sets, and for over 80 percent of our 

3 industry. For example, ANSI Z21.60 only covers gas 

4 log burners up to 30 inches. We sell 36, 42, 48, 60 

5 and higher sizes to consumers with large wood6 burning fireplaces. 

7 The ANSI Z21.60 design is also more 

8 expensive to build. Peterson sells some sets 

9 certified to Z21.60, largely in a few northeastern 

10 states, the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of 

11 Washington, D.C., and Maryland. Those units cost an 

12 extra 40 to 50 percent by itself, without 

13 intermittent ignition. 

14 There are also other standards. There’s 

15 the ANSI Z21.84 standard, is available, 

16 theoretically, for natural gas, but it isn’t that 

17 often used. Peterson sells no Z21.84 units. Z21.84 

18 allows for what are called match-lit sets, where the 

19 consumer lights a match and lights the unit each 

20 time the unit is turned on, without the use of a 

21 pilot light. These types of units do not comply in 

22 many local building codes that require a pilot, 

23 however, and cannot be used with LP for safety 

24 reasons.

25 The proposed rule would bar match-lit 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

52

1 vented gas logs, however, because they are not 

2 allowed under ANSI Z21.60. This is about half of 

3 our industry. The vast majority of vented gas log 

4 sets are sold listed to the RADCO 272 -- RGA272 

5 standard. These are sold in areas that do not 

6 require ANSI certification. RADCO allows match lit 

7 sets without a standing pilot. In addition, rather 

8 than to pay for certifying to ANSI Z21.84, it’s 

9 easier to simply sell a listed or uncertified set, 

10 depending on local requirements at a lower cost.

11 In addition, there’s no energy savings 

12 basis to insist that gas log sets are certified to 

13 any particular standard. For gas fireplaces, there 

14 are two different standards, there’s Z21.50 and 

15 Z21.88, which represent a difference in function. 

16 Gas fireplaces certified to Z21.50 are decorative, 

17 certified to Z21.88 are heaters. There’s no 

18 comparable distinction for gas log sets. There is 

19 no heater standard for gas log sets because gas log 

20 sets are not sold as heaters.

21 This calls into question the whole reason 

22 to regulate gas log sets in the first place. The 

23 absence of any standard describing any gas log sets 

24 as heater should tell DOE, by itself, that gas logs 

25 simply are not designed to be heating appliances and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

53

1 should not be regulated at all as part of this 

2 rulemaking. 

3 Fourth is cost analysis. The proposed 

4 requirements for gas log sets would sharply increase 

5 the cost of gas log sets. Based on a 1997, 14 year 

6 old report that estimated 20 percent of vented gas 

7 log sets had standing pilots, DOE assumed that the 

8 remaining 80 percent already used alternatives, in 

9 quotes, “such as intermittent pilot or electronic 

10 ignition,” close quotes. Back in 1997 there were 

11 just about zero electronic ignition systems in the 

12 market in the gas log business. Zero. Even today, 

13 under seven percent of our units, and less than five 

14 percent of the industry units are sold with 

15 intermittent ignition -- intermittent electronic 

16 ignition systems. The cost of a 24-inch log set is 

17 less than $400. The cost of adding an electronic 

18 ignition is an additional $596 dollars, our list 

19 price. Thus DOE’s proposed regulation would nearly 

20 triple the cost merely by adding the intermittent 

21 pilot requirement. 

22 The financial impact on the second most 

23 common size -- these two sizes make up probably 75 

24 percent of our business, is even more because the 

25 set is a little bit cheaper, and the ignition system 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

54

1 is the same.

2 In addition, DOE is purporting to impose a 

3 new certification requirement. Having a gas log 

4 certified to ANSI Z21.60 adds even more cost.

5 In summary, DOE is taking a product that 

6 costs less than $400 and increasing its cost to a 

7 consumer to more than $1000. This is being done in 

8 order to save between eight and $32 of natural gas 

9 each year. There is no economic basis for the rule 

10 that has been proposed. The rule will restrict 

11 consumer choice, greatly discourage more effective 

12 use of wood-burning fireplaces, and impose 

13 significant unwanted costs on those consumers who 

14 still will be able to purchase gas log sets.

15 Virtually all of the gas log set 

16 manufacturers who do not produce fireplaces are 

17 small businesses like Peterson. If you look at the 

18 market shares of the companies involved in the 

19 industry, the majority of the overall vented gas log 

20 market is controlled by companies that are small 

21 businesses. While DOE stated that it identified 

22 four small business manufacturers of vented gas log 

23 sets, there are 20 to 30 such entities, all of whom 

24 will face catastrophic market change from the forced 

25 tripling of the price of their main product. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

55

1 Tripling the price of our primary product will have 

2 a significant economic impact on a substantial 

3 number of small business entities.

4 In its analysis of the cost of compliance, 

5 DOE correctly stated -- excuse me -- DOE incorrectly 

6 stated that all vented gas log sets are already 

7 certified to ANSI Z21.60. As I explained above, 

8 this is incorrect. Eighty percent are not such 

9 certified. DOE also wrongly stated that the 

10 elimination of the standing pilot requirement would 

11 only result in product conversion cost associated 

12 with testing and recertification. The cost of the 

13 equipment itself triples the price. The alternative 

14 ignition device must have its own power source, 

15 which requires another significant change in the 

16 type of equipment sold with the basic log set. 

17 DOE’s proposed rule would drive many small 

18 manufacturers of vented gas log sets out of 

19 business.

20 Five is the time line. Over 95 percent of 

21 our gas logs do not meet one or both of the proposed 

22 certification and pilot light restrictions. DOE has 

23 proposed to make the ANSI certification requirement 

24 applicable April of 2013 and to make the no standing 

25 pilot light portion of the proposed rule applicable 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

56

1 July 2014. Gas log manufacturers were not part of 

2 this rulemaking as recently as seven weeks ago. 

3 Until July 22, 2011, DOE’s official position was 

4 that gas logs were not vented hearth heaters subject 

5 to these requirements.

6 First, the statute requires DOE to give 

7 gas log sets at least three years from any final 

8 rule on gas log sets to comply with any new DOE 

9 requirements. There’s also practical means of 

10 recertifying a large percentage of the gas log set 

11 market by April 2013, given the work to be done by 

12 the testing agencies because of other issues in the 

13 2010 rule, we have no reason to think that the 

14 testing agencies could comply with the certification 

15 requirement by then, particularly given that its 

16 exact parameters have not even been identified yet.

17 With regard to pilot light restriction, 

18 compliance by July 2014 is impossible. This would 

19 require redesign of the units that represent over 95

20 percent of our sales, and their recertification 

21 testing.

22 In summary, I’d like to make sure that you 

23 understand, consumers do not buy vented gas log sets 

24 for heat. Again, consumers do not buy vented gas 

25 log sets for heat. Vented gas log sets only go into 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

57

1 wood-burning fireplaces. Again, vented gas log sets 

2 only go into wood-burning fireplaces. There are 

3 many other products in the market which will provide 

4 heat. They are marketed based on their AFUE numbers 

5 because there are tests that can determine whether 

6 they supply a given percentage of their BTUs in 

7 heated air to the room. 

8 The authorizing statute instructs DOE that 

9 it may not set energy conservation standards unless 

10 the appliance has a clearly identified test which 

11 can measure its compliance. Here there is no 

12 efficiency test that can be applied to gas log sets 

13 and DOE has not even suggested that there is any 

14 such test. Thus it is incorrect to say, as DOE has 

15 stated in its proposed rule, that gas log set 

16 manufacturers can comply by meeting the efficiency 

17 test for vented hearth heaters. It is not possible 

18 to test gas log sets to meet that standard.

19 In addition, consumers do not want the 

20 heat that would be generated. When a consumer wants 

21 a hearth product that provides heat, there are 

22 readily available options in the market that will do 

23 so. Gas log sets represent by far the lowest cost 

24 alternative for consumers tired of the inefficiency 

25 and pollution of their wood-burning fireplaces. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

58

1 DOE’s proposal would rob consumers of that low-cost 

2 choice while providing no offsetting financial 

3 benefit, because the gas savings, if any from the 

4 proposed rule, is so small. 

5 As it applies to gas log sets, DOE’s 

6 proposal does not achieve greater energy savings 

7 because homes with gas log sets in terms of whole 

8 home heating efficiency are more efficient than that 

9 alternative. The alternative is burning wood, 

10 burning wax logs, burning coal. Because the savings 

11 from the pilot restriction is trivial, it would only 

12 -- it would be offset by the significant cost that 

13 would eliminate or discourage consumers from 

14 switching from wood-burning fireplaces to gas logs.

15 The proposed rule would also undermine 

16 consumer alternatives because it would limit 

17 severely the number of available products at the 

18 market, particularly for consumers looking for low 

19 cost alternatives in wood-burning fireplaces.

20 Finally, the proposal does not ease 

21 manufacturer burdens in any respect. Under the 

22 prior rules, gas log sets were not subject to 

23 restrictions. The proposed rule only adds 

24 restrictions and manufacturing burdens which would 

25 have a traumatic and negative impact on the gas log 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

59

1 industry.

2 I thank you for giving me the time to make 

3 my statement.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jane, 

5 when I first looked down -- did you wish to make a 

6 statement as well?

7 MS. BAUER: Yes. Okay. I guess you’re 

8 next in the queue.

9 MS. BAUER: Okay. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me make a note that 

11 we’ve been doing this now for about an hour, these 

12 written statements, anybody that wishes to do so can 

13 have it fully inserted into the record without 

14 reading it, but if -- no one wants to deny you that 

15 option. So proceed, Jane.

16 MS. BAUER: I did time myself, so it’s 

17 only about five minutes.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Very good.

19 MS. BAUER: Good morning. My name is Jane 

20 Bauer. I am part of the fourth generation of Bauers 

21 who have manufactured in southern Illinois, 

22 Belleville, Illinois, for the last 79 years. My 

23 great-grandfather who at age 17 immigrated from 

24 Germany to try his luck at the American dream, 

25 started Empire Comfort Systems in 1932. We’ve been 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

60

1 manufacturing heating products for 79 years and 

2 time for people to make, you know, like and 

3 decorative hearth products for 15. 

4 Like many of our consumers, we are a small 

5 family-run -- customers -- we’re a small family-run 

6 business. The following is our response to your 

7 request for comments.

8 The interpretation that decorative vented 

9 fireplaces and log sets are direct heating equipment 

10 is unreasonable. By description, intended use, and 

11 ANSI certification, decorative hearth products are 

12 decorative products, not heaters, intended to be 

13 used for ambiance, not heating, and certified to a 

14 standard specifically designed for ambiance and not 

15 direct heating use. They are designed and used for 

16 decorative purposes. It is not reasonable to assume 

17 that because a product uses energy or has heat as a 

18 byproduct that it can be regulated as another 

19 product which is designed, certified, and currently 

20 regulated as a direct heating product.

21 The gas porch light, gas fire pit, Olympic 

22 torch, and President Kennedy’s eternal flame all 

23 consume energy and produce heat, but the design, 

24 intended use, and certification has nothing to do 

25 with direct heating equipment. Just as a decorative 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

61

1 hearth product is not a direct heating product.

2 Our company, because we manufacture wall 

3 furnaces and heaters, has been involved in the 

4 direct heating equipment regulations since the 

5 beginning. When the direct heating equipment 

6 statute was defined, decorative hearth products 

7 existed, but were not included. We manufacture 

8 heater-rated products and, in fact, have the most 

9 efficient vented hearth products in the industry. 

10 The design of this product is obviously to be energy 

11 efficient. At the same time, we cannot ignore the 

12 decorative nature of the hearth industry. Even with 

13 the most efficient product, we cannot ignore the 

14 ambiance. The total utilitarian product is a 

15 contradiction in terms, which is why there are two 

16 categories of hearth products.

17 The proposed date of compliance is an 

18 over-burdensome date for manufacturers. A minimum 

19 of three years from a final rule publication is more 

20 reasonable. It has been identified that 70 percent 

21 of the industry shipments are in the decorative 

22 hearth category. This is a low estimate, especially 

23 considering that the estimate did not include gas 

24 log sets.

25 Not only do the manufacturers, most of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

62

1 which are small business, need time for research and 

2 development, but the volume of certifications will 

3 increase at this level. The finite amount of 

4 certification facilities available to manufacturers, 

5 at date of 2014 is too aggressive for an industry 

6 made up of small businesses with limited resources. 

7 This industry, of all the categories targeted for 

8 inclusion and being regulated, is the smallest 

9 energy user. An aggressive timeline is not 

10 warranted.

11 Mandating the same timeline for a 

12 completely new-regulated category that a long13 regulated product would have is over-burdensome and 

14 too aggressive for relatively little savings in 

15 return.

16 The proposed exclusion is only necessary 

17 if the decorative vented hearth product and vented 

18 gas log set categories are kept in the direct 

19 heating equipment category. The inclusion, and then 

20 the exclusion, is a contradiction in defined terms 

21 by the DOE. The DOE refers to the ambiance and 

22 decorative nature of these products, which is an 

23 admitted contradiction by definition. There is one 

24 primary use for decorative products, ambiance. The 

25 heat is the result of unintended, but necessary, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

63

1 consequence for safety and practical application of 

2 the product.

3 The incorporation of the proposal 

4 amendment for vented hearth heater will result in 

5 stopping current research and development on new 

6 heater hearth and space heating equipment. So 

7 manufacturers, like us, are spending these resources 

8 on higher AFUE equipment research and development. 

9 The end result will be delays in product 

10 introductions of a greater value in energy savings. 

11 It will also cause expenditures in research and 

12 development, engineering, marketing, and inventory 

13 that would be against all good business practices.

14 The coordination of resources and expense 

15 will put undue burden on industry that is small16 business dominated, a stressed industry directly 

17 affected by the housing market downturn.

18 The DOE has not considered the economic 

19 condition of our industry. The hearth industry is 

20 struggling, scratching, and crawling to stay afloat 

21 one small business by one small business. Since 

22 2008, two major hearth manufacturers have gone 

23 bankrupt, arguably, number two and number three 

24 producers in the United States. This unreasonable 

25 regulation is likely to promote more job loss for an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

64

1 energy load of truly little or no consequence.

2 Thank you for your time and consideration, 

3 and we respectfully request you cancel the entire 

4 proposal of regulating decorative hearth products.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I 

6 believe, Rett, you -- you’re next and then Jim.

7 MR. RANFONE: I’ll be very brief.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

9 MR. RASMUSSEN: You mentioned you wanted 

10 to break around ten. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. You provided a 

12 written statement.

13 MR. RASMUSSEN: I would like to read it 

14 also.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: You’d like to, okay. It’s 

16 seven pages worth -- yeah, that’s what I was 

17 thinking. I think we should proceed with all of 

18 these read statements.

19 MR. RASMUSSEN: Excellent. Good morning. 

20 I am Rett Rasmussen, vice-president of Rasmussen 

21 Ironworks, Inc., also known as Rasmussen Gas Logs 

22 and Grills. We are a five-generation family 

23 business founded in 1907 by my great-grandfather, a 

24 Danish immigrant, who opened his blacksmith shop in 

25 Whittier, California where we continue to conduct 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

65

1 business today. Among other items, my great2 grandfather and grandfather made fireplace tool sets 

3 and fireplace screens. In the early 1950s, we 

4 opened a fireplace retail store in front of our 

5 manufacturing shop, and among the products we sold 

6 were gas log sets made by other people. 

7 In 1958, my father, T.R. Rasmussen, who is 

8 our current president, created the Sand pan Gas Log 

9 Burner. Prior to this development, a gas log burner 

10 was merely a pipe with holes drilled in it that 

11 provided a very harsh, noisy jet of flame. However, 

12 the pan burner, which is filled with a graded sand, 

13 more evenly distributes the gas, quiets down the gas 

14 flow noise, and creates a wood-like, yellow dancing 

15 flame. Over the years, this original design has 

16 been copied and modified by Rasmussen and 

17 competitors alike, and is overwhelmingly the burner 

18 design sold in gas log sets to this day.

19 I grew up in the business. From the age 

20 of six until I graduated from high school, I pushed 

21 a broom, worked in the metal fabrication shop, sold 

22 gas logs, barbecue and fireplace equipment in our 

23 retail store, made pickups and deliveries, and 

24 attended trade shows. I’m a graduate of the U.S. 

25 Naval Academy with a degree in engineering, served 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

66

1 for five and half years on active duty as a surface 

2 warfare officer, then left the service to rejoin my 

3 family business in 1987.

4 For almost 24 years I have designed and 

5 manufactured gas log burners and sets, have been 

6 involved in industry and technical committees that 

7 have developed and maintained product standards and 

8 am a certified gas engineer by the American Society 

9 of Gas Engineers. I know gas logs. 

10 Unfortunately, I was not consulted during 

11 the DOE’s research into this rulemaking. I wish to 

12 take this opportunity to address some of the items 

13 with which I take issue, based on my extensive 

14 experience in the subject matter.

15 Vented gas log sets are a very convenient 

16 replacement for all the hassles of burning wood, 

17 such as procuring, chopping, stacking, and hauling 

18 of the wood; spiders, bugs and vermin in the wood 

19 pile; sparks, ashes, creosote, chimney fires, 

20 cleaning, and waiting for the embers to die down 

21 before going to bed, to name a few. Gas log sets 

22 provide instant on and off, no sparks, a ready fuel 

23 supply, and look good for the greater proportion of 

24 time when a fire is not burning. They are installed 

25 in a fireplace in which it is safe to burn wood, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

67

1 which means that they’re made of non-combustible 

2 material and have a working chimney flue system that 

3 will exhaust all of the products of combustion up 

4 the chimney, rather than into the room.

5 The fireplaces that my products are 

6 installed in are not of my making or design. Vented 

7 gas log sets are retrofits in somebody else’s 

8 enclosures.

9 As a replacement for wood burning, the 

10 flames must replicate that of a wood fire to be 

11 commercially viable. If not, they will not sell. 

12 If gas log sets are not sold, more wood will be 

13 burned, which is counter to the aims of the agencies 

14 responsible for air quality issues. Since 2008, 

15 Rasmussen and the Robert H. Peterson Company have 

16 administered the gas log purchase incentive program 

17 for the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

18 in southern California. 

19 The provisions of both the April 2010 

20 final rule and the proposed rule would limit choice 

21 by significantly increasing the consumer’s cost of 

22 the gas log sets and would work counter to the 

23 AQMD’s desire to have gas log sets replace wood 

24 burning. The end result will be either greater 

25 burning of wood, or more restrictions on the use of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

68

1 fireplaces. In any of these cases, consumer choice 

2 is affected.

3 The majority of gas log sets are in the 18 

4 inch to 30 inch set size range, which is where most 

5 gas log manufacturers focus their efforts. However, 

6 there is a market of larger wood-burning fireplaces 

7 and unusually shaped wood-burning fireplaces, such 

8 as multiple sides, varying heights, and non-linear 

9 openings. We offer standard set sizes from 12 inch 

10 to 96 inches, and go beyond the traditional logs 

11 with our fireballs, fire shapes, fire stones, and 

12 fire glitter. We offer a variety of burner designs, 

13 the selection of which is dependent on the fireplace 

14 size, fireplace shape, and desired final effect. 

15 My point is that a one-size-fits-all 

16 approach is not practical to meet the market’s 

17 needs. 

18 I’ll now address the various issues. Nine 

19 thousand BTUs per hour. I take issue with the April 

20 2010 final rule to which the proposed rule refers, 

21 which arbitrarily established 9000 BTUs per hour as 

22 the ceiling for gas fireplace to be decorative. 

23 This is nothing but a category killer, as no gas log 

24 set exists at such a low gas input. Assuming that a 

25 pilot light consumes 1250 BTUs per hour, as the DOE 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

69

1 states in the proposed rule with which I will take 

2 issue later, then your typical gas log set will be 

3 an array of seven one-and-one-half inch long flames. 

4 One of Rasmussen’s areas of expertise is 

5 in the making of custom sets for large and unusual 

6 fireplaces. I can’t imagine trying to convince a 

7 consumer that a seven foot long gas lot set with 

8 seven one-and-a-half inch flames is aesthetically 

9 pleasing, except to the ultimate of minimalists.

10 Another issue. DOE’s desire to treat gas 

11 log sets like gas fireplace appliances. That’s my 

12 term which encompasses both heater-rated and 

13 decorative gas fireplaces. On April 16, 2010, DOE’s 

14 Mohammed Khan published “Frequently Asked Questions: 

15 vented hearth heater definition.” And in answer to 

16 question number two he says, you know, does the 

17 definition of vented hearth heater cover vented gas 

18 log sets. Answer: No, DOE believes that gas log 

19 sets have specific characteristics that 

20 differentiate them from gas fireplaces, gas 

21 fireplace inserts, and gas stoves. The primary 

22 differentiating feature of gas log sets is that they 

23 are not constructed as part of an entire enclosure, 

24 that is, there is no surrounding box or viewing 

25 pane, or a sealed system.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

70

1 DOE recognizes that by the nature of gas 

2 log set construction, they do not provide the same 

3 heating function as gas fireplaces, gas fireplace 

4 inserts and gas stoves, which are constructed as 

5 enclosed systems and thus, DOE believes that gas log 

6 sets products are intended to be installed for 

7 decorative purposes. DOE’s definition that a vented 

8 hearth heater may be, quote, “Free-standing, 

9 recessed, zero clearance, or a gas fireplace insert 

10 or stove,” end quote. DOE does not believe that any 

11 of these terms include gas log sets, which DOE 

12 considers as different products from free-standing, 

13 recessed and zero clearance gas fireplaces, gas 

14 fireplace inserts, and gas stoves. As a result, DOE 

15 interprets its definition of a vented hearth heater 

16 as not covering vented gas log sets. Mr. Khan 

17 correctly points out many of relevant differences 

18 between gas logs and gas fireplace appliances. 

19 A recent e-mail received from a consumer 

20 points out another set of reasons. Quoting, “I hate 

21 the ceramic logs that came with my gas fireplace 

22 appliance that my builder installed four years ago 

23 when I moved into my home. My style is one of

24 blended traditional slash contemporary, but I never 

25 turn the fireplace on because of two reasons. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

71

1 Number one, the flame is miniscule for the monstrous 

2 logs that are there, and number two, the logs are 

3 campy and stupid looking and installed behind a pane 

4 of glass, a black marble surround, and a beautiful 

5 white painted, full carved mantle.”

6 She desired to replace her logs with our 

7 contemporary shapes that better suited the way her 

8 fireplace was finished and her décor. I had to 

9 break it to her that she could make no alteration to 

10 the fireplace without compromising safety, and 

11 voiding any warranty and certification, that gas 

12 fireplaces are designed as a complete appliance 

13 where all components interrelate. Any change in the 

14 logs could negative effect the combustion 

15 performance. In short, she was stuck forever with 

16 the burner and logs that come with the gas fireplace 

17 appliance.

18 With a vented gas log set in a wood 

19 burning fireplace, however, she could have changed 

20 it out for anything else that she desired. She 

21 could achieve the look that she desired today and in 

22 the future she could remodel her home in a different 

23 theme.

24 With regard to the proposed exclusions, 

25 there are several more differences. The product 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

72

1 must be certified to a certain ANSI standard. All 

2 gas fireplace appliances, the decorative and heater 

3 rated fireplace appliances, sold on the market are 

4 certified to either ANSI Z21.88 or ANSI Z21.50. 

5 Requiring decorative gas fireplace appliances to be 

6 certified to Z21.50 is no hardship, all of them 

7 already are. There’s no such thing as an 

8 uncertified gas fireplace appliance as they 

9 incorporate not just the logs and burner but also 

10 the firebox and venting system.

11 DOE assumes that all gas log sets on the 

12 market are certified to ANSI Z21.60. This is far 

13 from the truth. Over the past full three years, 

14 only 2.3 percent of all vented gas log sets sold by 

15 Rasmussen were certified to Z21.60. Z21.60 sets are 

16 required by some, but not all jurisdictions on the 

17 eastern seaboard, from Virginia through New England. 

18 Our lack of 21.60 sales points out our market 

19 weaknesses in the particular areas that require 

20 Z21.60. My sense is that Z21.60 accounts for not 

21 more than 20 percent of total gas log industry 

22 sales.

23 As you move westward, jurisdictions may 

24 require test agency listings, but not necessarily to 

25 a particular standard, or they make no standard 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

73

1 requirement at all. The predominant standards to 

2 which gas logs are certified are the city of Los 

3 Angeles Rule of General Application 272 -- RGA 272, 

4 and ANSI Z21.84. Both cover match lighted gas log 

5 sets used with natural gas up to 90,000 BTUs per 

6 hour. That covers up to about a 30-inch gas log set 

7 size. Which standard is followed is more of a 

8 listing agency preference.

9 Additionally, some jurisdictions require 

10 the installation of a safety control, but do not 

11 specify that it be an ANSI-certified set.

12 A great proportion of gas log sets carry 

13 no certifications, either because their size or 

14 design is not covered by an existing standard, or 

15 the number of sets sold does not justify the 

16 considerable costs of testing, certification, and 

17 ongoing listing costs. A gas log set without 

18 certification does not mean that it is unsafe. It 

19 just means that it does not have a listing. 

20 In the case of Rasmussen’s uncertified

21 sets, they are all made from the same designs, same 

22 materials, same construction techniques, same 

23 equipment, same quality control, and same trained 

24 personnel as certified sets. They have the same 

25 installation requirements as certified sets. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

74

1 Rasmussen has not remained in business for over 104 

2 years by selling unsafe products. 

3 Our rule of thumb regarding the fireplace 

4 enclosures to which a gas log set may be installed 

5 is that if it’s safe to burn wood, it’s safe to burn 

6 a gas log. UL127 standard for factory-built wood 

7 burning fireplaces, subjects fireplaces to 

8 temperatures several times more than produced by a 

9 gas log set. Masonry fireplaces also have the heat10 resistance required for burning wood. If the 

11 fireplace exhausts the products of combustion when 

12 burning wood, it will do so with a gas log set. 

13 Safety for a gas log set resides more with the 

14 enclosure in which it is used, rather than the gas 

15 log set itself. Gas log sets, by their very nature, 

16 even the crudest of designs, are more controllable 

17 than a wood fire. 

18 The requirement for certification of gas 

19 log sets only to Z21.60 demonstrates a lack of 

20 market knowledge by DOE, and would be overly 

21 burdensome and restrictive to the gas log makers. 

22 It would represent a C change to the industry and 

23 market. I recommend that this provision be either, 

24 one, struck from the exclusion as insuring safety 

25 and proper operation, while a noble desire, seems 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

75

1 out of the scope for an energy conservation measure; 

2 or, two, broaden the scope of this provision to 

3 include the other standards and uncertified sets 

4 whose labeling and instructions require that they be 

5 installed in a fireplace in which it is safe to burn 

6 wood.

7 Next issue, banning of thermostats on 

8 decorative gas fireplaces and gas logs. I find this 

9 issue to be very confusing. DOE admits that 

10 decorative products in part, warm air into a room, 

11 yet wishes to take away an automatic shutoff device 

12 that would keep the consumer from over-using their 

13 decorative appliance. I think DOE has focused too 

14 much on the low end startup function of thermostats 

15 than on the high end shut down of the flame. 

16 How much warmth a gas log set imparts to 

17 the user is dependent on factors beyond the control 

18 of the gas log set or manufacturer, such as the 

19 efficiency of the wood-burning fireplace, the 

20 ambient temperature, both inside and outside of the 

21 house, and the level at which the consumer burns his 

22 gas log set, the height of the flame.

23 With a thermostat, the consumer sets a 

24 comfortable temperature setting at which the gas log 

25 set cuts off the flame. Without a thermostat, most 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

76

1 consumers will burn the unit on high for a short 

2 period of time, then decrease the gas flow to a 

3 lower flame height for the duration of the use, for 

4 the evening. Before retiring for the night, they 

5 shut off the unit. Consumers use gas log sets in 

6 vented wood-burning fireplaces as intended 

7 appliances for ambiance, with a secondary function 

8 of warmth, either from the primal effect of viewing 

9 the flame, the radiance of the luminous flame, the 

10 radiant energy emitted from the logs, or the 

11 convected heat of the air warmed by the flame.

12 Gas log sets are also an excellent source 

13 of emergency warmth in the case of a power outage. 

14 In areas where electric heat pumps are the primary 

15 source of heat, consumers would be cold and dark 

16 during ice storms that knock out power lines, except 

17 for their gas log sets, unless they too require 

18 electricity, such as with electronic ignition 

19 systems, which I’ll discuss later. 

20 While not a big part of the gas log set 

21 market, thermostats, this provision limits consumer 

22 choice, especially the elderly who may not be as 

23 mobile to adjust their gas log set when they wish to 

24 stop it from warming their air. I recommend that 

25 this provision be stricken from the final rule for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

77

1 gas log sets.

2 My next issue, language expressly and 

3 conspicuously identifying gas logs as, quote, 

4 “decorative product, not for use as a heating 

5 appliance.” End quote. Similar to the thermostat 

6 issue, the DOE classifies vented gas log sets as 

7 vented hearth heaters, yet requires that we identify 

8 them as not a heating appliance, which might be 

9 confusing to the consumer. I know I’m confused. 

10 The impact of adding this language to our materials 

11 is mitigated by the overwhelming number of warnings 

12 and cautions a consumer confronts on everyday 

13 products, including gas log sets. This would just 

14 be one more warning that the consumer would most 

15 likely tune out or read and not heed.

16 Next issue, DOE’s market research 

17 indicates that banning pilot lights would not impact 

18 more than three-quarters of the gas log market. DOE 

19 has made an incorrect assumption here. DOE 

20 estimates that 25 percent of gas log sets are 

21 certified to ANSI Z21.60, which requires a safety 

22 control, most of which on the market, is 

23 accomplished by the use of a standing pilot safety 

24 control system. DOE then makes the assumption that 

25 the remaining 75 percent of gas log sets, quote, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

78

1 “already utilize alternatives to a standing pilot, 

2 such as an intermittent pilot or electronic 

3 ignition,” end quote. During the past three years, 

4 Rasmussen sales of electronic ignition systems, EIS, 

5 accounted for about 3.6 percent of our total vented 

6 gas log sales. My sense is that this is a higher 

7 percentage than most of our competitors’ sales of 

8 EIS. None of the gas log sets sold by Rasmussen 

9 with EIS were certified to Z21.60. 

10 What DOE has failed to identify in their 

11 research is the existence of match lighted gas log 

12 sets. Match lighted sets are just that. When the 

13 user wishes to use his gas log set, he lights a 

14 match or an aiming flame type of lighter, turns on 

15 the gas, and lights the burner. When he’s done 

16 using the gas log set, he stops the flow of gas by 

17 closing the valve. This type of set is in keeping 

18 with the spirit and intent of the energy 

19 conservation goals of the proposed rules, as there 

20 is no constant burning pilot at all, yet match 

21 lighted sets are not covered in this proposed rule.

22 During the past three years, almost 72 

23 percent, that’s 72 percent of Rasmussen’s sales were 

24 of match-lighted sets. My sense is that the 

25 industry average would be more about 55 or 50 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

79

1 percent match-lighted.

2 Relating this to the certification issue, 

3 Z21.60 requires that the gas log set be equipped 

4 with a safety system that will shut down the flow of 

5 gas to the burner in the event of an interruption of 

6 the gas supply or a flame out. Match lighted sets 

7 are not covered under the standard. If prohibited 

8 from using standing pilots, then all of our sets 

9 must be equipped with EIS. This represents another 

10 C changes, a potential category-killer to the gas 

11 log industry, and to the consumer for the following 

12 reasons.

13 1. EIS components can cost five to six times more 

14 than components used in standing pilot controls

15 2. EIS will add more than $650 to the retail 

16 price of an otherwise match-lighted set

17 3. Adding an EIS will more than quadruple the 

18 retail price of our least expensive set that we 

19 sell. Accordingly, adding an EIS to a gas log 

20 set will price most consumers out of the 

21 market. I expect gas log sales to plummet, 

22 should EIS be required across the board.

23 4. Propane sets require the use of a safety shut24 down because of the nature of propane. While 

25 natural gas is lighter than air and will vent 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

80

1 up the chimney in its raw state, propane is 

2 heavier than air and will pool, creating an 

3 explosion hazard. Propane is usually used in 

4 more rural areas. Rural areas tend to be of 

5 lower economic stature. Such an increase in 

6 price due to the mandating of EIS, will 

7 disproportionately affect the rural poor. 

8 Adding an EIS to a gas log set presents a 

9 very challenging proposition. As stated by Mr. 

10 Khan, gas log sets, quote, “are not constructed as 

11 part of an entire enclosure,” end quote. Gas log 

12 manufacturers do not have the voids in the sides and 

13 under the floor of the fireplace in which to hide 

14 the EIS components. Accordingly, unless the 

15 installation is part of a new construction, or 

16 extensive remodel, both of which are small 

17 proportions of gas log sales, and the components can 

18 therefore be installed outside of and adjacent to 

19 the firebox, the EIS components must be installed in 

20 the firebox, along with the gas log set. 

21 Unfortunately, EIS components are greater in number 

22 - valve, control module, wiring, battery pack or 

23 transformer, and greater in size, more than double 

24 the size, than those for a standing pilot. EIS 

25 components are also more heat-sensitive than those 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

81

1 of a standing pilot system, further complicating the 

2 location of components issue. If not located 

3 properly, the components could become damaged from 

4 the heat, potentially creating a safety hazard that

5 certification testing may not identify or prevent.

6 A further issue with EIS is that they 

7 require outside power to operate. Since it is 

8 highly unusual for a wood burning fireplace to have 

9 a 110-volt receptacle installed inside of it, 

10 batteries must be used to power the functions of the 

11 EIS. Unfortunately, batteries are also very heat12 sensitive. While we are able to successfully locate 

13 batteries in the fireplace to power remote controls 

14 for standing pilot systems, the space limitations 

15 caused by the EIS components and batteries usually 

16 results in the gas log set having to be downsized in 

17 order to provide more room. This detracts from the 

18 aesthetic and decorative effect of the gas log set 

19 and will most likely result in decreased sales.

20 Next issue, pilot light consumption. I 

21 take exception with the DOE’s assertion that, on 

22 average, continuous pilot energy use is 1250 BTUs 

23 per hour for vented gas log sets. The average gas 

24 consumption for pilot-equipped gas log sets sold by 

25 Rasmussen is 662 BTUs per hour for simple 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

82

1 thermocouple system, which is the majority of 

2 piloted systems. At 830 BTUs per hour, for 

3 thermopile mill volt systems, a little more 

4 complicated system. My experience is that this is 

5 similar with most other gas log manufacturers and 

6 that the frequently asked questions cited as the 

7 basis for DOE’s pilot consumption figures are 

8 incorrect.

9 Two of the five sources cited as 

10 manufacturers are actually dealers. Two of them are 

11 actually different product lines from the same 

12 company. This leaves out of that five, only one 

13 true gas log set manufacturer as a source, and their

14 cited consumption of 1500 BTUs per hour is abnormal 

15 to the industry. Based solely on pilot light 

16 consumption, I contend that DOE’s energy savings 

17 estimates are overstated by at least 40 percent.

18 Next issue, pilot light yearly usage. DOE 

19 contends that the pilot lights are operated the same 

20 amount of time for both gas fireplace appliances and 

21 for gas log sets. It assumes that pilot lights 

22 operate year-round for 75 percent of the 

23 installations, and for the remaining 25 percent, the 

24 consumer operates the pilots for one-fourth of the 

25 year. I contend that gas log sets should not be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

83

1 lumped in with the gas fireplaces for this issue. 

2 Pilot lights are more visible and accessible in gas 

3 log sets than they are in gas fireplace appliances. 

4 Most consumers first light their gas log pilot when 

5 there’s a sustained cold, first good cold snap in 

6 the autumn and turn it off when there’s a sustained 

7 warmth, spring. Depending on the geographic area, 

8 this would result in sustained pilot usage from four 

9 to six months. Based solely on yearly usage 

10 assumptions, I contend that DOE has overstated the 

11 energy savings by over 65 percent. Overall, I 

12 contend that DOE has overstated the energy savings 

13 estimates by about one hundred and five percent, 

14 just on these two issues.

15 Whenever I sit on standards technical 

16 committees, my radar is always on against proposals 

17 that would be so restrictive that they would stifle 

18 innovation or damage the market for the products. 

19 The proposal to lump gas log sets together with gas 

20 fireplace appliances, the horribly incorrect 

21 assumptions about the types of gas log controls sold 

22 in today’s market, and the assumptions that lead to 

23 highly overstated energy savings from the gas log 

24 sets, points to a rush to judgment with the proposed 

25 rule that will lead to irreparable harm to the gas 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

84

1 log industry, which is comprised almost completely 

2 of small businesses. Consumers will be severely 

3 impacted by a limiting of choice of the types of gas 

4 logs and the tremendous increase in price. Frankly, 

5 I couldn’t have designed a better job- or company6 killer for small business than what this proposal 

7 represents.

8 My lapel pin represents my membership in 

9 Rotary International, another organization founded 

10 in the early 1900’s. Rotarians follow the four way 

11 test of the things we think, say, and do. 

12 1. Is it the truth?

13 2. Is it fair to all concerned?

14 3. Will it build good will and better friendships?

15 4. Is it beneficial to all concerned?

16 In my estimation, the proposed rule fails the four17 way test. 

18 I respectfully recommend that you 

19 immediately halt this rule and conduct a more 

20 thorough research that is representative of the 

21 actual gas log market. Thank you for the 

22 opportunity to present to you. I welcome any 

23 questions.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jim. 

25 MR. RANFONE: Yes, Jim Ranfone with the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

85

1 American Gas Association. We certainly agree with 

2 most of the comments today, and I’m not going to go 

3 into any more detail in supporting a majority of the 

4 comments that were submitted and discussed.

5 It’s just amazing, when we looked at this 

6 rulemaking how far it’s gotten out of hand. We 

7 never thought the Department would include products 

8 designed and certified to Z21.50 or 60 were included 

9 in this entire rulemaking from the get-go. When we 

10 looked at the rule as it’s been presented now, it’s 

11 kind of ironic that, you know, there’s no test 

12 procedure for the product, Z21.50 or 60 products, 

13 that the test procedure isn’t applicable; number 

14 two, having been around a while, because I think 

15 there’s only a few of us in the room that had been 

16 around when the test procedures were developed for 

17 this product line, home heating equipment not 

18 including furnaces, this product wasn’t considered 

19 as part of that developed test method.

20 When we get into the Federal Trade 

21 Commission looking at labeling for the product, this 

22 product wasn’t considered during that labeling 

23 discussion. It was certainly not, we believe, 

24 included in the original intent of Congress that the 

25 product be designed to furnish warm heat -- and I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

86

1 think you’ve heard enough of that this morning. I’m 

2 not going to repeat that.

3 But when we looked at the final proposal 

4 here, which basically says you’re not included as 

5 long as you, you know, for Z21.50 or 60 products, as 

6 long as you have a label that says “not for use as a 

7 heating appliance.” Well, it’s not for use as a 

8 heating appliance, and DOE is agreeing to that and 

9 suggesting you put a label on the product, then how 

10 does it become a product? And then to go on and say 

11 well, it’s -- you put that label on but then you 

12 can’t have standing pilots. 

13 There needs to be some sense of reality 

14 here and to what you’re attempting to do in terms of 

15 energy conservation, and how it’s going to impact 

16 the customers. And that’s what we’re concerned 

17 about, specifically the replacement market and 

18 what’s going to be the availability of products if 

19 this rule would ever see the light of day, which we 

20 hope it doesn’t. We hope it goes back to DOE, 

21 review it. Maybe for some reason you don’t like the 

22 product, for whatever reason, and maybe you don’t 

23 like red cars for that matter, but that’s not the 

24 issue here. 

25 We don’t believe legally you can cut --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

87

1 this product is covered under the legislation. Take 

2 another look at the legislation and if you want to 

3 modify legislation, you want to change it, you want 

4 to include it, have at it, get the legislation 

5 changed. But currently we don’t believe it is a 

6 covered product, and we stand on that.

7 I think the actions from HPBA and the 

8 other organizations and the manufacturers involved 

9 are -- this is a desperation issue for them at this 

10 point in time as to whether or not the product as 

11 they’re known today, and which are going to be 

12 designed for the future, is going to be -- continue 

13 to exist.

14 We’ll follow up with additional comments 

15 on this, but, you know, in terms of -- I’ve got to 

16 say this, you know, the way the country is today, 

17 being over-regulated, I’ve never seen anything in my 

18 time from the regulatory standpoint, that takes an 

19 issue and has expanded to an area which is miniscule 

20 when you think of it in terms of overall energy, and 

21 is about ready to just implode an industry for no 

22 reason. Thank you. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other opening 

24 remarks? I think we’re due for a break. Let me 

25 remind everybody here present that the Department 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

88

1 really appreciates your comments in writing. 

2 Several of you, thank you, have already provided 

3 your comments that you read into the record. 

4 Let’s take a break. It’s now 11 o’clock. 

5 We will resume at 11:15. Many of you are not 

6 familiar with the way it works here in the Forestall

7 Building. You must wear this visitor’s badge 

8 visible in the hallways of the Forestall Building. 

9 There are restrooms at both ends of the hall. Down 

10 on the ground floor directly below us there’s a 

11 coffee shop. Please don’t leave the building. 

12 You’ll have to reenter through security if you do, 

13 and thanks for a good start on the day. 

14 We will, when we resume, you can scan 

15 ahead in your packet. These materials will be 

16 covered with PowerPoint slides, and there’s an 

17 opportunity for question and answer and discussion 

18 at that point. So we’ll resume at 11:15. See you 

19 back here then.

20 (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed for a 

21 17 minute period.)

22 MR. BROOKMAN: As I said at the outset, 

23 all of you received a packet of information. We are 

24 going to proceed with the packet in the order that 

25 these pages are stacked. We’re going to commence 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

89

1 with regulatory history, which begins on slide nine, 

2 and we’re going to hear from John Cymbalsky.

3 Regulatory History

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Thank you, Doug. 

5 So back to the deck. Thank you again for all your 

6 introductory remarks. I think it covered a wide 

7 swath of what I’m going to present here in the deck 

8 going forward. So to the extent that your comments 

9 have already been made, they are already part of the 

10 record. They don’t need to be repeated but, again, 

11 you’re free to make comments as we go along. So 

12 let’s start with the regulatory history.

13 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 

14 EPCA, of 1975, prior to being amended in 1987, EPCA 

15 included home heating equipment as covered products. 

16 And in 1987 the National Appliance and Energy 

17 Conservation Act amended EPCA to replace the term 

18 “home heating equipment” with “direct heating 

19 equipment.” It established standards for direct 

20 heating equipment and required that DOE determine 

21 whether these standards should be amended.

22 DOE amended the statutorily prescribed 

23 standards for direct heating equipment for the first 

24 time in a final rule published on April 16, 2010. 

25 This final rule created a definition for vented 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

90

1 hearth heater. It established product classes for 

2 gas hearth direct heating equipment, that is vented 

3 hearth heaters, and amended the minimum standards 

4 for direct heating equipment, including gas hearth 

5 direct heating equipment.

6 EPCA itself does not define direct heating 

7 equipment. DOE established definitions for direct 

8 heating equipment, vented home heating equipment, or 

9 vented heater, and finally vented hearth heater.

10 DOE interprets the term vented hearth 

11 heater as included vented hearth -- vented heating 

12 hearth products, decorative hearth products, and gas 

13 log sets. DOE believes that because these products 

14 provide heat to the living space, they meet the 

15 definition of direct heating equipment. 

16 So, Issue Box Number 1, given the lack of 

17 statutory definition for direct heating equipment, 

18 DOE requests comment on whether DOE’s interpretation 

19 that decorative vented hearth products and vented 

20 gas log sets are types of direct heating equipment 

21 is reasonable. 

22 And I know a lot of this was covered 

23 already in your opening statements, but comment box 

24 1 if you’d like to make more comments.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank Stanonik. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

91

1 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 

2 I think in relation to this issue and the whole 

3 point that, okay, there isn’t a statutory definition 

4 in the legislation, but my -- well, I think DOE’s 

5 interpretation is not reasonable because you --

6 because it seems to ignore what actually was 

7 implemented in National Appliance Energy 

8 Conservation Act. And by that I mean that, okay, it 

9 wasn’t a definition, but in fact the only products 

10 for which minimal efficiency standards were 

11 established in 1987 were room heaters, floor 

12 furnaces and wall furnaces. 

13 And recognizing that back then, okay 

14 perhaps we didn’t call it consensus agreements, but 

15 the efforts that resulted in NAECA was, in fact an 

16 agreement among the interested parties including 

17 industry to accept federal efficiency standards.

18 And so this was certainly discussed among 

19 manufacturers and conservationists, other people, 

20 and there’s no question, as you’ve heard from the 

21 testimony, decorative appliances existed back then. 

22 They’ve been around for a long time, and in the 

23 context of that discussion, if there had been an 

24 intent, or if it had been determined that decorative 

25 appliances, whatever shape or form, were part of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

92

1 direct heating equipment, it becomes difficult to 

2 conceive that federal minimal efficiency standards 

3 would have been established that wouldn’t have 

4 identified those as distinct products subject to 

5 some minimum requirement.

6 I’m going to tell you the people back then 

7 knew what they were doing, and they identified room 

8 heaters, floor furnaces, wall furnaces as subject to 

9 minimum requirements. They didn’t identify a 

10 decorative gas fireplace. They didn’t identify a 

11 gas log set for installation in a wood-burning 

12 fireplace as products for which there would be 

13 minimum standards. They didn’t identify vented 

14 fireplace heaters, because in fact, that product 

15 didn’t exist at the time. But as we mentioned in 

16 comments that we submitted back in 2010, that as 

17 that product evolved, in fact, there was a standard 

18 developed, a safety standard developed that clearly 

19 identified, these are heaters, and these are subject 

20 to NAECA. 

21 And so I think that given the fact that 

22 okay, there’s no statutory definition, but the 

23 practice, the implementation of the regulations 

24 clearly are in the direction that products that were 

25 decorative were not subject and were not intended to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

93

1 have minimum efficiency requirements. And I think 

2 that DOE has somehow missed that point.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jim Ranfone.

4 MR. RANFONE: Yes, Jim Ranfone, American 

5 Gas Association. Let me just add on to Frank’s 

6 comments about this term direct heating equipment 

7 versus vented home heating equipment, because I 

8 think that’s sort of one of the genesis of the issue 

9 here in terms of what’s covered.

10 The test procedure is for vented home 

11 heating equipment, it’s not for direct heating 

12 equipment. And I believe, you know, you can either 

13 believe me or not on this, but when NAECA was 

14 developed back in 1986 or ’87, the use of the 

15 inclusion of direct heating equipment into the 

16 legislation was almost at the tail end of 

17 negotiations. Manufacturers at that time -- I was 

18 with the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association --

19 was considering furnaces and what the level should 

20 be, but when it came to this product, direct heating 

21 equipment, that name I believe, comes from the 

22 product class division that was represented by GAMA 

23 at the time --

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim, did you participate in 

25 those negotiations?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

94

1 MR. RANFONE: Yes. Yes, and the 

2 decorative equipment was certainly not included. We 

3 were talking about room heaters, wall furnaces and 

4 floor furnaces, and I think there’s no doubt that 

5 those products were covered. The reason the 

6 legislation was revised to add this category of 

7 direct heating equipment was because the 

8 manufacturers wanted preemption from state 

9 regulations. That was the primary reason. They 

10 agreed to levels, they agreed to the strong 

11 preemptive positions in there, because at the time, 

12 I believe California was looking at regulations on 

13 this product class. Specifically floor furnaces, 

14 because one of the big proponents for energy 

15 efficiency had a floor furnace in his house and he 

16 wanted that product covered. So the real concern 

17 was preemption.

18 When we’re talking about, you know, you’re 

19 talking about these products -- at that time there 

20 was never any inclusion of any decorative appliances 

21 in those discussions. The standards themselves, 

22 Z21.50 and 60, at that time, did not include 

23 efficiency requirements. There were none.

24 The other gas standards, including room 

25 heaters, both classes of wall furnaces, gravity or 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

95

1 fan type, floor furnaces, did have efficiency 

2 requirements. Believe it or not, the appliance 

3 standards at that time had n.. efficiencies. They 

4 had them on a thermal basis, on a steady-state 

5 basis. DOE, when they did their test procedure, 

6 when they, as required by law in the late 70’s did 

7 include a test procedure for those products. 

8 Decorative were not considered.

9 I don’t know if that adds a little bit of 

10 insight as to why that term “direct heating 

11 equipment” is in the law, but I think that’s what 

12 happened. I think in the transfer of okay, let’s 

13 put that product into the legislation, mainly 

14 because we want federal preemption, number two, 

15 these are our minimums for these product classes. 

16 That sort of resolved the manufacturers issue at 

17 that time.

18 Here we are in 2011, and suddenly we’re 

19 reinterpreting what happened. And like I said 

20 before, if you’re really interested in looking at 

21 hearth products in terms of efficiency or whatever, 

22 you really need to go back and take a look at the 

23 product class and do your economics and technical 

24 evaluation.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack, you wish? Jack? 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

96

1 Okay. Thank you. Yes, Tim Ballo.

2 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. 

3 It seems to me that in considering whether DOE has 

4 properly interpreted vented hearth products and gas 

5 log sets are types of direct heating equipment, it 

6 almost doesn’t matter once you have a standard that 

7 covers vented hearth heaters, and I think most in 

8 the room would admit there are some subset of 

9 products that are both designed and intended 

10 primarily to serve a heating function. You need to 

11 come up with some way to draw a line around those 

12 products and to separate them from products that are 

13 more ornamental and less heating products. 

14 So it seems to me that what the Department 

15 has done here is propose a way to draw that line and 

16 I’ve heard a lot of objections to the way, the 

17 particular methods. I’m not sure there’s anything 

18 that can’t be resolved, whether it’s by recognizing 

19 a role for match light products or for different 

20 ANSI standards for gas log sets, or through some of 

21 the tweaks to the standard. But I mean the fact is 

22 we have a standard for vented hearth heaters and 

23 there has to be some way to identify products that 

24 standard should apply to and products that it 

25 shouldn’t apply to.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

97

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

2 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman, HPBA. I guess 

3 one of the problems I have is that this proposed 

4 regulation doesn’t just distinguish. Because if an 

5 appliance, a gas log set or a decorative fireplace 

6 cannot meet the four conditions, then if my 

7 interpretation is correct, then they’re then subject 

8 to the energy efficiency requirements. They are 

9 then regulated -- if they’re going to be sold, they 

10 then must be regulated as per the April 2010 rule, 

11 and so it is not a distinction, it is a choice 

12 between either meeting the four exceptions, if they 

13 can be met, or being regulated.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim.

15 MR. BALLO: Well, my comment is then we 

16 need to get the exceptions right. If these 

17 exceptions don’t work, what exceptions do work? 

18 Because we need to get something in place to 

19 distinguish between these two types of products. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Excuse me. 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: So Doug earlier said that 

22 he should silence all your --

23 MR. BROOKMAN: I had it in my briefcase, 

24 sorry about that.

25 PARTICIPANT: It’s comforting. We all get 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

98

1 a free pass.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So I’ll remind everybody 

3 again, silence all cell phones. Other comments? 

4 Yes, please. Barton.

5 MR. DAY: Yes, just responding to Tim’s 

6 comment. Tim, the issue, the difficulty here is 

7 that it’s one thing to distinguish between products 

8 that are not direct heating equipment and products 

9 that are direct heating equipment. And that’s not a 

10 discussion that the proposed rule is aimed at. The 

11 proposed rule classifies everything as direct 

12 heating equipment, and then you’ve got requirements 

13 A, requirements B, but it’s all direct heating 

14 equipment. And it’s not. I mean the argument that 

15 decorative products are direct heating equipment is, 

16 I will be polite and say, not well taken.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments. Yes, 

18 please, Rett.

19 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. Just as 

20 your phone went off and a mistake was made, I think 

21 what’s the biggest issue right here is in the face 

22 of people who, you know, deal with gas log sets on a 

23 daily basis for decades, in the face of our 

24 experience, if DOE will admit they made a mistake 

25 and are willing to actually take action to correct 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

99

1 those mistakes rather than get into a 

2 confrontational type standpoint and everybody’s just 

3 staring off across the line at each other, you know, 

4 we want to make sure everything’s done properly too. 

5 But not needlessly, not just for the sake of getting 

6 something done. It’s got to be done for the 

7 American people. It’s got to be done properly and 

8 represent -- not just throw out things wholesale 

9 that are a part of the market and working now, you 

10 know, throw out the baby with the bath water type of 

11 thing, here just to accomplish something.

12 We came here in the spirit of cooperation, 

13 ostensibly because our industry is in peril with the 

14 way this is written right now. If we don’t comply 

15 with the four exclusions, all four of them as 

16 they’re proposed right now, then we are put into 

17 this regulated category for which we have no way of 

18 complying, other than decrease our BTUs to 9000 BTUs 

19 -- and again, I remind you of the seven pilot 

20 lights, this long. Maybe a few more if you use my 

21 definition of how much a pilot light consumes, you 

22 might have 14 or 12 pilot lights worth of flame to 

23 fit whatever size fireplace. So we are here in the 

24 spirit of cooperation because we want to keep our 

25 businesses intact. We don’t want to go away. A 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

100

1 hundred and four years is not something to just walk 

2 away from, for myself, so on that basis I do avail 

3 myself to answer questions to help out in any other 

4 way and hope that we cannot just get into this, what 

5 are you going to give up type of thing. Because 

6 that seems to be kind of where some of the 

7 negotiations have been throughout the last period of 

8 time and then we get this big rush within the last 

9 month and a half, all of a sudden, gas logs are 

10 included where they hadn’t been. In fact, they’re 

11 explicitly excluded in all conversations in the 

12 frequently asked questions. I feel kind of blind13 sided in all this. So would like to see cooperation 

14 and then a willingness on the other side, as we seem 

15 to be split up here geographically in this room on -

16 - with a dividing line. Let’s cross that divide and 

17 let’s make this thing work right for the market.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So there’s more contact to 

19 follow. Other questions, comments on this specific 

20 issue before we move on. Yes, Jack.

21 MR. GOLDMAN: I would like to ask DOE what 

22 is the basis for changing its opinion 180 degrees 

23 from the statement written by Mohammed Khan in the 

24 FAQ in April 2010?

25 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

101

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, I think you can read 

2 in the preamble that we came to the conclusion that 

3 gas log sets were part of this.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Jack.

5 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman. Yes, I read 

6 the preamble. The preamble is a conclusion. I’m 

7 asking for the basis for the agency’s decision, and 

8 there is no available information that you’ve made 

9 available as part of this comment period. So I have 

10 to take that as a non-answer, okay.

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, you can comment and 

12 we will take that under consideration. Thank you.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

14 MR. GOLDMAN: You’re asking me to comment 

15 on something that I haven’t seen.

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So additional 

18 questions and comments. Leslie. Please use the 

19 microphone.

20 MR. BORTZ: Rett just told you that we 

21 would be willing to discuss some sort of a way of 

22 getting together, and you’ve just said nothing. 

23 That’s not right.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on this 

25 series of issues before we move on? Okay, let’s 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

102

1 move on.

2 Proposed Amended Definition of Vented Hearth Heaters

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we’ll move on to the 

4 proposed amended definition of vented hearth 

5 heaters. On further consideration of the April 2010 

6 final rule, DOE developed its current proposal which 

7 it believes would result in significant additional 

8 energy savings, preserve consumer choice, and reduce 

9 the burden on industry.

10 DOE is proposing to amend the criteria for 

11 a vented gas hearth product, or vented gas log set 

12 to be considered decorative in nature, and thereby 

13 eligible for exclusion from the DOE energy 

14 conservations standards for vented hearth heaters. 

15 In order to do this we have proposed the following 

16 exclusion criteria.

17 1. Certified to ANSI Z21.50 and not Z21.88 for 

18 vented gas hearth products only, for example, 

19 gas fireplaces, gas fireplace inserts, and gas 

20 stoves.

21 2. Certified to ANSI Z21.60 for vented gas logs 

22 only

23 3. Sold without a thermostat and with a warranty 

24 provision expressly voiding all manufacturer 

25 warranties in the event the product is used 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

103

1 with a thermostat

2 4. Expressly and conspicuously identified on its 

3 rating plate and in all manufacturer 

4 advertising and product literature, as a 

5 decorative product, not for use as a heating 

6 appliance. And finally, with respect to 

7 products manufactured after July 21, 2014, not 

8 equipped with a standing pilot light or other 

9 continuously burning ignition source.

10 This next slide just actually prints 

11 what’s in the Notice. I’m not going to read it, but 

12 this is -- the summary slide before this covers all 

13 this ground, but in more detail.

14 So we come to Issue Box Number 2. The 

15 proposed compliance date, that is July 1, 2014, for 

16 vented gas hearth products and vented gas log sets 

17 to remove standing pilot lights or other 

18 continuously burning ignition in order to qualify 

19 for the exclusion. DOE seeks information regarding 

20 what manufacturers will need to do to meet that 

21 date, or whether a different date would be 

22 preferable. If suggesting a different date, DOE is 

23 interested in specific rationales and accompanying 

24 data as to why a different timeline for eliminating 

25 standing pilots or other continuously burning 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

104

1 ignition sources from decorative gas hearth products 

2 and/or vented gas log sets may be warranted.

3 And we’ll take comment on Issue Box Number 

4 2.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

6 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman. I thought the 

7 burden of a proposal was for the agency to explain 

8 why it has a deadline. What I’ve just heard is that 

9 the agency has put out an arbitrary date, which it 

10 has not explained in the Federal Register notice and 

11 there’s no record, and now it’s basically saying to

12 the regulated community, if you don’t like it, you 

13 have to tell us why it has to be different. I 

14 didn’t think that was the burden in the rulemaking, 

15 and I would like to know why the agency is taking 

16 that tack.

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, again, we ask for your

18 comment on our date, and we will consider all 

19 comments.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

21 MR. GOLDMAN: Could you just say that 

22 you’re not answering my questions, please? I would 

23 appreciate that.

24 MR. CYMBALSKY: We are accepting your 

25 comments. Thank you.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

105

1 MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Leslie. Please use the 

3 microphone.

4 MR. BORTZ: Is it on?

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

6 MR. BORTZ: I have a question going back, 

7 should I wait until later?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: How far back?

9 MR. BORTZ: The first --

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Comment box?

11 MR. BORTZ: Yes.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, let’s do it now.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. I’ll put that back 

14 on the screen. There you go.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Leslie.

16 MR. BORTZ: What you say is you’re 

17 proposing to amend the criteria for vented gas log 

18 sets, which is what we make, to be considered 

19 decorative in nature and thereby eligible for 

20 exclusion. You have exclusion criteria which are 

21 impossible to meet, and the criteria -- the other 

22 criteria -- are also impossible to meet. Not -- not 

23 maybe, it is impossible to put a 9000 BTU set into a 

24 wood burning fireplace. It will not pass any 

25 standard. You can not do it. What you have here is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

106

1 one impossibility versus another. Thank you.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Rett.

5 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. We’re 

6 talking less than three years for component 

7 manufacturers -- if we were going to go to all EIS 

8 as an exclusion, to come up with things better than 

9 what they have on the market now. I’ve been banging 

10 on the component manufacturers, and just so you 

11 know, we don’t make everything, every piece that 

12 goes into our products. We are dependent upon the 

13 market of component manufacturers, those valve 

14 manufacturers, pilot manufacturers, which many times 

15 are different and other component manufacturers to 

16 pull our sets together. 

17 The electronic ignitions is probably the 

18 least mature of all components that we use in our 

19 products. Up until recently, the only thing we 

20 could use for electronic ignition systems were 

21 essentially furnace controls that we applied to the 

22 fireplace. They’re not specifically made to fit, as 

23 I discussed in my comments, the sizing issues that 

24 we have, as a retrofit gas log manufacturer who does 

25 not have all of the voids that a gas fireplace 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

107

1 appliance manufacturer can build into their product 

2 to hide these controls. So as a decorative product, 

3 having to cram these things in, and as well have our 

4 gas log set there, takes away the decorative 

5 appearance of the log set. 

6 So having less than -- probably for at 

7 least ten years, every time a valve manufacturer 

8 comes in, I give him what my holy grail of a system 

9 is. I want electronic ignition system, one that 

10 does not have a standing pilot, that is battery 

11 operated, that has variable flame height remote 

12 control so the person can sit in their easy chair 

13 and with just pressing the button, raise and lower 

14 the flame height. It’s got to be small footprint, 

15 but yet large BTU flow because we don’t stop at 30 

16 inch as our set size. We accommodate the larger 

17 fireplaces that are in the marketplace and , you 

18 know, those people who, unfortunately who can afford 

19 to pay for that type of system, by virtue of the 

20 fact that they’re putting large fireplaces into 

21 large homes, they don’t have that available to them. 

22 It’s just kind of entering the marketplace now.

23 And again, as I said, this has been every 

24 year, every time I speak with a component 

25 manufacturer for at least the last decade, there 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

108

1 still isn’t a great thing. Even one guy that showed 

2 me something two trade shows ago, which would be 

3 well over a year and a half ago, he still doesn’t 

4 have it ready to a point where he can give me a 

5 price on it, on the complete system. He still has a 

6 lot of things he hasn’t worked out. And then even 

7 when he gets me a price, you know, the manufacturing 

8 time is going to be eight to 12 weeks. So, you 

9 know, less than three years with knowing how, being 

10 dependent upon people who aren’t at this table, I 

11 find as being highly dangerous to my business, it’s 

12 viability, to consumer choice, to everything. 

13 If your intention is to kill gas log sets, 

14 then just put it in the record, we want to kill gas 

15 log sets, because doing it the way it is here, is an 

16 end round, is not honest, is underhanded. And so 

17 let’s just put it out on the table. If your 

18 intention is not to kill gas log sets, then please 

19 work with us to find a viable solution.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jack.

21 MR. GOLDMAN: I’ll pass.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on the 

23 proposed compliance date. Thanks for that 

24 illustration. Frank.

25 MR. STANONIK: Perhaps not so much a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

109

1 comment as a question. Certainly when the final 

2 rule was published and leading up to that, there 

3 were technical support documents that justified the 

4 -- explained the decisions and all that stuff. And 

5 in terms of the data that we provided in helping 

6 that process, we did provided data on shipments and 

7 information on floor furnaces, room heaters, wall 

8 furnaces. 

9 What seems to have happened here is we’ve 

10 got into this discussion about both the vented 

11 decorative appliances and the gas log sets, and a 

12 suggestion in essence, to impose a standing pilot 

13 ban which wasn’t proposed in the final rule --

14 whatever effect the AFUE requirements had on pilots 

15 is there, it’s not a direct you can or cannot have 

16 one, but effectively you can’t, but it’s not a 

17 prescriptive requirement.

18 And I guess my question is, we’re now 

19 talking about a prescriptive requirement on a subset 

20 of products that, to my knowledge of the TSDs, 

21 wasn’t really significantly considered. Is DOE 

22 preparing, let’s say, a supplementary TSD to get 

23 into the thorough analysis of what this means to 

24 this subset of the industry?

25 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, I think what we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

110

1 presented today was what manufacturers would have to 

2 do to get the exclusion, and so the pilot light was 

3 one of them.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank.

5 MR. STANONIK: Okay, but in terms of what 

6 I’ve heard, and in this case, what I don’t know, 

7 there hasn’t really been an analysis -- okay, how 

8 many players are in this industry? How many 

9 products are sold on an annual basis? What’s the 

10 net energy savings that is anticipated to be saved?

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: That’ll come in a later 

12 slide.

13 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So, we’ll get to those 

15 slides in a little bit. You want to take up issue 

16 three now?

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Sure. So Issue Number 3, 

18 the proposed requirements for exclusion from the 

19 energy conservation standard as a decorative vented 

20 hearth product or vented gas log set.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

22 MR. GOLDMAN: Since there is no discussion 

23 in the April 2010 rule and there is no discussion in 

24 the proposal of July 22, 2011, and there’s nothing 

25 in the record, I would like to have, at this point, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

111

1 a description of the bases for the criteria.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: The four criteria 

3 presented here today, and you can feel free to 

4 comment on what the criteria are.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Issue Number 3 is on Slide 

6 16.

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: So Issue 3 relates to this 

8 slide which is what the proposed exclusion criteria 

9 are, so here we have listed the criteria and we are 

10 seeking comment at this time.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So that’s on --

12 those criteria are shown on Slide 14, Jack.

13 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman. In response 

14 to your comment, Mr. Cymbalsky, again, I was always 

15 under the impression that the APA, the agency’s own 

16 regulations, and the EO all required the agency to 

17 put forth its rationale for its decisions in order 

18 for the regulated community and the public to 

19 comment, and that has not been done.

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you for your 

21 comment.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: So we’re now still 

23 considering Issue 3, that you can see in your 

24 slides, at the bottom of Slide 16 in the packet, the 

25 proposed requirements for exclusion from the energy 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

112

1 conservation standard as a decorative vented hearth 

2 product or vented gas log sets. Barton.

3 MR. DAY: There’s a fundamental disconnect

4 in the proposal which is the premise that one needs 

5 an exclusion is based on the proposition that one is 

6 otherwise subject to heating efficiency standards. 

7 And DOE has never looked at applying heating 

8 efficiency standards to decorative products. It 

9 never considered the issue whether those standards 

10 would be technologically feasible or economically 

11 justified for vented gas fireplaces outside the 

12 heater category.

13 And now you’re proposing to sweep in gas 

14 log sets and there never has been any discussion 

15 about whether the heating efficiency standards would 

16 be technologically feasible or economically 

17 justified for gas log sets, and yet those standards 

18 would apply. How is that possible? I mean, I don’t 

19 understand the logic here.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

21 comments. Rett.

22 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. With 

23 regard to rationale behind Z21.60 as the choice for 

24 vented gas log sets, I’m curious as to how the DOE, 

25 in their, I will assume, best attempt at research of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

113

1 the gas log market, missed at least 50 percent of 

2 the gas logs sold that are match lighted. Anybody 

3 like to address that? To me, it brings into 

4 question all the other supporting rationale, which 

5 as Mr. Goldman has mentioned, we have not been 

6 afforded, other than a few websites, that as we’ve, 

7 you know, I’ve seen only one is actually a 

8 manufacturer, and that was just on the issue of the 

9 pilot light consumption. I’m just curious as to 

10 just how that all came about to support these 

11 provisions which have very far-reaching consequences 

12 to this industry.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we heard that and we 

14 listen to that and we appreciate that comment in 

15 your opening remarks, so we thank you for that.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna.

17 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just generally 

18 on the exclusion criteria, I think what’s kind of 

19 important overall is to try to prevent loopholes 

20 where non-decorative products could qualify for the 

21 exclusion. That seems to be what DOE’s intending to 

22 do here.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Leslie.

24 MR. BORTZ: I’m sorry, what non-decorative 

25 products are you talking about with respect to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

114

1 vented gas logs?

2 MS. MAUER: Or I should say products that 

3 are not primarily or not solely intended for use as 

4 decorative products that are -- would be actual 

5 heating products.

6 MR. BORTZ: I’m sorry, there are no gas 

7 logs like that. By definition.

8 MS. MAUER: Well, I guess I’m talking 

9 maybe more generally, about also the vented gas 

10 fireplaces.

11 MR. BORTZ: I don’t make vented gas 

12 fireplaces, and you may be right. I make vented gas 

13 logs and there are none.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s a definitional issue. 

15 Rett, go ahead.

16 MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes, Rett Rasmussen. 

17 Yeah, we have to watch the generalities because 

18 specifically these items affect vented gas log sets, 

19 and then also the Z21.60 has nothing to do with 

20 energy conservation, has nothing to do with energy 

21 consumption other than it’s limits that it has 

22 within the standard itself. But it has -- because 

23 as we discussed earlier, by definition, they’re not 

24 used in an enclosure that is a part of the gas logs. 

25 You cannot determine -- well, actually, you can 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

115

1 determine -- they’re essentially 100 percent 

2 efficient in and of themselves. It’s when they’re 

3 placed into the enclosure into which they’re 

4 intended to be used that it takes on the efficiency 

5 of that particular appliance.

6 Fireplaces were originally designed as 

7 cooking appliances. They were not really used to 

8 provide heat. Their shape and function is such that 

9 because you have to exhaust out the product of 

10 combustion, it does take out most of the heat up the 

11 chimney. Otherwise, you get those products of 

12 combustion -- your soot and your carbon monoxide and 

13 dioxide and water vapor -- into the living area, 

14 which is then harmful to the occupants of it. So I 

15 don’t understand why Z21.60 is part of this 

16 exclusionary thing because with regard to the whole 

17 overall function of this proposed rule and the whole 

18 rulemaking, it has nothing to do with energy 

19 conservation.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Tim 

21 Ballo.

22 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. I’m not trying to 

23 be incendiary, which is a terrible word to use, but 

24 on the issue of whether these are heating products, 

25 gas log sets specifically, whether gas logs are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

116

1 heating products or ornamental products, the 

2 Rasmussen comments discussed the use of thermostats 

3 with these products, and how with a thermostat the 

4 consumer sets a comfortable temperature setting at 

5 which the gas log set cuts off the flame. So I 

6 mean, if you have to equip it with a thermostat 

7 because otherwise it will make the room too hot, 

8 isn’t that a heating appliance?

9 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. It’s not 

10 its primary function. And as I did state in my 

11 statement, that thermostats are a very small 

12 proportion of use with gas log sets. It’s just that 

13 it’s a consumer choice. Some people want to have 

14 that ability. Some -- and again it goes back to the 

15 efficiency of the fireplace in which it’s being 

16 used. Some fireplaces are much more efficient than 

17 others. Some homes are much more tightly 

18 constructed than others. A newer home, built to 

19 more recent building standards, are going to have 

20 much less air exchange with the outside. 

21 Unfortunately, those types of standards that have 

22 been put into place are creating the sick building 

23 syndrome and other types of problems. You know, 

24 over-regulation hasn’t helped a lot of people. It’s 

25 causing a lot of health issues because they’re not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

117

1 getting the fresh air that they need in the room to 

2 be healthy. So, yes, thermostats are more equated 

3 with heaters, but it is a function that the valve 

4 system, some of them, not all, some of the valve 

5 systems, the milli volt control ones, have as a 

6 retrofit to them. They can either push a button or 

7 they can put it on the wall, but it’s a control 

8 device for turning it on and off, and as I said, 

9 some people, more because they’re elderly, aren’t 

10 going to want to reach down or be able to reach down 

11 to the floor level or where the fireplaces is 

12 located to be able to turn it off. So they may have 

13 that extra little thermostat on the wall to 

14 accomplish that.

15 MR. BALLO: I can appreciate the heating 

16 functionality is not the primary purpose, but it 

17 seems to me that at some point it becomes such a 

18 significant secondary purpose that it takes it out 

19 of the realm of other products that also generate 

20 heat. I’m not aware of anyone putting a thermostat 

21 on their refrigerator because the thing makes too 

22 much heat when it’s operating. I think there is 

23 sort of a categorical difference with the extent to 

24 which that secondary function is very significant 

25 for some of these products.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

118

1 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. Yeah, but 

2 cars have speedometers that go above 100 miles per 

3 hour, but we don’t mandate governors to keep it 

4 below 65. You know, there’s a certain amount of 

5 free choice out there as to how things are going to 

6 be used. These products, of their nature, as we’ve 

7 discussed, are not heaters, but you do get a 

8 residual heat benefit, which in most people’s world, 

9 is an extra benefit. It’s a good thing that they 

10 actually derive a little bit of heat benefit out of 

11 it. We don’t sell it as primary heaters, by any 

12 means, at best, just because of the nature of the 

13 enclosures that they’re used in, they’re at best a 

14 supplemental heater, definitely an emergency heat.

15 With the hurricane here, it wasn’t hot 

16 enough, but the ice storms that happen, I can’t 

17 believe the amount of calls we get from people 

18 saying thank god I had my gas log set. I’d have 

19 been cold and my family would have been in great 

20 discomfort if I didn’t have that ability, because I 

21 didn’t have electricity to run the fans on my 

22 heater, I didn’t have electricity to run my heat 

23 pump. I had some means of instant on, instant off 

24 controllable heat, as opposed to -- you know, to get 

25 the heat, they’re not going to be at the other end 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

119

1 of the house to get it, they’re going to huddle up 

2 right in front of it where they can derive the 

3 benefit of the luminous flame, the logs actually 

4 heating up and radiating some flame. But that’s not 

5 what they’re there for. They’re not a primary 

6 heater.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Leslie.

8 MR. BORTZ: Rett and I are partners in the 

9 South Coast Air Quality Management Districts. We 

10 happen to differ on this issue. I think that may be 

11 why you should maybe talk to the people in the 

12 industry. We don’t sell thermostats, Rett does. 

13 Okay. We do certain things in a certain way. I’m 

14 not -- I can’t speak for him even though he’s my 

15 partner. He speaks for him, I speak for me. We 

16 don’t have a problem with that. We agree. So I 

17 think that there’s -- and I do believe that if you 

18 had the 20 people, 15, 20, 25 people that make gas 

19 log sets, you would get, sometimes, ten or 15 

20 different opinions on topics. I think that’s 

21 normal.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So final comment 

23 right before we move on. Yes.

24 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. Believe 

25 me, thermostats, on the scheme of things, I couldn’t 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

120

1 care less about them. I mean they’re a very small 

2 portion, most of them are sold with vent-free gas 

3 log sets. In fact ANSI Z21.60 prohibits the use of 

4 a thermostatically controlled device, so Z21.60 

5 covers that just in and of itself if you do that. 

6 If you decide to go outside of Z21.60, which I 

7 recommend, to incorporate more of the market for gas 

8 logs, sure. If you want to get rid of thermostats, 

9 I don’t have a big problem with it. I just, as a --

10 again, I look at standards with regard to stifling 

11 innovation and hurting the market. It is an option 

12 which some customers -- I respond to the market as 

13 most manufacturers, most companies do. We have 

14 people that ask, can I use it? Many things we say 

15 no, you can’t, just as I spoke about the e-mail from 

16 the customer, the lady who had the vented gas 

17 fireplace appliance and wanted to put our product 

18 into it. I’m sorry, it’s not safe. You can’t do 

19 that. Thermostats are -- it’s not a huge issue. I 

20 just bring it up.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’re going to 

22 move on now. Move on to the next topic, which is 

23 moving on to Analysis of National Energy Savings. 

24 John Cymbalsky. 

25 Analysis of National Energy Savings
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

121

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Thanks Doug. So 

2 this gets to Frank’s question earlier, what about 

3 the national energy savings. Now we’ve heard a lot 

4 about -- from the opening remarks about how our 

5 assumptions here and the data that we have might be 

6 different than what you have, and so we would like 

7 you to submit your data in writing, in spreadsheets, 

8 however you have it. The more data the better. We 

9 love data. We love numbers.

10 I’m not going to go through all of these 

11 numbers here. I would just like to point out that 

12 these are the numbers we used for the analysis. If 

13 you take issue with them, please provide data, 

14 source the data, the more the better. We like data. 

15 So obviously there could be numbers that are 

16 different than this, and we would like to see them.

17 So this is what we came up with. I would 

18 just like to point out a few numbers here on this 

19 page that I know, I heard in the room about the 

20 housing industry and how that drives a lot of the 

21 market. Just to let you know, in our shipments 

22 analysis, the housing starts are a big part of how 

23 we derive the shipments. So we are -- we agree with 

24 you on that, that the housing starts will drive to a 

25 large extent, the shipments.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

122

1 Again, you can go through and you can pick 

2 at every one of these numbers if you’d like. I 

3 prefer not to get into every number here. But if 

4 you would please provide us comments on all the data 

5 that you see here on this page, that would be great. 

6 And going down to the bottom, essentially the bottom 

7 line here is that we think we have about 120 

8 trillion BTUs of extra energy savings over the 2010 

9 rule, final rule.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

11 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman. Again, I need 

12 to point out that the industry does not have the 

13 benefit of the analysis done, other than what’s in 

14 the preamble, and it puts the industry at an extreme 

15 disadvantage to basically comment on something which 

16 involve a lot of assumptions and calculations 

17 without being able to see them, and I think that’s 

18 wrong.

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Frank Stanonik.

21 MR. STANONIK: John, there is one thing 

22 here that’s not let’s say intuitively obvious. When 

23 you’re talking about the average unit energy 

24 consumption, I’m assuming that’s the consumption of 

25 both the burner and the pilot? Not just the pilot. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

123

1 Do you, off the top of your head, know what you 

2 assumed was the average input of the pilot?

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: It’s not in the formula.

4 MR. STANONIK: I can work it backwards, I 

5 was just curious.

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. I don’t have that 

7 number off the top of my head.

8 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: James.

10 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone from AGA. Is 

11 there an economic analysis payback periods for the 

12 requirement for 50s and 60s to go with electronic 

13 ignition? Is there anything done on that?

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: So there’ll be a slide on 

15 some economics in the back here.

16 MR. RANFONE: Okay. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Leslie.

18 MR. BORTZ: Leslie Bortz. I don’t mean to 

19 be disrespectful, but I did travel here from 

20 California, and did spend several weeks trying to 

21 put together some of the information. I would like 

22 to discuss just one of these, for hopefully not more 

23 than four minutes because I think it has something 

24 to do with the quality of the research that you have 

25 performed. I have this because I have one eye that
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

124

1 doesn’t see, so I have to look at bigger letters in 

2 order to see the words, I’m sorry. I have this 

3 document which is the same as what is in the CFR. I 

4 don’t know who prepared this document. I just am 

5 saying that because on page 25 --

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Leslie, can you identify 

7 the document, please?

8 MR. BORTZ: I’m sorry.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, please do that.

10 MR. BORTZ: This document says “US CA case 

11 Number 10-1113 Document Number 1319806 filed 

12 7/15/2011, page 1 of 56, Exhibit 1, Notice of 

13 Proposed Rulemaking.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for doing that. 

15 Okay. Proceed.

16 MR. BORTZ: Okay. If you have that 

17 document, if you don’t somebody will find it in the 

18 CFR, on Page 25 of that document, you state, 

19 “Continuous pilot energy use is 1250 BTUs per hour

20 for vented gas logs.” You then go to Footnote 

21 Number 9. Footnote Number 9 says, “This value was 

22 derived from data collected on the following 

23 manufacturer websites.” Might take me a minute, 

24 again, I apologize. 

25 PARTICIPANT: It’s 43946 for people who
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

125

1 are now searching for that.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: 43946. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, in the Federal 

4 Register notice, so Footnote Number 9 at the bottom 

5 right.

6 MR. BORTZ: Right. Number 1, Pittsburgh 

7 Gas Grill and Heater Company. They’re not a 

8 manufacturer. They are a distributor or a dealer. 

9 If you go to gas logs, vented gas logs on their site 

10 and you spend more than the first minute looking at 

11 FAQs, their site brings you to our site. If you’re 

12 talking about FAQs, I talked to the owner of their 

13 site and he sent me the following e-mail. “This e14 mail is to confirm that on our website, on our 

15 Frequently Asked Questions page, question number 1 

16 refers to ventless gas logs. We will correct this 

17 error as soon as possible. Please do not hesitate 

18 to contact me if you have any questions.” Number 

19 one.

20 Number 2. Hargrove. They are a 

21 manufacturer of gas logs. “To whom it may concern. 

22 It has come to my attention that some of the 

23 statistics that the Department of Energy is using in 

24 making new regulations regarding gas log sets are 

25 way off or misused.” He then gives various bits of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

126

1 information. I’d be happy to share it with you. He 

2 says, pilots that have thermocouples, which are 90 

3 percent of what vented gas logs have, use 600 BTUs, 

4 not 1250.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: And just say who’s that --

6 who’s that from?

7 MR. BORTZ: Hargrove, the number two 

8 person.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. 

10 MR. BORTZ: Number three. And when I’m 

11 done with Number 3, Number 4 and Number 5 will be 

12 quick. Leonard’s Stone and Fireplace. They are not 

13 a manufacturer of gas logs. They are a dealer or a 

14 distributor. When you go to their Frequently Asked 

15 Questions, I will read their answer. It says “How 

16 much gas logs does the pilot light use? A pilot 

17 light will burn 800 to 1500 BTUs per hour. Your 

18 monthly gas bill should include your exact cost per 

19 therm, 100,000 BTUs. Based on this rate, you can 

20 calculate the cost for your area to operate a pilot 

21 light.” They’re in Fort Worth, Texas.

22 Number 4, Fireside Hearth and Home, 

23 they’re also not a manufacturer of gas logs. Go to 

24 their Frequently Asked Questions, read the answer to 

25 their question, and it’s the exact same words, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

127

1 letter for letter. All of these Frequently Asked 

2 Questions are the exact same questions, word for 

3 word.

4 To the last one, Heatilator. Heatilator 

5 is a major manufacturer, probably the biggest, 

6 probably by far the biggest. Read their answer. 

7 It’s the exact same words. There’s not a single 

8 letter that’s different. All of the Frequently 

9 Asked Questions are the same. That’s not a way to 

10 investigate pilot usage. That is a poor job. I’m 

11 sorry, I don’t mean to sound as confrontational as I 

12 am, but I come here from California, and you have 

13 not done -- I’m an American. I’m 67 years old. You 

14 can’t do this to me. You can’t do this to us. Your 

15 research is just horrible. It’s not in keeping with 

16 what I would think the federal government should be 

17 doing. It’s wrong. Basically just totally wrong, 

18 and it doesn’t take into consideration that anybody 

19 did more than two minutes of just putting something 

20 together.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jack.

22 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman. Just to 

23 further amplify that, the last company that was in 

24 the survey of websites makes no gas log sets, and 

25 yet it’s cited for BTU content of gas log sets. I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

128

1 would like to know how that happened.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So there’s a lot of 

3 data here on Slide 18. Any additional comments on 

4 Slide 18 before we move on. Frank.

5 MR. STANONIK: With some assistance here, 

6 just to correct and not have John do stuff he 

7 doesn’t need to do. I really asked the wrong 

8 question. It turns out that those average 

9 consumptions are actually the pilot energy 

10 consumption, and so I don’t really need to know the 

11 average input of the burners. I got help too, but I 

12 checked it myself, and that’s just pilot energy.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So it -- it flows 

14 from top to bottom, Frank.

15 MR. STANONIK: Yes.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, so one last plea to 

18 submit data on all this. Thank you.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s move on.

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Move on to Small Business 

21 Impacts. 

22 Small Business Impacts 

23 MR. CYMBALSKY: Residential direct heating 

24 equipment, including hearth product manufacturing is 

25 classified under the NAICS Code 333414, Heating
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

129

1 Equipment, except warm air furnaces manufacturing. 

2 The size threshold for a small business is 500 

3 employees or fewer. In our work we identified ten 

4 vented gas hearth direct heating equipment small 

5 business manufacturers in the April 2010 final rule. 

6 DOE also identified seven manufacturers of 

7 vented gas log sets, three of which also manufacture 

8 vented gas hearth products. 

9 In our work we estimated manufacturer 

10 compliance cost of the amended definition, based on 

11 analysis done in April 2010 final rule. We assume 

12 that the primary cost of compliance to this would be 

13 to recertify products to the applicable ANSI 

14 standards if they are modified to meet the 

15 exclusion. DOE estimated these costs will be 

16 approximately $693,000.

17 I know we’ve heard in the opening remarks 

18 -- we heard from you that these numbers may be 

19 different than what you expect, so we’ll take 

20 comment on this slide.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

22 MR. GOLDMAN: Well, this is going to be 

23 repetitious. Jack Goldman. I would like to know 

24 the basis for these calculations and assumptions, 

25 and particularly the assumptions. Assumptions are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

130

1 assertions unless there’s some thinking behind them. 

2 And we have not been -- it has not been shared with 

3 us what the basis for the assumptions that were 

4 made. And given that gas log sets were not even 

5 considered, supposedly, in the April 2010 rule, I 

6 don’t know how you can base information from that 

7 rule on this new proposal. Thank you.

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: I again, ask you to 

9 provide any data that would get to this issue, 

10 please.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank.

12 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. The ten 

13 vented gas hearth direct heating equipment 

14 manufacturers that you have identified, do you know 

15 does that include both companies that manufacture 

16 both fireplace heaters and decorative fireplaces?

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: It’s a mix, so yes.

18 MR. STANONIK: Are they -- are they 

19 distinctly identified in any way?

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: I don’t think we listed 

21 them out in the rule.

22 MR. STANONIK: Okay. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Leslie.

24 MR. BORTZ: Leslie Bortz. You say here 

25 that you’ve identified four. My concern is your 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

131

1 identification process. Had you gone to the HPBA 

2 membership directory, which couldn’t have been that 

3 hard since you were talking to HPBA this whole time, 

4 you would have found 20 to 30 to 35 names there. 

5 Had you gone to Hearth and Home magazine, which is 

6 the industry’s trade magazine, you would have found 

7 30 or 40 names there. Had you gone to Washington 

8 Gas, which puts out a huge booklet every year about 

9 natural gas, I think most of you live in WSSC or 

10 Washington Gas area, you would have seen this. Had 

11 you Googled “gas logs,” you would have gotten eight 

12 million-plus responses, or eight million answers. 

13 How can you say you’re doing research?

14 Again, I don’t mean to be -- I am -- I 

15 just can’t believe -- I am, and maybe I do mean to 

16 be. I don’t believe that this is research. You’re 

17 my Department of Energy. That’s not fair.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Rett.

19 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. Yeah, 

20 we’ve pretty well established and I’m sure HPBA will 

21 back up that the majority, not the majority, 

22 probably about all except for maybe one manufacturer 

23 that also makes the gas fireplace appliances, is a -

24 - we’re all that manufacture gas log sets small 

25 businesses. Our companies, 40, 45 people. The 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

132

1 economy was huffing on better cylinders, things were 

2 doing a lot better, we had, you know, maybe 75, and 

3 that’s also for making our gas grill products. So 

4 we’re not just solely gas logs. 

5 It will have a tremendous impact on small 

6 business, there’s just no doubt about it. It is a 

7 tremendous -- and it is not just our manufacturing 

8 businesses. You know, we touch a lot of lives, a 

9 lot of other businesses in our day-to-day. You 

10 know, the people we buy the cement from, the 

11 aggregate, the steel, the boxes, the cartooning 

12 materials, the families of our employees that we 

13 support through our wages, the insurance agent, the 

14 insurance companies that get our premiums. Health 

15 insurance. All on down the line, it’s a lot of 

16 lives that we touch, so it’s not just Leslie and I 

17 that are here and our other manufacturers that chose 

18 not to be here today, it’s very far-reaching, and I 

19 just ask that as representatives of our government 

20 that you take that into account as you are imposing 

21 rules on the governed.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

23 comments on Slide 20, small business impacts. Any 

24 additional comments? James.

25 MR. RANFONE: Just a quick question. Jim 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

133

1 Ranfone from American Gas Association. What is the 

2 penalty, the DOE penalty, or the federal penalty for 

3 non-compliance, whether it’s on the standing pilot -

4 - let’s assume that went into place, or the 

5 efficiency level wasn’t met? I thought I remembered 

6 it was $100 a day for every model or every piece 

7 produced. Is that correct or not? What is the 

8 penalty for small businesses?

9 (Comment off mic)

10 MR. RANFONE: I think when you’re looking 

11 at impact to small business, that’s an important 

12 issue, whether or not companies want to stay in 

13 business, based on the fact that these penalties may 

14 be imposed on, whether it’s the gas log requirement 

15 or the minimum efficiency requirement.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan Cohen.

17 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE General 

18 Counsel. Just to be clear on that, there’s a 

19 requirement that the penalty amounts be amended 

20 periodically for inflation, so I just don’t remember 

21 the exact --

22 MR. RANFONE: It’s probably more then.

23 MR. COHEN: -- last time -- yeah.

24 (Comment off mic)

25 MR. BROOKMAN: So, for the record, repeat 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

134

1 that again, John.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, Ashley Armstrong in 

3 the back who works on certification, compliance and 

4 enforcement stated that there is guidance on our 

5 website that will tell you how much the fine 

6 schedule is.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I thought I saw 

8 some other folks on this side of the room that had 

9 comments. No? All set?

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: Actually, I think that the 

11 last remark from Rett was actually a very good segue 

12 into closing remarks, because it sounded a lot to me 

13 like a closing remark.

14 Submitting Written Comments

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: The last two slides just 

16 pretty much give you the instructions on submitting 

17 written comments. Again, we appreciate all comments 

18 in written form. We appreciate as much data that’s 

19 not proprietary that you can provide us, so that we 

20 can look at our analysis.

21 Again, here’s all the information, comment 

22 period closes September 20, 2011, so that’s about 

23 three weeks away.

24 And then here’s some important web links 

25 for our program, and in particular, this rulemaking. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

135

1 And in closing, for me I just want to 

2 thank everybody for traveling here, long distance 

3 especially. Thank you for your views on this and we 

4 -- in advance, I appreciate any written comments and 

5 data that you will provide us to support this 

6 rulemaking. Thank you.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo.

8 MR. BALLO: It’s not so much a closing 

9 remark, actually, I just had a question, if any of 

10 the manufacturers feel comfortable answering. I 

11 think maybe one or two of you in your opening 

12 remarks discussed the cost of moving to electronic 

13 ignition in these products and suggested it would be 

14 in the order of $600 per product, and I’m just 

15 wondering, if that’s true, why would anyone want 

16 that in their -- why do you sell any at all if 

17 they’re so much more expensive, and the amenity to 

18 me doesn’t seem worth it.

19 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. I’ll 

20 start. You’re right. Proposed the way that this 

21 rule is, where it would require it on all retrofit 

22 gas log sets, you’re right, people wouldn’t want 

23 that. Where people are using it mostly are in 

24 extensive remodels or new construction fireplaces, 

25 where they’re creating a vault adjacent to, but 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

136

1 outside of the firebox, where they can locate all of 

2 these components, and then they’re integrating it in 

3 to these whole house automation, smart home systems, 

4 where they can, with one remote, they can turn on 

5 the lights, lift the blinds, turn on the gas log set 

6 from their one remote. But that’s just such a small 

7 proportion of the gas log sales that are out there, 

8 and I think I said that it was 3.6 at best. My 

9 sense it’s well less than five percent of all of the 

10 gas log sets that are sold out there.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Leslie, go ahead.

12 MR. BORTZ: We’ve been gathering 

13 statistics, and I’ve been traveling, and my attorney 

14 has asked for various statistics and have been 

15 trying to get them, and as you know, they’re not as 

16 easy to get when you ask a specific question. We 

17 don’t keep records, necessarily, the way your 

18 questions are, any of you. But that’s fine, we’d be 

19 happy to do it. 

20 My guess -- that’s preamble to my guess is 

21 that half of the IPIs that we sell are for LP. 

22 Fifteen percent, maybe a little less than 15 percent 

23 of the logs that we sell are for LP. LP people are 

24 much more conscious because LP is more expensive, so 

25 we broke out in our testimony, natural gas from LP, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

137

1 and said that maybe some number, I don’t remember, 

2 less than half of the people on natural gas turn 

3 their pilots off seasonally, but almost all of the 

4 people on LP do. I think LP, for a similar amount 

5 of energy, may be two and a half to three times as 

6 expensive. I don’t know. But people who use LP are 

7 very conscious of the costs involved. They have --

8 they’re smaller. They buy these products, but 

9 they’re conscious of the cost involved, so you can 

10 see that when the cost gets to be an issue, it does 

11 become at least for some people, worthwhile to do. 

12 It’s not an issue on the 85 percent -- and I think 

13 we’re a little bit high on LP because Florida is a 

14 lot LP and we happen to be a good distribution in 

15 Florida, and he doesn’t yet.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Rett, you’re next, 

17 and before you go, we’re going to move towards 

18 closing remarks. I’m going to distribute -- the 

19 Department puts together a copy of the business 

20 cards of all the attendees here, so we’ll distribute 

21 these now. Rett, please.

22 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. Well, in 

23 follow up to Leslie, I hope not to be restricted 

24 from going after his piece of the market in Florida 

25 and in other places, but one more amplification to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

138

1 your question, Tim.

2 Some people fear gas. They’re just 

3 inherently afraid of gas, either from a lifetime 

4 experience, or frankly, from gas companies. Gas 

5 companies do a very good job of instilling fear of 

6 gas into their customers. Oh, don’t light that 

7 pilot yourself, call us, we’ll come out and light 

8 the pilot. So they’ll say, okay, I’d like a pilot9 less ignition system, so you present that to them. 

10 Then they see the cost, and they go, well maybe I’m 

11 not that afraid of it. Go with the standing pilot 

12 system or something else. Or match-lighted if it’s 

13 natural gas. 

14 Propane, they have no choice. They have 

15 to have a standing pilot system, or an electronic 

16 ignition system. Economics comes to play a big part 

17 in it, that’s why it’s such a small part of our 

18 sales. It is very expensive, that and then the size 

19 issue. It takes away from the decorative effect of 

20 our decorative appliances.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Leslie, it looks like 

22 you’ve got something else there.

23 MR. BORTZ: I just wanted to --

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please do.

25 MR. BORTZ: -- do one last thing. This is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

139

1 something that I made up and we’ve been sending this 

2 out to all over the United States for -- we haven’t 

3 updated it for 2011 yet. It talks about why you 

4 should use natural gas in your wood burning 

5 fireplace. And I think what you have to do first is 

6 realize what the alternatives are, before you can 

7 say whether a product is efficient or not, you have 

8 to realize what are the alternatives.

9 But I talk about all fossil fuels are not 

10 created equal. And I talk about cleanliness and 

11 plentiful and more economical and comes from North 

12 America, and save a tree. This was done in 2009 and 

13 2010, 2008 and 2007, and I don’t see anything on 

14 there about heat. The word heat or warmth isn’t on 

15 there. We don’t sell it that way. You can take a 

16 look. Some people, obviously, business you know, 

17 people advertise they do things, but we’re sitting 

18 here trying to sell the cleanest, most abundant 

19 fuel.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jim.

21 MR. RANFONE: Oh, no.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: No? So, Rett.

23 MR. RASMUSSEN: Just one more thing. Rett 

24 Rasmussen. Going back to our discussion about 

25 thermostats. People see flame, the consumer, and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

140

1 they’re naturally going to ask, well, how much heat 

2 does it put out? I don’t care what labels you put 

3 on it, this and that, people see flame -- it goes 

4 back to something hard wired into human beings, you 

5 know, from the first day that Og, the caveman, saw 

6 fire that sustained itself after lightning strike 

7 and then was able to figure out, hey, it takes the 

8 chill away. And an open fire, in a camp fire 

9 situation is not very efficient as a heater, but it 

10 provides warmth and comfort to that person.

11 That’s what our products do as a byproduct 

12 of the decorative effect. When people ask me, why 

13 would I want a gas log set, the first thing I talk 

14 about is how good it makes that otherwise black hole 

15 in the wall appear for the 95 percent of the time or 

16 more that it’s not in use. So it’s all part of 

17 decorating a home. People -- you know, a fireplace 

18 is normally the focal point of the room in which 

19 it’s in. People spend all kinds of money on 

20 furniture, draperies, wall coverings, art work, 

21 everything else that sits on the coffee table, and a 

22 lot of times they’ve put nothing into the fireplace, 

23 which is the focal point. A gas log set is a very 

24 inexpensive way of furnishing that fireplace. And 

25 then you can get into screens and tool sets and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

141

1 fenders and andirons and things like that, but 

2 that’s up for the dealer to work at. But that’s --

3 that’s really kind of tying in a little bit more on 

4 the benefits of gas logs.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, then let’s move to 

6 closing remarks. I would say, in my experience, 

7 running a lot of these meetings for many years, 

8 we’ve never had as complete a set of opening remarks 

9 as we did this morning, so all that information that 

10 was laid out and read into the record, it’s going to 

11 be there in the complete transcript of this meeting. 

12 I don’t think we need to repeat all of that, but 

13 perhaps there are additional closing comments now as 

14 we move towards closure of this meeting.

15 Closing Remarks

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Leslie.

17 MR. BORTZ: You’re going to get almost 

18 everything in this book, not the copy of the CFR. 

19 Jack Goldman asked you, and I ask you, what is your 

20 research based on, and I know you’re not going to 

21 answer. I’m going to stop.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: For the record, let me just 

23 say that you’ve got a folio there, a ring binder 

24 with about two or three inches of materials in it, 

25 so thanks for offering that up for the Department of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

142

1 Energy. Let me see, Robert.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Bob Elliott, with National 

3 Propane Gas Association. When I look at this Notice 

4 of Proposed Rulemaking and the conduct of the public 

5 meeting, and you read through it -- and I’m not 

6 familiar with this section of the energy policy 

7 conservation act, but I used to know Robert’s Rules 

8 of Order pretty well and that sort of thing -- but 

9 when you read through this, it keeps using the word 

10 discussion, and to me it just seems like the burden 

11 of proof is on us, and yet you have a very robust 

12 representation of the industry, and question after 

13 question, with the exception of Mr. Cohen, you know, 

14 there’s been no response whatsoever. And to me 

15 that’s just not an open discussion. And I just 

16 would encourage you to, before you conclude the 

17 meeting, to give some thought to the resolve of this 

18 issue. I mean you’ve got all the players here, at 

19 least you’ve certainly got a lot of the 

20 stakeholders, and you just listened to our comments 

21 and now you’re going to conclude. You’ve got people 

22 that have come from California, you’ve got, you 

23 know, ... day out, we’ve got four hours, we’re 

24 supposed to go to four p.m., yet this has been sort 

25 of a one-sided discussion. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

143

1 So I kind of encourage you and also 

2 challenge you to take advantage of this opportunity 

3 and see if we can’t come to some meeting of the 

4 minds or something.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Frank.

6 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 

7 The discussion today and the NOPR talks about 

8 excluding certain products based on certain 

9 criteria. And I guess I would just like to suggest 

10 that maybe the Department should look at turning 

11 that around and simply identifying those products 

12 that are including, based on having certain 

13 characteristics. In other words, let’s not talk 

14 about gas logs that have these features or whatever, 

15 maybe the idea is that if there is some apparent 

16 decorative appliance, but in fact it is advertised 

17 as a heater or it is advertised as operating at X 

18 efficiency, that’s included. 

19 So maybe the approach here should be that 

20 you identify products that are included by their 

21 characteristics, not ask the industry to make 

22 accommodations to in fact validate their products 

23 aren’t included.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Additional 

25 comments, closing remarks. Rett.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

144

1 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. The 

comment period closes on September 20th 2 and just 

3 supposing DOE takes into account the testimony, the 

4 comments that have been made and recognizes that 

5 changes need to be made. I’m unfamiliar with what 

6 the process would be from this point on, and I would 

7 appreciate enlightenment as to what that would be.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky.

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So we’ll take your 

10 comments throughout the comment period and then 

11 there’s a 90-day minimum period for the final rule, 

12 so we accept all your comments, we look at them, we 

13 respond to them in the final rule.

14 MR. RASMUSSEN: So you’ll -- you respond 

15 to each comment --

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: In the preamble.

17 MR. RASMUSSEN: Individually?

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Correct. We group a bunch 

19 together that are similar, and respond.

20 MR. RASMUSSEN: Pardon me, I’m sorry. 

21 Will the responses be more than what we’ve had today 

22 of “thank you for your comments”? Because that is a 

23 response.

24 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right.

25 MR. RASMUSSEN: You know, will we be --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

145

1 will they be viewed on the merits of the comments 

2 that we’ve made?

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. Correct.

4 MR. RASMUSSEN: And at what point --

5 where’s the tipping point that says we need to 

6 revise the text that’s in the proposed rule? Where 

7 is that tipping point? Maybe you can’t answer that 

8 now, but there’s got to be one someplace, and it may 

9 be on the first comment that’s made, it may be on 

10 something else. We’ve already pointed out large 

11 deficiencies in the research that was done to 

12 support these particular provisions of the exclusion 

13 or the other parts. What is the process then? You 

14 get to the end of the 90 days after answering the 

15 comments, what happens? What if you decide we’ve 

16 got to do something else? How does that process 

17 work and how are we notified of that?

18 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen. So just to 

19 be clear on the 90 days, that is a legal requirement 

20 between the publication of a proposed rule and the 

21 publication of a final rule. We can’t publish 

22 earlier than that. It has to be at least that 

23 spread between the publication of both rules. 

24 Ninety days from July -- whatever it was --

MR. CYMBALSKY: July 22nd 25 .
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

146

MR. COHEN: July 22nd 1 . So we couldn’t 

2 publish a final rule prior to 90 days from then.

3 So what we do is, as John said, we’ll go 

4 through all the comments that have -- that we get 

5 both here and through the remainder of the comment 

6 period. To the extent we have to do additional 

7 research, we will do that. We will look at all the 

8 information we’re provided. We’ll come up with 

9 substantive responses.

10 Just theoretically, because I’m not going 

11 to say -- we don’t know what we would do with that -

12 - there’s two possibilities -- well, there’s a range 

13 of possibilities. One is we look at all the 

14 information -- one extreme would be we look at all 

15 the information and say, doesn’t change our minds, 

16 we go forward. The other extreme I guess is, we 

17 look at all the information and say, oh my goodness, 

18 stop. Anywhere in between is obviously an option 

19 too.

20 It could be that one potential is we look 

21 at the information, it leads us to make revisions in 

22 the proposal, and we go out with a final rule with 

23 those revisions. To the extent that those revisions 

24 potentially -- and again, this is all just 

25 generically process-wise -- to the extent that those 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

147

1 revisions might be significant enough that we need 

2 additional comment, we would go out with another 

3 proposal, and seek more comment.

4 MR. RASMUSSEN: And so any changes that 

5 are made will, in fact, be open to public comment or 

6 --

7 MR. COHEN: May or may not.

8 MR. RASMUSSEN: -- may or may not?

9 MR. COHEN: May or may not, right. 

10 Depends on the extent of the changes.

11 MR. RASMUSSEN: Ooph. Okay. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jack.

13 MR. RASMUSSEN: Thank you.

14 MR. GOLDMAN: Jack Goldman. I’d like to 

15 pose a question to John Cymbalsky and Dan Cohen, 

16 which came up as a result of this discussion. I 

17 would like to know what the national emergency is 

18 that requires this rule to be issued so quickly, 

19 especially given the dearth of information that you 

20 have in your preamble, and the complete lack of 

21 information that you have in your rulemaking record. 

22 I wonder is this a national energy emergency that 

23 requires this, because the Department usually moves 

24 with a little more deliberate speed than 90 days 

25 from start to finish.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

148

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan.

2 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen. Again, I would 

3 just point out that all of the 90 days, just to be 

4 clear about this, is just a minimum time period in 

5 the statute. I’m not saying we’re going to do it 

6 within 90 days. I’m just saying that is -- John 

7 referred to a 90 day period, that’s what the 90 days 

8 is.

9 MR. GOLDMAN: I would like to point out 

10 that in opposition to a motion for a briefing 

11 schedule, which is a public document, the agency has 

12 committed to a 90 day period. So you told the court 

13 that you’re going for the minimum. So I’d like to 

14 know why you’re doing that.

15 MR. COHEN: I’m just not going to comment 

16 on the litigation.

17 MR. GOLDMAN: No, I’m using the litigation 

18 simply as the evidence that you have committed to a 

19 90 day period. I am asking you, from a regulatory 

20 point of view, why you are going with a 90 day 

21 period. It has nothing to do with litigation except 

22 I’m using the brief as proof that you’ve committed 

23 to 90 days.

24 MR. COHEN: Again, I’m just -- you say 

25 that’s a matter that is in the litigation --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

149

1 MR. GOLDMAN: No, that matter is not 

2 litigation. You have said in a public document to 

3 the court that you were committing to 90 days. I’m 

4 not asking you about your litigation strategy. I am 

5 asking you why you have committed to 90 days, and if 

6 it’s for litigation, then that is a distortion of 

7 the regulatory process. But I’d like to know, from 

8 a regulatory point of view, why you’ve committed to 

9 90 days.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. So he’s not going to 

11 respond. Jane, did you wish to comment? No? Okay. 

12 Leslie.

13 MR. BORTZ: Number one. I stand ready to 

14 help you, if you need information. I think you need 

15 information. It’s up to you to think whether you --

16 what you think. I’m standing ready to help you, 

17 number one.

18 And despite the fact that, as you can 

19 tell, I disagree with you very strongly, I do thank 

20 you for giving me this opportunity. At least you 

21 gave me the opportunity, and I thank you for that. 

22 Thank you.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please say your 

24 name for the record.

25 MR. CAGNOLI: Yes, Alan Cagnoli with HPBA. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

150

1 Considering the speed with which things are moving, 

2 how fast will we be able to get the transcript in 

3 our hands of this proceeding. Can we have it by 

4 Tuesday?

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: Three business days, I’m 

6 told.

7 MR. CAGNOLI: Three business days. Can 

8 you tell me exactly which day that will be?

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, then, we review the 

10 transcript after that, so --

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So --

12 MR. CAGNOLI: Then which day will it be?

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: What do you think, 

14 Mohammed?

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Mohammed Khan.

16 MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan, DOE. Generally 

17 we’ll receive the transcript from the court reporter 

18 within two or three business days, as just 

19 mentioned. Then it’s our responsibility to go over 

20 it, check it for accuracy, and that might take just 

21 a day, so after that then we can move forward with 

22 making it publicly available.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Perhaps then in the middle 

24 of next week?

25 MR. CAGNOLI: I would rather have a date 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

151

1 than a general description of when.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: So three business days is 

3 next Wednesday, since Monday is a holiday. Let’s 

4 say the end of next week would be the earliest, so.

5 MR. CAGNOLI: And this is Alan Cagnoli 

6 again. So with less than 60 days left before the 

7 final rule, so we’re talking actually about -- so 

8 that would be eight weeks, we’re talking -- we will 

9 only have maybe seven or six weeks with which to 

10 review the testimony and add those comments -- add 

11 that into our comments? And actually less time, 

because the comments are due on the 20th 12 . Okay. I 

13 just wanted to make sure that’s part of the record.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MR. CAGNOLI: Thank you.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Leslie.

17 MR. BORTZ: What you’re saying is the 

comments are due on the 20th 18 . You have to have time 

19 to take a look at them. You will then go forward 

20 with whatever you do. You don’t have to respond to 

21 those comments, do you? Like you’re responding with 

22 the transcript? You don’t have to do it? Do you 

23 have to respond to those comments?

24 MR. KHAN: Yeah.

25 MR. CYMBALSKY: We look at all the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

152

1 comments that are submitted to us, up until 

September 20th 2 .

3 MR. BORTZ: Yes.

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: And then as we read 

5 through them, that is incorporated as deemed to be 

6 fit in the final rule, so yes.

7 MR. BORTZ: The rule which will be out by 

October 11th. Excuse me, October 15th 8 .

9 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess they don’t --

10 they’re not commenting on the date.

11 MR. BORTZ: They did.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Say it again.

13 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen. Just to be clear 

14 on that date. That simply is a date which is a 

15 minimum period of time by which -- before which we 

16 cannot publish a final rule. It doesn’t mean we 

17 will publish on that date, it just means we can’t do 

18 it before that date.

19 MR. BORTZ: Fuzzy.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Rett.

21 MR. RASMUSSEN: Rett Rasmussen. I’m 

22 sorry, Mr. Cymbalsky, I think I heard you say right 

23 now that you’re not specifically answering comments 

24 raised in this, that you’re incorporating it into --

25 and maybe I misheard you right now, but it sounded 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

153

1 like you gave an answer different than you gave to 

2 my question earlier.

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: No, I don’t think it was 

4 different. We take all the comments and we respond 

5 to the comments in the --

6 MR. RASMUSSEN: Thank you.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, I think --

8 MR. BORTZ: Respond to the comments? 

9 That’s what you just said?

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: In the preamble, we 

11 present all the comments that we receive, we group 

12 them together, all the ones that are pertinent to 

13 the rulemaking, yes.

14 MR. BORTZ: In the preamble?

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Of the final rule.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So I think we have now 

17 concluded the closing remarks. From my perspective, 

18 I would thank all of you for the candor and 

19 straightforward discussion today and comment. Very 

20 helpful, I think, to the Department. 

21 I’m going to hand out an evaluation form 

22 that’s one thing that the Department does for all 

23 their meetings, and I will just turn it back to John 

24 Cymbalsky for closing remarks.

25 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, I think I have 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

154

1 already said mine, but thanks for coming, and 

2 appreciate all the heartfelt remarks today. Thank 

3 you.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels. 

5 (Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the meeting in 

6 the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

155

This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

In the Matter of:

DIRECT HEATING EQUIPMENT ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARD

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law 

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for or related to 

any party to the above proceedings.

Wendy Greene 

 Official Reporter

Dated: September 6, 2011