1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

#30GG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

+ + + + + 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

+ + + + + 

 DISHWASHER TEST PROCEDURE PROPOSED RULE 

 PUBLIC HEARING 

+ + + + + 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2002 

+ + + + + 

The hearing came to order at 9:00 a.m. in Room 

1E-245 of the Forestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., Dennis Clough, 

Facilitator, Presiding 

Present: 

Dennis Clough Facilitator 

Bryan Berringer Department of Energy 

Thomas Depriest Department of Energy 

Francine Pinto Department of Energy 

Barbara Twigg Department of Energy 

Debra Bengston Maytag 

Kevin Brown Maytag 

Tom Johnson Maytag 

John Bowman TIAX, LLC 

Natashcha Castro NIST 

Carolyn Cairns Consumer Union 

Katherine Delves Natural Resources Canada 

Mike Edwards BSH 

Gene Foley AHAM 

Larry Wethje AHAM 

Marc Hoffman Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency 

Ray McGowan D&R International 

Greg Miller General Electric Co. 

Steve Polinski Miele, Inc. 

John Picardat Viking Range Corp. 

Steve Peterson Whirlpool Corporation 

Michael Thompson Whirlpool Corporation 

Charles Stephens Oregon Department of Energy 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Opening Remarks 

Barbara Twigg................................3 

Test Procedure Changes 

Natashcha Castro............................14 

Survey Review and Findings 

John Bowman.................................20 

Stakeholder Remarks...............................38 

Identification of Stakeholder Issues..............99 

for Discussion 

Next Steps.......................................189 

Adjourn..........................................209 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

 (9:00 a.m.) 

MR. CLOUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, good 

morning. We're going to get started today if 

everybody could take their seats. Good morning, my 

name is Dennis Clough and I'm with Aspen Systems 

Corporation out of Rockville. I'm here today to 

facilitate on behalf of the Department of Energy this 

public hearing related to the dishwasher test 

procedure. 

We're going to go through a variety of 

things today. I'm going to go through some of the 

details in a few minutes about the day and some other 

logistical information for you but to get started I 

want to introduce Barbara Twigg with the Department of 

Energy who as some opening words. 

MS. TWIGG: Well, good morning. We are 

waiting for a couple more key people and I don't know 

whether traffic is catching people or not. I'm just 

curious, were any of you here on September 11th, in 

this room? You know, you come in for these meetings 

and that one still haunts me, and then you come on 

today and turn on the radio or TV this morning and 

have, you know, the sniper situation. And I apologize 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

to all of you here from out of town, because, you 

know, it's scared all of us and being in this room 

and, you know, thinking back to September 11th, and 

let us begin afresh, but on behalf of the Department, 

I'd like to thank you all for coming as we unite our 

efforts to discuss this proposed new test procedure 

for dishwashers, surely one of the more interesting 

test procedures undertaken by out office in recent 

years, and one of the most highly anticipated. 

I hope Michael McCabe will be here a 

little bit later. He is the manager of our program of 

building technologies, which subsumed the old office 

of codes and standards. Today we have some members 

from our office. Brian Berringer here is co-lead of 

the appliance section on that side. We have Francine 

Pinto and Tom Depriest from the Office of General 

Counsel over there. We have my engineer/partner from 

 NIST Natashcha Castro there. John Bowman from TIAX 

which was formerly part of the technology and 

innovation group of Arthur D. Little. 

We've waited awhile to have this public 

hearing. It almost feels like -- at least it felt 

like an occasion for celebration as we finally meet to 

receive comments that will assist the Department in 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

developing the dishwasher test procedure final rule 

for soil sensing models. Although many of you have 

been intimately involved in the development of this 

test procedure, formerly presented in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register 

on September 3rd of this year, I'd like to give a 

brief overview of the steps leading up to this meeting 

today. 

Last changed in 1987, our original test 

procedure for dishwashers using a test load of clean 

dishes had been rolling along quite adequately until 

the advent of a new generation of machines using smart 

technology to sense and adjust the length of the wash 

cycle according to the soil level adhering to the dish 

load. Suddenly our test load of clean dishes no 

longer seemed a realistic test that approximated the 

way consumers really loaded their dishwashers unless 

all the plates in America were being pre-rinsed and 

scrubbed to perfection before being loaded or licked 

spotlessly clean by American family dogs like ours. 

Maybe DOE should do a study correlating 

pre-rinsing with dog owning families because I tell 

you our dishes are spotless when they go in, some of 

those. But we first tried to develop a test method 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that could still use clean dishes, devising a system 

that would weight and average the energy consumption 

results of the minimum and maximum cycles according to 

the proportion of households that did pre-rinse or did 

not pre-rinse the dishes before loading. 

We proposed that method for discussion in 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on September 

28th, 1999. However, at the November 2nd, 1999 public 

hearing, the proposed test method for soil sensing 

machines proved problematic in numerous ways and it 

was clear that additional research was necessary. 

We decided to go ahead and publish a final 

rule on December 18th, 2001 which tightened some 

testing specifications for all dishwashers, changed 

the definitions of compact and standard models and 

reduced the average number of use cycles per year but 

went back to the drawing board for a new test 

procedure for soil sensing models based on the growing 

conviction that a test using soiled dishes would 

provide the most accurate results. I should add that 

we also published a short correction notice on May 

1st, 2002, which fixed an equation and a couple of 

errors in the December 18th final rule. 

Today we submit the new test procedure for 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

your comments and discussion. We will have two 

preliminary presentations. First, Natashcha Castro 

will provide an overview of the technical aspects of 

the new test procedure. Second, John Bowman will 

summarize the research that he conducted on behalf of 

DOE in order to collect and evaluate available studies 

of consumer dishwasher loading behavior and frequency 

of use. We hope this will provide everyone with a 

more complete picture of how we devised the proposed 

test procedure and set the stage for stakeholder 

presentations, comments and general discussion later. 

We request that you ask only brief 

questions of clarification during Natashcha and John's 

presentations in order to maximize time for discussion 

of issues after the context of the rulemaking has been 

established. We encourage you to submit any 

additional comments or data to the Department by the 

closing deadline of November 18th, 2002. Please send 

your comments electronically to the address we have 

specifically created for this rulemaking, Dishwasher 

TP. 

The Department prefers Word Perfect 5.1, 

6.1 or 8, avoiding use of special characters or any 

form of inscription but Word or PF files are also 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

acceptable. Please reference the docket number that 

you see and if possible, provide an electronic 

signature. Without the required electronic signature, 

you must also submit a signed original paper document 

by mail. Tele-faxes are not accepted. Anyone 

submitting information that he or she believes to be 

confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure 

should so indicate. In accordance with the procedures 

established at 10 CFR Part 1004.11, the Department of 

Energy will make its own determination as to whether 

the information shall be exempt from public 

disclosure. Anyone attending today or submitting 

written comments will be added to our mailing list for 

future notices. 

In approximately two weeks, the complete 

copy of the transcript will be available in the 

Freedom of Information reading room, right down the 

hall from here, telephone 586-6020. Anyone wishing to 

purchase a copy of the transcript may make 

arrangements with the Court Reporter here today. 

Background materials supporting this rulemaking are 

also available at our website. 

Again, thank you very much for coming. We 

appreciate the time and effort you have taken in 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

preparing for this meeting and we're pleased to 

receive your comments today. Our purpose is to listen 

to your comments, to your views, an important step 

towards finalizing this rulemaking, we hope early next 

year. I'd like to return now to Dennis, who will give 

you a few more procedural details and then we'll 

introduce everybody around the room. So, thanks. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any questions or 

clarifications for Barbara? 

MR. WETHJE: Did you say you wanted to 

wait for questions during the presentations? 

MS. TWIGG: Yeah, not get into substantive 

questions, just clarification questions just to kind 

of get the background out there. 

MR. CLOUGH: Let me use that as a segue 

into just a quick agenda review before we move on 

today. Everyone has a copy of -- I'm just going to 

run through it very briefly. We're into the 

introductions and overview now. Natashcha will be 

doing the presentation on the test procedure changes. 

 That will be followed up by John Bowman, who will do 

the presentation on the survey review. 

We'll then go into a break. Let me 

emphasize again, in those two presentations, at the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

end of them, please keep your questions more focused 

on clarification of the information that's presented. 

 We will have time later on for more discussion about 

comments about agreement or disagreement with what 

they may have provided sort of from a substance point 

of view, but if you can keep it focused on that, it 

will allow us to move forward. 

There's also some dedicated time for 

stakeholder remarks. We have two groups that are 

prepared to provide some information to the group. If 

there are any others that would like a small amount of 

time, five minutes, to speak to the group about an 

overall set of comments that they have, that is the 

time for us to do that. 

We will then go into identifying some 

topics for broader discussion for the group. We'll 

have some time for lunch and then the rest of the day 

is just devoted for us to have discussions about some 

of the different areas that this group wants to put 

some more detailed comments and discussion. Are there 

any questions on what it is we're going to go through 

today? No? Great. 

A couple of logistical information, the 

rest rooms out the door and to the left at the end of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the hallway on the lefthand side. Food and coffee, 

two choices. The closest is on the -- known as the 

small cafeteria on the ground level, one level down in 

this same corridor here. This is the E-corridor, and 

then I believe at lunch there's also the cafeteria on 

the other side of the building. We can provide more 

detailed maps if needed to get over there. 

Some other pieces of information in terms 

of today; as you know, this is being recorded so I 

need to ask each of you when we get into discussions 

or whenever you speak, please introduce yourself 

before you make your comments. A little out of the 

ordinary for open discussion but it's very important 

so that Eric can actually track who is making the 

comments. I will let you know if we get away from 

that. I will be forced to interrupt you to ask you to 

do it in your comments, so if you could please be 

mindful of that, it will help us to move along 

smoothly. 

A couple other simple things, please speak 

one at a time. We'll try and make sure that everyone 

gets ample opportunity to speak. That's part of what 

my job is today. And again, the purpose is just to 

provide overall comments as we move forward. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

If there are no other questions, I think 

we'd just like to go around the room and have 

everybody introduce themselves and then I'll be 

turning it over to Natashcha. We'll start with you, 

Larry, your name and where you're from. 

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with the 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley with AHAM. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool 

Corporation. 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug, Whirlpool 

Corporation. 

MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards, BSH. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller, General 

Electric. 

MR. JOHNSON: Tom Johnson, Maytag. 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. 

MR. BROWN: Kevin Brown, Maytag. 

MR. PICARDAT: Jim Picardat, Viking Range. 

MR. POLINSKI: Steve Polinski, Miele. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Office of Energy. 

MS. DELVES: Katherine Delves, National 

Resources of Canada. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. HOFFMAN: Marc Hoffman, CEE. 

MR. DEPRIEST: Tom Depriest, DOE, General 

Counsel. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, DOE, General 

Counsel. 

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, DOE, 

Appliance Standards. 

MR. BOWMAN: John Bowman, TIAX. 

MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg, DOE. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro, National 

Achievement Standards and Technology. 

MS. BENNIGER: Marsha Benniger, DOE. 

MR. KARNEY: Rich Karney, DOE. 

MR. HARRY: Joe Harry, D&R International. 

MR. SIEGEL: James Siegel, D&R 

International. 

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 

Planning Council. 

MR. JAMES: Rick James, AHAM. 

MS. LEGRANT: Trish Legrant from DOE. 

MS. MURPHY: Maurine Murphy, Department of 

Energy. 

MR. RAYBURN: Jim Rayburn the Department 

of Energy. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: And on the phone, Mr. 

McGowan. 

MR. McGOWAN: Yes, Ray McGowen, D&R 

International. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. I think that's it 

One other final comment, for you in the back of the 

room, if you're going to make comments as we go 

through the discussion, please come to the microphones 

and introduce yourself. Any other questions or issues 

at this point? If not, I'd like to hand it over to 

Natashcha Castro from NIST who will speak about test 

procedure changes. 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. Today, I wanted to 

start off by just presenting the biggest changes to 

the test procedure. The major changes in this 

rulemaking include a new soil based test method to 

address soil sensing machines. We're also updating 

the annual dishwasher use based on new survey data 

that's available, presenting new terms on dish on the 

dishwasher test procedure and I'll go into those, then 

discuss a little bit about the voltage requirement 

modifications that were made and address new standby 

power both measurement and reporting requirements. 

Okay, on the first issue of soil sensing 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

dishwasher testing, we looked at other methods in the 

past but soil base testing had the potential to be the 

most realistic test method. It's already being used 

in international standards. I cite IUC 60436. It's 

also relevant to all current sensor technologies and 

could provide us a more robust method and but we also 

know that there are a lot of complexities to soil base 

testing. 

The first test procedure that we looked at 

 was the AHAM DW1-1992 along with the 1999 addendum. 

That was selected because it's representative of 

common U.S. soils and it's already in use. The test 

method that's presented in the NORP calls for running 

tests of the sensor heavy, sensor medium and sensor 

light cycles, specifically in that order. It requires 

the person that's running the test to measure energy 

consumption values at the end of each test and record 

the energy consumption for those three cycles. 

The equation that's highlighted here in 

blue it's showing how the energy factor is calculated 

 for soil sensing dishwashers. It's the inverse of 

the sum of those three tests multiplied by a weighting 

 factor, so it's .26 times the energy consumed in the 

sensor light cycle plus .33 times the energy consumed 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

in the sensor medium cycle, plus .04 times the energy 

in the sensor heavy cycle, and those frequency of use 

values were determined by TIAX and will be presented 

in the next presentation. 

This is a simplified equation but for all 

dishwashers that provide truncated or an air dry 

option, you would have to average those -- you'd make 

the same calculation and average that in with this 

value and that would reduce your energy factor showing 

that you're providing a benefit to the consumer by 

providing the air dry option. 

Okay, the next item is the average use 

cycles. The data that was used in the 2001 rulemaking 

was the best available but it had some gaps. We have 

new survey data that show us some more nationally 

representative values and the new findings were shown 

to support a lower average use value. The TIAX 

analysis shows the ranges more accurately, 200 to 233 

cycles per year. Previously it was dropped from 322 

to what is currently set up, 264. 

DOE is proposing a 215 cycle per year 

level as a representative average use value and this 

value would be used in calculating the estimated 

annual operating cost and is not going to impact the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

energy factor as proposed. 

The third item, I'd like to go over some 

of the proposed definitions. Some are new or most of 

them are new. For soil sensing dishwasher means a 

dishwasher that has the ability to adjust 

automatically any energy consuming aspect of the wash 

 cycle based on the soil of dishes. Conversely the 

non-sensing dishwasher means a dishwasher that does 

not have the ability to adjust automatically any of 

the energy consuming aspects of the wash cycle. 

The next one, stand-by mode, it's 

currently defined as the power consumption condition 

when the dishwasher is connected to the main 

electricity supply and the door lock is unlatched. 

This was developed in discussions with manufacturers 

and also other groups that are involved in addressing 

stand-by power. I will be presenting a few more 

slides during our discussion period to address some 

other -- other ideas that have come up. 

Okay, under the definitions, I thought 

this chart would present more easily the definitions 

for sensor heavy, sensor medium, sensor light cycle 

for standard and compact. The wording you can find in 

the NORP but this summarizes. In the green we have 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the -- that addresses all of the standard dishwasher 

definitions. We have four place settings soiled for 

sensor heavy cycle and for a clean place settings for 

a total of eight. 

For sensor medium, we have two soiled 

place settings and six clean place settings and for 

sensor light it's one place setting which is soiled 

with half the AHAM prescribed amount of soiled and 

seven clean place settings. And then in compact the 

sensor heavy is two soiled place settings and two 

clean place settings. The sensor medium have one 

soiled place setting and three clean place settings. 

And finally, for sensor light, you have one soiled 

place setting that uses only half the AHAM prescribed 

soil load and three clean place settings. And if you 

look on the third column, it shows the testing order 

where the sensor heavy is tested first, then the 

sensor medium and finally sensor light. And that was 

selected to capture -- we were made aware that some 

technologies may use previous wash information to 

program their next cycle, so we didn't want to have 

the sensor light tested and then the sensor heavy 

tested and have it react differently than the 

consumers might experience. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

So and finally, the sensor -- the 

truncated sensor light cycle, truncated sensor medium 

and truncated sensor heavy cycles are all the same 

except you're eliminated the heated dry portion of the 

cycle. 

The fourth item is a change to the voltage 

requirements that was proposed. Currently it's tested 

with 115 volts. I had seen in many installation 

instructions, it calls for 120 volts when it's 

installed and so the change was proposed to increase 

the voltage requirements from 115 volts, plus or minus 

two percent to 120 volts plus or minus two percent and 

 I have a bullet here that shows the potential impact 

of three to five percent increase. That was a comment 

that came in. I have not done that testing myself. 

And finally, standby power, that's an 

issue that we've been working on and it's new to this 

 test procedure we're presenting but the measurement 

requirements for instrumentation, the specific method 

and also a calculation procedure. For the measurement 

instrumentation, it requires a timer and a watt or 

watt hour meter. A brief description of the 

measurement method includes connecting the dishwasher 

to the watt or watt hour meter, insuring that you're 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

in standby mode, then stabilizing the operation for a 

minimum of five minutes, reading the energy 

consumption for another time period of at least five 

minutes and then recording the time and watt hours 

consumed. 

Then for the calculation of the annual 

standby power, it was proposed to calculate the 

average standby power in watts by dividing the 

measured energy consumption by the duration of the 

measurement. The calculation for standby hours per 

year is provided as the time that the dishwasher is 

not running its cycles, so that was taking the 215 

cycles away from the hours per year and you determine 

your annual standby power by multiplying the average 

standby power times the number of standby hours, 

divided by 1,000. 

And the impact that this change would make 

would be increasing the annual energy use that's 

reported. It would be included as well in the 

estimated annual operating cost but I point out that 

it's not included in the calculation of the energy 

factor so it's not believed to effect the minimum 

energy standard because of that. 

Are there any clarifying questions? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you, Natashcha. If 

there are no questions, I'd like to introduce John 

Bowman from TIAX, who will talk about the survey 

findings. 

MR. BOWMAN: Good morning. I'd like to 

present a brief overview of the survey review and 

findings. Here we're just going to cover some of the 

high points, the supporting data requirements, data 

sources, answering the question how soiled are dishes 

in U.S. households. Then taking from that tested 

which is reflected in Natashcha's presentation, then a 

few findings on frequency of use and then to wrap that 

all up in a summary of findings. 

First, the overall review provides a depth 

of data to support findings on households' pretreatment of dishes, distribution of households by 

level of soil left on the dishes, quantitative amounts 

of soil that can be applied to the dishware or is 

shown on the dishware and then the frequency of 

households' use of a dishwasher. 

Taking that data together suggests two key 

findings; one that a separate path in the test 

procedure for soil sensing dishwashers can be defined 

to measure energy consumption and can be done using a 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

weighted three point test method, using different 

amounts of soil dishware and then two, that the number 

of average use cycles per year can be reduced to 

approximately 215, somewhere in the range of 200 to 

233 cycles per year. 

What we did in this review was to set out 

to address a number of questions to support the 

revisions to the dishwasher test procedure; 

specifically, how soiled are the dishes in the 

dishwashers of U.S. households, quantities of soil, 

types of soil, how loaded are the dishwashers in U.S. 

households, the quantity of dishware, the type of 

dishware. And then how to reflect that soiling in a 

modified energy consumption test procedure and then 

how often do U.S. households use a dishwasher. 

We based this review and these findings on 

information drawn from a number of sources, first, 

existing industry and DOE test procedures as 

standards; two, a review and analysis of a number of 

surveys drawn from eight individual sources ranging 

from dishwasher and detergent manufacturers, energy 

and consumer interest groups, independent researchers 

and government agencies and then just overall 

discussions with key personnel in the industry, DOE, 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

NIST, consumers' groups and my company. 

A key requirement of this review is to me 

the confidentiality of the data from the industry 

sources and to that end, none of the industry sources 

are identified. Just provided here is some general 

information on those data sources, so some information 

to give an idea of the breadth of the information as 

far as scope, is it nationally represented over 

regional, does it cover, you know, the span of the 

United States or is it specific to a region of the 

United States, then some indication of the size of the 

survey by the number of households, then general 

qualifiers of breadth of information or quality of 

information. So breadth of information being wide, 

would reflect a survey that contains information on 

frequency of use, soiling, pre-treatment, types of 

dishware, a number of other consumer usage habits 

around dishwashers. 

And then the quality of information again 

reflects how that information was gathered, you know, 

the method of survey and the detail with which that 

information is captured. 

So first, how soiled are the dishes in the 

dishwasher of U.S. households? We tried to answer 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that question by one, understanding the quantity of 

soil, drawing data from pre-treatment methods, and the 

resultant soil levels left on the dishware, 

qualitative ranking of the soil level and some 

assessment of the quantitative amounts of soil 

associated with those qualitative rankings and then to 

identify some type of soil and that's largely drawn 

from just industry standards. 

First, on pre-treatment, I don't think 

this is any surprise. An number of surveys point to 

this consistently. A large majority of households, 

over 70 percent of households pre-treat their dishes 

with water before loading them into the dishwasher, so 

this implies that the dishes are fairly clean before 

they go into the wash cycle. This graph shows 

categorizing different methods from pre-rinse with 

water, pre-wash, including some scrubbing, to the 

extreme of doing nothing, putting the dish in fully 

loaded as it came from the table. You can see the 

distribution is quite high with pre-rinsing with 

water. 

Then to look at from that qualitative 

level of what is that soil left on the dishware that's 

going into the dishwasher? Two of the surveys, two of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the largest surveys, Surveys A and C, represent that 

distributed in three levels, light, medium and heavy 

amount of soil. And distribution is quite heavily 

weighted to the light level at 62 percent, medium at 

33 percent and heavy at 5 percent of U.S. households 

with dishwashers. 

So as we go forward, we'll see that those 

are the numbers reflected in Natashcha's presentation. 

 They're in the NORP as far as the weighting factors 

for the test procedure or calculation of the energy 

consumption. 

Now, what about types of soil? For the 

purposes of this review, we focused primarily on AHAM 

ANSI standard DW-1 to capture some type of soil. For 

those not familiar with DW-1, it's -- it's a worst 

case cleaning performance test that precisely defines 

the types of soils, the amounts of soils, how to apply 

them to the dishware and prepare the dishware for 

testing. So we relied quite heavily on that to 

represent the amount of soil in the dish-load and to 

rest on that as a method for soil and how to apply the 

soil in a reflective test method. 

Then what about the actual amounts, the 

quantitative amounts of soil? Here we rely heavily on 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Survey C. Survey C of the eight sources of data 

provides a tremendous amount of information on the 

level of soil and quite specifically and in great 

detail. And based on that Survey C would suggest that 

the amounts of soil representative of the heavy, 

medium and light levels of soil could be expressed in 

terms of the number of place settings soil per DW-1, 

AMDW-1 and that would be four place settings per AMDW1 for heavy, two for medium and half a place setting 

for light and as you'll notice there's a footnote in 

the presentation on that half and Natashcha mentioned 

it in her presentation. It's half the amount, but 

it's applied to one whole place setting. So half of 

what normally applied to one place setting just 

distributed across the place setting. 

A little bit about how loaded are the 

dishwashers in U.S. households. Not a lot of the 

information here is really drawn into the NORP or the 

findings but just for balance and to give some 

perspective on things. The quantity of dishware, the 

surveys support or show that the vast majority of the 

households run the dishwasher -- over 80 percent of 

them run the dishwasher full capacity. If you look at 

this in conjunction with the later frequency of use 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

data, it has an implication that probably about half 

the dishwasher load is sitting for maybe about a day 

before being run, so there's some drying and that may 

have implications further down the road for a test 

method. And that's one of the things that's being 

considered in the latest review of ANSI AHAM Standard 

DW-1, is that air drying aspect. 

On type of dishware, there is no surprise 

here, there's a wide variety of dishware being used in 

U.S. households. In fact one survey points to that, 

you know, almost half the households have a quarter of 

the dish-load in plastic dishware. In light of the 

purpose of this review and the subsequent findings, 

does that really impact anything? It may but it's 

certainly of secondary importance to the primary issue 

here of how loaded, how soiled are the dishware and 

how does that reflect on the test method. 

Okay, what is the suggested test method. 

Natashcha covered this, but here it's just showing a 

three point test method with various levels of soil to 

reflect the energy consumption of the soil sensing 

dishwashers. Here the chart just shows those loadings 

for a standard sized dishwasher. Natashcha showed 

them a more complete presentation for the standard as 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

well as the compact size dishwasher, but again, those 

soiled place settings per AHAM DW-1 are four place 

settings for the heavy, correspondingly four clean 

place settings for a total of eight place settings in 

the test load; medium, two soiled place settings, six 

clean, again, a total of eight and the here's a little 

thing that can trip you up, is the -- at the light 

level, it's one place setting but that one place 

setting is soiled with only half the amount of soil 

normally used in DW-1. 

The balance seven place settings are clean 

for a total of eight in that light test load. Taking 

the energy consumption from those three tests, and 

multiplying them by the qualitative distribution of 

62 percent in light, 33 percent in medium and five 

percent in heavy, would yield -- the inverse of that 

would yield the resultant energy factor for soil 

sensing dishwashers. 

Okay, frequency of use; how often do 

households use a dishwasher? All the surveys support 

a lot less. EIA's, 1997 RECS, several other surveys 

all point to significantly less use of a dishwasher 

per year. Here this chart shows EIA's `97 RECS data 

and I guess the most important thing you can look at 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

is the median for that data. The median is less than 

four times a week, so what that means, 50 percent of 

the households are using the dishwasher less than 208 

cycles per year. So, that's a significant -- that 

kind of sets a benchmark of a significant drop from 

the current 264 that was put forth in the interim 

rulemaking last winter. 

What about some of the other surveys? 

There was a total of five nationally represented 

surveys, including the RECS data. They show a wide 

range of possible average frequency of use data. And 

one of the challenges in looking at this average use 

data is the relatively broad or unbounded definitions 

given to various categories and surveys for -- for 

example, EIA's less than four times a week. What does 

that mean, is it two, is it three? Is it four? Here 

we try to give some uniform analysis to the five 

surveys and we looked at a low set of category values. 

So we went through all the surveys, the 

category values and assigned a low value for the 

range, similarly, quote, unquote, "an average value" 

for the range and a high value for the range and 

calculated the averages. And you can see that 

distribution, that chart ranging from a low, I believe 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

of 153 cycles per year to a high of 282 cycles per 

year. You can try to look at this data in a lot of 

different ways, but again, it comes back to sort of a 

median, somewhere around the low two hundreds. We set 

out a range of 200 to 233. That 200 came about by 

looking at a weighted average of this data that 

pointed to 200 cycles, average use cycles per year. 

And then maintaining the high category 

value average of 233, to set out a range for that. 

The 215 simply splits that range of 200 to 233 average 

use cycles per year. 

In summary, the findings, again, just 

creating a separate path in the test method for soil 

sensing dishwashers and adopting a weighted threepoint test method using various levels of soil and 

then reducing the average use cycles per year for 

dishwashers to 215 cycles per year to more closely 

reflect the average use characteristics. I should 

point out that 215 applies to standard dishwashers as 

well as soil sensing dishwashers, so it's an across 

the board change. 

Are there any clarification questions? 

MS. CAIRNS: I'm Carolyn Cairns from 

Consumers Union. I'm sorry I missed all your 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

presentation but one of the questions I had with the -

- about the survey data that we used to come up with 

the percentage of households that pre-rinse or pretreat or don't, I was wondering how many of the 

surveys distinguished between household to soil 

sensing dishwashers and those without because I do 

feel that once survey that I do have a copy of did 

find a pretty large distinction in treatment between 

soil sensing dishwasher and households -- 

MR. BOWMAN: Yeah, I believe only one 

made some reference but there wasn't a clear 

distinction between those with soil sensing, newer 

dishwashers versus old. There was one that isn't -- 

well, actually, it is reflected in this. It's a 

survey that looks specifically at soil sensing 

dishwashers. So it's a subset of the overall. 

MS. CAIRNS: Is that Survey C that was 

used or -- 

MR. BOWMAN: No, that survey was one of 

the smaller regional ones that looked specifically at 

soil sensing -- 

MS. CAIRNS: Yeah. 

Mr. BOWMAN: -- dishwashers. 

MS. CAIRNS: Yes, households with soil 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

sensing dishwashers don't pre-treat twice as often or 

twice as many households with soil sensing dishwashers 

leave the dirt on twice as often as -- twice as many 

of those households don't pretreat as households with 

non-sensor machines. 

MR. BOWMAN: Okay, I'm not familiar with 

that one. 

MS. CAIRNS: I was just reading it this 

morning, 25 percent. 

MR. BOWMAN: I'm not familiar with that 

one. The one I'm thinking of is the smaller regional 

one that was specifically focused on higher energy -- 

energy star machines, so mostly soil sensing machines 

were considered in that one particular survey. Any 

other clarification questions? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Energy Office. Am I correct that all of the data that 

led to an estimate of cycles per year is survey data, 

not -- you don't have any end use metering data. 

MR. BOWMAN: Correct. Well, without 

divulging some of the methods of the surveys, there is 

metered data in there. There is metered data. One of 

the surveys contains -- no, that's a survey. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay, I was just going to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

say, the American Waterworks Association does they own 

or did their own end use water consumption survey 

nationally and I believe they translated all of their 

water using appliance data to cycles per year to 

estimate what was being used by clothes washers, 

dishwashers, showers. They got so good at it that I 

think they can identify it by dishwasher model and 

clothes washer model by the water use patterns but I 

think they did get end use metering data that might be 

useful to see if it comes close to one of your others 

since there is kind of a range there that I see 

amongst the surveys. I'm just wondering if you've 

managed to get some end use data that matched one of 

those more closely than the others, maybe it would 

give you a clue of which of the survey data might more 

accurately represent honest to goodness end use rather 

than consumer estimates of how many times a week they 

use their dishwasher. 

MR. BOWMAN: That would be helpful but 

some of the surveys -- on in particular does go that 

measure to get a metered value as opposed to a survey 

-- simply a survey response. 

MR. STEPHENS: Can you tell us which one 

it is? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. BOWMAN: I'm afraid I can't point out 

one right now. That would probably tip the hand a 

little bit too much of who sent the data. 

MR. STEPHENS: Well, what I'll do then is 

I'll get the Water Works Association's data and we'll 

just match it up with what you've got there and we'll 

sort of figure out which one of them works the best 

based on end use metering data. 

MR. BOWMAN: Okay. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: Glen Schleede, citizen, 

consumer and taxpayer. I've got three quick questions 

that I think are clarifying, if not, let me know when 

to ask them. First, when you evaluated the quality of 

the information, I'm particularly interested in the 

frequency of use data, what criteria did you use for 

evaluating quality? I didn't see anything in the 

scope of work for the contractor or anything that 

spelled that out. So how did you evaluate quality and 

representativeness of the reliability and so on of the 

data? 

MR. BOWMAN: At the very top level, just 

simply how consistent it is with survey data as far as 

distribution across say the U.S. particularly, you 

know, with the frequency use data refers to the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

surveys described as nationally representative. So 

looking at how closely or not closely they distribute 

to national census data, U.S. census data, are they 

more bias to one section of the country or one 

demographic group, say household age or household size 

and generally -- I mean, obviously, there are some 

variations but generally, they're all fairly 

consistent or hold fairly true to that census data. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: You did get into evaluating 

representativeness? 

MR. BOWMAN: Just at the top level. It's 

not included in any of the reports. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: Okay. The second question, 

on one of your slides here where you calculate the 

averages for each survey and then you average the 

averages, it's been awhile since I took statistics but 

it seems to me that was one of the things that in the 

first couple of days of classes, said never average 

averages. Has that rule changed some time since I 

went to grad school? 

MR. BOWMAN: No, I don't think so. I 

think the leading thing is to look at the EAA `97 RECS 

data and as I was referring to, that really sets a -- 

if you consider that to set a benchmark, look at the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

median, that's one thing you can take for certain out 

of that is the median, it's less than 208 cycles per 

year. Then if you look at all the other surveys that 

provide information on the frequency of use, you can 

look at the range of averages. There's quite a wide 

range as the chart on page 30 shows, ranging from 153 

cycles per year to 282 cycles per year. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: But here again, you're 

averaging averages and I thought that was -- 

MR. BOWMAN: No, that distribution are the 

 averages for the particular survey. It's just taking 

-- assigning a value for the categories in each 

survey. Many of the surveys, with the exception of 

Survey H, which you'll see in the distribution from 

low, average and high, have fairly broad or unbounded 

definitions for the category values. 

For example, EIA says less than four times 

per week. Well, what exactly is less than four times 

per week for the purpose of calculating an average? 

What we did for just consistent analysis was to apply 

value to such categories. Some were easy to do. 

Surveys that used categories such as four to six times 

per week taking a low value for that category of four 

would be the low, an average would be five and the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

high would be six, and then just calculating an 

average for that survey using the low value, average 

values and high values and you can see that for 

Surveys A, B, G and H, Survey A ranges from 162 to 201 

depending on how you calculate the average. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: I understand. That's not my 

question. The bottom line says average of averages, 

right? Is that in fact, taking averages from above 

and dividing it by five? 

MR. BOWMAN: It's just simply to throw out 

a number. It's really not a truly rigorous number as 

you're defining. But again, if you look at that data, 

the median of those averages is somewhere in the 200 

range, low 200 range. I don't have that median off 

the top of my head. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: Let me go onto the third 

question then. You came up with a range of 200 to 233 

and you said that 200 was based on the average number 

 and the 233 was on the high. Why did you not use low 

and high to get to that range rather than average and 

high to get to the range? 

MR. BOWMAN: Why? Some of the judgment 

call, just sticking with somewhere near the median. 

It was using the median from EIA, 97 RECS as sort of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the benchmark of where to stick a frequency of use 

number. So the median about 208 and I just rounded it 

down a little bit and called it 200. I mean, this is 

a -- 

MR. SCHLEEDE: But again, you're going 

from an average to a high rather than a low to a high 

to establish a range, and I'm not -- I don't 

understand how you can do that if you're trying to get 

to a range, why do you start with the mid-point to the 

high of the range rather than the low to the high, 

just that simple question? How can you justify that? 

MR. BOWMAN: I don't think I can justify 

it to your satisfaction. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: I don't think you can 

justify it. Thank you. 

MR. BOWMAN: Any other questions? 

MR. CLOUGH: Thanks, John. Taking a look 

at the agenda and because we're moving at such break 

neck speed this morning, I'm going to move right into 

the stakeholder remarks and then we'll still, 

depending on how that is going, look to take a break 

in the 10:30 time frame. I know of two groups that 

are prepared. Just for a little clarification, this 

is some time that has been set aside today for any 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

people who have any sort of remarks that they'd like 

to make to the group as a whole. 

I believe that AHAM and Whirlpool are 

prepared to make some and I believe the gentleman from 

EEE is also. Is there anyone else who would like five 

minutes that has some information to share with the 

group that they would like to do at this time, keeping 

in mind that we're still going to have plenty of time 

today for open discussion on many of these areas today 

but just this is some time that we've dedicated for 

this. So if there's anyone else who would like to do 

that, it would be helpful for me to know now so that I 

can manage the time. 

PARTICIPANT: General Electric. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay, anyone else? 

MR. WETHJE: This is Larry Wethje from 

AHAM. Our comments are organized such that I'll be 

kind of leading the summary of them with input from 

several of the manufacturers as I go through them. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. WETHJE: I don't think Whirlpool has 

separate ones per se. GE was the other one that had 

their own separate. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay, so then I have that and 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

then the -- so if there aren't anything else, Larry, 

let's start with you and we'll move through it here. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay, thanks. Larry Wethje 

with AHAM. Sorry we didn't get our written comments 

to you earlier but we do have copies of the written 

ones. Does anybody need a copy? We've put them around 

at each seat. Some of the folks in the back might 

need them. 

I guess I'd just like to start out -- I'm 

not going to read through these. We're going to kind 

of go through and hit the highlights and you can 

follow along as we do so. And as I said, I'm going to 

kind of head the discussion and several of our member 

companies, manufacturers will be providing -- 

elaborating on certain areas. 

Overall, I'd just like to say that we 

thing DOE has done a very good job in the NORP. We 

are in general agreement with it overall. We're 

pleased with the use of the consumer data and the 

usage habits that are in the NORP. We think they 

align well with actual consumer practices but we do 

have a couple of concerns that we'll highlight with 

some of the specific elements in the NORP and as I go 

through these, I think as far as we're concerned feel 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

free to ask comments at any point. I don't want to 

make this too formal. 

Our comments are arranged in such a 

fashion is if you look in the NORP on page 56241, 

there was a Section D that said "Issues on which 

comments are requested". And so what we've done is 

basically gone right through all of those nine 

requests for comments and then there was three other 

areas at the end of that and that's how we've arranged 

our responses here. 

So you see number 1 there the frequency 

with which dishwasher loads are pre-rinsed that was a 

specific request. So we've got two sections to our 

comments, the Section A, which addresses each of those 

specific categories requested for comment in the NORP 

and then a Section B at the end of our comments that 

basically is some other areas that we wanted to bring 

up. 

We'll start with Section A here obviously, 

and we'll go right through these. As far as the 

frequency with which dishwasher loads are pre-rinsed, 

we agree with data extracted from the ADL report and 

incorporated in the test procedure. We think it's 

appropriate and we're satisfied with that. With 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

respect to the amount and type of soil representing 

the dishwasher loads, again, we would agree. We think 

the test procedure is aligning -- was key in aligning 

the test procedure with actually consumer practice. 

We think it aligns very closely with consumer 

practice. 

Improving the repeatability of soil tests 

and minimizing test burden, we appreciate the 

reference to AHAM Standard DW-1, 1992. We think it 

provides the best -- probably the best available basis 

for consistent accurate repeatable method of soiling 

dishes and so again, we would be in agreement with 

that. 

On our next page 3 here at the top, Item 

4 there was a request for information on the average 

number of dishwasher cycles consumers run each year. 

We support the DOE proposal to revise the average 

annual use of dishwasher cycles to a number that's 

representative of actual consumer use. The range 

that's specified there, 200 to 233, seems that best 

that one, you know, can deduce from the survey data 

that was presented. So, you know, rather than get 

hung up on average of averages or whatnot, if you look 

at the overall results of the survey data, the range 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

of 200 to 233 seems appropriate. We would suggest, 

perhaps, though, a slight modification and Steve 

maybe you just want to mention what your thoughts were 

on -- 

MR. PETERSON: Sure, Steve Peterson, 

Whirlpool, and we just with John's data and I think 

one of the indications here from the chart that John 

Bowman had on the screen just a few minutes ago was 

there is wide range of information but it's all 

hitting between that 200 range, plus or minus to maybe 

slightly above. One of the key things though, is the 

only way that the actual cycles is communicated to the 

end consumer is through the energy label. That's the 

only thing they're privileged to see in the purchase 

process and the format of the energy label presented 

in a digital format of cycles per week. And so you 

have somewhat limited picks and be able to clearly 

communicate that. Well, I think we're quite fortunate 

 here as John mentioned. The RECS data, the median 

was right around 208 and 208 does translate exactly to 

be four times per week energy value, which if we use 

208, then the energy guide label presented to the end 

consumers would be a pure representation of what's 

behind the numbers. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

And the consumer typically doesn't get to 

see what's behind the numbers but in this case, by 

selecting 208 what we test and what we report would be 

precisely what the consumer would see when they buy 

during the purchasing process. So we would recommend 

 a 208 as opposed to a 215, just because it would then 

provide perfect alignment with the end consumer. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay, next in our comments, 

number 5, there was a request for information on 

whether any soil sensing dishwashers would be 

adversely effected by the new test procedure and any 

information identifying minimally compliant soil 

sensing models. We don't think there are any -- to 

our knowledge, anyway, any problems with dishwashers 

being able to achieve compliance, particular the soil 

sensing type under this procedure, but we are quite 

concerned about the test voltage that minimally 

complying units right now that are tested and rated at 

115 volts, I believe there are several models in the 

marketplace that would not comply with the minimum 

efficiency standard if that test voltage is increased 

120 volts. And we're going to elaborate a little bit 

more on that later. 

Number 6, the method used to include 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

stand-by power and the annual energy use calculations, 

we support the proposal to include stand-by power in 

the estimated annual operating cost and annual energy 

usage. However, we don't feel like this is the best 

approach that could be utilized. We would prefer to 

see it incorporated into the overall energy 

descriptor, the energy factor, but we understand for 

expediency, that this is probably the best approach 

right now, to avoid having to go to a full standards 

rulemaking by adjusting the energy factor which would 

have to be adjusted if you fold the stand-by power 

into it. And so this is a good approach right now, 

it's acceptable but we would recommend that in the 

future when the standard is revised, that standby 

power be incorporated into the energy factor. 

Number 7, suggestions concerning the 

appropriate time frame and way the Department can 

minimize the burden of manufacturers when it requests 

report up to Section 326. We're not sure -- we're not 

sure what you had in mind here but we would not -- we 

would not be in favor of any new reporting 

requirements. Wayne Klug, I think, from Whirlpool had 

a couple of comments to make on this. 

MR. KLUG: I think that the concern is, is 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that presently today there is a fair amount involved 

with the energy testing process and as we look at the 

existing requirements, we feel that the existing 

approaches are satisfactory and that we see the 

existing penalties as prohibitive of any violation of 

the testing numbers that are reported and so at this 

point, we do not support any additional reporting 

requirements over and above what is offered today. 

We feel the existing requirements are sufficient. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay, moving on then, Number 

8, comments on whether the tolerance for the voltage 

specifications are attainable without undue burden or 

whether they should be modified. As I alluded to 

earlier, we do want to comment on this section quite 

strongly. Conceptually, we might agree, you know, 120 

volts might be more appropriate test voltage, but 

logistically and the problems that it would incur are 

just not worth the hassle of changing that right now 

without going through a whole standards adjustment 

because changing the voltage from 115 to 120 will 

increase the power consumption of products three to 

five percent and for the marginally complying units, 

that's going to be a problem, that they will no longer 

comply with the standard. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

So we would like to just strongly 

recommend that you retain the existing voltage at 115. 

 There are several products, several appliances 

covered under NACA that are currently in the test 

procedures, the DOE test procedures required to be 

tested at 115 volts. It's kind of a mixed bag right 

now. You have some that are specified at 115 and some 

that are at 120. So, you know, if you want to move 

everything to 120, the appropriate time to do that 

would be when you're going through a standards change, 

but not a test procedure change because it does effect 

the energy consumption. And perhaps some of the other 

manufacturers might want to just comment on that as 

far as the effect it would have some of their models. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller, General 

Electric, yeah, we have a significant number of models 

that would be non-compliant if they were tested at 

120. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley with AHAM. 

 The one thing that I would like to add is that the 

intent of this procedure change was to deal with the 

issue of soil sensing dishwashers. The changing of 

the test procedure from 115 to 120 volt actually does 

not impact soil sensing dishwashers but rather impacts 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

non-soil sensing dishwashers which is sort of one of 

those laws on unintended consequences. This is 

actually dealing with something that was not 

originally the intent of what this rulemaking was to 

deal with. 

For simplicity purposes, we would suggest 

you would just go back to the -- 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 Just to add on to Gene's comments and Greg's, 

conceptually, again, we at whirlpool would be 

comfortable with 120 volt as probably more -- maybe 

more realistic measure if you looked at average 

voltages in the U.S. but the problem really comes down 

to really Gene hit the nail on the head here with, is 

the shift from a baseline that's been established at 

115. 

In reality, many, many dishwashers, at 

least Whirlpool dishwashers, and I think probably of 

the industry, would not see a substantial change in 

energy consumption with this change. However, certain 

dishwashers and it's going to tend to be more of the 

non-sensor type, because of the particular what that 

the electrical heating loads are defined, by the 

cycle, will see this significant increase and 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

therefore, will or could fall outside the mandated 

minimums. 

So while there's products where this 

wouldn't have substantial impact, there are others 

where it would and it would put us into a whole new 

situation of potential non-compliance and again, as 

Gene says, I don't think that was the intent of this 

particular NORP. We're really trying to concentrate 

on the soil sensing aspect. 

I would also second Gene's comments that 

in a new rulemaking, it might be appropriate to make a 

change in that time when a new baseline is being 

established. 

MR. CLOUGH: Larry, do you have anything 

else? 

MR. WETHJE: Number 9 in our comments on 

page 4, possible alternatives to the definition of 

standby mode; we have written out here on page 4 and 

then continuing up until page 5, some suggestions that 

we'd like you to consider with respect to standby 

power and standby mode. We understand that the 

definition that was put into the NORP may have been 

somewhat influenced by industry suggestions with 

respect to finding that when the door is unlatched and 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that's probably the case with most machines but we 

have subsequently found out that there are machines in 

the market that would not put them into the standby 

mode simply by unlatching the door. 

In fact, there's some machines that have 

drawers instead of a latch. There's some machines 

that aren't in the standby mode when they're 

unlatched, and so we would like to recommend that you 

go with the definition that's in the proposed 

international standard for standby power that we've 

put here in italics that, "Standby power is the power 

consumption measured in watts when the appliance is in 

the lowest power consumption mode which cannot be 

switched off or influenced by the user and that may 

persist for an indefinite time when the appliance is 

connected to the main electricity supply and used in 

accordance with the manufacturer's instructions". 

In essence, it basically says it's the 

lowest power consuming mode that you can put the 

machine in while it's still connected to the main 

supply. This is a definition that's received extreme 

scrutiny by people all around the world. I 

participate in this international standards 

development. I'm on the working committee for this 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

IEC draft standard. I represent the U.S. technical 

advisory group that has submitted comments to this 

international body and every time we get together to 

discuss the definition for standby power it ends up, 

you know, with lots and lots of controversy but we 

have spent a lot of time on this particular definition 

and I think there is international consensus on it. 

It's still in the draft stage, it possibly 

could be changed as it's out for comments by 

international bodies but I believe there is pretty 

strong agreement on this definition internationally. 

So that's what we would recommend that you consider. 

With respect to the next page there of how 

to measure standby power, I believe the NORP right now 

suggests that you have to measure watt hours and 

measure energy over a certain time period and then 

divide the time into the watt hours and come up with 

your watts. We would really like to see a simplified 

means of doing that where you can simply measure 

directly watts. After you are assured that the unit 

is in a stabilized mode, simply, just immediately 

without overtime, measuring watts directly instead of 

watt hours. And so in the italics there we've 

suggested a test procedure method there that you could 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

consider and utilize. 

And I think this is an area where we're 

going to spend more time on later today if I'm not 

mistaken, so rather than belabor it now, I'll just put 

that out there for your consideration and we can get 

into it later. 

So that addresses the nine topics that DOE 

has specifically requested comments on and then after 

that in the NORP there was three other areas that they 

also requested some input on that is the next stage of 

our comments here; number one, assessing the energy 

impact of pre-rinsing dishes and the energy saving 

opportunities of greater utilization of dishwashers 

without pre-rinsing dishes. 

We think that DOE is headed in the right 

direction here. We also would like to see just 

continued promotion of the use of dishwashers and 

educating the public on the benefits of not prerinsing. There seems to be too much pre-rinsing going 

on unnecessarily and we would support any kind of 

promotion campaign or public campaign to emphasize 

that it's not necessary. Steve, did you want to add 

any comments on this? 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 Just in the discussion there, there was one study, 

albeit a small study, done by Ohio State University 

back in 1988 and the structure of the study was very 

good because it kind of simulated a realistic 

environment where participants came in and were 

presented with dishes and a sink and a dishwasher and 

so forth and they went through quote "their normal" 

practice of loading the dishwasher. And in this study 

 then, they actually had the -- everything was 

instrumented where they had the water metered and so 

forth and could actually measure the amount of water 

utilized. 

And there's two big bottom line findings. 

 One is that the first thing we need to do is get 

everybody in America to own a dishwasher because it is 

far, far more energy efficient to use the dishwasher 

than hand wash. We didn't quote the values in there 

for hand wash but my recollection says it was in the 

20 plus gallon water range, where most of the 

manufacturers represented here today dishwashers are 

in the six to eight, nine gallon range, so a major 

league savings but as important is those that own 

dishwashers, this study found an average of fourteen 

and a half gallons of water used in pre-rinsing and 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

again, the dishwasher is only using six to eight 

gallons typically. So, there's a huge opportunity. 

Again, we could save far more energy by getting 

everybody to buy a dishwasher and quit pre-rinsing 

than if we cut the energy use in half on all the 

dishwashers. So we would really support the 

Department's efforts on public awareness of dishwasher 

savings and elimination of pre-rinsing. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay, the second other area 

there was dealing with supporting industry efforts to 

update and maintain AHAM standard DW-1. We appreciate 

the reference to our dishwasher standard. We think 

it's appropriate and probably provides the best means 

of allowing repeatable means for soiling. 

One of the elements that was questioned 

was just about, you know, how will it be maintained, 

et cetera. We maintain all of our standards on a 

permanent basis, so even if we revise DW-1 1992, to a 

new version of 2003 or whatever, the 1992 version will 

remain available and on the books as far as AHAM is 

concerned and always be available. We do have 

continual efforts to update and revise all of our 

standards on a periodic basis, so you probably will 

see revisions to the `92 version, and you can consider 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

later adoption of whatever revisions are incorporated 

into revised test procedure if you want to at that 

time or you can just continue to reference 1992. 

Now, one of the areas of concern is the 

availability of dishes that are prescribed in the `92 

version along with Amendment A. And I was going to 

ask Deb Bengston from Maytag if she could comment on 

the dishware that's prescribed. 

MS. BENGSTON: Currently -- 

MR. CLOUGH: Could you identify yourself, 

please? 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. 

Currently in the addendum, it is written that the 

Azberg dishware in the bread and butter plate, the 

saucer, the cup and -- is being used along with 

Corning dinner plate, serving bowls and platters. 

Currently we have found that the availability of this 

product is they are no longer making them. So we have 

put together an appendix to show what we are going to 

 recommend to you to use and that they are readily 

available and that all of the dishware is Concor 

Corningware. 

Larry had mentioned or had brought dishes 

for you to view. Most of the dishware is 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

approximately the same size as what is recommended in 

the AHAM DW-1 addendum. 

MR. WETHJE: In this handout is the 

dishware that we recommend. Rick James, from AHAM 

might just want to pass that around for people to see 

at the table here that might be a good idea, but the 

very last page of our comments here, what we would 

suggest is rather than just referring to DW-1 1992 for 

the dishware, we would suggest that you actually 

incorporate this table into the Federal Register. 

We think you would be a lot better off 

because we are already having trouble finding some of 

the dishware that's in our 1992 standard and Amendment 

A. So what we've indicated here in this table is the 

dishware that will be in our next standard as we 

revise it. This is what is readily available now and 

would provide a better reference for everybody to 

obtain and standardize on the dishware that's 

available. 

So rather than referring to our 1992 and 

Amendment A, we think you'd be a lot safer by actually 

publishing this specific table in the Federal Register 

to alleviate some of the concerns about availability. 

 And we'll be happy to answer any questions along 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

those lines. 

MS. CASTRO: I have a question, Natashcha 

Castro, NIST. Have you also considered putting 

descriptions of the plate size, because I looked into 

Corning dishware and often the numbers will change, 

the primary number. The part numbers change. I don't 

know if it's strictly for Concor. 

MR. WETHJE: Bev, can you respond to that? 

 I don't know to be honest with you. 

MS. BENGSTON: As far as the change of the 

numbers, they provide the manufacturers with a price 

sheet along with the sizes on the sheet. Andrea 

Kirkwood is our contact. She can provide you with 

those numbers. Up to my knowledge, we have not had 

any change to those since the `92 addendum. 

MS. CASTRO: In looking for some of the 

plates that were listed in the `92 addendum, I 

contacted some distributors that said, "Well, we don't 

have that number but we have this number and it's the 

same, it just replaces the other one", and I didn't 

feel comfortable to purchase them without knowing 

that, in fact, it is a valid substitute and I know in 

the EIC document they have a little schematic diagram 

that shows the plate size, the dimensions. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. WETHJE: So what is it you're asking 

for, just dimensions to go on? 

MS. CASTRO: I think a description might 

be useful rather than -- sometimes the primary number 

can be referenced but without some sort of a check to 

say we're looking at a 12-inch plate -- 

MR. WETHJE: Okay, we can do that, can't 

we? 

MS. BENGSTON: Natashcha, may I ask you a 

question. Are you calling World Kitchens, who is now 

 Concor Corning? 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. I actually was 

transferred a few times to local distributors from 

World Kitchen to local distributors and they're the 

ones that told me we have a different number. 

MS. BENGSTON: That may be the difference 

as how they reference the number. We contact and 

directly deal with World Com -- not World Com, World 

Kitchen, then, you know, we don't have the problem of 

the change of number. And that's what you could be 

running into. 

MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards from BSH. 

We've seen the same thing. It seems as though the 

quantity that the stores buy and the size of the box 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

and the number of dishes get different part numbers. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto, DOE. 

The first question is, what impact, if any, does this 

alternative dishware have on the actual test 

procedure? 

MR. WETHJE: To our knowledge, it 

shouldn't have any impact on the energy test. 

MS. PINTO: Have you done tests or, you 

know? 

MR. WETHJE: I'm not sure if any of the 

manufacturers have. They might -- they're using the 

Corning Concor. 

MR. FOLEY: Since the product isn't 

available, they would have to use the -- all the test 

that they've been doing have been done with the 

alternative plates. 

MS. PINTO: And so the test results have 

been equal to what was being used before, to the 

Corning? 

MR. WETHJE: There was no before. 

PARTICIPANT: No, the Azberg was before. 

MR. WETHJE: Yeah, but there was no energy 

testing. 

PARTICIPANT: Yeah, right. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 I don't know that -- in fact, I don't think we've 

done actual energy test comparisons but the 

theoretical statement here is the dishware itself 

really provides a thermal mass that, you know, helps -

- that acts to pull down the temperature and as long 

as the -- and Natashcha makes a good point, as long as 

the relative size of the dishware is fairly similar, 

the -- any difference in energy should be fairly 

negligible, very small. 

MS. PINTO: We just want to make sure we 

don't get into a test cloth . 

PARTICIPANT: Yeah, so do we, believe me. 

 Fortunately dishwashers are a little simpler than 

washers in this respect. 

MR. WETHJE: Francine, that cup that you 

see down there versus this cup up here, those are the 

two alternate -- you know, the two different ones and 

you can see, they're as close as we could find, you 

know, the replacement for the Azberg. It's as close 

as we could get and so there's every intention to 

maintain as much, you know, uniformity as we can going 

forward with just what's available, that's all we can 

do is use what's available for dishware. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. BENGSTON: Just if I may, this size is 

exactly what Azberg dishes as far as that's an eightounce cup, this is an eight-ounce cup. The bowl is a 

13-centimeter bowl, 10 ounce. The saucers may be a 

fraction different just because of the shape and the 

same with the bread and butter plate. And everything 

that we used is what we used previously in the -- 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug, Whirlpool. Really, 

the issue is an issue of thermal mass and the items 

that are being replaced are the Azberg items, the four 

items in the right-hand column and as we looked at the 

selection of items to replace those Azberg dishware 

items, we were looking at comparable thermal mass and 

if you look at the size of the cup, actually we're 

probably increasing the thermal mass every so 

slightly, although we consider that negligible. So 

it's really a question of coming up with something 

that's similar in size. 

Probably the one item, as we look at 

dimension of plates and whatnot, is we probably want 

to look at a little bit of thickness as well as 

diameter in case there's some dish out there that's 

either extremely thin or extremely thick. We want to 

have a consistent pattern that we use. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. PINTO: So what about the other plates 

that don't have an alternative source listed? Is that 

possible that we'll need that? 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 The only -- what really drives the alternate source 

is really the old dishware. In other words, the 

intent here is those manufacturers which most of us 

today have adequate supply of the Azberg and that's 

what we're using today, but as we start to replace 

that, that Azberg will not be available so the primary 

source would become the Corning. So it wasn't so much 

that it's here's a primary and here's an alternate. 

It was more like it's sort of a grandfather of here's 

the existing dishware that will be replaced and we've 

listed now the new dishware as the primary since going 

forward that will become the primary. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay, Charles? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens, Oregon 

Energy Office. I admit this is a little bit antidotal 

because it's out of my own kitchen, but the old issue 

was thermal mass, but these days we're going to be 

pasting food on half of these place settings 

potentially and I think a new issue may be the rate at 

which it comes off. And I can tell you from my own 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

kitchen, that that can depend a lot on the surface 

finish of the dishes to the point where I've got a 

couple of them that I can't wash in the dishwasher 

because it never comes off, but and most -- you know, 

it does matter from what I can see in my dishwasher 

that, you know, certain dishes clean a whole lot more 

easily than other dishes and I think staying 

consistent with some set of dishes is -- the surface 

finish at some point is going to become just as 

important as the thermal mass or you will have a test 

cloth issue at some point with the food. So I think 

some attention does need to be paid to this, now. 

MS. BENGSTON: It sounds like the weed 

issue. 

MR. STEPHENS: As long as we're 

consistent, yeah, and is really a replacement or is it 

really an alternative or an alternate. I don't know. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 Charlie, great comment and that's why we had some 

discussion as an industry to Natashcha's point, should 

we just define this by dimensions and that's the 

reason we did not recommend simply a dimensional 

definition dishware because of your point and it's a 

very valid point. The ware listed here, the Azberg 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

and the Corning, we find to be similar removal rate 

and the primary carrier of the soil in the proposed 

test procedure is the dinner plate and there's only 

one option shown for the dinner plate and that's the 

main item. So you're right on. That's why we shied 

away from a simple description of, you know, 10 inches 

by X inches thick and so forth. 

And I think so we can't get completely 

loose and fancy free here with the dishware and I 

think we do have to have some definition. 

MS. CASTRO: Can I ask, are those findings 

available, the comparison of thermal mass and the soil 

removal rate? 

MR. PETERSON: It would be strictly 

empirical and I don't know if we have specific data 

and we could generate some if need by but I guess what 

I would say is the kind of as this new test procedure 

becomes effective, the industry is going to have to 

requalify all of our models, so I guess at least for 

Whirlpool, I'll speak for Whirlpool just for Whirlpool 

now, we're certainly willing to take any risk of 

change here and as this new -- because we're very, 

very confident this is not going to have an impact. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any more comments at this 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

point on plates, bowls and cups? 

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, DOE. 

Let's go back to the issue that we're tying with 

Natashcha as far as the part number and going at, you 

know, does there need to be more description, that it 

be a white finish, a certain size, just as a parameter 

in case somebody says, "Oh, this part number is no 

longer available", or it sounds like the could be 

possibly some confusion. When you look at the plate, 

I don't see a part number on the plate itself or the 

bowls. So if somebody went and purchased something 

that looked the same, am I good to the finish, does it 

have a design on it? I don't think that's clearly on 

there. And somebody would say, "Oh, this is the same 

size", but what if it has some sort of other design 

finish, painting? 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

 I'd be more than happy to take that table that we 

have submitted and put another column into it with a 

description of each of the products on there. We'll 

just get it from the Corning catalogue. 

MR. BERRINGER: That would be great. 

MR. FOLEY: Yeah, we'll do that. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any more comments on this? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

It's 10:33. Let's take a break. Greg, we'll start 

with you after the break. Oh, you're not quite done? 

 Okay, I'm sorry, I thought Larry had been finished. 

MR. WETHJE: We've got a couple more. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Well, then we're going 

to let Larry finish up. We'll take a break now, 

finish up with you. And we're actually well ahead of 

schedule for stakeholder remarks. We're not supposed 

to start till after the break so we're doing great on 

time. Let's take a break. How about everybody back 

here at 10 minutes till the hour and we'll get back to 

it then. Thank you. 

(A brief recess was taken.) 

MR. CLOUGH: On the record. Just to give 

you a little brief preview of what we're going to do 

before lunchtime. Basically what we're going to try 

and finish up this morning is a couple of things. 

We're going to continue to go through the stakeholder 

comments here. 

Then what I want us to do to try and help 

us organize out time efficiently this afternoon is I'm 

going to have the group give me a list of topics that 

you want to make sure that you cover. I know some of 

these are coming out pretty clearly as areas to have 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

further discussion, but just to be helpful for me I'll 

just on a flip chart capture these. That will help us 

to organize our time this afternoon and make sure that 

we can be holistic about the way we go through things. 

We'll try and make sure that we capture 

that list. That will prepare us for the afternoon. 

Then we'll take the break into lunch. I think that's 

it. Larry, go ahead. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay. Thank you. Larry 

Wethje with AHAM Staff. We're on page six of our 

comments, item three. There was a request for 

information on the correct percentages of the waiting 

factors and the energy consumption formulas as to 

whether or not they might change over time. 

We don't really see any significant change 

there. Consumer habits don't change quickly, so we 

think the waiting factors that you've prescribed are 

appropriate and should probably stay the same for 

quite a while. However, the annual usage cycles is 

something that we think you need to continually 

monitor. We believe you're headed in the right 

direction. Steve Peterson from Whirlpool, I don't 

know if you wanted to add anything else on this. 

MR. PETERSON: Yes. Steve Peterson. Just 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

going to a comment I made earlier about we're 

certainly looking for all constituents here whoever 

they may be to certainly encourage the use of 

dishwashers and the elimination of pre-rinsing. As I 

say that, I also have to confess to you that as an 

industry we're quite frustrated in our lack of success 

of getting people to change their habits. 

Apparently these are passed down 

practices. They seem to be pretty tightly ingrained. 

 As much as we try to convince our consumers not to 

pre-rinse, we don't have a lot of luck. You may have 

noted the Ohio State study. They found 68 percent 

pre-rinsing. That was back in `88. Here we are in 

2002 and John Bowman's data indicates it's 70. So the 

numbers just aren't changing. 

So the key point here is that the research 

that has been done by TIAX we believe unfortunately is 

probably going to be fairly stable in terms of 

measuring habits. But as Larry said, we have seen as 

evidenced in the last couple of NOPRs that the cycles 

of reducing it as we continue to do surveys we see the 

cycle trend going down. 

There certainly are some demographic 

explanations as we see households shrinking, more 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

meals eaten outside the home, and disposable dishware 

on the increase. So there seems to be a pretty sound 

basis for the fact that the cycles per year is 

reducing. Although, the pre-rinsing habits 

unfortunately seem to be pretty well ingrained. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay. That concludes the 

portion of our comments that were in direct response 

to the issues at DOE and highlighted in the NOPR that 

they wanted feedback on. The next portion starting 

with B here is just some other areas of concern that 

we wanted to point out that we felt need some 

attention. 

The first one, specifically number one 

there, is Section 2.7 of the NOPR which referred to 

AHAM DW-1. You prescribed that you use a full charge 

of detergent and rinse aid for all of the tests. I 

was going to ask Deb Bengston of Maytag if she would 

comment as to what our recommendation would be there. 

MS. BENGSTON: The recommendation is 

dishwasher manufacturers and in their use and care 

literature we do direct consumers to use different 

amounts of detergent depending on the soil level of 

the dishload. Since the test procedure is using less 

than half of the AHAM soil place settings which is ten 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

or 12, we are recommending the reduction of the 

detergent to half the amount and also requiring not 

use rinse aid because it does not have any effect on 

energy. 

MR. WETHJE: As far as trying to ratio out 

how much detergent you should use if it was light, 

medium or heavy, we didn't think it was really 

necessary. It wouldn't really affect energy 

consumption, but we do feel like the full charge is 

too much. As Deb said, we just don't feel the need to 

put any rinse agent. That won't affect energy 

consumption at all. 

MS. PINTO: I just have a question. What 

is the impact of the amount of detergent that's 

specified now compared to what you are proposing. 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston of Maytag. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. 

MS. BENGSTON: Currently in the AHAM 

standard it says a 0.5 percent due to the fills. 

Also, currently the AHAM standard is ten place 

settings soiled or 12 place settings. Whereas the DOE 

sensor test for the heavy is only four place settings 

soiled. Medium is two and then half of one. 

So the dishwasher manufacturers are 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

recommending that we also follow the same 

manufacturers procedures that we use in our use and 

care as to according to the soil level to reduce it. 

We recommended just using half the detergent for the 

four place settings and the two place settings and the 

0.5. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. My 

question is what would happen. I'm not disagreeing 

that we should do it. What would happen if you left 

the amount of detergent the same as what's in our 

proposal? What do you see as the problem with that or 

what is the possible impact on possible results if 

any? Just to understand technology better. 

MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards, BSH. The 

possibility is something that reduced the -- 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. Just 

thinking back to the studies, I'm wondering if it 

shows that most of the loads that are washed are full 

dishloads but only a small amount of soil because 

they're cleaned. I don't know how much the consumers 

are putting in, in terms of detergent. You said 

there's a recommendation in the use guide. Is that to 

use half? 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. In 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

most manufacturer's use and care literature, they 

state on levels of food soils meaning how much food 

soil that you're putting in there; heavy, light, 

medium and they recommend a certain dosage. For 

heavy, you may use two or three tablespoons. Also, 

they talk about water issues; hard water. Whereas the 

DOE test is run on soft. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. Is there any 

correlation between amount of detergent and energy use 

results? 

MS. BENGSTON: No. Deb Bengston, Maytag. 

I would find no correlation between detergent and 

energy usage. The detergent is basically used for 

food soil removal and cleanliness of the dishes for 

overall consumer satisfaction. 

MR. JOHNSON: This is Tom Johnson at 

Maytag. I think it just helps to correlate the whole 

system. What we're trying to do is to replicate what 

consumers are doing. Part of that is in how these -- 

and detergent is used for food soil. So it's the best 

way we can to replicate what we're recommending that 

consumers do so the dishwasher has the best chance to 

respond as its intended to use. 

MS. CAIRNS: Carolyn Cairns. I'm just 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

wondering if you have done any surveys to assess 

whether consumers follow that. I've never paid 

attention to that myself. If we don't think we have 

much chance of changing people's habits to reading 

that, I'm doubtful that we would expect people to 

change the amount of detergent they use. I would 

think you would want to stick with what most people 

would do rather than necessarily what a manual states. 

MR. JOHNSON: This is Tom Jones from 

Maytag. I'm not aware of any information on what most 

people do. I'm not aware of any quantitative study 

that's been done that way relative to the actual use 

itself. So at this point, going with what the 

manufacturer's recommendation is, that's the best 

information we have out there to direct their usage. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc Hoffman from 

CEE. I just have a question. Would the amount of 

detergent affect the turbidity and therefore the 

sensing of how much washing is needed? 

MR. MILLER: This is Greg Miller with GE. 

 I think every manufacturer would have to answer that 

question specifically. For GE machines, the turbidity 

sensing is done in what we call the pre-rinses. The 

detergent isn't dispelled until the main wash, so the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

detergent has no effect on the turbidity that we use 

to make the decision. 

MR. PETERSON: Thank you. Steve Peterson, 

Whirlpool. We're supportive of the AHAM position, but 

as far as the Whirlpool position we're pretty neutral. 

 We don't see any impact on our energy use independent 

of the detergent mouth. So as a copy position we're 

neutral. But this is consistent with the 

manufacturer's use and care guidelines. That's why we 

put it in there. 

On the rinse aid aspect, it's pragmatic in 

terms of there's zero impact and just why should we 

impose the burden of having to fill the rinse agent 

dispensers on test and so forth. So it was very 

simple. Since it has no impact with rinse aid, why 

even consider it? 

MR. CLOUGH: Charlie. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Energy Office. As one consumer who read the book and 

follows the instructions and uses about half is 

normally recommended or what the thing will hold 

anyway, I'm not sure that we would support gratuitous 

chemical use in the test whether consumers do it or 

not. As long as we're convinced it has no impact on 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the test results, I'm all for reducing the chemistry 

in the dishwasher. 

There's no point in using it if you don't 

have to. It increases the cost of the test. It adds 

to the loads going to the sewage treatment plant. Why 

do that if you don't have to? If it's consistent with 

what's recommended to the consumer and it doesn't 

change the outcome of the test, don't use it. 

MR. WETHJE: This is Larry Wethje from 

AHAM. I think that's really the essence of what's 

behind our suggestion here. Number two, effective 

data the final rule. This is something I know is a 

significant concern to some of the manufacturers. 

Steve was going to comment on some of the dilemmas 

we've had in the past on this. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 We had some pretty strong feelings about this because 

of the December 18 last final rule that was published. 

 Unfortunately, we thought, proposed that the 

effective date of the rule was 180 days. That also 

coincides exactly with the last date that you can 

comply with the rule. Which meant that the 

manufacturers were given exactly a one day window to 

come into compliance. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

That's completely unrealistic. At 

Whirlpool, we manufacture 300 different SKUs product. 

 To try to get every one of those models into a new 

energy label on the exact same day implies a very 

unrealistic burden in terms of trying to coordinate 

changes of all the different parts that require the 

different labels. It's lot of waste, scrap and 

material and so forth and just a very unrealistic 

scenario. 

In fact, there were some situations in 

this last rulemaking, some situations with FTC that 

made it virtually impossible to comply. In fact, the 

FTC did give us some written guidelines saying they 

would not impose the law. So what we're asking for 

here is that with the publication of this final rule 

that it be allowed to take effect immediately which I 

think 30 days was the minimum time, still providing 

the 180 day statute we have for final must comply 

which would in effect give us 150 day window. 

That's really what we need to get a more 

logical non-burdensome transfer of all of our product 

and all of our labels and all of our new labels into a 

new procedures. So we just would please ask and beg 

for that kind of window. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: Go ahead. 

MR. WETHJE: Next, we want to just talk a 

little bit about Energy Star qualification. Gene 

Foley is going to introduce that. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley with AHAM. 

 I'm going to go ahead and just read the statement 

here. "We would recommend that the qualification 

levels for Energy Star remain at the current 0.58 

energy factor for standard dishwashers and 0.78 energy 

factor for compact dishwashers. Since this NOPR is 

only a change to the test procedure if standby power 

is incorporated into Energy Star, it must be done so 

in such a manner that all currently compliant Energy 

Star products would continue to meet Energy Star." 

MR. KARNEY: This is Rich Karney from 

Department of Energy. Right now Energy Star is pegged 

as 25 percent greater or more efficient than the 

minimum of the federal standard. Yes, this is just a 

test procedure, and I don't see any change in the 

numbers except if after the test results come in if 

the federal standard has to be changed then Energy 

Star will probably float and change along with it. 

As far as standby is concerned, we are 

also interested in how the test results come in. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

We'll be taking a look at how that would play into any 

future Energy Star criteria. Right now, we're still 

going to be maintaining a 25 percent above the federal 

standard. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay. Next is inlet water 

temperature. Proposed procedure requires the 

tolerance of plus or minus 2F when you have 120 degree 

inlet water temperature and plus or minus 5F when you 

have 140 degree inlet water temperature. Since that's 

an important factor in the energy consumption, we 

would like to recommend that you have a tolerance at 

140 being plus or minus 2F as well. 

Next one is clause 3.2.1. The water meter 

must have a maximum no greater than one and a half 

percent for all water flow rates from one to five 

gallons per minute. I think a better way to address 

the accuracy of the water meter would be to prescribe 

an accuracy of one and a half percent of the measured 

value rather than one and a half percent of a range 

from one to five gallons per minute since a lot of 

these machines will operate at just one narrow, two or 

three GPM or something like that. If you specified 

one and a half percent accuracy, the measured flow 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

rate would be a better means of delineating the 

accuracy of the water flow meter. 

Next were some typographical, editorial 

changes that we think we spotted with respect to some 

of the equations. Wayne Klug from Whirlpool is going 

to address these. 

MR. KLUG: These are really just a couple 

of very minor items. They are listed on the handout 

that I think you have in front of you. First is the 

replacement of the plus sign with an equal sign. Then 

it's a note that if water heating energy is considered 

that should be referenced as well. 

Finally, on page 56242 the NOPR at least 

in the version that I have is simply inserting the 

value of N which is the average dishwasher use to 

annualize the value or the estimated annual energy 

usage. The insertion of the N value really applies to 

the machine energy, the truncated machine energy, the 

water energy value. It does not apply to S which is 

the standby value which was already annualized. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. 

Larry, I have a question to ask you. Could you talk 

just a little bit more about the proposal that you 

have on the inlet water temperature tolerance, just 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the basis of the change to the 140 degrees? 

MR. WETHJE: Yes. Well, right now if you 

have an inlet water temperature of 120, the NOPR says 

the tolerance is plus or minus two degrees. If you 

have an inlet water temperature of 140, it allows you 

a tolerance of plus or minus five degrees. All we're 

saying is it's an important parameter, your inlet 

water temperature, so you ought to have a tight 

tolerance at 140 as well as at 120. So it ought to be 

plus or minus two degrees at 140 just like it is 

specified for 120. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

 It's making it slightly more rigid. 

MR. WETHJE: It's just tightening up the 

tolerances that are allowed on the inlet water 

temperature. Okay. Number seven on the top of page 

eight is implementation with CSA in Canada, NR Can. 

We really feel it's critical that we develop a plan to 

synchronize implementation of the proposed changes 

with Canada. 

We're glad to see Katherine here from NR 

Can and just appreciate the cooperation we've received 

in the past from them and hope that continues so we 

can minimize the number of changes to the timing and 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

various labels that are used in the U.S. and Canada 

and try to harmonize implementation dates and changes 

and everything. To comment along those lines, we 

would appreciate DOE's cooperation in continuing to 

work with NR Can in coordinating things there. 

Marginally complying units. We talked 

about this earlier. We see with the changes that are 

being proposed with respect to the test voltage, 

raising it to 115 to 120, there would be a significant 

number of units that would no longer comply. If the 

voltage is maintained at 115, we don't see any 

problems with marginally complying units continuing to 

comply. The next one, number nine -- 

MS. PINTO: Excuse me, Larry, a question. 

 Francine Pinto. So at the 115, are there marginally 

compliant units at all? 

MR. WETHJE: That's the current standard 

prescribed at 115 volts. 

MS. PINTO: I understand that. 

MR. WETHJE: Yes. There are units that 

marginally comply right now. What we're saying is if 

you raise the test voltage to 120 which is proposed, 

then those units are no longer going to comply. 

That's why we're suggesting you keep it the same. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. PINTO: Do you have a list at the 

current 115 what units marginally comply? 

MR. WETHJE: We don't as a trade 

association. The individual manufacturers would have 

their own information. We don't publish a directory 

on dishwashers, so I don't have that information. 

The next one was in Section 5.5 about the 

duration of the cycles. Greg Miller from GE was going 

to address this. 

MR. FOLEY: And I have a couple of typos. 

MR. MILLER: Yes. There's a typo in this 

one here. Basically to calculate the annual standby 

power usage you have to know the duration of the 

cycle. We'd just like to better define the length of 

the cycle as being the average duration of the normal 

cycle as opposed to response for tests of non-soil 

sensing dishwashers where the average duration of the 

sensor medium response or test the soil sensing 

dishwashers including the length of heated dry of 

course in the response. 

MR. WETHJE: On that first line, the word 

response should have been cycle. The average duration 

of the normal cycle for testing non-soil sensing 

dishwashers. Okay. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Number ten we've already gotten into a bit 

previously. I'm not sure if we need anymore 

discussion on it, but we're just recommending that you 

specify the dishware shown in the attached table. I 

think we've already addressed it well enough. 

Then I think this is the last one, number 

11. There were a number of editorial revisions that 

we'd like to suggest with respect to definitions. 

Again, Greg from GE was going to address that. 

MR. MILLER: Yes. Just for clarification, 

the dishwasher test is defined as being on the normal 

cycle. For definitions of non-soil sensing and soil 

sensing dishwashers, we'd like to exchange the 

definition to applying to the normal cycle so that 

dishwasher automatically adjusts the normal cycle and 

it's a soil sensing dishwasher. 

Then further in the verbiage on heavy, 

light, and medium, those are all normal cycles. Those 

are what we refer to as response. We'd like to refer 

to them as a sensor of heavy response, light response, 

and medium response as opposed to cycles because 

they're all the normal cycles. 

MR. WETHJE: That's pretty much it I think 

from our end. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto again 

from DOE. One thing is we would like the data, 

manufacturers that have marginally compliant units at 

115. Can we request that during the comment period? 

MR. MILLER: I believe we already gave it. 

MS. CASTRO: For soil sensing. 

MR. MILLER: We were talking about whether 

or not standby power would tip the scales. Those 

scales would be standby power for this voltage change. 

 We provided you with a list of models I believe. 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. 

MR. MILLER: It would be that same list. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. Are there any other 

manufacturers with marginally compliant units at 115, 

the heat energy factor? 

MR. PETERSON: This is Steve Peterson at 

Whirlpool. We will check that and provide a list if 

appropriate. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. The other question I 

had was on the dishware. Do you have the data on that 

normal efficiency between the new dishware and the old 

dishware? Do you think you have that for us? 

MR. WETHJE: Not to my knowledge, no. 

PARTICIPANT: I know I don't. Don't look 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

at me. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. 

MR. MILLER: GE doesn't have specific data 

on it. 

MS. PINTO: Does the manufacturer of the 

dishware have that? I mean, is that available? 

MR. WETHJE: No. 

MS. PINTO: Then the other question I 

guess I just want to put out for some comment or 

reaction is when you begin to qualify soil sensing 

machines or the ones the test procedure is effective, 

what would you think of using the new dishware, 

everyone using that as a requirement as opposed to 

having the choice of the old stuff and the new stuff, 

so everything is consistent. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller with GE. I don't 

support that because the dishware is not as critical 

in the energy testing as it is in our performance 

testing where we count spots. We normally use the 

newly purchased dishware in our performance testing 

because it is critical when you are counting the 

number of spots remaining on a dish that it be 

relatively new dishware. 

Then we use the stuff that we used to use 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

in the performance testing to do the energy testing 

and what I call functional type testing. So I 

understand your request. I don't believe that the 

dishware is a critical variable in this energy test. 

If you were completely changing the type of dishware, 

it may be critical, but we were attempting to use very 

similar mass and surface finish on these dishes 

because of our performance testing. I don't believe 

that the dishware is a critical factor in this 

testing. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto again. 

 I'd be curious to hear from other manufacturers, what 

people think and what AHAM feels about this. 

MR. WETHJE: I think a lot of the 

manufacturers currently are using the Azberg 

dinnerware dishware and they would like to continue to 

be able to use that. As Greg said because there's no 

real impact on energy performance on which one you use 

it's just a matter of standardizing on something that 

we don't see any harm in being able to permit use of 

both. As time goes on, that's going to go away, but 

it would be nice to be able to allow them to continue 

to use it since they already have it and haven't 

invested fully in the new stuff. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug at Whirlpool. 

Really the four items that we're looking at are the 

fruitbowl which is a smaller bowl, the cup, the saucer 

associated with the cup, and the bread and butter 

plate. Those are really smaller items in the load. 

The dinner plate remains the same. The 

serving bowls remain the same. So I guess from my 

viewpoint, it's really the smaller items in the load 

that are affected. I haven't made any comparison 

between the thermal conductivity of ceramics versus 

glassware type dishware, but if you look at just the 

mass of the items they're really pretty equivalent. 

Going back to an earlier comment, probably 

the cup that we're selecting here has a little bit 

more mass to it which would in theory penalize the 

product a very small amount more. So my gut feeling 

is that this is probably a very small issue compared 

to other factors in the energy performance and water 

use. 

MR. CLOUGH: Greg, you had said that you 

had some comments that you would like to make. 

MR. MILLER: Yes. I would like to expand 

upon our a.m. comments. GE Consumer Products would 

like to stress the importance of maintaining the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Energy Star levels at the current levels implementing 

this test procedure change. Soil sensor model 

dishwashers save energy because they only use the 

amount of hot water required to remove the soil 

attached. 

We understand that concerns expressed by 

DOE and others regarding the potential for the current 

test procedures somewhat underestimate energy uses. 

Before we support the test procedures -- the NOPR if 

amended for the submitted for AHAM comments. The soil 

levels proposed are well supported by the A.D. Little 

report and more realistic than earlier proposals for 

only using two levels, no soil, and maximum soil. 

GE believes strongly however that in 

addressing one problem DOE does not create another, 

specifically that the value of our investments and the 

adjustments made by the other manufacturers in the 

Energy Star program not be undermined. The Energy 

Star program has become a significant factor in 

educating consumers in a highly competitive appliance 

business. The rebates and incentives provided to 

Energy Star models can heavily influence the buying 

decision. Most of today's soil sensor models are 

Energy Star compliant. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Although the impact of the new procedure 

on manufacturers is minimal, it's not zero. Since the 

current sensor model software was developed with 

different soil levels than those proposed in this 

NOPR, changes in the software will have to be made to 

ensure optimal deployment. We are already budgeting 

for these changes in our 2003 business plan. By 

implementing these changes, it's imperative that the 

Energy Star level be known and predictable for at 

least a few years. 

A change in 2004 for example would require 

for us to invest again in 2003 to meet the 2004 level. 

 Inclusion of standby power in energy uses 

calculations compounds our concern. For these 

reasons, we strongly urge that the Energy Star level 

and this new procedure be coordinated such that all 

products that qualify Energy Star for this new test 

method remain Energy Star qualified after the Energy 

Star levels are proposed, levels that reflect 

inclusions of standby power. 

This would be consistent with the way DOE 

is required to handle test procedure changes that 

impact the standard. Given the significant investment 

made by its Energy Star partner, DOE should offer no 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

less to this non-regulatory program. 

MR. KARNEY: Rich Karney at DOE with 

Energy Star. Again, as I mentioned before when Gene 

made similar comments, Energy Star will be pegged the 

federal standard. Right now we anticipate maintaining 

the levels at 25 percent. Any changes in the standard 

of course would change the energy factor that Energy 

Star would be imposing. 

Again, we'll be looking at the test data. 

 I'm very interested in the test data that comes out 

on the standby power to see how that might affect 

Energy Star. As of now, I do not see any changes in 

the foreseeable near future. So I think that you're 

okay for now. 

MR. MILLER: Great. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you, Rich. Any other 

questions on that? Marc Hoffman. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Sure. Thank you. 

MS. TWIGG: I'd like to go back to one 

thing quickly. Just when you were going through the 

definitions, the 1.5 non-soil sensing dishwasher means 

a dishwasher that does not have the ability to adjust 

automatically any energy consuming aspect of a normal 

as opposed just the wash cycle. I was wondering if 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

you could elaborate more on that. Wash cycle just 

seems more generic that would cover any possibilities 

and why specify normal. 

MR. MILLER: This is Greg Miller. 

MS. TWIGG: That's page eight, number 11. 

MR. MILLER: The scenario could be that 

you would produce a dishwasher that had a soil sensor 

but that the normal cycle was not using the soil 

sensor. In other words, it was not a smart machine. 

In other words, it wouldn't be necessary to run the 

normal cycle with the soil levels because it only has 

one response. So that's really what led me to try to 

define better what soil sensing means per the DOE test 

procedure. 

MR. WETHJE: Larry from AHAM. You're only 

concerned about the normal cycle in your DOE test 

procedure. So as long as you don't have the soil 

sensing feature in the normal cycle, then that's all 

we're trying to define. If you have a soil sensor 

that only responds say in your pot scrubber or some 

other cycle it really shouldn't be a factor in the DOE 

procedure. So that's why we feel it's important to 

define non-soil machine as relating to just the normal 

cycle. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. TWIGG: I'm going to have to think 

that one through a little bit I guess. 

MR. MILLER: This is Greg Miller. It's a 

technicality. I don't know that anyone is going to go 

out and start making soil sensor dishwashers that 

don't work on the normal cycle because the data we 

have is that 90 percent of the people always use the 

normal cycle. But for clarity, the test procedure 

only applies to the normal cycle, so really every 

definition only applies to the normal cycle. 

MR. CLOUGH: Marc. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you. This is Marc 

Hoffman from the Consortium for Energy Efficiency. 

I'm here without pre-written comments because our 

appliance committee just met yesterday and reached 

consensus on the NOPR, so I would like to share those 

with you and at least put them on the table for 

discussion later. 

We had only four points. I think first of 

all most importantly I should say who the members of 

the appliance committee are. I should say this is our 

most active committee. The members of CEE are all the 

energy efficiency program administrators, typically 

utilities and some now many non-utilities using rent 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

payer money. They are all huge supporters in the 

market of Energy Star. 

They've had a grave concern about the 

meaning of the Energy Star label as it applied to the 

soil sensing dishwashers. So we're very happy to see 

that the DOE is ready to proceed with this. In 

general, we are very supportive of the proposed test 

for soil sensing dishwashers. We do have a couple 

points we would like to throw out for discussion. 

The first one concerns standby power. It 

would be our position that we support that standby 

power is being measured and included in the annual 

operating costs and annual energy use. We would like 

to see it included in the energy factor. We are 

practical though and we certainly understand that we 

would not want to put a monkey wrench into getting 

this rulemaking enacted. 

So we would like to see a firm commitment. 

 If we can't get the energy factor included now, could 

we get it included in the future? We do think it 

would be important to count the standby power as part 

of energy factors in the future. I'm sure we can all 

agree on why that's important. I won't go into all 

the committee's reasons. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Probably more importantly for us though, 

we would like to urge that this process be sped up as 

much as possible. Yearly our members have been 

putting a lot of pressure on our organization to go 

forward on our own with a test procedure because we're 

so concerned about the impact on consumers of giving 

them information that isn't entirely accurate. This 

is a huge concern on the amount of money they put in 

to supporting Energy Star. This is really the primary 

driver and why we have so many members active in this 

committee. 

So we will hope that the Department will 

do everything it can to publish the rule as soon as 

possible. If there's a way to expedite the effective 

date, we would certainly support that and make it 

effective as soon as possible. I'm interested in 

hearing what the manufacturer have recommended about 

that. It sounds promising. 

That's really where we're coming from. 

One little technical thing that we're not too sure 

about that we want to put on the table has to do with 

clarifying the normal cycle. The technical concern 

that has been raised, which I'm certainly not an 

expert in so I propose this more as a question to you, 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

is we want to make sure that the normal cycle is a 

level playing field. Since that's what everyone is 

going to be testing on, we want to make sure that 

there's no loophole left for some manufacturers to 

find a way to get around the intent of this test. 

What we're concerned about has to do with 

the input water temperature in a normal cycle. There 

are some water heating dishwashers that can us an 

input temperature of 50 degrees. We're just concerned 

and we're not sure that the test would be fair if the 

normal cycle is defined as input temperature of 50 

degrees. So in a way asking that question, is it 

really a level playing field if they're allowed to 

specify a 50 degree temperature for their normal cycle 

and do we want to allow that. 

So that's really our concern and question. 

 We don't have the answer, but we want to bring that 

to you. Those really are our comments. That's all 

the time I need. We can talk about this later. Thank 

you. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any response to the comments? 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller with GE. On the 

question of the inlet water temperature as 50 degrees 

versus 120, in reality a manufacturer design, a person 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

who wants to specify 50 degrees is putting himself at 

a disadvantage because of the way the test procedure 

is written. For a 120 degree inlet water, we get to 

bring inlet water in. 

The water heater manufacturer actually 

pays for standby losses. The efficiency of heating 

water is not 100 percent obviously in any scenario. 

So to heat 50 degree water up to 120 degree water, you 

have to expend more energy than your charged on the 

test procedure. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. Yes. But 

for the 120 degree you're heating all of your fill. 

You're assuming that all the fills are heated to 120. 

 For the 50 degree test, it only has to reach your 

water heating temperature of 120 in one of the cycles, 

the main wash cycle. 

You could have cold fill and then put on 

your heating element. I mean, it's not a very 

practical way of cleaning dishes. It can make the 

test very long unless you have a high power heating 

element. In terms of energy consumption, it does 

provide lower energy use for water heating. 

MR. MILLER: I could explain better by 

drawing a graph, but basically even if you have 120 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

degree water, the unit starts out at room temperature. 

 You step up the temperature of the dishwasher and the 

dishes in intervals every time you bring in and expel 

water. So you're heating up the dishwasher by 

transferring a heat from the water to the dishes in 

the load so they stabilize. Then you heat up from 

there. 

If you just brought in 50 degree water, 

you'd have to start from scratch at whatever point you 

start it at. You could have cold rinses and save 

energy, but in the long run you would still have to 

heat the same mass to the same temperature. Do you 

follow? The bottom line is I wouldn't want to write 

my dishwasher at 50 degrees because it would be a 

penalty. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson at 

Whirlpool. I pretty much agree with what Greg is 

saying. I had a brief conversation with Marc at the 

break. I think the concern might be if a non-water 

heating dishwasher is brought in to service virtually 

all, I can't say 100 percent, of the dishwasher 

connections are hot water. Therefore, a manufacturer 

might be able to take advantage of the fact that 

they're getting hot water and are only being charged 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

for cold water in the test procedure. 

To your point, Greg, you heat up the main 

wash true, but you only pay for 50 degree water for 

your other bills. You know you're going to get 120 

since it's being connected to a hot water inlet. I 

think that's the concern there is which is a valid 

concern. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller again. You're 

talking about a deceptive practice. 

MR. PETERSON: Right. 

MR. MILLER: I didn't understand that. 

PARTICIPANT: We want to make sure that's 

not possible. 

MR. MILLER: It might be possible though 

with the way the procedure is written. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Energy Office. I'm not going to name the 

manufacturer, but one manufacturer's energy factors 

went up about 25 percent virtually overnight simply by 

their change in the definition of what the normal 

cycle was. 

I considered that somewhat deceptive since 

I think everybody knew that the dishwashers were not 

being used by the consumer in that mode because in all 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

but one of the fills the temperature was not adjusted. 

 They took it at whatever it came in at. That's not 

the way consumers like to use their dishwasher I 

think. I think they like the sanitizing feature. I'm 

not sure the performance was all that good in that 

"normal cycle." 

But it is possible to actually game the 

system a little bit without a closer definition of 

what the normal cycle is. I think as I watched some 

of the references now to sensors in the normal cycle I 

think maybe some more attention might be paid to what 

the normal cycle is now that we're starting to be 

concerned about what technologies are applied and what 

water temperatures are there. 

I'm not even sure that the 140 degree 

temperature is even relevant anymore at this point. 

The fact is I think I would support a little attention 

to what the normal cycle is so that we all understand 

what's being tested and we understand that it's as 

close as we think we can get it to what the consumer 

is going to regard as the normal cycle when they use 

it. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 A lot of this NOPR fortunately is based on consumer 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

practice because that will really give us the 

realistic measure. I think the area we're talking 

about really is consumer practice. The install base 

of dishwashers and the install base of households in 

the United States again does have virtually all the 

dishwasher connections coming in as hot water 

connections. 

So based on that and the fact that we are 

trying to make this relevant to the install base, 

maybe it's appropriate to not have a cold water 

option. That would eliminate that potential loop 

hole. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller with GE. I would 

agree with Steve on that account about cold water 

dishwashers in this country. I think one of the 

concerns the industry has and has always had is on 

performance versus energy consumption. I think we 

need to be careful in defining the normal cycle that 

we don't start defining performance. That would be my 

only concern. 

It's really left up to us at this stage 

and for all products to ensure that we don't impact 

performance to a level that impacts our businesses. I 

understand your concern exactly because the desire is 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

for low energy use dishwashers. Honestly to give 

maximum performance at those lower energy levels 

requires a lot of effort. 

I don't think this is the forum to go into 

that right now. There are other options that we think 

reduce consumer utility and satisfaction that could 

save energy. My concern is if by defining normal 

cycle parameters we start defining machine design I 

don't think we want to go there. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc Hoffman again. 

 Our concern is really the level playing field. I 

don't think we're trying to judge performance or 

impact how you meet that performance. In fact, the 

committee's discussion on that point was we don't want 

to necessarily conclude cold water technology if you 

will, but clearly they're going to have to heat the 

water. We want to measure that on a comparable basis. 

 That's really what we're saying. 

Maybe the answer isn't necessarily to ban 

the cold water but to perhaps require that at least 

one cycle be heated to the 120 which is what the 120 

requirement would be. So just to keep it level, 

that's all. Whatever it takes to do that and be fair. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens with the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Oregon Energy Office. One of the things we've 

encountered in a lot of venues, and it's not just 

dishwashers, it happens in air conditioning and 

furnaces. Going to any product when you find a group 

of manufacturers investing a lot of time and 

engineering in making their product perform at low 

levels of energy use, it does discredit to those 

companies and their engineers to have somebody else 

waltz in with a definition change and end up 

suggesting to consumers that their product is much 

more efficient than it really is when they use it the 

way they find they need to use it in order to get the 

performance that the other machines deliver. 

That is the only situation that we'd like 

to preclude. I'm not sure what it takes to fix that 

possibility, but I've seen it often enough to know 

that somewhere along the line we need to get at least 

enough definition into this thing that all the 

engineers and the companies that put all that effort 

into their product aren't disadvantaged by somebody 

who didn't. 

MR. CLOUGH: Was there anyone else that 

had some comments that they would like to make to the 

group as a whole? If I recall, there was one other 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

individual. Was it Glenn? Did you have some comments 

you would like to make? 

MR. SCHLEEDE: No. 

MR. CLOUGH: That's fine. I just wanted 

to double check. Is there anyone else? 

(No response.) 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. It's quarter to 

twelve. Let me ask the group. I'm going to pose the 

group an option. This afternoon to make our time go 

by efficiently I have a few ways we can go about this. 

 One of them is we can have a very brief discussion to 

lay out the topics that we want to ensure that we 

cover this afternoon and then just go through them one 

at a time so we can have the discussion as a group on 

them. 

Or we can have it just be a little more 

free wheeling and let the conversation meander where 

it will for the time that we have. My preference is 

the first just for sake of organization, but I wanted 

to test the group to see how you wanted to go about 

this. Would you like to just take a few minutes and 

lay out the topics here that we want to cover? I'm 

getting some head nods. Wonderful. 

I'm just going to list them out really 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

quick. In fact, because we're doing so great, we're 

just going to do this and then we'll break for lunch. 

 So very quickly talk to me about the topics that you 

want to make sure that we get into this afternoon. I 

can probably pick some of these that we know the 

changes are already focused on. Some things like I 

believe, Gene, you had talked about wanting to talk 

about the test procedure itself if I recall. You had 

some comments about some aspects of the test 

procedure. 

MR. FOLEY: The voltage changes? 

MR. CLOUGH: We can talk about the voltage 

changes. 

MR. FOLEY: But when you say talk about 

them, I'm not sure what you mean by -- 

MR. CLOUGH: For example on the voltage 

changes, the topic that we had talked about was the 

difference between the 115 and the 120. What I'll do 

is pose that out as a dedicated topic for us to 

discuss and get as many comments about that and then 

move onto the next topic. 

MR. FOLEY: My question even on that 

though is does anybody feel like we have anything more 

to say on that. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: That is the other aspect of 

this, yes. Thank you, Gene, for clarifying. That is 

the other piece. If you've said what it is that you 

want to say about that and you really have no more to 

add on that topic, then we probably shouldn't dedicate 

any time to it this afternoon. If you do, then I want 

to make sure that we give everybody the time that they 

want. 

Let me just throw out some other things. 

The aspect of numbers of cycles per year, what is one 

of the changes. Are there additional comments that 

need to be made on that topic? If you have some 

please just raise your hand. 

MR. STEPHENS: I'd like to see a little 

more discussion about that. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. What are some of the 

other topics that we know you would like to talk 

about? Mr. Karney. 

MR. KARNEY: The definition of standby. 

MR. CLOUGH: Definition of standby. Thank 

you. Any others? 

MS. BENGSTON: Weighting of the heavy, 

light, and medium. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. What else? Any other 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

topics? 

MS. CAIRNS: We had a comment on filter 

cleaning, manual versus automatic. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Does anyone want any 

additional discussion on the survey results that John 

had described this morning? 

MS. CAIRNS: That's in the weighting I was 

thinking. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Incorporate that into 

this discussion here. (Indicating.) Any other broad 

topics? Also, keep in mind we can add the oh I 

remembered some other things I'd like to talk about 

too. This isn't an exclusive list. This will just 

give us a little structure. Anything else that you 

can think of? 

MS. CAIRNS: We had some questions and had 

made a comment about how DOE might commit to making 

changes in the future that we're not making right now 

and how that might happen automatically as opposed to 

having to go through another meeting. 

MR. CLOUGH: There was also a comment made 

related to schedule. We can maybe talk about process 

and schedule activities altogether. We'll probably 

hold that off more towards the end as a where are we 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

going from here. Any other topics that we think of? 

Bryan, Barbara, Natashcha, Francine, any other things 

that have hit you as we have gone through that you 

want to make sure that we get into here? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens. I would 

love to see any suggestions that people do have as to 

how we might better define the normal cycle in a way 

that doesn't get into performance but that helps us 

define it a little better for consistency of testing 

versus use. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. We have talked about 

that. What about the plates, bowls and dishes? We 

have talked about that some this morning. Do we need 

to have further discussion on that or are we satisfied 

with that topic? 

(Laughter.) 

MR. CLOUGH: I think this is probably 

pretty good as some broad topics for us to go through. 

 It's ten minutes to twelve. Please be back here 

about ten minutes of one. Your choices for lunch are 

the cafeteria downstairs. The large cafeteria if 

anyone is trying to go to that is down to the G floor, 

the E corridor which is about two football fields long 

to the right when you get to it. You'll see an 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

escalator. Go up. You'll see the door to the 

cafeteria. 

I believe you can also go outside of the 

building. There are vendors out on the street. 

There's a plaza out the door and to the left, up the 

hill. If anybody is looking for something specific, 

talk to -- 

MS. PINTO: Just a point on the agenda. I 

have a question about the fork that's listed on here. 

MR. CLOUGH: Question about the fork. 

Okay. 

MS. PINTO: Why it doesn't match the other 

one is because the matching one is no longer made. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. I have one other thing 

very quickly. If any of you brought a laptop computer 

with you and you did not get a property pass when you 

came in, they will assume you are stealing it if you 

don't have a property pass on the way out. If you 

have it, we need your name, we need the computer 

information and a serial number. We'll get the 

property passes that you need. If you need one, 

please get it on this form here. Off the record. 

(Whereupon, at 11:48 p.m., the aboveentitled matter recessed to reconvene at 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1:01 p.m. the same day.) 

 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

 1:01 p.m. 

MR. CLOUGH: On the record. We've got 

several topics that we're going to talk about this 

afternoon. I hope everybody's lunch was good. We 

have plenty of candy around this afternoon to keep the 

sugar high going. 

Let's talk about voltage. The issue that 

was discussed this morning was the 115 versus 120. 

We've had some discussion about it. I guess what I 

want to do just to start off the conversation a little 

bit is we had the discussion this morning. I'm trying 

to recall. There were two issues that I heard that I 

want to prompt a little discussion with. 

There was the one about the impact of 

energy of three to five percent increase associated 

with it. Then there was the other issue about 

marginally compliant products that would then be noncompliant because of that change and as a result of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

it. Are those the only two issues associated with 

this? 

Let me ask one question. That three to 

five percent increase, are there ever occasions where 

there would actually be a three to five percent 

decrease? 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 No. There would be no occasions for decrease. There 

are certain models that we would have that would not 

see a three to five percent increase primarily because 

while the heating energy is thermostatically 

controlled, you get a trade off and you're using 

energy to a temperature rather than to an electrical 

load. However, there are some models that have timed 

heat. 

All the -- that are subject to this 

consumption increase which is the square of the change 

of the voltage and those are the units that get into 

the trouble with the potential of being marginally 

compliant. That's where you're going to see that 

three to five percent increase. So a lot of the 

dishwashers will not see a large increase, but some 

will. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. FOLEY: Do you need the root mean 

square law to find for the record or something like 

that? I don't understand that whole concept. 

MR. CLOUGH: I can't answer that question. 

MS. BENGSTON: I know what you're talking 

about though. 

MR. KLUG: This is Wayne Klug. I'm a 

mechanical sort of guy, but if you look at the wattage 

it's a function of the square of the voltage. V 

squared over R equals the power. So if you take the 

ratio of the two voltages, 120 squared to 115 squared 

you end up with a potential 8.8 percent increase based 

on that. Although that's mitigated because part of 

your energy is due to the water energy and the product 

and some of the other factors that Steve referred to 

here as well. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens. The only 

thing that comes into the equation here is there is an 

ANSCI standard for the delivered voltage for 

utilities. I believe the bottom of the range is 114. 

 The interesting thing is from what we know out where 

we are the utilities tend to deliver as close to that 

as they are comfortable doing. That seems to be 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

between about 117 and 118 volts. 

That's the bad news because it's right in 

the middle between 115 and 120. So if you're trying 

to be accurate in terms of making the machine's energy 

show what the actual use will be in the hands of the 

consumer, you could land on either one of these and do 

that. 

I'm not sure there's any potential benefit 

that I see in moving to 120 given the fact that the 

actual voltage that most machines will probably see is 

something between 115 and 120 which minimizes the 

affect of not using the right voltage, whatever that 

may be. So I'm just right now from our standpoint 

seeing a lot of benefit in adjusting this thing in 

spite of what they may recommend for the machines. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. I guess as 

you look at all these issues the appropriateness comes 

first because I think this is the only one on that 

chart that I think I could foresee getting between us 

and getting a final rule. I think it's quite 

important. I guess I would be interested in the 

Department's reaction to this potential problem 

because I think this is the fundamental issue around 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

this NOPR. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Do you guys have 

anything? 

MR. STEPHENS: One other thing. I think 

everybody understands as I understand it that this 

applies to all machines, not just sensor equipped 

machines. 

MR. CLOUGH: Right. 

MR. STEPHENS: So this is a change that 

applies to every machine. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

 That's where the problem arises quite frankly. 

MR. CLOUGH: Does anyone from the 

Department want to respond in terms of initial 

thoughts at this point? 

MS. TWIGG: Well, we never like to come 

right out and give an answer before we have official 

policies, decisions, or anything. 

MR. CLOUGH: Absolutely. 

MS. TWIGG: But I could certainly say that 

this was not a major part of this rulemaking as 

opposed to the others. So we would have it in that 

perspective. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Before we move on to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the next topic, I feel like a lot of this already got 

out this morning. Any other points of emphasis on 

this besides the two major things that we brought up? 

 I don't think so. Then we are going to move on. 

MR. DEPRIEST: Hold it now. There is 

something. This is Tom Depriest from General Counsel. 

 I just want to nail something down. There's a part 

of the NOPR on page 56238. Most of that page is 

devoted to discussing the impact of test procedure 

divisions. 

In there, we acknowledge that there are 

going to be basically three changes. We say that the 

first two we don't expect to have any impact on the 

energy standard. But we say that the third change, 

the new soil base test method, will only be used for 

testing soil sensor machines. 

Then we go on to say, and this is towards 

the bottom of the middle column of that page, "Soil 

testing however is expected to alter the energy 

factors of soil sensing models." The question that I 

would like some clarification on and I haven't heard 

exactly what I need to hear is it the concensus of 

this group that if we leave the voltage at 115 there 

would not be any impact on the energy factor of soil 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

sensing models or is this determination correct in any 

case whether we change the voltage to 120. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson, Whirlpool. 

 That's interesting. I hadn't gone back and looked at 

the verbatim comments. That's actually a completely 

untrue sentence there because it says "Because nonsoil sensing machines will still be tested using clean 

dishes, the energy factors will not change and their 

compliance with the standard will not be affected." 

Absolutely positively untrue. A 120 volt 

will change the energy factor and will change their 

compliance status. So that is an incorrect, untrue 

statement. 

MR. FOLEY: But absent -- 

MR. DEPRIEST: I understand that, but I'm 

focusing on the next sentence. This is looking at 

just the soil sensing. 

MR. PETERSON: The soil sensing. The AHAM 

comments that were presented on record today say that 

we believe that we will be in compliance as long as 

the voltage stays at 115. As point five here it says 

"Any soil sensing dishwashers adversely affected by 

new procedure identify minimally in compliance with 

all sorts of models." AHAM's concensus is "We believe 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

all dishwashers will achieve compliance with the 

proposed test procedure if the test voltage remains at 

115 volts." 

MR. DEPRIEST: I'm sorry. I didn't have 

that. I didn't get a copy of that handout. I heard 

the presentation, but I didn't have a verbatim copy of 

it. 

MS. CASTRO: This is Natashcha Castro. 

Steve, I just wanted to point out that paragraph 

addresses the change relative to the new soil base 

test method. 

MR. PETERSON: If you limit it to that 

context, that is a true statement. 

MS. CASTRO: Right. 

MR. PETERSON: But on an absolute basis, 

wholistic basis, that's incorrect. 

MS. CASTRO: Right. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller, GE. For 

clarity, if we take the current soil sensing 

dishwashers and run this test procedure, the number 

will be different than it is today. 

MS. PINTO: At 115. 

MR. MILLER: Yes. The impact on us, and I 

was referring to it earlier, is really due to the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

variation in the response of the machine. By law, 

we're required to report either the mean or the upper 

confidence limit divided by 1.05. When we test today 

with no soil, we always get the same response 

obviously. 

If we take four dishwashers today and 

three out of four of them get response A and the 

fourth one gets response B, it means that although the 

mean is where we want it to be we would have to report 

the upper confidence limit divided by 1.05. What 

we're going to have to do is get our responses 

consistant at these soil levels because when we 

designed these machines we didn't use these exact soil 

levels. 

MR. EDWARDS: You just wouldn't want to 

rely on the -- so that you could go either way. 

MR. DEPRIEST: Right. This is Tom 

Depriest. Well, if you go back to the test here of 

the NOPR page 56238, we were focusing on this 

paragraph at the middle column at the bottom of the 

page and then the rest of the discussion going down 

into the midpoint of the third column. Under the 

statute once you make this determination which is what 

I thought we had made here and what I just heard you 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

say is that yes for the soil sensing machines the 

energy level will change. 

We have to look into that under the 

statute. It's not something that we're charged with 

doing which is why that discussion just above the 

letter H on the right hand column concludes with the 

words "The Department requests that manufacturers 

provide the Department with information properly 

identifying the soil sensing dishwasher models that 

minimally comply with energy conservation standards 

when tested with the currently effective test 

procedure." 

In other words, we want to know what the 

manufacturers find out after they have tested the soil 

sensing machines at the lower end of the scale, in 

other words, minimally compliant, not saying the 

machines would drop out of compliance. We're simply 

saying the ones that are minimally compliant, what 

happens when you test them with this new procedure. 

MR. FOLEY: What if there are no soil 

sensing machines that are minimally compliant? 

MS. PINTO: That's a very important fact. 

MR. DEPRIEST: That's what we're trying to 

hone in on. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. Let me 

clarify. What the AHAM position is, is we're not 

saying that the new test will not have any impact on 

energy factors. If it didn't, why are we here? 

So it will have an impact clearly on soil 

sensing machines, but by enlarge the soil sensing 

machines today are not near that minimum compliance 

level. There's enough safety factor such that even a 

negative impact to their energy factors they will 

still be in compliance. That's why we're on record 

saying that we're okay with minimal compliance. 

MR. DEPRIEST: Excuse me. This is Tom 

Depriest again. You just said "by enlarge." I'm a 

lawyer. I need a little more specifics. 

MR. PETERSON: We're 100 percent okay. 

MR. DEPRIEST: I meant any of the other 

manufacturers that are here. 

MR. FOLEY: The idea here from AHAM's 

perspective when AHAM provides comments we are 

speaking as a consensus body for the entire industry. 

 It's the same answer you would get if you would 

respond to each of these companies individually. We 

feel very confident that our response represents the 

entire industry in saying that there are not products 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that would approach minimal compliance from a soil 

sensor standpoint. That's why AHAM acts on behalf of 

all these people basically. 

MR. DEPRIEST: Okay. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. Let 

me just reword it my way so I'm comfortable. What I 

hear you saying is that for the soil sensing models 

there are none in that category that are minimally 

compliant with the standard. 

MR. FOLEY: Correct. 

MS. PINTO: Thank you. 

MR. CLOUGH: All set? Charlie, you had a 

comment. 

MR. STEPHENS: All taken care of. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Great. Any other 

comments on this topic before we move forward? I 

think we're set. Let's talk about cycles per year. 

The Department and John clarify for me I think the 

proposal is 215. 

MR. BOWMAN: That's what's proposed. 

MR. CLOUGH: Proposes 215. The AHAM 

comments actually were focused at 208 based on the 

information that you provided. 

MR. PETERSON: And what's on the label. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. PETERSON: To be in alignment with the 

label. 

MR. CLOUGH: To be in alignment with the 

label. Any more discussion on that in terms of 

alternate information or other comments on that topic? 

 Natashcha. 

MS. CASTRO: I would just like to request 

a clarification. You said to align with the program 

label. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. Not with 

what's currently on the label, but in order to achieve 

and even -- value which is all that is specified on 

the FTC energy guide label the closest integer is four 

per week which translates to 208 per year. If we put 

five, it would be too much. Three would be too 

little. 

If we put four up at 215, we're 

misrepresenting to the end consumer what the test was 

based on. Since John's information said pretty much 

you can pick any value between 200 and 233 you are 

probably not going to be too far wrong, our point is 

if you can pick any value then pick one where there's 

100 percent disclosure to the end consumer; 208 which 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

is what we will document with four cycles per week on 

the FTC label. 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug, Whirlpool. Clearly 

what we're referring to is if you look at the energy 

label itself down on the fine print on the bottom of 

the label there is a statement. This one is I think 

an earlier version. It reads "Based on six washloads 

a week and a 1992 U.S. calculation of some 

information." So really it's that statement that 

we're targeting with that integer value of four and 

having that equate more closely with the energy that's 

represented on the label. That's really what we're 

offering. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. As I 

understand it if the FTC rounds if it's 4.18 they 

would drop it to four. 

MR. KLUG: Correct. 

MR. CLOUGH: Charlie, did you have a 

comment on this? 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. Charlie Stephens. 

There's a few things. First of all, I think we can 

get hold of the data from the American Water Works 

Association. Tom and I compared notes about what we 

already know about the data. It's a little strange in 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that it comes out at per capita, so you have to know 

how many capitas there are per household. 

But I think those numbers when you 

multiply them through will probably, again based on 

our recollection, run about 245. Again, it depends on 

how many persons you assume per household and that 

sort of thing. If I recall, the first batch was about 

a 1,200 household sample nationally. So they may have 

added to that in the meantime. We'll look at that. 

The other thing though is you may end up 

with 4.5 cycles per week or whatever. I don't know 

what FTC will do at 4.5, whether they'll round to five 

or round down to four or whether they'll just put 4.5. 

 That may be close to where the number comes out. 

MR. CLOUGH: So just as a clarification. 

Are you feeling that this additional set of data if 

it's added in with the other survey information that 

John has provided should change the proposal more 

towards that 245? I'm just trying to clarify. Are 

you proposing that there's another set of data that 

should be evaluated along with the other sets? 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. We've been doing 

energy efficiency now out in the Northwest for about 

20 years. If you can get a statistically valid set of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

data properly acquired, that's the kind of data we 

like to hang our hat on rather than surveys. 

So the fact is I would tend to give a submetered set of data that was done across a broad 

spectrum of households if we all agree that it is 

broadly representative nationwide and that there's 

enough of them that I would give that kind of data 

much more weight than I would a survey that asks 

people if they use their dishwasher fewer than four 

times per week, four to six times per week, more than 

six times per week or whatever. Those numbers are 

fuzzy just to start with. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: Then they get fuzzier when 

you try to do averages as Mr. Schleede pointed out 

earlier. So anyway, I would give a lot of weight to 

actual sub-metered data. I think there is such 

available, but I think it may land us in that nether 

zone between four and five loads a week based on our 

recollection of the data. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Let me just as a 

follow-up back over to here. The issue of the solid 

integer to be in line with that, do you view this as 

an issue that you pick the 208 because it's an even 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

four and then the next choice is to go to five or is 

it actually okay do you think to come up with 

something that isn't the full load per week number? 

MR. PETERSON: This is Steve Peterson. 

The even integer just really evolves from the data 

that John presented which says we were very close to 

an even integer. So if we are close, and I think you 

would state that there's no compelling reason to pick 

any one reason over any another, if that's true to the 

case plus the new information that Charlie may add, 

then we feel it's a compelling case to pick the one 

that we can best represent on the energy guide. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie again. The other 

issue that I wanted to just raise here is that there 

is mention here in all of this that there's an intent 

to update this information periodically. I guess I 

would like a brief amount of discussion about who's 

going to do that and how and on what interval. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: I mean, if we're all 

successful at getting people to quit hand washing 

dishes, it should change. 

MR. CLOUGH: I'd stop today. Barbara, 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Natashcha, is there any historical information on how 

often this type of information is typically updated 

based on other activities or is it something to be 

determined? 

MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg. This is 

something to be determined. We would have to look 

into it, but it's something that comes up numerous 

times. So it's definitely a concern particularly in a 

rulemaking like this. We need to look into how to do 

that, fund it, and keep it going. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any other comments 

related to this topic? I think we've pretty much 

covered it. Definition of standby. 

MS. PINTO: How was that last issue left? 

MR. CLOUGH: What I have taken out of the 

conversation at this point is that based on what John 

had presented this morning there's a proposal for a 

slight modification based on that to bring it in line 

with the guide and that Charlie believes there is a 

nether set of information that I believe he is going 

to be able to provide. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. We have it in-house 

in various places. It's just a matter of what form is 

it in. I think we can probably provide it 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

electronically to anybody who's interested. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. You will be providing 

to the Department for them to incorporate into their 

evaluation. 

MR. STEPHENS: For anybody who wants it. 

MR. CLOUGH: I think if there's any 

disagreement that's where the topic stands right now. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. Charlie, will 

you also be getting us during the comment period your 

evaluation of the data and what you take from it? 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes I will. Basically what 

I'm going to do is I suspect that it will point me 

toward one of those surveys that seems to have 

matching numbers or closely matching numbers. That 

would suggest by whatever means one of the surveys got 

at a more representative number based on sub-metered 

data then some of the other surveys do. Whether it's 

by accident or not, I couldn't say. Like I said where 

we are we rely on sub-metered data as the best data we 

can find at least in comparison to survey data. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve, did you have a 

comment? 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. Charlie, 

if that is public, we'd be interested in getting that 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

too. 

MR. STEPHENS: No problem. I think the 

AWWA intended it to be used. 

MR. PETERSON: Okay. Great. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Let's move on to 

definition of standby. I'm trying to figure out how 

to summarize what we talked about this morning. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley. I'm still 

stuck process-wise on the last issue. If the 

Department is going to be using data that none of us 

have seen as a determinant for what the level is to be 

chosen, it almost appears that it may require another 

round of discussions of some sorts. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. FOLEY: I would be hesitant to suggest 

that the Department from now on make any decision 

without having had full discussions about the issues 

that are being talked about. If new sets of data are 

going to be submitted, that would require a certain 

amount of discussion as opposed to having just one 

party be able to submit data to which the 

determination on how the Department made a decision. 

So if Charlie insists on submitting new 

data, I would suggest that we gather again in some 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

fashion or another to discuss what he is submitting 

and to have a full evaluation of that data. That's 

the whole intent on what this process is. 

MR. STEPHENS: I will get the data I think 

in time for everybody to submit comments with it. 

MR. FOLEY: No. It's too late. In other 

words, the clock has to start again. 

MR. STEPHENS: Well, no. I think what 

we're talking about with this data is DOE has stated 

that there's no reason to pick a number in the range 

that they suggested, one number instead of another 

number. What I'm suggesting is there is some data out 

there and it's quite simple. It's going to be submetered data from enough households that we can 

consider it nationally representative. 

MR. FOLEY: You keep saying we, but I 

don't -- 

MR. STEPHENS: It's completely 

independent. It's accurate data collected by the 

American Water Works Association. They have no bone 

to pick I think in this thing. The fact of the matter 

is it does give you one reason to pick a number in 

that range. If you have no reason to pick a number in 

the range today, I'm suggesting this data might give 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

you a reason to pick one number within that range 

instead of another. I think that's all it is. 

MR. CLOUGH: Gene, your point is just that 

if this new information is brought into the process 

that you're recommending that the Department open this 

up for discussion based on the new information. 

MR. FOLEY: Correct. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg. Gene, would it 

be possible to do something like put that on our 

website for everyone to read and do it like that as 

opposed to meeting within the timeframe of this 

current rulemaking? 

MR. FOLEY: I'm a little worried about the 

fact that we're bumping up against the November 18 for 

the final comments and that there does need to be a 

full discussion about this. We're sort of in limbo 

waiting for data we don't have is what it boils down 

to. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. I guess I 

think that if the data can be made available virtually 

immediately, I mean, today we were expecting to see 

all of the relevant information and then have our 

opportunity as Gene said to comment by November 18. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

So if it can be made available to us in 

the next day or something, I guess it's bending the 

rules a little bit but I for one would be comfortable 

as long as we had full disclosure of the new 

information. Gene makes a great point. You can't 

just after all that and you've closed up the door 

sneak an item in at the last minute and have that be a 

determining factor. 

MR. ECKMAN: Two comments. Tom Eckman, 

Northwest Power Planning Council. I think we can 

provide the data pretty quickly. If I would have 

brought my laptop today, I may have been able to make 

this today. 

On a second related matter, as far as I 

know there are several of the studies that we don't 

have access to already that proport to represent how 

many cycles per year are done because they're 

proprietary studies. This is in the public domain. 

So to the extent that there is full disclosure, this 

is better disclosure that we have than the ones that 

are proprietary. We can't evaluate those. This one 

at least can be made available for evaluation. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. So I think my 

understanding of where this issue lies is still back 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

on that if the information comes in and they choose to 

use it as part of the evaluation you're still 

suggesting that it still be opened up for additional 

discussion. 

MR. FOLEY: Right. 

MR. CLOUGH: I think that's where this 

stands at this point. Any more discussion on this 

topic before I move on? 

MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg. Let me just 

say just one more time you asked about how we would 

normally re-evaluate or something. Normally I guess 

we do these things when we turn over a new rulemaking. 

 I think the dishwasher standard would come into play 

in a year or two, do it then, or if we had some 

follow-up thing. 

The other number had sat around for a 

while. We can always be pushed and encouraged to do 

something, but generally we get into cycles of dealing 

with a package of issues when it's time to reopen or 

redo something like that. So I'm not sure exactly 

what pace it would be. 

MR. CLOUGH: So another option then is to 

stick with the proposal that you have and the comments 

that have been made, take the additional set of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

information, and hold it as part of a re-evaluation 

that may take place in the future as a third option 

for this. Anymore comments on this topic? 

(No response.) 

MR. CLOUGH: Standby power. To try and 

briefly summarize what we talked about on this topic 

this morning, there was a definition, and help me 

Natashcha if I don't get this exactly correct here, 

that was proposed in the NOPR that you discussed. 

There have been some comments to that including an 

alternative that has been provided that is the IEC 

definition which I think puts us in a situation now of 

having a couple different definitions. 

What I want to try and achieve in this 

discussion here is to try and figure out if there are 

aspects of the IEC definition that should be 

incorporated into the DOE definition. Are you 

proposing that the proposed definition is thrown out 

rock, stock and barrel and completely replaced? Is 

this a word? I'm trying to figure out the range of 

divergence between what is proposed and the comments 

that are coming in, in terms of the recommendation. 

So I really just want to try and open it 

up for discussion. Let me start with you gentlemen 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

because you had the proposal. Help me to understand 

where is the area of divergence right now between what 

you're proposing and what is currently on the table. 

MR. WETHJE: This is Larry Wethje with 

AHAM. What's in the NOPR right now doesn't adequately 

describe the standby mode situation for all 

dishwashers, so we're suggesting to go to a more 

generic definition. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. And the rationale for 

that is? 

MR. WETHJE: It's internationally accepted 

and covers all the products that would be covered by 

this rulemaking the way we would define it. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stevens. I'd like 

to pick up on Larry's earlier discussion about that 

international standard. I like the idea of being 

consistent with the IEC definition. Is there a 

schedule for when they're going to maybe decide no 

more changes to the current draft? Do you know of 

any? 

MR. WETHJE: Larry from AHAM. Well, no. 

They're trying to fix the schedule. The first draft 

just went out for review and comment by all national 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

committees. That comment period closed earlier this 

month, so those comments will be considered. Then it 

will go out for review and comment again. 

MR. STEPHENS: So will it be modified 

before it goes out for review and comment again? 

MR. WETHJE: It's hard to say. It's based 

upon the comments that are received and the 

discussions when the committee reconvenes to consider 

those comments. 

MR. STEPHENS: So there's no way we can 

align that schedule and this one at all. 

MR. WETHJE: No, not really. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 

MR. WETHJE: I would say though that there 

was a tremendous amount of time ad nauseam to the 

discussion of this additional definition that's in 

there, so I don't expect a change. There seemed to be 

a very good broad consensus by everyone involved with 

the definition that was in the first draft, so I would 

be surprised if it changes. 

MR. STEPHENS: I would like to be 

comfortable saying that DOE should go with the IEC 

definition even if a word or two or whatever gets 

changed between now and whenever the final rule is 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

published. That's what I'm fishing for here. I'd 

like to be able to make that comment. I just want to 

know how much confidence you can give me. 

MR. WETHJE: That's as much as I can give 

you, Charlie. I can't speak for the whole committee. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 

MR. CLOUGH: I'd maybe like to ask the 

people at the Department to give some of their 

reactions to this definition as it currently stands in 

terms of what they see, how applicable it may be with 

regards to the one that is currently proposed. 

MS. TWIGG: Natashcha has a presentation 

that she'll do right now. 

MS. CASTRO: There was a handout that went 

around. It starts off "Alternative standby definition 

measurement procedure based on IEC." It's a one page 

with two sides. The first three paragraphs which are 

numbered 1.14, 3.5, and 4.4 are excerpts from the 

current NOPR language plus some modifications based on 

the IEC draft that I saw. 

The language that's written in normal text 

is the modified section and the italicized words are 

existing language. So if we look at the first one, 

standby mode, we've taken virtually the same IEC 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

definition. The order has been modified a little bit 

in that we're addressing dishwashers rather than 

products or appliances in general. 

I've made a slide here just to highlight 

the main points for the standby definition. The 

original one as I presented before was based on the 

doorlock being unlatched. That has been stated to be 

not robust enough to address the different types and 

different designs of dishwashers. 

There are other sources that we looked at, 

the FEMP definition and the IEC draft. What we're 

proposing here or just bringing up for discussion at 

this point is a new definition for standby mode to 

mean the lowest power consumption mode which cannot be 

switched off or influenced by the user; a nonoperational mode not affected by the dishwasher's 

primary function which may persist for an indefinite 

time when the dishwasher is connected to the main 

electricity supply and used in accordance with the 

manufacturer's instructions. If you have any 

comments, it's a little bit different than the 

definition that AHAM proposed. 

MS. CAIRNS: So this basically assumes 

that this power will be consumed all in the time and 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

does not include power that is no longer consumed when 

the latch is unlocked. 

MS. CASTRO: Right. What we were trying 

to achieve with the condition of the door being 

unlatched was the lowest energy consumption. We were 

trying to get at that, but we were trying to be a 

little more prescriptive to say this is the exact test 

condition that you need to achieve in order to get 

that mode. It's not possible to define that for all 

the different types of dishwasher designs, so we have 

to step back and go back to a definition based on 

specifying the lowest power consumption mode. 

MS. CAIRNS: Are there models with standby 

power consumption other than the indicator, the load 

has been run and the dishes are clean? 

PARTICIPANT: Yes. 

MS. CAIRNS: There are because I was 

unaware there are models that do. So this definition 

of standby power mode would not get the energy 

consumed by those features that are disabled once the 

door is opened. 

MS. CASTRO: Like a light that stays on. 

MS. CAIRNS: And like the light. 

MS. CASTRO: No. The definition of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

standby power as addressed by FEMP or IEC does not 

address that type. That's a function that the 

dishwasher is performing and therefore it's not a 

standby power. Perhaps the manufacturers could 

elaborate a bit on why there is energy consumed in 

standby and what that's going to so we have a clearer 

understanding. 

MR. JOHNSON: This is Tom Johnson from 

Maytag. Just to clarify that a little bit on standby 

power, you encounter this generally with some of the 

more sophisticated controls, the electronic controls. 

 They're not only in dishwashers. They can be in your 

garage door opener or your VCR where the control has 

energy supplied to it so it's ready for a command, so 

if you come up and push a button or something, it will 

accept that. 

So the product is using a small amount of 

energy even though it's not providing its normal 

function of cleaning dishes in this case. It's 

looking at how much energy is being consumed as it's 

sitting there in that state. 

MS. CAIRNS: So this would be for the 

sensor. I just wasn't clear. I mean, I've very 

familiar with standby power on other appliances, but 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

for dishwashers I wasn't clear. The sensor is the 

part. What is the function that's being -- 

MR. JOHNSON: This is Tom Johnson again 

with Maytag. I'm sorry. 

MR. STEPHENS: Using a television remote 

control function, there you're using a remote. In a 

dishwasher, you might push a button or a touchpad. 

MS. CAIRNS: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: If it doesn't have power, 

that touchpad has no function. It won't do anything 

unless there's power on the machine to receive that 

signal. 

MR. JOHNSON: Tom Johnson from Maytag 

again. Just for further clarification, typically a 

sensor base dishwasher would have a microprocessor or 

electronic control and have a standby power but it's 

not imperative. You could have a product that has a 

microprocessor that has standby power but it doesn't 

use the sensor technology, so they're not tied 

together. 

MS. CAIRNS: This is Carolyn Cairns from 

Consumer Union again. Are the other measures that we 

have for energy for dishwashers or is the energy 

consumed by something like a LED light that is 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

disabled after you open the machine, is that power 

measured in any other way or is that just not 

something that's included in the dishwasher energy 

consumption measure? 

MS. CASTRO: Right now, all we're 

measuring is the energy consumed during the normal 

cycle. Normally that would end after the blower stops 

and the fan stops. If the light stays on afterwards, 

I think maybe it's not prescribed well enough in the 

language. If the light comes on and says that it's 

finished, the consumer can open up and get their 

dishes. Personally, I think that would be the end of 

the cycle. 

MS. CAIRNS: When the door is opened. 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. I think the 

manufacturers would have to say if they are measuring 

the energy beyond that point I'm not aware of it. I'm 

assuming that when the light comes on that's when the 

cycle would be finished. 

MR. CLOUGH: Let me ask if there are any 

comments to this proposed definition here. 

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje. Natashcha, I 

think it's a good definition for the most part. I'm 

just wondering why you included the phrase there about 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

not affected by the dishwasher's primary function. It 

seems to me if you leave that phrase out it's still 

not an adequate definition. On the second line if you 

just go "non-operational mode" right to "which may 

persist." Do you see what I'm saying? 

MS. CASTRO: Right. 

MR. WETHJE: You have the part in there 

about primary function which may persist. 

MS. CASTRO: In here. (Indicating.) 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

 From the comma on, even the non-operational mode, I'm 

trying to figure out. That was in addition to what 

was in the original IEC. I'm trying to figure out why 

that was added. 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. If you look -- 

MR. WETHJE: It's a note. 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. It's going to be a note 

which you see on the bottom of the handout. 

MR. FOLEY: And even a note says it's 

usually. It's doesn't mandate that note is what it 

is. So I would suggest that everything following the 

comma actually be deleted. So "After users nonoperational mode of primary function" comma -- 

MR. WETHJE: To there? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. FOLEY: Yes, to there. "Action is not 

necessary." 

MR. CLOUGH: It would be rewritten to say 

"Which cannot be switched off or be influenced by the 

user, which may persist for an indefinite time." 

MR. FOLEY: Correct. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto from 

DOE. Isn't that an important part of the definition 

because we have a dishwasher's primary function which 

is being measured by the energy factor? This is 

anything other than that, so those clarifying words 

seem to make that absolutely clear. 

MR. WETHJE: This is Larry from AHAM. 

Well, the very first phrase though I think takes that 

into consideration; "a low power consumption mode 

which cannot be switched off." It just seems like 

you're adding redundant and unnecessary verbiage to 

the definition because you've already defined the fact 

that you're in the non-operational mode by saying it's 

the lowest power consumption mode that can't be 

switched off. It's not a big deal as far as I'm 

concerned. I just don't think it's necessary. 

PARTICIPANT: Does it really change 

anything? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. WETHJE: It doesn't really change 

anything. I've spent so much time on this definition 

that I don't really care at this point. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine. I would 

like to hear other people's comments, other 

stakeholders. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. It seems 

to me we have three modes then by the time we're done 

here on some dishwashers. We have standby where you 

can't get any lower power consumption than that from 

the user's perspective anyway. Then there's the 

cycle, whatever cycle that we're testing. Then 

there's this one that exists when the little LED comes 

on and says that the load is finished but the cycle is 

over but the door isn't opened. 

We aren't at the lowest power consumption 

yet. And then there's a mode in some dishwashers 

where it's in a delayed wash function where they've 

sort of started it but it isn't really at the 

beginning of the wash cycle for three hours or 

whatever they set the delayed wash for. So there's 

some power consumption there for the timer and maybe a 

little LED that says it's in the delayed wash mode. 

I'm presuming that we're including the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

consumption of the power supply for these electronics 

which in many cases can be the most egregious consumer 

in the case of standby power consumption, whether the 

little LED is on or not. So we're probably pretty 

close to the actual power being consumed when we just 

do standby with the light off. Even though there are 

three modes, I think I'm content that we're capturing 

most of this by assuming that there's actually only 

two. 

As long as the definition that we're using 

here can sort of make that allowance that we're really 

talking about two modes here even though in actuality 

there may be three, that's my only concern. I can go 

on the record and I will go on the record saying I'm 

not really concerned about those little LEDs that tell 

you it's on timer or that the load is done but as long 

as the definition doesn't confuse anybody. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. Charlie, so 

the way this is written now, the definition that 

Natashcha has on the screen, does that satisfy you? 

Does that make sense? Do you see changes that need to 

be made? 

MR. STEPHENS: The thing where I'm still 

trying to think here is where we talk about a nonEE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

operational mode not affected by the dishwasher's 

primary function. To me, the dishwasher's primary 

function is what we refer to as the normal wash cycle. 

 So to me if you say that it's a non-operational mode 

not affected by that primary function, it includes 

that third category that says it's not part of the 

normal wash cycle and we're going to measure the power 

for that number of minutes. 

MR. WETHJE: Except the first phrase of 

the definition excludes that, Charlie, from being the 

case because it says the lowest power consumption 

mode. That won't be the lowest power consumption 

mode. 

MR. STEPHENS: In theory. 

MR. CLOUGH: Can anybody give me an 

example of a non-operational mode that is affected by 

the dishwasher's primary function? I guess what I'm 

trying to do is question the validity of this 

statement here. It assumes if it is a non-operational 

mode not affected by the dishwasher's primary function 

then it assumes that there are cases when a nonoperational mode is affected by the dishwasher's 

primary function. I guess my question is if that 

isn't the case either -- 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I don't know about 

the timer. To be honest, I'm not technically well 

versed enough with these dishwashers to know if the 

timer is chugging away, whether it's actually going to 

send a signal at the end of its timekeeping or not. I 

mean, the timer has a period when it's actually doing 

something to the point where it will send a signal to 

the dishwasher to start. Then there's other times 

where it just has to know what time it is. 

I think I get that from my dishwasher 

because there's this mode where it says PF on it for 

power failure that I can't for the life of me 

sometimes figure out how to turn off as the consumer. 

 I know that something is keeping track of the fact 

that the power failed and it affected the timer maybe 

but I don't know what the timer is doing. So I don't 

think it cares what time it is, only that it's three 

hours from now or two hours from now or whatever. 

MR. CLOUGH: So if I can wrap up what I've 

heard in this conversation, there are comments about 

some potential redundancy in the language here, but 

overall I'm not hearing huge disagreement with this as 

it's written right now. 

MR. FOLEY: Have you identified nonEE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

operational mode in the NOPR? 

MR. CLOUGH: Are you asking if that term 

is defined? 

MR. FOLEY: Yes. This is Gene Foley from 

AHAM. That's my question. My question is we add all 

of these new issues that just tend to be confusing and 

will have to have definitions, but I don't think they 

add anything specific. 

So there's a whole bunch of new terms that 

are going to have to be defined that I just as soon 

avoid. We're going to have to define primary 

function. We're going to have to define nonoperational mode. We would avoid all of that by just 

leaving all of that off. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie again. I have a 

thought now on how I was perceiving that. What we're 

talking about here is standby mode for the purposes of 

the test, so we want to make sure that the time we're 

measuring this thing is the time when it's in the 

lowest consumption mode that can't be switched off by 

the consumer and not an operational mode that isn't 

just an operational mode that's the normal wash 

function. 

Here we're talking about minutes, how many 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

minutes we allocate to what. It's not the power 

consumption, but how many minutes are we going to 

count for normal cycle and non-functional. Those 

timers for delayed wash, for telling you the wash is 

over to me are connected to the dishwasher's primary 

function but we're not going to count them in the 

minutes. 

MR. WETHJE: Yes we are. 

MR. STEPHENS: No. You're not going to 

count that in the normal cycle unless you want to go 

through an enormous number of iterations figuring out 

how long it takes the consumer to acknowledge the 

little light that tells them that the wash load is 

done. 

MR. WETHJE: But everything that isn't in 

the normal cycle is considered standby as far as 

minutes go. 

MR. STEPHENS: Only if you read this the 

way it's written. 

MR. WETHJE: But if you look at the 

calculations and the formulas, that's how you 

determine the average general operating -- 

MR. STEPHENS: I know how to calculate it. 

What I'm saying is the definition of what you're 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

counting minutes for is in this definition right here. 

 Which set of minutes you allocated the little LED to 

depends on this definition right here. 

MR. WETHJE: You don't allocate any 

minutes to the LED mode because there is no such mode 

required or specified in the test procedure. There's 

the time allocated for the normal wash cycle and the 

time allocated for standby. Two time allocations -- 

MR. STEPHENS: Only if you get this 

definition right. 

MS. CAIRNS: Yes because the standby 

definition right now in here as I understand it does 

not include the LED light being on before you open the 

door because you finish the wash so you're not 

measuring it through the normal wash cycle because 

it's finished. But the power consumption can be 

switched off by the consumer, so you're not measuring 

standby either. 

MR. CLOUGH: The way that I interpret this 

also on this LED issue is there's also the statement 

in here that says "which may persist for an indefinite 

time." So if the LED does not stay on for an 

indefinite time if the people have not gone on 

vacation indefinitely which wouldn't be so bad 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

sometimes -- I guess what I'd like to get to though is 

that issue does it change the wording of this 

definition. Based on what we've talked about here and 

this issue of the LED light being on or being off, do 

you have a suggestion for changing wording in here to 

capture the concern that you're stating at this point? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie here. To me with 

that definition the way it's written, it's clear to me 

that you measure the power consumption in the standby 

mode when there's no lights on. It's in the lowest 

power consumption mode that we can detect while the 

machine is plugged in. When you go to figure out the 

length of the cycle, the normal cycle doesn't count 

the period of time -- Well see, this is where you -- 

MR. WETHJE: You admitted a little while 

ago you don't care about that time. 

MR. STEPHENS: I don't. But see, what 

we're talking about here is unless you get this right 

you're measuring the power for the standby mode for a 

period of time that isn't the same as the number of 

minutes because the number of minutes includes not 

just the period when the lowest power consumption that 

can't be switched off or influenced by the user is 

present. It also includes the time when the little 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

light is on. 

MR. WETHJE: There is no such time 

according to this test procedure. There's a normal 

cycle and there's a standby mode period. 

MR. STEPHENS: I know but the standby mode 

doesn't include the time when the LED is on so those 

minutes by definition -- 

MS. CAIRNS: Why don't we just get rid of 

lowest power consumption? 

MR. STEPHENS: That period does not 

include the lowest power consumption mode which cannot 

be switched off or influenced by the user. 

MR. WETHJE: Charlie, we're not allocating 

any minutes in here to a pot scrubber mode either. 

MR. STEPHENS: I know but -- 

MR. CLOUGH: Charlie, I think your issue 

here I don't necessarily think is with this 

definition. I'm hearing you say your issue is 

probably more in terms of the definition of normal 

cycle and how much time is allocated. 

MR. STEPHENS: No. I'm saying that you 

have a problem here with defining the standby mode in 

one way for the purpose of measuring its power 

consumption while defining it a different way for 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

allocating minutes. 

MR. WETHJE: We're not defining it a 

different way for allocating minutes though. 

MR. STEPHENS: Well, if you get into the 

formula that says standby mode where you're taking 

normal cycle, whatever you define that to be, and then 

the other in the standby mode. 

MR. WETHJE: Right. Let's separate these 

topics here a little bit. 

MR. STEPHENS: That's your standby mode. 

MS. CAIRNS: Right. 

MR. CLOUGH: Bring us back. Let's not 

talk about the definition. I think we're bundling the 

issues here now. I still want to bring this back to 

the words that are on the screen here. I hear what 

you're saying about this issue of time period. My 

question goes back to though do you have any 

suggestions for changing the words that are on the 

screen now to try and capture that or does that need 

to be addressed someplace else? 

MR. STEPHENS: I do. I think you need to 

make it clear in the definition of standby mode which 

definition is for the purposes of measuring the power 

consumption and which definition applies to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

calculating that part of the time that isn't normal 

cycle if you refer in the calculation to the standby 

mode period? If you only refer to the standby mode 

period in the calculation and the formula, it's the 

lowest power consumption period in the mode that 

cannot be switched off or influenced by the consumer 

only. 

So now you have the lowest period when the 

door is open shall we say just for clarity here and 

you have the normal cycle. You've covered those in 

minutes, but you have this other period where the door 

is closed and the light is on. 

MR. WETHJE: You also have a period when 

you're in the pot scrubber mode, so do you want to 

address that too? 

MR. STEPHENS: Well, the pot scrubber is 

not the normal cycle. 

MR. WETHJE: Neither is when the light is 

on. 

MR. STEPHENS: No. It's not defined. 

MS. CASTRO: One thought. Could it be 

solved by defining H, the number of standby hours 

rather as just a nominal value? Is the problem that 

you're specifically saying that those are the numbers 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

of standby hours and that's an overestimate? 

MR. STEPHENS: I think you have to define 

the standby hours as 8,766.25 or whatever it is minus 

the normal cycle hours. 

MR. FOLEY: That's the way it is defined. 

MR. STEPHENS: But that's what S has to 

be. 

MR. MILLER: This is Greg Miller with GE. 

 The way we currently have L defined is it's based on 

the medium response for soil sensor models anyway. 

The number of minutes we're talking about here when 

the lights are on and that energy consumed I think is 

insignificant compared to the question of whether you 

use the medium response of the maximum response or the 

minimum response or what. 

The error with the number of hours for 

normal is much greater than what we're arguing about 

here. I don't know where we want to go with this, but 

I think we're off track. The difference between a 

minimum response and a maximum response is much 

greater than what we're discussing. 

MR. CLOUGH: I would suggest that we've 

discussed enough. 

MR. WETHJE: All the facts are on the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

table here. It's a matter of making a determination 

of what definition you want to go with. I don't know 

how much more we're going to gain by continuing to 

discuss it. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. Francine Pinto. So 

Charlie, do you think that what is there is okay? 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. I think it will be 

all right. 

MS. PINTO: Do you all agree with that as 

well? 

MR. WETHJE: It's okay. We would just 

reiterate I don't think that phrase, "A non-operation 

mode not affected by the dishwasher's primary 

function" is necessary. If you want to leave it in, 

that's fine. Our comments are we don't think it's 

necessary and let's go on. If you leave it in, you 

leave it in. We don't think you need to. 

MR. CLOUGH: All right. Any other 

comments with regards to standby mode? I'm only going 

to raise this quickly. I know there were some other 

comments in terms of where it should be used in the 

different types of calculations and the impact that 

would have in terms of energy factor. 

I may be getting this wrong. I'm just 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

raising it very quickly to say is there any additional 

comments that need to be made in terms of where the 

standby mode will be used. I know we talked about 

that some this morning and some comments have already 

been brought in. I just wanted to raise that before 

we move off the topic all together. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc Hoffman. Are 

you asking a question whether we want to discuss 

including it in the power factor there? 

MR. CLOUGH: I wanted to just talk about 

that there were other comments related to this topic 

in addition to just merely the definition itself. You 

guys did make some comments this morning about that. 

Just on this topic, I want to make sure we're done 

with the topic of standby. 

MS. CASTRO: No. I have two more slides. 

MR. CLOUGH: Two more slides? 

MS. CASTRO: Yes. 

MR. CLOUGH: Then we're not done. 

MS. CASTRO: No, not yet. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MS. CASTRO: All right. The second item 

you also have on the handout addresses the standby 

power meter. Most of that definition remains the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

same. There's one sentence that was added. This was 

based on the IEC definition. 

If you look on the overhead, it's keeping 

the resolution of 0.1 watt or better, accumulate watt 

hours at a minimum power level of 20 milliwatt. The 

new one is maximum error of no greater than one 

percent the measured value. Then the other ones that 

existed previously are capable of operating within the 

stated tolerances for input voltages and up to five 

percent total harmonic distortion, capable of 

operating at frequencies from 47 Hertz through 63 

Hertz and a crest factor of not less than five at RMS 

currents of two amps or less. 

I included in this handout on the back 

side at the very bottom instruments for power 

measurements. That comes from an appendix of the IEC 

document. It just has some recommendations when 

you're measuring power at very low levels what you 

need to watch out for. That is also why some of these 

additional points are there like the crest factor. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson from 

Whirlpool. Just a question. Why did you change the 

crest factor from three to five? 

MS. CASTRO: We had it proposed at five. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

In the NOPR, it's a crest factor of five. The IEC 

recommends a minimum of three. It was through 

discussions with other stakeholders before the NOPR 

was published that five was recommended. 

MR. PETERSON: Again, Steve Peterson. 

Just in the interest of consistency with other 

documents in IEC, I guess we would recommend three 

because five we think potentially increases the cost 

of the measuring equipment beyond what is practical 

for this level. This is intended to be able to 

measure those very low power levels. 

MS. CASTRO: Okay. I didn't see where 

they recommended the crest factor other than in the 

appendix where they say at least three. Is there 

another place in the IEC? 

MR. KLUG: This is Wayne Klug. I just 

looked for it in the IEC standard. I didn't see it 

anywhere else. I guess for consistency I support 

being consistent with the IEC standard. 

MS. CASTRO: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I think 

the total harmonic distortion level of five percent 

and the current crest factor of three are probably 

related. So if the THD limit of five percent came 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

from the IEC document, and I presume it does. 

MS. CASTRO: No. 

MR. STEPHENS: No? That's your own? 

MS. CASTRO: Basically everything in 

italics was in the NOPR. 

MR. STEPHENS: And none of it came from 

the IEC. 

MS. CASTRO: Some of it overlaps what the 

IEC is recommending. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. I'm trying to figure 

out whether the THD overlaps the IEC. 

MS. CASTRO: Let me see. 

MR. STEPHENS: I don't have the IEC 

document, so I don't know what's consistent with it or 

not. What I'm saying is if the THD number of five 

percent came out of the IEC document, I suspect the 

current crest factor went along with that since those 

two things are related. 

MS. CASTRO: Okay. I do have the 

document. I'll look into that. 

MR. STEPHENS: I would voice let's be 

consistent with the IEC wherever you have a chance. 

MS. CASTRO: Okay. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any additional comments on 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

this slide? 

(No response.) 

MS. CASTRO: The last one is measurement 

method. Again, we're connecting to the dishwasher to 

the watt or watt hour meter establishing standby mode 

as it's defined, monitoring power consumption while 

stabilizing it for a minimum of five minutes. Out of 

the IEC document, it recommends monitoring power 

consumption for at least an additional five minutes. 

It also gives two options; if the power is 

stable or if it's unstable. It defines that it's 

stable if power varies less than one percent of the 

maximum reading and there's no cyclic or pulsing 

behavior of the load. If that's the case, you can 

record the measurement directly from the instrument at 

the end of the five minute stabilizing period. 

Then the second case is if the power does 

vary over a cycle. That's not to be confused with the 

normal cycle or test cycle. We're looking at the way 

that the standby power varies. Then you're required 

to accumulate energy over a period of one or more 

complete cycles at a minimum of five minutes. 

If you had a case where you had a capacitor that 

discharged every 15 minutes, then you would have to at 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

least have a time period of greater than 15 minutes to 

capture that. The second point is that average power 

is accumulated energy divided by the monitoring period 

in that case. 

MR. WETHJE: Natashcha, this is Larry from 

AHAM. I like the change in here by the way. I think 

it's a good step in the right direction. The one 

question I have is on your first sentence that's not 

in italics there; monitor the power consumption for at 

least an additional five minutes. Then the next 

sentence is "If the power level is not good for more 

than one percent." Where are you getting the one 

percent from? 

MS. CASTRO: The one percent was from IEC 

Section 4.3.1 at the top of that second side. It 

recommends that it be evaluated over a period of three 

minutes. I kept it at five minutes. 

MR. WETHJE: Okay. Just for your 

information, we had a conference call of the U.S. 

Technical Advisory Group submitting comments on this. 

 We recommended in our comments, and I think I sent 

you a copy, that a five percent drift would be fine. 

If you look at the levels that you're monitoring here 

in standby mode, typically two to five watts, a drift 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

of five percent is almost negligible. 

One percent drift is extremely tight. I 

think that's going to be recognized by others in this 

when we review these comments. If I can ask you just 

to reconsider that. If you think about what we're 

measuring and how much of a drift one percent is, I 

mean, one percent of three watts is 0.03. It doesn't 

allow you much room to work with there. 

MS. CASTRO: Right. 

MR. WETHJE: So we suggested in our 

comments a five percent drift which was in keeping 

with the U.S. comments. 

MS. CASTRO: Okay. 

MR. CLOUGH: Additional comments? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Would it 

be clearer if you did say if the power varies over a 

measurement cycle and then talk about additional more 

complete cycles of five minutes each? Is that what 

you're trying to say there? 

MS. CASTRO: This is just trying to 

capture the main bullets, the main items. If you 

could make your comments specific to the proposed 

definition 4.4, that's the actual proposed language. 

MR. CLOUGH: Charlie, do you have any 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

comments to that language? 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. I think it's all 

captured there. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any additional comments in 

this area? 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. I 

have a couple of questions. Is this no cyclic or 

pulsing behavior clear what that is? 

PARTICIPANT: Yes. 

MS. PINTO: And then the next sentence is 

"otherwise if the power varies over a cycle" so I 

assume that means if it varies more than either the 

one percent or the five percent drift. Is that what 

that means? 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. We're 

confirming Francine's comments. That's clear, the way 

it's written. 

MS. PINTO: And the other question I have 

is do the other stakeholders have any comments on 

AHAM's suggestion that the one percent be changed to 

five percent. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Marc from CEE. No, that's 

fine. 

MR. STEPHENS: I think especially if the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

U.S. prevails and gets it, 0.03 at three watts is 

really the meters. We've seen most of our electronic 

meters that are measuring in that scale drift that 

much just due to fluctuations in the utility's power 

supply. 

PARTICIPANT: Exactly. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. Thank you. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments? 

MS. CASTRO: One thing I will just say is 

I know you've just had a chance to look at this draft 

today. If you have other thoughts about how the 

wording could be improved, send that comment in. 

MR. CLOUGH: Now any more comments with 

regard to standby mode? 

(No response.) 

MR. CLOUGH: Great. What was that? 

MS. PINTO: Cyclic or pulsing behavior. 

Now I get it. 

MR. CLOUGH: Wow. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc again from CEE. 

 I guess I just had a question. I was wondering if 

anyone could comment on when we might be able to get 

standby power to be included in the energy factor if 

we're not going to do it now. If anyone had any 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

thoughts about when that might come up again. 

MR. CLOUGH: Perhaps we can hold off until 

we get into future processes and the schedule. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

MR. CLOUGH: Weighing of low, medium, and 

high with regards to the weighing in the cycles of the 

test procedure based on the survey information that 

was presented earlier today. It's 0.63, 0.05, 0.62. 

That's the topic we'd like to discuss now. If there 

are any additional comments on any issues with regards 

to the weighing or maybe open it up if there are other 

issues of the test procedure itself with regards to 

that. If there are any other comments in addition to 

what's been made this morning. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc from CEE. I 

think we're fine with the way it was developed and 

using it as proposed. I do like the idea. I think we 

would like the idea of keeping it open in the future 

to see if that changes, that we could change it, and I 

would hope that we could try to work on changing it 

because I think that's probably the more important 

thing we need to do with this. So I would vote to 

keep it open on the grounds of let's be optimistic and 

hopeful about changing the world. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. CAIRNS: Carolyn Cairns at Consumer 

Union. Yes, we would definitely echo that statement. 

 Also I think we would like to see the two things 

linked. That is the pretreatment, the waiting factor 

as well as the dirt load percentages of a number of 

soiled place settings for example. 

MR. HOFFMAN: You said you would like them 

to be related how. 

MS. CAIRNS: Well, that is as more people 

stop pre-rinsing, the impact of the heavier dirt load 

becomes greater. So you not only want to weight it 

more, but you'd want to increase, change perhaps the 

soil level. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

MS. CAIRNS: From a procedure standpoint, 

I don't know if there's a way through this process to 

make that automatic. That is in four years or 

whatever you do another survey and the factors get 

changed automatically according to that survey. I 

don't know. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto from 

DOE. I think what you're suggesting is that as part 

of this test procedure there be some automatic 

changes. We don't usually do that. We would have to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

have another rulemaking with notice and comment. DOE 

is always open to the future when things change and 

somebody petitions us because they feel it's time for 

a change. Then you have new data. You have a new 

proposal on the table with modifications. As a rule, 

we don't have automatic changes. 

MS. CAIRNS: How does that work with the 

Energy Star where it's 25 percent of the market? So 

whatever the market is the -- 

MS. PINTO: Energy Star is a voluntary 

program. This is a rule. We're setting minimum 

requirements here that are mandatory. 

MS. CAIRNS: I understand that. 

MS. PINTO: So generally speaking in a 

rulemaking process, you give people a chance to come 

in and comment so you can't go automatically change 

something. 

MS. CAIRNS: Is there a way for DOE then 

in the rulemaking though to commit to doing that, to 

doing the survey and revising the rule accordingly? 

Is that a possibility? 

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer at DOE. I 

would just say that typically as I think Francine was 

saying we have a waiver request of a new technology 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

for soil sensing that triggers that. But typically, 

no, we don't have automatic. I don't know that it 

would make sense in this case now. If there was a 

standard rulemaking eventually, then maybe that would 

be some issue that you would re-evaluate that data. 

It would have to be probably some new technology. 

You asked about Energy Star. Again, we 

would have to accept a separate ruling separate from 

test procedures to change the standard rule. That 

would then trigger Energy Star to do 25 percent. 

Again, there would have to be some justification to 

say yes there's a gigantic leap in technology, the 

market is going. There would be a certain trend to 

say the energy statements would be great with this new 

technology per se. 

So there has to be something to trigger 

the Department. Part of that is in our priority 

setting. It's like when Marc asked about addressing 

this now and when's the likelihood of standards to be 

looked at. Right now, dishwashers is not a high 

priority. It would be at least three years before we 

finish high priorities which we're working on now. 

That would have to be completed before we would even 

address looking at dishwashers. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

We've put dishwasher standards on medium 

priority. We have gotten comments on that from AHAM 

as far as where it's placed. Again, we'd have to look 

at the energy savings to justify saying if it was more 

than we're using a -- on savings that we would put 

that on a high priority. So we can't give a definite 

answer as far as when timing will be. I would say at 

least three years before we'd even consider another 

standard. 

MR. CLOUGH: Charlie. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I think 

this most represents or most resembles the clothes 

washer typical use factors. Maybe some folks at DOE 

and AHAM could talk to us about how those are handled. 

 Those are the factors that determine the weights for 

cold wash, warm wash, hot wash in the clothes washer 

test procedure. Maybe you could explain how those are 

handled and we could handle the dishwasher in the same 

way, whatever that is. 

MR. WETHJE: Do we know how they're 

handled with respect to -- 

MR. FOLEY: I don't understand your 

question. 

MR. STEPHENS: I was hoping that somebody 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

at AHAM or DOE would explain how periodically the 

weights for cold wash versus warm wash versus hot wash 

in the clothes washer test method for weighting the 

energy use of clothes washers is handled when Proctor 

and Gamble updates their typical use factor surveys 

that give you those weights. They've been updated at 

least once to my knowledge. I would just like 

somebody at DOE to explain how that was done. 

MR. FOLEY: That was just through the 

rulemaking. 

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 

MR. FOLEY: In other words, it's through 

rulemaking then that those new factors were taken into 

account. If they were updated between now and 

whenever, it would not have any impact on what would 

occur with regard to a standard or clothes washer. 

It's only triggered by the rulemaking. 

MR. STEPHENS: Right. But it can trigger 

in itself potentially a rulemaking if there's nothing 

else and it's a significant change I think. 

MR. FOLEY: A rulemaking can only be 

triggered if there is significant energy savings that 

are to be had or defining national need at this point. 

 So I think that's the other thing we have to take 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

into consideration. For a rulemaking, you have to 

show that there's actually going to be significant 

savings that are going to occur from that to trigger 

rulemaking as opposed to just the information that we 

are being submitted which may not be as accurate as 

all that. So there has to be as Bryan was saying in a 

sense a leap in technology in order to trigger -- 

MS. PINTO: A leap in technology or leap 

in consumer behavior in this case. Right? 

MR. FOLEY: No. 

MS. PINTO: I mean, if everybody started 

pre-rinsing their dishes, would that constitute a 

significant change? 

MR. FOLEY: What would it do different to 

the machine to save energy? That's the question. 

There would have to be a leap in technology, not a 

leap in consumer behavior. 

MR. STEPHENS: Well, except for it comes 

to a dishwasher test procedure. It can be a 

significant difference between what's on the energy 

guide label and what the machines actually use which 

is I think why we're sitting here. 

MR. CLOUGH: I think the point out of this 

to keep in mind though is that the Department doesn't 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

make any changes without going through this rulemaking 

process. It sounds like it can be triggered by a 

variety of things, but your question originally was is 

there any sort of incremental updating that is done. 

The answer to that question I heard is no, not without 

going through the rulemaking process. 

MS. CAIRNS: And or as Marc mentioned as 

well what's the possibility of getting some sort of 

commitment to looking at this thing and getting the 

data that might trigger a change. That is getting 

another survey in four years or something like that. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. I'm 

not sure I can answer exactly the question, but in FGA 

Section 323 E-2 allows for petitions, and this is on 

the test procedure section, of interested persons to 

petition for a new test procedure. So there's always 

that process available. 

What I'm saying is if the Department of 

Energy on its own behalf has not initiated a 

particular proceeding or a test procedure, and I'm 

going to have to go back and look at the section on 

standards before I speak, you can actually petition 

the Department to do something and give us your basis 

on which you'd like us to take action. Then we will 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

respond. 

Now I think the Department is always 

looking to see what is happening out in the market, 

generally what's happening technologically, what's 

going on out there, what stakeholders are saying to 

see what we should be looking at. But you're always 

welcome to file a petition if you have information 

that is not being considered that you think we should 

be considering. There is provision in the statute for 

that. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments on this 

topic here? If not, we're going to move on. We have 

a couple more here. Filter cleaning. Carolyn, you 

had raised this before lunch. 

MS. CAIRNS: Yes. Our question as much as 

anything or observation is that there are some 

machines that have manual filter cleaning which a 

consumer when taking out a machine would use 

presumably warm water to clean versus ones that 

automatically clean the filters. So we were wondering 

if there would be an option to consider developing 

some factor to account for this. We're not sure how 

much of a difference that would make in terms of the 

energy consumption by the manual versus automatic 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

filter cleaning models. 

MR. EDWARDS: Mike Edwards from BSH. I 

think that would be difficult because not everyone 

uses water to clean filters. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments on this 

filter cleaning issue? 

MR. STEPHENS: This is Charlie Stephens. 

I would have to concur. I think you'd have to have 

some data and I don't think anybody has any that I 

know of. 

MR. EDWARDS: And in addition, I don't 

think that all filters have to be cleaned at the same 

intervals. 

MR. STEPHENS: It depends on the soil 

level. Right? 

MS. CAIRNS: Yes. 

MR. CLOUGH: I'm actually going to skip 

the future process and schedule for now. I want to 

close out with that at the end. We talked a little 

bit about the normal cycle. That had come up a little 

earlier after lunch. Are there any additional 

comments on what is incorporated in that there were 

some questions about the calculations associated with 

that I believe? Any other comments on this issue of 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

what is incorporated in that normal cycle? I know 

we're getting into sort of a low biorhythm period 

here. 

(Laughter.) 

MS. CAIRNS: Don't forget to pass the 

candy those of you who have it right in front of you. 

MR. CLOUGH: Yes. The reason why I'm not 

giving you a break is I think we see the end in sight. 

 I'm trying to keep us all here together to get 

through what we have left to get through. 

MS. DELVES: Does anybody need sugar? 

MR. CLOUGH: Normal cycle. Any more 

comments on this? 

MS. CASTRO: You could just read what it 

currently is. 

MR. CLOUGH: Or how about you read what it 

currently is for me. That would be wonderful. 

Natashcha is going to read what it currently is. 

MS. CASTRO: Normal cycle means the cycle 

type recommended by the manufacturer for completely 

washing a full load of normally soiled dishes 

including the power dry feature. 

MS. PINTO: Natashcha, is this in our 

current proposal? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. CASTRO: Yes. That wasn't changed. 

MS. PINTO: In the NOPR. 

MS. CASTRO: It's in the NOPR. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc from CEE. Our 

position is that it leaves too much wiggle room for 

someone to abuse that. That's what we're raising. 

MR. CLOUGH: Do you have any suggestions 

for changes? 

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. We would suggest that 

you require that at least one cycle be heated to 120 

degrees or something along those lines, whatever is 

technically appropriate. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Keep it comparable to a nonwater heating dishwasher. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any other comments on 

this? 

(No response.) 

MR. CLOUGH: The fork question. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. Finishing up 

on this normal cycle. Are there any other comments 

from AHAM, manufacturers, anybody else about this? 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 Marc, can you explain a little bit more about the 

heating up to 120 and what needs to be heated to 120? 

MR. HOFFMAN: We're not dishwasher 

experts. We're looking to have a level playing field. 

 It seems if we rely solely on a manufacturer's 

specification of normal cycle it allows them to game 

the installation practices here in the states and 

perhaps with a water heating dishwasher could claim 

that the normal cycle could be run on cold water. 

We just didn't think that would be fair to 

run one machine on cold water when it doesn't really 

perform and wouldn't perform that way in reality. And 

all other machines are being tested at 120 I think. 

Wasn't it? So whatever we'd have to do to define 

normal to include the comparable thing that non-water 

heating machines do normally is what we're looking 

for. To keep it comparable, whatever that is 

technically. I don't know what it would be. That was 

the direction of our comment. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. The 120 

degree requirement is already in the water heating 

dishwasher definition. 

MR. HOFFMAN: So they are required to heat 

to 120 as part of the normal cycle. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. CASTRO: No. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Well, that's the question. 

MS. CASTRO: Right. So currently for a 

water heating dishwasher, it means a dishwasher which 

is designed for heating cold inlet water nominal 50 

degrees Fahrenheit or a dishwasher for which a 

manufacturer recommends operation with nominal inlet 

water temperature of 120 F and may operate at either 

of these inlet water temperatures by providing 

internal water heating to above 120 degrees Fahrenheit 

in at least one wash phase of the normal cycle. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Right. I think there's 

still wiggle room in that. In this other definition 

of normal, it is based on what a manufacturer wants 

and at their discretion defines as normal. It doesn't 

say it has to do that. 

MS. CASTRO: The last part says "providing 

internal water heating to above 120 degrees Fahrenheit 

in at least one wash phase of the normal cycle." So 

it does talk about -- 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is just a question. 

Does that mean that the normal cycle must do that? 

That's our concern. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller with GE. I think 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that's the intent, but there is no reporting 

requirement to ensure that if you define your 

dishwasher as that then it actually does that. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Right. I think that's what 

our concern is. 

MR. STEPHENS: This is Charlie Stephens. 

As I heard what Natashcha just read, that defines what 

a water heating dishwasher is, but that doesn't 

determine what that dishwasher manufacturer says in 

its literature is the normal cycle. It says it's 

designed to do that, but it doesn't say that that's 

the cycle you have to designate as the normal cycle. 

MR. HOFFMAN: That's exactly our issue. 

MR. PETERSON: This is Steve from 

Whirlpool. 

MR. WETHJE: How else would you test it? 

MR. STEPHENS: I can tell you. You can 

test it without heating the water by using whatever 

temperature inlet water comes. 

MR. CLOUGH: Steve. 

MR. PETERSON: Yes. I was just looking at 

119 in the NOPR on page 56242. That's the definition 

of water heating dishwasher. The way I read that it 

sounds like it does require a dishwasher that uses 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

cold inlet defined as nominal 50 F to heat at least 

one wash phase to 120. That's the way I'm reading 

that. 

MR. WETHJE: That's why I said I don't 

know how else we could test it. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller with GE. When 

you go into the test procedure, it specifies for 

whatever design dishwasher you have what the water 

temperature needs to be for the tolerance. 

MR. HOFFMAN: I think the way we were 

reading it, and hopefully we are wrong, is that in the 

different temperature defining modes of what you 

qualify for, for what you have to meet, it goes back 

to normal cycle for the normal cycle that's defined by 

the manufacturer. So even though we all agree the way 

you would expect someone to operate a water heating 

dishwasher, you would expect that the normal cycle 

would include heating the water. 

We're just worried about someone gaming it 

and saying my normal cycle is not heating the water 

even though I have a water heating dishwasher by 

definition. I'm going to do the test without heating 

the water. That's my normal cycle. That's what we 

want to avoid. Not that it would be intent because 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

obviously they wouldn't get the performance on it. We 

just don't want that loophole. 

MS. PINTO: It's been done before. 

MR. STEPHENS: It's been done. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Let's close the loophole now 

before we find someone who figures out how to do it. 

MR. STEPHENS: This is Charlie Stephens. 

I can tell you that I've talked to a particular 

representative of a particular manufacturer who read 

me that passage and read me exactly the interpretation 

that I get from that passage and admitted that yes 

their dishwasher is designed for heating water from 50 

degrees and it's also designed for inlet water of 120 

degrees and is recommended to heat the water above 

120. 

Actually it's designed for that, but that 

doesn't mean that they have to designate that cycle as 

the normal cycle. They can basically designate 

whatever they want as the normal cycle if the 

dishwasher is designed to heat water from 50 degrees. 

 It's an or. If your dishwasher heats water from 50 

degrees or can do that, it's an or. But you don't 

have to designate that as the normal cycle. 

MR. CLOUGH: So what you're looking for is 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

just a closer relationship between the normal cycle 

and the definition. Marc, what you had talked about 

before about incorporating at least one cycle heated 

to 120 degrees is incorporated in that definition. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Of a dishwasher, but not 

necessarily of the normal cycle. 

MR. CLOUGH: Right. 

MR. WETHJE: But if it's a water heating 

dishwasher -- 

MR. STEPHENS: It is a water heating 

dishwasher. It is designed to heat water from 50 

degrees Fahrenheit, but the manufacturer doesn't tell 

you that's the normal cycle. Their normal cycle is 

when it's fed hot water and the water isn't heated 

during the cycle. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine. So what 

changes in the test procedure would be necessary, 

would you suggest to solve this possible loophole? 

MR. HOFFMAN: Subject to more technical 

expertise from our friends, from the manufacturers, 

we're suggesting that there be some requirement that 

the normal cycle include some comparable water 

temperature so that everybody on the normal cycle is 

meeting the same requirements for hot water. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: So you would like to see a 

water temperature reference incorporated into the 

normal cycle definition somehow. 

MR. HOFFMAN: That's what we're suggesting 

be considered. We're not sure that's the best answer, 

but that's what we're throwing out to try to address 

this potential loophole. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley. That 

would be a normal cycle for a water heating 

dishwasher. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Well, it could be. The 

question is could we make it that to be sure. 

MR. FOLEY: I'm concerned about the other 

side of what if you don't have a water heating 

dishwasher. Then the normal cycle is in fact whatever 

the temperature is that comes in from the outside. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Let's try and figure out how 

to address that. We want them to be tested the same. 

 That's all we're trying to achieve, a level playing 

field. So is there some way to get the wording to be 

comparable to what that is? 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. For nonhot water heating dishwashers, the temperature has to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

be 140, not 120. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller, GE. But if 

there is no requirement that they reach 120. 

MS. CASTRO: Right. 

MR. CLOUGH: I think unless you have some 

more concrete language to incorporate it, the comment 

has been captured at this point in terms of providing 

the Department. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Right. We'll do some 

additional work on it. 

MR. CLOUGH: Unless you want to continue 

on this to try and get something more nailed down 

right now. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. Let me add 

one more comment. Reading this, I think it might be 

incorporated and there may be some misinterpretation. 

I guess I would ask the Department to look at 119, 

look at the definition of normal and see if it does 

capture Marc's request. I think it does. 

There would be a misinterpretation or 

misapplication of the standard today if what's 

occurring is what's being suggested here. So I think 

119 does cover the request. I think it's a matter of 

studying the language a little bit more and seeing if 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

it does and report back. Then maybe there's a 

misapplication going on today. 

MR. STEPHENS: This is Charlie Stephens. 

The manufacturer whose rep I talked to I think is 

taking advantage of some fairly permissive language 

here having to do with the word "or" and having to do 

with the word "may." In other words, it may operate. 

 The fact is I think their interpretation is yes I may 

but it doesn't have to. We'll test it the way we want 

and we'll label whatever. 

I have the two owner's manuals on this 

thing on either side of that. All that happened to 

change the energy factor by about 30 percent was a 

change in the definition in the book of what the 

normal cycle was. This is not fictitious. This has 

already happened. The dishwasher is being sold. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller, GE. I fully 

support correcting it because I believe that's 

resulting in the Department's belief that there are 

high efficiency dishwashers out there. In fact, there 

are not. 

MR. STEPHENS: They're not nearly as high 

as you might think I think. 

MR. MILLER: The priority of setting some 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

inaccurate numbers -- 

MR. CLOUGH: So it's your suggestion in 

that one to take out the word "may" or to take out the 

word "or." 

MR. STEPHENS: It's my opinion that as 

long as you have a dishwasher that's on either side of 

the or I think if you build a dishwasher that's 

capable of heating water from 50 degrees to whatever 

the required temperature setting from the consumer is, 

then you're on the left hand side of that or. That 

means that it's capable of it. That's all. 

This means that may not be what the normal 

cycle is but the dishwasher certainly is capable of 

doing that if the consumer selects that cycle on the 

face panel. I think that's a problem. Now if you go 

to the right hand side and it's not capable of heating 

water from 50 but it does operate assuming 120 

degrees, then I'm not sure whether the may is a 

problem or not. It may operate. 

MR. CLOUGH: I think we understand the 

issue. I'm looking for someone to help me tighten up 

the language if that's what we can do today. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. I guess I 

don't have the language, but let me just rephrase the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

intent. Then you guys can work on language. I 

thought this was clear, but the more you guys talk 

about it I keep looking at this "or" and "may" and I 

see your issue. It seems that the intent is that you 

have a couple possibilities. 

One is you have a water heating dishwasher 

but you take 120 degree water, you declare 120, and 

you use the water heating factor for 120. That's one 

option. That's clean. That's what most of the 

manufacturers here do. 

The other possibility as Charlie refers to 

the left side is if you declare that your a cold water 

inlet dishwasher and therefore you take 50 degree 

water and you don't have to pay in the energy factor 

and the equations. Then this 119 appears to require 

that you internally heat that water to 120 for at 

least one cycle. What I'm hearing is that one 

manufacturer apparently is not interpreting it that 

way. 

That's what I think this is supposed to 

say. Maybe there is some language tightening needed. 

 Does everybody agree with that being the intent of 

the language? I think that's what we need to resolve 

because you guys can wordsmith it. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: Right. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. One 

clarification. As I read it, I thought that in either 

case, either 50 degree or 120 degree you have to heat 

to above 120 degrees. So if you're putting in 120 

degree water and the thermal -- drops that temperature 

down because you're a water heating dishwasher, you 

need to be able to have the capability of bumping that 

up to at least 120 degrees in one wash. 

MR. PETERSON: That's an even tighter 

definition than what's being requested by Marc. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. PETERSON: I'd be okay with that. 

MR. CLOUGH: Can you restate that again 

please, Natashcha? 

MS. CASTRO: Well, this is my 

interpretation of it. This is what I always thought 

it was, but apparently we do need to work on the 

language. As I read it, I saw the water heating 

dishwasher means a dishwasher designed for heating 

cold inlet water of 50 degrees or 120 degrees because 

you may operate at either temperature by providing 

water heating to above 120. So I understood that to 

mean that you can operate at 50 or you can operate at 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

120, but in either case you have to keep to above 120. 

MR. HOFFMAN: This is Marc. I think 

that's a wonderful definition. The issue is does that 

imply that the so-called manufacturer designated 

normal cycle must do that. I don't think there's 

anything that requires that. 

MR. STEPHENS: It says it "may operate." 

Then it says "by." 

MR. MILLER: This is Greg Miller at GE. I 

would think that you could close this up by 

eliminating "may" and changing it to "operates." 

PARTICIPANT: Or "must." 

MS. CASTRO: How about "and provides 

internal water heating." 

MR. HOFFMAN: As part of the normal cycle. 

PARTICIPANT: Just throw the word normal 

cycle in there. 

PARTICIPANT: It does say normal cycle. 

MR. STEPHENS: It says "it may operate." 

What they're talking about is a dishwasher and what 

it's designed to do. 

MR. MILLER: If you change the "may" to a 

"must" I think that might clean it up. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. MILLER: I would say that its intent 

is obviously that it does. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. I think we have some 

good suggestions now of how to tighten that up a 

little more. 

MS. PINTO: Francine. I'm not sure I have 

an opinion right now. I have to see the language 

rewritten and then look at it. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. But I think the issue 

that we raised is this is definitely something that 

looks like it needs to be tightened up because of some 

of these situations and a little more further 

investigation on it. 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug, Whirlpool. Just a 

thought here. If we use the word "must" does that 

imply that a machine must be able to operate at both 

temperatures? Just to make sure we don't modify the 

wording such that we add a new constraint. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. I don't want to add 

design constraints here. 

MR. KLUG: Maybe an alternate thought is a 

note or a clarification note just added to the wording 

that says something to the effect that the 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 192 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

manufacturer's normal cycle whichever water inlet 

temperature is used 50 or 120 the machine must keep 

the water to a minimum temperature of 120 degrees as 

part of that. 

MR. MILLER: You could just eliminate 

either of those temperatures. That's redundant 

information anyway and say and eliminate "may operate 

at either of these inlet water temperatures by" and 

change it to and provides internal water heating of 

above 120 degree F. 

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. STEPHENS: I think we can come to it, 

but I can tell you that there is a problem with the 

interpretation. The problem is somebody has used the 

loosest interpretation of it that they could find. 

MR. CLOUGH: I think that was helpful and 

beneficial. Any more comments on this before I move 

us on? 

(No response.) 

MR. CLOUGH: I'd like to address the issue 

of the fork. It has been brought to the attention 

that -- 

MS. PINTO: Francine. This is my burning 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

question. 

MR. CLOUGH: It has come to our attention 

that the fork is of a different model than the rest of 

the silverware. 

MS. PINTO: Thank you, Dennis. 

MS. BENGSTON: The serving fork. 

MR. CLOUGH: Speak in the microphone 

please. 

MS. BENGSTON: Debbie Bengston, Maytag. 

It states in the 1999 addendum that an accent pattern 

was chosen for the silverware. What has happened is 

that the manufacturer, Oneida, no longer makes that 

serving fork. What it does state in the AHAM standard 

for the soil procedure is a no pattern somewhat broad 

handled fork. That's what it states in there. I may 

have paraphrased the wording. 

So what happened when is we went to order 

the fork or the silverware the person named Kathy 

Boyers at Oneida suggested this fork. That's why it's 

listed there. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine. I'm just 

thinking people would not believe this conversation. 

(Laughter.) 

MS. PINTO: So if we were to use this 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

white pattern in the rule, do we anticipate this will 

be available for some foreseeable period of time? 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. What 

the manufacturers and AHAM try to do when we start 

working on a standard is to have the manufacturers of 

the product state that they will be will be with us 

for the term, will state yes they will provide this 

dishware, this flatware for a certain period of years. 

 Well, they don't always do that. 

MS. PINTO: What period of year is this? 

MS. BENGSTON: It's five years typically. 

MS. PINTO: From when? 

MS. BENGSTON: From the time that we 

contact them and start ordering the product. 

MS. PINTO: So this is the fork that's now 

currently being ordered. 

MS. BENGSTON: On our term as far as 

Maytag is concerned, yes. That's what we have ordered 

to run our tests with. 

MR. CLOUGH: Is everyone satisfied with 

the fork in question? 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. Rick 

James has in his possession the serving fork. He also 

has in his possession if he has not sent it back to us 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 195 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the pattern of the accents. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine. I'm not so 

much concerned about how it looks but that it would be 

available so that we don't end up with a test cloth 

issue again or something that's not available, we 

don't have something comparable to use for the 

testing. 

MS. BENGSTON: The only thing I can state, 

Francine, is that we can contact Oneida and ask them 

is this pattern a "regular" pattern that they sell and 

have been selling. From our experience, they have 

sold this pattern for quite a while. I would say that 

it's a safe pattern, but we would have to contact her 

and ask her is there in any decision making process 

that may come along that they will eliminate this 

pattern. That's the only thing I can say that we can 

do on this part to assure that this won't be a "test 

cloth" issue. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine again. If 

you could do that during the comment period, that 

would be very much appreciated. 

MS. BENGSTON: Sure. I can take care of 

that. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. You 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

don't put food on this fork. Do you? That makes it 

simpler. 

MR. KLUG: The silverware is not soiled in 

this procedure. 

MR. STEPHENS: So I think it's probably 

going to be fine. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. No issues with 

the knives, spoons. We're good. That was a light 

ended we needed here. I want to close this out with 

some schedule, process, next step issues. Does 

anybody have any other issues or comments that they 

would like to provide? At this point, let me just 

open it up if there are any other things that we have. 

 No. Good. Actually I just want to turn this over to 

the Department Staff to talk about process, next 

steps, and schedule, just some information on where 

the process goes from here. 

MS. TWIGG: Well, we certainly understand 

and we agree equally we all want this rulemaking done 

as quickly as possible. We tried our darndest to get 

the NOPR out faster. It's just hard to turn the 

wheels as quickly as we want them to. 

We'll do our best. We eagerly await your 

comments. One little thing I guess I'm eager to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

discuss a little bit more is what to do about that 

AWWA information and whether it is possible we could 

just get it quickly, put it on our website, have 

people comment and view it, and we could factor it in 

whether that's feasible to do. 

Or we may have to do a little reopening 

notice because of the standby issues if General 

Counsel decides that we need to do that. In which 

case, we could factor that in with that as well. We 

have some decisions to make to discuss about these 

issues. Anybody else? 

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer. No. On 

that issue, I guess I'll look to Charlie back there to 

see if you can provide that AWWA information that you 

mentioned earlier so we can take a look at that and 

your comments. 

MR. STEPHENS: And Tom and I were just 

discussing it. I'm not going to be back in my office 

until next Wednesday. So we're arranging to have that 

done maybe tonight. 

MR. CLOUGH: Great. I'm assuming most of 

you have this information here already. I just threw 

it back up on the screen in terms of deadlines and 

contact information. Bryan, anything else? 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. BERRINGER: The comment periods will 

be due on the 18th. Again, people had mentioned about 

we can't give definite times about future processes. 

We have a priority setting. I think Greg mentioned as 

far as the numbers and that. Right now our highest 

priority is the dishwasher test procedure and getting 

that out. That's high on our list. 

In the standard rulemaking, we've put our 

priority setting as a medium priority. Again, my 

anticipation would be at least three years down the 

road when we finish the high priorities that we 

currently have on our list. I wouldn't see any action 

being taken until that timeframe. That's where we 

would start looking at revised energy numbers to see 

if it made sense. 

We have a number of new products that are 

coming up in proposed legislations in other avenues 

that are in our priority setting report which is on 

our website. We have to factor those in as far as the 

amount of Staff we have and just the ability to do the 

improvements. We feel about four priority rulemakings 

is the max along with we have about seven test 

procedures right now to finish up that we consider 

high. As those things eventually get finished, we can 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

move on to other products. 

MS. PINTO: There is just one other issue 

that I want to talk about for one second. Earlier in 

the day I think, Gene, when you were giving your 

comments you may have talked about you don't want new 

reporting requirements imposed upon you. 

MR. FOLEY: Right. 

MS. PINTO: I just want to talk about this 

issue for a moment. In the NOPR, we have some 

discussion saying that we might want to consider 

getting some information from you all without imposing 

a burden. I'd like to have a little discussion on 

this. 

What was intended there is not new 

reporting requirements but because you will already be 

doing retesting to make your representations 180 days 

from the time of publication, us getting, DOE 

requesting that information at that time. In other 

words, not asking you to do it sooner. You already 

have done retesting on your soil sensing machines 

under the new test procedure. 

We would be getting test data or something 

along that line at that time. Why don't we have a 

little discussion about that? So it's not meant to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

impose new requirements. Do you understand what I'm 

talking about? 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. What we're 

saying I think is that we have a pretty clearly 

defined reporting requirement. When the final rule 

takes effect when we are ready to introduce a model 

under the new test procedure, we would provide the 

same data, the same format that we've always provided. 

 We don't see anything new or different. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. There is 

the estimated annual energy usage which wasn't 

previously reported. 

MR. PETERSON: Clearly. But the NOPR 

talked about new reports as opposed to a line item on 

the existing report. Clearly within the context of 

the requirements, we're not having a problem with 

that. But "new report" is what scared us when we read 

the language. 

MS. PINTO: Are you referring to your 

compliance report? Is that what you're referring to? 

MR. PETERSON: I'll defer to Wayne. He's 

our reporter. 

MR. KLUG: I think the concern was 

basically in the NOPR page 56238. "DOE plans that 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

some future time to require manufacturers to produce 

reports concerning the testing of soil sensing models 

pursuant to the amended procedure." Without reading 

that further, I think the concern is that does not go 

beyond the existing reporting process that we have 

today, that there's not additional documentation 

required. Did that answer the question? 

MR. CLOUGH: Francine, are you trying to 

get to something a little more specific in terms of 

some information you may be interested in? 

MR. PETERSON: We're trying to figure out 

what it is that's being asked for. 

MS. PINTO: I think what we were thinking 

about there was you're obviously going to be testing 

machines under the new test procedure. 

MR. PETERSON: Sure. 

MS. PINTO: You will get results. So I 

believe what we were thinking about was once that's 

done in your normal course, not try to expidite or 

anything like that, we might want copies of test data 

to see that the testing has been done or what the 

results are or something in that range. 

MR. MILLER: Greg Miller with GE. Well, 

correct me if I'm wrong, but whenever the energy 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 202 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

results from the testing change we're required to 

submit a report to the FTC. 

MR. PETERSON: We're not sure if it's the 

FTC or the DOE, but we report it to somebody. 

MR. MILLER: We report that every time we 

do it. That's what we're saying. That's a standard 

procedure for us. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. 

CFR16 Part 305 dictates that anytime there is a new 

product or a change to energy consumption by law it is 

mandated that manufacturers send out information to 

the FTC. I know that in the past we also send 

information to the Department of Energy. 

MR. PETERSON: We're never quite sure who 

to send it to so we send it to both. 

MS. PINTO: I think we're trying to assure 

that we would get a copy of whatever you're doing on 

something like this. 

MS. BENGSTON: Right. It is mandated that 

we do send it in to the Department of Energy, FTC and 

any other related body that we sell our appliance to 

and have energy guide labeling on. 

MS. PINTO: Okay. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MS. BENGSTON: I think if I may speak 

here. I think concern was that in reading that 

information there you were going to ask for more 

reporting beyond what we already do and supply to you 

and to the other regulatory bodies. So was your 

intention just to get the annual report or the report 

that is mandated by law or was it that you were going 

to request of the manufacturers for more than that? 

MS. PINTO: I believe that we were looking 

to get what you're already doing. 

MS. BENGSTON: Okay. 

MS. PINTO: We do have the authority under 

EPCA to get information under that section if we deem 

that we think it's important. So we have the 

authority to get more information. 

MR. FOLEY: This is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

 To AHAM's comment based on that authority, we would 

strongly suggest that the Department limit as best as 

possible exercising that particular authority. We 

feel quite strongly that we are giving you adequate 

information regarding the operational characteristics 

of the units. 

MS. PINTO: Right. 

MR. FOLEY: At this point, there is no 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

justification for any additional reports besides what 

we already are required to submit by law. 

MS. PINTO: And this is Francine Pinto. 

The reason we raised it in the NOPR as for comment was 

to get your comments. We wouldn't have put it in 

there if we were just going to do something without 

asking for any comment. 

MS. CASTRO: Natashcha Castro. There is 

information that is provided to the FTC and part 

that's provided to the DOE. My personal view is in 

trying to develop some ideas for the rulemaking 

process it would be easier if we had the information 

that's collected as part of that test procedure since 

the DOE would like the standby power consumption or 

the different measurements after. 

MR. FOLEY: That we would object to. 

MS. PINTO: Could you repeat what you just 

said, Gene? 

MR. FOLEY: We do not intend at this point 

to submit any additional data other than what is 

required by law. At this point, it is not our intent 

to submit anything other than what is required. 

MS. CASTRO: But you have the estimated 

annual operating costs. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. FOLEY: Which will be submitted to 

FTC, required to be submitted to FTC. 

MS. CASTRO: But not to DOE. 

MR. FOLEY: Right. I believe to DOE we 

have to submit a certification of compliance. We'll 

have to go through the rules on what we have to 

submit. 

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer. I'm not 

familiar with dishwasher, but for clothes washers that 

was something we did open up to test procedure. The 

compliance letter, it's in part of the regulations. 

But before we weren't asking for that. We were just 

asking for a compliance letter. Later we asked that 

you report EF data to us. 

Now I'm not sure if that's part of the 

requirements or not. I think maybe that is what is 

being required as part of the submission. In my 

opinion, I guess that's what you were asking for is 

the additional information that would include the 

standby. But right you're probably not doing that 

now. 

MR. FOLEY: No. 

MR. BERRINGER: And I'm not sure if your 

submitting EF information is required. I'd have to 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

look into the regulations. I know for clothes washers 

we specifically added a section along with the 

compliance letter that EF and the MEF data be 

submitted to us. 

MS. BENGSTON: Deb Bengston, Maytag. 

Natashcha, were you just wanting to have the standby 

submitted alone? 

MS. CASTRO: No. 

MS. BENGSTON: If I may currently, and 

maybe it's just in when we submit on an annual basis 

to FTC, the EF and the kilowatt consumption per cycle 

and annual consumption plus also the current cost for 

gas and electric is entered on a spreadsheet that they 

send to us and we send back to them electronically. 

That information is provided. 

I also know that we do send information to 

the Department of Energy on an annual basis of pretty 

much the same thing. It may not be the same 

spreadsheet but in the same format. So energy factor 

is sent along with annual consumption plus cycle 

consumption. Also, they may even go as far as what 

the water usage is plus the cost of electric and gas. 

MR. BERRINGER: If I could ask a 

clarifying question on another topic that we already 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

processed. Are we done with this data one? 

MS. PINTO: Well, this is Francine. So 

I'm taking at Maytag you do that but generally other 

manufacturers don't. Is that what I'm gathering from 

this conversation? 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug at Whirlpool. I 

think we submit common reports. There's certain 

documentation that we submit to the FTC. It's the 

annual report that Deb referenced which I believe all 

manufacturers are required to submit. So I think the 

discussion is we have those documents that we submit 

already and we really would not want to have to create 

additional documentation other than modifications to 

our documents or standby ordinance or that sort of 

thing. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. So I take it 

you don't have an objection of sending us the same 

thing. You wouldn't be creating a separate report. 

MR. FOLEY: I think maybe we need to 

revisit the law as to what the law says that we have 

to report. I think you can get the assurance from all 

the manufacturers that we will continue to supply the 

Department what is required under the law. I just 

need to make sure we know exactly what is to be 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

submitted. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. I can only 

speak for Whirlpool here. If the Department can 

provide us a specific request of what it is you're 

looking for, we can compare that to what we're doing 

and we'll make a judgement on whether that's a burden 

or not. It may not be if it's just a matter of 

running a copy. We can get all the data, a complete 

description of all the energy. We just didn't like 

the sound of another report. 

MR. BERRINGER: Just a comment. I see 

these reports all the time. I've dealt with clothes 

washers so I'm not that familiar with dishwashers. 

Usually at the EF you have a lot of energy use. 

Usually it's the same thing as FTC submittal. That's 

where possibly another column that would include these 

new requirements for estimated energy that would 

include standby. 

It wouldn't be a separate report. It 

would be something like your spreadsheet. You say 

okay we add a new column. This is this for this 

month. We're not looking for anything else. It's 

just so we have that information. 

On another point, we've committed with 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

FTC, and this is back to process improvement, to try 

to get this information up on websites so it's readily 

available. Right now we only have Energy Star on the 

website. We have on the website what the energy 

factors are and the descriptors are for that. 

People want to see that for every product 

so consumers can go to the website and say I want to 

look at the efficiency of these products. That's 

something that FTC and DOE are striving to do. It's 

for information purposes. It would not be a separate 

report. 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug at Whirlpool. Just 

a request for clarification. Is this a one time 

submittal where we would replicate what we're 

producing today perhaps by photocopy and send that 

information to a particular person or persons or is 

this an ongoing activity? I heard something a little 

bit different, Bryan, than your statement on putting 

information on a website. 

MR. BERRINGER: As far as for our files, 

you would only do it one time. Deb talked about if 

something changed you wouldn't have to report that all 

the time in your annual report. We would like minimum 

things just as far as the model. We would take what 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

information you're submitting to us and we would put 

that on a website so people wouldn't have to come to 

DOE and report. 

Typically we don't have this information 

room. But we've had requests where they'd like to see 

from FTC and DOE where somebody can look up and see 

these models. This sort of compliance information 

would be made available on the website. 

MR. KLUG: Wayne Klug again. So what I'm 

hearing on an ongoing basis is what's being requested. 

MR. BERRINGER: Not a special report or 

anything. Just as you submit on your annual report to 

FTC. We wouldn't request you do a special report. I 

think what Francine is saying is when you test with 

the new test procedure and you do that and you have 

that information you submit that information then. 

But we'll have to get back with you 

exactly what we'd like to see as far as additional. 

You can tell us yes or no. But I don't see it being a 

separate report. Again, it would be something where 

you're running the tests, you have the calculations, 

and we'd just like to see those numbers for that. 

MR. KLUG: Just a comment. I know that we 

do not do every single model of all 200 or 300 of our 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

SKUs. We put them together as they are reasonably 

appropriate. 

PARTICIPANT: Right. The representative 

model. 

MR. CLOUGH: Marc Hoffman, do you have one 

last comment? 

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. I just wanted to make 

sure. This is a question directed to the Department. 

 My understanding is when you do publish the final 

rule after you get all the comments on November 18, is 

there any way to accelerate the effective date faster 

than 180 days or is 180 days the absolute minimum that 

the law gives manufacturers to meet the new change in 

the rule? 

MS. PINTO: Well, there's two different 

dates. There's the effective date and representation. 

 The 180 days has to do with the representation. 

That's a legal requirement in the statute. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

MS. PINTO: So that will not be changed. 

Manufacturers will have 180 days from the date of 

publication to make their representation. The other 

is the effective date which is when is the new test 

procedure the new official test procedure. When can 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

you start making representation? 

MR. HOFFMAN: When can you start? 

MS. PINTO: Right. 

MR. HOFFMAN: One date is when you start. 

 The other is no later than. 

MS. PINTO: No later than. You have 

leeway there. 

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

MS. PINTO: After that 180 days, you must 

be making representations based upon the new DOE test 

procedure. 

MR. CLOUGH: And I believe earlier AHAM 

had recommended that the effective date be 30 days. 

MR. PETERSON: Steve Peterson. Correct. 

I just wanted to clarify that. In a prior 

conversation, we had that. That's the minimum. That 

30 days is our understanding. 

MS. PINTO: Correct. 

MR. PETERSON: And our request is to go to 

that minimum so we do have that window because the 180 

can't be changed. That's the statute. 

MS. PINTO: And I anticipate that's what 

we'll be doing. But I'm not the final decision maker. 

MR. PETERSON: Thank you. 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. CLOUGH: Any further comments? 

Carolyn. 

MS. CAIRNS: I don't know. Maybe this 

isn't directly related to the rulemaking per se but I 

was just curious to know what if any programs DOE is 

planning or AHAM or the manufacturers to really do a 

campaign to get consumers to stop prerinsing their 

dishes. 

(Laughter.) 

MS. PINTO: I've been telling all my 

friends. 

MR. PETERSON: Let's see your article on 

it. 

MS. CAIRNS: I can't do it by ourselves. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments? 

MS. PINTO: I think it's a good suggestion 

that there be some educational campaign. I think that 

we'll definitely take it into consideration. I mean, 

it's not part of the rulemaking process, but certainly 

it's something that the program will look at and see 

what's possible, where does it fit, et cetera. 

MS. CAIRNS: That would be great. 

MR. JOHNSON: Tom Johnson from Maytag. 

Part of our national advertising campaign is not 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

washing your dishes before you wash them. We 

encourage people not to prewash their dishes. 

MS. CAIRNS: The cake in the dishwasher. 

MS. DELVES: Hi. I'm Katherine from 

Natural Resources Canada. I'm just not completely 

clear on the dates here yet. After November 18 if 

everything goes well, when would the final rule be 

published? 

MR. BERRINGER: As soon as possible. Go 

ahead, Francine. 

MS. PINTO: Let me meditate for a second. 

(Laughter.) 

MS. DELVES: From my point of view, the 

last one that came through we just barely were able to 

meet up with Larry banging on my door to try to get 

everything coordinated. Six months for us, this is a 

major change to the test procedure. 

I don't know how I'm going to get it 

through if I only find out six months in advance. I 

don't know how much of an impact it is for the 

manufacturers, but it's going to be a problem for us. 

 It would be nice to know an estimated date that the 

final rule might come through. 

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. I'm 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

not going to give an estimated date because it's 

actually impossible to do that. We try to work as 

quickly as possible, but there are many layers that 

are well beyond any of us sitting at this table that 

we have no control of. 

MS. DELVES: But if everything was to go 

perfectly. 

MS. PINTO: There is absolutely, truly -- 

MS. DELVES: The fastest way. 

MS. PINTO: We can prod and try to get the 

process to move and it could be very quick or not. So 

it really is not something that we can predict. 

MS. DELVES: Okay. 

MR. JOHNSON: This is Tom Johnson from 

Maytag. I have a question. Does that mean that we 

won't be able to harmonize the meaning and the -- 

MR. WETHJE: Well, let me ask a question. 

 Is there a way where you can start the process based 

on this proposed rule where you put that out for 

review and comment? 

MS. DELVES: I can, but to get ours 

reviewed and commented on and if there's potential for 

changes after this comment period is difficult for us. 

 I mean, you guys can't decide your rulemaking based 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 216 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

on how we can keep up. 

MR. WETHJE: I'm just wondering if there's 

something you can start now. 

MS. DELVES: Oh yes. I will be starting 

something now, but that's all I can do. 

MR. WETHJE: Yes. And that's all we can 

ask is to do the best we can to try to coordinate 

things. I think communication would help a lot, not 

relying upon industry all the time to communicate with 

NR Can. If we can open up some communications 

directly to them, we would appreciate it. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments? Bryan. 

MR. BERRINGER: Just one final comment 

that I've been asked. Again, the address as far as 

the e-mail is there. Please if you can't e-mail if 

you have something that has this signature if it's 

pdf, send that to us. It's the easiest thing. If you 

send it in the regular mail, we're not going to get it 

for probably another month. 

MR. FOLEY: Bryan, that was actually my 

last question. Can you clarify what you guys consider 

to be an electronic signature such that we know that 

we've met your requirement? 

MR. BERRINGER: I've gotten word documents 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that have signatures embedded in them. That's 

acceptable. As long as we have a signature that if 

you print it out, it's been signed. 

MR. FOLEY: So it's not specifically an 

"electronic signature." 

MR. BERRINGER: Right. We're looking at 

hopefully in the future that we can do something like 

that. For example when people submit compliance 

letters, we can do that all on the Internet. We're 

trying to go paperless. So you would get a password. 

 That's something in the future. 

Right now our mail system is sanitized. A 

lot of times we get a floppy disk and it's melted 

because they heated it. I don't think FedEx packages 

though have gone through that scrutiny, so probably 

FedEx packages. But please e-mail them. It's the 

best and fastest way to get those to us. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments? One 

final thing. An evaluation form has been passed 

around to everyone. If you can take just a minute to 

fill that out, that would be very valuable information 

to the Department. Thank you all for being so 

attentive today. 

MS. TWIGG: Thank you very much. We 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG
 218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

appreciate your coming and all the detailed work. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you again. Off the 

record. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

concluded at 3:19 p.m.) 

EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 30GG