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 Energy2

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..........................................2093

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 sit uation. And I apologize4

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 t he 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 enginee r/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 in5

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 le ading 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 le vel 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 method6

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 t hat 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 mod els 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 for7

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 dur ing Natashcha and John's presentations in order to maxi mize 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 also8

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 in9

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 the10

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 tha t'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 of11

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.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.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.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 sensing15

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 tec hnologies 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 te st 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 consumed16

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 the17

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 have18

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 A HAM 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.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 h eated 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 incre ase. 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 procedu re. 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're20

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?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 Natashch a's presentation, then a few findings on frequency of u se and then to wrap that all up in a summary of findings. First, the o verall review provides a depthof 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 a22

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 t hen 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,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 sour ces, 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 answer24

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-tr eatment 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 of25

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 pri marily 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 on26

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 c apacity. If you look at this in conjunction with the later frequency of use27

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 hous eholds 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 as28

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 at29

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 unbound ed 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 believe30

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 ran ge of 200 to 233 average use cycles per year. In summary, the findings, again, just creating a separate path in the test method for soilsensing 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 your31

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 qu estions I had with the - - about the survey data that we used to come up withthe 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 s pecifically at soil sensing --
MS. CAIRNS: Yeah. Mr. BOWMAN: -- dishwashers. MS. CAIRNS: Yes, households with soil32

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 twi ce 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 to33

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 A ssociation 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?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 reli ability and so on of the
data? MR. BOWMAN: At the very top level, just simply how consistent it is wi th survey data as far as distribution across say the U.S. particularly, you know, with the frequency use data refers to the35

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 t hey 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 sin ce 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 the36

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 s urvey. 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 the37

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 wi th 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 of38

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 2 08 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 any39

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 m any 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 and40

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 feel41

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 a re 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. With42

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 range43

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.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 include45

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, is46

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 mi ght 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.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 p erhaps 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 dishwa shers but rather impacts48

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 c hange. 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 and49

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 t he door is unlatched and50

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 th at 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 re ceived extreme scrutiny by people all around the world. I participate in this international standards development. I'm on the working committee for this51

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 met hod there that you could52

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 t hat 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 andeducating 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.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 and54

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 stand ard 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 whateve r, 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 versi on, and you can consider55

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 is56

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 re ferring 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 ava ilable 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 along57

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.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 box59

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.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, un iformity as we can going forward with just what's available, that's all we can do is use what's available for dishware.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 th ermal 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.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 own63

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 Azberg64

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 t hermal 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 Whir lpool 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 this65

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?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 t he stakeholder
comments here. Then what I want us to do to try and help us organize out time efficient ly 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 have67

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 afte rnoon 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. Just68

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 tigh tly 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 in dicates 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, more69

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 ten70

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 se ttings. 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 are71

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. In72

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 just73

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 necessari ly 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 the74

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 gu idelines. 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 supp ort gratuitous chemical use in the test whether consumers do it or not. As long as we're convinced it has no impact on75

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.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.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 dis hwashers 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 n ow 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.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 flow79

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 w ith 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, just80

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 t hat 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 and81

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 compl ying 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.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 cycl e. The average duration of the normal cycle for testing non-soil sensing dishwashers. Okay.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 a ll 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.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 look85

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 use86

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 w ould 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.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 b owl, 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 the88

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 competi tive 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.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 no90

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 aspe ct of a normal as opposed just the wash cycle. I was wondering if91

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 rel ating to just the normal cycle.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 th at 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 me mbers of CEE are all the energy efficiency program administrators, typically utilities and some now many non-utilities using rent93

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.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. Th is 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 mo re as a question to you,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 degree s. 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 person96

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 12097

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 scrat ch 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 charged98

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 all99

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 senso rs 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 consumer100

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 im pacts our businesses. I understand your concern exactly because the desire is101

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 the102

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 other103

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 wa ys 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 really104

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 li ke we have anything more to say on that.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 other106

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 we107

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, Fr ancine, 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 topi cs 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 an108

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 at109

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 th is 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 aboutmarginally compliant products that would then be noncompliant because of that change and as a result of110

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 in crease 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.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 be112

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 ei ther 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 machi nes 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 around113

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 to114

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 soil115

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 completelyuntrue sentence there because it says "Because nonsoil sensing machines will sti ll 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 believe116

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 the117

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 did n'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 you118

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 t hey 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.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 products120

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.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 which122

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 in123

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 of124

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 even125

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,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 it127

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 that128

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 some129

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 outthere 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 give130

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 aga inst 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 18.131

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 back132

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 com es 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 y ou have and the comments that have been made, take the additional set of133

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 gentlemen134

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 national135

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 is136

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 wh ole 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 IEC137

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 beswitched 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 and138

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 of139

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, but140

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 is141

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 about142

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 thecomma actually be deleted. So "After users nonoperational mode of primary function" comma --
MR. WETHJE: To there?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-operati onal 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?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 t his 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 the145

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 w e'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 tho se 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 stilltrying to think here is where we talk about a non146

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 go ing 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 functionthen 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 --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 non148

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 primaryfunction. 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 t alking about minutes, how many149

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're150

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 bad151

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 w ritten, 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 little152

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 for153

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 to154

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 oth er 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 numbers155

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 the156

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 just157

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 the158

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, a ccumulate 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.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 came160

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 on161

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 at162

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 m onitoring here in standby mode, typically two to five watts, a drift163

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 a dditional 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 any164

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 the165

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 any166

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 li ke 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.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 t hat 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 t his 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 to168

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 modification s. 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 technology169

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.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 cou ld 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 somebody171

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 take172

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't173

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 will174

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 prov ision 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 automatic175

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 a ssociated with that I believe? Any other comments on this issue of176

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?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.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.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 think180

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 uses181

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 a re 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 tho ugh 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 w orried 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 because182

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 f or 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 is183

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.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 c ycle 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 to185

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 her e. So I think 119 does cover the request. I think it's a matter of studying the language a little bit more and seeing if186

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 some187

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 the188

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 po ssibility 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 tigh tening 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.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 at190

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.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 j ust added to the wording that says something to the effect that the192

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 burning193

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 this194

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 ma nufacturers 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. Tha t'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 us195

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 lo oks 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" pa ttern 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. You196

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 r ulemaking 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 to197

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?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 ju st 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 eventua lly get finished, we can199

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 to200

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 that201

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 energy202

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 E nergy, FTC and any other related body that we sell our appliance to and have energy guide labeling on. MS. PINTO: Okay.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 c haracteristics of the units. MS. PINTO: Right. MR. FOLEY: At this point, there is no204

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.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 to206

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 already207

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 be208

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 with209

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 what210

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 our211

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 t he 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 can212

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.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 not214

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'm215

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 per iod is difficult for us. I mean, you guys can't decide your rulemaking based216

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 documents217

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 g et 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. We218

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.)