## TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x In the Matter of: AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE Docket EE-RM-93-701 FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Pages 1 thru 68 Washington, D.C. February 24, 1994

MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

507 C Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 

## TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCYAND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

### _ - - - - - - - - x In theMatter of: AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE FOR CLOTHES WASHERS . Docket EE-RM-93-701



### _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - x

Pages 1 thru 68 Washington, D.C. February 24, 1994

MILLERREPORTINGCOMPANY,INC. 507 CStreet, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb

MB UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

In the Matter of: AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE FOR CLOTHES WASHERS Docket EE-RM-93-701

Thursday, February 24, 1994 Forrestal Building Conference Room 1E-245 1000 Independence Ave S.W. Washington, D.C. The hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.

BEFORE:

CARL E. ADAMS, Presiding Official
WILLIAM W. HUI EUGENE MARGOLIS JAMES KAO 1

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCYAND RENEWABLE ENERGY



## -----------------------------------x In the Matter of: AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE FOR CLOTHES WASHERS Docket EE-RM-93-701



## -----------------------------------x Thursday, February 24, 1994 Forrestal Building Conference Room 1E-245 1000 Independence Ave S.W. Washington, D.C. The hearing in the above-entitledmatterwas convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.

BEFORE: CARL E. ADAMS, Presiding Official WILLIAM W. HUI EUGENE MARGOLIS JAMES KAO

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 1mb
A P P E A RAN C E S On Behalf of Maytag Corporation: DOUGLAS M. RINGGER, DIRECTOR Product Planning Maytag Corporation One Dependability Square Newton, Iowa 50208 On Behalf of Whirlpool Corporation: MICHAEL THOMPSON, DIRECTOR Government Relations Whirlpool Corporation 701 Main Street (9025) St. Joseph, MI 49085 On Behalf of Frigidaire Corporation: DAVID B. MODTLAND, MANAGER Washer Engineering & Hardies Fridigaire Corporation On Behalf of General Electric Appliances:

TERRY V. THIELE, SENIOR COUNSEL GE Appliances Appliance Park, AP2-225 Louisville, KY 40225 2

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 A P PEARAN C E S
On Behalf of Maytag Corporation: DOUGLAS M. RINGGER/ DIRECTOR Product Planning Maytag Corporation One Dependability Square Newton/ Iowa 50208 On Behalf of Whirlpool Corporation: MICHAEL THOMPSON/ DIRECTOR Government Relations Whirlpool Corporation 701 Main Street (9025) St. Joseph/ MI 49085
On Behalf of Frigidaire Corporation: DAVID B. MODTLAND/ MANAGER Washer Engineering 

### &Hardies Fridigaire Corporation On Behalf of General ElectricAppliances: TERRY V. THIELE/ SENIOR COUNSEL GE Appliances Appliance Park/ AP2-225 Louisville/ KY 40225

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 2mb C O N T E N T S DIRECT STATEMENT OF: PAGE Douglas Ringger 8 Michael Thompson 19 David Modtland 29 Terry Thiele 55 3

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 

### CONTENT S DIRECT STATEMENT OF: 

### Douglas Ringger Michael Thompson DavidModtland TerryThiele

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 3



### PAGE 8 19 29 55mb 4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S. MR. ADAMS: It's 9:30, so I'd like to get started. Good morning and welcome. I'm Carl Adams, the Director of the Appliance Standards Division of DOE's Office of Codes and Standards.

On behalf of the Department of Energy, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to participate in this public hearing concerning the Department of Energy's energy conservation program for consumer products.

The purpose of today's hearing is to receive oral testimony on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding amendmentsto the Department of Energy's test procedure for clothes washers as discussed in the proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 22, 1993.

The comments received here today and those submitted during the written comment period will assist us in developing the final rule.

The comment period for this rulemaking ends March 24, 1994. All comments submitted on this proposed rule will be considered before DOE publishes the final rule. Comments received after the comment period will be considered to the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S. MR. ADAMS: It's 9:30, so I'd like to get started. Goodmorning andwelcome. I'm Carl Adams, the Director of the Appliance Standards Division of DOE's Office of Codes and Standards. On behalf of the Department of Energy, I'd like to thankyou for taking the time toparticipate in this public hearing concerning the Department of Energy's energy conservationprogram for consumerproducts. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive oral testimonyon the notice of proposedrulemaking regarding amendmentsto the Department of Energy's test procedure for clothes washers as discussed in the proposed rule in the Federal Register onDecember 22, 1993. The comments receivedhere today and those submittedduring the written comment periodwill assist us indeveloping the final rule. The comment period for this rulemaking ends March 24, 1994. All comments submittedon this proposed rule will be consideredbefore DOE publishes the final rule. Comments received after the comment periodwill be considered to the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 5 fullest extent possible.

As the DOE presiding official for this hearing, I will set forth the guidelines for conducting the hearing and provide other pertinent information.

A complete transcript of this hearing will be available for public inspection in the Freedom of Information Reading Room as described in the notice.

Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript may make arrangements with the court reporter.

This will not be an evidentiary or judicial type of hearing. It will be conducted in accordance with Section 553, Title 5, United States Code, and Section 336 of the

Act. To provide the Department of Energy with as much pertinent informatkon and with as many views as can reasonably be obtained, and to enable interested individuals to express their views, the hearing will be conducted in accordance with the following procedures.

Speakers will be called to testify based on a schedule of those people who responded to the notice of this hearing. The speakers have been alloted 20 minutes for their oral statements.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 5 fullest extent possible. As the DOE presiding official for this hearing, I will set forth the guidelines for conducting the hearing and provide otherpertinent information. Acomplete transcript of this hearingwill be available forpublic inspection in the Freedomof InformationReadingRoom as described in the notice. Anyone wishing topurchase a copyof the transcript maymake arrangements with the court reporter. This will not be an evidentiaryorjudicial type of hearing. It will be conducted in accordance with Section 553, Title 5, United States Code, and Section 336 of the Act. To provide the Department of Energywith as much pertinent informatkon andwith as manyviews as can reasonablybe obtained, and to enable interested individuals to express theirviews, the hearingwill be conducted in accordance with the following procedures. Speakers will be calledto testifybased on a schedule of those people who responded to the notice of this hearing. The speakers have been alloted 20 minutes for their oral statements.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 6 Anyone may make an unscheduled oral statement after all scheduled speakers have delivered their statements, and at the conclusion of all presentations, each speaker will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttal statement subject to time limitations, and will be called in the order in which the initial statements were made.

Questions may be asked only by the panel members conducting the hearing. However, I will afford any interested person an opportunity to question speakers who have made oral presentations.

This opportunity will be afforded after any rebuttal statements to the extent that I determine that such question is likely to result in a more timely and effective resolution of the issue.

Persons interested in making use of this opportunity must submit their written question shortly after the completion of any rebuttal statements to the registration desk.

The questions submitted should be identified as to who the author of the question is, and to whom the question is being directed.

I will determine whether the question is relevant.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 6 Anyone maymake an unscheduledoral statement after all scheduled speakers have delivered their statements, and at the conclusion of all presentations, each speakerwill be given the opportunitytomake a rebuttal statement subject to time limitations, andwill be called in the order inwhich the initial statements were made. Questions maybe asked onlybythe panel members conducting the hearing. However, I will afford any interestedperson an opportunityto question speakers who have made oralpresentations. This opportunitywill be afforded after any rebuttal statements to the extent that I determine that such question is likely to result in a more timely and effective resolution of the issue. Persons interested inmaking use of this opportunitymust submit theirwrittenquestion shortly after the completionof any rebuttal statements to the registration desk. The questions submitted shouldbe identifiedas to who the author of the question is, and to whom the question is being directed. I will determine whether the question is relevant.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 7 If the question is allowed, I will ask it.

As mentioned earlier, the close of the comment period is March 24, 1994. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the Freedom of Information Room in Washington.

These comments should be addressed to the Department of Energy of energy as noted in the proposed rule for today's hearing.

Ten copies of the written comments are requested. In addition, the Department of Energy would appreciate an electronic copy of the comments. We're currently using Wordperfect 5.1. No fax comments will be accepted.

Any persons submitting information which he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit to the above mentioned address one completed copy, and 9 copies from which information claimed to be confidential has been deleted.

In accordance with the procedures established at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy shall make a determination as to whether or not the information shall be exempt from publish disclosure.

The Department of Energy appreciates the time and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 7 If the question is allowed, I will ask it. As mentioned earlier, the close of the comment period is March 24, 1994. All comments receivedwill be available for public inspection at the Freedomof InformationRoom inWashington. These comments shouldbe addressed to the Department of Energyof energy as noted in theproposedrule for today's hearing. Ten copies of the written comments are requested. In addition, the Department of Energywould appreciate an electronic copyof the comments. We're currentlyusing Wordperfect 5.1. No fax comments will be accepted. Anypersons submitting informationwhich he or she believes tobe confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit to the above mentioned address one completedcopy, and 9 copies from which information claimed to be confidential has been deleted. In accordance with the procedures established at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy shall make a determination as to whether ornot the information shall be exempt frompublishdisclosure. The Department of Energy appreciates the time and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 8 effort you have taken in preparing your statements and is pleased to receive your comments and opinions.

I would now like to introduced the members of today's panel.

Joining me this morning are William Hui, Program Manager of the Office of Codes and Standards.

Eugene Margolis, General Counsel. James Kao, Mechanical Engineer from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

At this time, I will start today's hearing by calling the first speaker.

For the record, please state your name and whom you represent.

Douglas Ringger. MR. RINGGER: Good morning. I'm Doug Ringger, Director of Product Planning for Maytag and Admiral Products, Admiral Brands, and I'm speaking this morning on behalf of the Maytag Corporation.

Rather than read through the entire statement, which I've already submitted the written statement, I'm just going to comment and highlight on certain sections.

First, as a general matter, our written statement

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 8 effort you have taken inpreparingyour statements and is pleasedto receive your comments and opinions. I wouldnow like to introducedthe members of today/s panel. Joiningme this morning areWilliamHui l Program Manager of the Office of Codes and Standards. Eugene Margolisl General Counsel. James Kao l Mechanical Engineer from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. At this timel I will start today/s hearingby calling the first speaker. For the recordl please state yourname andwhom you represent. Douglas Ringger. MR. RINGGER: Good morning. 11mDoug Ringgerl Director of Product Planning for Maytag andAdmiral ProductsI Admiral BrandsI and 11m speaking this morning onbehalf of the Maytag Corporation. Rather than read through the entire statementl which lIve already submitted the written statementI 11mjust going to comment and highlight on certain sections. Firstl as a general matterl ourwritten statement

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 9 addresses the-issue of timely communications by DOE with all parties involved in matters such as test procedures which heavily impact on the product planning of our products.

If as in the present situation, affected parties had no opportunity to comment, DOE actions or inactions can really unduly affect us in the marketplace. And I don't want to dwell on this issue this morning because that's not the purpose of the hearing, and we covered that at length in our written statement.

What I'd like to focus on is some comments on some critical aspects of the proposed amendment, and then invite any questions that you might have.

Generally we support the purpose of the amendment which is to close the loophole in the existing rule and we have some suggestions on how that might be structured.

First, if you want to go to page four, Section 3, it's titled, " Proposed lead time is excessive and unnecessary." That's the first area that I just want to make a few comments on.

We raise the issue in that section about Maytag being at a competitive disadvantage until the test loophole allowing a warm rinse lockout is closed. Using this

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 9 addresses the issue of timely communications byDOE with all parties involved inmatters such as test procedures which heavily impact on the product planning of ourproducts. If as in the present situation, affectedparties hadno opportunity to comment, DOE actions or inactions can reallyunduly affect us in the marketplace. And I don't want to dwell on this issue this morningbecause that's not the purpose of the hearing, andwe covered that at length in

ourwritten statement. What I'd like to focus on is some comments on some critical aspects of the proposed amendment, and then invite anyquestions that you might have. Generallywe support the purpose of the amendment which is to close the loophole in the existingrule andwe have some suggestions onhow that might be structured. First, if you want to go topage four, Section 3, it's titled, " Proposed lead time is excessive and unnecessary." That's the first area that I just want to make

a few comments on. We raise the issue in that section about Maytag being at a competitive disadvantage until the test loophole allowing a warm rinse lockout is closed. Using this

MILLER REPORTING CO. I INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTONI D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 10 loophole, a manufacture could offer five wash/rinse temperature combinations versus only four for other manufactures not using the loophole.

It is important to get this inequity, we think, rectified as soon as possible to eliminate what we view as an unfair position to those not using the loophole. And that's the position we find ourselves in.

DOE is recommending that manufactures be allowed 180 days beyond the 180-day mandate after the test procedure is finalized and is adopted to comply with the amended test procedure.Now, our engineers have evaluated what needs to be done to change a control from a warm rinse lockout to a nonwarm rinse lockout, and our evaluation shows that all that needs to be done is some switch changes, switch changes in the panel, and fascia changes, and we think that would be done in a six to eight-week period. We see no justification for the additional 180 days. And then, for that reason, we strongly urge that that additional time not be allowed.

MR. MARGOLIS: When you say " 6 to 8 weeks" , are you saying that would be to make the entire line that you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 10 loophole, a manufacture could offer five wash/rinse temperature combinations versus only four for other manufactures not using the loophole. It is important to get this inequity, we think, rectified as soon as possible to eliminate what we view as

anunfairposition to those not using the loophole. And that's thepositionwe find ourselves in. DOE is recommending that manufactures be allowed 180 days beyond the 180-daymandate after the test procedure is finalized and is adopted to complywith the amended test procedure.Now, our engineers have evaluatedwhat needs tobe done to change a control from a warm rinse lockout to a

nonwarm rinse lockout, and our evaluation shows that all that needs tobe done is some switch changes, switch changes in thepanel, and fascia changes, andwe think that wouldbe done in a six to eight-weekperiod. We see no justificationfor the additional 180 days. And then, for that reason, we stronglyurge that that additional time not be allowed. MR. MARGOLIS: When you say" 6 to 8 weeks" , are you saying that wouldbe to make the entire line that you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 11 would be manufacturing to switch it over in that space of time? MR. RINGGER: What we're saying is if we were to make a change, and we're assuming that the engineering work has been done, because that very likely has been done, because that's the way it was in the first place, we're saying that to make fascia changes and switch changes, these are fairly quick. You could go to the fascia manufacturer, and they could silkscreens or whatever they need to do, and six weeks is a very common period of time to get that done and then get them sent and in the plant.

MR. MARGOLIS: Even while you're-- I mean, this is mid-- you know, you've already started your manufacturing of it, and midline-- in other words, it would be like a midline change, and you're saying during that midline change, all you would need is six to eight weeks.

MR. RINGGER: It's switch changes and silkscreen changes and those are fairly quick. Even if it required a timer change, you can completely redo a timer in six months from scratch. I mean, you can completely redesign it. This wouldn't-- we don't see the need for a timer change, but even if it required just a modification of the timer, it

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 11 wouldbe manufacturing to switch it over in that space of time? MR. RINGGER: What we're saying is if we were to make a change, and we're assuming that the engineeringwork has been done, because that very likelyhas been done, because that's the way it was in the first place, we're saying that to make fascia changes and switch changes, these

are fairly quick. You could go to the fascia manufacturer, and they could silkscreens orwhatever theyneed to do, and sixweeks is a very commonperiodof time to get that done and then get them sent and in the plant. MR. MARGOLIS: Even while you're-- I mean, this is mid-- you know, you've already startedyourmanufacturing of it, andmidline-- in otherwords, it wouldbe like a midline change, andyou're sayingduring that midline change, all you wouldneed is sixto eight weeks. MR. RINGGER: It's switchchanges and silkscreen changes and those are fairly quick. Even if it required a timer change, you can completelyredo a timer in sixmonths from scratch. I mean, you can completelyredesign it. This wouldn't-- we don't see the need for a timer change, but

even if it requiredjust a modification of the timer, it

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 12 certainly-- it certainly would be less than six months. And so, what we see is, you know, you have the time from now until the rule is finalized, and then there's 180 days, six months, and then on top of that, they were given another six months. We just think that's just way too long. That's not
necessary.MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. RINGGER: Okay. Now, if we go to page 5, Section 4, " Observations on the content of the amendment," we have concern that this amendment will really not prevent further manipulation of the normal cycle in ways other than locking out warm rinse. We think there's some other things that could be done other than just locking out warm rinse.

For example, you could design a control to lock out hot wash, so the normal cycle only gives you warm wash/cold wash; you could lock out hot wash.

You could design a control that would only allow partial fill on the regular cycle.

And so, you know, there's a lot of other ways, we think, that even though you call it the normal cycle, there are some work arounds that could be done that could even have greater impact than just locking out warm rinse.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 12 certainly-- it certainlywouldbe less than sixmonths. And so, what we see is, you know, you have the time from now until the rule is finalized, and then there's 180 days, six months, and then on top of that, theywere given another six months. We just think that's just way too long. That's not necessary.MR. MARGOLIS: Thankyou. MR. RINGGER: Okay. Now, if we go topage 5, Section4, " Observations on the content of the amendment,"

we have concern that this amendment will reallynot prevent further manipulation of the normal cycle inways other than locking out warm rinse. We think there's some other things that couldbe done other than just locking out warm rinse. For example, you could design a control to lock out hot wash, so the normal cycle only gives you warm wash/coldwash; you could lock out hot wash. You could design a control that would only allow partial fill on the regular cycle. And so, you know, there's a lot of otherways, we think, that even thoughyou call it the normal cycle, there

are some work arounds that couldbe done that could even have greater impact thanjust locking out warm rinse.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 13 So,-there's some other things that even would be more serious than this, we feel.

So, based on that, what we're doing, we're recommending that a test cycle be defined or bounded rather than simply using the name " normal cycle. " We're suggesting that a test cycle be defined, rather than saying, " Test your washer using the normal cycle," we're saying," test your washer using the test cycle," and then define the test cycle.

And what that does, it leaves the-- all of the energy calculations just like they are. The TUF's stay the same. The calculations all stay the same. And you don't get into this " What percent of the time is regular used, and what percent of the time is nonregular used. IT I think someone had suggested perhaps 75 percent of the time today a normal cycle is used. We put in our testimony that we think it's about-- today, the way the cycles are today, about 67 percent of the time, the normal cycle is used.

If you degrade the normal cycle, if you change the normal cycle so it's not as attractive to the customer, the percent of the time it's being used is going to substantially decrease.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 13 SOl-there's some other things that evenwouldbe

more serious than this, we feel. So, based on that, what we're doing, we're recommending that a test cyclebe defined orboundedrather than simplyusing the name" normal cycle. 

### " We're suggesting that a test cycle be defined, rather than saying, " Test yourwasher using the normal cycle," we're saying," test yourwasherusing the test cycle," and then define the test cycle. Andwhat that does, it leaves the-- all of the energy calculations just like they are. The TUF's stay the

same. The calculations all staythe same. Andyou don't get into this " What percent of the time is regularused, andwhat percent of the time is nonregularused. " I think

someone had suggestedperhaps 75 percent of the time today a normal cycle is used. We put in our testimony that we think it's about-- today, the way the cycles are today, about 67 percent of the time, the normal cycle isused. If you degrade the normal cycle, if you change the normal cycle so it's not as attractive to the customer, the percent of the time it'sbeingused is going to substantiallydecrease.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 14 If you put a normal cycle on a washer that's not too appealing to the customer, it's not going to be 75 percent. It's going drop down to some lower number. So, we'd always have to be adjusting on that percentage, I feel.

So, what we're saying is, why don't we just define the test cycle criteria. For example, the things we outlined in our written statement was," The wash time should be set for a minimum of 9.75 minutes of agitation, or wash time recommended for normal soils, and at the regular operation speed. "

Secondly, we say," All offered wash/rinse temperature combinations be included in the energy calculations. "

So, if on any of your cycles you offer hot/warm, that should be included in the energy calculations. Or all rinse temperatures for that model. Use them all. Because that's the way it is today.

And I don't think that allows anyone to lock out or work around that.

And then, finally, the maximum water level, and maximum spin speed offered by that model be included in the calculations and that would, again, prevent somebody from,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 14 If youput a normal cycle on a washer that's not too appealing to the customer, it's not going to be 75 percent. It's going drop down to some lowernumber. So, we'd always have to be adjusting on that percentage, I feel. So, what we're saying is, why don't we just define the test cycle criteria. For example, the things we outlined in ourwritten statement was," The wash time should be set for a minimum of 9.75 minutes of agitation, orwash time recommended for normal soils, and at the regular operation speed. 

### " Secondly, we say," All offeredwash/rinse temperature combinations be included in the energy calculations. " So, if on any of your cycles you offer hot/warm, that shouldbe included in the energy calculations. Or all rinse temperatures for that model. Use them all. Because that's the way it is today. And I don't think that allows anyone to lock out

orwork around that. And then, finally, the maximumwater level, and maximum spin speed offeredbythat model be included in the calculations and that would, again, prevent somebody from,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 15 on the regular cycle, going to a lesser than the maximum water level.

We would suggest that no option such as prewash, presoak, extra rinse, and those kind of things would be included in the calculations.

We think that this approach, as I indicated before, would not change the method of calculation. You could just leave all the formulas and the TUF's and everything all the same, but would simply in your definition, rather than normal cycle, say " test cycle" rather than normal cycle.

And so, those are the two areas that I really wanted to comment on in our written testimony.

And that's all I have, unless you've got some further questions.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I do have one question. And that has to do with the-- this last item that you talked about, defining a test cycle.

You've given us some suggested criteria. You say, such as, the wash time, and so on and so forth.

It would seem that a difficulty with having a test cycle would be if we define something that then was not

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 15

on the regular cycle, going to a lesser than the maximum water level. We would suggest that no option such as prewash/ presoak, extra rinse, and those kind of things wouldbe included inthe calculations. We think that this approach, as I indicated before, wouldnot change the method of calculation. You couldjust leave all the formulas and the TUF's and everything all the same, but would simply inyour definition, rather than normal cycle, say " test cycle" rather thannormal cycle. And so, those are the two areas that I really wanted to comment on in ourwritten testimony. And that's all I have, unless you've got some further questions. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. I do have one question. And that has to do with the-- this last itemthat you talked about, defining a test cycle. You've givenus some suggested criteria. You say, such as, the wash time, and so on and so forth. It would seem that a difficultywithhaving a test cycle wouldbe if we define something that thenwas not

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 16 common or didn't exist on some machines, so I'm wondering if in your written testimony if you could include a description of what Maytag would feel would be a reasonable inclusive definition of a-- of such a test cycle that would not cause difficulties for all machines to have a cycle that had those particular features. I mean, obviously, we don't want to make it too loose. We don't want make it too complicated, either. MR. RINGGER: It's not an easy matter to try tocover all possible options that are out thereMR. ADAMS: That's why I'd like your opinion on that. MR. RINGGER: Okay. You want me just to direct something to you. ?

MR. ADAMS: If you could just include it as a-- MR. RINGGER: An amendment to our testimony? MR. ADAMS: Right, that would be fine, or a separate comment, either one.

Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: Taking what Carl has said, and assuming that a test cycle can be developed to meet the objections that have just been possibly raised, would you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 16

common or didH't exist on some machines, so I'mwondering if inyourwritten testimony if you could include a description of what Maytagwould feel wouldbe a reasonable inclusive definition of a-- of such a test cycle that wouldnot cause difficulties for all machines to have a cycle that had those particular features. I mean, obviously, we don't want to make it too loose. We don't want make it too complicated, either. MR. RINGGER: It's not an easymatter to try to

cover all possible options that are out there-- MR. ADAMS: That's why I'd like your opinion on that. MR. RINGGER: Okay. You want me just to direct something to you. ? MR. ADAMS: If you couldjust include it as a-- MR. RINGGER: An amendment to our testimony? MR. ADAMS: Right, that would be fine, or a separate comment, either one. Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: Takingwhat Carl has said, and assuming that a test cycle canbe developed to meet the objections that have just beenpossiblyraised, wouldyou

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 17 then have to manufacture or produce a different machine? Would the machines that are on the market today, would no engineering be required, therefore-- I want to get back to your lead time.

MR. RINGGER: Except in the case where you're a manufacture locking out the warm rinse, I don't see right new a need for a change in the current production washers, but I'd have to look at that a little more carefully, but I think if you followed these criteria, I don't think anyone would have to change other than someone who might have locked out the warm rinse option.

MR. MARGOLIS: Why would he have to change if he would have the warm rinse option on a different cycle? I'm not saying the normal cycle anymore. It would say in the test cycle--

MR. RINGGER: Okay. You would just have to-- well, if he's relying on the lockout to meet the '94 standards, then he would have to change it. If he didn't rely on that to meet the '94 standards, he wouldn't have to change it. So, that would be the difference.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. MR. ADAMS: Jim?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 17 then have to manufacture orproduce a different machine? Would the machines that are on the market today, wouldno engineeringbe required, therefore-- I want to get back to your lead time. MR. RINGGER: Except in the case where you're a manufacture locking out the warm rinse, I don't see right

new a need for a change in the current productionwashers, but I'dhave to look at that a littlemore carefully, but I think if you followed these criteria, I don't think anyone wouldhave to change other than someone who might have locked out the warm rinse option. MR. MARGOLIS: Why wouldhe have to change if he would have the warm rinse option on a different cycle? I'm not saying the normal cycle anymore. It would say in the test cycle-- MR. RINGGER: Okay. You wouldjust have to-- well, if he's relying on the lockout tomeet the '94 standards, thenhe would have to change it. If he didn't relyon that to meet the '94 standards, he wouldn't have to change it. So, that wouldbe the difference. MR. MARGOLIS: Thankyou. MR. ADAMS: Jim?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 18 MR._KAO: The test cycle, like you said, on the lockout will have to be changed. How about some other things. If we put in the test procedure which it doesn't fit your washer exactly, doing the test you have to make certain modifications, would that be acceptable?

MR. RINGGER: I'm not quite sure I follow the question. I'm sorry.

MR. KAO: Suppose the past procedure for a certain manufacture's product, you can't just set the knobs and do the testing. You may need to do some kind of small modifications.

MR. RINGGER: I'm not aware of any modifications that would need to be done; but again, I'm not positive that
that's the case.

MR. KAO: I don't know any specific, either.
MR. RINGGER: Yes. I think no matter how this is written, from a long-term standpoint, there's going to have to be amendments because designs are going to change. New things will come out, and no matter how this is structured, it's never going to meet all possible manufacturer's designs that are in the future. I don't think that's going to happen. There's

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 18 MR.-KAO: The test cycle, like you said, on the lockout will have tobe changed. How about some other things. If we put in the test procedure which it doesn't fit your washer exactly, doing the test you have to make certainmodifications, would that be acceptable? MR. RINGGER: I'mnot quite sure I follow the question. I'm sorry. MR. KAO: Suppose the past procedure for a certain manufacture's product, you can't just set the knobs and do the testing. You mayneed to do some kind of small modifications. MR. RINGGER: I'mnot aware of anymodifications that wouldneed to be done; but again, I'mnot positive that that's the case. MR. KAO: I don't know any specific, either. MR. RINGGER: Yes. I think no matterhow this is written, from a long-term standpoint, there's going to have tobe amendments because designs are going to change. New things will come out, and nomatter how this is structured, it's nevergoing to meet all possible manufacturer's designs that are in the future. I don't think that's going to happen. There's

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 19 going to have-to be changes, obviously, as we go along. We think this is a good way to get at this fairly quickly, with a minimum amount of change in the test protocol. In other words, pretty much leave the calculationss as they are, a quick and dirty fix, if you will. And yet, we're not pretending that this is the fix to end all fixes because obviously, down the road somewhere, something else is going to come up. But we think at least for a short term, it's probably is good way to get at this fairly quickly.

MR. ADAMS: Anything else, Jim?

MR. KAO: No. MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MR. HUI: No. MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. MR. RINGGER: Thank you. MR. ADAMS: The next speaker is Michael Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, gentleman. I'm Mike Thompson, Director of Government Relations for Whirlpool.

Today I'm here to offer some comments regarding DOE's proposal to amend test procedures used in measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 19 going to have-tobe changes, obviously, as we go along. We think this is a goodway to get at this fairly quickly, with

a minimum amount of change in the test protocol. In other words, prettymuch leave the calculationss as they are, a quick and dirty fix, ifyou will. And yet, we're not pretending that this is the fix to end all fixes because obviously, down the road somewhere, something else is going to come up. But we think at least for a short term, it's probably is goodway to get at this fairly quickly. MR. ADAMS: Anything else, Jim? MR. KAO: No. MR. ADAMS: Bill? MR. HUI: No. MR. ADAMS: Thankyouverymuch. MR. RINGGER: Thankyou. MR. ADAMS: The next speaker is Michael Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Goodmorning, gentleman. I'mMike Thompson, Directorof Government Relations forWhirlpool. Today I'mhere to offer some comments regarding DOE's proposal to amend test procedures used inmeasuring the energy consumption of clothes washers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 20 As most of you know, and by way of background, Whirlpool is a leading manufacture of major home appliances; and clothes washers, of course, is one of our most dominant products. Our plant at Clyde, Ohio, supplies virtually all of Whirlpool's needs basically, domestically, and for North America, and in some instances, in international distribution.

Because the proposal affects a design option being used by Whirlpool, we have a very deep interest in this rule. And my comments today basically focus on DOE's questions and issues posed in the proposed rule.

Specifically, they pertain to some of the questions posed later where you ask questions about the accuracy and workability of the rule, amendments, appropriateness of using 75 percent to prorate temperature settings and normal cycle under lockout circumstances, and the appropriateness of proposed definitions pertaining to the most energy intensive and the non-normal cycle.

Before beginning the discussion, I'd guess I'd like to talk a little bit of the the background.

We're here today because of a Whirlpool interpretation of the clothes washer test procedure which

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 20 As most of you knowt andbyway of backgroundt Whirlpool is a leadingmanufacture of majorhome appliancesi and clothes washerst of courset is one of ourmost dominant products. Ourplant at Clyde t Ohiot supplies virtually all of Whirlpoolts needs basicallYt domesticallYt and for North Americat and in some instancest in international distribution. Because theproposal affects a design option beingusedbyWhirlpoolt we have a very deep interest in this rule. Andmy comments todaybasically focus onDOEts questions and issues posed in the proposed rule. SpecificallYt theypertain to some of the questions posed laterwhere you ask questions about the accuracy andworkabilityof the rulet amendmentst appropriateness of using 75 percent to prorate temperature settings andnormal cycle under lockout circumstancest and the appropriateness of proposed definitions pertaining to the most energy intensive and the non-normal cycle. Beforebeginning the discussiont rtdguess rtd like to talk a littlebit of the the background. Wetre here todaybecause of a Whirlpool interpretationof the clothes washer test procedure which

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 21 pertains to lockout of warm water rinses in normal cycle, that it's been ruled permissible by the DOE.

Our attempt to resolve questions pertaining to this issue actually began in late 1992, and were not finally resolved until late 1993.

Our initial questions in that area pertain to more of a labeling question series with respect to the console itself rather than the lockout feature which apparently it evolved into. And among the key issues which came to light in the string of 1993 was the method by which warm water lockout in a normal cycle would be measured.

Whirlpool has always interpreted the rule to allow for a warm water lockout in normal cycle since the test procedure in the following order defines normal cycle as the cycle recommended by manufacturers for cottons and linens, giving some flexibility in that area to the manufacturer.

No. 2 requires the manufacture to set the cycle selector to normal cycle prior to beginning the test.

Three, requires the manufacturer to set the temperature selector to the hottest setting available.

And four, requires the manufacturer to repeat the tests for all other temperature selections available in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 21 pertains to lockout of warmwater rinses innormal cycle, that it'sbeen ruledpermissibleby the DOE. Our attempt to resolve questions pertaining to this issue actuallybegan in late 1992, andwere not finally resolveduntil late 1993. Our initial questions in that areapertain tomore of a labeling question series with respect to the console itself rather than the lockout feature which apparently it evolved into. And among the key issues which came to light in the stringof 1993 was the methodbywhichwarmwater lockout in a normal cycle wouldbe measured. Whirlpool has always interpreted the rule to allow for a warmwater lockout innormal cycle since the test procedure in the following order defines normal cycle as the cycle recommendedbymanufacturers for cottons and linens, giving some flexibility in that area to the manufacturer. No. 2 requires the manufacture to set the cycle selector to normal cycle prior tobeginning the test. Three, requires the manufacturer to set the temperature selector to the hottest setting available. And four, requires the manufacturer to repeat the tests for all other temperature selections available in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 22 those cycles..

The DOE agreed with Whirlpool's interpretation of how the test procedure should be conducted in a letter on October 20, 1993, and further supported this interpretation with its statement, quote, text of the normal cycle definition neither specifically requires an independent temperature selector, nor, specifically provides for an alternative cycle to be used for testing purposes if the cycle, quote, recommended for washing cotton and/or linen clothes uses only cold water rinses.

However, because of the above lack of specificity for a requirement for an alternate test cycle to test all rinse temperature options, DOE is today proposing to clarify the rule to require such measurement by factoring in the most energy intensive energy use with that of the normal cycle. Basically, we have no objections to this DOE proposal and we strongly support DOE's pledge to provide manufacturers one year of lead time to make design alterations following promulgation of the final rule.

This lead time is critical to Whirlpool in the event further design changes become necessary as a result of

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 22 those cycles.- The DOE agreedwithWhirlpool's interpretation of how the test procedure shouldbe conducted in a letteron October 20, 1993, and further supportedthis interpretation with its statement, quote, text of the normal cycle definitionneither specificallyrequires an independent temperature selector, nor, specificallyprovides for an alternative cycle to be used for testingpurposes if the cycle, quote, recommended for washing cotton and/or linen clothes uses only coldwater rinses. However, because of the above lack of specificity for a requirement for an alternate test cycle to test all rinse temperature options, DOE is todayproposing to clarify the rule to require suchmeasurement by factoring in the most energy intensive energyuse with that of the normal cycle. Basically, we have no objections to this DOE proposal andwe strongly support DOE's pledge to provide manufacturers one year of leadtime to make design alterations following promulgation of the final rule. This lead time is critical toWhirlpool in the event further design changes become necessary as a result of

MILLER REPORTING CO. r INC. 507 CSTREETr N.E. WASHINGTONr D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 23 such changes in the test procedure.

Now, we have some specific comments regarding the accuracy and workability of the proposed amendment.

Whirlpool feels the proposed amendments are workable. We believe that the 75 percent factor to prorate temperature settings in the normal cycle for clothes washers that lockout warm water rinses reflects usage patterns based on P&G data which I will submit to you. I said attached. It wasn't, but--

Although use of the most energy intensive cycle probably tends to overstate the average energy use of the machine, it would be difficult the pick a cycle which would exactly depict such average energy consumption.

Thus, we have no specific recommendations on alternative cycle use for the test procedure at this time.

We'll probably address that more fully in our written comments on March 24th.

In conclusion, Whirlpool strongly supports DOE's interpretive rule to permit testing in the normal cycle with design options that lockout warm water rinse.

We strongly support DOE's pledge to allow manufacturer's one year to make design option changes

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 23 such changes in the test procedure. Now, we have some specific comments regarding the accuracy andworkabilityof the proposed amendment. Whirlpool feels the proposed amendments are workable. We believe that the 75 percent factor toprorate temperature settings in the normal cycle for clothes washers that lockout warmwater rinses reflects usage patterns basedon P&G data which I will submit to you. I said attached. It wasn't, but-- Although use of the most energy intensive cycle probably tends to overstate the average energyuse of the machine, it wouldbe difficult the pick a cyclewhichwould exactlydepict such average energy consumption. Thus, we have no specific recommendations on alternative cycle use for the test procedure at this time. WeIll probably address that more fully in our written comments onMarch 24th. In conclusion, Whirlpool strongly supports DOE's interpretive rule topermit testing in the normal cycle with design options that lockout warmwater rinse. We strongly support DOE's pledge to allow manufacturer's one year to make design option changes

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 24 following promulgation of the final rule. We accept the concept of the proposed test procedure amendment that incorporates the 75/25 split for TUF's that are locked out in the normal cycle.

And we accept the concept of the test procedure amendment as it pertains to definition of the most energy intensive cycle and the use of such cycle in calculating energy efficiency.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment this morning. Today I have with me Mr. Vince Anderson, Curt Reichman. Curt is our Chief Engineer for Energy at Whirlpool, and together we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I do have a question. Regarding the 75 percent factor, you say that it reflects current usage patterns based on P&G data. I'm wondering if at this point, since I presume you have some experience with these machines with the lockouts now, whether or not you have any field data that would indicate the percentage of usage of the normal cycle that these with the lockout, this new restriction, so to speak. There seems to be concern that as the normal cycle, if it's made less

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 24 following promulgation of the final rule. We accept the concept of the proposed test procedure amendment that incorporates the 75/25 split for TUFts that are locked out in the normal cycle. Andwe accept the concept of the test procedure amendment as it pertains to definition of the most energy intensive cycle and the use of such cycle in calculating energyefficiency. I would like to thankyou for the opportunityto comment this morning. Today I have withme Mr. Vince Andersont Curt Reichman. Curt is our Chief Engineer for Energy at Whirlpoolt and together wetll be happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. I do have a question. Regarding the 75 percent factort you say that it reflects current usage patterns based on P&G data. Itm wondering if at this pointt since I presume you have some experience with these machines with the lockouts 

### nowt whether ornot you have any field data that would indicate thepercentage of usage of the normal cycle that these with the lockoutt this new restrictiont so to speak. There seems tobe concern that as the normal cyclet if ittsmade less

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 25 useful, that perhapss people would use it less, but until your design, nobody had any data on that, and I'm wondering if you have any data at this point.

MR. THOMPSON: We are still developing that data. Mr. Reichman is in the process of conducting field surveys. We do not have machines in the field at this point in time of any quantity at all. If we do, it's very limited numbers in the distribution channels right now. We're right on the leading edge of starting to release some of those machines.

But if you go back, all the way back to 1966 at the P&G data, it indicates that from '66 through '79, through '81, through '88, that the usage patterns basically are fairly consistent in that 75 percent range. We believe that that's where it will show when we get that field data back. That's in process, though, to get that most current information.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. Thank you.
Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: Mike, would your turn to page five, the first paragraph, above conclusions, the last sentence that you said, IT This lead time is critical to Whirlpool in the event further design changes become necessary. "

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 25 useful, that perhapss people woulduse it less, but until your design, nobodyhad any data on that, and I'mwondering if you have anydata at this point. MR. THOMPSON: We are still developing that data. Mr. Reichman is in the process of conducting field surveys. We do not have machines in the field at this point in time of anyquantity at all. If we do, it's very limitednumbers in the distribution channels right now. We're right on the leadingedge of startingto release some of those machines. But ifyou go back, all the wayback to 1966 at the P&G data, it indicates that from '66 through '79, through '81, through '88, that the usage patterns basically

are fairly consistent in that 75 percent range. We believe that that's where it will showwhenwe get that field data back. That's inprocess, though, to get that most current information. MR. ADAMS: Okay. Thankyou. Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: Mike, wouldyour turn to page five, the first paragraph, above conclusions, the last sentence that you said, " This lead time is critical toWhirlpool in the event further design changes become necessary. "

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 26 Okay. We heard from Maytag, for the first time, talking about a test cycle. And I asked him the question, would there be any-- if we're going to use a test cycle, and we define it according to the way Carl was saying, that we cover all the possibilities, if there is no changes made-- in other words, by using the test cycle, you use the products that are out there today, and there are no-- Maytag is going to come back an let us know if they think there might have to be any changes made, but that's what I'm getting at.If the products are already out there and we define the test cycle to cover the products that are out there, then would there necessarily have to be a design change to the Whirlpool product?

MR. THOMPSON: As Doug Ringger was talking, we were talking among ourselves about a uniform test cycle, and the comments that came back between us was we'd like very much to see what that test cycle is. We'd like to make comments on it. It's an interesting concept. We don't necessarily reject it. We'd just like to see what it is.

I'm confused, though, about the first part of your question, " if there's no changes to this test cycle." Are

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 26 Okay. We heard fromMaytag, for the first time, talking about a test cycle. And I askedhim the question, would there be any-- if we're going to use a test cycle, andwe define it according to the way Carl was saying, that

we cover all the possibilities, if there is no changes made-- in otherwords, byusing the test cycle, you use the products that are out there today, and there are no-- Maytag is going to come back an let us know if they think there might have to be any changes made, but that's what I'm getting at. If theproducts are already out there andwe define the test cycle to cover theproducts that are out there, thenwould there necessarilyhave tobe a design change to theWhirlpool product? MR. THOMPSON: As DougRinggerwas talking, we were talking among ourselves about a uniform test cycle, and the comments that came backbetweenus was we'd like verymuch to see what that test cycle is. We'd like to make comments

on it. It's an interesting concept. We don't necessarily reject it. We'djust like to see what it is. I'm confused, though, about the first part of your question, " if there's no changes to this test cycle." Are

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 27 we talking about no changes to this test cycle in the context of the lockout feature and the proposal as currently written? Is that what we're talking about?

MR. MARGOLIS: Well, what I'm saying is that we define the test cycle--

MR. THOMPSON: Oh, define the test cycle, okay. It would depend on what that definition is. There would be a great deal of variability depending on that definition. That's why I say we'd like to see what the proposal is, Eugene. MR. MARGOLIS: But that might-- therefore, there might not have to be any. It's all hypothetical.

MR. THOMPSON: There could very will be massive changes, too. It could go either way, quite easily.

MR. MARGOLIS: And so therefore-- but could you, in your comments, you know, the March comments, could you give us your thoughts on the use of a test cycle?

MR. THOMPSON: Okay. On a test cycle and provide a definition--

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. MR. MARGOLIS: I mean, this is something that I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 27

we talking about no changes to this test cycle in the context of the lockout feature and the proposal as currentlywritten? Is that what we're talking about? MR. MARGOLIS: Well, what I'm saying is that we define the test cycle-- MR. THOMPSON: Oh, define the test cycle, okay. It woulddependonwhat that definition is. There wouldbe a great deal of variabilitydepending on that definition. That's why I saywe'd like to see what the proposal is, Eugene. MR. MARGOLIS: But that might-- therefore, there might not have tobe any. It's all hypothetical. MR. THOMPSON: There couldverywill be massive changes, too. It couldgo eitherway, quite easily. MR. MARGOLIS: And so therefore-- but couldyou, in your comments, you know, the March comments, couldyou give

us your thoughts on the use of a test cycle? MR. definition-- MR. MR. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. On a test

MARGOLIS: Yes. THOMPSON: Okay. MARGOLIS: I mean, this is

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 cycle andprovide

something that I amb 28 would consider-- I mean, in our thinking is something new and novel, and it's interesting.

MR. THOMPSON: Sure will. MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you very much. MR. ADAMS: Jim? MR. KAO: I don't have any questions. MR. ADAMS: Bill? MR. HUI: I'm just kind of curious. You say Whirlpool had always interpreted the rule, does that predate the 1992 when we started this discussion?

MR. THOMPSON: It goes back to late '92 when we talked about some of the labeling issues, and we had no concept that DOE was thinking two or three different ways about the lockout feature, and once that came to light, the lockout issue, basically in the spring of '93, it took some time, until October of '93, to get a resolution.

But as you well know, we were so far down the pike in terms of design at that time, and commitments to suppliers, et cetera, it was very difficult at that point in time to back out of a lockout type situation where we had already made some design commitments to vendors and suppliers, and customers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 28 would consider-- I mean, in our thinking is somethingnew and novel, and it's interesting. MR. THOMPSON: Sure will. MR. MARGOLIS: Thank youverymuch. MR. ADAMS: Jim? MR. KAO: I don't have any questions. MR. ADAMS: Bill? MR. HUI: I'mjust kind of curious. You say Whirlpool had always interpreted the rule, does that predate the 1992 whenwe started this discussion? MR. THOMPSON: It goes back to late '92 when we talked about some of the labeling issues, andwe hadno concept that DOE was thinking two or three different ways about the lockout feature, and once that came to light, the lockout issue, basicallyin the spring of '93, it took some time, until October of '93, to get a resolution. But as you well know, we were so far down the pike in terms of design at that time, and commitments to suppliers, et cetera, it was verydifficult at that point in time toback out of a lockout type situationwhere we had alreadymade some design commitments to vendors and suppliers, and customers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 29 I would like to make one more comment. Doug Ringger was right about six to eight weeks on one model. That's what I would say, one model. But when you're talking massive changes, you can't begin to make a turnaround in less than a year for all the changes that would be necessary in terms of more testing, the promotional literature, the use and care guides, the sales floor literature, the display models, the introduction, the pre-pilot, the pilot; there's lots of lead time built in when you're talking more than just a few models.

He's absolutely correct, one model you can do in six to eight weeks, but not lots of models.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. The next speaker is David Modtland. MR. MODTLAND: Good morning. My name is Dave Modtland with the Frigidaire Company. I'm the Manager of Washer Engineering. I'm going to have to make a little change here to do a viewgraph presentation, if I may.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. MR. MODTLAND: Is this movable? It blocks the view of--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 29 I would like to make one more comment. Doug Ringgerwas right about six to eight weeks on one model. That's what I would say, one model. But whenyou're talking massive changes, you can't begin to make a turnaround in less than a year for all the changes that wouldbe necessary in terms of more testing, the promotional literature, the

use and care guides, the sales floor literature, the display models, the introduction, the pre-pilot, the pilot; there's lots of lead time built inwhenyou're talkingmore than just a few models. He's absolutely correct, one model you can do in six to eight weeks, but not lots of models. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. The next speaker is DavidModtland. MR. MODTLAND: Goodmorning. My name is Dave Modtlandwith the Frigidaire Company. I'mthe Manager of Washer Engineering. I'mgoing to have to make a little change here to do a viewgraph presentation, if I may.

of-- MR. ADAMS: Okay. MR. MODTLAND: Is this movable? It blocks the view

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 30 I'd-like to thank you first for the opportunity to speak at this public hearing. I do appreciate this opportunity.

It's our position is that the proposed amendment for the test procedures should not be adopted for the following reasons:

First of all, the hot water usage is understated. 75/25 apportionment is inappropriate, and I'll be getting into that in more detail through my presentation. It makes the test procedure unnecessarily complicated. It provides an unfair competitive advantage, and it will have a negative affect on the energy consumption to the appliance industry, particularly in the washers used.

Why I feel the hot water usage is understated, and why the 75/25 is inappropriate, the data is based-- the 75/25 data is based on past history. Now that we've introduced a change in the system, that data is no longer valid on this change. They didn't have the ability to lockout a warm rinse with a hot wash option in the past.

In the past, the data was based on having a hot/warm cycle available in the normal cycle. So, I don't think it's valid to say that the data is going to stay the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 30 lid-like to thankyou first for the opportunity to speak at this public hearing. I do appreciate this opportunity. It/s ourposition is that the proposed amendment for the test procedures shouldnot be adopted for the following reasons: First of alII the hot waterusage is understated. 75/25 apportionment is inappropriateI and I/ll be getting into that inmore detail throughmy presentation. It makes the test procedure unnecessarily complicated. It provides

an unfair competitive advantageI and itwill have a negative affect on the energy consumption to the appliance industrYI particularly in the washers used. Why I feel the hot waterusage is understatedl and why the 75/25 is inappropriateI the data is based-- the 75/25 data is based onpast history. Now that we/ve introduced a change in the systeml that data is no longer valid on this change. Theydidn/t have the abilityto lockout a warm rinse with a hot wash option in the past. In thepast l the data was basedon having a hot/warm cycle available in the normal cycle. SOl I don/t think it/s validto saythat the data is going to staythe

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 31 same as it has in the past 30 years when you introduce a change in the way things are being done.

As Mr. Ringer stated in his comments, it is a little different now. You're going to be using-- with less utility in that cycle, and that utility transferred to an a different cycle, a heavier or regular or whatever you name it other than normal, you're going to shift usage into that cycle more.

The hot water energy calculation can decrease the value by up to 25 percent, possibly more, again, additional interpretations that we'll be talking about later. Again, we'll emphasize that with no loss and cut in consumer utility, still has a hot/warm option available to them, and a fast agitation, fast spin mode, use a different name in the trim plait, be effectively it's the same cycle.

The energy efficiency standard should change on a product that has this lockout feature because a product that wouldn't comply, a five-temperature product, namely, could not comply with this amended test procedure.

Getting into a little detail on the calculation-- I won't bore you too much with them-- but I'm sure somebody in the audience and most of the panel here have a good

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 31

same as it hag in thepast 30 years whenyou introduce a change in the way things are beingdone. As Mr. Ringer stated inhis commentsI it is a little different now. 

### You/re going to be using-- with less utility in that 

### cyclel and that utilitytransferred to an a different 

### cyclel a heavier orregular orwhateveryou name it other than normal

### I you/re going to shift usage into that cycle more. The hot water energy calculation can decrease the value byup to 25 percent

### I possibly

### morel againl additional interpretations that weill be talking about later. Again l weill emphasize that withno loss and cut in consumer 

### utilitYI still has a hot/warmoption available to 

### theml and

a fast 

### agitationl fast spin

### model use a different name in the trim

### plaitl be effectively 

### it/s the same cycle. The energy efficiency standard shouldchange on a product that has this lockout feature because a product that wouldn/t 

### complYI a five-temperature product

### I namelYI could not complywith this amended test procedure. Getting into a little detail on the calculation-- I 

### won/t bore you too muchwiththem-- but 

### 11m sure somebody in the audience andmost of thepanel here have a good

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 32 appreciation for the calculation.

Using the nomenclature that's in the test procedure, I've a abbreviated somewhat to save space, but essentially, I think you'll recognize the calculation is a summation for the maximum hot water consumption energy calculation, and likewise for the minimum water level calculation, and calculating the total energy used in that, and the 72/28 apportionment for a large-- a high fill versus a small fill, and with this-- with a five temperature hot/warm, hot/cold, warm/warm, warm/cold, cold/cold cycles, using the current test procedure, you would calculate based on test data on a sample machine. In this case, we used an actual machine based on ETL data where they averaged three runs through the test procedure, you get a total hot water energy calculation of 3.34 kilowatt hours.

For comparison, the same five temperature selections, offered with the amended procedure, assuming that the machine has a lockout feature, would give you a calculation with the amended procedure of 2.51 kilowatt hours. Again, for comparison, if you had used a four temperature selection, eliminated hot/warm entirely which we

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 32 appreciation for the calculation. Using the nomenclature that's in the test procedure, I've a abbreviated somewhat to save space, but essentially, I thinkyou'll recognize the calculation is a summation for the maximumhot water consumption energy calculation, and likewise for the minimumwater level calculation, and calculating the total energyused in that, and the 72/28 apportionment for a large-- a high fill versus

a small fill, and with this-- with a five temperature hot/warm, hot/cold, warm/warm, warm/cold, cold/cold cycles, using the current test procedure, you would calculatebased

on test data on a sample machine. In this case, we used an actual machine based on ETL data where they averaged three

runs through the test procedure, you get a total hot water energy calculation of 3.34 kilowatt hours. For comparison, the same five temperature selections, offeredwith the amendedprocedure, assuming that the machine has a lockout feature, would give you a calculationwith the amendedprocedure of 2.51 kilowatt hours. Again, for comparison, if you hadused a four temperature selection, eliminatedhot/warm entirelywhichwe

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 33 believe was the intent of the standard, again, same calculations would result in total hot water energy of 2.29 kilowatt hours.

Summarizing that information, if you took the hot water energy using the current test procedure for five temperature, the difference of what the proposed test procedure, with again, what the five temperature was, divided by the baseline of the current five temperature, you would show nearly a 25 percent reduction in the calculation of the hot water energy, again with essentially the same machine. You drop the hot/warm cycle, doing the same calculation, 3.34 minus the 2.29, you've gone from a five temperature to a four temperature, which we believe was the intent, then you get an actual true savings, 31.4 percent reduction in the energy.

Another comment is this amended test procedure unnecessarily complicates the procedure, and again that is not one of the goals, I know, of the Department of Energy. One of the missions is to try to make that as clear and concise and unambiguous as possible. The additional procedure required some additional test burdening to all

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 33 believe was the intent of the standard, again, same calculations would result in total hot water energyof 2.29 kilowatt hours. Summarizing that information, ifyou took the hot water energyusing the current test procedure for five temperature, the difference of what the proposed test procedure, with again, what the five temperature was, dividedbythe baseline of the current five temperature, you would shownearly a 25 percent reduction in the calculation of the hot water energy, againwith essentiallythe same machine. You drop the hot/warm cycle, doing the same calculation, 3.34 minus the 2.29, you've gone from a five temperature to a four temperature, whichwe believe was the intent, thenyou get an actual true savings, 31.4 percent reduction in the energy. Another comment is this amended test procedure unnecessarily complicates the procedure, and again that is not one of the goals, I know, of the Department of Energy. One of the missions is to tryto make that as clear and concise andunambiguous as possible. The additional procedure required some additional test burdening to all

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 34 nonnormal cycles. Reference the paragraph mentioned here, 3.2.2.8.3, it states in that if you have a lockout feature that you must test all non-normal cycles that have the temperature that have been locked out from the the normal cycle. Regardless whether it might be a two-minute cycle, it might be a permanent press cycle, delicate cycle, rather than some other cycle that could be used for cotton linens or cotton sturdy type thing, you have to go through all those test procedures and everytime, over and over again, even though you had data-- at least that's my interpretation-- data to prove that the delicate cycle was always much lower, you would still have to run those tests; thus, you increase your testing time significantly.

As Mr. Ringer also had mentioned previously, there's opportunities for additional ambiguities with this amended test procedure. As we were bouncing around in our company of how to calculate it, and I want to admit, there were several interpretations of what was meant by the statements and how the calculations should be interpreted.

Again, as Doug had mentioned, one of the things that was thought about-- well, getting ahead of myself a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 34 nonnormal cycles. Reference the paragraphmentioned here t 3.2.2.8.3 t it states in that if you have a lockout feature that you must test all non-normal cycles that have the temperature that have been lockedout from the the normal cycle. Regardless whether it might be a two-minute cyclet it might be a permanent press cyclet delicate cyclet rather than some other cycle that couldbe used for cotton linens

or cotton sturdytype thingt you have to go through all those test procedures and everytimet over and over againt

even thoughyou had data-- at least thatts my interpretation-- data to prove that the delicate cycle was always much lowert you would still have to run those tests; thust you increase your testing time significantly. As Mr. Ringer also hadmentionedpreviouslYt therets opportunities for additional ambiguities with this amended test procedure. As we were bouncing around in our companyof how to calculate itt and I want to admitt there

were several interpretations of what was meant by the statements and how the calculations shouldbe interpreted. Againt as Doug hadmentionedt one of the things that was thought about-- wellt getting ahead of myself a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 35 little bit-- more interpretations could develop over time.

Again, the thing with the water levels, you could now lockout water levels; you could lock out different things that's just going to be building on itself, and creating additional loophole areas.

As far as different interpretations, there were some questions on whether that applied-- these test procedures applied just to units that didn't have a lockout feature or did we have to do this type of testing for all units even if it didn't have a lockout in the cycle. There's some confusion about that.

This amendment also provides an unfair competitive advantage. One manufacturer has a significant head start. That's quite obvious. Almost ready to produce to the best of my knowledge of the other manufacturers, are just learning about the possibility of doing such a thing.

The proposed test procedures should not go into effect until sufficient time is allowed for other manufacturers to take advantage of this desired condition. Allowing manufacturers a year to comply does not really rectify the situation. They already have that advantage. Giving other manufacturers to follow suit will not correct

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 35 littlebit-- more interpretations could develop over time. Again, the thingwith the water levels, you could

now lockout water levels; you could lock out different things that/s just going tobe buildingon itself, and creating additional loophole areas. As far as different interpretations, there were

some questions onwhether that applied-- these test procedures appliedjust to units that didn't have a lockout feature ordidwe have to do this type of testing for all units even if it didn't have a lockout in the cycle. There's some confusion about that. This amendment alsoprovides anunfair competitive advantage. One manufacturer has a significant head start. That's quite obvious. Almost ready to produce to the best of my knowledge of the othermanufacturers, are just learning about the possibilityof doing such a thing. The proposedtest procedures shouldnot go into effect until sufficient time is allowed for other manufacturers to take advantage of this desired condition. Allowing manufacturers a year to complydoes not really rectifythe situation. They alreadyhave that advantage. Giving othermanufacturers to follow suit will not correct

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 36 that. The only way to correct that in our eyes is to delay that amendment that would be desired to take place, until all the the manufacturers have had sufficient time, probably up to a year as Mr. Thompson stated, to develop a product line to match that before such ruling should take effect.

The procedure in negotiating and communicating this change in this matter requires improvement. It may take folks-- in their written comments touched upon that a little bit, I guess we'd just like to accentuate that a little bit as well, that we do need to find a way to correct communications so that the information is distributed in a timely and fair manner so that all can react accordingly.

I don't want to dwell on that too much, again, because that's-- we want to look forward on how to improve rather than what's been in the past.

We also feel it will have a negative effect on energy consumption. We believe it's inconsistent with the intent of the law. The savings are not going to be realized as I explained in my slides before. If it's approved it will do nothing more than encourage the remaining manufacturers to follow suit and put out machines that consume more energy than be necessary, and the whole

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 36 that. The onlyway to correct that in our eyes is to delay that amendment that wouldbe desired to take place, until all the the manufacturers have had sufficient time, probably up to a year as Mr. Thompson stated, to develop a product line to match that before such ruling should take effect. The procedure innegotiating and communicating this change in this matter requires improvement. It may take folks-- in theirwritten comments touchedupon that a littlebit, I guess we'djust like to accentuate that a littlebit as well, that we do need to find a way to correct communications so that the information is distributed in a timely and fair manner so that all can react accordingly. I don't want to dwell on that too much, again, because that's-- we want to look forward onhow to improve rather thanwhat's been in the past. We also feel it will have a negative effect on energy consumption. We believe it's inconsistent with the intent of the law. The savings are not going to be realized

as I explained inmy slides before. If it's approved it will do nothingmore than encourage the remaining manufacturers to follow suit andput out machines that

consume more energythanbe necessary, and the whole

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 37 activity kind-of gives the appliance industry a black eye.

Rather than trying to conform with the intent of the law in developing and providing the consumers more energy efficient units, we're spending effort on trying to find ways to get our labeling of the products down without losing anything in terms of consumer utility, without actually doing anything that's end result going to save energy for this country.

In conclusion, our recommendation would be; one, to discontinue proceeding with the amended test procedure as developed. Or, another option would be to revise the energy standard for models with the lockout feature in the normal cycle. This essentially would require a new category to be developed through these types of products, and that our proposal would be that that energy factor be of such a nature that a unit that could marginally comply today would also marginally comply for this new standard. Or, if that wasn't adopted, we would revise the apportionment value, the 75/25 value to prevent understating the energy consumption. And off the top, I guess the only way we see that is 100 percent in the energy intensive cycle. Because there's nothing to prevent the consumer from using hot/warm in that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 37 activitykind-of gives the appliance industry a black eye. Rather than trying to conformwith the intent of the law indeveloping andprovidingthe consumers more energyefficient units, we're spending effort on trying to find ways to get our labelingof theproducts down without losing anything in terms of consumerutility, without actuallydoing anything that's endresult going to save energy for this country. In conclusion, our recommendationwouldbe; one, to discontinue proceedingwith the amended test procedure as developed. Or, another optionwouldbe to revise the energy standard for models with the lockout feature in the normal cycle. This essentiallywould require a new categorytobe developed through these types of products, and that our proposal wouldbe that that energy factor be of such a nature that a unit that couldmarginallycomplytodaywould also marginallycomply for this new standard. Or, if that wasn't adopted, we would revise the apportionment value, the 75/25 value toprevent understating the energy consumption. And off the top, I guess the onlywaywe see that is 100 percent in the energy intensive cycle. Because there's nothing toprevent the consumer from usinghot/warm in that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 38 cycle as much-as me would if it was in the normal cycle.

That's it. MR. ADAMS: Okay. I do have a question. I guess in regards to what you just said, and you indicated it's obviously off the top of your head, that if we revise the apportionment value to a hundred percent on the most energy intensive cycle, or presumably that could be a defined test cycle also, I guess. Is it your opinion therefore that having a lockout of warm rinse on the normal cycle or what is presented to be the most used cycle, that there actually are no energy savings from that, or could there possibly be some energy savings?

In other words, would people use a warm rinse that was offered somewhat less if it were offered in that particular way?

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see how the proposed lockout saves any energy at all. I don't see that it offers any opportunity through that. It will just require the consumer to use is different named cycle to get the results or to get the water temperatures that they want to use. That's my-- our opinion. That's why the preference would be to not follow through with the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 38 cycle as much-as me would if it was in the normal cycle. That/s it. MR. ADAMS: Okay. I do have a question. I guess in regards to what youjust saidl andyou indicated it/s obviously off the top of your headl that if

we revise the apportionment value to a hundredpercent on the most energy intensive cycle l orpresumably that couldbe

a defined test cycle also l I guess. Is it your opinion therefore that having a lockout of warm rinse on the normal cycle orwhat is presented to be the most used cycle l that there actually are no energy savings from that l or could there possiblybe some energy savings? In other words I wouldpeople use a warm rinse that

was offered somewhat less if it were offered in that particularway? MR. MODTLAND: Yes. I guess what 11m saying iS I I don/t see how the proposed lockout saves any energy at all. I don/t see that it offers any opportunity through that. It will just require the consumer to use is different named cycle to get the results or to get the water temperatures that theywant to use. That/s my-- our opinion. That/s why the preference wouldbe to not follow throughwith the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 39 amendment because doing the other two basically results in the same net effect and just adds additonal complications to the test procedure.

MR. ADAMS: Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: In line with Carl's question, the consumer, therefore, would be-- if the lockout is on the normal cycle, and he would want the warm water, he would just say-- he would turn to another cycle. Don't you feel that-- I mean, say, B is an average consumer. I turned to the normal cycle. I mean, that's what I would turn. I would wash my clothes-- the machine says " normal cycle". I'd turn to the normal cycle. I mean, aren't you giving a lot more credit, then, to the consumer to realize all these other shenanigans he could do? I mean, to me, the normal cycle, that's what I'd put my clothes on.

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, I would accept that, that there's going to be some consumers that would out of habit use the same cycle and not read the fine print on the console graphics and select the hot/warm and put it on normal cycle and end up getting a hot/cold, and-- yeah, I acknowledge that that-- there's a potential that-- there's a probability that it will occur to some extent. To what

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 39 amendment because doing the other two basicallyresults in the same net effect andjust adds additonal complications to the test procedure. MR. ADAMS: Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: In linewith Carl's question, the consumer, therefore, wouldbe-- if the lockout is on the normal cycle, and he wouldwant the warmwater, he would just say-- he would turn to another cycle. Don't you feel that-- I mean, say, B is an average consumer. I turned to the normal cycle. I mean, thatts what I would turn. I wouldwashmy clothes-- the machine says" normal cycle". I'd turn to the normal cycle. I mean, aren't you giving a lot more creditt thent to the consumer to realize all these other shenanigans he coulddo? I meant to me, the normal cycle, that's what ltdput my clothes on. MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, I would accept that, that there's going tobe some consumers that would out of habit

use the same cycle andnot read the fine print on the console graphics and select the hot/warm andput it on normal cycle and endup getting a hot/coldt and-- yeah, I acknowledge that that-- therets a potential that-- there's a probabilitythat it will occur to some extent. To what

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 40 extent, who knows. And that, I guess, in essence would result in some savings, but I think once they realize that they're taking their clothes out and they're cold rather than hot, they're going to call the serviceman and say," This isn't operating right" , and then they're going to be instructed on how to use it properly. Or if that's what they desire, that they've got to do this and this and this to get-- to do what they used to be able to do in just a hot/warm normal cycle. And at that point, they don't get any energy savings, again.

You change their habits. But granted, there will be a period where someone selects the hot/warm and not get it, and realize some savings.

I acknowledge that. MR. MARGOLIS: Could you go back to your-- the third from last page.

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. MR. MARGOLIS: I'd like to ask your third point. I'm not too sure I understand exactly where your trying to take us. MR. MODTLAND: Okay.

MR. MARGOLIS: You're saying" Proposed test

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 40 extent, who knows. And that, I guess, in essence would result in some savings, but I think once theyrealize that they're taking their clothes out and they're cold rather than hot, they're going to call the serviceman and say," This isn't operating right" , and then they're going tobe instructedonhow touse itproperly. Or if that's what theydesire, that they've got to do this and this and this to get-- to do what theyused tobe able to do injust a hot/warm normal cycle. And at that point, theydon't get anyenergy savings, again. You change their habits. But granted, there will be a periodwhere someone selects the hot/warm and not get it, and realize some savings. I acknowledge that. MR. MARGOLIS: Couldyou go back to your-- the third from last page. MR. MODTLAND: Yes. MR. MARGOLIS: I'd like to askyour thirdpoint. I'mnot too sure I understand exactlywhere your trying to take us. MR. MODTLAND: Okay. MR. MARGOLIS: You're saying" Proposed test

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 41 procedure should not go into effect until sufficient time is allowed for other manufacturers to take advantage of this change if desired. "

What of "this change"? MR. MODTLAND: Okay. This change would be the amended test procedure as proposed. It's my understanding that if that would be adopted, the other manufacturers would have up to a year to comply. Correct?

MR. MARGOLIS: Right. MR. MODTLAND: Well, I'm saying that rather than doing that, you should say that it's not going to be adopted for a year or 18 months or whatever the period is, to allow all manufacturers that same period. " Now, this is what the rules are. The rules have changed. Now, you've got time--", everybody has the same amount of time, or at least sufficient time in order to change their product line, you know, change their components, change their marketing strategy, if that manufacturer so desires to do that, which I believe most will. Because it offers a competitive marketing feature.

MR. MARGOLIS: Maytag speaker said that it would take six to eight weeks.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 41 procedure shouldnot go into effect until sufficient time is allowed for othermanufacturers to take advantage of this change if desired. 

### " What of "this change"? MR. MODTLAND: Okay. This change wouldbe the amended test procedure as proposed. Ittsmy understanding that if that would be adoptedt the othermanufacturers would have up to a year to comply. Correct? MR. MARGOLIS: Right. MR. MODTLAND: Wellt Itm saying that rather than doing thatt you should say that itts not going to be adopted for a year or 18 months orwhatever the period 

### iS t to allow all manufacturers that sameperiod. " Now t this is what the rules are. The rules have changed. Nowt youtve got time--"t everybodyhas the same amount of timet or at least sufficient time in order to change theirproduct linet you knowt change their componentst change theirmarketing strategYt if that manufacturer so desires to do thatt which I believe most will. Because it offers a competitive marketing feature. MR. MARGOLIS: Maytag speaker said that it would take six to eight weeks.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 42 Whirlpool agreed with that per model. And so, I don't know why one year would not be sufficient to allow all manufacturers to take advantage of the amended test procedure. You're saying-- I don't know what time period you'd be saying, are you saying two years? Three years?

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. I understood Maytag's comments to say it would that I can six to eight weeks to undo what had been done, to revert back to a four temperature, in essence. I don't know if that's correct, but that's why I interpreted them to be saying rather than for other manufacturers to get that feature into their product. Big difference.

It's easier to go back to what you had before, or not offer something that don't have rather than to develop and add a new feature to a product line. Particularly, and I would agree that, again, with some of the hardware, yes, you can make timer changes in six to eight weeks. That's fairly standard-type turn around. You can make trip light and graphics changes in that time frame. I mean, probably get your literature and those types of things; but to develop a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 42 Whirlpool agreedwith that permodel. And so, I don't knowwhy one yearwouldnot be sufficient to allow all manufacturers to take advantage of the amended test procedure. You're saying-- I don't know what time periodyou'dbe saying, are you saying two years? Three years? MR. MODTLAND: Okay. I understoodMaytag's comments to say it would that I can sixto eight weeks to undo what hadbeen done, to revert back to a four temperature, in essence. I don't know if that's correct, but that's why I interpreted them tobe saying rather than for othermanufacturers to get that feature into their product. Big difference. It's easier to go back to what you hadbefore, or not offer something that don't have rather than to develop and add a new feature to a product line. Particularly, and I would agree that, again, with some of the hardware, yes, you

canmake timer changes in sixto eight weeks. That's fairly standard-type turn around. You canmake trip light and graphics changes in that time frame. I mean, probablyget your literature and those types of thingsj but to develop a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 43 cohesive marketing line to step-- for the dealers to handle a line that has a proper step up, those types of things, to do an offer of a whole complete line, requires a little more thought and time. What the actual time would be, I'm not sure what that would be. I would require some more time and I'm sure other manufacturers would like to comment on that, that same time period was sufficient. What I feel is sufficient for our company may not be sufficient for other manufacturers. And in doing that, again, could have some unfair advantages of one company other another in terms of one has a faster turnaround because they have a smaller product line, or--

MR. MARGOLIS: Do you envision filing additional comments by the March 24th date?

MR. MODTLAND: I wasn't planning on it. I guess Ithought this wouldMR. MARGOLIS: Well, if you would consider, could you go into and give us some more reasons from your company for what would be a sufficient amount of time.

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. I'd be happy to do that. MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. MR. ADAMS: But now, you're talking about-- the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 43 cohesive marketing line to step-- for the dealers to handle

a line that has a proper step UPI those types of thingsI to do an offerof a whole complete line l requires a littlemore thought and time. What the actual time would bel 11mnot

sure what that wouldbe. I would require some more time and 11m sure othermanufacturers would like to comment on that l that same time periodwas sufficient. What I feel is sufficient for our companymaynot be sufficient for other manufacturers. And indoing that l againl couldhave some unfair advantages of one companyother another in terms of

one has a faster turnaroundbecause theyhave a smaller product line l or-- MR. MARGOLIS: Do you envision filing additional comments by the March 24th date? MR. MODTLAND: I wasn/t planningon it. I guess I thought this would-- MR. MARGOLIS: Well, if youwould considerl could you go into and give us some more reasons from your company for what wouldbe a sufficient amount of time. MR. MODTLAND: Okay. lidbe happy to do that. MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. MR. ADAMS: But now, you/re talking about-- the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 44 change that you're talking about is to change your product to, or for a manufacturer, to change its product to includea warm rinse lockout similar to the WhirlpoolMR. MODTLAND: Correct. MR. ADAMS: And so your third bullet here is that we should allow enough time for other manufacturers to produce that type of machine if they desire to do so--

MR. MODTLAND: Right. MR. ADAMS: And that then at some point further on, we would make this change to the test procedure that would treat those sorts of machines differently, either a revised standard or a different test method, or what have

you. MR. MODTLAND: Yeah, but there are all kind of-- they're interrelated. I guess my first preference would be to eliminate this amendment. Okay.

Now, if they's not acceptable, then the secondary would be to create a standard that makes it fair in terms of calculating the energy, the true energy value that we anticipate from that machine. That's why I'm saying the 75/25 is incorrect.

The third, if that wasn't allowed, and in doing

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 44 change that you're talking about is to change yourproduct to, or for a manufacturer, to change itsproduct to include

a warmrinse lockout similar to the Whirlpool-- MR. MODTLAND: Correct. MR. ADAMS: And so your thirdbullet here is that

we should allow enough time for othermanufacturers to produce that type of machine if theydesire to do so-- MR. MODTLAND: Right. MR. ADAMS: And that then at some point further on, we wouldmake this change to the test procedure that would treat those sorts of machines differently, eithera revised standard or a different test method, orwhat have you. MR. MODTLAND: Yeah, but there are all kind of-- they're interrelated. I guess my first preferencewouldbe to eliminate this amendment. Okay. Now, if they's not acceptable, then the secondary wouldbe to create a standardthat makes it fair in terms of calculating the energy, the true energyvalue that we anticipate from that machine. That's why I'm saying the 75/25 is incorrect. The third, if that wasn't allowed, and in doing

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 45 so, that basically takes away any advantage in doing such a feature. So, again, if there's no advantage to it, might as well go back to the first, and not even talk about in the first place.

Now, the third is if you don't agree with either one of those, then the third is to at least allow a level playing field for other manufacturers to comply, and they's, again, the least desirable because in my mind, that does not service the consumer or the country in terms of energy consumption, because it just allows the five temperature options to continue, which was, or we believe, was one of the intents was trying to save energy, and I don't feel that this would do that.

So, it's kind of a step phase, if you would, in how to handle that.

MR. ADAMS: But doesn't the-- if we discontinued the proceeding, in other words, not implement the amended test procedure, that leaves us with what has been referred to as the "loop hole" that would allow all manufacturers if they desired to produce a machine with warm--

MR. MODTLAND: Without-- energy consumption at

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 45 so, that basically takes away any advantage in doing such a feature. So, again, if there's no advantage to it, might as well go back to the first, and not even talk about in the first place. Now, the third is ifyou don't agree with either

one of those, then the third is to at least allow a level playing field for othermanufacturers to comply, and they's, again, the least desirable because inmy mind, that does not service the consumer or the country in terms of energy consumption, because it just allows the five temperature options to continue, whichwas, orwe believe, was one of the intents was trying to save energy, and I don't feel that this would do that. So, it's kind of a stepphase, if you would, in how to handle that. MR. ADAMS: But doesn't the-- if we discontinued the proceeding, in otherwords, not implement the amended test procedure, that leaves us withwhat has been referred to as the "loop hole" that would allow all manufacturers if theydesired to produce a machine withwarm-- MR. MODTLAND: Without-- energy consumption at

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 46

MR. ADAMS: I mean, we would be left with the test procedure that we current have today.

MR. MODTLAND: And that's-- I'm a little bit ignorant of the proceeding methods, if you will; but in my mind, I don't think there is a loophole that exists today. I mean, it's an incorrect interpretation, and it would require a reversal of decisions that were made last October. But in my mind, there is no loophole that exists.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. I understand that. Thank you. MR. MODTLAND: That's my premise. MR. ADAMS: Jim. MR. KAO: Yes. I'm interpreting the proposed change here. You mentioned about testing all cycles for washers without the lockout. Could you give another example? I thought that one was clear.

MR. MODTLAND: I think that one was fairly clear because. Because it addresses, if you have a lockout, then you follow this test procedure. If it doesn't have a lockout, it's the same as it is today. So, I don't think
that one's too hard to overcome.

MR. KAO: Do you have any other examples?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 46 all-- MR. ADAMS: I meanl we wouldbe left with the test procedure that we current have today. MR. MODTLAND: And that/s-- 11ma littlebit ignorant of the proceedingmethodsl if you will; but inmy mindl I don/t think there is a loophole that exists today. I meanl it/s an incorrect interpretationl and it would require a reversal of decisions that were made last October. But inmy mindl there is no loophole that exists. MR. ADAMS: Okay. I understand that. Thankyou. MR. MODTLAND: That/s my premise. MR. ADAMS: Jim. MR. KAO: Yes. 11m interpreting the proposed change here. You mentioned about testing all cycles for washers without the lockout. Couldyou give another example? I thought that one was clear. MR. MODTLAND: I think that one was fairly clear because. Because it addresses I if you have a lockoutI then you follow this test procedure. If it doesn/t have a lockoutl it/s the same as it is today. that one/s too hard to overcome. MR. KAO: Do you have any other examples?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 47 MR._MODTLAND: Yes. There was another one but it escapes me right now.

Do you remember, Sheryl? We have Sheryl Wrighett with us from our Compliance and Standards.

MS. WRIGETT: Another interpretation of that one?

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. WRIGHETT: I have one about locking out a temperature and a water level. Locking out the high fill and only using the medium fill level, therefore using less hot energy, or hot water, and the energy would go down that way. So, although you are locking out a warm cycle from the rinse, you could lock out a load level and get the same results as far as the temperature calculation or energy calculation-- so, there were a lot of-- we used a cycle with a lot of hot water, then it just gets smaller number of clothes or a smaller load, versus a larger load, and a delicate cycle, and you have to calculate them all, yes.

MR. ADAMS: Bill? MR. HUI: When you you go to the-- where you do the interpretation, are we talking about the actual equation that you come out with several different methods of arriving at those numbers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 47 MR

..MODTLAND: Yes. There was another one but it escapes me right now. Do you remember, Sheryl? We have Sheryl Wrighett withus from our Compliance and Standards. MS. WRIGETT: Another interpretation of that one? MR. MODTLAND: Yes. WRIGHETT: I have one about locking out a temperature and a water level. Locking out the high fill and onlyusing the medium fill level, therefore using less hot energy, orhot water, and the energywould go down that way. So, althoughyou are locking out a warm cycle from the rinse, you could lock out a load level and get the same results as far as the temperature calculationor energy calculation-- so, there were a lot of-- we used a cyclewith

a lot of hot water, then itjust gets smallernumber of clothes or a smaller load, versus a larger load, and a delicate cycle, andyou have to calculate them all, yes. MR. ADAMS: Bill? MR. HUI: When youyou go to the-- where you do the interpretation, are we talking about the actual equation that you come out with several different methods of arriving at those numbers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 48 MR.-MODTLAND: Not so much that, I think, as what's been previously stated in terms of the opportunity to lockout other features such as the water level, opportunity to, I guess we've only had a limited time to look at this, in thinking that if you're trying to find a way to get around something or get creative with the interpretation, the more you have in it, the more opportunities you offer. You know, there's just more opportunities available to find a different way to go, you know, it's opened up a new paradigm to look at how to minimize your calculation of energy, but with a lockout-type technique. You know, lockout speeds. That wouldn't offer too much advantage, but you could lock out reduced agitation times, or fills, or-- I don't know, we really haven't come up with anything. Just thinking that there's other opportunities there that coulg be identified and fall in the same boat, six or eight months, ten months, two years, four years, down the road.

MR. HUI: Are you basing the fact that this amendment will not result in energy savings on accomplishing what you just presented to us a few minutes ago that there was a 24.9 percent reduction in.

MR. MODTLAND: The calculation yields a 24.9

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 48 MR.-MODTLAND: Not somuch that, I think, as what's beenpreviously stated in terms of the opportunityto lockout other features such as the water level, opportunity to, I guess we've onlyhad a limitedtime to look at this, in thinking that if you're trying to find a way to get around something or get creative with the interpretation, the more you have in it, the more opportunities you offer. You know, there's just more opportunities available to find

a different way to go, you know, it's openedup a new paradigm to look at how tominimize your calculation of energy, but with a lockout-type technique. You know, lockout speeds. That wouldn't offer too much advantage, but you could lock out reduced agitation times, or fills, or-- I don't know, we reallyhaven't come up with anything. Just thinking that there's otheropportunities there that coulg be identifiedand fall in the same boat, sixoreight months, tenmonths, two years, four years, down the road. MR. HUI: Are youbasing the fact that this amendment will not result in energy savings on accomplishing what you justpresented to us a few minutes ago that there

was a 24.9 percent reduction in. MR. MODTLAND: The calculationyields a 24.9

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 49 percent reduction, and my argument is that there should be no reduction. It's the same five temperature machine. In essence you're just doing through two different cycles to get there. But, you know, it's still the same--

MR. HUI: Because I think that what you have there might be using not the correct method of interpreting the equation, and because you base this number on the actual test procedure using only the 75/25 percent, but the way I feel that you use the equation, I don't think it's correct.

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. Again that would reinforcethe point about interpretationMR. HUI:-- Either something high or low in term of the 24.9 percent that you just presented to us.

MR. MODTLAND: Do you want to walk through that quickly, or afterwards, or--

MR. HUI: I think afterwards is fine. MR. MODTLAND: Because I can point out quickly what my assumptions are on that.

MR. MARGOLIS: Could you-- would you do it for the record, please.

MR. MODTLAND: Surely. This is the one with the lockout in the normal

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 49 percent reduction, andmy argument is that there shouldbe

no reduction. It's the same five temperature machine. In

essence you're just doing through two different cycles to get there. But, you know, it's still the same-- MR. HUI: Because I think that what you have there might be using not the correct method of interpreting the equation, andbecause you base this number on the actual test procedure using only the 75/25 percent, but the way I feel that you use the equation, I don't think it's correct. MR. MODTLAND: Okay. Again that would reinforce the point about interpretation-- MR. HUI:-- Either somethinghigh or low in term of the 24.9 percent that youjustpresentedto us. MR. MODTLAND: Do you want to walk through that quickly, or afterwards, or-- MR. HUI: I think afterwards is fine. MR. MODTLAND: Because I canpoint out quicklywhat my assumptions are on that. MR. MARGOLIS: Couldyou-- wouldyou do it for the record, please. MR. MODTLAND: Surely. This is the one with the lockout in the normal

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 50 cycle. This first component-- we'll just take the V Max, the first component here is the hot water gallons in what would be a hot/warm cycle. Okay. Now, take in the fact, this is hot/warm in the normal cycle, you're cold rinse. So, this is in essence your agitation fill, your wash fill. Take that times the usage factor, .18 for a hot/warm, take that times the 75 apportionment factor.

The second component of that is the 25 percent component. It's in the most energy intensive cycle. It has the hot/warm, uses 34.97 gallons. Again, using the same hot/warm apportionment factor, TUF, temperature utilization factor. The next factor term in here is for the hot/cold cycle. Again, you'll notice the gallon usage is the same for the hot/warm in the normal cycle. The hot/cold is available in the normal cycle, so you don't have to take the 75/25. It's available, so you don't have to do the other non-normal cycle. The apportionment value for for hot/cold in five temperature select for temperature utilization factor is 12 percent, or .12.

Going to the next term of the equation, it's for-- I'm sorry.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 50 cycle. This first component-- we'll just take the VMax, the first component here is the hot water gallons inwhat wouldbe a hot/warm cycle. Okay. Now, take in the fact, this is hot/warm in the normal cycle, you're cold rinse. So, this is inessence your agitation fill, yourwash fill. Take that times the usage factor l .18 for a hot/warm, take that times the 75 apportionment factor. The second component of that is the 25 percent component. It's in the most energy intensive cycle. It has the hot/warm, uses 34.97 gallons. Again, using the same hot/warm apportionment factor, TUF, temperature utilization factor. The next factor term inhere is for the hot/cold cycle. Again, you'll notice the gallonusage is the same for the hot/warm in the normal cycle. The hot/cold is available in the normal cycle, soyou don't have to take the 75/25. It's available, soyou don't have to do the other non-normal cycle. The apportionment value for for hot/cold in five temperature select for temperature utilization factor is 12 percent, or .12.

I'm sorry.Going to the next term of the equation, it's for--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 51 Yeah. That would be for the warm/warm. Okay. My assumption here is that the warm, again, was locked out in the normal cycle. So, you just get the warm wash fill, okay, which would be the same. Now, that's taking time, the TUF of .3, the 75 percent apportionment factor again for the normal cycle. You select the warm/warm on the normal cycle, it's locked it out. You only get hot water when you measure to run that cycle, warm/warm on the selector, normal cycle, you only get hot water and it will be in the first fill, your cold water in the second fill.

Okay. Now, the second portion of that term is if you use the other cycle, the non-normal cycle, most energy intensive cycle in the warm/warm setting. Now you get a warm wash and a warm rinse. You use more gallons of hot water, 23.67 to be exact in this case. And a temperature utilization factor, again, of .3, apportionment factor of.25. The final term, is for a warm/cold, with a gallon usage, 11 gallons. It's the same as warm/warm in the normal cycle because in essence that's what you're doing. You're getting warm/cold when you ask for warm/warm. Since that's offered in the normal cycle, you use the utilization factor,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 51 Yeah. That wouldbe for the warm/warm. Okay. My assumption here is that the warm, again, was locked out in the normal cycle. So, youjust get the warmwash fill, okay, whichwouldbe the same. NOw, that's taking time, the TUF of .3, the 75 percent apportionment factor again for the normal cycle. You select the warm/warmon the normal cycle, it's locked it out. You onlyget hot water whenyou

measure to run that cycle, warm/warmon the selector, normal cycle, you onlyget hot water and itwill be in the first fill, your coldwater in the second fill. Okay. Now, the secondportionof that term is if you use the other cycle, the non-normal cycle, most energy intensive cycle in the warm/warm setting. Now you get a

warmwash and a warm rinse. Youuse more gallons of hot water, 23.67 tobe exact in this case. And a temperature utilization factor, again, of .3, apportionment factor of.25. The final term, is for a warm/cold, with a gallon usage, 11 gallons. It's the same as warm/warm in the normal cycle because in essence that's what you're doing. You're gettingwarm/coldwhenyou ask for warm/warm. Since that's offered in the normal cycle, youuse the utilization factor,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 52 the TUF of .25 for that calculation.

MR. HUI: You say the volume for hot/warm and the warm/warm are from their most energy intensive cycle or are they volumes in the normal cycle?

MR. MODTLAND: Both.
MR. HUI: Yes to both. MR. MODTLAND: They are both by the way we interpret the test procedure. It says to take the energy that would be done on a normal cycle, take that times 75 percent, take the energy in the most energy intensive cycle, and take that times 25 percent.

Now, the gallons of hot water is going to be different between the two, because even when we select hot/warm in both cases, in the normal cycle you're going to get hot/cold; in the most energy intensive cycle when you select hot/warm, you'll get hot/warm because you don't have the lockout feature.

Now, that was out interpretation of the law, and I guess if that's incorrect, that just stands to point--

MR. ADAMS: Bill, are you addressing the fact that the most energy intensive cycle might have slightly higher usage than the normal cycle for the same--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 52 the TUF of .25 for that calculation. MR. HUI: You saythe volume for hot/warm and the warm/warm are from theirmost energy intensive cycle or are theyvolumes in the normal cycle? MR. MODTLAND: Both. MR. HUI: Yes to both. MR. MODTLAND: They are bothby the way we interpret the test procedure. It says to take the energy that wouldbe done on a normal cyclet take that times 75 percentt take the energy in the most energy intensive cyclet and take that times 25 percent. Nowt the gallons of hot water is going to be different between the twot because evenwhen we select hot/warm inboth casest in the normal cycle youtre going to get hot/cold; in the most energy intensive cycle whenyou select hot/warmt youtll get hot/warmbecause you dontt have the lockout feature. Nowt that was out interpretationof the lawt and I guess if thatts incorrectt that just stands to point-- MR. ADAMS: Billt are you addressing the fact that the most energy intensive cycle might have slightlyhigher usage than the normal cycle for the same--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 53 MR.-HUI: I would expect the volume in the most energy intensive cycle would have a higher volume of water usage than the normal cycle.

MR. MODTLAND: And that's what I'm showing here. MR. ADAMS: Now, I think that the 22.07 that you you have there would be a--

MR. MODTLAND: Normal cycle. MR. ADAMS: -- a normal cycle hot wash, and the

warm- - MR. MODTLAND: Hot wash.

MR. ADAMS: -- and the warm rinse locked out, so you've got a cold--

MR. MODTLAND: So you've got a hot/cold which is the same as this term right here which is a hot/cold. The hot/cold-- in a normal cycle, hot/warm and hot/cold are the same cycle with a lockout feature.

MR. ADAMS: Yes. MR. MODTLAND: And warm/warm and warm/cold could potentially be the same cycle. So, actually, you've got three cycle, three temperature selections in the a normal cycle with a lockout.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. So, it's the 23.67, which is the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 53 MR.-HUI: I would expect the volume in the most energy intensive cycle would have a highervolume of water usage than the normal cycle. MR. MODTLAND: And that's what I'm showinghere. MR. ADAMS: Now, I think that the 22.07 that you you have there wouldbe a-- MR. MODTLAND: Normal cycle. MR. ADAMS:

-- a normal cycle hot wash, and the

warm-- MR. MODTLAND: Hot wash. MR. ADAMS: and the warm rinse locked out, so you've got a cold-- MR. MODTLAND: So you've got a hot/coldwhich is the same as this term right here which is a hot/cold. The hot/cold-- in a normal cycle, hot/warm and hot/cold are the

same cycle with a lockout feature. MR. ADAMS: Yes. MR. MODTLAND: Andwarm/warm andwarm/cold could potentiallybe the same cycle. So, actually, you've got three cycle, three temperature selections in the a normal cycle with a lockout. MR. ADAMS: Okay. So, it's the 23.67, which is the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 54 most energy intensive cycle--

MR. MODTLAND: Well, actually the 34.97, which is the most energy intensive cycle for the hot/cold. Okay?

Roughly, it's 20 gallons of water, 22 gallons of water per fill on this particular unit that we tested. Okay? So, if it's all hot water, you've got 22 gallons, this is just the hot water usage because that's where the energy is consumed in that. If it's a hot fill, the whole 22 gallons are hot water.

MR. ADAMS: Correct. MR. MODTLAND: If it's a warm fill, roughly, for the case of this you should see, it's roughly 50/50 mix in the water valve at this time when this unit was tested, so a warm fill would be 11 gallons of hot water for each fill. So, if you've got-- that's why the hot/warm term in the normal cycle only shows one hot fill. The first fill fills up hot, the warm rinse is locked out, you don't get warm rinse, you get cold rinse only. So, you only use energy in the first wash cycle.

MR. ADAMS: I guess it's the comparison-- I just want to make sure I'm getting this right-- the 22.07 is lower-- there's a lower number than the 23.67, and does that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 54 most energy intensive cycle-- MR. MODTLAND: Well, actually the 34.97, which is the most energy intensive cycle for the hot/cold. Okay? Roughly, it's 20 gallons of water, 22 gallons of waterper fill on this particularunit that we tested. Okay? So, if it's all hot water, you've got 22 gallons, this is just the hot waterusage because that's where the energy is consumed in that. If it's a hot fill, the whole 22 gallons are hot water. MR. ADAMS: Correct. MR. MODTLAND: If it's a warm fill, roughly, for the case of this you should see, it's roughly 50/50 mix in the watervalve at this time when this unit was tested, so a

warm fill wouldbe 11 gallons of hot water for each fill. So, ifyou've got-- that's why the hot/warm term in the normal cycle only shows one hot fill. The first fill fills up hot, the warm rinse is locked out, you don't get warm rinse, you get coldrinse only. So, you onlyuse energy in the first wash cycle. MR. ADAMS: I guess it's the comparison-- I just want to make sure I'mgetting this right-- the 22.07 is lower-- there's a lower number than the 23.67, and does that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 55 represent the-fact that the 23.67 is a more energy intensive cycle than is the normal cycle that the 22.07 came from?

MR. MODTLAND: Not really. What this indicates, this is a warm cycle, and what you get then is in the spray rinse; you'll pick up the additional gallon or so, in the warm spray rinse where this would have had a cold spray rinse by the temperature selection process. So, that's the difference, and essentially that was a gallon and a half of spray rinse water, which is dependent upon the temperature switch selection when the rinse comes in if it's a conventional rinse following the wash. It depends on how the electrical system is hooked up. It's usually would be the same temperature as, or could default into cold rinse all the time. It just depends on how the electrical system is set up. But, that's difference for that.

MR. ADAMS: Anything else? Thank you very much. I'd like the call the last scheduled speaker Terru Thiele. MR. THIELE: Good morning.

My name is Terry Thiele. I'm Senior Counsel for Government Relations with the General Electric Company, and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 55 represent the-fact that the 23.67 is a more energy intensive cycle than is the normal cycle that the 22.07 came from? MR. MODTLAND: Not really. What this indicates, this is a warm cycle, andwhat you get then is in the spray rinse; you'll pickup the additional gallon or so, in the

warm sprayrinse where this wouldhave had a cold spray rinse by the temperature selectionprocess. So, that's the difference, and essentiallythat was a gallon and a half of sprayrinse water, which is dependent upon the temperature switch selectionwhen the rinse comes in if it's a conventional rinse following the wash. It depends on how the electrical system is hookedup. It's usuallywouldbe the same temperature as, or coulddefault into cold rinse all the time. It just depends on how the electrical system is set up. But, that's difference for that. MR. ADAMS: Anything else? Thankyou verymuch. I'd like the call the last scheduled speaker Terru Thiele. MR. THIELE: Goodmorning. My name is TerryThiele. I'm Senior Counsel for Government Relations with the General Electric Company, and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 56 unless you really want me to, I will decline to read the statement I've already submitted to the record, but rather simply go back and highlight a couple of major points, summarizing the comments.

First and foremost, I have to say that this rulemaking should not be taking place. Listening to the testimony this morning to this point simply highlights for me the difficulty of a regulatory agency promulgating rules that affect the marketplace when the agency has no sensitivity for, or appreciation of, what goes on in the marketplace.

The issue is really two different substantive rules that the Department of Energy has addressed.

One, in October of '93, when it changed its interpretation on how to test product; and the second, the notice of public rulemaking that came out in December.

Unfortunately, before we can get to the December rulemaking, we have to address what took place in October; and I would respectfully submit that the Department of Energy's decision in October of 1993 to change its interpretation of the test procedure violates due process, has an adverse economic consequence, and destroys the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 56 unless you reallywant me to, I will decline to read the statement I've already submitted to the record, but rather simplygo back and highlight a couple of major points, summarizing the comments. First and foremost, I have to say that this rulemaking shouldnot be takingplace. Listening to the testimony this morning to this point simplyhighlights for

me the difficulty of a regulatory agencypromulgating rules that affect the marketplace when the agencyhas no sensitivityfor, or appreciation of, what goes on in the marketplace. The issue is reallytwo different substantive rules that the Department of Energyhas addressed. One, in October of '93, when it changed its interpretation on how to test producti and the second, the notice of public rulemaking that came out inDecember. Unfortunately, before we can get to the December rulemaking, we have to address what tookplace in Octoberi and I would respectfully submit that the Department of Energy's decision in October of 1993 to change its interpretationof the test procedure violates due process, has an adverse economic consequence, and destroys the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 57 integrity of that test procedure.

Let me speak first to the economic effect, because I think it's important for the Department of Energy to appreciate what's going on here. It is not simply a question of how much time it takes to amend or change your product design to allow you to avail yourself of the interpretation.

As the speaker for Whirlpool pointed out, you can't make a turnaround in less than a year because not only do you have to design and manufacture the product, you have to market it.

The commercialization of a product entails taking the product out in the field to the retailers who purchase it from you and selling that product to the retailers. It involves an integrated marketing strategy for your entire product line where you attempt to assess what the end consumer is going to want, you build your product line up based upon that, around price points that are unique to each industry, and you attempt to go to the retailer with a package of products that attempt to address the retailers concern in terms of those price points.

Getting your product into the field and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 57 integrityof that test procedure. Let me speak first to the economic effect, because I think it's important for the Department of Energy to appreciate what's going on here. It is not simplya question of howmuch time it takes to amend or change your product design to allowyou to avail yourself of the interpretation. As the speaker for Whirlpool pointed out, you can't make a turnaround in less than a yearbecause not only do you have to design andmanufacture the product, you have to market it. The commercializationof a product entails taking the product out in the field to the retailers who purchase it from you and selling that product to the retailers. It involves an integratedmarketing strategy for your entire product line where you attempt to assess what the end

consumer is going to want, youbuildyourproduct line up basedupon that, aroundpricepoints that are unique to each industry, andyou attempt to go to the retailerwith a package of products that attempt to address the retailers

concern in terms of those pricepoints. Gettingyourproduct into the field and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 58 commercializing it, selling it to the retailers, introducing it to the retailer, making the retailer aware of the features, and how it performs, takes time.

If I could wave a magic wand right now and turn all GE product into product that complied with the October interpretation, it still would be too late in many respects for us to market that product in 1994 because we would have to go back to square one and resell it all over again, and it's too late for that.

The fact that there's going to be an adverse economic effect is well demonstrated by the-- one of the-- Exhibit B to the Maytag submission where they show a KitchenAid document referring to Maytag 1994 laundry, and I'm going to quote from this.

" What happened to Maytag's hot/warm temperature option? That temperature option still is available on the following 1994 KitchenAid models" , and it lists them. " This option is available in every cycle except the regular cycle. " It closes out by saying," Better luck next time, Maytag. " I think the point that's made by that document in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 58 commercializing it, selling it to the retailers, introducing it to the retailer, making the retailer aware of the features, and how it performs, takes time. If I couldwave a magic wand right now and turn all GE product intoproduct that compliedwith the October interpretation, it still wouldbe too late inmany respects for us to market that product in 1994 because we wouldhave to go back to square one and resell it allover again, and it's too late for that. The fact that there's going tobe an adverse economic effect is well demonstratedby the-- one of the-- Exhibit B to the Maytag submissionwhere they show a KitchenAid document referring to Maytag 1994 laundry, and I'mgoing to quote from this. " What happened to Maytag's hot/warm temperature option? That temperature option still is available on the following 1994 KitchenAidmodels" , and it lists them. 

### " This option is available in every cycle except the regular cycle. "

Maytag. 

### " It closes out by saying," Better luck next time,

I think the point that's made by that document in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 59 the commercialization of the product is that your features sell, and having more temperature selections sells more product than having fewer temperature selections. The interpretation that was allowed by the Department of Energy in October allows a manufacturer to produce product with more temperature selections than the previous interpretation.

I think based upon the testimony given by the other major manufacturers this morning, it should be relatively clear that the other major manufacturers based their product design upon the interpretation that the Department of Energy made earlier in the year which was circulated to us all in July, and which basically banned lockout. Let me speak to due process.

The October 1993 was a substantive rule as far as administrative law is concerned. It has an adverse economic impact as I have just demonstrated. If it is a substantive rule under standard administrative law, there are three piles of things that have to be addressed. One pile is notice and comment.

The second pile is regulatory impact.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 59 the commercializationof the product is that your features sell, and havingmore temperature selections sells more product than having fewer temperature selections. The interpretation that was allowedby the Department of Energy in October allows a manufacturer to produce product with

more temperature selections than the previous interpretation. I think basedupon the testimonygiven by the othermajormanufacturers this morning, it shouldbe relatively clear that the othermajormanufacturers based theirproduct designupon the interpretation that the Department of Energymade earlier in the yearwhichwas circulatedto us all in JulYI andwhichbasicallybanned lockout. Let me speak to due process. The October 1993 was a substantive rule as far as administrative law is concerned. It has an adverse economic impact as I have just demonstrated. If it is a substantive rule under standard administrative law, there are three piles of things that have to be addressed. One pile is notice and comment. The secondpile is regulatory impact.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 60 And-the third is lead time. There was no notice and comment on the interpretation in October. I'm a student of irony, and irony number one here is that a waiver petition mechanism was available, and in fact, DOE quoted the presence of that waiver petition in its correspondence with Whirlpool. That could have readily addressed these issues and afforded everyone an opportunity to comment on the substance and utility of that change, and it was not used.

The regulatory impact of the rule was not addressed. The second irony here is that Executive order 12866 had been promulgated the month prior, which clearly spoke about the need to address the adverse effect on competition in any industry arising from a rulemaking.

And of course, the third irony is lead time, and that is basically the contrast between the October interpretation which took place immediately to the benefit of one manufacturer, and the notice of proposed rulemaking in December which went on at great length describing why lead time was necessary in order for everyone to be able to comply.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 60 And-the third is leadtime. There was no notice and comment on the interpretation in October. I'm a student of irony, and ironynumber one here is that a waiver petitionmechanism

was available, and in fact, DOE quoted the presence of that waiverpetition in its correspondence withWhirlpool. That couldhave readily addressed these issues and afforded everyone an opportunityto comment on the substance and utilityof that change, and it was not used. The regulatory impact of the rule was not addressed.The second ironyhere is that Executive Order 12866 hadbeenpromulgatedthe monthprior, which clearly spoke about the need to address the adverse effect on competition in any industry arising from a rulemaking. And of course, the third irony is lead time, and that is basicallythe contrast between the October interpretationwhich tookplace immediatelyto the benefit of one manufacturer, and the notice of proposedrulemaking inDecemberwhich went on at great length describingwhy leadtime was necessary in order for everyone to be able to comply.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 61 I guess my question is if lead time was so important in the December rulemaking, why was it not important in the October interpretation?

The lead time is critical to Whirlpool as they have stated in the rulemaking. It is also critical to the rest of the industry in terms of the October interpretation, and the Department of Energy has not afforded us that lead time. Finally, let me speak to the integrity of the test procedure which is, unfortunately, now gone.

The primary problem with the lockout interpretation is that it is easy to manipulate. The Frigidaire spokesman discussed that in one respect. I'll discuss it in another.

I here on the slide simply a copy, and I brought copies to pass out if you gentleman want a copy. It's simply a copy of a faceplate of a GE washer. And what I want to point out-- let's see if I can get it on here-- is, here's the regular cycles, light soil, normal, heavy cycle for this particular product.

The point that needs to be made with the lockout design is that if you bring your selector around to normal,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 61 I guess my question is if lead time was so important in the December rulemaking, whywas it not important in the October interpretation? The lead time is critical to Whirlpool as they have stated in the rulemaking. It is also critical to the rest of the industry in terms of the October interpretation, and the Department of Energy has not affordedus that lead time. Finally, let me speak to the integrity of the test procedure which is, unfortunately, now gone. The primaryproblemwith the lockout interpretation is that it is easy tomanipulate. The Frigidaire spokesman discussed that in one respect. I'll discuss it in another. I here on the slide simply a copy, and I brought copies topass out if you gentlemanwant a copy. It's simply a copyof a faceplate of a GE washer. Andwhat I want topoint out-- let's see if I can get it on here-- is, here's the regular cycles, light soil, normal, heavy cycle for this particularproduct. The point that needs tobe made with the lockout design is that if you bringyour selector around to normal,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-666662 at that point-you lock out the warm rinse.

However, if you design your selector so that once you take it past that indent, into your heavy soil regular cycle, you can defeat the lockout.

Now, the question was raised earlier, well, what consumer is going to appreciate these nuances. The point to be made is that if there is a consumer who wants a warm rinse, and I believe many consumers do want a warm rinse in something that they consider to be a normal cycle, and they find to their dismay that it is not available, and then they call the answer center and they complain about it, all the answer center has to do is tell them, "Just take the dial past the indent and you've got your warm rinse back."

That is only one example of the many different ways that you could manipulate the controls to defeat the lockout. What makes this so frustrating is that the alternative to this entire matter was so simple, and that was simply to clarify the definition of availability, either through the waiver petition process, which could have been induced by simply saying no to the interpretation, or through a rulemaking on the October interpretation itself rather than simply making it by fiat.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 62 at that point-you lock out the warm rinse. However/ ifyou designyour selector so that once you take it past that indent/ intoyour heavy soil regular cycle/ you can defeat the lockout. Now/ the questionwas raised earlier, well, what

consumer is going to appreciate these nuances. The point to be made is that if there is a consumer who wants a warm rinse/ and I believe many consumers do want a warm rinse in something that they consider tobe a normal cycle/ and they find to their dismay that it is not available/ and then they call the answer center and they complain about it, all the

answer centerhas to do is tell them/ "Just take the dial past the indent andyou/ve got yourwarm rinse back." That is only one example of the many different ways that you couldmanipulate the controls to defeat the lockout. What makes this so frustrating is that the alternative to this entirematterwas so simple/ and that

was simply to clarifythe definition of availability, either through the waiverpetitionprocess, which couldhave been inducedby simply sayingno to the interpretation/ or through a rulemaking on the October interpretation itself rather than simplymaking it by fiat.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 63 I'd-like to point out that banning lockout from an interpretive matter is not a loss of utility to the consumer because what lockout does is it takes away an option that the consumer currently has. The statutory requirement that an energy standard not limit design options talks about what is useful and available to the consumer, not necessary what is useful and available to the manufacturer.

I'd like to conclude by saying that if we had as an industry, had an opportunity to comment on the October 1993 interpretation, the Department of Energy of energy might have realized the market consequences for that interpretation for the year 1994. The fact that the 1994 energy standard for this year, at least, is for all intents and purposes, gutted, the fact that the test procedure is easily manipulated and easily defeated.

And finally, and I believe most troubling, the consequences of this sorry process for the entire energy rulemaking process involving all the other product categories, and other manufacturing industries that DOE now has to work with going forward. I don't have any ready solutions to the Department of Energy as to how to get themselves out of the hole that they've dug with this one,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 63 I'd-like topoint out that banning lockout from an interpretive matter is not a loss of utilityto the consumer because what lockout does is it takes away an option that the consumer currentlyhas. The statutoryrequirement that

an energy standardnot limit design options talks about what is useful and available to the consumer, not necessarywhat is useful and available to the manufacturer. I'd like to conclude by saying that if we had as

an industry, had an opportunityto comment on the october 1993 interpretation, the Department of Energyof energy might have realized the market consequences for that interpretation for the year 1994. The fact that the 1994 energy standard for this year, at least, is for all intents andpurposes, gutted, the fact that the test procedure is easilymanipulated and easilydefeated. And finally, and I believemost troubling, the consequences of this sorryprocess for the entire energy rulemakingprocess involving all the otherproduct categories, and othermanufacturing industries that DOE now has to work with going forward. I don't have any ready solutions to the Department of Energy as to how to get themselves out of the hole that they've dug with this one,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 64 quite frankly; but it is a big hole as far as I'm concerned. And the lack of due process and the lack of sensitivity to the manufacturers' competitive needs is most troubling.

I'm going to repeat myself for just a second. When it come to the marketplace, cost is everything. And while in an energy standard rulemaking, the fact that something costs more but is still technically feasible, that may be determininative. Technical feasibility is irrelevant in the marketplace. Cost is everything. Coast and timing. And to the extent that every other manufacturer has to add cost in order to come up with the same features package that the Whirlpool Corporation is allowed to produce, thanks solely to two different interpretations that were made on the test procedure, it has a severe economic consequence that I hope we never see repeated.

Thank you. MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: I have no questions. MR. ADAMS: Jim? MR. KAO: No questions. MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 64 quite frankly; but it is a bighole as far as I'm concerned. And the lack of due process and the lack of sensitivityto the manufacturers' competitive needs is most troubling. I'mgoing to repeat myself for just a second. When it come to the marketplace, cost is everything. Andwhile in an energy standardrulemaking, the fact that something costs more but is still technically feasible, that maybe determininative. Technical feasibility is irrelevant in the marketplace. Cost is everything. Coast and timing. And to the extent that everyothermanufacturer has to add cost in order to come up with the same features package that theWhirlpool Corporation is allowed to produce, thanks solelyto two different interpretations that

were made on the test procedure, it has a severe economic consequence that I hope we never see repeated. Thank you. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. Gene? MR. MARGOLIS: I have no questions. MR. ADAMS: Jim? MR. KAO: No questions. MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 65 MR.-HUI: You say on page 6 here that this problem with a precise definition of the calculation and there is-- it's probably that someone would interpret it several different ways.

Do you have list of how they would interpret, and--
MR. THIELE: I don't have that list with me. We can certainly provide that. That was the advice that I was given be our engineering staff, and I didn't get the elaboration, but I certainly can provide that.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. At this point, I would like to ask if there are any unscheduled speakers who would like to make a comment?

Seeing none, do any of the speakers who testified wish to make rebuttal statements regarding any of the testimony that was given today? Okay.

MR. RINGGER: I can just do it from here. I just have one point that I-- MR. ADAMS: Could you identify yourself for the record, please?

MR. RINGGER: Doug Ringger from Maytag Company. MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 65 MR.-HUI: You sayonpage 6 here that this problem with a precise definition of the calculation and there is-- it'sprobablythat someone would interpret it several different ways. Do you have list of how theywould interpret, and-- MR. THIELE: I don't have that list withme. We

can certainlyprovide that. That was the advice that I was givenbe our engineering staff, and I didn't get the elaboration, but I certainly canprovide that. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. At this point, I would like to ask if there are anyunscheduled speakers who would like to make a comment? Seeingnone, do any of the speakers who testified wish tomake rebuttal statements regarding any of the testimony that was given today? Okay. MR. RINGGER: I canjust do it from here. I just have onepoint that I-- MR. ADAMS: Couldyou identifyyourself for the record, please? MR. RINGGER: Doug Ringger from Maytag Company. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 66 MR.-RINGGER: I guess from the standpoint of however this amendment or however this is resolved, I feel that the manufacturer that didn't follow the intent of the rule to save the most energy with the product changes should be the one required to change their product line, not those of us who followed the intent and those of us who, I think, would result in the most energy savings, which is really what the intent of the whole DOE ruling is. I guess I just wanted to make that point.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. Are there any questions by--

statement?

Whirlpool. MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to make one comment.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. We have one other rebuttal

MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Mike Thompson with

Basically, the comment is that throughout the testimony from the other manufacturers here, we heard repeatedly that this design does not save energy. It is inconsistent with the intent of the law. This is a design option that we firmly believe would save energy from its inception. We felt very, very, vehemently about it from the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 66 MR.

-RINGGER: I guess from the standpoint of however this amendment orhowever this is resolved, I feel that the manufacturer that didn't follow the intent of the rule to save the most energywith the product changes should be the one required to change theirproduct line, not those of us who followed the intent and those of us who, I think, would result in the most energy savings, which is really what the intent of the whole DOE ruling is. I guess I just wanted tomake that point. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. Are there anyquestions by-- MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to make one comment. MR. ADAMS: Okay. We have one otherrebuttal statement?MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Mike Thompsonwith Whirlpool.Basically, the comment is that throughout the testimony from the othermanufacturers here, we heard repeatedlythat this design does not save energy. It is inconsistent with the intent of the law. This is a design option that we firmlybelieve would save energy from its inception. We felt very, very, vehemently about it from the

MILLER REPORTING CO. r INC. 507 CSTREETr N.E. WASHINGTONr D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 67 very beginning.

I would say that the purpose of a test procedure in and of itself is to measure energy, not necessarily to save energy. But notwithstanding that, we absolutely believe that the design that we've factored in as a lockout will save energy.

There is an awful long history of consumer use pattern that indicates a very heavy use in the normal cycle. If that use pattern remains consistent-- and we're counting on it that it does, and we're, again, attempting to develop survey data that updates that-- it will save energy.

We strongly believe that there is a heirarchy of selection when a consumer steps up to the clothes washer and begins to operate the machine. We believe that that heirarchy is cycle first which quite, predominantly is in the normal cycle.

That would be followed by wash temp options thereafter, and rinse temps options following that as a third tertiary selection cycle. If that's locked out, assuming that use pattern continues of at least 75 percent, there's got to be some savings realized.

Mr. Thiele pointed out on a GE console that by

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666 67 verybeginning. I would saythat the purpose of a test procedure in and of itself is to measure energy, not necessarilyto

save energy. But notwithstanding that, we absolutely believe that the design that we've factored in as a lockout will save energy. There is an awful long historyof consumer use pattern that indicates a veryheavyuse in the normal cycle. If that use patternremains consistent-- andwe're counting

on it that it does, andwe're, again, attempting to develop surveydata that updates that-- it will save energy. We stronglybelieve that there is a heirarchyof selectionwhen a consumer steps up to the clothes washer and begins to operate the machine. We believe that that heirarchy is cycle first which quite, predominantly is in the normal cycle. That wouldbe followedbywash temp options thereafter, and rinse temps options following that as a third tertiary selection cycle. If that's locked out, assuming that use pattern continues of at least 75 percent, there's got tobe some savings realized. Mr. Thiele pointed out on a GE console that by

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666mb 68 changing the indent a couple of notches you can go from normal cycle to heavy cycle. That's not going to happen on the Whirlpool machine. The normal cycle in its entirety is locked out. The heavy cycle will be a separate cycle selection, in and of itself, as will the other cycles of permanent press and knits, and that's basically my comments.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. There being no other rebuttal statements, or questions, I would adjourn this hearing. Thank you very much for your attendance.

( Whereupon, at 11:00 a. m., the hearing was adjourned. )

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 C STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666 68 changing the indent a couple of notches you can go from normal cycle to heavy cycle. That's not going to happen on the Whirlpool machine. The normal cycle in its entirety is lockedout. The heavy cycle will be a separate cycle selection, in and of itself, as will the other cycles of permanent press and knits, and that's basicallymy comments. MR. ADAMS: Thankyou. There beingno other rebuttal statements, or questions, I would adjourn this hearing. Thankyouvery much for your attendance.

adjourned.( Whereupon, at 11:00 a. m., the hearingwas

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 507 CSTREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-6666