Mr. Nick Ord

Vice-President and General Manager

Miele Appliances Inc.

22D Worlds Fair Drive

Somerset, NJ 08873

Dear Mr. Ord:

This is in response to your Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim

Waiver of April 5, 1994, amended on April 20, 1994 and April 22, 1994, from

the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) test procedure pursuant to Title

10 CFR Part 430.27 for clothes dryers regarding Miele Appliances Inc. (Miele)

clothes dryer, models T1515A, T1520, T1565CA, and T1570C.

You have indicated that your clothes dryer's have a reverse tumble feature

which allows them to use a smaller capacity drum for a larger clothes dryer

load. You further stated, "The specific design characteristics of the Miele

clothes dryer make the classification of the product as "compact" totally

unrepresentative of the products' true energy consumption characteristics and

provides materially inaccurate comparative data.". The existing clothes dryer

test procedure does not have any recognition of the reverse tumble design

feature in determining dryer size or class.

The Department will publish the Petition for Waiver in the Federal Register

and conduct a formal rulemaking, so that the technical merits of your

submission can be fully debated.

In order for the Department to be able to grant Miele an Interim Waiver, it

must be determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the

Application for Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines

that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief

pending a determination on the Petition for Waiver. First, in,regards to

"economic hardship", Miele has indicated that failure to sell their clothes

dryers as "standard size" will impact the sale of their laundry products and

result in loss in employment. However, Miele did not specify any historical

nor future anticipated revenue from these particular models in question.

Furthermore, Miele did not provide any financial data relative to their

company nor the financial affiliation of their parent company. The Department

agrees that the loss of sales of any product will financially affect a

company, however the Department does not believe that Miele has demonstrated

that it would cause economic hardship.

Second, in regards to "it appears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be

granted", the Department has concerns about the validity of the Petition for

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 14

Mr. Nick Ord 

Vice-President and General Manager Miele Appliances Inc. 

220 Worlds Fair Drive 

Somerset, NJ 08873 

Dear Mr. Ord: 

This is in response to your Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim 

Waiver of April 5, 1994, amended on April 20, 1994 and April 22, 1994, from 

the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) test procedure pursuant to Title 

10 CFR Part 430.27 for clothes dryers regarding Miele Appliances Inc. (Miele) clothes dryer, models T1515A, T1520, T1565CA, and T1570C. 

You have indicated that your clothes dryer's have a reverse tumble feature 

which allows them to use a smaller capacity drum for a larger clothes dryer load. You further stated, "The specific design characteristics of the Miele 

clothes dryer make the classification of the product as "compact" totally unrepresentative of the products' true energy consumption characteristics and 

provides materially inaccurate comparative data.". The existing clothes dryer 

test procedure does not have any recognition of the reverse tumble design feature in determining dryer size or class. 

The Department will publish the Petition for Waiver in the Federal Register and conduct a formal rulemaking, so that the technical merits of your submission can be fully debated. 

In order for the Department to be able to grant Miele an Interim Waiver, it 

must be determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the 

Application for Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the 

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines 

that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief 

pending a determination on the Petition for Waiver. First, in regards to 

"economic hardship", Miere has indicated that failure to sell their clothes 

dryers as "standard size" will impact the sale of their laundry products and 

result in loss in employment. However, Miele did not specify any historical 

nor future anticipated revenue from these particular models in question. Furthermore, Miele did not provide any financial data relative to their 

company nor the financial affiliation of their parent company. The Department 

agrees that the loss of sales of any product will fi~ancially affect a 

company, however the Department does not believe that Mi e 1 e has demonstrated 

that it would cause economic hardship~ 

Second, in regards to "it appears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be 

granted", the Department has concerns about the validity of the Petition for 

Mr. Nick Ord 

Vice-President and General Manager Miele Appliances Inc. 

220 Worlds Fair Drive 

Somerset, NJ 08873 

Dear Mr. Ord: 

This is in response to your Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim 

Waiver of April 5, 1994, amended on April 20, 1994 and April 22, 1994, from 

the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) test procedure pursuant to Title 

10 CFR Part 430.27 for clothes dryers regarding Miele Appliances Inc. (Miele) clothes dryer, models T1515A, T1520, T1565CA, and T1570C. 

You have indicated that your clothes dryer's have a reverse tumble feature 

which allows them to use a smaller capacity drum for a larger clothes dryer load. You further stated, "The specific design characteristics of the Miele 

clothes dryer make the classification of the product as "compact" totally unrepresentative of the products' true energy consumption characteristics and 

provides materially inaccurate comparative data.". The existing clothes dryer 

test procedure does not have any recognition of the reverse tumble design feature in determining dryer size or class. 

The Department will publish the Petition for Waiver in the Federal Register and conduct a formal rulemaking, so that the technical merits of your submission can be fully debated. 

In order for the Department to be able to grant Miele an Interim Waiver, it 

must be determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the 

Application for Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the 

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines 

that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief 

pending a determination on the Petition for Waiver. First, in regards to 

"economic hardship", Miere has indicated that failure to sell their clothes 

dryers as "standard size" will impact the sale of their laundry products and 

result in loss in employment. However, Miele did not specify any historical 

nor future anticipated revenue from these particular models in question. Furthermore, Miele did not provide any financial data relative to their 

company nor the financial affiliation of their parent company. The Department 

agrees that the loss of sales of any product will fi~ancially affect a 

company, however the Department does not believe that Mi e 1 e has demonstrated 

that it would cause economic hardship~ 

Second, in regards to "it appears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be 

granted", the Department has concerns about the validity of the Petition for 
Waiver. This concern is primarily raised by the appearance that Miele is

actually submitting the Petition for Waiver to allow its products to meet the

minimum energy conservation standard versus the test procedure providing

results which are materially unrepresentative. On the other hand, the

Department is aware that the reverse tumble feature improves efficiency and

reduces drying times for some types of drying loads, although these types of

loads are not.tested by the test procedure. Therefore, the likelihood of a

Waiver being granted is unknown at this point in time and that is why the

Department is requesting additional information relative the reverse tumble

feature in the publication of the Petition for Waiver.

Third, in regards to "it would be desirable for public policy reasons", Miele

has indicated'that denial of the Waiver would be destructive to the company

and anticompetitve. The Department does not believe that either conclusion

was demonstrated by Miele. Furthermore, they indicated.that denial of the

Waiver blocks innovative, improved designs. The Department believes that the

validity of the innovative and/or improved designs relative to clothes dryer

capacity will be fully discussed in response to comments from the Petition for

Waiver. The Department does not believe this would be a concern for public

policy. Rather, what it shows is that manufacturers can not wait until the

"eleventh hour" to file a petition and make a point relative to public policy.

Miele's submission also indicated that they made a significant investment for

their products to comply with recognized U.S. safety testing standards. The

Department is perplexed as to how a major european manufacturer who is

certainly aware of numerous, multinational energy conservation programs, would

not be aware of the U.S. mandated minimum energy conservation standards for

clothes dryers. If Miele had known about the required U.S. minimum energy

conservation standards, then product development for safety standards could

have been done concurrently with energy efficiency improvements.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Department denies Miele's

Application for Interim Waiver from the DOE test procedure for its clothes

dryers, models T1515A, T1520, T1565CA, and T1570C.

If there are any questions concerning this issue, please contact Mr. Michael

McCabe of my staff at (202)-586-9155.

Sincerely,

Christine A. Ervin

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 14

Waiver. This concern is primarily raised by the appearance that Miele is 

actually submitting the Petition for Waiver to allow its products to meet the 

minimum energy conservation standard versus the test procedure providing results which are materially unrepresentative. On the other hand, the 

Department is aware that the reverse tumble feature improves efficiency and 

reduces drying times for some types of drying loads, although these types of 

loads are not.tested by the test procedure. Therefore, the likelihood of a 

Waiver being granted is unknown at this point in time and that is why the 

Department is requesting additional information relative the reverse tumble 

feature in the publication of the Petition for Waiver. 

Third, in regards to "it would be desirable for public policy reasons", Miele 

has indicated ·that deni~l of the Waiver would be destructive to the company and anticompetitve. The Department does not believe that either conclusion 

was demonstrated by Miele. Furthermore, they indicated.that denial of the 

Waiver blocks innovative, improved designs. The Department believes that the 

validity of the innovative and/or improved designs relative to clothes dryer capacity will be fully discussed in response to comments from the Petition for 

Waiver. The Department does not believe this would be a concern for public policy. Rather, what it shows is that manufacturers can not wait until the 

"eleventh hour" to file a petition and make a pOint relative to public policy. Miele's submission also indicated that they made a significant investment for 

their products to comply with recognized U.S. safety testing standards. The 

Department is perplexed as to how a major european manufacturer who is 

certainly aware of numerous, multinational energy conservation programs, would 

not be aware of the U.S. mandated minimum energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. If Miele had known about the required U.S. minimum energy conservation standards, then product development for safety standards could 

have been done concurrently with energy efficiency improv~ments. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Department denies Miele's 

Application for Interim Waiver from the DOE test procedure for its clothes 

dryers, models T1515A, T1520. T1565CA, and T1570C. 

If there are'any questions concerning this issue, please contact Mr. Michael 

McCabe of my staff at (202)-586-9155. 

Sincerely, 

Christine A. Ervin 

Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Waiver. This concern is primarily raised by the appearance that Miele is 

actually submitting the Petition for Waiver to allow its products to meet the 

minimum energy conservation standard versus the test procedure providing results which are materially unrepresentative. On the other hand, the 

Department is aware that the reverse tumble feature improves efficiency and 

reduces drying times for some types of drying loads, although these types of 

loads are not.tested by the test procedure. Therefore, the likelihood of a 

Waiver being granted is unknown at this point in time and that is why the 

Department is requesting additional information relative the reverse tumble 

feature in the publication of the Petition for Waiver. 

Third, in regards to "it would be desirable for public policy reasons", Miele 

has indicated ·that deni~l of the Waiver would be destructive to the company and anticompetitve. The Department does not believe that either conclusion 

was demonstrated by Miele. Furthermore, they indicated.that denial of the 

Waiver blocks innovative, improved designs. The Department believes that the 

validity of the innovative and/or improved designs relative to clothes dryer capacity will be fully discussed in response to comments from the Petition for 

Waiver. The Department does not believe this would be a concern for public policy. Rather, what it shows is that manufacturers can not wait until the 

"eleventh hour" to file a petition and make a pOint relative to public policy. Miele's submission also indicated that they made a significant investment for 

their products to comply with recognized U.S. safety testing standards. The 

Department is perplexed as to how a major european manufacturer who is 

certainly aware of numerous, multinational energy conservation programs, would 

not be aware of the U.S. mandated minimum energy conservation standards for 

clothes dryers. If Miele had known about the required U.S. minimum energy conservation standards, then product development for safety standards could 

have been done concurrently with energy efficiency improv~ments. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Department denies Miele's 

Application for Interim Waiver from the DOE test procedure for its clothes 

dryers, models T1515A, T1520. T1565CA, and T1570C. 

If there are'any questions concerning this issue, please contact Mr. Michael 

McCabe of my staff at (202)-586-9155. 

Sincerely, 

Christine A. Ervin 

Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy