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 Mr. Nick Ord Vice-President and General Manager Miele Appliances Inc. 220 Worlds Fair Drive Somerset, NJ 08873

DearMr. Ord:

This is in response to your Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver ofApril 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 thatyour clothes dryer's have areverse tumble feature which allows them to use a smaller capacity drum for a largerclothes dryer load. You further stated, "The specific design characteristics ofthe Miele clothes dryermake the classification ofthe product as "compact" totally unrepresentative ofthe products' true energy consumption characteristics and provides materially inaccurate comparative data.". The existing clothes dryer
test procedure does not have any recognition ofthe reverse tumble design feature in determining dryer size or class.

The Department will publish the Petition forWaiver in the Federal Register and conduct aformal rulemaking, so that the technical merits ofyour submission can be fully debated.

In order for the Department to be able to grant Miele an InterimWaiver, it
must be determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship ifthe Application for InterimWaiver is denied, if it appears likelythat the Petition forWaiverwill be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that itwould be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the Petition forWaiver. First, in regards to "economic hardship", Miere has indicated that failure to sell theirclothes dryers as "standard size" will impact the saleoftheir laundry products and result in loss in employment. However, Miele did not specify any historical

nor future anticipated revenue from these particularmodels in question. Furthermore, Miele did not provide any financial data relativeto their
company nor the financial affiliation oftheirparent company. The Department agrees that the loss of sales ofany product will**fi~ancially** affect a company, however the Department does not believe thatMie 1 ehas demonstrated that itwould cause economic**hardship~** Second, in regards to "itappears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be granted", the Department has concerns about the validity ofthe Petition for Mr. Nick Ord Vice-President and General Manager Miele Appliances Inc. 220 Worlds Fair Drive Somerset, NJ 08873

DearMr. Ord:

This is in response to your Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver ofApril 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 thatyour clothes dryer's have areverse tumble feature which allows them to use a smaller capacity drum for a largerclothes dryer load. You further stated, "The specific design characteristics ofthe Miele clothes dryermake the classification ofthe product as "compact" totally unrepresentative ofthe products' true energy consumption characteristics and provides materially inaccurate comparative data.". The existing clothes dryer
test procedure does not have any recognition ofthe reverse tumble design feature in determining dryer size or class.

The Department will publish the Petition forWaiver in the Federal Register and conduct aformal rulemaking, so that the technical merits ofyour submission can be fully debated.

In order for the Department to be able to grant Miele an InterimWaiver, it
must be determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship ifthe Application for InterimWaiver is denied, if it appears likelythat the Petition forWaiverwill be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that itwould be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the Petition forWaiver. First, in regards to "economic hardship", Miere has indicated that failure to sell theirclothes dryers as "standard size" will impact the saleoftheir laundry products and result in loss in employment. However, Miele did not specify any historical

nor future anticipated revenue from these particularmodels in question. Furthermore, Miele did not provide any financial data relativeto their
company nor the financial affiliation oftheirparent company. The Department agrees that the loss of sales ofany product will**fi~ancially** affect a company, however the Department does not believe thatMie 1 ehas demonstrated that itwould cause economic**hardship~** Second, in regards to "itappears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be granted", the Department has concerns about the validity ofthe Petition forWaiver. 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 Waiver. This concern is primarily raised by the appearance that Miele is actually submitting the Petition forWaiver to allow its products to meet the minimum energy conservation standard versus the test procedure providing resultswhich arematerially unrepresentative. On the other hand, the Department is aware that the reverse tumble feature improves efficiency and reduces drying times for some types ofdrying loads, although these types of loads are not.tested by the test procedure. Therefore, the likelihood ofa Waiver being granted is unknown at this point in time and that iswhy the Department is requesting additional information relative the reverse tumble feature in the publication ofthe Petition forWaiver.

Third, in regards to "itwould be desirable for public policy reasons", Miele has indicated·that**deni~l** ofthe Waiver would be destructive to the company and anticompetitve. The Department does not believe that eitherconclusion

was demonstrated by Miele. Furthermore, they indicated.that denial ofthe Waiver blocks innovative, improved designs. The Department believes that the validity ofthe innovative and/or improved designs relativeto clothes dryer capacity will be fully discussed in response to comments from the Petition for Waiver. The Department does not believe this would be aconcern for public policy. Rather, what it shows is thatmanufacturers can not wait until the "eleventh hour" to file apetition and make apOint relative to public policy. Miele's submission also indicated that they made a significant investment for theirproducts to comply with recognized U.S. safety testing standards. The Department is perplexed as to how amajor european manufacturerwho is certainly aware ofnumerous, multinational energy conservation programs, would
not be aware ofthe U.S. mandated minimum energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. IfMiele had known about the required U.S. minimum energy conservation standards, then product development for safety standards could have been done concurrentlywith energy efficiency**improv~ments.** Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Department denies Miele's Application for Interim Waiver from the DOE testprocedure for its clothes dryers, models T1515A, T1520. T1565CA, and T1570C.

Ifthere are'any questions concerning this issue, please contact Mr. Michael McCabe ofmy staff at (202)-586-9155.

Sincerely,

ChristineA. Ervin Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Waiver. This concern is primarily raised by the appearance that Miele is actually submitting the Petition forWaiver to allow its products to meet the minimum energy conservation standard versus the test procedure providing resultswhich arematerially unrepresentative. On the other hand, the Department is aware that the reverse tumble feature improves efficiency and reduces drying times for some types ofdrying loads, although these types of loads are not.tested by the test procedure. Therefore, the likelihood ofa Waiver being granted is unknown at this point in time and that iswhy the Department is requesting additional information relative the reverse tumble feature in the publication ofthe Petition forWaiver.

Third, in regards to "itwould be desirable for public policy reasons", Miele has indicated·that**deni~l** ofthe Waiver would be destructive to the company and anticompetitve. The Department does not believe that eitherconclusion

was demonstrated by Miele. Furthermore, they indicated.that denial ofthe Waiver blocks innovative, improved designs. The Department believes that the validity ofthe innovative and/or improved designs relativeto clothes dryer capacity will be fully discussed in response to comments from the Petition for Waiver. The Department does not believe this would be aconcern for public policy. Rather, what it shows is thatmanufacturers can not wait until the "eleventh hour" to file apetition and make apOint relative to public policy. Miele's submission also indicated that they made a significant investment for theirproducts to comply with recognized U.S. safety testing standards. The Department is perplexed as to how amajor european manufacturerwho is certainly aware ofnumerous, multinational energy conservation programs, would
not be aware ofthe U.S. mandated minimum energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. IfMiele had known about the required U.S. minimum energy conservation standards, then product development for safety standards could have been done concurrentlywith energy efficiency**improv~ments.** Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Department denies Miele's Application for Interim Waiver from the DOE testprocedure for its clothes dryers, models T1515A, T1520. T1565CA, and T1570C.

Ifthere are'any questions concerning this issue, please contact Mr. Michael McCabe ofmy staff at (202)-586-9155.

Sincerely,

ChristineA. Ervin Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy