MAR-03-1995 15:34 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP TO 912025864617 P.01

Jack Sparks Administrative Center

ST. JOSEPH, MICHIGAN 49085

I

March 3, 1995

Mr. Mike McCabe

DFir kip, Office of Codes & Standards

us Depart of Energy

Building Technologies

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, W. 20595

Mr. Marc LeFrance

Program Managcr, Office of Codes & Standards

US Department of Energy

Building Technologies

Forrestal .Building

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20585

Fax: 202/586-4617

At a February 16, 1995 AHAM Test Procedure review meting, DOE staff requested appliance

manufacturers to submit informal comments regarding the next step in DOE Docket EE-RM-93-701, a

proposed new test procedure for clothes washers tha t are designed to lock out the warm water rinse from

the normal cycle of the clothes washer. Specifically, the staff requested comment on two alternative next

steps: (1) the issuance of an interim final rule that riay also include a request for some additional data, or

(2) the issuance of a notice requesting additional dot on customer use habits,

iJnle.cs DOE is prepared to is ne an actual final rule 1not an interim final rule) that is reasonably similar to

the test procedure proposed in the December 1993 N6ee of Proposed Rulemaking, Whirlpool strongly

recommends that the DOE proceed with the second o tion, issuing a notice seeking additional data on

customer use habits.

First, Whirlpool is currently completing a survey urx ertaken in cooperation with DOE to determine

customer use habits, particularly related to the usages of the lockout design option. Whirlpool expects to

have data from this survey in approximately 16 wee l s, Upon receipt of this information , DOE will be

better able to assess the appropriate next step . It is re to base a final rule (oven an "interim" final

rule) on an incomplete record about customer usage

Second, Whirlpool is concerned about DOE's consideration of an "interim" final rule at this time, rather

than an actual final rule that is permanent until changed through appropriate rulemaking procedures. An

"interim" final rule imposes compliance burdens on Manufacturers, including investments for redesigns, yet

there is a high degree of probability that the "interinf' rule will be changed at the time the actual final rule

is promulgated, requiring further redesign to meet the requirements of the revised final rule. Consequently,

EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 17

MAR-03-1995 15:34 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP 

ST. JOSE;PH. J.4IdHIGAN 

March 3, 1995 

Mr. Mike McCabe 

Dirt:c1<H") Offi<;;e of Codes &. Standards 

US Departmeot of EneIX)' 

Building Technologies 

Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Ave., SW Wa.~hington, DC 205H5 

Mr. Mar4': LeFrance 

Program Manager, Office of Cod~ &; Standards 

US Department of Energy 

Building Technologies 

l"orresta! liuilcling 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington. DC 20585 

Fax:2Q2IS86-4617 I 

I 

I 

I 

TO 912025864617 P.01 

Jack Sparks Administrative Center 

49085 

At a February 1o, 1995 AHAM Test Pnx:edure reJw mtcting. DOE staffrequested appliance 

manufacturers to submit informal conunents re~ the next step in DOE Docket BB-RM·93-701. a 

. proposed new test procedure fur clothes washers tha:~are designed to lock out the warm water rinse from ' 

the normal cycle of the clothes washer. Specifically, the staff requested comment: on two alternative next 

5teps: (1) the jssuance ofan interim final rule that y also include a request for some additional data, or 

(2) the issuance of a notice requesting additional datk on customer use habits. 

Un1e.<t.~ DOE i!i: prepMeci Til issue an actual fmal ntle ~not an interim fuw rule) that is reasonably similar to 

the test procedure proposed in the December 1993 Nfrti~ of Proposed RuJemaking. 'W'hU'tpool strongly 

recommends 1hat the DOE proceed with the second cbtion. issuing a notice seeking additional data on 

tl~mcr usc habits. I 

First. Whirlpool is currently completing a survey oodertaken in cooperation with DOE to determine 

customer use bal>its, particularly related to the usagelofthe lockout design option. Whirlpool ~"pects to 

have data from. this survey in approximately 16 weelds. Upon receipt of this information, DOE will be 

better able to assess the appropriate next step. It is ~re to base a final rule (C'\IC1l an "interim" final 

rule}.on an incomplete record about customer usage. I . 

Second, Whirlpool is concerned 000ut DOE's consilmtion of Qn "interim" final ru~ at this time, rather 

than an actual final rule that is pennanent until 4':hantoo through appropriate rulemaking procedures. An 

"interim" final rule imposes compliance burdens on thanufucturers, including investments for redesigns, yet 

there is a high degree of probability that the "interim t rule witt be changed attbe time the actual finaJ role 

is promulgated, requiring further redesign to meet the requirements of the revised final rule. Consequently, 

I 

I 

I 

MAR-03-1995 15:34 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP 

ST. JOSE;PH. J.4IdHIGAN 

March 3, 1995 

Mr. Mike McCabe 

Dirt:c1<H") Offi<;;e of Codes &. Standards 

US Departmeot of EneIX)' 

Building Technologies 

Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Ave., SW Wa.~hington, DC 205H5 

Mr. Mar4': LeFrance 

Program Manager, Office of Cod~ &; Standards 

US Department of Energy 

Building Technologies 

l"orresta! liuilcling 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington. DC 20585 

Fax:2Q2IS86-4617 I 

I 

I 

I 

TO 912025864617 P.01 

Jack Sparks Administrative Center 

49085 

At a February 1o, 1995 AHAM Test Pnx:edure reJw mtcting. DOE staffrequested appliance 

manufacturers to submit informal conunents re~ the next step in DOE Docket BB-RM·93-701. a 

. proposed new test procedure fur clothes washers tha:~are designed to lock out the warm water rinse from ' 

the normal cycle of the clothes washer. Specifically, the staff requested comment: on two alternative next 

5teps: (1) the jssuance ofan interim final rule that y also include a request for some additional data, or 

(2) the issuance of a notice requesting additional datk on customer use habits. 

Un1e.<t.~ DOE i!i: prepMeci Til issue an actual fmal ntle ~not an interim fuw rule) that is reasonably similar to 

the test procedure proposed in the December 1993 Nfrti~ of Proposed RuJemaking. 'W'hU'tpool strongly 

recommends 1hat the DOE proceed with the second cbtion. issuing a notice seeking additional data on 

tl~mcr usc habits. I 

First. Whirlpool is currently completing a survey oodertaken in cooperation with DOE to determine 

customer use bal>its, particularly related to the usagelofthe lockout design option. Whirlpool ~"pects to 

have data from. this survey in approximately 16 weelds. Upon receipt of this information, DOE will be 

better able to assess the appropriate next step. It is ~re to base a final rule (C'\IC1l an "interim" final 

rule}.on an incomplete record about customer usage. I . 

Second, Whirlpool is concerned 000ut DOE's consilmtion of Qn "interim" final ru~ at this time, rather 

than an actual final rule that is pennanent until 4':hantoo through appropriate rulemaking procedures. An 

"interim" final rule imposes compliance burdens on thanufucturers, including investments for redesigns, yet 

there is a high degree of probability that the "interim t rule witt be changed attbe time the actual finaJ role 

is promulgated, requiring further redesign to meet the requirements of the revised final rule. Consequently, 

I 

I 

I 
MAR-03-1995 15:35 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP TO 912025864617 P.02

Whirlpool (and other manufacturers wishing to use to lockout feature) will face the potential of two

redesigns in the space of a short period of time . This raisesseveral major problems:

1. Two redesigns within a short time frame ould place an enormous burden on the resources of

Whirlpool and on our ability to meet the of our customers within their time constraints for

introduction of new models.

2. Two redesigns in a short period oftime v^xgd make it difficult, or impossible, to recoup the

investment required to comply with the

m

" final rule.

3. Two redesigns in a short period of time

increases their costs, requiring the refraining

components. While some service-side costs

expected by the industry, it is amble

period of time.

licates the service side of the business and

f technicians and the inventory of more service

ladled with one redesign are inevitable and

require these costs to be borne twice in a short

4. Two iedu igns iii a shunt time would advelrsely affect our customers, who would be required to

retrain their retail sales personnel to explain he new features required by the two different final

rules, rotate inventory stock, change adv if necessary to add or delete affected features, and

change display models. Further, there wo tremendous uncertainty about the length of time, a

model designed for the interim final rule would remain in the market. This uncertainty may lead to

market disadvantages for any machine desig ed to meet the interim final rule.

Third, Whirlpool is concerned that the interim final rile under consideration may depart substantially from

the Deeembor .1993 Notion of Proposed Ruiemaking . If the Department is considering a test procedure that

is significantly different than the one proposed, Whirlpool seriously questions whether the Department has

provided adequate notice to the industry and the pubic about the test procedure contemplated for the

interim final rule. Further, Whirlpool doubts that the Department has a factual basis in the rulemaking to

support substantial revisions to the proposed test pro6edure . As the Department knows, it cannot issue a

final rule without providing adequate notice and opportunity for comment, and it cannot cure a lack of

adequate rulemaking notice by calling for additional eornment along with issuing an interim final rule.

Apart from this legal concern, Whirlpool reminds tbc Department that its October 1993 agreement to

refrain from challenging the final rule in this proceed g was limited to a final rule containing a test

procedure that is "not substantially different from tlx, new test procedure as proposed in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking."

In sum, if DOE is not yet ready to issue a final rule tiat is reasonably based on the December 1993 NPRM

and its rulemaking record, Whirlpool strongly supportf is the option of issuing only a request for data at this

time. An interim final rule would engender corifusiori and uncertainty and potentially require burdensome

dual investment that are unlikely to be recouped by tl e'manufacturers.

Robert Kenagy Mike Thompson Curt R.eichman

Associate General Council Director , Ck whom t Relations Mgr., Product Engineering

616M3-3910 6161923-4647 Washer Technology

616/923.6318

kbf-w%&o& w39s

(If this 2-page fax is not die r, please call 6161923-4648).

TOTAL P.02

EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 17

MAR-03-1995 15:35 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP TO 912025864617 P.02 

I 

Whirlpool (and other manufacturers 'Wishing to use ~e lockout feature) will tace the potential ofnYQ 

redesigns in the space of a short period of time. Thi~ raises severa! major problems: - I 

1. Two redesigns within a short time frame kould place an eoormous burden on the resources of 

Whirlpool and on our ability to meet the deobds of our customers within their time constra.ints for 

introdu~ ofnew models.' : I 

2. Two redesigns in a short period of time Would make it difficult. or imposSible" to recoup the 

investment required to comply with the interim final. mle. 

I 

3. Two redesigns in a short period of time ~lic:ates the service side oftbe business and 

iucreases their costs, requiring the ~/o{teclmicians and the inventory ofmore servi~ 

components. While some service--side costs Jwociated with one redesign are inevitable and 

expected by the industry, it ill unreasonable t require these CQsts to be borne twice in a short 

period of time. -

I 

4. Two .~igJ~ ill is ~hurL tiIrw wvuld ztdvdrsely affi:ct our customers, who would be required to 

retrain their retail sales personnel to explain {be new' features required by the two different final. 

rules,. rotate inventory stcdc, change advert:isplg if necessary to add or delete affected features, and 

change display models. Further, there would be tremendous uncertainty about the .1eogth of time a 

model designed for the interim final rule woJld remain in the market. This uncertainty may lead to 

market disadvantages for any machine desi~ to meet the interim final rule. 

I 

Third, Whirlpool is concerned that the interim final Jle under consideration may depart substantially from 

the DeQembor 1993 Notioo of Proposed RulemWcing./ If the Depw1ment is considcrin,g a test procedure that 

is significantly different than the one proposed. Whirlpool seriously questions whether the Department has 

provided adequate notice to the industt)I and the publlc about the test procedure contemplated for the 

interim final rule. Further, Whirlpool doubts that thd Department bas a factual basis in the rulemaJting to 

support substantial revisions to the proposed test ~ure. As the Department knows, it cannot issue a 

final rule without providing adequate notice and oppJrtunity for comment. and it cannot cure a lack of 

adequate rulemalcing notice by calling for additional tomment along with issuing an interim finalru.1e. 

Apart from this legal =m, Whirlpool =a ~ lhaI its O<tober 1993 agreemont '" 

refrain &om challenging the final rule in this g was limited to a final rule coutainiug a test 

procedu~ that is "not substantially different from new test procedure as proposed in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. n , I 

In sum, if DOE is not yet ready to issue a final rule d.at is reasonably based on the December 1993 NPRM I 

and its ru1emaking record, Whirlpool strongly suppcnjts the option of issuing only a request for data at this 

time. An interim final rule would engender confusiod and uncertainty and potentially require burdensome 

dual investment that are unlikely to be recouped ~Y t manufacturers. 

Robert Kenagy Mike Thompson I 

Associate General Counoil Di~r, ~ Rdations 

6161923-3910 616/923-4647 I 

I 

I 

I 

Curt Reichman 

Mgr.~ Produot Engineering 

Washer Technology 

616/923.06318 

(If thl.l-i>"", tU I • ... 1. """'" "" 6161923-#48~ I . 

TOTAL P.02 

MAR-03-1995 15:35 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP TO 912025864617 P.02 

I 

Whirlpool (and other manufacturers 'Wishing to use ~e lockout feature) will tace the potential ofnYQ 

redesigns in the space of a short period of time. Thi~ raises severa! major problems: - I 

1. Two redesigns within a short time frame kould place an eoormous burden on the resources of 

Whirlpool and on our ability to meet the deobds of our customers within their time constra.ints for 

introdu~ ofnew models.' : I 

2. Two redesigns in a short period of time Would make it difficult. or imposSible" to recoup the 

investment required to comply with the interim final. mle. 

I 

3. Two redesigns in a short period of time ~lic:ates the service side oftbe business and 

iucreases their costs, requiring the ~/o{teclmicians and the inventory ofmore servi~ 

components. While some service--side costs Jwociated with one redesign are inevitable and 

expected by the industry, it ill unreasonable t require these CQsts to be borne twice in a short 

period of time. -

I 

4. Two .~igJ~ ill is ~hurL tiIrw wvuld ztdvdrsely affi:ct our customers, who would be required to 

retrain their retail sales personnel to explain {be new' features required by the two different final. 

rules,. rotate inventory stcdc, change advert:isplg if necessary to add or delete affected features, and 

change display models. Further, there would be tremendous uncertainty about the .1eogth of time a 

model designed for the interim final rule woJld remain in the market. This uncertainty may lead to 

market disadvantages for any machine desi~ to meet the interim final rule. 

I 

Third, Whirlpool is concerned that the interim final Jle under consideration may depart substantially from 

the DeQembor 1993 Notioo of Proposed RulemWcing./ If the Depw1ment is considcrin,g a test procedure that 

is significantly different than the one proposed. Whirlpool seriously questions whether the Department has 

provided adequate notice to the industt)I and the publlc about the test procedure contemplated for the 

interim final rule. Further, Whirlpool doubts that thd Department bas a factual basis in the rulemaJting to 

support substantial revisions to the proposed test ~ure. As the Department knows, it cannot issue a 

final rule without providing adequate notice and oppJrtunity for comment. and it cannot cure a lack of 

adequate rulemalcing notice by calling for additional tomment along with issuing an interim finalru.1e. 

Apart from this legal ooncern, Whirlpool =allepa<lmeot that its OotOOer 1993 ag_ to 

refrain &om challenging the final rule in this g was limited to a final rule coutainiug a test 

procedu~ that is "not substantially different from new test procedure as proposed in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. n , I 

In sum, if DOE is not yet ready to issue a final rule d.at is reasonably based on the December 1993 NPRM I 

and its ru1emaking record, Whirlpool strongly suppcnjts the option of issuing only a request for data at this 

time. An interim final rule would engender confusiod and uncertainty and potentially require burdensome 

dual investment that are unlikely to be recouped ~Y t manufacturers. 

Robert Kenagy Mike Thompson I 

Associate General Counoil Di~r, ~ Rdations 

6161923-3910 616/923-4647 I 

I 

I 

I 

Curt Reichman 

Mgr.~ Produot Engineering 

Washer Technology 

616/923.06318 

(If thi, 2-jIage tU b ooi l. please ..u 6t<iJ923-4<i48). 

I . 

TOTAL P.02