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,
1 iJnle.cs DOE is prepared to is ne an actual final rule not 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 weel 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, MAR-03-1995 15:34 FROM WHIRLPOOL CORP

ST. JOSE;PH. J.4IdHIGAN


### March 3, 1995



### Mr. Mike 

### McCabe Dirt:c1<H") Offi<;;e ofCodes 

### &. Standards 

### US Departmeot ofEneIX)' 

### Building Technologies 

### Forrestal Building 1000 Independence 

### Ave., SW**Wa.~hington,** DC 205H5


### Mr. 

### Mar4': LeFrance Program Manager, Office of**Cod~** &; Standards US Department ofEnergy 

### 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 testprocedure 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 ofa 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 ofthis 

### information, DOE will be better 

### able 

### to assess the appropriate 

### next step. 

### Itis

### ~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 ofQn "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 ofprobability that the "interim 

# trule witt be changed attbe time the actual finaJ role 

### is promulgated, requiring further redesign to meet 

### the requirements 

### ofthe 

### 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 ofCodes 

### &. Standards 

### US Departmeot ofEneIX)' 

### Building Technologies 

### Forrestal Building 1000 Independence 

### Ave., SW**Wa.~hington,** DC 205H5


### Mr. 

### Mar4': LeFrance Program Manager, Office of**Cod~** &; Standards US Department ofEnergy 

### 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 testprocedure 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 ofa 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 ofthis 

### information, DOE will be better 

### able 

### to assess the appropriate 

### next step. 

### Itis

### ~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 ofQn "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 ofprobability that the "interim 

# trule witt be changed attbe time the actual finaJ role 

### is promulgated, requiring further redesign to meet 

### the requirements 

### ofthe 

### revised final 

### rule. Consequently, 

# I I 

# IMAR-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 raises several 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 invest ment 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 diff erent 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 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 

### oftime.**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

# trequire these CQsts to beborne twice in a short period oftime.

- 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 

### ifnecessary to add or 

### delete affected features, and 

### change display models. Further, there would be 

### tremendous uncertainty about 

### the .1eogth 

### oftime 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 ofProposed 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 

### ofissuing only 

## arequest 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

(Ifthl.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 

### oftime.**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

# trequire these CQsts to beborne twice in a short period oftime.

- 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 

### ifnecessary to add or 

### delete affected features, and 

### change display models. Further, there would be 

### tremendous uncertainty about 

### the .1eogth 

### oftime 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 ofProposed 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 

### ofissuing only 

## arequest 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

(Ifthi, 2-jIage 

### tU b 

## ooi

# l. please 

## ..u 6t<iJ923-4<i48). 

# I . TOTAL P.02