PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS

The interviews will gather detailed information for.two parts of the process improvement

activities: the retrospective- analysis and review of standards development process and

methodology.

Retrospective Analysis: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is seeking to

document the impacts of some existing standards on a number of factors such as energy use,

product features, industry structure, and. overall competitive environment. Information for this

analysis will be gained through a series of'interviews with affected stakeholders as well as indepth analysis of additional data provided by industry. _

Some of the following issues to be reviewed in the retrospective analysis are: the impacts

resulting from standards that are of concern to consumers, manufacturers, and industry, the

benefits as compared to-the burdens and how these can be quantified, and the evidence to

indicate whether identified impacts were caused by the standards?

Review of Standards Rulemaking Process and Methodology: The second area to be studied is

the standards development process, with a focus on the analytical methodology. The review

also will examine ways to improve stakeholder interface to ensure that the concerns of each

group are identified and properly addressed. The Department is seeking input on creative

ways to streamline the standard development process.

Some of the following issues will be covered in the review of the standards rulemaking

process and methodology:

Process

Has the process identified and properly addressed the concerns of each group?

If not, how can the process be redesigned to achieve those goals?

How should the Department deal with concerns among one stakeholder group

when there may not be an agreement ?

How can the process be streamlined ?

Analysis

• What factors should the Department consider in the development of standards?

• What are the impacts that the Department should assess?

• How should the Department assess the impact on manufacturers given that

each may be affected differently because of market share, size, financial

situation, etc.?

• What additional analyses should the Department conduct to develop standards?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS 

. The interviews will gather detailed information for .two parts of the process improvement 

activities: the ·retrospective analysis and review of standards development process and 

methodology. . 

Retrospective Analysis: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is seeking to 

document the impacts of some existing standards on a number of factprs such as energy use, 

product features, industry structure, and overall competitive environment. Iriformation for this 

analysis will be gained through a series of ·interviews with affected stakeholders as well as indepth analysis of additional data provided by industry. 

Some of the following issues to be reviewed in the retrospective analysis are: the impacts 

resulting from standards that are of concern to consumers, manufacturers, and industry, the 

benefits as compared to _the burdens and how these can be quantified, and the evidence to 

indicate whether identified impacts were caused by the standards? 

Review of Standards Rulemaking Process and Methodology: The second area to be studied is 

the standards development process, with a focus on the analytical methodology. The review 

also will examine ways to improve stakeholder interface to ensure that the concerns of each 

group are identified and properly addressed. The Department is seeking input on creative 

ways to streamline the· standard development process. 

Some of the following issues will be covered in the review of the standards rulemaking 

process and methodology: 

Process 

Has the process identified and properly addressed the concerns of each group? 

If not, how can the process be redesigned to achieve those goals? 

How should the Department deal with concerns among one stakeholder group 

when there may not be an agreement ') 

• How can the process be streamlined ? 

Analysis 

• What factors should the Department consider in the development of standards? 

What are the impacts that the Department should assess? 

• How should the Department assess the impact on manufacturers given that 

each may be affected differently because of market share, size, financial 

situation, etc.? 

What additional analyses should the Department conduct to develop standards? 
Interview Questions Under Consideration : Revision 4, October 5th, 1995

Task 1: Retrospective Analysis

1. What do you think has been the impact of standards on U.S. consumers ? Can you supply

data that supports your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be

investigated?

a. Have retail prices changed?

b. Is the variety of available models the same?

c. Have the number of product features changed?

d. Has product utility changed?

e. Is there a noticeable change in product reliability?

f. Has product life changed?

g. Has energy performance changed?

h. Has customer satisfaction changed?

2. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US manufacturers ? Are there other

factors that have significant influence? Can you supply data that supports your judgment? Can

you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated?

a. Has total product sales revenue changed?

b. Have, wholesale prices changed? Why'?

c. Have production costs increased?

d. Has the number of units shipped changed?

e. Have appliance saturation levels changed?

f. Have market shares of the various manufacturers changed?

Who gained? Who lost? Why?

g. Are gross margins different?

h. Was return-on-equity affected? Net income?

i. Have total assets changed?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

Interview Questions Under Consideration: Revision 4, October 5th, 1995 

Task 1: Retrospective Analysis 

1. What do you think has been the impact of standards on U.S. consumers? Can you supply 

data that supports your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that might be 

investigated? 

a. Hav,e retail prices changed? 

b. Is the variety of availilble models the same? 

c. Have the number of product features changed? 

d. Has product utility changed? 

e. Is there a noticeable change in product reliability? 

. f. Has product life changed? 

g. Has energy performance changed? 

h. Has customer satisfaction changed? 

2. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US manufacturers? Are there other 

factors that have significant influence? em you supply data that supports your judgment? Can 

you identify possible sources of data that might be investigated? 

a. Has total product sales revenue changed? 

b. Have wholesale prices changed? Why? 

c. Have production costs increased? 

d. Has the number of units shipped changed? 

e. Have appliance saturation levels changed? 

f. Have market shares of the various manufacturers changed? 

Who gained? Who lost? Why? 

g. Are gross margins different? 

h. Was return-on-equity affected? Net income? 

1. Have total assets changed? 
3. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US industry structure? Canyou

supply data that could support your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that

might be investigated?

a. Have there been changes in distribution channels?

b. Were resulting technologies protected by proprietary technologies/patents?

c. 'How important were the technology development costs such as research and training?

d. Were the new technologies more capital intensive?

e. Have higher product costs led customers to switch to substitute goods? Has higher

efficiency and thus lower operating costs caused customers to switch from substitute products?

Did the standards result in fuel switching?

f. Have the number of suppliers increased or decreased? Have there been mergers and

acquisitions? Bankruptcies? Plant closings? Cost cutting measures? Are the trends different

from those of previous periods (absent trends)? Which products and what markets?

g. Did you notice a shift to foreign production sources? Have imports of appliances or

components changed? Is this change different for regulated and unregulated appliances ? Have

product exports changed? Does having higher product efficiency standards change the

competitive position of U.S. manufacturers internationally?

h. Are U.S. industry employment levels changed?

4. How would you compare the impact of DSM programs on industry with the impacts of

product standards? Which contributes most to improved energy efficiency? What features of

each program type do you like'? Dislike?

5. Did DSM significantly alter the product offerings on the market? Relative market shares?

Competition from foreign manufacturers? Were major capital investments required to change

product technologies? Did the price of products increase?

6. Have you been involved in any voluntary, collaborative programs such as Green Lights?

Which ones? Did you find these effective

7. To what extent have economic conditions and technology changes influenced the industry

(excluding the effect of standards)?

8. Have you noticed a tendency for US companies to shift production to other countries as a

result of globalization of markets?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

3. What do you think has been the impact of standards on US industry structure? Canyou 

supply data that could support your judgment? Can you identify possible sources of data that 

might be investigated? 

a. Have ~here been changes in distribution channels? 

b. Were resulting technologies protected by proprietary technologies/patents? 

c. How important wer~ tp.e technology development costs such as research and training? 

d. Were the new technologies more capital intensive? 

e. Have higher product costs led customers to switch to substitute goods? Has higher 

efficiency and thus lower operating costs caused customers to switch from substitute products? 

Did the standards result in fuel switching? 

f. Have the number of suppliers increased or decreased? Have there been mergers and 

acquisitions? Bankruptcies? Plant closings? Cost cutting measures? Are the trends different 

from those of previous periods (absent trends)? Which products and what markets? 

. g. Did you notice a shift to foreign production sources? Have imports of appliances or 

components changed? Is this change different for regulated and unregulated appliances? Have 

product exports changed? Does having higher product efficiency standards change the 

competitive position of U.S. manufacturers internationally? 

h. Are U.S. industry employment levels changed? 

. 4. How would you compare the impact of DSM programs on industry with the impacts of 

product standards? Which contributes most to improved energy efficiency? What features of 

each program type do you like? Dislike? 

5. Did DSM significantly alter the product offerings on the market? Relative market shares? 

Competition from foreign manufacturers? Were major capital investments required to change 

product technologies? Did the price of products increase? 

6. Have you been involved in any voluntary, collaborative programs such as Green Lights? 

Which ones? Did you find these effective 

7. To what extent have economic conditions and technology changes influenced the industry 

(excluding the effect of standards)? 

8. Have you noticed a tendency for US companies to shift production to other countries as a 

result of globalization of markets? 
Task 2: Review of Standards Rulemaking Processes/Methodology

1. Have you been personally involved in DOE's appliance standards rulemaking process?

In what circumstances'? What was your role?

Have you been personally involved in state appliance standards rulemaking processes? In

what circumstances ? What was your role? How is the DOE process in comparison to state

processes? In what ways is the DOE process better'? In what ways is the DOE process worse?

2. How do you perceive the process? Do you have different appreciation's for the various

steps, the ANOPR, NOPR. and the Final Rule?

3. Are you aware of the legislation that mandates the process ? (EPCA. 1975 as amended by

NECPA, 1978 and NAECA. 1987,1988 and EPAct 1992).

4. What do you think needs to be changed in the process'?

5. Do you feel the process is necessary? Why? (or why not?). What other mechanisms can

be used to develop and promulgate standards?

6 Who are the people you know at DOE and at the national labs?

7. Have you attended any DOE sponsored technical sessions or workshops'? Which ones?

Which sessions did, you know about and did not attend? Why?

a. Did they improve your understanding of DOE's standards process?

b. Did they improve your understanding of other stakeholders' concerns?

c. Did the sessions give rise to valuable alternatives to proposed standards?

d. What do you think is the appropriate level of participation from DOE in these

sessions? Full participation? Preparation and technical support?

e. Should the department use outside facilitators to manage the sessions?

f. Will you continue to attend?

For refrigerators and freezers, did you participate in the'informal negotiation? How did

this process compare to the formal rulemaking process? Advantages? Disadvantages?

8. Have you held discussions with other stakeholders or stakeholder groups? If so, with

whom?

9. How would you position the various participants on issues such as energy-efficiency, the

environment and economic issues?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

Task 2: Review of Standards Rulemaking ProcesseslMethodology 

1. Have you been personally involved in DOE's appliance standards rulemaking process? 

In what circumstances? What was your role? 

Have you been personally involved in state appliance standards rulemaking processes? In 

what circumstances? What was your role? How is the DOE process in comparison to ~tate 

processes? In what ways is the DOE process better'? In what ways is the DOE process worse? 

2. How do you perceive the process? Do you have different appreciation's for the various 

steps, the ANOPR. NOPR. and the Final Rule? 

3. Are you aware of the legislation that mandates the process? (EPCA.1975 as amended by 

NECPA. 1978 and NAECA.1987.1988 and EPAct 1992). 

4. What do you think needs to be changed in the process? 

5. I;>o you feel the process is necessary? Why? (or why not?). What other mechanisms can 

be used to develop and promulgate standards? 

6 Who are the people you know at DOE and at the national labs? 

7. Have you attended any DOE sponsored technical sessions or workshops? Which ones? 

Which sessions did you know about and did not attend? Why? 

a. Did they improve your understanding of DOE's standards process? 

b. Did they improve your understanding of other stakeholders' concerns? 

c. Did the sessions give rise to valuable alternatives to proposed standards? 

d. What do you think is the appropriate level of participation from DOE in these 

sessions? Full participation? Preparation and technical support? 

e. Should the department use outside facilitators to manage the sessions? 

f. Will you continue to attend? 

For refrigerators and freezers, did you participate in the'infonnal negotiation? How did 

this process compare to the formal rulemaking process? Advantages? Disadvantages? 

8. Have you held discussions with other stakeholders or stakeholder groups? If so, with 

whom? 

9. How would you position the various participants on issues such as energy-efficiency, the 

environment and economic issues? 
10. What should/can be done to gain broad-based support of standards amongst energy

efficiency advocates, consumers, and manufacturers ? Do you think the existing process is

conducive to reaching consensus? At what point in the process (ANOPR. NOPR, FRM) should

stakeholders be involved? What role could they play?

11. Federal legislation requires that any new standard be technologically feasible and

economically justified. Federal legislation requires that before DOE establishes a standard it must

determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burden, based on the weighing of seven

factors. (EPCA sec 325)

I) the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers

of the products subject to such standard;

ii) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the

covered product in the hype (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial

charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the

imposition of the standard;

iii) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the

imposition of the standard;

iv) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to

result from the imposition of the standard;

v) , the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

vi) the need for national energy conservation; and

vii) other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

What other factors might be considered for standards development? Public availability of hard

data has limited the extent of analysis possible. How can DOE obtain the data necessary to

conduct the legislated analysis? If hard data is unavailable, what alternatives exist? What

information should be exchanged? Have you made confidentiality agreements with LBNL or

DOE in order to provide data? Did that arrangement work satisfactorily? If so, what where the

advantages ? If not, what were the disadvantages? How would you suggest this process be

improved?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

10. What should/can be done to gain broad-based support of standards amongst energy 

efficiency advocates, consumers, and manufacturers? Do you think the existing process is 

conducive to reaching consensus? At what point in the process (ANOPR. NOPR, FRM) should 

stakeholders be involved? What role could they play? 

11. Federal legislation requires that any new standard be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Federal legislation requires that before DOE establishes a standard it must 

detennine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burden, based on the weighing of seven 

factors. (EPCA sec 325) 

l) the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers 

of the products subject to such standard: 

in the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial 

charges for, or maintenance expenses ot: the covered products which are likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard; 

iii) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

iv) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the imposition of the standard; 

v) I the impact of any lessening of competition, ,as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 

vi) the needfor national energy conservation; and 

vii) other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

What other factors might be considered for standards development? Public availability of hard 

data has limited the ext~nt of analysis possible. How can DOE obtain the data necessary to 

conduct the legislated analysis? If hard data is -unavailable, what alternatives exist? What 

information should be exchanged? Have you made confidentiality agreements with LBNL or 

DOE in order to provide data? Did that arrangement work satisfactorily? If so, what where the 

advantages? If not, what were the disadvantages? How would you suggest this process be 

improved? 
12. DOE conducts the following analysis during a rulemaking:

a. Engineering analysis of the cost and performance of design options

b. Forecasts of the number and average efficiency of the products sold with and without

federal regulations

c. The determination of the quantity of energy the products will consume, product price

and operating costs

d. The change in investment, revenues, and costs to manufacturers of the products

e. The cost/benefit calculation for consumers

f. The cost/benefit calculation for utilities

g. The cost/benefit calculation for the nation

h. The assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed rules

Do you feel the technical and economic analysis methods used by DOE are acceptable? How can

they be improved? Do we need to use these methods? Are there credible alternatives to rigorous

methodology'?

13. What role should professional organizations play in standards setting? Do you feel

consensus standards (such as ANSI, ASHRAE etc.) should be the basis for standards?

14. Do you think that DOE's selection of standard levels shows a favoritism? Explain.

15. Do you think the process involves the affected industries sufficiently? What data do

individual manufacturers keep`? How available is this data? Which do you believe are relevant

to rulemaking?

16. Do you feel standards affect all consumers equitably? Are some groups more

advantaged by standards than others? Disadvantaged? What groups? How different are the

impacts? What data/information is available to document these effects? Or how could the

process include these effects in the future?

17. Do you think the present process is effective in including feedback from the various

stakeholders? Does the process make a good use of the available resources within DOE and

outside DOE? Do you have any suggestions to future staffing criteria DOE might consider to

improve the program?

19. What measures could be taken to improve the level of communication between DOE and

the various stakeholders? For example how, effective is the present process for:

a. Informing stakeholders about the status of rulemakings?

b. Meeting schedules?

c. Clearly communicating the process and results?

d. Performing engineering and economic analysis?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

12. DOE conducts the following analysis during a rulemaking: 

a. Engineering analysis of the cost and performance of design options 

h. Forecasts of the number and average efficiency of the products sold with and without 

federal regulations 

c. The determination of the quantity of energy the products will consume. product price 

and operating costs 

d. The change in investment, revenues, and costs to manufacturers of the products 

e. The costlbenefit calculation for consumers 

J. The costlbenefit calculation for utilities 

g. The costlbenefit calculation for the nation 

h. The assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed rules 

Do you feel the technical and economic analysis methods used by DOE are acceptable? How can 

they be improved? Do we need to use these methods? Are there credible alternatives to rigorous 

methodology? 

13. What role should professional organizations play in standards setting? Do you feel 

consensus standards (such as ANSI, ASHRAE etc.) should be the basis for standards? 

14. Do you think that DOE's selection of standard levels shows a favoritism? Explain. 

15. Do you think the process involves the affected industries sufficiently? What data do 

individual manufacturers keep? How available is this data? Which do you believe are relevant 

to rulemaking? 

16. Do you feel standards affect all consumers equitably? Are some groups more 

advantaged by standards than others? Disadvantaged? What groups? How different are the 

impacts? What data/information is available to document these effects? Or how could the 

process include these effects in the future? 

17. Do you think the present process is effective in including feedback from the various 

stakeholders? Does the process make a good use of the available resources within DOE and 

outside DOE? Do you have any suggestions to future staffing criteria DOE might consider to 

improve the program? 

19. What measures could be taken to improve the level of communication between DOE and 

the various stakeholders? For example how effective is the present process for: 

a. Informing stakeholders about the status of rulemclkings? 

h. Meeting schedules? 

c. Clearly communicating the process and results? 

d. Performing engineering and economic analysis? 
20. DOE is considering setting up an inclusive steering committee to participate in reviewing

the rulemaking process/methodology for energy efficient products. Would your organization be

interested in serving on this committee?

a. Who else do you think should be represented on this committee?

b. What elements might be included in a mission statement for this committee?

c. What should this group do in particular? e.g. review analysis, solicit inputs from other

groups, work in drafting documents?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

20. DOE is considering setting up an inclusive steering committee to participate in reviewing 

.the rulemaking process/methodology for energy efficient products. Would your organization be 

interested in serving on this committee? 

a. Who else do you think should be represented on this committee? 

b. What elements might be included in a mission statement for this committee? 

c. What should this group do in particular? e.g. review analysis, solicit inputs from other 

groups, work in drafting docuf!1ents? 
Interview Participants

A B

1 corftd

C D

Title

E F G

Company/Group

H I J K

Interest

L M N

0

P

2 Mr. Kyle Pdlsor Mor, Government Affairs National Electrical Man ufacturers Association

3 Rita M. Harrold IlluminatiEn ineri Society Ballast test standards

4 Norm Grlnshaw Director, Technical Relations Advance Transformer Company Ballast Manufacturer

5 Arthur Botts Marketing Manager,DSM Philips L hti Cc ny Ballast Manufacturer

6 . Prideaux Valmount Electric Ballast Manufacturer

7 Robert Kim President Goldstar/And Tech Foreign Ballast Manulachn heprosentatlw

8 Mr: Wayne Causey V.P. Ballasts Eno. and Purchasi Howard Industries, Inc. Ballast Manufacturer μ;, c 3

9 r. Scott Seete oundti GELighting Ballast Manufacturer

10 Peter A. Bleasby Director of Industry Relatkms and Standards Osrar /S Ivania Ballast Manufacturer

11 [Gary Gro Vice-President Electronic Industries Association Represent Ballast Manufacturers

2 Robert Burke Vice-President, Electronic Prod. Ma netex Ballast manufacturer

13 David Goldstein . E P Director Natural Resources Defense Council Ener effide Advocat

14 Mr. Michael L E er Cosorllum For Energy Efficiency Golden Carrot Pr ram

15 Mr. Michael Martin odes and Standards Coo California Energy, Commision State Energy Offic

16 Gene Foley Lighting and Ballasts Alliance to Save i

_

ns Energy ell Advocat

17 Steve NadellHoward Geller Deputy Director American Council for an Energy-E fficient Econom Energy elficiecy Advocat

18 M. Mattingly Director, Gow. Affairs & Gen. Coun. AMA Water Heater

19 Pauf Wiekenson AGA Water Healer

20 ad Hiller Manager . Residential System EPRI Heat pu npteleolAc resistance water heaters

2L A. Joseph Van den Berg Director, Technical Services Edison Electric Institute Water heaters

22 Robert J. Hemphill Principle Product Manager Gas Research Institute Water healers

23' Michael E. Gains Vice President American Petroleum Institute Water heaters

24 Mr. Jacob Hill Senior ProEngineer Rheem Manufacturi Co. Waterheater rnanutacturer

25 Mr. Eric M . Lannes VP Engineering Bradford White 5th largest WH manufacturer

28 Mr. Henry Moore VP Engineering Water Heater Group Waferheater manufacturer

27 James Va , Ill President Va h Manufacturing Small FWWH manufacturer

28 Jay Hrmsj VP Marketi A.O. Smith Water Heater Manufacturer

29 John C. Bock Presldent/CEO Bock Water Heaters , Inc 0111 Flred(Wallor Nader Manufctuw

30 Robert Jewell Senior Vice President of Operations State Industries Largest marAftchumv of siorege w ater heaters in the world

31 Mr. Jo L, Welch Mannar. Reaulatory Affairs Detroit Edison utility

32 Pacific Gas & Electric utility

33 Marlon ('Nei Public Service Electric and Gas Co. Utlli

34 ra McNair Vice-President, high Division Penns teems Power & Light Utilit

raon at na ura ectric rative sociation Utility Representative

36 Date M. Crawford Entergy Services , Inc Utility owned ESCO

37 Mr- Jim Wyatt Senior Buyer Montgomery Ward Retailer

38 Ma- Sara Cooper National Consumers Lea ue Must investigate?

39 Mr. John Hugies, Director, Technical Affairs Electricity Consumers Resource Council Represent Nation's tar electrici consumers

40 R. Craig Smith . Manager, Conservation and Load Mgmt Tennessee Valley Authority

41 Mr. Ron Button Director National Association of Home Builders

42 Ba Moline Mana r, DSM r rams American Public Power Association

43 Dr. Robed Koger President Alternative Energy

Co raii

rpo Appointed by Hazel O'Leary to DOE's State Energy Advisory Board

44 Llack Welzerock Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers R/F association representatives

45 Mr. Lawrence R. Weth a Dk, Public Affairs & Technical SyppLd Air-Conditions & Refrigeration Institute WF association representallv40

46 Mr. Bruce A. Design Engineer, RIF Products Amana Refrigeration, Inc Refrigerator manufacturer

47 . T V. Thiele Senior Council General Electric Cc n Refrigerator manufacturer

48 r. Richard E. Stilwell Maytag Co oration Refrigerator manufacturer

49 Mr. Makowski Fr' idaire Co. Freezer Products Refrigerator manufacturer

50 Mr. Aden Wilkins VP. E ineeri Sub-Zero Freezer Co., Inc Refr1991ttor mantfaclw r •. ,.^

51 Mr. Michael C. n Director, Government Relat ions Whirlpool Ref rator manufacturer

52 lased udel Lawrence Barkley Laboratory

53 James E. McMahon Staff Scientist Lawrence Berldey Laboratory

54 Ronald E. Jarna Senior Research E ngineer Battelle/PNL ASHRAE Chairman 90.1 Standard

55 E. , AlA Manager Buildis Program Battelle/PNL ASHRAE President 90.1 Standard

s6 Program M Appliance Division DOE Codes and Standards Product Manager. water heaters

57 Program Manager, Appliance Division DOE Codes and Standards Product Manager, ballasts __

58 Pr ram Manager. Appliance Division DOE Codes and Standards Product Mana ger, refrigerators I

9/27/952:52 PM

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

- Interview Participants 

9127/952 :52 PM 

aS8oo~ltlor1 represenlatlvea:· ' 

reprasentallYet 

manufacturer 

manufacturer 

manufacturer 

manufacturer 
Interview Participants

Q R S T U V W X Y Z

1 ax Address -

2 202 457.8400 2101 L St.. NW, Suite 300 , Washington DC,20037

3 (2121 248-M 120 Wall St., Floor 17,New York , NY 10005

4 (M 390.5079 M) 390.5383 10275 West H Ins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018

5 906 563. 3680 908 563.3104 FrsnkNn re, Somerset, NJ 08825

5 ^ ^ ` 1800531 .7822 EI Paso, Texas

7 201 896-9119 202 896.8580 125 E. Union avenue , East Rutherford, NJ 07073

P.O. Box 1590, Laurel, MS, 39441

9 218 266-3947 216 268-3381 1975 Boble Park, Cleveland, OH 44112

10 (508)777-11900 508 7502972 100 Endicott Street, Danvers, MA 01923

11 (MA 807-7500 703 907-7501 2500 Wilson Boulevard, Ad on, Virginia 22201

12 615 316.5100 26 Century Boulevard. Nashville TN 37229

13 415 777.0220 415 495.5996 71 Stevenson St., San Francka, CA 94105

14 61 330.9755 61854.7414 60 Stall St., Boston MA 02109

15 918 854-4039 918 854-4304 1516 9th St., MS-42 , Sacramento,CA

18

17 (202)429-8873 202 429-2248 1001 Connecticut NW Washi ngton DC 20036

18 703 526.9565 703825. 8169 1901 North Moore St., Ad , Virginia, 22209

19 703 841.8400 1515 Wilson Boulevard , Arftion, VA 22209

20 (415) 855-8950 3412 HilIview avenue. room 7-126

21 202 508-5000 202 508.5554 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, D.C., 20004-5000

22 312 389 8250 312 399-8170 8600 West Brjm Mawr Ave., Chicago, IL 60631

23 202 682. 8000 1220 L St. NW , Washington D.C.

24 334 2601352 334 260.1350 2600 Gunther Pk. Dr. E., Mon . AL, 36109-1413

2$ 618 795.3364 618 795.2165 200 Lafayette St., Mlddleville, MI

26 829-1756

::

1752 Cloverfleld Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90404

27 83

K

Box 5431 , Salisb u . MA 1952

28 4 71E7: 53 5605 N. MacArthur, Suite 360, living, TX 75038

29 (608)257-2225 608 257-5304 110 S. Dickinson St., MADISON, WI

30

1 1

815 792 8272 615 792. 9202 500 8 Pass Rd., Ashland City, TN

31 Second Avenue, Detroit, Mich' an 48226

321 1

33 80 Park Plaza , Newark, New Jersey

34

351 t NW, Washington,

38 25 West Capital Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72203

37 312 467-7906

38

39 202 682. 1390 1333 H Street, NW, 8th Floor. Washington DC, 20005

40

41 (202) 822-0200 (202) 822-0559

42 (202) 775.8300 301 M Street, NW, Washington D.C., 20037-1484

43

44 202 434-7484 701 Pennsylvania Avenue . N.W., Suite 900, Washington, DC

45 (703) 524- 8800 703 528.3816 301 North Fairax Drive , Suite 425, Arlington , Virginia 22203

48

47 502 452.4078 502 452-0397 Louisville , KY 40225

48 (515)791 -8853 ndaWli Square, Newton, IA 50208

49 701 33rd Ave., North, St. Cloud , MN 56303

50 r ..

51 618923.4647 701 Main St. (9025). St-Joseph , MI 49085

52 (510) 488-8493 (510) 486-6696 USC, Building 90.4000, Berkley CA 94720

53 (510) 486-6049 510 486-6696 USC. Building 90.4000, Berkley CA 94720

54 (509)375-3813 5W 75.3614 Battelle Boulevard, Richland, Was ' on 99352

55 (5091372-4499 (509)376-3614 Battelle Boulevard, Richland, Washi on 99352

66 202 588.0371

- -

202 586-4617

57 - 2l^ 5064617

58 202 586.4617

9/27/952:52 PM

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 02

Interview Participants 

1 

111 

Q 

PI!< 

120 45, 

(21 241l 

(70 ~507 

190 3-: 

12011: 119 

'1.: 

6- 0 

:41 m ... 161 1330-1 751 

191 1654-< 031 

s T U Fax 

(708) 390-5383 

(908) 563- 3104 

(g<l2) 896-11580 

12161266-:1381 

15061750-2972 

17031907·7501 

v I W X Y ,... 

. S' . NYI • Sutte 00, DC 03; 

75 West Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL 60018 

()(I Franklin SQuare, lamerset, NJ 08825 / 

'aao, reX8S 

E. Union venue, East , NJ 07073 

".I . Box IS! ,Laure, MS ,39441 

97H BobIe P rk, Cleveland, OH 44112 

00 Endicott lJeeI, Danvers, MA 01 92 

2500 WIlSOn iOuIeYard, AIIin!lIon, Virginia 2:1201 

26 Centurv I Ioulevard, Neshvllle l'N~12~ 

(415) 495-5996 71 Stevenson St., San FrancIco, CA9410S 

(6m 654·7414 SOSlete St., Boston MA02109 

(916) 654-4304 1516 9th SI . M5-42, r.A 

/ / 8873 12021429-2248 100 I NW DC: 2003 

. 141 !-6B83 IX ;431, Salisbury, M . I: I 

z 

. g~~ (31C 1629-1756 1752 Cloverfleid Blvd. ian I Monica, CA 9(404 

. .. 11717~~~~ A __ -w.~~~=-~~~~M~a~~U~~'~SU~~~~lrvm~Q'~_7~50~ (606) 257·:i304 Dlc:klnson SI. A[ ON. WI ________________ ~ (615) 792· 9202 Iy Pa!lllRd., Ashland \Y, TN 

2C Second Avenue, Detro Michigan 48226 

I 

80 Park Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 

I I 

112(2) 232- 1200 I~ 111m :>1 NW, ,u.v., 

4~ West I :apital Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72203 

13121 467·7908 I I 

I 112021 682··I39Cl /1333 H Street, NW, 8th Floor, 101 .20005 

112(2) 822-0200 

1(202) n5-83()O 

1(202) 822-'.0559 

I 

12301 M Street, NW, 

I .. · ..;,··'.~i~ti'~:t :(202) 434·7.a4 1701 1 A\ienue, N.W. Suite 900.' i ,DC 

I :;!:t';:S~~~~~:?:~~'I;;:;;=;I= ;~+.8800I853;:;;;-78--tIi;;-(I502703=-:)'; :~:~:~:---;I;-::=~North:;;;::-le.-';; I'I(' ~;;-, 4O=mx 22: Drc.:-SIv+--18'. s_ulte

l

_ 42-t-J5'. A_rling-tton,:_ Virgl_nlal22_203 ____ -J 

1\" .,,' ...... :lne I '~uare, Newton, IA 50208 

~., ;~!,ii~ __ -+--__ ~ __ ~~---F17~~I~3&d~I,~~ve .. ,~North~"~fl..C~IoUd~,,~~NI563~0~3 ______________ ~ 

~ "f';';ii;:'~;' 1701 Main SI. (9025), St·Joseph, MI 49085 

~ 6696 IUSC, Building 90-4000, Berkley GA 94720 

);S 51' 4!6 6696 USC, Building 90-4000, Berklev CA 94720 

i~ ~~~14 .~~ard,R~~, 1003~ 

15 ~ 3614 BelleHe Boulevard, Richland, I 00352 

56 1516-0 1516-4617 ,LI I 

57 I 12021 ~17 I I 58 (2)58§-4617 / / I 

91271952:52 PM