# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-29197 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** December 15, 2014 - **Citation:** 79 FR 74492 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020] RIN 1904-AC77 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial clothes washers (CCWs). EPCA also requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting more stringent energy conservation standards for CCWs because DOE has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for CCWs would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 13, 2015. Compliance with the amended standards established for CCWs in this final rule is required on January 1, 2018. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. The docket for this rulemaking can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Clothes Washers III. General Discussion A. General Rulemaking Issues B. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage C. Test Procedures 1. Appendix J2 2. Energy Metric 3. Water Metric D. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility of Equipment e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need for National Energy Conservation g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Market Assessment 2. Technology Assessment B. Screening Analysis C. Engineering Analysis 1. General Approach 2. Technologies Unable to be Included in the Analysis 3. Appendix J2 Efficiency Level Translations 4. Baseline Efficiency Levels 5. Front-Loading Higher Efficiency Levels 6. Top-Loading Higher Efficiency Levels 7. Impacts on Cleaning Performance and Cycle Time D. Markups Analysis E. Energy and Water Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Costs 2. Installation Costs 3. Unit Energy Consumption 4. Energy and Water Prices 5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 6. Lifetime 7. Discount Rate 8. Compliance Date 9. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 10. Payback Period Inputs 11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy and Water Savings 3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit a. Total Annual Installed Cost b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings I. Customer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios 3. Discussion of Comments a. Cumulative Regulatory Burden b. Conversion Costs K. Emissions Analysis L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 1. Social Cost of Carbon b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values 2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Customer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results b. Impacts on Direct Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Significance of Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 4. Impact on Utility 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 8. Other Factors C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Commercial Clothes Washers 2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Amended Standards VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.6291, et seq ; “EPCA”), Pub. L. 94-163, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. 1 Part C of title III 2 establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” These include commercial clothes washers (CCWs), which are the subject of this rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) 1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 2 Part C of Title III was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) for editorial reasons. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)). In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for CCWs. The amended standards, which are expressed for each equipment class in terms of a minimum modified energy factor (MEF J2 ) 3 and a maximum integrated water factor (IWF), are shown in Table I.1. These amended standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after January 1, 2018. 3 DOE uses the “MEF J2 ” nomenclature to distinguish these new standards from the MEF metric used in the current energy conservation standards. MEF is calculated according to the test procedures at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 430, subpart B, appendix J1; whereas MEF J2 is calculated according to the test procedures at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix J2. Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers [Compliance Starting January 1, 2018] Equipment class Minimum MEF J2 * Maximum IWF † Top-Loading 1.35 8.8 Front-Loading 2.00 4.1 * MEF J2 (appendix J2 modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load. † IWF (integrated water factor) is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 and Table I.3 present DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the amended standards on customers of CCWs in multi-family and laundromat applications, respectively, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP). 4 In both applications, the average LCC savings are positive for both equipment classes. The PBPs near zero reflect the very small (or zero in the case of top-loading units) incremental cost necessary to achieve the amended standards. 4 The average LCC savings are measured relative to the base-case efficiency distribution, which depicts the market in the compliance year (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific CCW efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section IV.C.4). Table I.2—Impacts of Amended Standards on Customers of Commercial Clothes Washers: Multi-Family Application Equipment class Average LCC savings (2013$) Simple payback period (years) Front-loading 271.9 0.02 Top-Loading 294.5 0.00 Table I.3—Impacts of Amended Standards on Customers of Commercial Clothes Washers: Laundromat Application Equipment class Average LCC savings (2013$) Simple payback period (years) Front-loading 212.3 0.02 Top-Loading 165.7 0.00 B. Impact on Manufacturers The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2015 to 2047). Using a real discount rate of 8.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of CCWs is $123.5 million in 2013$. Under the amended standards, DOE expects that the INPV may be reduced by up to 5.3 percent, which is a loss of approximately $6.6 million. However, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of CCWs, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment. C. National Benefits 5 5 All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 2014. DOE's analyses indicate that the amended energy conservation standards for CCWs would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime energy savings for CCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2018-2047) amount to 0.07 quadrillion Btu (quads). 6 This amounts to energy savings of 7 percent, relative to the energy use of CCWs in the base case without amended standards. 6 A quad is equal to 10 15 British thermal units (Btu). The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total customer costs and savings of the amended standards for CCWs ranges from $243 million to $532 million at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for CCWs purchased in 2018-2047. In addition, the amended CCW standards would have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings from the amended standards would result in cumulative emission reductions of 4.1 million metric tons (Mt) 7 of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), 32.0 thousand tons of methane (CH 4 ), 1.9 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), 9.1 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and 0.01 tons of mercury (Hg). 8 The cumulative reduction in CO 2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 1.18 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions associated with the annual electricity use of more than 162 thousand homes. 7 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO X and Hg are presented in short tons. 8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 ( AEO 2014 ) Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013. The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO 2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a Federal interagency process. 9 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L.1. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions reduction is between $29.1 and $410 million. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO X emissions reduction is $6.1 million and $12.7 million at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. 10 9 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 10 DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO 2 emissions. Table I.4 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from the amended standards for CCWs. Table I.4—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Amended Energy Conservation Standards for CCWs * Category Present value million 2013$ Discount rate (percent) Benefits Operating Cost Savings 243 7 533 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** 29 5 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** 133 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** 210 2.5 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** 410 3 NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** 6 7 13 3 Total Benefits † 382 7 678 3 Costs Incremental Installed Costs 0.24 7 0.46 3 Total Net Benefits Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value † 382 7 677 3 * This table presents the costs and benefits associated with front-loading and top-loading CCW units shipped in 2018-2047. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2047 from the equipment purchased in 2018-2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. ** The CO 2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NO X is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. The benefits and costs of the amended standards for CCWs sold from 2018-2047 can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from customer operation of CCWs that meet the amended standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing customer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO 2 emission reductions. 11 11 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur ( e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO 2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year that yields the same present value. Although combining the values of operating savings and CO 2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, whereas the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO 2 savings are performed with different methods that use different timeframes for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of CCWs shipped in 2018-2047. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100. Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the amended standards are shown in Table I.5. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO 2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case), the cost of the standards amended in this rule is $0.02 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $24 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $7 million per year in CO 2 reductions, and $0.60 million per year in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $32 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the cost of the CCW amended standards is $0.03 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $30 million per year in reduced operating costs, $7 million per year in CO 2 reductions, and $0.71 million per year in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $38 million per year. Table I.5—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits estimate * High net benefits estimate * million 2013$/year Benefits: Operating Cost Savings 7% 24 21 30 3% 30 26 38 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) * 5% 2 2 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) * 3% 7 7 9 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) * 2.5% 11 10 13 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) * 3% 23 21 28 NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** 7% 0.60 0.55 0.71 3% 0.71 0.64 0.86 Total Benefits † 7% plus CO 2 range 27 to 47 24 to 43 33 to 58 7% 32 29 39 3% plus CO 2 range 33 to 53 29 to 47 41 to 66 3% 38 33 48 Costs: Incremental Equipment Costs 7% 0.02 0.03 0.02 3% 0.03 0.03 0.02 Net Benefits: Total † 7% plus CO 2 range 27 to 47 24 to 43 33 to 58 7% 32 29 39 3% plus CO 2 range 33 to 53 29 to 47 41 to 66 3% 38 33 48 * This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with CCW equipment shipped in 2018-2047. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2047 from the equipment purchased in 2018-2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a flat rate for projected equipment price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV. ** The CO 2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NO X is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis. † Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO 2 range” and “3% plus CO 2 range,” the operating cost and NO X benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO 2 values. D. Conclusion DOE has concluded that the amended standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for the equipment classes covered by this final rule. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has concluded that the benefits of the amended standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of customer benefits, customer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some customers). II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying the final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of amended standards for CCWs. A. Authority As noted in section I, Title III of EPCA establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” This equipment includes CCWs, the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) EPCA established energy conservation standards for CCWs and directed DOE to conduct two rulemakings to determine whether the established standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) DOE published its first final rule amending CCW standards on January 8, 2010 (“January 2010 final rule”), which apply to CCWs manufactured on or after January 8, 2013. The second final rule determining whether standards should be amended must be published by January 1, 2015. Any amended standards would apply to CCWs manufactured three years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(B)) This current rulemaking satisfies the requirement to publish the second final rule by January 1, 2015. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered equipment. As indicated above, any amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including CCWs, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the amended standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) (B) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether an amended standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: 1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard; 2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; 4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 5. 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; 6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and 7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 6316(a)) EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a)) Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing products or equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products or equipment for any group of covered products or equipment that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products or equipment within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products or equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products or equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products or equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a)) Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) 6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(a)). DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that the final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard adopted herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits. B. Background 1. Current Standards In the January 2010 final rule, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for CCWs manufactured on or after January 8, 2013. The current standards are set forth in Table II.1. Table II.1—Current Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers Equipment class Minimum MEF* cu.ft/kWh/cycle Maximum WF † gal/cu.ft./cycle Top-Loading 1.60 8.5 Front-Loading 2.00 5.5 * MEF (appendix J1 modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load. † WF (water factor) is calculated as the weighted per-cycle water consumption for the cold wash/cold rinse cycle, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Clothes Washers As described in Section II.A, EPCA established energy conservation standards for CCWs and directed DOE to conduct two rulemakings to determine whether the established standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) DOE published its first final rule amending CCW standards on January 8, 2010 (“January 2010 final rule”). 75 FR 1122. This current rulemaking satisfies the requirement to publish the second final rule determining whether the standards should be amended by January 1, 2015. On August 13, 2012, DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the framework document for this rulemaking. DOE also requested public comment on the document. 77 FR 48108. The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for CCWs and identified various issues to resolve during the rulemaking. On September 24, 2012, DOE held the framework document public meeting and discussed the issues detailed in the framework document. DOE also described the analyses that it planned to conduct during the rulemaking. Through the public meeting, DOE sought feedback from interested parties on these subjects and provided information regarding the rulemaking process that DOE would follow. Interested parties discussed major issues at the public meeting, including the rulemaking schedule, test procedure revisions, equipment classes, technology options, efficiency levels, and approaches for each of the analyses performed by DOE as part of the rulemaking process. On March 4, 2014, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (hereafter, the “March 2014 NOPR”) and notice of public meeting. 79 FR 12301. The March 2014 NOPR presented the results of DOE's initial analyses and proposed amended standards for CCWs. DOE also published an accompanying technical support document (TSD) that described the results of each analysis in greater detail. On April 21, 2014, DOE held the March 2014 NOPR public meeting and discussed the issues detailed in the NOPR. Interested parties commented on various aspects of the proposed rule and submitted supplemental written comments. Following the public meeting, DOE gathered additional information and performed additional analysis to supplement the analyses presented in the March 2014 NOPR, including the engineering, LCC, PBP, manufacturer impact, and national impact analyses. The results of these analyses are detailed in a TSD accompanying this final rule, available in the docket at the regulations.gov Web site. DOE considered the comments received since publication of the March 2014 NOPR, including those received at the NOPR public meeting, in developing the amended standards for CCWs. III. General Discussion A. General Rulemaking Issues In the March 2014 NOPR (79 FR 12301), DOE proposed a compliance date of January 1, 2015 for the amended standards resulting from this rulemaking. 79 FR 12301, 12351. As explained in the preamble to the March 2014 NOPR, and as explained in this final rule, EPCA requires that any amended standards as a result of this rulemaking would apply to CCWs manufactured three years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(B)) The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS) commented that the March 2014 NOPR erroneously listed the compliance date for this rulemaking as “on or after January 1, 2015,” and noted that the intended compliance data should be “on or after January 1, 2018.” (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 6; Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 1; ALS, No. 26 at p. 3) 12 13 12 A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket for DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for CCWs (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020), which is maintained at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020. This notation indicates that AHAM's statement preceding the reference can be found in document number 23 in the docket, and appears at page 6 of that document. 13 Whirlpool Corporation submitted a written comment stating that it worked closely with AHAM in the development of AHAM's submitted comments, and that Whirlpool strongly supports the positions taken by AHAM. Unless otherwise noted, throughout this final rule, reference to AHAM's written comments (document number 23 in the docket) should be considered reflective of Whirlpool's position as well. The final rule corrects this error from the March 2014 NOPR and establishes a compliance date for amended standards as listed in the Summary section of this final rule. B. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related feature that justifies a different standard. DOE may not prescribe standards that are likely to result in the unavailability of a certain product class of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6294(o)(4) and 6316(a)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a)) DOE creates product and equipment classes based on function or use and currently divides CCWs into two equipment classes: Top-loading and front-loading. DOE tentatively concluded in the March 2014 NOPR that the axis of loading represents a distinct consumer utility-related feature that warrants retaining both top-loading and front-loading CCW equipment classes. 79 FR12301, 12309 (Mar. 4, 2014). DOE reached the same conclusion in prior rulemakings for residential clothes washers. 56 FR 22249, 22263 (May 14, 1991) and 77 FR 32307, 32319 (May 31, 2012). DOE also preliminarily determined in the March 2014 NOPR that the longer average cycle time of front-loading machines warrants consideration of separate equipment classes. DOE presented data showing that top-loading cycle times for the maximum load size ranged from 29 to 31 minutes, with an average of 30 minutes. 14 79 FR 12301, 12309. Front-loading cycle times, on the other hand, ranged from 30 to 37 minutes, with an average of 34 minutes. Id. DOE preliminarily determined that the longer average cycle time of front-loading CCWs results in fewer possible “turns” per day compared to top-loading CCWs. The longer average time is significant in a laundromat or multi-family laundry setting to end-users waiting on the machine to finish its cycle, as well as to laundromat owners and multi-family laundry route operators looking to maximize daily laundry throughput. 14 This excludes one outlier top-loading model with a cycle time of 50 minutes. DOE considers the model with a cycle time of 50 minutes to be unrepresentative of equipment typically used in coin laundry or multi-family housing laundry facilities. In addition, DOE's analysis in the March 2014 NOPR indicated that the technologies, designs, and operating characteristics of the max-tech top-loading residential clothes washers were not transferrable to CCWs. Since the efficiency levels of top-loading CCWs on the market do not overlap with those of front-loading clothes washers, a single energy efficiency standard applicable to both top-loading and front-loading CCWs would likely result in the elimination of top-loading clothes washers from the market. For these reasons, DOE preliminarily concluded that separate equipment classes are justified for top-loading and front-loading CCWs based on the criteria established in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and (q)(1), 6316(a)) The proposal in the March 2014 NOPR thus maintained separate standards for top-loading and front-loading equipment classes. 77 FR 12309. DOE received comments in response to the March 2014 NOPR both in support of and opposed to establishing two equipment classes for CCWs. These comments are described in more detail in the following paragraphs. The California Investor Owned Utilities (hereafter, “California IOUs”) and, in a joint comment, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (hereafter, “Joint Commenters”), support a single equipment class due to the similarity in cycle times between top-loaders and front-loaders. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 14; Joint Commenters, No. 29 at pp. 1-4) In their comment, the California IOUs note that if a front-loader is able to get more water out of the clothing, the dryer time would be shorter and, thus, the overall cycle time associated with the end-user waiting at a laundromat would either be the same or less. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 61-62). The California IOUs believe that a top-loading configuration does not offer distinct consumer utility. (California IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1-2) The California IOUs believe increasing front-loading sales could imply that customers are becoming indifferent to distinctions between front-loading and top-loading CCWs, thus suggesting that the potential utility between the two is negligible in the market. (California IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 91-92). The Joint Commenters note that in the January 2010 final rule, DOE acknowledged that method of access is a “feature” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), but that DOE rejected the contention that the top-loading configuration afforded any substantial consumer utility in a commercial setting. (Joint Commenters, No. 29 at pp. 1-3) NRDC requests additional data, other than cycle time, upon which DOE based its conclusion about distinct consumer utility for separate equipment classes of CCWs. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 34, 51-52) ASAP and NRDC also request that DOE provide an explanation of all the factors considered as justification for separating equipment classes based on location of access. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 60-61; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 132) On the other hand, AHAM and ALS support DOE's conclusion in the March 2014 NOPR that separate equipment classes are justified for top-loading and front-loading CCWs. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2; ALS, No. 26 at p. 1) AHAM disagrees with the California IOUs that a 50/50 split in equipment class sales would indicate a negligible difference in the utility of each equipment class. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 94-96) AHAM believes that since both types of equipment classes are sold on the market in equal amounts, there is consumer utility in each equipment class. AHAM supports maintaining two product classes now, as well as in the future. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 94-96; AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2) DOE views utility as an aspect of the product that is accessible to the layperson and is based on user operation, rather than performing a theoretical function. DOE does not separate equipment classes based on up-front costs that anyone, including the consumer, laundromat owner, or manufacturer, may bear. DOE determines consumer utility on a case-by-case basis and determines what value a product could have based on the consumer base and the associated technology. With that in mind, DOE disagrees with the California IOUs that a 50/50 split in top-loading versus front-loading sales would be an indication that the market is indifferent between the two, or that the potential utility between the two is negligible. DOE believes that a 50/50 split would indicate that 50 percent of the market expresses a preference for ( i.e., derives utility from) the top-loading configuration. DOE acknowledges that the difference in cycle times between top-loading and front-loading CCWs has diminished due to improvements in front-loading technology. DOE also notes that at least one front-loading CCW model is available at the proposed standard level with a cycle time of approximately 30 minutes, which matches the average cycle time of all top-loading CCWs tested by DOE. Therefore, DOE understands that, as technology progresses cycle time may become a less meaningful differentiator between CCW equipment classes. However, DOE disagrees with the Joint Commenters' characterization of the January 2010 final rule—that DOE had rejected the contention that the top-loading configuration afforded any substantial consumer utility in a commercial setting. In the January 2010 final rule, DOE described its preliminary conclusions from the October 17, 2008 NOPR (hereafter, the “October 2008 NOPR”) and the November 9, 2009 SNOPR (hereafter, the “November 2009 SNOPR”): That separate equipment classes for top-loading and front-loading CCWs were warranted because the method of loading had been previously determined to be a “feature” under rulemakings for residential clothes washers, and a single standard would eliminate top-loading CCWs from the market. 75 FR 1122, 1133. DOE did not reject this conclusion in the January 2010 final rule. DOE did note that access without stooping is not a specific consumer utility, because many manufacturers supply pedestals that would eliminate stooping in front-loading washers. Id. But method of loading encompasses more than stooping, and therefore, provides specific consumer utility that defines separate equipment classes. For example, front-loading commercial clothes washers are stackable and can be useful in a concentrated laundromat or multi-family housing setting. On the other hand, top-loading washing machines provide the utility of adding clothes during the wash cycle. Furthermore, DOE notes that the separation of clothes washer equipment classes by location of access is similar in nature to the equipment classes for residential refrigerator-freezers, which include separate equipment classes based on the access of location of the freezer compartment ( e.g. top-mounted, side-mounted, and bottom-mounted). The location of the freezer compartment on such equipment provides no additional performance-related utility other than consumer preference. In other words, the location of access itself provides distinct consumer utility. Furthermore, DOE observes that top-loading residential clothes washers are available with the same efficiency levels, control panel features, and price points as front-loading residential clothes washers. Given the equivalence in efficiency, features, and price, the purchase of such top-loaders indicates a preference among certain consumers for the top-loading configuration; i.e., the top-loading configuration itself provides unique consumer utility to those customers preferring one configuration over another, with all other product attributes being equal. In this final rule analysis, DOE reiterates and confirms its conclusions from the May 14, 1991 final rule for residential clothes washers (56 FR 22250), the October 2008 NOPR, the September 2009 SNOPR, and the March 2014 NOPR that the method of loading is a feature that provides distinct consumer utility. The final rule maintains separate equipment classes for top-loading and front-loading CCWs. C. Test Procedures 1. Appendix J2 The DOE test procedures for clothes washers are codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix J1 and appendix J2 (hereafter, “appendix J1” and “appendix J2”). Under EPCA, test procedures for CCWs must be the same as test procedures as residential clothes washers. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) On December 3, 2014, DOE published a final rule (hereafter, the “December 2014 final rule”) adopting appendix J2 to be used to determine compliance with any future revised energy conservation standards for CCWs. The December 2014 final rule also clarified the dates for which appendix J1 and appendix J2 must be used to determine compliance with existing energy conservation standards and any future revised energy conservation standards for CCWs. 79 FR 71642. Manufacturers of CCWs must use appendix J1 to demonstrate compliance with the current standards established by the January 2010 final rule. (10 CFR 431.156) Under this rulemaking, CCW manufacturers must use appendix J2, beginning January 1, 2018, to demonstrate compliance with the amended energy conservation standards. For the purpose of understanding how the amended standards compare with the current standards for CCWs, the following two tables provide the equivalent appendix J1 and appendix J2 metrics for both. Table III.1 shows the equivalent appendix J1 and appendix J2 values for the current energy conservation standards for CCWs as set forth at the current 10 CFR 431.156. Table III.2 shows the equivalent appendix J1 and appendix J2 values for the amended energy conservation standards established by the final rule. These translations between appendix J1 and appendix J2 values are provided for comparison purposes only and will not be used to certify compliance with either the current or future energy conservation standards for CCWs. Manufacturers must use only appendix J1 values to certify compliance with the current energy conservation standards established the January 2010 final rule. Manufacturers must use only appendix J2 values to certify compliance with the amended standards beginning January 1, 2018. As required by EPCA, the amended standards do not increase the maximum allowable energy and/or water use or decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 6316(a)). Table III.1—Current Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers, Equivalent Appendix J1 and J2 Values Equipment class Minimum energy standards Appendix J1 MEF* Appendix J2 Equivalent MEF J2 * Maximum water standards Appendix J1 WF † Appendix J2 Equivalent IWF ‡ Top-Loading 1.60 1.15 8.5 8.9 Front-Loading 2.00 1.65 5.5 5.2 * MEF (appendix J1 modified energy factor) and MEF J2 (appendix J2 modified energy factor) are calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load. † WF (appendix J1 water factor) is calculated as the weighted per-cycle water consumption for the cold wash/cold rinse cycle, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. ‡ IWF (appendix J2 integrated water factor) is calculated as the weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. Table III.2—Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers, Equivalent Appendix J1 and J2 Values Equipment Class Minimum energy standards Appendix J1 Equivalent MEF* Appendix J2 MEF J2 * Maximum water standards Appendix J1 Equivalent WF † Appendix J2 IWF ‡ Top-Loading 1.70 1.35 8.4 8.8 Front-Loading 2.40 2.00 4.0 4.1 *MEF (appendix J1 modified energy factor) and MEF J2 (appendix J2 modified energy factor) are calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load. † WF (appendix J1 water factor) is calculated as the weighted per-cycle water consumption for the cold wash/cold rinse cycle, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. ‡ IWF (appendix J2 integrated water factor) is calculated as the weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. AHAM does not object to the translations developed to quantify the difference between results based on appendix J1 and appendix J2 in the context of this standards rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) DOE received no comments objecting to the appendix J1 and appendix J2 translations it developed for the purpose of understanding how the amended standards compare with the current standards for CCWs. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, DOE maintains these informative translations in the final rule. DOE notes that the quantitative analyses performed for this rulemaking were conducted using the appendix J2 metrics, MEF J2 and IWF. 2. Energy Metric In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amended energy efficiency standards based on MEF as measured using appendix J2 (“MEF J2 ”). 77 FR 12301, 12303, 12310 (Mar. 4, 2014). As defined in section 4.5 of appendix J2, MEF J2 is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for removing moisture from a test load. As explained in the March 2014 NOPR, DOE evaluated the standby and off mode power characteristics of a representative sample of CCWs spanning a wide range of display types, payment systems, and communication features. DOE did not, however, propose amended standards for CCWs based on an integrated energy metric that would have included a measurement of standby and off mode power. 79 FR 12301, 12310 (Mar. 4, 2014). AHAM supports DOE's proposal for amended standards for CCWs based on MEF, rather than an integrated modified energy factor (IMEF). 15 (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 3) ALS supports DOE's proposal to not amend CCW standards based on an integrated energy metric. ALS believes that standby power should not be included for CCWs, because the equipment needs an active visual display between active operating cycles to alert potential users that the equipment is ready and available to be used. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) 15 In its comment, AHAM used the terms “Energy Factor” and “Integrated Energy Factor.” Based on the context of AHAM's comment, DOE assumes that AHAM intended to reference “Modified Energy Factor” and “Integrated Modified Energy Factor.” The Joint Commenters suggest that DOE consider establishing standards for standby and off mode operation. In their submitted comments, the Joint Commenters referenced data that DOE provided in the TSD for the March 2014 NOPR, and noted that standby energy consumption represents 7 to 44% of total annual machine energy consumption, depending on washer format and application. (Joint Commenters, No. 29 at p. 7) The Joint Commenters believe that, while machine energy comprises a fraction of the total energy consumed in the wash cycle, these data indicate that standby usage makes up a significant share of the electricity usage of CCWs. The Joint Commenters believe DOE acted without foundation in not using the IMEF metric and removing low-standby-power controls from the list of design options for consideration. (Joint Commenters, No. 29 at p. 7) DOE notes that the current energy standard established by the January 2010 final rule is based on MEF, which does not incorporate the measurement of standby and off-mode power. In order to amend the current standard in terms of IMEF, DOE would need to first translate the current standard of 1.60 MEF into an equivalent baseline IMEF level, and then establish higher efficiency levels. As part of its market assessment and engineering analysis for this rulemaking, DOE performed an in-depth evaluation of the standby and off mode power characteristics of a representative sample of CCWs spanning a wide range of display types, payment systems, and communication features. The results from DOE's testing are provided in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. Based on its evaluation (which considered the structure of CCW equipment classes), DOE determined that promulgating an amended standard based on IMEF could enable backsliding. DOE observed that manufacturers offer a variety of display and payment functionalities that can be selected independently from the basic model. The standby power associated with these different display and payment functionalities varies from 0.88 to 11.77 watts. The lowest standby power levels are associated with models having no vend price display and no coin or card payment options (often referred to as “push-to-start” models). These models are typically used in small multi-family housing facilities offering free laundry, or in other commercial applications not requiring fare payment. Such models are not suitable for coin-operated laundry or most other multi-family housing facilities. The highest standby power levels are associated with models having a digital vend price display, coin or debit card payment system, and advanced features such as dynamic or cycle-based pricing controls, built-in logging capabilities, and remote auditing features. These models are typically used in coin-operated laundries located in competitive markets. The following example demonstrates one potential backsliding scenario: DOE testing indicates that a baseline top-loading CCW model rated at 1.60 MEF would have an equivalent IMEF rating ranging from 1.34 IMEF (for a CCW with the highest observed standby power usage) to 1.53 IMEF (for a CCW with the lowest observed standby power usage). If DOE were to establish the new equivalent baseline standard level at 1.34 IMEF—which would accommodate all display and payment types—a push-to-start baseline CCW with lower standby power usage, rated at 1.53 MEF, would be able to increase its active mode energy consumption over current levels to “slide back” to the 1.34 MEF level. Alternatively, if DOE were to establish the new equivalent baseline standard level at 1.53 MEF—the level corresponding to the lowest standby power push-to-start models—manufacturers would be precluded from offering vend price displays, payment systems, or other advanced controls on new baseline CCWs. This would negatively impact consumer and end-user utility, since push-to-start models are not suitable for coin-operated laundries or most multi-family housing applications. Finally, because of the wide variations in standby power, CCWs with significantly different active mode ( i.e., MEF) ratings could have similar IMEF ratings depending on their control panel functionalities, and vice versa. This would diminish the usefulness of the IMEF metric as a means for differentiating the active mode characteristics of different CCW models. For these reasons, DOE has determined that establishing amended standards for CCWs based on IMEF would not be technically feasible. Instead, the final rule establishes amended standards based on MEF J2 , which does not incorporate standby and off mode power. 3. Water Metric In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amended water efficiency standards based on IWF as measured using appendix J2. 77 FR 12301, 12303, 12310 (Mar. 4, 2014). As defined in section 4.2.13 of appendix J2, IWF is calculated as the weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles, expressed in gallons per cycle, divided by the clothes container capacity in cubic feet. DOE believes that the IWF metric provides a more representative measure of water consumption than the WF metric, which is based on the water consumption of only the cold wash/cold rinse temperature cycle. ALS supports DOE's proposal to amend CCW water standards based on the IWF metric. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) DOE received no comments objecting to its proposal to use the IWF metric for amended water efficiency standards for CCWs. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the amended water efficiency standards established by the final rule are based on the IWF metric. D. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those options for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. (10 CFR part 430, subpt. C, app.A, § 4(a)(4)(i)) After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, app. A, sec. 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv)) Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level. Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for CCWs—in particular, the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that form the basis for the trial standard level (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for CCWs, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the CCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in 2018. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of the CCWs purchased in the 30-year period. 16 DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended efficiency standards, and considers market forces and policies that affect demand for more efficient equipment. 16 In previous rulemakings, DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has modified its presentation of national energy savings consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis. DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards for the equipment that are the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by CCWs at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the primary energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ). DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle energy savings in its energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's approach is based on calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2. 2. Significance of Savings As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered equipment unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in section V.C) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA. F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers In determining the impacts of an amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers, DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers. For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the class compared to any increase in the price of the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(a)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of the equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with amended standards. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the increase in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect. The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. In contrast, the PBP is measured relative to the baseline equipment. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are discussed in further detail in section IV.F. c. Energy Savings Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6316(a)) As discussed in section IV.H.2, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project national energy savings. d. Lessening of Utility of Equipment In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the utility of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards outlined in the final rule will not reduce the utility of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making such determination for these standards, DOE provided the Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the March 2014 NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the amended energy conservation standards for CCWs are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. 17 17 The DOJ conclusion is available as document number 31 in the docket for this rulemaking, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0020-0031 . f. Need for National Energy Conservation DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) The energy savings from the amended standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity. The amended standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from the standards, and from each TSL it considered, in section V.C.1 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section V.C.2. g. Other Factors EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) DOE did not consider any other factors for this final rule. 2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect that the energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1 of this final rule. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to CCWs. Separate subsections will address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used four analytical tools to estimate the impact of the amended standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential new energy conservation standards. The second tool includes a model that provides shipments forecasts, and a framework in a spreadsheet that calculates national energy savings and net present value resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer impacts. Additionally, DOE used a fourth analytical tool, the latest version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and emissions analyses, to estimate the impacts of energy conservation standards for CCW on air pollutant emissions and on utilities. NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. 18 EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ), a widely known energy forecast for the United States. 18 For more information on NEMS, refer to the DOE, EIA documentation. A useful summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), (October 2009) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/ ). A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Market Assessment In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE requested information on historical CCW shipments and market share efficiency data, disaggregated by equipment class, for 2012 and 2013, to supplement the data received in response to the framework document. NRDC also requested that DOE provide a breakdown of manufacturer market share within each equipment class. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 97-99) AHAM submitted revised data for 2012 and 2013, including total shipments disaggregated by equipment class, shipment-weighted average efficiency by equipment class, and market share efficiency data by equipment class. (AHAM, No. 32, pp. 4-6) AHAM did not provide a breakdown of manufacturer market shares within each equipment class as part of its data submission. Individual manufacturers did not provide such information in their individual comment submissions. DOE is unaware of any publicly available source for this information, and is therefore unable to provide a breakdown of manufacturer market shares in this final rule analysis. 2. Technology Assessment In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE presented a table of design options that it believes represents the most viable options for CCWs to achieve higher efficiencies. In response to comments received from the framework document, DOE added temperature-differentiated pricing controls to the list of technology options for consideration. As explained in the March 2014 NOPR, DOE did not have any information regarding the degree to which this feature changes the temperature selection frequencies of end-users, and therefore was not able to consider this technology for further evaluation in its engineering analysis. DOE did not receive any additional comments from interested parties regarding design options for inclusion in the final rule technology assessment. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD contains the final table of design options considered by DOE for this rulemaking analysis. B. Screening Analysis Following the development of the initial list of design options, DOE conducts a screening analysis of each design option based on the following factors: (1) Technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install and service; (3) adverse impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, app. A, sec. 4(a)(3) and (4)) As a result of its initial screening analysis, DOE proposed eliminating ozonated laundering and plastic particle cleaning from further consideration for this rulemaking. ALS supports DOE's decision to remove the following technologies from consideration: ozonated laundering and residential clothes washer design options that DOE determined would provide negligible, if any, energy savings. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) DOE received no comments objecting to its proposal to eliminate ozonated laundering and plastic particle cleaning from further consideration in this rulemaking. For the reasons discussed above, DOE eliminated these technologies accordingly in the final analysis conducted for the final rule. Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD provides further details of DOE's screening analysis. C. Engineering Analysis 1. General Approach The purpose of the engineering analysis is to characterize the relationship between the incremental manufacturing cost and efficiency improvements of CCWs. DOE used these cost-efficiency relationships as inputs to the PBP, LCC, and national energy savings (NES) analyses. As described in the March 2014 NOPR, DOE conducted the engineering analysis for this rulemaking using the efficiency-level approach supplemented with a design-option approach. Using the efficiency-level approach, DOE examined the aggregated incremental increases in manufacturer selling price at each of the efficiency levels analyzed. DOE also conducted a reverse-engineering analysis, including testing and teardowns of models at each efficiency level, to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design option combination, supplementing the efficiency-level approach with a design-option approach as needed. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD contains a detailed discussion of the engineering analysis methodology. 2. Technologies Unable To Be Included in the Analysis As described earlier, DOE investigated adding temperature-differentiated pricing controls to the list of design options for consideration. Such controls could potentially incentivize energy savings by providing favorable vend pricing for lower-temperature wash/rinse settings. DOE's market analysis confirmed that this option was available on multiple top-loading and front-loading CCW models from multiple manufacturers. However, DOE's test procedure at appendix J2 uses a fixed set of Temperature Use Factors (TUFs), which represent the assumed percentage of time an end-user would select each wash/rinse temperature ( i.e., cold, warm, hot) available on the clothes washer. (10 CFR part 430, app. J2, table 4.1.1) Because the TUFs in the test procedure are fixed, a clothes washer with temperature-differentiated pricing controls would be tested with the same weightings applied to each wash/rinse temperature selection as an identical clothes washer without temperature-differentiated pricing controls. Therefore, the energy savings of this technology cannot be measured according to the conditions and methods specified in the DOE clothes washer test procedure. Accordingly, DOE did not analyze this technology option in its NOPR analysis. ALS supports DOE's decision to remove temperature-differentiated pricing controls from further consideration. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) DOE received no comments objecting to its proposal to eliminate temperature-differentiated pricing controls from further consideration in the engineering analysis. For the reasons discussed above, DOE eliminated this technology accordingly in the final analysis conducted for the final rule. 3. Appendix J2 Efficiency Level Translations DOE proposed baseline and higher efficiency levels based on the MEF J2 and IWF metrics as measured using appendix J2. Since current equipment ratings are based on appendix J1 metrics, DOE performed testing on a representative sample of CCW models to determine, for each baseline and higher efficiency level considered in the analysis, the equivalent appendix J2 efficiency levels corresponding to each appendix J1 efficiency level. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD describes the methodology DOE used to perform the translations between appendix J1 MEF/WF values and appendix J2 MEF J2 /IWF values. 4. Baseline Efficiency Levels As stated in the March 2014 NOPR, DOE used the current energy conservation standards, which became effective January 8, 2013, to characterize the baseline models for both the top-loading and front-loading CCW equipment classes. 79 FR 12301, 12314 (Mar. 4, 2014). ALS supports DOE's proposed baseline efficiency levels for both top-loading and front-loading CCWs. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) 5. Front-Loading Higher Efficiency Levels In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed analyzing the higher efficiency levels shown in Table IV.1 for the front-loading equipment class. 79 FR 12301, 12314 (Mar. 4, 2014). Table IV.1—Front-Loading Efficiency Levels Level Efficiency level source Appendix J1 metrics MEF WF Appendix J2 metrics MEF J2 IWF Baseline DOE Standard 2.00 5.5 1.65 5.2 1 Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier 2 2.20 4.5 1.80 4.5 2 CEE Tier 3 2.40 4.0 2.00 4.1 3 Maximum Available 2.60 3.7 2.20 3.9 DOE noted in the March 2014 NOPR that it developed its list of front-loading efficiency levels based on a review of CCW equipment currently on the market. Id. DOE confirmed through its market assessment that CCWs are available for purchase at each of the identified efficiency levels. Id. As described in the March 2014 NOPR, the California IOUs had suggested that DOE include two additional front-loading efficiency levels corresponding to the top two efficiency levels considered during the most recent residential clothes washer rulemaking: 2.60 MEF/3.8 WF and 2.89 MEF/3.7 WF, as measured using appendix J1. California IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4; 79 FR 12301, 12314 (Mar. 4, 2014). DOE noted that the 2.60 MEF/3.8 WF efficiency level suggested by the California IOUs corresponds closely with the maximum level proposed by DOE of 2.60 MEF/3.7 WF. DOE further explained that it did not believe that the more stringent level of 2.89 MEF/3.7 WF would be appropriate for consideration in this CCW rulemaking because (1) no CCW models are currently available on the market at that efficiency level, and (2) some of the design options that would be required to achieve that efficiency level could negatively impact wash basket size and cycle time. Based on the results of its market and technology assessment and engineering analysis, DOE tentatively determined that the maximum available efficiency level presented in the March 2014 NOPR represented the maximum efficiency level that is technologically feasible for front-loading CCWs. 79 FR 12301, 12314 (Mar. 4, 2014). AHAM and Whirlpool support DOE's decision not to evaluate the efficiency levels considered in the residential rulemaking in the commercial rulemaking context. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 1) ALS supports DOE's proposed efficiency levels for front-loading CCWs. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) DOE received no additional comments objecting to the front-loading efficiency levels proposed for analysis in the March 2014 NOPR. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, DOE maintained these efficiency levels for the final rule analysis. 6. Top-Loading Higher Efficiency Levels In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed analyzing the higher efficiency levels shown in Table IV.2 for the top-loading equipment class. 79 FR 12301, 12315 (Mar. 4, 2014). Table IV.2—Top-Loading Efficiency Levels Level Efficiency level source Appendix J1 metrics MEF WF Appendix J2 metrics MEF J2 IWF Baseline DOE Standard 1.60 8.5 1.15 8.9 1 Gap Fill 1.70 8.4 1.35 8.8 2 Maximum Available 1.85 6.9 1.55 6.9 DOE developed its list of top-loading efficiency levels based on a review of CCW equipment currently on the market. DOE confirmed through its market assessment that CCWs are available for purchase at each of the identified efficiency levels. As described in the March 2014 NOPR, the California IOUs had suggested that DOE analyze higher efficiency levels for top-loading CCWs corresponding to the higher efficiency levels that DOE had analyzed during the most recent residential clothes washer rulemaking. 79 FR 12301, 12315 (Mar. 4, 2014). The California IOUs recommended levels ranging from 1.72MEF/8.0WF to 2.47MEF/3.6WF at the residential clothes washer max-tech level, as measured using appendix J1. (California Utilities, No. 8 at p. 4) In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE explained that it did not believe that more stringent levels above the identified max-tech level would be appropriate for consideration in this CCW rulemaking, for many of the same reasons DOE gave in the front-loading efficiency levels section. 79 FR 12315-12316. First, no CCW models were available on the market above 1.85MEF/6.9 WF, as measured using appendix J1. Second, some of the design options that would be required to achieve those higher efficiency levels, such as larger wash baskets and longer cycle times, could be perceived by the machine owners and/or end-users as negatively impacting equipment utility. Furthermore, the max-tech residential clothes washers use a circular wash plate instead of an agitator, requiring manufacturers to instruct users not to load garments directly over the center of the wash plate, so that the center of the wash plate remains visible when loaded. DOE believes these specialized loading instructions could not be effectively implemented in a commercial laundry environment such that the wash performance of the unit would be maintained. Based on the results of its market and technology assessment and engineering analysis, DOE tentatively determined that the maximum available efficiency level presented in the March 2014 NOPR represented the maximum efficiency level that is technologically feasible for top-loading CCWs. AHAM and Whirlpool support DOE's decision not to evaluate the efficiency levels considered in the residential rulemaking in the commercial rulemaking context. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 1) ALS supports DOE's proposed efficiency levels for top-loading CCWs. ALS also supports DOE's determination that the technologies, designs and operating characteristics of the maximum efficiency top-loading residential clothes washers are not transferrable to CCWs. (ALS, No. 26 at pp. 2-3) The California IOUs recommend that DOE evaluate one additional efficiency level for top-loaders, which would utilize the same design features from Efficiency Level 1 (EL1), in addition to improved motor efficiency. (California IOUs, No. 27 at p. 4) Similarly, the Joint Commenters stated that if DOE determines that adopting Efficiency Level 2 (EL2) for top-loaders is not justified, DOE should consider an intermediate level between EL1 and EL2, based on the current CCWs available on the market. (Joint Commenters, No. 29 at p. 5) DOE investigated the feasibility of analyzing one additional top-loading efficiency level between EL1 (1.70 MEF/1.35 MEF J2 ) and EL2 (1.85 MEF/1.55 MEF J2 ) by considering improved motor efficiency. As shown in chapter 7 of the final rule TSD, DOE determined that the typical top-loading CCW at EL1 uses 0.21 kWh/cycle of machine electrical energy, whereas the typical top-loading CCW at EL2 uses 0.10 kWh/cycle of machine electrical energy. DOE performed testing and teardowns on a range of top-loading CCWs that are built using the same platform construction as the typical EL1 clothes washer. Across the range of models tested, machine electrical energy usage varied from 0.18 to 0.22 kWh/cycle. DOE did not identify any commercially available motors with lower energy usage ( i.e. higher-efficiency) that are designed for use in this platform style. At EL1, reducing machine electrical energy usage from 0.22 to 0.18 kWh/cycle would increase MEF J2 from 1.35 to 1.37. DOE does not consider this magnitude of improvement to be significant enough to warrant an added efficiency between EL1 and EL2. DOE did not identify any other incremental improvements that could be made to the EL1 equipment platform, either independently or in combination with a more efficient motor design, to similarly boost its efficiency without requiring a major design overhaul. As discussed in greater detail in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE research suggests that improving efficiency beyond EL1 requires a significant overhaul to the design platform of a top-loading CCW. In other words, the overall system design on which the baseline unit is built can be incrementally improved (while maintaining adequate performance for the end-user) up until EL1, but at that level, the equipment platform is “maxed out,” and further improvements require a significant overhaul of the entire design. Because the overall designs are so significantly different, components from the higher-efficiency platform are not interchangeable with components from the lower-efficiency platform. DOE observed a similar shift in platforms with top-loading residential clothes washers between 1.72 MEF and 1.80 MEF, 19 which DOE notes is roughly the same efficiency level transition observed for top-loading CCWs. 19 See chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying the residential clothes washer direct final rule (May 31, 2012, 77 FR 32319), docket number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 . For these reasons, DOE has determined that further improving the EL1 equipment platform using low-cost design options and different motors would not be technologically feasible. Therefore, for the final rule analysis, DOE maintained the top-loading efficiency levels as proposed in the March 2014 NOPR. 7. Impacts on Cleaning Performance and Cycle Time DOE conducted performance testing to quantitatively evaluate potential impacts on cleaning performance, rinsing performance, and solid particle removal as a result of higher standard levels. As described in greater detail in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE tested a representative sample of CCWs at each efficiency level using AHAM's HLW-1-2010 test procedure. Specifically, DOE performed the soil/stain removal, rinsing effectiveness, and sand removal tests provided in HLW-1-2010. For each clothes washer, DOE tested the maximum load size specified in appendix J2, rounded to the nearest pound, using the warm wash/cold rinse cycle. Manufacturers indicated that the maximum load size is particularly relevant to CCW owners and operators because end-users often overload the machines in order to limit their total laundry cost. DOE notes that the warm wash/cold rinse temperature selection has the highest usage factor in appendix J2. The test results indicate that units meeting the proposed new standard levels are capable of providing washing performance, rinsing performance, and solid particle removal results equivalent to current baseline equipment. As discussed in the March 2014 NOPR, DOE consulted with a number of manufacturers who indicated that AHAM HLW-1-2010 would be the most appropriate test method to determine relative cleaning performance across different CCW models. DOE recognizes that AHAM HLW-1-2010 is typically used to measure the performance of residential clothes washers, but given the similarities in physical construction, DOE believes the test procedure is appropriate for CCWs. DOE also acknowledges that the CCW industry has not agreed upon acceptable ranges of performance characteristics; therefore, DOE's test results should be used for relative comparison purposes only. AHAM stated that in addition to soil and stain removal, rinsing effectiveness, and sand removal, DOE should evaluate fabric care by performing the mechanical action test in HLW-1-2010. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 4) AHAM explained that longevity of clothing is an important performance measure that could potentially be impacted by more stringent efficiency/water levels. Id. AHAM also responded to DOE's discussion in the March 2014 NOPR TSD, in which DOE indicated that it believes that using less wash water in high-efficiency models increases the concentration of detergent during the wash portion of the cycle, thus enhancing stain removal and leading to higher efficiency top-loading CCWs achieving better total cleaning scores. (March 2014 NOPR TSD, chapter 5, pp. 21-22) AHAM noted that it is not necessarily true that a higher concentration of detergent will result in better cleaning performance. AHAM explained that more detergent can actually result in worse performance, particularly if the consumer does not use the proper detergent. In addition, AHAM claimed that higher detergent concentrations are harder to remove, which can result in residual detergent and the gradual greying of the cloth over time. AHAM added that some of the detergent chemicals that can remain in clothes can build up and gradually break down fabric. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 4) Finally, AHAM requested that DOE further address the front-loading test results that indicated a general trend of higher efficiency levels resulting in reduced cleaning performance scores. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 4-5) ALS supports AHAM's comments regarding consumer utility and performance. (ALS, No. 26 at p. 2) ALS stated that the standards proposed in the March 2014 NOPR would not result in further lessening of utility and performance beyond the CCW equipment offerings. (ALS, No. 26 at pp. 2, 4) However, ALS also claims that more stringent CCW standards would result in a reduction of hot water consumption and total water consumption. ALS further commented that it takes four elements (thermal energy, mechanical energy, chemical energy and adequate time) to properly clean clothes to meet consumer expectations, and when thermal energy is depleted or nearly-depleted from the mix, the performance suffers. ALS added that thermal energy cannot be replaced by the remaining three elements. (ALS, No. 26 at pp. 2-3) NRDC requests that DOE make available the actual integers that were the result of the cycle time tests, since the cycle time results were displayed graphically in the March 2014 NOPR. NRDC also requests that DOE elaborate on why it viewed the cycle time of one of the top-loading units as an outlier. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 133-134) DOE recognizes that mechanical action is an important performance measure that could be impacted by higher efficiency standards. For example, if higher efficiency standards require lower hot water temperatures to be used ( i.e. less thermal energy), the clothes washer may need to “compensate” for this by increasing the amount of mechanical agitation performed on the clothing ( i.e. more mechanical energy). Based on interviews with manufacturers, and comments from interested parties described above, DOE believes that the amended standards established by the final rule will not have a detrimental impact on mechanical action performance levels or limit selection beyond CCWs currently available on the market. As described in further detail in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE's test results indicate that a front-loading CCW at the amended standard level (EL2, 2.00 MEF J2 ) can provide the same cleaning performance as CCWs available at EL1 (1.80 MEF J2 ). Within the sample of CCWs that DOE tested, the results at EL3 (2.20 MEF J2 ) demonstrated lower (worse) cleaning performance than the best equipment available at EL1 and EL2. At this point in time, DOE test results are unable to demonstrate that CCWs reaching the amended standard level at EL3 could provide equivalent cleaning performance to CCWs available at EL1. However, DOE notes that the current max-tech cleaning performance levels could improve as front-loading CCW technology continues to evolve and improve. Due to the small number of manufacturers of CCWs, equipment offerings, and the number of units tested, DOE does not provide the numerical values associated with the performance tests presented in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE stated the top-loading cycle times for the maximum load size ranged from 29 to 31 minutes, with an average of 30 minutes, which excluded one outlier top-loading model with a cycle time of 50 minutes. 77 FR 12301, 12309. Based on conversations with CCW manufacturers, DOE believes that a cycle time range of 30 to 35 minutes is within the typical range of acceptable cycle times for coin-operated laundry owners and multi-family housing laundry operators. DOE confirms its prior conclusion that CCW units meeting the amended standard levels established by the final rule are capable of providing equivalent consumer-relevant performance as compared to current baseline equipment. D. Markups Analysis The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the estimates of manufacturer selling price derived in the engineering analysis to customer prices. (“Customer” refers to purchasers of the equipment being regulated.) DOE calculates overall baseline and incremental markups based on the equipment markups at each step in the distribution chain. The incremental markup relates the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher efficiency models (the incremental cost increase) to the change in the customer price. For the three key CCW market segments—laundromats, private multi-family housing, and large institutions—data indicate that an overwhelming majority of CCWs are sold through either distributors or route operators. For this final rule, DOE used the same distribution channels as in the January 2010 final rule (10 CFR 431.152): Manufacturer to distributor to owner/lessee, and manufacturer to route operator to owner/lessee. For purposes of developing the markups for CCWs, DOE estimated that the markups and the resulting consumer products prices determined for the distribution channel involving distributors would be representative of the prices paid by customers acquiring their equipment from route operators. DOE based the distributor markups for CCWs on financial data for the sector Machinery, Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers from the 2007 U.S. Census Business Expenses Survey (BES), which is the most recent available survey. 20 This sector includes the subsector Laundry Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies, Commercial, Merchant Wholesalers, which specifically sells CCWs. DOE calculated overall baseline and incremental markups based on the equipment markups at the intermediate step in the distribution chain. The incremental markup relates the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher efficiency models (the incremental cost increase) to the change in the customer price. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides further detail on the estimation of markups. 20 U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, Business Expenses Survey, Wholesale Trade, Machinery, Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, 2007, available at http://www.census.gov/econ/ (last accessed November 30, 2014). E. Energy and Water Use Analysis The energy and water use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy and water consumption of CCW units at the considered efficiency levels. DOE uses these values in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the NIA. DOE developed energy and water consumption estimates for all equipment classes analyzed in the engineering analysis. The analysis seeks to capture the range of CCW use in the field. The DOE test procedure uses a single value for number of cycles, which is based on residential use. For the energy and water use analysis, DOE established an appropriate range of usage specific to CCWs in the field. Because the predominant applications of CCWs are in multi-family buildings and laundromats, DOE focused on these two building applications to determine appropriate values for number of CCW cycles per year. DOE acknowledges that the “other commercial applications” category in the statutory definition would include applications other than coin-operated laundry and multi-family housing laundry. However, DOE is not aware of any data indicating the prevalence of CCWs in other applications, such as on-premise laundries or in the hospitality industry. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of any data indicating how the usage patterns of such equipment would compare to the usage patterns of coin-operated and multi-housing laundries. Therefore, DOE has no information on which to base a separate analysis for “other commercial applications.” Further, discussions with manufacturers have supported DOE's understanding that applications other than coin-operated laundries and multi-family housing laundries constitute a small minority of installations of covered CCWs. For these reasons, DOE's analysis for this final rule focuses on the coin-operated laundry and multi-housing laundry applications, which represent the large majority of CCW usage. DOE included all available studies on CCW usage to establish representative usage. For the final rule analysis, DOE relied on several research studies to arrive at a range of annual use cycles. DOE found that the average number of cycles for multi-family and laundromat applications were 1,074 and 1,483, respectively. DOE received this data from many entities, including the Multi-Housing Laundry Association (MLA), Coin Laundry Association (CLA), Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric. Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD describes the sources DOE received from these entities in detail. 21 21 DOE did not rely on the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) conducted by DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) because energy and water consumption is not specified for buildings identified with laundry facilities in the CBECS dataset. To determine the energy and water use per cycle, DOE used the new appendix J2 test procedure, as described in the paragraphs that follow. 77 FR 13887 (Mar. 7, 2012). DOE determined the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles based on test data performed using the appendix J2 test procedure. The energy use analysis for the final rule consists of three related parts—the machine energy use, the dryer energy use and the water heating energy use. DOE determined the per-cycle machine energy use based on test data performed using the appendix J2 test procedure. The units selected for tests across efficiency levels varied in tub volume, so DOE adjusted the annual number of cycles to maintain consistent loading across all tub volumes. In their comments, the California IOUs asked why DOE assumed, in the case of max-tech front-loading washers, that only 50 percent of consumers would fill the tub to capacity instead of assuming that customers would self-select an appropriately sized washer in a laundromat and fill the washer to capacity. (CA IOU, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30, at pp. 84-87) DOE based this assumption on the theory that if the standard were to require max-tech front-loading washers, units with large tub volume would be more common (or be the only option), so consumers would not fill the tub to capacity in many cases. DOE determined the per-cycle clothes drying energy use by using the remaining moisture content (RMC) values for each efficiency level as measured using the appendix J2 test procedure. The energy required to remove moisture from clothes, i.e., the dryer energy, represents the estimated energy that would be required to dry the clothing in a clothes dryer after completion of the wash cycle. DOE includes this as one of the factors in the MEF equation as a way to give “credit” to clothes washers with more effective final spin sequences, which results in less drying time required in the clothes dryer. The estimated drying energy is a significant component of total clothes washer energy consumption. DOE's current approach for quantifying reduction in dryer energy use from an increase in CCW efficiency is based on the drying energy equation in appendix J2, which reflects residential clothes washer and dryer usage patterns. DOE acknowledges that operating conditions for commercial dryers may differ from the conditions of residential dryers, but DOE did not find any data to support changing the dryer energy use calculation. See chapter 7 and appendix 7-A of the final rule TSD for discussion. DOE determined the per-cycle water-heating energy use by first determining the total per-cycle energy use (the clothes container volume divided by the MEF J2 ) and then subtracting from it the per-cycle clothes-drying and machine energy. F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis In determining whether an energy efficiency standard is economically justified, DOE considers the economic impact of potential standards on customers. The effect of new or amended standards on customers usually includes a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. The LCC is the total customer expense over the life of the equipment, consisting of equipment and installation costs plus operating costs over the lifetime of the equipment (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase using customer discount rates. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes customers to recover the increased total installed cost (including equipment and installation costs) of a more efficient type of equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in total installed cost due to a standard by the change in annual operating cost that results from the standard. DOE typically develops a customer sample for determining PBPs and LCC impacts. However, because EIA's Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) does not provide the necessary data to develop a customer sample for CCWs, DOE established the variability in energy and water use by defining the variability in the use by consumers (cycles per day) of the equipment. DOE characterized the variability in energy and water pricing by randomly assigning CCWs to regions with different energy and water prices. DOE expresses the LCC and PBP results as the number of units experiencing economic impacts of different magnitudes. DOE models both the uncertainty and the variability in the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. 22 As a result, the LCC and PBP results are displayed as distributions of impacts compared to the base case, which reflects the market in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, including the purchase of equipment that exceeds the current energy conservation standards. 22 The Monte Carlo process statistically captures input variability and distribution without testing all possible input combinations. Therefore, while some atypical situations may not be captured in the analysis, DOE believes the analysis captures an adequate range of situations in which CCWs operate. DOE conducted LCC and PBP analysis separately for two applications in each of the equipment classes: (1) Laundromats and (2) multi-family buildings. These applications have different usage characteristics. Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the total installed cost and (2) inputs for calculating the operating costs. The following sections contain comments on the inputs and key assumptions of DOE's LCC and PBP analysis and explain how DOE took these comments into consideration. 1. Equipment Costs To calculate the equipment prices faced by CCW purchasers, DOE multiplied the manufacturing costs developed from the engineering analysis by the supply chain markups it developed (along with sales taxes). For the March 2014 NOPR (79 FR 12301), to project future CCW prices, DOE examined the commercial laundry and dry-cleaning machinery Producer Price Index (PPI) between 1993 and 2013. This index, adjusted for inflation, shows a rising trend. However, the inflation adjusted trend for household laundry equipment (which more closely matches CCW units because this rulemaking includes mostly residential-style CCW units and excludes the larger commercial laundry equipment) shows a long-term declining trend (see appendix 10-D of the final rule TSD). Given the uncertainty, DOE decided to take a conservative approach and used a constant price for the default case for CCW units. In response to DOE's approach in the March 2014 NOPR, AHAM commented that DOE should not rely on experience curves for the same reasons that it expressed in comments for the microwave oven rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 5) DOE did not use experience curves for the March 2014 NOPR. For the final rule, it retained the approach used for the March 2014 NOPR. For the NIA, DOE also analyzed the sensitivity of results to alternative price forecasts. (See section IV.H) In the previous CCW rulemaking (10 CFR 431.152), DOE based the LCC analysis on the assumption that any increase in the cost of a more efficient unit that is leased gets passed on to the building owners through the contracting arrangements between route operators and building owners. The assumption that any increase in the cost of a more efficient unit that is leased gets passed on is consistent with what one would expect in a competitive business environment. To the extent that costs are not passed on, the LCC savings for building owners from higher-efficiency CCWs would be larger than indicated in the final rule. 2. Installation Costs Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. For the final rule, DOE used data from the 2013 RS Means Mechanical Cost Data 23 on labor requirements to estimate installation costs for CCWs. DOE estimated that installation costs do not increase with equipment efficiency. ALS suggests including the cost of concrete risers in place of metal risers for front-loading units as a more recent trend in laundromats. (ALS, No. 26, at p. 7) However, since DOE does not have estimates on the cost of these concrete risers, the installation costs do not include it. Furthermore, since the cost of the risers would be common to the baseline unit as well as more efficient units, its exclusion does not have any impact on the cost-effectiveness calculation. 23 RS Means, RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 36st Annual Edition. 2013. 3. Unit Energy Consumption The calculation of annual per-unit energy consumption at each considered efficiency level is described in section IV.E. 4. Energy and Water Prices DOE used commercial sector energy and water prices for both multi-family and laundromat applications. DOE assumes that common area laundry facilities are mainly found in large multi-family buildings that receive commercial energy and water rates. a. Energy Prices DOE derived average electricity and natural gas prices for 27 geographic areas. DOE estimated commercial electricity prices for each of the 27 areas based on 2012 data from EIA Form 861, Annual Electric Power Industry Report. 24 DOE first estimated an average commercial price for each utility, and then calculated an average price for each area by weighting each utility with customers in an area by the number of commercial customers served in that area. 24 2012 EIA Form 861, Annual Electric Power Industry Report, available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/(last visited Nov. 20, 2014). DOE estimated average commercial natural gas prices in each of the 27 geographic areas based on 2012 data from the EIA publication Natural Gas Monthly. 25 DOE calculated an average natural gas price for each area by first calculating the average prices for each State, and then calculating a regional price by weighting each State in a region by its population. 25 EIA, Natural Gas Monthly 2012 Report, available at http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/monthly/(last visited Nov. 20, 2014). To estimate the trends in electricity and natural gas prices, DOE used price forecasts in AEO 2014. 26 To arrive at prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average prices described above by the forecast of annual average changes in national-average commercial electricity and natural gas prices. Because the AEO forecasts prices only to 2040, DOE used the average rate of change between 2025 and 2040 to estimate the price trends beyond 2040. 26 DOE-EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040 (available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ ). The spreadsheet tools used to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis allow users to select either the AEO's high-growth case or low-growth case price forecasts to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP to different energy price forecasts. b. Water and Wastewater Prices DOE obtained commercial water and wastewater price data from the Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants (RFC) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA). 27 The survey covers approximately 290 water utilities and 214 wastewater utilities from 44 States and the District of Columbia, with water and wastewater utilities analyzed separately. The samples that DOE obtained of the water and wastewater utilities are not large enough to calculate regional prices for the group of states. Hence, DOE calculated average values at the Census region level (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) by weighting each State in a region by its population. 27 Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. 2012 RFC/AWWA Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, available at http://www.awwa.org/portals/0/files/publications/documents/samples/2012waterandwastewaterratesurvey.pdf. To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE used data on the historic trend in the national water price index (U.S. city average) provided by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 28 adjusted for inflation. In keeping with prior practice, DOE extrapolated a future trend based on the linear growth from 1970 to 2012. However, DOE did not use a linear fit after 2012 because doing so would have resulted in a price decline in the near-term. This does not seem plausible because historically, water prices have not declined in the country. Therefore, rather than use the extrapolated trend to forecast the near-term trend after 2012, DOE pinned the annual price to the value in 2012 until 2020. Beyond 2020, DOE used the extrapolated trend to forecast prices. 28 U.S. Department of Labor—Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Indexes, Item: Water and sewerage maintenance, Series Id: CUUR0000SEHG01, U.S. city average (not seasonally adjusted), 2013. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data 5. Repair and Maintenance Costs Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed in the appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. For the March 2014 NOPR (79 FR 12301), DOE included increased repair costs for higher efficiency CCWs based on an algorithm developed by DOE for central air conditioners and heat pumps. This algorithm calculates annualized repair and maintenance costs by dividing half of the equipment retail price over the equipment lifetime. (See Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for details). 29 DOE requested industry input to estimate changes in repair and maintenance costs associated with an increase in efficiency of CCW units. ALS stated that their experience under the 3-year warranty period shows that front-loading washers cost 27 percent more to repair than top-loading units. (ALS, No. 26, at p.4) Since the potential increase in repair cost is in comparison to top-loading units rather than to more-efficient units in each equipment class, and DOE did not receive new input from other manufacturers specific to repair and maintenance costs, it continued [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-29197. Public record. Not legal advice.