### 55FR42845

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 42845

TABLE I-Continued

Variety Regulation period

tt t Minimum grade Minimum diameter (inches)

(2) (3) (4) On and after 10/21/31 ............................................... Improved No. 2 (External) U.S. No. 1 (Internal).......:............ 3-9/16

Tangennes .... 11/05/90-08/ 16/91 . ................... ..... U.S.No.1.................................................................._............... 2-4/IS

k On and after 08/19 /91 ..........................................:.... U.S . No. 1................................................................................... 2-o/1S

Dated: October 19, 1900.
Robert C

. Keeney, Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 90-25141 Filed 10-23-90; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 3410-02-M



### Rural Electrification Administration

7 CFR Parts 1744, 1751 , 1773, end 1789

Electric and Telephone Programs, Redesignation of Regulations; Correction

AGENCY: Rural Electrification Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Correction to final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) hereby corrects minor typographical errors in a final rule published September 27, 1990, at 55 FR 39393 to redesignate certain Agency regulations as part of a project to simplify, clarify, and update REA regulations. None of the published errors affects the substance of any regulation. One of the errors is in the Distribution Table in the preamble to the published regulation; the other two are in the headings of regulations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COA8TAC1 Mr. Blaine D. Stockton, Jr., Assistant Administrator-Management, Rural Electrification Administration, L.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1500, telephone number [202) 382-X9552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION In document 90-22901 beginning on page 39393 in the issue of Thursday September 27, 1990, REA makes the following corrections: 1. On page 39394 in the second column, at the end of the Distribution Table, the following entry is added: Old part or section near part or section

4 4 . . 

### 1789
PART 1744-[CORRECTEDI 1773

2. On page 39396, in the second column, in the heading for part 1744, the words "POST LOAN" should read "POST-LOAN".

PART 1751 -[ CORRECTED]
3. On page 39397, in the third column. in the heading for part 1751, the word "PROCEDURE" should read "PROCEDURES". Dated: October 16, 1990. Gary C. Byrne, - Administrator,
[FR Doc. 90-25142 Filed 10-23-90; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 3410-15-M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY



### Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. CE-AIM-87-102]

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products : Energy Conservation Standards for Two Types of Consumer Products; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION Final rule. Notice of correction.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is correcting errors in the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers found in 10 CFR part 430, g 430.32a. These standards appeared in the Federal Register on November 17, 1989 (54 FR 47916).

EFFECTIVE DATE : January 1, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Adams, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station CE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-9127. Eugene Margolis, Esq.. U.S. Department of Energy, Office Of General Counsel,Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC12, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-9507. U.S. Department of Energy, CE-43.1, Docket No..,CE-RM-87-102, Forrestal Building, Room 6B-025,1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-9320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion IT. Environmental Review III. Regulatory Impact, Federalism and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews
1. Discussion DOE proposed energy conservation standards for ten classes of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (hereafter referred to as refrigerators) in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Proposed Rule) on December 2, 1988 (53 FR 48798). DOE promulgated final standards for the ten classes on November 17, 1939. (Final Rule) (54 FR 47916). These standards take effect January 1, 1993. The Proposed Rule was developed. based on detailed engineering and economic analyses. The engineering analysis was based on adding energy conserving design options to baseline units in each of the respective classes in order of increasing consumer paybacks. The design option with the fastest payback was added first, then the option with the second fastest payback. continuing in this manner until all the options were added that are technologically feasible. A discussion of the engineering analysis and the design options used in the Proposed Rule is found in the Proposed Rule's "Engineering Analysis of Design Options." See Technical Support Document, DOE/CE-0239, November 1988, chapter 3. (Hereafter referred to as the 1988 Technical Support Document.) In performing the engineering analysis, the Department used a 

## 55FR42845

Federal Register 

## I VoL 55, No. 206 

## I Wednesday,**O~tober** 

### 24, 1990 

## I**~ules** 

### and Regulations 42845 

## '"

TABLE 

### I-Continued

Variety Regulation period Minimum grade Minim!Jm diameter (inches)

(1)

.**~ ~**  (4) 3-9/16 On and after 10/21/91..

.......................................:

..... Improved No.2 (Extemal) U.S. No. 1**{In~emal)** .......;

............ 

# . . 

# . Tangerines
Dancy .............................•..........................:

.....

### b~~~~92;~~~~~~9;.::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::**:::::::::: .~:~:** **~~: ~:::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**  2-4/15 2-6/16

Dated: October 19, 1990. 'Robert C. Keeney. DeputyDirector. Fruit and Vegetable' Dh'lSion.

[FR Doc. 90-25141 Filed 10-23-90; 6:45 am]

BIlliNG CODE 341()-{)2-M

Rural Electrification Administration·

7 CFR Parts 1744, 1751, 1713, and 1789

Electric and Telephone Program'S, 

### Redesignation of Regulations; Correction

AGEI\lCY: 

### Rural Electrification Administration. USDA.

ACTION: 

### Gorrection to final rule.

SUMMARY: 

### The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) 

### hereby corrects minor typographical errors in a final rule published September 27. 1990, at 55 FR 39393 to redesignate certain Agency regulations as part ofa project to simplify. clarify, and update REA regulations. None of the published errors affects the substance of any regulation. One of the errors is in the Distribution Table in the preamble to the published regulation; the other two are in

### the headings 

# of regulations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COIrrACT: 

## Mr. Blaine D.Stockton, Jr., Assistant Administrator-Management, Rural Electrification Administration, U.S. 

### Department ofAgriculture. Wa:shington, DC 20250-1500, telephone number (202) 3B2-9552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### In document 90-22901 beginning on page 39393 in the issue ofThursday September 27, 1990, REA makes the following corrections:

1. On page 39394 in the second column, at the end of the Distribution Table. the fonowing entry is added: Oldparlor section New pari or section

1769 1773

PART 1744-[CORRECTED]



### 2. On page 39396. in the second column. in the heading for part 1744. the words "POST LOAN" should read "POST-LOAN".

·PART 1751-[CORRECTED]

3. 

### On page 39397, in the third colunm. in the heading for part 1751, the word "PROCEDURE" should read "PROCEDURES".

Dated: 

### October 16,1990. 

### Gary C. Byrne. Administrator.

. [FR Doc. 96-25142 Filed 10-23-90: 6:45 amj

BILl.lNG CODE 3410-15-M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office 

### of Conservation 

### and Renewable Energy



### 10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. CE-AM-87-102]
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards 

### for Two Types of Consumer Products;

. Correction

AGENCY: 

### Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: 

### Final rule. Notice of correction.

SUMMARY: 

### The Department ofEnergy (Department or DOE) is correcting errors in the energy conservation standards for refrigerators. refrigerator-freezers. and

_ freezers found in 10 CFR part 430, §

### 430.32a. These standards appeared in the Federal Register on November 17. 1989 (54 FR 47916).

EFFECTIVE DATE: 

### January 1,1993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT: 

### Carl Adams, U.S. Department ofEnergy.

Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy. Forrestal Building, Mail 

### Station CE--43. 1000 

### Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20535 (202) 586-9127. Eugene Margolis, Esq

.. U.S. 

### Department

ofEnergy, Office 

## of General Counsel. Forrestal Building. Mail 

### Station GC12. 1000 Independence Avenue SW

.. Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-9507. U.S. Department ofEnergy, CE-43.1,

Docket No."CE-RM-87-102. Forrestal Building. Room**6B-02~,** 

### 1000 Independence Avenue SW.• Washington, DC 20585 (202) 

### 58C>-9320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion II. Environmental Review 

## m. Regulatory impact. Federalism and Regulatory Flexibility Revie¥:s
I. 

### Discussion

DOE proposed energy conservation standards for ten classes of refrigerators. refrigerator:freezers. and freezers (hereafter referred to 

### as refrigerators) in a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (Proposed Rule) on December 2, 

### 19B8 (53 FR 48798). DOE promulgated final standards for the ten classes on November 17, 1989. (Final Rule) (54 

### FR 47916). These standards take effect January 1, 1993.

The Proposed Rule was developed. based on detailed engineering and economic analyses. The engineering analysis was based on adding energy conserving design options to baseline units in each of the respective classes in order of increasing consumer paybacks, The design option with the fastest payback was added first. then the option with the second fastest payback. continuing in this manner until all the options were added, that are technologically feasible. A discussio? of the engineering analysis and the desIgn

.options used in the Proposed Rule is 

### found in the Proposed Rule's "Engineering Analysis of Design Options." See Technical Support Document, DOE/CE-Q239, November 1988. chapter 3. (Hereafter referred to as the 198B Technical Support Document.)

In performing the engineering analysis, the Department used a

## 55FR42845

42846 Federal Register I 

### Vol. 55, No. 206 / 

### Wednesday, October 24, 

### 1990 / Rules and Regulations

computer model developed under contract to DOE by Arthur I. Little, Inc. (ADL). The ADL model is used to predict the energy consumption of a refrigerator, refigerator-freezer or freezer, calculated from its design characteristics. The model -produces an equation that contains a constant number and a variable number. The constant is an indicator of the direct energy used for fan motors and heaters and compressor -energy used -to remove the internally generated heat from fan motors and heaaters. The variable number: calculates the energy needed to maintain the interior temperatures specified by the DOE test procedures. The energy needed depends upon :thebeat leakGge into the cabinet, which is a function of the volume of the fresh food and freezer compartments.. Therefore, this number will vary for different size equipment within a given class. A more detailed description of the model is provided in chapter and appendix A of the 1988 Technical Support Document. To run the ADL -model requires detailed information cu the cabinet dimensions insulation levels. compressor performance, heat exchanger. effectiveness,-and -auxiliary electrical eqr ipment for different size equipment. When The Proposed Rule

was issued, DOE had sufficient.data'for only three classes ofrefrigeration products: j1) Refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost -with top-mounted freezer Without through-the-door iceservice; (Z) refrigerator-freezerseutomatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through=the-door ice service; and (-3) upright freezers with nianual defrost, To predict the energy consumption of these three classes as a function of thevolume of the fresh fond and feezer compai<tments, the API, model was used to provide the relationship between energy consumption and adjusted volume modeling products of different capacity hut otherwise identical characteristics. The results of these calculations are regression equations dependent upon the eharacterisxics, e g... compressor efficiency, insulation efficiency chosen for each model. For The seven-remaining classes of refrigeration products-4i) Refrigerators and refr igerator

-freezers with marrual defrost; (2).refrigerator:freezers with partial automatic defrost (3) refrigerator-freezers-automatic :defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service !(4) refrigerator-freezers=automatic def ost with top-mounted freezer with throughthe-door ice service j59 refrigeratorfreezers-auutematic<defrost wit-h sidemountedfreezer with t_hrongh-The-door ice service; ((l) upright freezers with automatic-defrost;-and 17)-cheat freezers and all other freezers-the engineering analysis used a combination-of manufacturers'-estimates of energy use and extrapolation of simulation results from the ADL model for the -three previous classes to predict energy use for the various design options for the seven :classes. Relationships were developed between energy use and -adjusted volume for the three classes simulated by -the -ADL model, as previously discussed. The relationships between energy use and adjusted volume for the remaining seven classes were :obtained by adjusting the regression equation. 

### The Department -then ana'lyzed:a range of potential-standard levels to determine The economicjmpact of each potential standard. In the comment period, DOE received sufficient data concerning four additional classes of refrigeration products-(1) Refrigerator-freezer-- partial :automatic .defrost; (2) refrigerator=freezers--automatic defrostwith top-mounted freezer with throughthe-door ice service; (3) refrigeratorfreezers-automatic•defrost with -sidemounted freezer with through-the-door. ice service; and (4) upright freezers with automatic defrost-to allow the use of the ADL model for'these four,ciasses.. DOE thus used the ADL model for seven :classes for The Final Rule, the three initial classes-and the four for which sufficient data were received. For the remaining three -classes of refrigeration products-fl) refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manualdefrost; (2) refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without. through=the-door ice service; and (3) chest freezers and all other freezers-DOE still did not have sufficient data to use the At?L model. Thus, fallowing the close of the comment period, a microcomputer spreadsheet version of the ADL model was developed which required less complete-data -than the full ADL,model but more than data than DOE had available for the Proposed Rule. DOE had-on?y enough additional data to run the spreadsheet-model -a.t certainsizes in each of the three classes, but-not-all sizes in ,those-classes. For example, for manual defrost refrigerators -and refrigerator freezers, DOE ran The spreadsheet model-at a.size .of 17-ctihic feet -and then extended this result to -cover all sizes for capacities of .less than 39 cubic feet. In late 1989, after publication of the Final Rule, 110E staff p`ltitted the standards in :preparation for delivery of a technical paper-on refrigerator design options at the American Society ofHeating, Refrigerating-and AirConditioning Engineers winter 1989- 1990 meeting. This analysis of the 1993 standard levels showed that for certain .sizes of units in each of the three classes affected by this Notice, the 1993 standard level, compared to the 1990 standard level, resulted insignificantly greater reduction in maximum allowable energy use than for other sizes. For smaller sizes of manual defrost refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, for example, the standard required a reduction in maximum energy use of - approximately sixty percent as contrasted with a decrease on the order of twenty=five percent for most of the models in the other seven classes.' Further, :the Department concluded that the standard level-of the :Final Rule cannot be engineered based on the design options identified. In fact, if retained, there is the risk that this standard would eliminate from the market compact manual defrost refrigerator-freezers and result in the increased sale of more consumptivecompact automatic defrost refrigeratorfreezers. Based upon comments on the Proposed Rule, DOE changed the design options considered in the engineering analysis. These changes included recognizing-an energy use inefficiency -or "penalty" for chlorofluorocarbon substitution and less efficient compressors. DOE-also-added a design option, thicker insulation, which resulted in a more -efficient unit.This new combination: of. designs should have resulted in the Final Rule's max tcch" level being more energy consumptive than that-of the Proposed Rule, However,, when these design .optio 

### were used in the microcomputer . spreadsheet version of the ADL_model, the-analysis resulted in-more stringent levels, i.e.,-allowing Tess energy consumption. Based -upon thi -review, DOE staff concluded that the engineering analysis was in error'for this class and recommended that action be taken to correct the :standard level=

Expressed differently, this standard is more str-ingertt by.one-third than the maximum technologically feasible level ("max tech'}) in the Proposed Rule. to the Final Rule, the "max tech" level is twice as stringent as-that in the Proposed Rule. -ln 1990, subsequent to D.OEgta t identification of this problem,:representatives+of-rafrigerator manufacturers and of the Association of home Applicance Manufacturers informally-approached DOE with their concerns regarding the stringency of the standards for-compact -manual-defrost refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and automatic dtafrost refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted •Caatinaett 

## 55FR42845

42846 Federal Register 

### j Vol. 55, No

.. 206 

## 1 Wednesday. October 24, 1990 

## I Rules 

### and Regulations ".2.IZ 1M2**~~....".** is:, c--
computer model developed under
contract io 

### DORbyArthur D.

### Little, Inc. 

### {ABL}. The 

### ADL model is used to 

### predict the energy consumption of

### a refrigerator,**re:frigeratGr~freezer** o.r**.freez~r,** .caloulated

. from Its design /iharacteristics.

The model·produces ·an equation that contains a 'constant number and a variable number. The constant 

### is' an L'ldicator of the direct energy used for fan motors and heaters and compressor**e!l~rgy** tlsed ·to remove**th~** internaHy generated heat from 

### fan motors and 

### hea·ters.. The variahle number;calcula:tes the energy needed to maintain**t1~e** interior tempel'atures specIfied by the DOEtestprocedures.. 'The energy needed depends upon thebeatleakqge inio tbecablnet.whichisa function df the v01ume·0.finefresh food and freezer compartments.Therefore. this number' wiHvary'for different 

### size equipment wIthin

### a givendass. 

### A more detailed description 'ofthe:modeloisprovided 

### in ' chapter

### a'and appendix 

### A 

### 1)fthet988 TechnicalSupportDocument.

Tomn the.ADL·model reql'l:ires detaileainfurmaliion

### oou the ,cabinet dimensions, ins:ulationlev.els" compressorperformance. heat' exchanger.effectiveness,.and'auxiliary electricai'equipmBl'lt fordifferent size equipment.Wilenthe Proposed Rule



### was issued. DOE had sufficient .data

### 'tor only three classes ofrefrigeration products: {1} Refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost

### wHit top·mounted freezer witho'\1't tmough-th'e-doorice service; feZ)**Tefrigerator-freezer~** automatic

### defrost with Side-mounted freezer

### wit'h(!mt thrOl:\gh-the-door ice serVice; and 

### fa) upright freezers WItb manua1 defrost.

Topredict the energyconStlrnp'fhm 

### ,df these tbreedasses as:afuncfionof

### the· volume of the .fresh food andfreezer compmiments, the ADL moee'i was'used
to provide**t}l'{~ .re'lationS''h~p'bet\'\!een**  energycODSllID!'tion and adjusted volurnemodellP,g pmducts

### .<ofdHferBnt capacityhytotnerwise 1cienticalJ char.actenstics..

### 'The resu!ltsof;these ca:lculations arel'.egl'ession equations dependentupon tile·dharaoteris't.ics, e,g

.., compressor**:effici~ncy.** II'lsulation efficiency, chosen for eachmodel.

For

### ithe seven:remainingdasses 

### 'Of refrigerationIpl1oduo1s-i(1l) Refrigerators andTe£rigerator-fre.ezers with manua!! de£ros:t;(2j**.:I'efr~gera1o.r**... freezers with partiai ;Rtl{'I'}maticdefrost; i(:iI) refrigerator-freezer8-'automaHc tcle:fu\Ost

. with bottorn-mvunted :freezer w1:iliou't through-the-doorice

### -serv'4::e; l(4) refrigera!tor-1ireeze.rs-;aiutumatic-defrost wHh ito.p-lffiounted freezer ltt1fh througn**the-do~}l:**ice serv·ice;**~'5a** ,refrigeratorfreezers-,atl:tamatic,defrost wit·h sidem:ounted freezer with**thoot<gh-:the~door** ice servi.ce; ((3) upright freezers with .automatic,defr.ost;,and (7) .chest freezers 'and all other freezers-the engineering analysis used a combination'of manufaoturers' ·estimates ·of energy 'Use and extrapolation of simulation .results fromfhe ADL model for the three previous classes to predict energy use for t..lJ.e various des\gn options for the

.seven classes.

Relationships were developed between energyuse and 'adjusted volume for the three claSSeS simulated bythe .ADL model. as previously discussed. The relationshipsbetween energy use and adjusted volume for the remaining seven classes were obtained by adjusting the regression equation.

The Department ·1!henanalY2led ·a range ofpotential.standard levels 

### to deterrninethe economic :impaclofeach 'potent'ia1 standard.**~n** the comment period. DOE.received sufficient data concerning four additional classes of

### ,refrigera.tion**products~(l) Refrigetator-freeier~**  partial ,au.tomatic .defrost; :(2) refclgerator-1freezers-<autom'atic defrost with top-mountedfreezer 

### wjth**through~** the-door ice sel"lice; (3) retrigeralorfreezers-automatic .defrost with.sidemoUnted freezer with through-the-door_ ice service; and (4) upright freezers wilh automatic defrost-to allow tbe use ,of the 

### AnLmodel for'these four .c1asses

.. DOE thus used the AOL 

### model for seven ,classes for theFina'! Rule. 

### thethree initial classes'and the four for 

### whith sufficient 

### datawere ·received.

For the remaining t.l:tree classes of refrigeration products-=(l) refrigerators and refrigerator-freezerswIthmanual defrost; (2) refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost 

### with bottom-mounted freezer withoutthrough4he-door ice service; and (3) chest freezers and 

### aU other**freezer~DOE** 

### 'sHU did not have sufficient data 

### 'to 'Use tbe 

### .J\D.Lmode1. Thus, fGnowing thec1pseofthe
commentperiod, a microcomputer spreadsheet version ofthe ADL model

was developed wIDch,reguiredless

. complete.datathan .the full ADL.mode'l but more tbandata than DOEbad

. available for the Proposed Rule. DOE had'on'1y enoqgh additional data to run the spreadsheet model.at certain,sizes ,in each ofthe t,1rree**.class~s,** but .!lot .all sizes in .those·classes. For example, for manual defrost refdgeralors .and refrigerator-freezers, DOE ran tbe spreadsheet 

### model at 

### a .size 

### af17

### ,cuhf.c feet .and then extendedthis .result to

. cov:er a'Il sizes 'for capaCities ofless than 39 cubic feet.

In lateH'IS9, afterpuhlication of the Final Rule.

### DOE staff;plottedthe standards.in :preparation [or delivery of

a technical pa,per'on refrigerator design options at the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating.and 

### AirConditioning Engineers winter 1989- 1890 meeting. This analysis of the 1993 'standard ievels showed that for certain sizes of units in each of the three ciasses affected by this Notice, the 1993

. standard level, compared tQ the 1990 standci,rd level, resulted in .significantiy :grealer reductilm in maximum allowable energy use than for other sizes. For

. smaller sizes 

### ofmanua1 defrost refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, for example, the standard required a reduction in maximum energy use .of approximately sixty percent as contrasted with a decrease on the order of twenty:five .percent for mos'1: of the models in the other seven classes. 1 Ful'ther, .the Depa·rtment concluded 

### that the standard level-of the Final Rule
cannot be'engineered based on the design 'options identified. Infact, 

### if retained. ther!3 is the risk that this standard would eliminate from the market compact manual defrost refrigerator-freezers and resu'lt 

### in the increased sale of more consumptive' compact antGmatic 

### aefr.ost .re'fI'igeratorfreezers.

Based UDon comments on the Proposed Rule. DOEchaIlged the design options considered in 

### the engineering. analysis. These changes included recognizing.an energyllse ,inefficiency ,01' "penalty" for chlorofluorocarbon substitution andless efficient compressors. DOE'also ·added. a design option, :thicker'insu1ation, 

### whiCh resultecr'in a mol'e ·effiCient unit.This

new,combination of designs sh@uid 

### have resulted intheFil1al Rule's "max tech" level beingmore 'energy consumptive than that ,of the Proposed Rule. However, when these design .options

were used

### iN .the microcomputer spl'eadsheelversion ofthe ADLmodet the .analy.sis resulted 

### inmorestringe!'l:t levels, i.e ..•.a:llowing lesseneJ:gY consumption. Based .upon .thill.review, DOE staff concluded that tbe engineering 'analysiswas in errorfor this class 'and recommended that action be taken tocorrec1 ;the :standard leve1 2

"Expressed differently, ·this standard is more**stringer/toy.one-thi~d th3n~hemaximum**  technologically feasible level ("max tech'') in'lhe' Proposed Rule. In the Final Rule. the "max tech" level is twice as stringent as that in.the Proposed Rule.

21n 1990, Bubseguent

## to ·D.OE 1Jtaffidentification of this problem.,representalives·.of,refrigerator manufacturers and'oHh<i Association ofHome Applicance Manufacturers informally.apPr<Jached DOE with their concerns regarding the stringency of the standards for·colllpacimanual.defrost refrigerators a.nd reirigeratoT
4 frec:zers and automatic di.!frost refrigerator-freezers vdth bdttam-mounted ,Crmfim:F.d

## 55FR42845

Federal Registe / Vol. 55, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 42647

Similarly, the Department concluded that the engineering analysis produced results that are more stringent for certain sizes of automatic defrostrefrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service than can be technologically achieved. Based on the conclusion that the engineering analysis was defective, DOE also decided to correct the standard level for the third class.3 The analysis used in developing the corrected standards contained in today's Notice (1) uses the energy consumption for the baseline volume derived for the Proposed Rule as found in appendix A of the 1988 Technical Support Document, (2) makes the adjustment for no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as discussed in the Final Rule, and (3) obtains the energy/adjusted volume equations from the regression equations for the classes which were simulated with the ADL model, as was done in the Proposed Rule. This revised analysis results in the corrected standards equations which are the subject of today's Notice. The analysis was performed for all three classes of refrigerators for which the spreadsheet model was used. Today's Notice specifies a reduction in energy use from that required by the 1990 standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost of 6.5 percent for compact units, 2 cubic feet adjusted volume. The Final Rule required a 60.5 percent reduction for these units. For larger units, 17 cubic .feet adjusted volume, today's Notice requires a 10.9 percent reduction while the Final Rule required a reduction of 26.4 percent. For refrigeratror-freezers-automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service, today's Notice requires a reduction of 32.7 percent for 18 cubic feet adjusted volume units. This compares with a reduction of 37.2 percent required by the Final Rule. For larger units, 21 cubic feet,

freezers without through-the-door ice service. The information provided by industry representatives included new data in the form of graphs similar to material prepared by DOE staff and upon which DOE staff had already reached its conclusion as to error and the means for correction.
.3 The references to the discussion of the microcomputer spreadsheet program in section 3.2.4, Energy Use Data. of the 1989 Technical Support Document. DOE/CE-0277, November 1989 are superseded by this Notice. today's Notice requires a 33.3 percent reduction, while the Final Rule required a reduction of 38.1 percent.

For chest freezers and all other freezers, today's Notice requires a reduction of 26.3 percent for the small units, 5 cubic feet adjusted volume. This compares with a reduction of 38.0 percent in the Final Rule. For larger units, 28 cubic feet adjusted volume, today's Notice requires a 26.6 percent reduction while the Final Rule required a reduction of 27.8 percent.
The Department is today correcting the standard levels found in 10 CFR part 430, § 430.32(a).

II. Environmental Review

In issuing the Proposed Rule, the Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0372) that was published within the 1988 Technical Support Document. The environmental effects associated with various standard levels were found not to be significant, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was published along with the Proposed Rule. (53 FR 48826, December 2, 1988).
The Department has concluded that the impact of today's Notice falls within the range of the FONSI previously published. Specifically, in the year 2010, the pollutant reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon dioxide (CO2) addressed in the •FONSI are 151,000 tons, 100,000 tons, and 9,180,000 tons, respectively. DOE considered the range of energy savings previously discussed and the market shares of the three affected classes. Refrigerators, and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost account for 4.7percent of refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer sales. Refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers account for 2.5percent of refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer sales. Chest freezers account for 47.4 percent of freezer sales. Based on the above, the Department estimates that the overall energy and pollutant savings from today's Notice will be reduced no more than 5.1 percent from the estimates provided in the Final Rule. Thus, in the year 2010, the revised polllutant reductions resulting from today's Notice of SO2, NO2, and CO2 are estimated to be less than 117,000 tons, 70,000 tons, and 7,299,000 tons, respectively. III. Regulatory Impact, Federalism and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews The Department reviewed the Final Rule in accordance with the. Department's obligations regarding the above subjects. Because of the minimal impact of the change resulting from today's Notice on the overall rulemaking in terms of the percentages of change of energy use and the market share of the affected classes previously discussed, the Department has concluded that the impact of today's Notice falls within the range and scope of the impacts presented in the Notice of Final Rulemaking and are addressed adequately in that Notice.
Issued in Washington, DC. October 16. 1990. 1. Michael Davis, Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Energy conservation, Household appliances.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the following corrections are made to the final energy conservationstandards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1989 (54 FR 47916) and which appear at 10 CFR 430.32(a).

PART 430-[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Title III, Part B, as amended by National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Title VI,-Part 2, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, and by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 6291-8309). 2. Section 430.32(a) is correctly amended by revising items 1, 5, and 10 in the table to read as follows; paragraph (a) introductory text is set out for the convenience of the reader. § 430.32 Energy conservation standards and effective dates. (a) Refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/ freezers. These standards do not apply to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 39 cubic feet or freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 30 cubic feet. 

## 55FR42845

Federal Register 

# I Vol. 55,No. 206 

## I Wednesday, October 24. 1990 

## I Rules and Regulations 42647

Similarly. the Department concluded that the engineering analysis produced results that are more stringent for certain sizes of automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezer without through-thedoor ice service than can be technologically achieved. Based on the conclusion that the engineering analysis

was defective, DOE also decided to correct the standard level for the third class. 3



### The analysis used in developing the corrected standards contained in today's Notice (1) uses the energy consumption for the baseline volume derived for the Proposed Rule as found in appendix A of the 1988 Technical Support DocumeIlt, (2) makes the adjustment for no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as discussed in the Final Rule, and (3) obtains the energy/adjusted volume equations from the regression equations for the classes which were simulated with the ADL model, as was done in the Proposed Ruie. This revised analysis results in the corrected standards equations which are the subject of today's Notice. The analysis

was performed for all three classes of refrigerators for which the spreadsheet model was used.

Today's Notice specifies a reduction in 

### energy use from that required by the 1990 standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost of 6.5 percent for compact units. 2 cubic feet adjusted volume. The Final Rule required a 60.5 percent reduction for these units. For larger units. 17 cubic Jeet adjusted volume. today's Notice requires a 10.9 percent reduction while the**F~nal** 

### Rule required a reduction of 26.4 percent.

For refrigeratror-freezers-automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service. today's Notice requires a reduction of 32.7 percent for 18 cubic feet adjusted volume units. This compares with a reduction of 37.2 percent required by the Final Rule. For larger units, 21 cubic feet.

freezers without through-the-door ice service. The information provided by Industry representatives included new data in the fonn ofgraphs similar to

. material prepared by DOE staff and upon which DOE staffhad already reached Its conclusion 

## as to

error and the means for correction.

3 The references to the discussion of the mIcrocomputer spreadsheet program in section 3.2.4. Energy Use Data. of the 1989 Technical Support Document. DOE/CE-{)277. November 1989 are superseded by this Notice. 

### today's Notice requires a 33.3 percent reduction, while the Final Rule required

a reduction of 38.1 percent.

For chest freezers and all other freezers. today's Notice requires a reduction of26.3 percent for the small units. 5 cubic feet adjusted volume. This
compares with a reduction of 38.0 percent in the Final Rule. For larger units. 28 cubic feet adjusted volume, today's Notice requires a 26.6 percent reduction while the Final Rule required

a reduction of 27.8 percent.

The Department is today correcting the standard levels found in 10 CPR part 430. § 

### 430.32(a).

II. 

### E;nvironmental Review

In issuing the Proposed Rule, the Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) 

### (DOE/EA-{)372) that

was published within the 1988 Technical Support Document. The environmental effects associated with various standard levels were found not to be significant. and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was published along with the Proposed Rule. (53 PR 48826. December 2,1988).

The Department has concluded that the impact of today's Notice falls within the range of the FONSI previously published. Specifically, in the year 2010, the pollutant reductions of sulfur dioxide (802 ), 

### nitrogen dioxide (N02 ). 

### and'carbon dioxide (COd addressed in the 'FONSI are 151.000 tons, 100,000 tons, and 9,180,000 tons, respectively. DOE considered the range of 

### energy savings previously discussed and the market shares ofthe three affected classes. Refrigerators, and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost account for 4.7 percent ofrefrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer sales. Refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers account for 2.5 percent of refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer sales. Chest freezers account for 47.4 percent offreezer sales. Based on the above. the Department estimates that the overall energy and pollutant savings from today's Notice will be reduced no more than 5.1 percent from the estimates provided in the Final Rule

. Thus, in 

### the year 2010, the revised polllutant reductions resulting from today's Notice of S(h, N02 , 

### and C02 are estimated to be less than 117,000 tons. 70,000 tons. and 7.299,000 tons, respectively. III. Regulatory impact. Federalism and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews

The Department reviewed the Final Rule in accordance with the Department's obligations regarding the above subjects. Because of the minimal impact of the change resulting from today's Notice on the overall rulemaking in terms of the percentages of change of energy use and the market share of the affected classes previously discussed. the Department has concluded that the impact of today's Notice falls within the range and scope of the impacts presented in the Notice ofFinal

. Rulemaking and are addressed adequately in that Notice.

Issued in Washington. DC. October 10. 1990. 

### J. Michael Davis. AssistantSecretary. Conservation and RenewableEnergy.


### Listof Subjects in 10 CPR Part 430

Energy conservation, Household appliances.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the following corrections are made to the final energy conservation standards for refrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers published in the Federal Register on November 17. 1989 (54 FR 47916) and which appear at 10 CPR 430.32(a).

PART 430-[AMENDED]



### 1. The authority citation for 10 CPR part 430 continues to**r~ad** 

### as follows:

Authority: Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Title III. Part B, as amended by National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Title VI.-Part 2. by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act. and by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments 

### of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 6291-fi309).

2. 

### Section 430.32(a) is correctly amended by revising items 1, 5, and 10 

### in the table to read as follows; paragraph (a) introductory text is set out for the convenience of the reader.
§ 430.32 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.



### (a) RefrigeratOrs 

## Irefrigerator-freezers

## I freezers. These standards do not apply
to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 39 cubic feet or 

### freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 30 

### cubic feet.

### 55FR42845

4,2848 Federal Register { Vol. 55, No. 20& / Wednesday, October 24, 1990 f Rules and Regulations

Product Class Energy standards equations ('lEwhfyrl effec&ve dates

Jan. 1, 1990 Jars_ 1, 1993- .

............................................ ........: - (16.3AV+3t6) (13.5AV-t-2991 1. Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers with manual defrost .......................... ...._..._......................

5. Ref^gerate -Freezers-au o^atic defrost with: Bottom-mounted freezer without through-Vie-door ice service ........................... (27-7AV+488) (16.5AV+367)

10. Chest Freezers and all. other Freezers.............._..................................__....:._......_.........._...:........_.................:........................._..-'--.. (14.8AV+233) (11.OAV+4601

[FR Doc. 90-25032 Filed 10-23-90, 8:45 aril
BILLING CODE 6450-et-r.t

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 17

RIN 2900-AC31



### Contract Medical Carp;, None-Federal Hospital Payment Rates

AGENCY : Department of Health and Human Services and. Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION : Final regulations.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have jointly amended VA's medical series of regulations to carry out provisions of Public Law 99-576, Veterans' Benefits Improvement and Health-Care Authorization Act of 1986. These regulations describe the payment methodology and amounts for non Federal public and private hospital care provided at VA expense. Payment methodology and amounts will be determined by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCF^') PRICER. EFFECTIVE DATE : November 23, 1990. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul C. Tryhus, Chief, Policies and Procedures Division (136F), Medical Administration Service, Veterans Health Services and Research Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 'Washington. DC 20420, (2021233-2504. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A total of twenty-two comments were received concerning the proposed regulatory changes published on pages 47726-47729 of the Federal Register of November 25, 1988 (53 FR 47726). Following careful analysis of these comments, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in concert with the Department of Health and Human Services reopened the comment period to allow comment on a suggested change to the proposal. The suggested change would grant an exemption from- these proposed VA regulations for alternative systems which have been granted a federal waiver under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1395f(b)(3) or 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(c), for Medicare payment. The former permits Medicare payment demonstration projects. The latter permits a State's hospital rate regulation-system to be substituted for the Medicare payment system. VA received five comments during the reopened comment period on the proposal to exempt alternative systems which have been granted a Federal waiver from the prospective.payment system wider either of -those. authorities. for the purposes of Medicare payment. Those commenters all urged adoption of an exemption from these regulations. In urging that position, the commenters stated in essence that a separate VA payment policy would unnecessarily disrupt an alternative system of payment that is in operation, and has proven to be successful in effectively containing hospital costs. After considering those comments, VA is exempting from these regulations those alternative systems which have been granted a Federal waiver for the purposes of Medicare payment. VA has taken this position for several reasons. In promulgating these regulations. VA and HHS are implementing a. requirement in section 233 of Public Law 99-576. The clear purpose of that requirement is to contain costs VA incurs as a result of the hospitalization of VA beneficiaries in non Federal facilities. Congress clearly contemplated that the payment policies reflected in such regulation would be similar to that established under the Medicare program. (Senate Report 99-444 (1986) p. 59). The above-cited provisions of law authorizing the waiver of alternative systems from the prospective payment system, for purposes of Medicare payment, also seek to achieve cost containment. Since Congress hasprovided for such an alternative costcontainment policy in connection with Medicare, VA would be furthering the purpose of any expectations underlying section 233 of Public Law 99-576 by making provisions in its regulation for such alternative systems. Moreover, imposing a different reimbursement system on providers participating under alternative systems may jeopardize or impede the progress made by the alternative systems,

, without necessarily. achieving any significant additional cost containment benefits to the VA. Fourteen commenters did not address the purpose for reopening the comment period, and instead surfaced concerns that were raised during the previous comment-period. There were no opposing comments received on the issue presented for reopening the comment period. The-final

-rule-is promulgated in - accordance with section 233-of Public Law 99

-576, Veterans Benefits Improvement and Health-Care Authorization Act of 1986, which requires

. VA and HHS to issue joint regulations concerning the payment methodology and amounts which VA would provide hospitals which furnish inpatient hospital care to veterans whose care has been authorized or will be sponsored by VA. The provisions of the statute concerning admission practices will be addressed in a separate rulemaking document being prepared by HHS. That regulation will - be codified at 42 CFR 489.26. This final, rule utilizes a payment system that duplicates- the HHS Prospective Payment System (PPS) in most respects, including the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1395f(b)(3) and 42 U.S.C.1395ww(c), which are separate authorities that override the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS). The differences from the Medicare system are in the method VA will use to reimburse PPS hospitals for capital-related costs, and direct medical education Costs, and to pay non-PPS hospitals for their services. Revisions in this final rule are made as a result of the re-opened comment period. The final rule adopts the proposed regulation with substantive changes, discussed. below. - - 

## 55FR42845

42848 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 55, No. 20& 

## I vVednesday. Oc:tober 24, 1990 

## I Rules and Regulations

Product Class Energy standards equations ("KwhfYl} eUecthlEt dales

Jan. 1, tS9(}

1. Refrigerators and**~efrigeralor-Freezers.with** manual defro$\

............................_.•.**_~**.................... ·.:

..:

........**;~**..;

...**~**...........................;.: '. \16.3AV+9!6!**(19.5AV~·299J** (16.5NH361}

(H.OAV+160} 5.**Refligerator-Freeze~s-au:ofl1atic** defrost with: Bottom-mounted freezer without**through-t~<€-coor** ice service

........................... (Z7.1AV+48S!

(14.aAV +233} •

. '*

,. .. • 'II 10. CrtGst Freezers**a~d** aU· other Freezers;

............._..,................**~**..............**~u** •• :

........._.;••••••••••: •••••••••

_ .............**~** •••••••••••••••••••••••••••**~**•••••'.;.

[FR Doc. 9.0--25032 Filed 10-23-90; 8:45 am}

BILLING 

### coce 64S!I-Of-M**~,===================** DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

.



### 38 CFR Part 11

RIN 2900-AC31

Contract Medical**Car~** Nem-Federal 

### Hospital Payment 

## Rates

AGENCY: 

### DepartmentofHealth and Human Services 

### and Department of Veterans Affairs.

. ACTION: 

### Fina! regulations.

SUMMARY: 

### The Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS} 

### and the Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA) have 

### jointly amended 

### VA's medica! series of regulations to carry out provisions of Public Law 99-576, 

### Veterans' Benefits Improvement and Health-Care Authorization Act of 1986. These regulations describe the payment methodology and amounts for nonFederal public and private hospital care provided at 

### V A expense. Payment methodology and amounts wili be determined by the Health Care. Financing AdministratiQn (HCF/\J 

### PRICER.

EFFECTlVE.OATE: 

### November 23, 1990.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Paul C. Tryhus. Chief, Policies and Procedures Division (136F), Medical Administration Service. Veterans Health Services 

### and'Research Administration. Department 

### of Veterans Affairs. 810 Vermont Avenue NW.• Washington.DC 2042{}. (202)233-2504.
SUPPLEMEIIlTAAY INFORMAl'ION: A 

### total 

### of twenty-two comments were received concerning the proposed regulatory changes published on pages 47726-47729 

### of the Federal Register 

### of November 25, 1.988 (53 FR 47726}. 

### Following careful analysis of these comments, the Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA). in concert with the Department ofHealth and Human Services reopened the comment period to allow comment on a suggested change to the proposal. The suggested change would grant 

### an exemption from these proposed VA regulations for alternative systems which have heen granted a feder-dl waiver under the provisions 

### of42U.S.C. 1395f(b}(3) 

### or42 U.S.C.1395ww(c), 

### for Medicare payment. The former permits Medicare payment demonstration projects. The latter permits a State's hospital rateregulation system to be substituted for the Medicare payment system.

. .

VA received five comments 

### Wiling the reopened comment period on the

. proposal 

### to exempt alternative systems which have 

### been grantl3d 

### a Federal .vaiverfrom the**prospective.paym~nt** 

### svstem mider either of.those. authorities.

### f~r thepurposes 

### ofMe.mcare payment. Those commenters all urged adoption of

an exemption from these regulations. 

### In urging that position, the. commenters stated in essence that a separate VA payment policy would unnecessarily disrupt an alternative system 

### of payment that is in 

### operation, and has proven to be successful in 

### .effectively containing hospital costs.

Afterconsidering those comments, V

### A is exempting from these regulations those alternative systems which have been granted a Federal waiver for the purposes ofMedicare payment. VA has taken this position for several reasons. In promulgating these regulations. VA and HHS are implementing a requirement in section 233 ofPublic Law 99-576. 

### The dear purpose of 

### that requirement is to contain costs VA inC1lrs as 

### a result ofthe hospitalization of VA 

### beneficiaries in 

### non-Federal facilities. Congress clearly contemplated that the payment policies reflecled in such regulation would be similar to that established under the Medicare program. (Senate Report 99-444 {19M} 

### p. 59). 

### The above-cited prov:isionsoflaw authorizing the waiver of alternative systems from the prospective payment system, for purposes of

### Medicare payment, also seek to achieve cost containment. Since Congress has. provided for such an alternative costcontainment policy' in connection with Medicare, VA would be furthering the purpose of any expectations underlying section 233 

### ofPublic Law 99-576 by 

### making provisions in its regulation for such alternative systems. Moreover, imposing a different reimbursement system on providers participating under alternative systems may jeopardize or impede the progress made by the alternative syst?ms. without**nec~sarily** 

### achIeving any signITfcant addttiollalc'ost containmeritbemifits to the 

### VA.

FGurteen commenters did not add,rf,lss the purpose for reopening the comment period, and instead surfaced concarns that wereraised during the previous comment·period.There were no opposing commentsreceived ell the issue presented 

### far reopening 

### the'
commentperiod.

### Th~ fina1' rule is 

### promulgated in 

### accordance with section 233'ofPtrblic Law 99-576, 

### Veterans' Benefits Improvement and Health-Care Authori.zation Act of 1985, 

### which requires.VA and lllISto issuejoint regulations ooneeming the payment methodology and amollnts which VA 

### would provide hospitals which furnish inpatient hospital care to veterans

. whose care has been authorized or wiII be sponsoredby VA. 

### Theprovisions 

### of the statute concerning admission practices will be addressed in 

### a . separate rulemaking document being prepared 

### by llliS. 

### Thatregulativn will

. , be codified at 42 CPR 489.26. 

### This final"

.rule utilizes a payment system that duplicates'the HHS Prospective

. Payment System (PPS) 

### in moSt respects, including the provisions of42 U.S.C. 1395f(b}(3) 

### and 42

### U.s.C.1395ww(cJ, which are separate authorities that override the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS). The differences frOID tIle Medicare system are in the method V

### A 

## win nse to reimburse PPS hospitals for capital-related costs, 

### and direct medical education eosts, and to pay non-PPS hospitals for theirsel"vic-es. Revisions 

### in this final 

### rule are 

### made as 

### a result of the re-opened comment

## p€rlod. The final fqie adopts the proposed regulation with substantive changes, discussedbelo.w..