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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 13

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) 

On and after 10/21/91.. ....................................... : ..... Improved No.2 (Extemal) U.S. No. 1 {In~emal) ....... ; ........... . 3-9/16 . . . Tangerines 

Dancy .............................•.......................... : ..... b~~~~92;~~~~~~9;.::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: .~:~: ~~: ~:::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2-4/15 

2-6/16 

Dated: October 19, 1990. 

'Robert C. Keeney. 

Deputy Director. 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 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 COIrrACT: 

Mr. Blaine D.Stockton, Jr., Assistant 

Administrator-Management, Rural 

Electrification Administration, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Wa:shington, 

DC 20250-1500, telephone number (202) 

3B2-9552. 

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 fonowing entry is added: 

Old parlor 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 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, 

§ 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 of Energy. 

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 

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-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 of Proposed 

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 of refrigeration

products: j1) Refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost -with top-mounted

freezer Without through-the-door ice

service; (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 refrigerator-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 sidemounted freezer 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 defrost

with 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 manual

defrost; (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 of

Heating, 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 consumptive

compact 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 13

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 DORby Arthur 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 

DOE test procedures.. 'The energy 

needed depends upon the beat leakqge 

inio tbecablnet.which isa function df 

the v01ume·0.finefresh food and freezer 

compartments. Therefore. this number' 

wiHvary'for different size equipment 

wIthin a given dass. A more detailed 

description 'ofthe :model oisprovided in ' 

chapter a 'and appendix A 1)f thet988 

Technical Support Document. 

Tomn the.ADL·model reql'l:ires 

detailea infurmaliion oou the ,cabinet 

dimensions, ins:ulation lev.els" 

compressor performance. heat' 

exchanger. effectiveness, .and 'auxiliary 

electricai 'equipmBl'lt for different size 

equipment. Wilen the Proposed Rule 

was issued. DOE had sufficient .data 'tor 

only three classes of refrigeration 

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. 

To predict the energyconStlrnp'fhm ,df 

these tbree dasses as:a funcfionof the· 

volume of the .fresh food and freezer 

compmiments, the ADL moee'i was 'used 

to provide t}l'{~ .re'lationS''h~p'bet\'\!een 

energycODSllID!'tion and adjusted 

volurnemodellP,g pmducts .<of dHferBnt 

capacity hytotnerwise 1cienticalJ 

char.actenstics.. 'The resu!ltsof ;these 

ca:lculations are l'.egl'ession equations 

dependent upon tile ·dharaoteris't.ics, e,g .. , 

compressor :effici~ncy. II'lsulation 

efficiency, chosen for each model. 

For ithe seven:remaining dasses 'Of 

refrigeration Ipl1oduo1s-i(1l) Refrigerators 

and Te£rigerator-fre.ezers with manua!! 

de£ros:t;(2j .:I'efr~gera1o.r ... freezers with 

partiai ;Rtl{'I'}matic defrost; i(:iI) 

refrigerator-freezer8-'automa Hc tcle:fu\Ost . 

with bottorn-mvunted :freezer w1:iliou't 

through-the-doorice -serv'4::e; l(4) 

refrigera!tor-1ireeze.rs-;aiutuma tic -defrost 

wHh ito.p-lffiounted freezer ltt1fh througnthe-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 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 ·1!henanalY2led ·a 

range of potential.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-mounted freezer 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 AnL model for'these four .c1asses .. 

DOE thus used the AOL model for seven 

,classes for the Fina'! Rule. the three 

initial classes' and the four for whith 

sufficient data were ·received. 

For the remaining t.l:tree classes of 

refrigeration products-=(l) refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers wIth manual 

defrost; (2) refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through4he-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 thec1pseof the 

comment period, a microcomputer 

spreadsheet version of the ADL model 

was developed wIDch,reguiredless 

. complete.datathan .the full ADL.mode'l 

but more tbandata than DOE bad . 

available for the Proposed Rule. DOE 

had'on'1y enoqgh additional data to run 

the spreadsheet model.at certain,sizes ,in 

each of the 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 extended this .result to . 

cov:er a'Il sizes 'for capaCities of less than 

39 cubic feet. 

In lateH'IS9, after puhlication of the 

Final Rule. DOE staff ;plotted the 

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 of manua1 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. In fact, if 

retained. ther!3 is the risk tha t 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 and less 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 being more 'energy consumptive 

than that ,of the Proposed Rule. 

However, when these design .options 

were used iN .the microcomputer 

spl'eadsheel version of the ADLmodet 

the .analy.sis resulted in morestringe!'l:t 

levels, i.e ..•. a:llowing lesseneJ:gY 

consumption. Based .upon .thill.review, 

DOE staff concluded that tbe 

engineering 'analysiswas in error for 

this class 'and recommended that action 

be taken tocorrec1 ;the :standard leve12 

"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 1Jtaff identification 

of this problem.,representalives·.of,refrigerator 

manufacturers and'oHh<i Association of Home 

Applicance Manufacturers informally.apPr<Jached 

DOE with their concerns regarding the stringency of 

the standards for·colllpacimanual.defrost 

refrigerators a.nd reirigeratoT4 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 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 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 4.7

percent of refrigerator 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 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 conservation

standards 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 13

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 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-{)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 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 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 of the three affected classes. 

Refrigerators, and refrigerator-freezers 

with manual defrost account for 4.7 

percent of refrigerator 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 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 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 of Final 

. Rulemaking and are addressed 

adequately in that Notice. 

Issued in Washington. DC. October 10. 

1990. 

J. Michael Davis. 

Assistant Secretary. Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. 

List of 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) Refrigera tOrs I refrigera tor-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- .

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

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 has

provided 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. - -

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 13

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 

~,=================== 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS . 

38 CFR Part 11 

RIN 2900-AC31 

Contract Medical Car~ Nem-Federal 

Hospital Payment Rates 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services and Department of 

Veterans Affairs. . 

ACTION: Fina! regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS} and the 

Department of Veterans 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 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 heen granted a feder-dl 

waiver under the provisions of 42 U.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 rate regulation 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 the purposes of Me.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. 

After considering those comments, 

V A 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 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 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 syst?ms. without nec~sarily 

achIeving any signITfcant addttiollalc'ost 

containmerit bemifits to the VA. 

FGurteen commenters did not add,rf,lss 

the purpose for reopening the comment 

period, and instead surfaced concarns 

that were raised during the previous 

comment·period. There were no 

opposing comments received ell the 

issue presented far reopening the' 

comment period. 

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 lllIS to issue joint 

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 sponsored by VA. The provisions of 

the statute concerning admission 

practices will be addressed in a . 

separate rulemaking document being 

prepared by llliS. That regulativn 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 of 42 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 their sel"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, 

discussed belo.w..