[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 17, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50997-51001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EE-RM-98-440]
RIN 1904-AB46


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Central Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is revising the Code of Federal 
Regulations to incorporate certain energy conservation standards that 
will apply to residential central air conditioners and central air 
conditioning heat pumps beginning on January 23, 2006. More 
specifically, this technical amendment replaces standard levels 
currently in the Code of Federal Regulations, which were established by 
a final rule published by DOE on May 23, 2002, with standard levels 
that were set forth in a final rule published by DOE on January 22, 
2001. As explained in the Supplementary Information section of this 
notice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that 
DOE's withdrawal of the rule published on January 22, 2001, was 
unlawful, and, therefore, that certain standards promulgated in the May 
23, 2002, final rule are invalid. DOE has decided not to seek further 
review of that ruling. Consequently, DOE is now revising its 
regulations consistent with the court's ruling.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ac_central.html and/or visit the U.S. 
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of 
the Building Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 
Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional information 
regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's 
Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the 
Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Raymond, Project Manager, 
Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps, Docket No. EERM-440, EE-2J/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9611. E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) 
(Pub. L. 100-12) established energy efficiency standards for various 
consumer products, including residential central air conditioners, and 
directed DOE to undertake periodic rulemakings to decide whether to 
amend those standards. NAECA also amended the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (EPCA) to provide, in section 325(o)(1), that when DOE 
reviews efficiency standards, it ``may not prescribe any amended 
standard which increases the maximum allowable energy use * * * or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency'' of a covered product 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)).
    On January 22, 2001, DOE published a rule in the Federal Register 
amending the efficiency standard for central air conditioners 
established by NAECA by increasing the standard from 10 to 13 SEER 
(``seasonal energy efficiency ratio''), a 30% increase in energy 
efficiency. 66 FR 7170. The rule stated it would become effective on 
February 21, 2001, but manufacturers' products would not have to meet 
the 13 SEER standard until January 23, 2006. On January 24, 2001, the 
President's Chief of Staff issued a memorandum asking Executive Branch 
agencies to review ongoing rulemaking proceedings and to postpone the 
effective dates of any new regulations already published in the Federal 
Register but not yet effective, pending completion of such review. DOE 
accordingly issued a rule delaying the effective date of the central 
air conditioner rule published on January 22, 2001, in order to conduct 
that review. 66 FR 8745. DOE also received a petition from the Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), an association of air 
conditioner manufacturers, asking DOE to reconsider the 13 SEER 
standard. On May 23, 2002, DOE withdrew the 13 SEER rule and 
promulgated a new rule establishing a 12 SEER efficiency standard, a 
20% increase in energy efficiency. 67 FR 36368.
    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and various public 
interest groups, joined by several state Attorneys General, filed suit 
in federal district court, and alternatively in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging DOE's withdrawal of the 13 
SEER rule and promulgation of the 12 SEER standard. Among other things, 
they alleged that section 325(o)(1) of EPCA precluded DOE from adopting 
the 12 SEER rule.
    On January 13, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit decided that once DOE published the 13 SEER rule for central 
air conditioners in the Federal Register, DOE was precluded from 
subsequently adopting a lower standard for those products. Thus, DOE's 
actions of withdrawing the 13 SEER standard and promulgating the 12 
SEER standard violated section 325(o)(1). Natural Resources Defense

[[Page 50998]]

Council, et al. v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2004). The court's 
written opinion disclaimed any intent to affect a challenge to the 13 
SEER standard that ARI and certain manufacturers had filed in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Nonetheless, ARI and the 
manufacturers who joined it in the Fourth Circuit lawsuit subsequently 
withdrew their challenge to the 13 SEER rule, citing the need for 
regulatory certainty.
    On April 2, 2004, DOE publicly announced that, in the interest of 
giving all affected persons regulatory certainty, DOE would not appeal 
or seek further review of the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Second Circuit. As a result, the 13 SEER standard will apply to 
covered conventional central air conditioners and central air 
conditioning heat pumps manufactured on or after January 23, 2006. 
Today's technical amendment places those standards in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

II. Summary of Today's Action

    DOE is revising the energy conservation standards for split system 
and single package central air conditioners and central air 
conditioning heat pumps in 10 CFR 430.32(c)(2). The standards currently 
set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations are 12 SEER for split 
system and single package air conditioners, and 12 SEER, 7.4 HSPF 
(``heating system performance factor'') for split system and single 
package heat pumps. DOE is replacing these standards with the following 
standards established in the January 22, 2001 final rule: 13 SEER for 
split system and single package air conditioners, and 13 SEER, 7.7 HSPF 
for split system and single package heat pumps.
    The January 22, 2001, final rule also established a separate 
product class of ``space constrained products,'' but it did not 
establish amended standard levels for those products. DOE explained in 
the preamble to the January 22, 2001, final rule that it was concerned 
that air conditioners and heat pumps intended to serve applications 
with severe space constraints would have difficulty in meeting the 13 
SEER standard. 66 FR 7196. Therefore, DOE established a separate 
product class for space constrained products and reserved setting 
standard levels for that class pending completion of later rulemaking 
proceedings. Subsequently, in the rulemaking culminating in the May 23, 
2002, final rule, DOE determined that 12 SEER was the appropriate 
standard level for all space constrained products except those with 
through-the-wall condensers, and the final rule established lower 
standards for through-the-wall products. 67 FR 36402-03, 36406. The 
standards established for space constrained products in the May 23, 
2002, final rule are unaffected by the January 13, 2004, ruling of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit because the January 22, 
2001, final rule set no standards for these products and, thus, section 
325(o)(1) of EPCA does not affect the validity of the standards for 
these products that were published on May 23, 2002.
    The May 23, 2002, final rule set forth a compliance date of January 
23, 2006, for all of the efficiency standards promulgated in that rule, 
including the standards for space-constrained products. This is the 
same compliance date set forth in the January 22, 2001, final rule for 
the standards promulgated in that rule. The May 23, 2002, rule's 
preamble discussed why DOE was adopting the January 23, 2006, 
compliance date. 67 FR 36394. DOE recognized that by adopting that 
date, the time between publication of the May 23, 2002 rule and the 
compliance date would be less than the five-year interval provided in 
the statute (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)(A)). DOE explained that when it 
cannot meet a statutory deadline to promulgate a rule (as was the case 
with the products covered by the January 22, 2001, and May 23, 2002, 
final rules), it generally will adjust the date such rule becomes 
enforceable to allow for the same amount of lead time as provided in 
the statute, but that in special circumstances DOE will not follow that 
practice. DOE stated it would set the effective date for the standards 
adopted in the May 23, 2002, final rule at less than five years from 
the date of publication because all of the participants in the 
rulemaking, including representatives of the manufacturers who would 
have to comply with the standards and who had expressed a view about 
the matter, had agreed that five years of lead time was not needed for 
central air conditioner manufacturers to come into compliance with the 
standards adopted in the May 23, 2002, final rule. DOE stated, however, 
that if, as a result of unforeseen circumstances, a particular 
manufacturer could show hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 
burdens, the effective date would be subject to case-by-case exception 
pursuant to the authority of the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals 
under section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003.
    DOE is today adding to Sec.  430.2 the definition of ``space 
constrained product'' that was contained in the January 22, 2001, final 
rule and adding the following standard levels set in the May 23, 2002, 
final rule: 12 SEER for space constrained air conditioners, and 12 
SEER, 7.4 HSPF for space constrained heat pumps. The standards for 
through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pumps, which fall within the 
definition of ``space constrained product,'' were set in the May 23, 
2002, final rule, and are: 10.9 SEER, 7.1 HSPF for split systems and 
10.6 SEER, 7.0 HSPF for single package systems. The definition of 
``through-the-wall air conditioner and heat pump'' in Sec.  430.2 
provides that this product class exists only for products manufactured 
prior to January 23, 2010. After that date, the standards for space 
constrained products will apply to these through-the-wall air 
conditioners and heat pumps.
    The January 22, 2001, final rule did not establish a separate 
product class for covered central air conditioners that are small duct, 
high velocity systems, and the rule did not establish separate 
standards for them; nor are these products ``space constrained 
products'' (see discussion at 66 FR 7197). Therefore, small duct, high 
velocity systems are covered by the 13 SEER standard. However, in the 
May 23, 2002, notice of final rulemaking, DOE explained that 
information obtained in the rulemaking proceeding indicated that the 
special characteristics of small duct, high velocity systems made it 
unlikely such systems could even meet the 12 SEER/7.4 HSPF standard 
established for conventional products. 67 FR 36396. As a result, DOE 
included the NAECA-prescribed values for small duct, high velocity 
systems in the Code of Federal Regulations pending a later rulemaking 
to establish appropriate standards for that product class. Because the 
Second Circuit's ruling prevents DOE from adopting a standard lower 
than 13 SEER for small duct, high velocity systems, despite DOE's later 
conclusion that it is unlikely such systems can meet even the lower 12 
SEER standard, DOE has advised the two manufacturers of these systems 
of the procedure available to affected persons under section 504 of the 
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), which allows 
them to request relief from hardship or inequity caused by a regulation 
issued under EPCA.
    Lastly, DOE is revising Sec.  430.2 to remove several definitions 
that were included to implement DOE's interpretation of section 
325(o)(1) of EPCA contained in the preamble of the May 23, 2002, final 
rule. Because its

[[Page 50999]]

interpretation has been rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit, DOE is removing the definitions of ``effective date,'' 
``maximum allowable energy use,'' ``maximum allowable water use,'' and 
``minimum required energy efficiency.''

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Public Comment

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) 
generally requires agencies to provide notice and an opportunity for 
public comment on substantive rules. The requirement does not apply, 
however, if the agency determines that notice and opportunity for 
public comment is ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 
public interest.'' DOE finds that good cause exists for dispensing with 
notice and opportunity for public comment in issuing today's rule 
because those procedures are unnecessary where, as here, the agency has 
no discretion in fashioning its rule. Today's final rule simply 
conforms the Code of Federal Regulations to the order of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and DOE has no discretion to deviate 
from the court's ruling. For this reason, DOE has characterized today's 
rule as a ``technical amendment'' in the Action line at the beginning 
of this notice of final rulemaking.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that today's regulatory 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 
1993). Accordingly, DOE submitted today's notice to OMB for clearance 
under the Executive Order. OMB has completed its review.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's 
Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov. DOE today is simply revising the Code 
of Federal Regulations to comply with the order of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Because the energy conservation 
standards in this rule were established in prior final rules that have 
taken effect, today's rule does not establish any new requirements for 
any entity. On this basis, DOE certifies that this final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking will impose no new information or recordkeeping 
requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the 
Department's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. This rule is 
a technical amendment that reinstates, pursuant to court order, amended 
energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat 
pumps that were published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001. 
DOE has therefore determined that this rule is covered by the 
Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A6 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, 
which applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural. Accordingly, 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's 
final rule and has determined that it does not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. State 
regulations that may have existed on the products that are the subject 
of today's final rule were preempted by the Federal standards 
established in NAECA. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. No 
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on 
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable 
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they 
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has 
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent 
permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of 
Executive Order 12988.

[[Page 51000]]

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of the Act requires a 
Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, 
and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)). The 
Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to 
permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' 
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to potentially affected small governments before 
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement 
of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under the 
Act (62 FR 12820) (also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). The rule 
published today does not contain any Federal mandate; it only 
incorporates into the Code of Federal Regulations standards set forth 
in rules promulgated in 2001 and 2002.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations 
of information to the public under guidelines established by each 
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 
today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed 
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined 
as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to 
promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 
Today's regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a 
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report 
will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Household appliances.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.


0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II of 
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definitions for ``effective date,'' ``maximum allowable 
energy use,'' ``maximum allowable water use,'' and ``minimum required 
energy efficiency''; and
0
b. Adding a definition of ``space constrained product'' in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Space constrained product means a central air conditioner or heat 
pump:
    (1) That has rated cooling capacities no greater than 30,000 BTU/
hr;
    (2) That has an outdoor or indoor unit having at least two overall 
exterior dimensions or an overall displacement that:
    (i) Is substantially smaller than those of other units that are:
    (A) Currently usually installed in site-built single family homes; 
and
    (B) Of a similar cooling, and, if a heat pump, heating capacity; 
and
    (ii) If increased, would certainly result in a considerable 
increase in the usual cost of installation or would certainly result in 
a significant loss in the utility of the product to the consumer; and
    (3) Of a product type that was available for purchase in the United 
States as of December 1, 2000.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 430.32 of subpart C is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and effective 
dates.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 
pumps manufactured on or after January 23,

[[Page 51001]]

2006, shall have Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal 
Performance Factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Seasonal         Heating
                                              energy         seasonal
             Product class                  efficiency      performance
                                          ratio  (SEER)   factor  (HSPF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Split system air conditioners......             13    ..............
(ii) Split system heat pumps...........             13               7.7
(iii) Single package air conditioners..             13    ..............
(iv) Single package heat pumps.........             13               7.7
(v)(A) Through-the-wall air                         10.9             7.1
 conditioners and heat pumps-split
 system \1\............................
(v)(B) Through-the-wall air                         10.6             7.0
 conditioners and heat pumps-single
 package \1\...........................
(vi) Small duct, high velocity systems.             13               7.7
(vii)(A) Space constrained products-air             12    ..............
 conditioners..........................
(vii)(B) Space constrained products-                12               7.4
 heat pumps............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As defined in Sec.   430.2, this product class applies to products
  manufactured prior to January 23, 2010.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-18533 Filed 8-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P