### Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 23, 1983 / Notices 52971

1981), for gas sold to United from the Emma Eddy No. 3 Well located in the Carthage Field, Panola County, Texas. United requests that the Commission order refunds under § 270.101(e) (18 CFR 270.101(e) (1983 )) of the Commission's regulations and that the Commission declare that the applicable maximum lawful price for gas produced from the
Emma Eddy No. 3 well is that price set
under NGPA section 103. In its complaint, United states that it purchases natural gas produced from the Emma Eddy No. 3 well from Respondents pursuant to a gas purchase contract dated March 1, 1976. Getty Oil Company (Getty) is the operator of the well. Respondents own a non-operating, minority working interest. Getty drilled and completed the subject well during 1981 in a tight sands formation designated pursuant to § 271.703 of the
Commission' s regulations . United - purchases the production from Getty's interest in the Emma Eddy No. 3 well under a separate gas purchase contract. United notes.that United and Getty renegotiated their contract before Getty drilled the Emma Eddy No. 3 well to include language satisfing the "negotiated contract price" requirement set out in § 271.703 and defined in § 271.702 of the Commission's regulations. United alleges that the
contract with respondents was not renegotiated to include "negotiated contract price " language and therefore, under § 271.703, respondents may not lawfully charge the section 107(c)(5) tight sands incentive price for their portion of production from the Emma Eddy No. 3 well. United contends that Respondents may charge only the otherwise applicable maximum lawful price, which is the price established
under NGPA section 103.1 United states, however, that it mistakenly paid to Respondents the section 107(c)(5) incentive price for gas purchases from November 9, 1981 through July 1982. United later
discovered the mistake and notified Respondents by letter dated September 8, 1982. In that letter, United informed Respondents that United would recover United notes, Respondents have filed suit in state court to recover the amount withheld by United after September, 1982, and receive prospectively from September, 1982, the section 107(c)(5) incentive price for gas produced from the Emma Eddy No. 3 well. In its complaint, United requests that the Commission order Respondents to refund the remaining balance of payments made by United to Respondents in excess of the section 103 price, and declare that the section 103 price is the maximum lawful price applicable to Respondents' interest in gas produced from the Emma Eddy No. 3 well. In support of its complaint, United argues that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce NGPA maximum lawful prices and also to police the section 107(c)(5) eligibility requirements. United contends that it is clear from the face of the gas purchase contract with Respondents that the contract contains no "negotiated contract price," and therefore does not confer eligibility on Respondents to
collect the section 107(c)(5) incentive price for gas sold under the contract.
United contends that the otherwise applicable maximum lawful price is the NGPA section 103 price, and because Respondents have collected a price in excess of the section 103 rate., these over
collections must be refunded with interest to United. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest or answer to this complaint should file, with in 30 days after notice is published in the Federal Register, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest
or answer in accordance with requirements of Rules 211, 213, or 214 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All protests filed will be
considered but will not make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary.

(FR Doc, 83-51428 Filed 17-22-83; &45 am)

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a
"Petition for Waiver" from The Coleman Company (Coleman) of Wichita, Kansas, requesting a waiver from the existing Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures for furnaces. Coleman
manufactures residential and commercial heating appliances. The firm has developed a line of high efficiency, gas-fired warm air furnaces that will recover latent heat by condensing water vapor in the products of combustion before they exit the furnace. The petition requests DOE to grant relief from the test procedure requirements relating to the efficiency attributable to the condensing of flue gases . Coleman
seeks to use a National Bureau of Standards (NBS) condensate test method for determining AFUE and steady-state efficiency instead of the present DOE test procedures which base
condensation calculations on the average flue gas temperature . Also, the
firm seeks to eliminate the one and onehalf minute delay DOE requires between burner on and blower on during heat-up

tests . DOE is soliciting comments, data, and information respection the petition.

DATE : DOE will accept comments, data
and information not later than December 23, 1983.

ADDRESSES : Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Case No. F-011, Mail Stop CE-112.1, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington. D.C. 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. McCabe, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation andRenewable Energy, Mail Station CE112.1, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252-
9127. Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Cousel, Mail Station GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202)
252-9513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the overpayment, alleged to be $461,647.80 from Respondents' future
sales to United. United states that as of September 25, 1983, $120,623.82 

### Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy

x, exclusive of interest, remained to be ;4F-911f 

### By letter recovered from Respondents

. on that date United demanded refund of Energy Conservation Program for
the balance with interest Meanwhile, 1 Consumer Products; Petition for

' The section 103 well category application for the Emma Eddy No- 3 Well was filed with the Texas Railroad Commission on November R. 1981. The, affirmative determination was received by the Commission an June 4,1982, and became fumdon July 9. 1982, 

### Waiver of Furnace Test Procedures From The Coleman Company, Inc.

AGENCY.-Conservation and Renewable Energy Office, DOE.

ACTION : Notice. Background
The Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products (other than automobiles) was established pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 917, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act [NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, 92 Stat. 3266, which requires DOE to prescribe standardized test procedures to measure the energy consumption of certain consumer

### 52972 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 23, 1983 / Notices

products, including furnaces. The intent of the test procedures is to provide a comparable measure of energy consumption that will assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. These test procedures appear at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B. DOE has amended the prescribed test procedures by adding 10 CFR 430.27, Petitions for Waiver, to allow the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy temporarily to waive test procedures for a particular basic model. 45 FR 64108 (September 26, 1980). Waivers may be granted when one or more design characteristics of a basic model either prevent testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures or lead to results so unrepresentative of the model's true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Waivers generally remain in effect until final test procedure amendments become effective, resolving the problem that is the subject of the waiver. Coleman's petition seeks a waiver from the DOE test method basing
condensation calculations on the average flue gas temperature. Instead, Coleman requests the use of the condensate measuring method as set forth in Appendix C of National Bureau of Standards' Interagency Report 80- 2210, "Recommended Testing and Calculation Procedures for Estimating
the Seasonal Performance of Residential Condensing Furnaces and Boilers," dated April 1980, to determine the AFUE of its condensing furnace. The firm also is requesting the use of the condensate measurement method for determining the steady-state efficiency improvement of its condensing furnace instead of using the flue loss method in the existing test procedures. Finally, the firm is requesting to be waived from DOE's test requirements regarding time delays
between burner on and blower on during heat-up tests. Pursuant to paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 430.27, DOE is hereby publishing the "Petition for Waiver" in its entirety. The petition contains no confidential information. DOE solicits comments, data, and information respecting the petition.

Issued in Washington, D.C., November 15,
1983. Pat Collins, Acting Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy.
The Coleman Company, Inc, Heating &Air Conditioning Croup, P.O. box 1762, Wichita, Kansas 67201, Telephone 316-261-3211; (316) 832-6548 September 9, 1983. Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Solar Energy, United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20549
Re: Petition for Waiver

Gentlemen: This is a petition for waiver

from the test procedures of 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix N, dated August 12,
1980 , made pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27 by The Coleman Company Inc., 250 N. St. Francis Street, Wichita, Ks 67202. The Coleman Company, Inc., is a
manufacturer of gas fired heating equipment
intended for installation in conventional
residential housing, manufactured housing and light commercial applications. It is preparing to offer a gas fired, forced air, condensing line of furnaces (designated 90
series ) for these applications . The procedures specified in 10 CFR 430 subpart B, Appendix N yield results which fail to provide credit for an efficiency improvement of between 1% and 3% yielded by the condensing mode of operation . Reporting of the results pursuant
to the standard measurement procedures could materially mislead members of the consuming public, would encourage installation of less efficient equipment and
would cause economic harm to Coleman. In order to more accurately report the characteristics of its equipment, Coleman requests a waiver authorizing optional use in its laboratory of the procedures specified in the April 1981
National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report 81-2110 "Recommended Testing and Calculation Procedures for Estimating the Seasonal Performance of Residential Condensing Furnaces and Boilers" at Appendix C. In addition, Coleman requests a waiver authorizing the use of the condensate
measurement test method to determine steady-state efficiency which is used in calculating furnace heating capacity. The use of these procedures is described in a proposed amendment to "Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430-"Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces" at section 3.6 published in the June 17, 1983 Federal Register (48 FR 28028) The Coleman Company, Inc. Further petitions for a waiver from Section 3.3.1"Flue Gas Temperature MeasurementsHeat-up Test" of Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430. Section 3.3.1 requires a delay of 1.5 minutes between burner start up and blower start up. The equipment to be offered by petitioner utilizes a time delay relay which activates the blower approximately 20 seconds after burner start up regardless of ambient air temperature and for other factors. A delay of 1.5 minutes causes stack temperature overshoot which
reduces the recovered latent heat of condensation by approximately 1%. The method specified in the Regulation, therefore improperly yields lower efficiency results materially misrepresentative of what would 

### actually be achieved by one of these furnaces when installed as intended. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., Hyrotherm, Inc., Duo-Matic/Olsen, Inc., Lennox Industries, Heil Quaker Corporation and Arkla Industries offer equipment sharing
certain of the Characteristics of the subject Coleman base model. I respectfully request prompt and favorable action on this petition by the Assistant Secretary. You may contact me if additional information is required. Very truly your, William Harrigill, Design Engineer.

WR Doc

. 83-3345Z Filed ll-22-83; 8:45 eml

WLUNG CODE 8450-01-U



### Western Area Power Administration

Fort Peck

- Havre Transmission Lines Project ; Record of Decision To Construct

AGENCY : Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.

ACTION : Record of Decision to Construct
the Fort Peck-Havre Transmission Line Project, Montana.

SUMMARY:

Decision: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has made the
decision to construct the Fort PeckHavre, Montana, transmission line following the environmentally preferred
alternative identified in the draft and final environmental impact statement (EIS). The transmission line will be constructed on wood pole H-frame structures to 230-kV design standards and initially operated at 161-kV. Western will proceed with land and right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, construction, and subsequent operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities. The availability of the final EIS for the project was announced in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 29, 1983. Western has adopted the mitigation measures listed in the EIS. A specific mitigation plan for cultural resource impacts will be developed in
consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and this plan will be implemented before construction. In addition, any site specific mitigation requirements identified during subsequent construction will be addressed by
Western and coordinated with appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies. General mitigation measures
are discussed below.