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 and

Renewable 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

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

recovered from Respondents. By letter

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

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 20
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.

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 20