75518 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: To make sure your 

comments and related material are 

entered only once in the docket please 

submit them by only one of the 

following means: 

(1) By e-mail to aero.ocr@nga.mil; or 

(2) By mail to: National GeospatialIntelligence Agency, Mail Stop D–111, 

Attn: Public Release of Aeronautical 

Products, 4600 Sangamore Road, 

Bethesda, MD 20816–5003.

Dated: December 13, 2004. 

Jeannette Owings-Ballard, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04–27645 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Denying the American Water 

Heater Company Petition for Waiver of 

the DOE Test Procedure for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Water 

Heaters (Case No. WH–010)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy.

ACTION: Decision and Order; Denial of 

Petition for Waiver. 

SUMMARY: Today’s notice denies the 

American Water Heater Company’s 

(American) Petition for Waiver from the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the 

Department) Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Water Heaters. American claims the 

DOE test method does not allow for an 

accurate representation of the true 

energy consumption of its residential 

water heaters fitted with an automatic, 

adaptive, control, a microprocessorbased control system. The Department 

does not believe the current test 

procedure misrepresents the true energy 

consumption of the American water 

heater equipped with an automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control.

ADDRESSES: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

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:

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

7892; e-mail: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov; or 

Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail 

Stop GC–72, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–

9507; e-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 10 CFR part 430.27(l), 

notice is hereby given of the issuance of 

the Decision and Order as set out below. 

In the Decision and Order, American is 

denied a Waiver from the Department’s 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Water Heaters 

for its water heaters that have automatic, 

adaptive, electronic controls.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

14, 2004. 

David K. Garman, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy.

Decision and Order 

In the matter of: American Water 

Heater Company (American). (Case No. 

WH–010) 

Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309) provides for the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products other than Automobiles’’

which requires, among other things, that 

DOE prescribe standardized test 

procedures to measure the energy 

consumption of certain consumer 

products, including water heaters. The 

relevant DOE test procedure for 

purposes of today’s decision and order 

is ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Water 

Heaters’’ (current test procedure). The 

current test procedure is set forth in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix E. It 

prescribes a method for characterizing 

the energy requirements of all types of 

water heaters and yields model-specific 

energy efficiency information that can 

aid consumers in their purchasing 

decisions.

The Department’s regulations contain 

provisions allowing a person to seek a 

waiver from the test procedure 

requirements for covered consumer 

products and electric motors. These 

provisions are set forth in 10 CFR 

430.27 and 10 CFR 431.29. The waiver 

provisions allow the Assistant Secretary 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (Assistant Secretary) to waive 

temporarily the test procedure for a 

particular basic model when a petitioner 

shows that the basic model contains one 

or more design characteristics that 

prevent testing according to the 

prescribed test procedures, or when the 

prescribed test procedures may evaluate 

the basic model in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. (10 CFR 

430.27(l)) Waivers generally remain in 

effect until final test procedure 

amendments become effective, thereby 

resolving the problem that is the subject 

of the waiver. 

On January 24, 2002, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register, 67 FR 3449, (hereafter referred 

to as the January 2002 notice) regarding 

a Petition for Waiver and Application 

for Interim Waiver received on April 26, 

2001, from American. In its Petition for 

Waiver, American sought modifications 

to the DOE test procedure to 

accommodate its electric water heaters 

which are fitted with an automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control device said 

to automatically raise or lower the 

thermostat set point based on patterns of 

use. American has developed the 

automatic, adaptive, electronic control 

in an effort to reduce standby energy 

losses. American stated that by lowering 

the temperature of the water within the 

water heater tank, standby losses can be 

reduced. American requested four 

modifications to the current test 

procedure: 

(1) The inclusion of a qualification 

test on the automatic, adaptive, 

electronic control to ensure that it 

automatically changes the set point; 

(2) Change the specified nominal 

average tank temperature to the lowest 

stable temperature achieved by the 

automatic, adaptive, electronic control 

from the existing constant set point of 

135° F; 

(3) Change the volume of water of 

each draw to provide an equal amount 

of thermal energy as would be provided 

in each draw of the current procedure; 

and 

(4) Change the equations to compute 

the energy factor by replacing the 135°

F nominal temperature with Tsu, the 

maximum average tank temperature


Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 13
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 75519

observed after the recovery following 

the sixth draw. 

In the January 2002 notice, the 

Department denied an Interim Waiver to 

American from the current test 

procedure and solicited comments, data 

and information as to whether to grant 

the Petition for Waiver as well as 

comments on testing water heaters with 

electronic controls. 

Assertions and Determinations 

The Department believes American’s 

proposed test procedure is not 

appropriate because of certain issues 

which would arise from modifying the 

current test procedure as American 

requests. DOE received comments from 

the American Gas Association (AGA), 

American, Applied Energy Technology 

(AET), Rheem Manufacturing Company 

(Rheem), and Southern California Gas 

Company (SCG) in response to the 

Petition for Waiver and the January, 

2002, notice. This section provides a 

discussion of the comments and places 

the issues into context. 

The current test procedure stipulates 

a first-hour rating test that provides for 

an estimate of the amount of ‘‘hot’’

water (water having a temperature above 

110° F) a storage water heater can 

supply within one hour. In its 

comments, AET and Rheem expressed 

concern that American did not propose 

a modified first-hour rating. In response 

to a similar DOE statement in the 

January 2002 notice, American provided 

results from first-hour rating tests for 

three of its basic models. These models 

were tested in accordance with the 

current test procedure except with the 

starting water heater tank temperature 

set at the lowest stable temperature, 

approximately 115° F instead of 135° F 

set point requirement. American 

asserted that this change to the firsthour rating test is appropriate because 

American advises consumers to use a 

thermostat set point of 120° F. American 

further argued that its modified firsthour rating test accurately reflects the 

typical hourly consumption of actual 

consumer use since 115° F is the typical 

temperature of tanks used by 

consumers. 

DOE believes the first-hour rating test, 

as proposed by American in its response 

to the January 2002 notice, is 

unacceptable because drawing hot water 

until a 25° F drop is observed at the tank 

outlet from an initial temperature of 

115° F would result in water that could 

be too cold for residential use. For 

example, Chapter 49 of the 2003 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Applications 

Handbook lists the following 

representative hot water temperatures 

for various uses:

Hand washing: 105° F 

Shaving: 115° F 

Showers and tubs: 110° F 

Residential dish washing and 

laundry: 140° F.

None of the temperatures listed above 

for residential applications are less than 

105° F. Allowing American to draw 

water until the water temperature 

becomes 25° F cooler than the 115° F 

start temperature, as prescribed in its 

modified test proposal, would result in 

90° F water from the water heater. Water 

at 90° F is below the recommended hot 

water temperatures such as those 

indicated in the ASHRAE Applications 

Handbook. 

With respect to American’s proposal 

for a modified start-temperature of 115°

F, AET recommended setting a lower 

limit on the temperature of the outlet 

water as a criterion for stopping a draw 

during the first-hour rating test as 

opposed to using a fixed temperature 

drop. Again, considering the ASHRAE 

recommended temperatures, DOE 

believes that a lower limit should not be 

less than 105° F. Allowing American to 

perform a first-hour rating test at a lower 

limit of 105° F with a start temperature 

of 115° F (or even 120° F) could result 

in unequal delivery capacity ratings 

compared to water heaters that are 

unequipped with an automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control since start 

temperatures would be different and the 

lower limit could be different.

The Department also believes that the 

effectiveness of the automatic, adaptive, 

electronic control in establishing and 

maintaining a lowest stable temperature 

under typical use patterns is 

unpredictable. In the January 2002 

notice, DOE stated that ‘‘American did 

not provide any test data that DOE 

could use to determine that a lower 

thermostat set point would result from 

typical household use * * *.’’

American responded by reiterating that 

the laboratory test data of three of its 

water heater models showed that the 

automatic, adaptive, electronic control 

would reach a lowest stable 

temperature. While American’s data 

demonstrates that three of its water 

heaters equipped with automatic, 

adaptive, electronic controls can create 

a lowest stable temperature in a 

laboratory setting, American did not 

provide data that shows that the lowest 

stable temperature achievable in a 

laboratory represents, or correlates to, 

what may be typical of household use 

in the field. AET, Rheem, and SCG 

argued that American’s request to test 

the water heater at the lowest stable 

temperature is inappropriate because 

there is no guarantee that in actual 

practice, the water heater would operate 

at such a level. Rheem and AET both 

stated that the proposed test procedure 

uses a best-case scenario and not 

necessarily thermostat set-points 

representative of actual field use. 

American did not respond to DOE’s 

request for data that characterizes water 

usage in family dwellings. American 

also did not provide evidence that, in 

actual field use, its water heaters would 

store water at the lowest stable 

temperature said to be achievable by the 

automatic, adaptive, electronic control. 

The data American provided to DOE on 

February 14, 2002, in response to the 

notice of January 2002, however, shows 

the performance of one water heater 

from each of four classes under a 

regulated draw pattern that artificially 

moves the thermostat set point up or 

down. The regulated draws are not 

necessarily representative of typical 

household water demand patterns and 

thus not necessarily representative of 

typical set-point temperatures and hot 

water temperatures. In its comments, 

American provides additional 

laboratory-derived data for four of the 

six basic models for which it seeks a 

waiver. American states that this data 

shows that the lowest, stable attainable 

temperatures range from 112° F to 118°

F, and the temperature difference results 

from the control algorithm and 

hardware. Again however, American 

did not provide data that shows how the 

lowest stable temperature achievable in 

a laboratory represents or correlates to 

what may be typical of household use 

in the field. 

Rheem also points out that the 

automatic, adaptive, electronic control 

has (four) different modes which can be 

manually selected. In addition to the 

‘‘Energy Saver Cycle’’ mode, which 

American terms the control mode 

responsible for adjusting the stored 

water temperature based on the actual 

hot water usage pattern, the automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control includes a 

manually selectable constant 

temperature mode, a manually 

selectable vacation mode, and a 

manually selectable low-temperature 

mode. Because these modes can be 

manually selected, the Department 

recognizes that consumers may select a 

mode other than the Energy Saver Cycle 

mode. The potential energy savings, 

which American claims are achievable 

in the Energy Saver Cycle mode, would 

not be attained if the user selects an 

operating mode other than the Energy 

Saver Cycle (e.g., a fixed set point of 

135° F). The Department believes 

American has not demonstrated how the


Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 13
75520 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 

consumer would set, and keep, the 

automatic, adaptive, electronic control 

in the Energy Saver Cycle mode.

The automatic, adaptive, electronic 

control’s ability to automatically raise 

the set-point temperature when hot 

water demand is high poses a concern. 

It is conceivable that in actual field use, 

the new automatic, adaptive, electronic 

control could result in higher energy 

consumption since it is capable of 

upwardly adjusting the set point, 

making the water temperature inside the 

tank higher than that ordinarily 

observed or higher than the set-point 

temperature prescribed in the current 

test procedure. Operating at set-point 

temperatures higher than those 

prescribed in the current test procedure 

would result in energy consumption 

higher than that observed using the 

current test procedure. 

Another reason the DOE believes 

American’s proposed modifications are 

not suitable is that the modifications 

could allow for inequitable testing. 

AGA, AET, Rheem, and SCG believe 

American’s proposed test procedure is 

biased towards the specific control 

device American has introduced. AGA, 

AET, and SCG commented that 

providing an exemption for such a 

control offers an unfair advantage to 

electric water heaters, as most gas water 

heaters do not incorporate an electricity 

source whereby an automatic controller 

such as American’s can be powered and 

operated. Rheem and AET indicated 

that the proposed waiver would 

discount other types of controls. For 

example, conventional thermostats are 

also a type of control, but these simple 

and low-cost devices would not be 

covered under American’s proposed 

rating procedure. American proposes a 

particular test that would qualify its 

control, but other controllers that work 

in a slightly different manner would not 

qualify under American’s test, despite 

being capable of forcing the tank 

temperature to a lower level. SCG stated 

that, because of the large variability in 

hot water use, the purpose of the current 

test procedure is to provide a level 

playing field while not necessarily 

duplicating actual household energy 

consumption. Besides its assertion of 

posing an unfair advantage, AET also 

stated that, since American indicates no 

lowest stable temperature, the proposed 

modification would result in a test 

procedure potentially subject to abuse 

by allowing water heaters to be tested at 

temperatures that would not be 

considered useful. The proposed test 

procedure is potentially subject to 

further abuse since American has not 

specified thermostat cut-out and cut-in 

temperatures. 

DOE believes the current test 

procedure provides for an equitable test 

metric for all applicable water heaters 

and an evaluation method that is 

representative of the true energy 

consumption of the water heater in 

question under the demand conditions 

specified. The current 24-hoursimulated-use test procedure simulates 

the consumption of hot water; the test 

begins with six draws at one-hour 

intervals. The total amount of water 

removed from the tank in these equally 

sized draws is 64.3 gallons at a flow rate 

of three gallons per minute. After the 

draw portion of the test, the water 

heater sits idly until a period of time 

totaling 24 hours has elapsed. The 

temperature of the water in the tank is 

set at 135° F, and the temperature of the 

inlet water is set at 58° F. The current 

test procedure says 135° F is the needed 

water temperature; American’s 

proposed test would not allow the water 

heater to yield a water temperature of 

135° F. American suggests a modified 

procedure, which is to deliver the 

identical amount of thermal energy by 

increasing the amount of water drawn 

from the tank at a lower temperature. 

This modification however, would not 

emulate a demand condition requiring 

135° F water. Granting American’s 

waiver request would result in an 

inequitable metric as some water heaters 

would need to satisfy demands at 135°

F while others would only need to 

satisfy demands at much lower 

temperatures.

A control device such as American’s 

can provide an automated means for 

changing the temperature of the water 

stored in a water heater. However, DOE 

does not believe that a waiver for a 

lower set-point-temperature is 

warranted on the basis of automation. 

American argues that its automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control will 

automatically cause the water heater to 

operate at a lower temperature than is 

required in the current test procedure 

and thus, should be tested at a lower 

temperature. While water heaters with 

conventional controllers can be 

manually set to operate at a lower 

temperature than is specified in the 

DOE test procedure and thus achieve 

the same effect as American’s automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control, the current 

test procedure does not allow for a 

manual change. American’s control 

feature does not change the fundamental 

operation of its water heater or create a 

unique operating regime that is 

unattainable by water heaters equipped 

with conventional controls. For these 

reasons also, DOE believes that allowing 

American to test its water heater 

equipped with its automatic, adaptive, 

electronic control at a set-point 

temperature lower than that specified in 

the current test procedure would create 

an inequitable test standard. 

DOE believes American has not 

provided sufficient evidence to establish 

that the current test procedure 

misrepresents the true energy 

consumption of its water heater 

equipped with its new automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control. American 

has also not substantiated its claim that 

a water heater with its automatic, 

adaptive, electronic control will save 

energy compared to a water heater with 

a conventional control when responding 

to the same demand conditions. 

American has responded to DOE’s 

request for more data by providing 

results on three tanks in a laboratory 

setting in which a series of short draws 

demonstrated an automatic decrease in 

tank temperature, and longer draws 

show an automatic increase in 

temperature. While the test results show 

that the automatic, adaptive, electronic 

control can decrease the temperature of 

the water inside the tank to a minimally 

acceptable temperature, as defined by 

the automatic, adaptive, electronic 

control, the results fail to demonstrate 

energy savings at temperatures matching 

those prescribed in the current DOE test 

procedure. Moreover, American has not 

provided data that justify a deviation 

from the prescribed temperatures. A 

demonstration of performance under an 

artificial draw pattern that is designed 

to force the water heater to its optimum 

control settings, which do not 

correspond to set-point temperatures 

prescribed in the current DOE test 

procedure and which are too low to 

yield water that is sufficiently warm for 

recommended household uses, is 

insufficient to establish that testing in 

accordance with the current test 

procedure would result in materially 

inaccurate comparative energy 

consumption data. The energy 

consumption measured under the 

current test procedure would not be 

misrepresentative of American’s water 

heaters’ true energy consumption under 

the demand conditions assumed in the 

test procedure. Accordingly, the 

petitioner has not met the criterion in 10 

CFR 430.27 (l) that a waiver be granted 

if the prescribed test procedure 

evaluates the basic model in a manner 

so unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 

Furthermore, the Department believes 

American’s automatic, adaptive, 

electronic control does not preclude 

testing in accordance with the current 

test procedure, and no other aspect of


Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 13
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 75521

the water heater’s design precludes 

testing it in accordance with the 

provisions in the current test procedure. 

The Department has determined that the 

relevant basic models of water heaters 

that are the subject of the application for 

waiver can be tested under the current 

test procedure. AGA agrees with this 

conclusion; it stated that there is 

nothing that prevents American’s water 

heater from being tested under the 

current test procedure, and that test 

results would accurately predict energy 

consumption under the behavioral 

assumptions inherent in the test 

procedure (namely, the amount of water 

required and the temperature at which 

that water is needed). Accordingly, the 

petitioner has not met the criterion in 10 

CFR 430.27 (l) that the basic model 

contains one or more design 

characteristics that prevent testing 

according to the prescribed test 

procedures. 

Conclusion 

Following a careful consideration of 

all the material that was submitted by 

American, the comments received, and 

based on the criteria for granting a 

waiver as provided in 10 CFR 430.27 (l), 

it is ordered that no waiver will be 

granted.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

14, 2004. 

David K. Garman, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 04–27643 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER04–1003–002 and ER04–

1007–002] 

American Electric Power Service 

Corporation; Notice of Compliance 

Filing 

December 9, 2004. 

Take notice that on December 2, 2004, 

American Electric Power Service 

Corporation (AEPSC) on behalf of the 

AEP operating companies in its East 

Zone, (namely Appalachian Power 

Company, Columbus Southern Power 

Company, Indiana Michigan Power 

Company, Kentucky Power Company, 

Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power 

Company, and Wheeling Power 

Company) submitted a compliance 

filing pursuant to the Commission letter 

order issued November 1, 2004 in 

Docket Nos. ER04–1003–000, ER04–

1003–001, ER04–1007–000 and ER04–

1007–001. 

AEPSC states that copies of the filing 

were served on parties on the official 

service list in the above-captioned 

proceedings as well as on AEP 

transmission customers and the state 

utility regulatory commissions in the 

states in which the AEP operating 

companies do business. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. Anyone filing a motion 

to intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Applicant. On 

or before the comment date, it is not 

necessary to serve motions to intervene 

or protests on persons other than the 

Applicant. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on December 23, 2004.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–3685 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP99–301–124] 

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of 

Compliance Filing 

December 10, 2004. 

Take notice that on December 6, 2004, 

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered 

for filing an updated Primary Route 

Exhibit for Contract No. 107876 between 

ANR and Wisconsin Gas. 

ANR states that the exhibit is being 

filed in compliance with the 

Commission’s November 30, 2004 order 

accepting ANR’s amended negotiated 

rate agreements for filing. ANR requests 

that the Commission accept and 

approve the subject negotiated rate 

agreement amendments to be effective 

November 1, 2004. 

Any person desiring to protest this 

filing must file in accordance with Rule 

211 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 

385.211). Protests to this filing will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Such protests must be filed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 154.210 of the Commission’s 

regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone 

filing a protest must serve a copy of that 

document on all the parties to the 

proceeding. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests in lieu 

of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at 

http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to 

file electronically should submit an 

original and 14 copies of the protest to 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive e-mail notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–3688 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P


Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 13