Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices 18131

<-----(COLDER) SECONDARY PROGRAMMING MODE (HOTTER)--> ADJUSTMENT TEMPERATURES (F)

Wash temp. setting

Factory Preset (except

cold setting)

Hot ..................................... 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126

Warm-hot ........................... 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111

Warm ................................. 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101

Warm-cold ......................... 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

Cold:

Cold water only* ......... 54 56 58 60 62 64 66

* Factory Preset for COLD setting.

This request for waiver is submitted

because (1) The combination of five pre-set

temperature selections—all with a cold water

rinse—are incompatible with any of the TUF

tables in Section 4 of the regulations; and (2)

the requirement of section 3.2.2.6 that we test

all temperature selections that use hot water

is unduly burdensome. Instead, we propose

modified regulations that will allow for a

conservative testing protocol appropriate to

this product that is also in accordance with

the negotiated AHAM proposed rule.

GEA proposes an Interim Waiver and

Waiver to allow testing of the machine per

Appendix J with the following modifications:

Add the following definition to the test

procedure:

1.19 ‘‘Secondary programming

mode’’ means an auxiliary function

used to adjust temperature, water level,

rinse options or other characteristics of

the machine. The user must not be able

to access these adjustments from the

normal operating mode of the machine,

and access to the secondary mode must

not be necessary to operate the machine.

Change section 3.2.2.6 of the test procedure

as follows:

3.2.2.6 For automatic clothes washers

repeat 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, and 3.2.2.5 for each of

the other wash/rinse temperature selections

available that use hot water except: 1) if wash

temperature selections are uniformly

distributed, by temperature, between ‘‘hot

wash’’ and ‘‘cold wash’’, the reportable

values to be used for the warm water wash

setting shall be the arithmetic average of hot

and cold selections measurements of 2) if

wash temperature selections are nonuniformly distributed, by temperature,

between ‘‘hot wash’’ and ‘‘cold wash’’, test

all intermediate wash temperature selections

and average the results to obtain the

reportable warm wash values. For semiautomatic clothes washers. . .

For model WZSE5310 this would mean

using Alternate II from the three temperature

selection TUF table, section 5.3 of Appendix

J Hot/Cold, Warm/Cold, Cold/Cold, and

using the average of the three warm settings

on the machine for Warm/Cold. This also

conforms with the new test procedure

proposed by AHAM section 3.5.1. (The warm

setting is the default wash temperature for all

cycles.)

Change section 3.5 of the test procedure as

follows:

3.5.2.1 If the wash temperature offered in

the normal operating mode of the machine

can be further adjusted in a secondary

programming mode, the higher of the factory

preset temperature or the mean of the

adjustable range shall be used for testing.

For model WZSE5310 this means using the

factory preset temperatures for the Hot and

Warm settings and 60F for the Cold setting

for testing.

The table above shows the possible

temperature settings for the machine

(approximate bath water temperatures). To

achieve the temperatures to the right and left

of the factory preset temperatures on the

table, the user must read the owners’ guide

to learn how to enter a secondary

programming mode and make a special effort

to enter this mode and change the

temperatures. We feel strongly that this

secondary programming mode will be used

very infrequently because an Australia

consumer survey of 202 users showed that

only about 6% of those consumers ever

entered this mode to adjust temperatures.

There is no U.S. consumer data showing how

many consumers will enter the secondary

programming mode and the frequency that

the consumers will adjust the temperatures.

Lacking this data, it is logical to assume that

if consumers make the effort to enter the

secondary mode, it is equally or more likely

that the consumer will adjust the temperature

down, saving energy, as it is that the

consumer will raise the temperature. This is

especially true since there are 4 downward

adjustments and only 3 upward adjustments

possible. The owners’ guide will also inform

the consumer that adjusting the temperature

downward will save energy. Thus, we believe

that the most representative wash

temperatures are the factory preset

temperatures.

GEA requests immediate relief by grant of

the proposed Interim Waiver, justified by the

following reasons:

Economic Hardship—GEA currently has no

Monogram brand product in its home

laundry product line. Delay of introduction

of the this product will not allow GE to

complete its product line. Since a Monogram

dryer will be introduced with this product,

its introduction would also be delayed.

Likely Approval of Waiver—The Petition

for Waiver is likely to be granted because the

test procedure proposed conforms as much as

possible with the new test procedure

supported by AHAM. This new AHAM test

procedure is likely to be adopted.

Public Policy Merits-GE’s Monogram

washers are designed to efficiently extract

more water from wet clothes by a high speed

spin cycle, up to 1000 RPM. Such water

extraction is many times more energy

efficient than drying the same amount of

water. This innovation in clothes washer

design does not affect the test method for

clothes washers, but does result in increased

total energy savings. GE’s new washer is also

factory preset to an auto water fill level. The

machine senses the clothes load and uses

only the amount of water necessary to clean

the clothes. Because a manual High/Medium/

Low water fill level is also available, we will

test the machine using the manual water

levels per the test procedure. However, the

auto water fill feature is expected to show

actual energy savings for the consumer.

Thank you for considering this petition.

Lee Bishop,

Senior Counsel Product Safety/Regulatory.

Jane Ransdell,

Energy Standards Engineer.

[FR Doc. 96–9950 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP96–320–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

April 18, 1996.

Take notice that on April 15, 1996,

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia), P.O. Box 1273, Charleston,

West Virginia, 25325–1273, filed in

Docket No. CP96–320–000 a request

pursuant to Sections 157.205, and

157.216(b) of the Commission’s

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for

approval to abandon in place

approximately 0.7 mile of its 20-inch

transmission line, Line KA, and five

points of delivery to Mountaineer Gas

Company (Mountaineer) for service to

mainline customers, under the blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP83–

76–000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the

Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully

set forth in the request which is on file

with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

Columbia States that the facilities for

which it seeks abandonment were
18132 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Notices

transferred to low pressure service in

order to maintain service to five

mainline tap customers in Docket No.

CP95–240–000. Columbia indicates that

the transfer was necessary due to the

relocation of a pipeline corridor in

deteriorating Line KA. It is indicated

that the proposed abandonment will not

result in any loss of service to any

customer because they are currently

being provided service by Wyoming

Natural Gas, a local distribution

company. It is further indicated that

Mountaineer and the customers agree to

the proposed abandonment.

Any person or the Commission’s Staff

may, within 45 days of the issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214), a motion to

intervene and pursuant to Section

157.205 of the regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205),a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefore,

the proposed activities shall be deemed

to be authorized effective the day after

the time allowed for filing a protest. If

a protest is filed and not withdrawn 30

days after the time allowed for filing a

protest, the instant request shall be

treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10030 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP96–270–000]

Mid Continent Market Center, Inc.,

Complainant v. Panhandle Eastern

Pipe Line Company, Respondent;

Notice of Complaint

April 18, 1996.

Take notice that on March 21, 1996,

Mid Continent Market Center, Inc. (Mid

Continent), P.O. Box 889, 818 Kansas

Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66601, filed a

complaint in Docket No. CP96–270–000,

pursuant to Section 385.206 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure. Mid Continent charges

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company

(Panhandle) with undue discrimination

and anticompetitive behavior for its

failure to timely agree to modify a

delivery point and provide natural gas

transportation service. The details of

Mid Continent’s allegations are more

fully set forth in the complaint which is

on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

Mid Continent is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Western Resources, Inc., a

combination electric and gas utility with

operations in Kansas and Oklahoma.

Western Resources, Inc. was authorized

by the Kansas Corporation Commission

to transfer certain transmission, storage

and gathering facilities to Mid Continent

in June 1995. Mid Continent is

interconnected with four interstate and

four intrastate pipelines and provides

firm and interruptible natural gas

transportation service as well as shortterm storage and balancing services. In

Docket No. CP95–684–000, the

Commission granted Mid Continent a

Hinshaw exemption and a Part 284

Blanket Certificate to transport, sell, and

assign gas in interstate commerce (72

FERC ¶ 62,274 (1995)).

Mid Continent alleges that Panhandle

has exercised undue discrimination and

anticompetitive behavior by delaying

and/or refusing to modify interconnect

facilities with a pipeline that Mid

Continent has contracted to purchase

from KN Interstate Gas Transmission

Company. The proposed interconnects

would be in the vicinity of Panhandle’s

Haven, Kansas compressor station in

Reno County, Kansas. The interconnects

would allow Mid Continent to deliver

up to 100,000 MMBtu per day into

Panhandle’s market area on an

interruptible basis. Mid Continent also

says that gas delivered to Panhandle

could move via released capacity or

under firm contracts held on Panhandle

by Mid Continent’s customers.

Mid Continent asks the Commission

to order Panhandle to cease its

discriminatory and anticompetitive

behavior and allow modification of the

interconnects, at Mid Continent’s

expense. According to Mid Continent,

Panhandle has built interconnections

for other similarly situated interruptible

shippers, Kansas Pipeline Partnership

(KPP) and National Steel Corporation,

but has rejected other like requests. One

such rejected request, made jointly by

Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) and KPP, is

the subject of the pending complaint by

MGE in Docket No. CP95–755–000.

Mid Continent urges the Commission

to stop Panhandle from preferentially

providing new interruptible

interconnects to certain shippers while

denying interconnects to competing

systems such as Mid Continent. Mid

Continent says that Panhandle is

restraining competition and keeping its

customers captive by denying those

customers access to competitive

options.

Mid Continent says that Panhandle’s

tariff requires only that a party seeking

service reimburse Panhandle or cause

Panhandle to be reimbursed for the

costs associated with construction or

modification of the receipt and delivery

facilities to be used. Mid Continent says

that it is committed to reimburse

Panhandle for such costs.

Mid Continent also alleges

Panhandle’s actions violate the procompetitive policies underlying

antitrust laws, which the Commission is

bound to apply. Mid Continent says that

it needs expeditious action by the

Commission so that it can construct its

own related facilities in time for an

opportunity to compete with Panhandle

for service to Panhandle’s customers as

their current firm contracts expire this

year. Absent relief, Mid Continent seeks

a full evidentiary hearing on an

expedited basis.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make protest with reference to this

complaint should on or before May 3,

1996, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a

protest in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 or 385.211). All protests filed

with the Commission will be considered

by it in determining the appropriate

action to be taken but will not serve to

make the protestants parties to the

proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party to a proceeding or to

participate as a party in any hearing

therein must file a motion to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

Rules. Answers to the complaint shall

be due on or before May 3, 1996.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10029 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP96–4–002]

Mid Louisiana Gas Company; Notice of

Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

April 18, 1996.

Take notice that on April 16, 1996,

Mid Louisiana Gas Company (Mid

Louisiana), tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised

Volume No. 1, the following tariff

sheets:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 131

Mid Louisiana states that the purpose

of the filing of the Revised Tariff Sheets

is to comply with the Commission’s

directive in order Accepting and

Dismissing Tariff Sheets dated April 12,

1996, by including personnel names in

the update to the listing of shared

personnel and facilities.

Pursuant to Section 154.7(a)(7) of the

Commission’s Regulations, Mid

Louisiana respectfully requests waiver