32790 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

trademark owned or controlled on such

date by a refiner. The unexpired portion

of a transferred franchise is also

included in the definition of the term.

B. Franchise Relationship

The term ‘‘franchise relationship’’

refers to the respective motor fuel

marketing or distribution obligations

and responsibilities of a franchisor and

a franchisee which result from the

marketing of motor fuel under a

franchise.

C. Franchisee

A ‘‘franchisee’’ is a retailer or

distributor who is authorized or

permitted, under a franchise, to use a

trademark in connection with the sale,

consignment, or distribution of motor

fuel.

D. Franchisor

A ‘‘franchisor’’ is a refiner or

distributor who authorizes or permits,

under a franchise, a retailer or

distributor to use a trademark in

connection with the sale, consignment,

or distribution of motor fuel.

E. Marketing Premises

‘‘Marketing premises’’ are the

premises which, under a franchise, are

to be employed by the franchisee in

connection with the sale, consignment,

or distribution of motor fuel.

F. Leased Marketing Premises

‘‘Leased marketing premises’’ are

marketing premises owned, leased or in

any way controlled by a franchisor and

which the franchisee is authorized or

permitted, under the franchise, to

employ in connection with the sale,

consignment, or distribution of motor

fuel.

G. Fail to Renew and Nonrenewal

The terms ‘‘fail to renew’’ and

‘‘nonrenewal’’ refer to a failure to

reinstate, continue, or extend a

franchise relationship (1) at the

conclusion of the term, or on the

expiration date, stated in the relevant

franchise, (2) at any time, in the case of

the relevant franchise which does not

state a term of duration or an expiration

date, or (3) following a termination (on

or after June 19, 1978) of the relevant

franchise which was entered into prior

to June 19, 1978 and has not been

renewed after such date.

II. Legal Remedies Available to

Franchisee

The following is a more detailed

description of the remedies available to

the franchisee if a franchise is

terminated or not renewed in a way that

fails to comply with the Act.

A. Franchisee’s Right to Sue

A franchisee may bring a civil action

in United States District Court against a

franchisor who does not comply with

the requirements of the Act. The action

must be brought within one year after

the date of termination or nonrenewal or

the date the franchisor fails to comply

with the requirements of the law,

whichever is later.

B. Equitable Relief

Courts are authorized to grant

whatever equitable relief is necessary to

remedy the effects of a violation of the

law’s requirements. Courts are directed

to grant a preliminary injunction if the

franchisee shows that there are

sufficiently serious questions, going to

the merits of the case, to make them a

fair ground for litigation, and if, on

balance, the hardship which the

franchisee would suffer if the

preliminary injunction is not granted

will be greater than the hardship which

the franchisor would suffer if such relief

is granted.

Courts are not required to order

continuation or renewal of the franchise

relationship if the action was brought

after the expiration of the period during

which the franchisee was on notice

concerning the franchisor’s intention to

terminate or not renew the franchise

agreement.

C. Burden of Proof

In an action under the Act, the

franchisee has the burden of proving

that the franchise was terminated or not

renewed. The franchisor has the burden

of proving, as an affirmative defense,

that the termination or nonrenewal was

permitted under the Act and, if

applicable, that the franchisor complied

with certain other requirements relating

to terminations and nonrenewals based

on condemnation or destruction of the

marketing premises.

D. Damages

A franchisee who prevails in an

action under the Act is entitled to actual

damages and reasonable attorney and

expert witness fees. If the action was

based upon conduct of the franchisor

which was in willful disregard of the

Act’s requirements or the franchisee’s

rights under the Act, exemplary

(punitive) damages may be awarded

where appropriate. The court, and not

the jury, will decide whether to award

exemplary damages and, if so, in what

amount.

On the other hand, if the court finds

that the franchisee’s action is frivolous,

it may order the franchisee to pay

reasonable attorney and expert witness

fees.

E. Franchisor’s Defense to Permanent

Injunctive Relief

Courts may not order a continuation

or renewal of a franchise relationship if

the franchisor shows that the basis of

the non-renewal of the franchise

relationship was a determination made

in good faith and in the normal course

of business:

(1) To convert the leased marketing

premises to a use other than the sale or

distribution of motor fuel;

(2) To materially alter, add to, or

replace such premises;

(3) To sell such premises;

(4) To withdraw from marketing

activities in the geographic area in

which such premises are located; or

(5) That the renewal of the franchise

relationship is likely to be

uneconomical to the franchisor despite

any reasonable changes or additions to

the franchise provisions which may be

acceptable to the franchisee.

In making this defense, the franchisor

also must show that he has complied

with the notice provisions of the Act.

This defense to permanent injunctive

relief, however, does not affect the

franchisee’s right to recover actual

damages and reasonable attorney and

expert witness fees if the nonrenewal is

otherwise prohibited under the Act.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 12,

1996.

Marc W. Chupka,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy.

[FR Doc. 96–16124 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Granting of the

Application for Interim Waiver and

Publishing of the Petition for Waiver of

Bard Manufacturing Company From

the DOE Furnace Test Procedure.

(Case No. F–086)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Today’s notice grants an

Interim Waiver to Bard Manufacturing

Company (Bard) from the existing

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) test procedure regarding

blower time delay for the company’s TU

and TDH series furnaces.

Today’s notice also publishes a

‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ from Bard. Bard’s

Petition for Waiver requests DOE to

grant relief from the DOE furnace test

procedure relating to the blower time
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices 32791

delay specification. Bard seeks to test

using a blower delay time of 30 seconds

for its TU and TDH series furnaces

instead of the specified 1.5-minute

delay between burner on-time and

blower on-time. The Department is

soliciting comments, data, and

information respecting the Petition for

Waiver.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information not later than July 25,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Codes and

Standards, Case No. F–086, Mail Stop

EE–43, Room 1J–018, Forrestal Building,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586–

7140.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cyrus H. Nasseri, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station

EE–431, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20585–0121, (202)

586–9138

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC–72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, D.C. 20585–0103,

(202) 586–9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products (other than

automobiles) was established pursuant

to the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, as amended (EPCA), which requires

DOE to prescribe standardized test

procedures to measure the energy

consumption of certain consumer

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 Title 10 CFR

Part 430, Subpart B.

The Department amended the test

procedure rules to provide for a waiver

process by adding Section 430.27 to

Title 10 CFR Part 430. 45 FR 64108,

September 26, 1980. Subsequently, DOE

amended the waiver process to allow

the Assistant Secretary for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy

(Assistant Secretary) to grant an Interim

Waiver from test procedure

requirements to manufacturers that have

petitioned DOE for a waiver of such

prescribed test procedures. Title 10 CFR

Part 430, Section 430.27(a)(2).

The waiver process allows the

Assistant Secretary to waive temporarily

test procedures for a particular basic

model when a petitioner shows that the

basic model contains one or more

design characteristics which 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. Waivers generally

remain in effect until final test

procedure amendments become

effective, resolving the problem that is

the subject of the waiver.

An Interim Waiver will be granted if

it is determined that the applicant will

experience economic hardship if the

Application for Interim Waiver is

denied, if it appears likely that the

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/

or the Assistant Secretary determines

that it would be desirable for public

policy reasons to grant immediate relief

pending a determination on the Petition

for Waiver. Title 10 CFR Part 430,

§ 430.27 (g). An Interim Waiver remains

in effect for a period of 180 days or until

DOE issues its determination on the

Petition for Waiver, whichever is

sooner, and may be extended for an

additional 180 days, if necessary.

On April 4, 1996, Bard filed an

Application for Interim Waiver and a

Petition for Waiver regarding blower

time delay. Bard’s Application seeks an

Interim Waiver from the DOE test

provisions that require a 1.5-minute

time delay between the ignition of the

burner and starting of the circulating air

blower. Instead, Bard requests the

allowance to test using a 30-second

blower time delay when testing its TU

and TDH series furnaces. Bard states

that the 30-second delay is indicative of

how these furnaces actually operate.

Such a delay results in an average 0.4

to 0.6 percent increase in AFUE. Since

current DOE test procedures do not

address this variable blower time delay,

Bard asks that the Interim Waiver be

granted.

The Department has published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

August 23, 1993, (58 FR 44583) to

amend the furnace test procedure,

which addresses the above issue.

Previous Petitions for Waiver for this

type of time blower delay control have

been granted by DOE to Coleman

Company, 50 FR 2710, January 18, 1985;

Magic Chef Company, 50 FR 41553,

October 11, 1985; Rheem Manufacturing

Company, 53 FR 48574, December 1,

1988, 56 FR 2920, January 25, 1991, 57

FR 10166, March 24, 1992, 57 FR 34560,

August 5, 1992; 59 FR 30577, June 14,

1994, and 59 FR 55470, November 7,

1994; Trane Company, 54 FR 19226,

May 4, 1989, 56 FR 6021, February 14,

1991, 57 FR 10167, March 24, 1992, 57

FR 22222, May 27, 1992, 58 FR 68138,

December 23, 1993, and 60 FR 62835,

December 7, 1995; Lennox Industries,

55 FR 50224, December 5, 1990, 57 FR

49700, November 3, 1992, 58 FR 68136,

December 23, 1993, and 58 FR 68137,

December 23, 1993; Inter-City Products

Corporation, 55 FR 51487, December 14,

1990, and 56 FR 63945, December 6,

1991; DMO Industries, 56 FR 4622,

February 5, 1991, and 59 FR 30579, June

14, 1994; Heil-Quaker Corporation, 56

FR 6019, February 14, 1991; Carrier

Corporation, 56 FR 6018, February 14,

1991, 57 FR 38830, August 27, 1992, 58

FR 68131, December 23, 1993, 58 FR

68133, December 23, 1993, 59 FR 14394,

March 28, 1994, and 60 FR 62832,

December 7, 1995; Amana Refrigeration

Inc., 56 FR 27958, June 18, 1991, 56 FR

63940, December 6, 1991, 57 FR 23392,

June 3, 1992, and 58 FR 68130,

December 23, 1993; Snyder General

Corporation, 56 FR 54960, September 9,

1991; Goodman Manufacturing

Corporation, 56 FR 51713, October 15,

1991, 57 FR 27970, June 23, 1992, 59 FR

12586, March 17, 1994 and 61 FR

17289, April 19, 1996; The Ducane

Company Inc., 56 FR 63943, December

6, 1991, 57 FR 10163, March 24, 1992,

and 58 FR 68134, December 23, 1993;

Armstrong Air Conditioning, Inc., 57 FR

899, January 9, 1992, 57 FR 10160,

March 24, 1992, 57 FR 10161, March 24,

1992, 57 FR 39193, August 28, 1992, 57

FR 54230, November 17, 1992, and 59

FR 30575, June 14, 1994; Thermo

Products, Inc., 57 FR 903, January 9,

1992, and 61 FR 17887, April 23, 1996;

Consolidated Industries Corporation, 57

FR 22220, May 27, 1992, and 61 FR

4262, February 5, 1996; Evcon

Industries, Inc., 57 FR 47847, October

20, 1992, and 59 FR 46968, September

13, 1994; Bard Manufacturing Company,

57 FR 53733, November 12, 1992, and

59 FR 30578, June 14, 1994; and York

International Corporation, 59 FR 46969,

September 13, 1994, 60 FR 100, January

3, 1995, 60 FR 62834, December 7, 1995,

and 60 FR 62837, December 7, 1995.

Thus, it appears likely that this

Petition for Waiver for blower time

delay will be granted. In those instances

where the likely success of the Petition

for Waiver has been demonstrated based

upon DOE having granted a waiver for

a similar product design, it is in the

public interest to have similar products

tested and rated for energy consumption

on a comparable basis.

Therefore, based on the above, DOE is

granting Bard an Interim Waiver for its

TU and TDU series furnaces. Bard shall

be permitted to test its TU and TDH

series furnaces on the basis of the test

procedures specified in Title 10 CFR
32792 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix N, with

the modification set forth below:

(i) Section 3.0 in Appendix N is

deleted and replaced with the following

paragraph:

3.0 Test Procedure. Testing and

measurements shall be as specified in

Section 9 in ANSI/ASHRAE 103–82

with the exception of Sections 9.2.2,

9.3.1, and 9.3.2, and the inclusion of the

following additional procedures:

(ii) Add a new paragraph 3.10 in

Appendix N as follows:

3.10 Gas- and Oil-Fueled Central

Furnaces. After equilibrium conditions

are achieved following the cool-down

test and the required measurements

performed, turn on the furnace and

measure the flue gas temperature, using

the thermocouple grid described above,

at 0.5 and 2.5 minutes after the main

burner(s) comes on. After the burner

start-up, delay the blower start-up by 1.5

minutes (t-) unless: (1) the furnace

employs a single motor to drive the

power burner and the indoor air

circulation blower, in which case the

burner and blower shall be started

together; or (2) the furnace is designed

to operate using an unvarying delay

time that is other than 1.5 minutes, in

which case the fan control shall be

permitted to start the blower; or (3) the

delay time results in the activation of a

temperature safety device which shuts

off the burner, in which case the fan

control shall be permitted to start the

blower. In the latter case, if the fan

control is adjustable, set it to start the

blower at the highest temperature. If the

fan control is permitted to start the

blower, measure time delay (t-) using a

stop watch. Record the measured

temperatures. During the heat-up test for

oil-fueled furnaces, maintain the draft in

the flue pipe within 0.01 inch of water

column of the manufacturer’s

recommended on-period draft.

This Interim Waiver is based upon the

presumed validity of statements and all

allegations submitted by the company.

This Interim Waiver may be removed or

modified at any time upon a

determination that the factual basis

underlying the Application is incorrect.

The Interim Waiver shall remain in

effect for a period of 180 days or until

DOE acts on the Petition for Waiver,

whichever is sooner, and may be

extended for an additional 180-day

period, if necessary.

Bard’s Petition for Waiver requests

DOE to grant relief from the DOE

furnace test procedure relating to the

blower time delay specification. Bard

seeks to test using a blower delay time

of 30 seconds for its TU and TDH series

furnaces instead of the specified 1.5-

minute delay between burner on-time

and blower on-time. Pursuant to

paragraph (b) of Title 10 CFR Part

430.27, DOE is hereby publishing the

‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ in its entirety. The

Petition contains no confidential

information. The Department solicits

comments, data, and information

respecting the Petition.

Issued in Washington, D.C. June 13, 1996.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

April 4, 1996.

Ms. Christine A. Ervin

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and

Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Subject: Petition for Waiver and Application

for Interim Waiver

Dear Assistant Secretary: Petition for

Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver

are requested pursuant to Title 10 CFR Part

430.27.

Waiver is requested from test procedures

for measuring the energy consumption of

furnaces that are found in Appendix N of

Subpart B to 10 CFR Part 430. Presently the

test procedure requires a 1.5 minute delay

between burner ignition and the start of the

circulating air blower.

Bard Manufacturing Company is requesting

to use a 30 second delay instead of the

specified 1.5 minutes. Furnace Series TU and

TDH use an electronic fixed time blower

control set at 30 seconds. Test results for

these furnaces indicate an average .4-.6

percent increase in AFUE.

We are confident that this Waiver will be

granted, and request Interim Waiver until a

final ruling is made. Bard has been granted

previous waivers 57 FR 53733 and 59 FR

30578, and many other manufacturers have

been granted similar waivers.

Copies of confidential test data will be

provided to you at your request. Please

contact the undersigned if you have any

questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Richard Hanna,

Manager, Heating and Application

Engineering.

[FR Doc. 96–16121 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EG96–76–000]

AYP Energy, Inc.; Notice of Application

for Commission Determination of

Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

June 19, 1996.

On June 7, 1996, AYP Energy, Inc.

(‘‘Applicant’’) filed with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission an

application for determination of exempt

wholesale generator status pursuant to

Part 365 of the Commission’s

Regulations.

Applicant is a corporation organized

under the laws of the state of Delaware.

Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary

of AYP Capital, Inc. (‘‘AYP’’), which

itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Allegheny Power System, Inc. (‘‘APS’’),

a registered electric utility holding

company. Applicant’s business address

is c/o Allegheny Power Service

Corporation, 800 Cabin Hill Drive,

Greensburg, PA 15601 (Attn: Theresa

Colecchia).

The eligible facility consists primarily

of a 50 percent undivided interest in

Unit No. 1 of the Fort Martin Power

Station, an operating steam-electric

generating unit, and associated portion

of Ft. Martin Unit 1’s main transformers.

Ft. Martin Unit 1 is located in West

Virginia on the Monongahela River

between Morgantown, West Virginia

and Point Marion, Pennsylvania. The

portion of Ft. Martin Unit 1 that is the

eligible facility is currently owned by

Duquesne Light Company

(‘‘Duquesne’’), a Pennsylvania public

utility not affiliated with APS; however,

Duquesne has entered into an Asset

Purchase Agreement (dated November

28, 1995) with AYP, pursuant to which

Duquesne will sell on or before

December 31, 1996 its undivided

ownership interest in Ft. Martin Unit 1

(including its interest in the

transformers) to AYP, which will assign

the Asset Purchase Agreement to AYP

Energy, Inc. The remainder of the

facility of which the eligible facility is

a portion is owned by Monogahela

Power Company (‘‘MPC’’) and The

Potomac Edison Company (‘‘PEC’’), two

of the three wholly owned electric

operating subsidiaries of APS.

Any person desiring to be heard

concerning the application for exempt

wholesale generator status should file a

motion to intervene or comments with

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance

with §§ 385.211 and 385.214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure. The Commission will limit

its consideration of comments to those

that concern the adequacy or accuracy

of the application. All such motions or

comments should be filed on or before

June 28, 1996, and must be served on

the applicant. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on