[Federal Register: September 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 50177]
[DOCID:fr30se09-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13564-000]

 Dexter-Russell, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

September 23, 2009.
    On July 31, 2009, Dexter-Russell, Inc. filed an application,
pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Dexter-Russell Water Power Project No. 13564, to
be located on the Quinebaug River, in Worcester County, Massachusetts.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 11.5-foot-
high, 370-foot-long Russell-Harrington Mill Pond Dam with a 30-foot-
long masonry abutment; (2) an existing 8-acre impoundment with a normal
water surface elevation of 477.5 feet mean sea level; (3) two new
siphon turbine generating units with a combined capacity of 500
kilowatts; (4) a new 790-square-foot forebay and 45-foot-long full-
depth trash rack with automated rake; (5) a new 13.8-kilovolt, 380-
foot-long transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The
project would have an estimated annual generation of 1,500 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Robert Ouellette, Dexter-Russell, Inc., 44 River
Street, Southbridge, MA 01550,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing application: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
    Enter the docket number (P-13564) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23515 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13703-13704]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04716]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0213]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Empire Pipeline,
Inc.

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comment on a
request from Empire Pipeline, Inc., to renew a previously issued
special permit. The special permit renewal request is seeking continued
relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal
pipeline safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment
period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as
part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit renewal
request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
April 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to entercomments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Note: There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as

CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec.  190.343,
you may ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you
give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) Mark each page of
the original document submission containing CBI as ``Confidential'';
(2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the
original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI. Unless you are notified
otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of
this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kay McIver,
DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit renewal
request from Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire), owned by National Fuel Gas
Company, to continue its operations of the Empire State Pipeline as
defined in the original special permit issued on May 20, 2010, and
renewed on May 20, 2015. An additional special permit segment was added
to the special permit on March 28, 2017. The present special permit
term is through May 20, 2020. Empire's special permit renewal request
submitted on November 22, 2019, seeks to waive compliance from the
requirements of 49 CFR Sec.  192.611, ``Change in class location:
Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure''.
This special permit renewal is being requested in lieu of pipe
replacement or pressure reduction for six (6) special permit segments
totaling 10,475 feet of 24-inch diameter Empire State Pipeline located
in Genesee, Monroe, Niagara, and Wayne Counties, New York. The special
permit renewal will allow the continued operation of the original Class
1 pipe in Class 3 locations.
    The Empire State Pipeline is comprised of 157 miles of 24-inch
diameter pipeline and transports natural gas from the Canadian and
United States international border in Niagara County, New York to
Oswego County, New York. The Empire State Pipeline was installed in
1993 and has a maximum allowable operating pressure of either 1,440
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or 1,000 psig in the special permit
segments.
    The special permit renewal request, existing special permit with
conditions, and Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact (EA/FONSI) for the Empire State Pipeline is available for review
and public comment in Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0213. We invite interested
persons to review and submit comments on the special permit renewal
request and EA/FONSI in the docket. Please include any comments on
potential safety and environmental impacts that may result if the
special permit renewal is granted. Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit renewal request,
PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment
closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be
evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring additional
expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives
in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit renewal
request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2020-04716 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 68290-68291]
[DOCID:fr23de09-97]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29093; File No. 812-13728]

Investools Inc., et al.; Notice of Application and Temporary
Order

December 16, 2009.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Application: Applicants have received a temporary order
exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to an
injunction entered against Investools Inc. (``Investools'') on December
16, 2009 by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the ``Injunction''), until the Commission takes final action
on an application for a permanent order. Applicants also have applied
for a permanent order.

Applicants: Investools, Amerivest Investment Management, LLC
(``Amerivest''), and TDAM USA Inc. (``TDAM USA'') (collectively, other
than Investools, the ``Fund Servicing Applicants,'' and together with
Investools, the ``Applicants'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that any relief granted pursuant to the
application also apply to any other company of which Investools is
or hereafter may become an affiliated person within the meaning of
section 2(a)(3) of the Act (together with the Applicants, the
``Covered Persons'').

Filing Date: The application was filed on December 11, 2009, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amended on December 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on January 11, 2010, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Investools, 13947
S. Minuteman Dr., Draper, UT 84020; Amerivest, 1005 North Ameritrade
Place, Bellevue, NE 68005; and TDAM USA, 161 Bay Street, 35th Floor, TD
Canada Trust Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2T2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6826, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained
via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/
search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Investools and Amerivest are indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries
of TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation (``TD Ameritrade Holding''). The
Toronto-Dominion Bank (``TD Bank'') owns approximately 45% of the
outstanding common stock of TD Ameritrade Holding. TDAM USA is a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of TD Bank. Investools was acquired by
TD Ameritrade Holding in June 2009 as part of TD Ameritrade Holding's
acquisition of thinkorswim Group, Inc. Investools does not provide, and
no existing company of which Investools is an affiliated person (other
than the Fund Servicing Applicants) currently provides, Fund Service
Activities to any registered investment company.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Fund Service Activities'' refers to serving or acting in
the capacity of employee, officer, director, member of an advisory
board, investment adviser, or depositor of any registered investment
company, or principal underwriter for any registered open-end
company, registered unit investment trust, or registered face-amount
certificate company. Any registered investment company to which a
Covered Person provides Fund Service Activities is a ``Fund.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Fund Servicing Applicants are registered as investment
advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and provide
investment advisory or sub-advisory services to Funds.
    3. On December 16, 2009, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia entered a judgment against Investools
(``Judgment'') in a matter brought by the Commission.\3\ The Commission
alleged in the complaint (``Complaint'') that Defendants Michael J.
Drew (``Drew'') and Eben D. Miller (``Miller''), employees of
Investools, committed fraud during sales presentations at workshops
held by Investools. The Complaint also alleged that while Investools
had compliance policies requiring speakers to have proof of the
validity of success claims, it did not require Drew, Miller, or other
speakers to provide it with substantiating documentation after learning
they were claiming that their securities trading was tremendously
profitable. The Complaint alleges that Investools is liable as a
controlling person under section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') for violations by its speakers of section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and rule 10b-5

thereunder. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Complaint, except as to jurisdiction, Investools consented to the entry
of the Judgment that included, among other things, the entry of the
Injunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities and Exchange Commission v. Investools Inc.,
Michael J. Drew and Eben D. Miller, Final Judgment as to Defendant
Investools Inc., 09 Civ. 02343 (D.D.C. December 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person
who has been enjoined from, among other things, engaging in or
continuing any conduct or practice in connection with the purchase or
sale of a security from acting, among other things, as an investment
adviser or depositor of any registered investment company or a
principal underwriter for any registered open-end investment company,
registered unit investment trust or registered face-amount certificate
company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act makes the prohibition in section
9(a)(2) applicable to a company, any ``affiliated person'' of which has
been disqualified under the provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section
2(a)(3) of the Act defines ``affiliated person'' to include, among
others, any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by,
or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that
Investools is an affiliated person of each of the Fund Servicing
Applicants within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. Applicants
state that the entry of the Injunction results in Applicants being
subject to the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act.
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant
an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of
section 9(a) of the Act if it is established that these provisions, as
applied to the Applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or
that the Applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against
the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the
exemption. Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section
9(c) seeking a temporary and permanent order exempting them and Covered
Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the
Act.
    3. Applicants believe they meet the standards for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of
section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately
severe and that the conduct of the Applicants has been such as not to
make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to
grant the exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants state that the alleged conduct giving rise to the
Injunction did not involve any of the Applicants providing Fund Service
Activities to any registered investment company and that the alleged
conduct occurred prior to TD Ameritrade Holding's acquisition of
thinkorswim Group, Inc. when the Fund Servicing Applicants were not
affiliated persons of Investools. Applicants also state that none of
the current or former directors, officers, or employees of the Fund
Servicing Applicants had any knowledge of, or participation in, the
violative conduct alleged in the Complaint. Applicants further state
that the personnel at Investools who were involved in the violations
alleged in the Complaint have had no, and will not have any future,
involvement in providing Fund Service Activities to Funds.
    5. Applicants state that the inability of the Fund Servicing
Applicants to continue to serve as investment adviser or sub-adviser to
the Funds would result in potential hardship for the Funds and their
shareholders. Applicants will distribute to the boards of directors of
the Funds (``Boards''), as soon as reasonably practicable and to the
extent not already completed, written materials regarding the Judgment,
any impact on the Funds, and the application. These materials will
include an offer to meet in person to discuss the materials with each
Board, including the directors who are not ``interested persons,'' as
defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Fund, and their
independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act,
if any. Applicants state they will provide each Board with all
information concerning the Judgment and the application that is
necessary for the Funds to fulfill their disclosure and other
obligations under the federal securities laws.
    6. Applicants also state that, if the Fund Servicing Applicants
were barred from providing investment advisory services to the Funds,
the effect on their businesses and employees would be severe.
Applicants state that the Fund Servicing Applicants have committed
substantial capital and other resources to establish an expertise in
advising and sub-advising Funds. Applicants further state that
prohibiting the Applicants from engaging in Fund Service Activities
would not only adversely affect their businesses, but would also
adversely affect approximately 52 employees who are actively involved
in those activities.
    7. Applicants previously have received exemptions under section
9(c) as the result of conduct that triggered section 9(a) as described
in greater detail in the application.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:

    Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application
shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's
rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation
of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered
Persons, including, without limitation, the consideration by the
Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act
requested pursuant to the application or the revocation or removal
of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with
the application.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary
exemption.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that
Applicants and any other Covered Persons are granted a temporary
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), solely with respect to
the Injunction, subject to the condition in the application, from
December 16, 2009, until the Commission takes final action on their
application for a permanent order.

By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30428 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 23499]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07959]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2023-11]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Dassault
Aviation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-0526
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deana Stedman, AIR-646, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2023.
Candace E. Keefe,
Acting Manager, Technical Writing Section.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2023-0526.
    Petitioner: Dassault Aviation.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.1322(b), (c)(2), and
(e)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Dassault Aviation is seeking
relief from certain requirements of 14 CFR 25.1322, until September
30, 2027, while it incorporates design changes and retrofit of the
Model Falcon 6X airplane that would bring the airplane into
compliance with FAA requirements.

[FR Doc. 2023-07959 Filed 4-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


June 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Possible Tractor, Trailer, and Vocational Vehicle Standards Derived from Alternative Road Grade Profiles

FROM:	Lauren Steele, Houshun Zhang, OTAQ/ASD

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

Introduction

The purpose of this memorandum is to illustrate some possible effects on the calculated fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of vehicles caused by variations in the test procedure for simulating road grade in the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM).  This memorandum presents possible road grade profiles other than the one presented in the proposal, as well as an analysis of exploratory work  using the Phase 2 GEM with alternate road grades.  The road grade profiles described below include two that were developed by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and one that was developed by the agencies.  For completeness the proposed profile that is in Phase 2 GEM is described as well.

It is a goal of the agencies to select the most appropriate road grade profile(s) on the basis of being nationally representative as well as reasonably similar to real-world driving conditions.  It is not the agencies' intent to cause the standards to become more or less stringent as a result of selection of road grade profile.  Any effect on stringency is minimized by the fact that both the baseline case and the stringency case will be simulated in GEM with the same road grade profile.  However, it is expected that various engine and driveline technologies will perform differently over different road grade profiles, thus changing the resulting numerical results in all cases.

The agencies acknowledge that if a road grade profile is very aggressive, some vehicles may not be able to follow the full trace at speed.  In the preamble to this rulemaking we request comment on the merits of developing variable speed highway cycles.  Our goal is to adopt a cycle that is challenging enough to ensure that vehicles continue to be built for real world performance, while maintaining the simulated vehicle operation within a range for which GEM has been validated.

Proposed Road Grade Profile

The agencies are proposing an interim road grade profile for development of the proposed standards, as shown below in Figure 1, in both the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles.  The grade profile was developed by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) on a 12.5 mile stretch of restricted-access highway during on-road tests conducted for EPA's validation of the Phase 2 version of GEM.  The minimum grade in the interim profile is -2.1 percent and the maximum grade is 2.4 percent.  The profile includes 30 percent of the distance at grades of +/- 0.5 percent.  Overall, the profile includes approximately 50 percent of the time in relatively flat terrain with road gradients of less than 1 percent.

   Figure 1:  Proposed Road Grade Profile for 55 mph and 65 mph Drive Cycles

The following charts illustrate the degree to which the SwRI road grade profile in GEM matches the nationally representative profile, as characterized by NREL.  In Figure 2, the GEM profile has generally lower magnitude grades than the national data, with a lack of grades between 2 and 4%.  In Figure 3 the majority of half hills in the GEM profile are of length 0.5 to 1.5 miles, with a lack of half hills less than 0.5 mi and longer than 1.5 miles.

Figure 2:  Comparison of National Cumulative Absolute Road Grade with SwRI Route (Source: NREL)

Figure 3:  Comparison of National Cumulative Half Hill Distance with SwRI Route (Source: NREL)

NREL Road Grade Profiles

A complete description of the methodology for generating the NREL road grade profiles, as well as several other possible alternate profiles, is found in a May 2015 report titled, "Development of Road Grade Profiles Representative of US Controlled Access Highways," available in the docket.  Numerical representations of these distance-based profiles are also available in the docket, in a format that is ready for modeling.

The minimum grade in the example 55 mph NREL profile shown in Figure 4 is -3.1 percent and the maximum grade is 3.8 percent.  The majority of the profile is within a range of grades of +/- 2 percent.  Of the five nationally representative 55 mph profiles generated by NREL in the final report, this one was selected as the example because the shorter length of the synthetic profile (compared to the relatively long local routes) has many advantages.  Also, the road grade is steeper than in the other synthetic profile.

The minimum grade in the example 65 mph NREL profile shown in Figure 5 is -2.2 percent and the maximum grade is 3.3 percent.  The majority of the profile is within a range of grades of +/- 2 percent.  Of the four nationally representative 65 mph profiles generated by NREL in the final report, this one was selected as the example because the shorter length of the synthetic profile (compared to the relatively long local routes) has many advantages.  Also, the length of distance spent in a steep down-slope is less than in the other synthetic profile.

          Figure 4: Example NREL road grade profile for 55 mph cycle

          Figure 5:  Example NREL road grade profile for 65 mph cycle

EPA Road Grade Profile

The profile depicted in Figure 6 is 11.48 miles (18.44 km) long, its longest half hill spans 2.87 miles (4.47 km) and its highest grade equals 2.5%.  It was developed to align with the national road grade data using a methodology differing from NREL's and may offer some advantages. Of several profiles developed by EPA, this one was selected for analysis in part due to its aggressive uphill.

A complete description of the methodology for generating the EPA road grade profile is found in a May 2015 memorandum titled, "Development of an Alternative, Nationally Representative, Activity Weighted Road Grade Profile for Use in EPA GHG Certification of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," available in the docket.

       Figure 6:  Example EPA road grade profile for both cruise cycles

Exploratory Work Analyzing the Effect in GEM of Alternative Road Grade Profiles

The agency has conducted exploratory work to evaluate the effects on vehicle performance as simulated in GEM of applying different road grade profiles. The objective of this analysis is to understand how the default transmission auto-shift responds to demands to move heavy vehicles over different road grades.  This auto-shift is being used for the stringency development as well as the future compliance tool under the Phase 2 rulemaking.[,]  The results are inconclusive, but do offer insights as to how GEM could be further improved to represent more realistic real-world driving conditions.

For this analysis, three profiles were examined: (1) the EPA profile described above and presented in Figure 6 (Profile 1); an amplified version of Profile 1 referred to as Profile 2, and (3) the proposed profile described above and presented in Figure 1 ("Baseline").  Figures 7 and 8 show the road grades and elevations, respectively, of these three profiles explored in this study.

                Figure 7 Alternate Road Grade Profiles Explored

                Figure 8 Alternate Elevation Profiles Explored

It can be seen that Profiles 1 and 2 are similar in term of shape, except that Profile 2 has a higher road grade up to 4%.  In fact, Profile 2 was derived from Profile 1 by multiplying a constant to Profile 1 in order to achieve a maximum road grade of 4%.  This hypothetical road grade is mainly used to check how the auto-shifting algorithm responds with a road grade up to 4%, and was not designed to align with the national data.  The Baseline and Profile 1 have similar road grade in terms of maximum road grade, although elevation is quite different.  Compared to the Baseline, both Profiles 1 and 2 have a long hill, which can test how the default transmission auto-shift responds to this condition.

In order to evaluate the impact of the road grade on the vehicle performance as well as check the fidelity of the default transmission auto-shift, a vehicle with the key parameters defined in Table 1 is selected for this study, which represents a class 8 tractor with specifications aligning with some technologies that could be adopted in the 2027 timeframe.

      Table 1 Class 8 Combination Tractor Sleeper Cab Modeling Parameters
                               Regulatory Class
                              Class 8 Combination

                            Sleeper Cab - High Roof
                                    Engine
                           455hp rating map for 2027
                            Transmission gear ratio
              [0 14.8 10.95 8.09 5.97 4.46 3.32 2.45 1.81 1.35 1]
                              Gearbox Efficiency
      98% for the gear with a 1:1 gear ratio, and 96% for all other gears
                                     CdA
                                       4
                               Steer CRR (kg/t)
                                      4.3
                               Drive CRR (kg/t)
                                      4.5
                              Trailer CRR (kg/t)
                                      4.7
                          Axle Mechanical Efficiency
                                      96%
                               Total weight (kg)
                                     31978
                                  Axle ratio
                                     2.26
                               Number of Axles
                                       5
                          Default Axle Configuration
                                      6x4
                        Electrical Accessory Power (W)
                                      300
                        Mechanical Accessory Power (W)
                                     1000
                      Environmental Air Temperature (°C)
                                      25
                                Payload (tons)
                                      19

Figures 9 and 10 below present the simulated results of the vehicle described in Table 1 over Profile 1 and a 65 mph drive cycle.

Figure 9 Vehicle speed traces, gear number, engine speed and torque over 65 mph cycle for Profile 1

       Figure 10 Engine operating points over 65 mph cycle for Profile 1

From Figure 9, it can be seen that the engine is under-powered during the long hill operation because the vehicle is unable to follow the targeted vehicle speed trace.  The transmission stays in the top gear. The engine operating points as shown in Figure 10 seem to make sense, suggesting that the auto-shifting is able to handle this road grade profile up to 2.5%.

The situation changes when higher road grade with a maximum of 4% is evaluated.  Figure 11 and 12 below present the simulated results of the vehicle described in Table 1 over Profile 2 and a 65 mph drive cycle.

Figure 11 Vehicle speed traces, gear number, engine speed and torque over 65 mph cycle for Profile 2

       Figure 12 Engine operating points over 65 mph cycle for Profile 2

Figure 11 shows that the vehicle cannot meet the targeted speed trace due to the under-powered engine. When the vehicle climbs the hill, there is a long delay for 50 seconds before shifting to lower gear. This results in the engine operating points moving to the lower speed end along the full torque curve as indicated in Figure 12.  In reality, the truck running on the road should also have a minimum engine speed limit.  In contrast, the default auto-shifting algorithm currently allows the engine speed to drop below 900 rpm without shifting.  These behaviors indicate an opportunity to improve GEM for the final rulemaking.  Another key observation and area for improvement is how the engine behaves during climbing once the transmission shifts to a lower gear. As can be seen in Figure 11, the engine first drops the speed a little bit after 1520 seconds, and then keeps rising for more than 80 seconds without shifting.  This causes the engine to run along the peak torque curve while the speed rises, which is not a very efficient zone.

Table 2 shows the tractor performance in grams of CO2 per ton-mile over the individual GEM drive cycles as well as the composite cycle with weightings for a sleeper cab tractor, using the three different highway cruise road grade profiles explored in this study.  No road grade was applied to the ARB Transient cycle.  As expected, the vehicle emits more CO2 when driving the more aggressive road grade using Profile 2.

Table 2 GEM performance (g CO2/ton-mi) of a hypothetical 2027 class 8 sleeper cab tractor over 3 road grade profiles

                                   Baseline
                                   Profile 1
                                   Profile 2
                                     55mph
                                     62.24
                                     58.63
                                     68.5
                                     65mph
                                     71.73
                                     67.13
                                     74.28
                                      ARB
                                    128.17
                                    128.17
                                    128.17
                                   Weighted
                                     73.69
                                     69.42
                                     76.45

This exploratory work illustrates areas for improvement in the calibration of the agency's transmission auto-shift as indicated by Figures 11 and 12, when high road grade is used for highway cruise drive cycles.  To attain the agencies' goal of representing real world driving, we believe we would need to make corrections on the GEM auto-shifting.

In the preamble, the agencies have asked stakeholders for comments, hopefully supported by testing data, to help us to calibrate our auto-shift model.  More importantly, EPA has developed a comprehensive testing plan to obtain first-hand testing data.  This plan includes the powertrain tests for both medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty powertrains conducted at SwRI, and heavy heavy-duty powertrains with three transmission setups at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.   Up to eight different road grade profiles will be tested, and a large data set will be collected to see how the transmissions are shifted, thus recalibrating some model constants used in the auto-shifting table.  It is expected that a well-calibrated GEM would be able to address a wider range of operations including high road grade routes.


[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66344-66345]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-18]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1022; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Jet Route J-93; CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Jet Route J-93 in California
between the Julian VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range Tactical Air
Navigation Aid (VORTAC), and the ASUTA intersection on the United
States/Mexican border. The FAA is proposing to realign the jet route
due to the relocation of the Penasco VOR, located in Mexico. This would
ensure the efficient use of our National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-
1022 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-4 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace Regulation and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-1022 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-1022 and Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-4.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Western Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98055.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

History

    In May 2010, the FAA was notified by the Mexican Government that
the Penasco VOR in Mexico had been relocated. This proposed action is
necessary to realign Jet Route J-93 with the revised location of the
Penasco VOR.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend J-93 in California, between the
Julian VORTAC and the ASUTA intersection along the United States/
Mexican Border, by realigning the route with the revised locations of
the Penasco VOR located in Mexico.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9U,
dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Jet Route J-93 in California.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18,
2010 and effective September 15, 2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes

* * * * *

J-93 [Amended]

    From the INT of the United States/Mexican Border and the Julian,
CA, 107[deg](M)/122[deg](T) radial via Julian; Paradise, CA; INT
Paradise 290[deg] and Los Angeles, CA, 083[deg] radials; to Los
Angeles.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace Regulation and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-27316 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83072-83073]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28089]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-121-000]

National Grid LNG LLC; Notice of Request for Extension of Time

    Take notice that on December 8, 2020, National Grid LNG LLC
(National Grid) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until October 17, 2022, to
complete construction of, and place into service, its Fields Point
Liquefaction Project located in Providence, RI as authorized in the
October 17, 2018 Order Issuing Certificate (Certificate Order).\1\
Ordering Paragraph B(1) of the Certificate Order required National Grid
to complete the construction of the proposed Fields Point Liquefaction
Project facilities \2\ and make them available for service within three
years from issuance, or by October 17, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Grid LNG LLC, 165 FERC 61,031 (2018) (Certificate
Order).
    \2\ The Fields Point Liquefaction Project consists of the
construction of one (1) new 20 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d)
gas pretreatment and liquefaction system to convert natural gas
delivered by pipeline into liquefied natural gas (LNG). The
liquefaction facility is designed to enable National Gas to provide
up to 20,600 dekatherms per day (Dth/day) liquefaction service at
its existing LNG storage facility located in Providence, RI.
    \3\ Id. at ordering para. (B)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Grid states that it has experienced equipment delays, and
delays resulting from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. As a result,
National Grid now requests an additional one year, or until October 17,
2022, to complete the authorized construction at the LNG storage
facility at Fields Point and make them available for service.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on National Grid's
request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or
answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\5\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\6\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\7\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the Certificate Order, including whether the
Commission properly found the project to be in the public convenience
and necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for
the certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\8\
At the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\9\ The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on those extension requests that are
uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2020).
    \6\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \7\ Id. P 40.
    \8\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \9\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
COVID-19, issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance,
contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886)
208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFile link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 30, 2020.

    Dated: December 15, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28089 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:  May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:05:12 AM To:  Jones, DonnaLee Cc: Kiechle, Fredric S; Zavoda, Rich; Hill, John R Subject:  Preliminary  Testing Schedule For ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC

Dr. Jones,

Attached is the testing schedule for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC.  Please understand the days may vary slightly due to unforeseen issues  such as plant delays, testing related difficulties, weather etc...

Jeffrey May | Sr. Engineer-Environmental ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor Maintenance, Environmental, and Utilities | 250 W US Hwy. 12 Burns Harbor, Indiana 46304 T +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | F +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | M +1<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< Project Schedule.pdf >>