[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60952-60953]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0048]

Positive Train Control Safety Plan for the Southern California
Regional Rail Authority

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 19, 2015, the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA) submitted to FRA its Positive Train Control Safety
Plan (PTCSP) Version 1.7 for approval under the Federal railroad safety
regulations in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 236,
Subpart I, Positive Train Control Systems. SCRRA asks FRA to approve
its PTCSP and to provide PTC System Certification for SCRRA's
implementation of its Interoperable-Electronic Train Management System
(I-ETMS). In its PTCSP, SCRRA asserts that its I-ETMS is designed as a
vital overlay PTC system in compliance with the PTCSP requirements. The
PTCSP describes the SCRRA I-ETMS implementation and the associated I-
ETMS safety processes; safety analyses; and test, validation, and
verification processes used during development of I-ETMS. The PTCSP
also contains SCRRA operational and support requirements and
procedures.
    SCCRA's PTCSP and the accompanying request for approval are
available for review online at www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FRA-
2010-0048) and in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the PTCSP by
submitting written comments or data. During its review of the PTCSP,
FRA will consider any comments or data submitted. However, FRA may not
respond to any comment and, under 49 CFR 236.1009(d)(3), FRA maintains
the authority to approve or disapprove the PTCSP at its sole
discretion. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing
regarding these proceedings because the facts do not appear to warrant
a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral
comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the
comment period and specify the basis for their request.

DATES: FRA will consider communications received by January 6, 2016
before taking final action on the PTCSP. Comments received after that
date will be considered as far as practicable.

ADDRESSES: All communications concerning these proceedings should
identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mark Hartong, PE, Senior
Scientific Technical Advisor at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or Mr. David Blackmore, Railroad Safety Program Manager for Advanced
Technology at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-25573 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3254-3256]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0986; Product Identifier 2019-NM-201-AD; Amendment
39-21020; AD 2019-25-55]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The
Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -700 series airplanes, modified
to a Bedek Division Special Freighter (BDSF) by Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) ST01566LA, ST01961SE, or ST02556SE, with a 9G rigid
barrier. An emergency AD was sent to all known U.S. owners and
operators of these airplanes. This AD requires complying with loading
restrictions and methods. This AD was prompted by a review of the
manufacturing process for the 9G rigid barrier installed on BDSF
conversions that identified a manufacturing non-compliance. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 21, 2020 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2019-25-55, issued on December 13, 2019, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 21,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Israel Aerospace Industries, LTD., Ben-Gurion International Airport,
70100 Israel; telephone 972-3-935-3090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet https://www.iai.co.il/about/groups/aviation-group. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0986.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0986; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the
aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli AD ISR-I-53-2019-12-
6, dated December 12, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -700
series airplanes, modified to a BDSF by STC ST01566LA, ST01961SE, or
ST02556SE, with a 9G rigid barrier. You may examine the MCAI on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0986.
    On December 13, 2019, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2019-25-55, which
requires complying with loading restrictions and methods. The emergency
AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these
airplanes. This action was prompted by a review of the manufacturing
process for the 9G rigid barrier installed on BDSF conversions that
identified a manufacturing non-compliance. It has been found that the
surface preparation before bonding was improperly done, which can
affect the 9G rigid barrier's strength characteristics. This condition,
if not addressed, could result in the potential failure of the 9G rigid
barrier under certain emergency landing loads, which could injure
occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Israel Aerospace Industries Service Bulletin 365-
00-054, dated December 2019. This service information describes loading
restrictions and methods that include reducing the cargo weights for
each loading configuration and using additional straps when necessary
to address 9G rigid barrier manufacturing non-compliance. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    Pursuant to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design
Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe

condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all
pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires complying with the loading restrictions and
methods specified in the service information described previously,
except as discussed under ``Differences Between this AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Where Israel Aerospace Industries Service Bulletin 365-00-054,
dated December 2019, specifies using cargo restraint straps rated at a
minimum of 7,500 pounds, this AD requires using Technical Standard
Order TSO-C172 cargo restraint straps; that TSO specifies a load rating
of 5,000 pounds. This exception corrects the Israel Aerospace
Industries service bulletin's reference to a TSO-C172 cargo strap load
rating of 7,500 pounds; the cargo strap load capability specified in
the TSO is 5,000 pounds.
    This AD specifies that the provisions for restraining cargo
directly to a pallet or the airplane as provided in the existing
airplane flight manual (AFM) (reference section 1-68-XX of the Israel
Aerospace Industries Weight and Balance Manual (WBM)) can only be used
if that cargo and all cargo aft of that location are restrained to a
forward load factor of 9G. This exception corrects an omission in the
Israel Aerospace Industries' service bulletin.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
Emergency AD 2019-25-55, issued on December 13, 2019, to all known U.S.
owners and operators of these airplanes. The FAA found that the risk to
the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to
adoption of this rule because the potential failure of the 9G rigid
barrier, under certain emergency landing loads, could injure occupants.
These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the
Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all
persons. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition,
for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views,
or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-
0986 and Product Identifier 2019-NM-201-AD at the beginning of your
comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final
rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85             $510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-25-55 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21020; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0986; Product Identifier 2019-NM-201-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 21, 2020 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency
AD 2019-25-55, issued on December 13, 2019, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -
700 series airplanes, certificated in any category, modified to a
Bedek Division Special Freighter (BDSF) by Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) ST01566LA, ST01961SE, or ST02556SE, with a 9G
rigid barrier.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a review of the manufacturing process
for the 9G rigid barrier installed on BDSF conversions that
identified a manufacturing non-compliance. It has been found that
the surface preparation before bonding was improperly done, which
can affect the 9G rigid barrier's strength characteristics. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address potential failure of the 9G rigid
barrier under certain emergency landing loads, which could injure
occupants.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Loading Restrictions and Methods

    Before further flight, comply with the loading restrictions and
methods specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Israel
Aerospace Industries Service Bulletin 365-00-054, dated December
2019, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. The loading
restrictions include reducing the cargo weights for each loading
configuration and using additional straps as applicable.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Israel Aerospace Industries Service Bulletin 365-00-
054, dated December 2019, specifies using cargo restraint straps
rated at a minimum of 7,500 pounds, for this AD use Technical
Standard Order TSO-C172 cargo restraint straps; that TSO specifies a
load rating of 5,000 pounds.
    (2) The provisions for restraining cargo directly to a pallet or
the airplane as provided in the existing airplane flight manual
(AFM) can only be used if that cargo and all cargo aft of that
location are restrained to a forward load factor of 9G.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Israeli AD ISR-I-53-2019-12-6, dated December 12, 2019, for
related information.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Israel Aerospace Industries Service Bulletin 365-00-054,
dated December 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Israel Aerospace Industries, LTD., Ben-Gurion International Airport,
70100 Israel; telephone 972-3-935-3090; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.iai.co.il/about/groups/aviation-group.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 26, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-00798 Filed 1-17-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 11926]
[DOCID:fr20mr09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13387-000]

Liberty University, Inc., Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

March 12, 2009.
    On March 6, 2009, Liberty University, Inc., filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to
study the feasibility of the Scott's Mill Project No. 13387 to be
located on the James River in Amherst and Bedford Counties, Virginia.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 15-foot-
high, 925-foot-long Scott's Mill dam; (2) an existing 316-acre
reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 511 feet mean sea
level; (3) a new powerhouse containing 4 generating units with a total
installed capacity of 4.8 MW; (4) a new 70 to 500-foot-long underground
transmission cable; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated
annual generation is 10,500 MWh.
    Applicant Contact: Lee Beaumont, Assistant to the Chancellor, 1971
University Blvd., Lynchburg, VA 24502<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tom Dean<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13302-000 filed October 14, 2008. The deadline to file a competing
application or notice of intent ended February 6, 2009.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene 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. Click-on general search and enter the docket number (P-
13387) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6072 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26585-26587]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10756]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30056; 812-13793]

Steel Partners Holdings L.P.; Notice of Application

April 27, 2012.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under sections 6(c) and 45(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

    Summary of Application: Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (``SPH'')
requests an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting it from all
provisions of the Act until the earlier of one year from the date that
the requested order is issued or the date that it no longer may be
deemed to be an investment company. SPH also seeks an order under
section 45(a) of the Act granting confidential treatment with respect
to certain supplemental material submitted to the Commission
(``Supplemental Material'').
    Applicant: SPH.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 8, 2010, and
amended on October 12, 2010, and March 14, 2012.
    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 applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on May 22, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicant, 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:  Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090;
Applicant: 590 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

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 summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or the
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Applicant's Representations:
    1. SPH, a Delaware limited partnership whose principal executive
offices are in New York, is a global diversified holding company
engaged in multiple businesses through various subsidiaries and
controlled companies. SPH seeks to actively improve the business
operations of its companies and foster growth and increase long-term
corporate value for shareholders and stakeholders. SPH's companies are
generally viewed by SPH as long-term holdings and SPH expects to
realize value through its operation of the companies rather than
through the sale of its holdings in the companies. SPH's predecessor,
WebFinancial Corporation (formerly Rose's Holdings, Inc.)

(``WebFinancial''), was a Delaware Corporation formed in 1997 as a
holding company for Rose's Stores, Inc. In 1997, WebFinancial sold
Rose's Stores, Inc. and, in 1998, WebFinancial became the owner of a
100% interest in WebBank, a Utah industrial loan bank. SPH became the
successor of WebFinancial by a merger on December 31, 2008. SPH was a
narrow financial holding company engaged in the business of banking
from the time of its acquisition of WebBank in 1998 until July 14,
2009.
    2. Prior to December 2008, Steel Partners II was a private
investment partnership, which indirectly owned 85% of SPH. During the
market disruptions in 2008 and early 2009, Steel Partners II received a
substantial number of redemption requests from investors. Because many
of its holdings represented interests in operating businesses which
were either privately held or publicly traded but with very low trading
volume, applicant states that Steel Partners II temporarily suspended
redemptions and sought a solution that assured that all investors would
be treated fairly and equally. A plan was implemented on July 14, 2009,
and July 15, 2009, that (i) effectively, entitled each Steel Partners
II investor to a pro rata distribution of Steel Partners II's assets
and (ii) the option to either: (A) exchange their distribution for SPH
common units; or (B) receive their distribution in-kind (the
``Implementing Transactions''). While a majority of the number of
investors in Steel Partners II opted to receive SPH common units,
investors representing a majority of the capital of Steel Partners II
opted to receive their distribution of Steel Partners II's assets in-
kind; therefore, SPH did not retain majority or controlling interests
in several of Steel Partners II's former holdings.
    3. Since July 15, 2009, SPH's management has worked diligently to
restructure its holdings to fall outside of the definition of an
investment company by: (i) Acquiring, maintaining or increasing
holdings in majority owned or primarily controlled companies engaged in
non-investment company or excepted businesses; and (ii) decreasing or
eliminating holdings in non-controlled companies and companies engaged
in an investment company business. As a result of these efforts, SPH
has significantly decreased its holdings in companies of which it held
less than 25% interests, while increasing holdings in wholly-owned,
majority owned and primarily-controlled companies such that, as noted
below, SPH meets the asset test of rule 3a-1 as of December 31, 2011.
However, SPH was unable to fully implement necessary changes to its
asset mix during the rule 3a-2 period due to, among other things,
restrictions imposed by state corporate and federal securities laws,
certain tax ramifications and a lack of willing buyers or sellers of
securities due, in part, to recent, unusual market conditions, all of
which were beyond SPH's reasonable control.
    4. Applicant states that the total value of SPH's interests in
majority-owned subsidiaries, on an unconsolidated basis, has increased
sixteen-fold from approximately $11.0 million (or 2.5% of SPH's total
assets, excluding government securities and cash items) on July 15,
2009, to approximately $176.7 million (or 36.5% of SPH's total assets,
excluding government securities and cash items) on December 31, 2011.
Consolidated with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, SPH's interests in
primarily-controlled companies, excluding its interest in a subsidiary
that has become a majority-owned subsidiary, have increased seven-fold
from approximately $21.7 million (4.7% of SPH's total assets, excluding
government securities and cash items) on July 15, 2009, to
approximately $167.6 million (33.2% of SPH's total assets, excluding
government securities and cash items) as of December 31, 2011.
    Applicant's Legal Analysis:

Section 6(c) of the Act

    1. Under section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act, an issuer is an investment
company if it is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, and
owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value
exceeding 40 percent of the value of such issuer's total assets
(exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an
unconsolidated basis. Section 3(a)(2) of the Act defines ``investment
securities'' to include all securities except government securities,
securities issued by employees' securities companies, and securities
issued by majority-owned subsidiaries of the owner that are not
investment companies and are not relying on the exception from the
definition of investment company in section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the
Act.
    2. Rule 3a-1 under the Act provides an exemption from the
definition of investment company if, on a consolidated basis with
wholly-owned subsidiaries, no more than 45% of an issuer's total assets
(exclusive of government securities and cash items) consist of, and no
more than 45% of its net income after taxes over the last four fiscal
quarters combined is derived from, securities other than: government
securities, securities issued by employees' securities companies, and
securities of certain majority-owned subsidiaries and companies
controlled primarily by the issuer.
    3. SPH states that, as a result of the Implementing Transactions,
investment securities represented more than 40% of its total assets
(exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an
unconsolidated basis. SPH further states that it is not currently able
to rely on rule 3a-1 under the Act because the asset sales necessary to
bring SPH in compliance with the rule's asset test produced bad income
for purposes of the rule's income test.
    4. Rule 3a-2 under the Act generally provides that, for purposes of
sections 3(a)(1)(A) and 3(a)(1)(C), an issuer will not be deemed to be
engaged in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or
trading in securities for a period not to exceed one year if the issuer
has a bona fide intent to be engaged in a non-investment company
business. This enables the issuer to make an orderly transition to a
non-investment company business. SPH began relying on rule 3a-2 under
the Act on July 14, 2009.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
person from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that the
exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    6. SPH requests an exemption under section 6(c) from all provisions
of the Act until the earlier of one year from the date that the
requested order is issued or such time as SPH is no longer deemed to be
an investment company. SPH believes that within the period covered by
the requested order, it will be able to complete its transition and
establish itself as a non-investment business.
    7. SPH asserts that as a result of the plan implemented to address
Steel Partners II's investor redemption requests, SPH arguably fell
within the statutory definition of an investment company, even though
that definition is not an accurate depiction of SPH's business. SPH
states that since invoking the non-exclusive safe harbor provided by
rule 3a-2, SPH's officers have worked diligently to return to a non-
investment, diversified holding company business, but have found the
process taking longer than expected due to factors beyond SPH's
reasonable control. SPH asserts that SPH's transactions in securities
have not been

for speculative purposes, but have been in the furtherance of its
business as a diversified holding company. SPH contends that
registration under the Act would involve unnecessary burden and expense
for SPH and its unitholders and would serve no regulatory purpose. For
the reasons discussed above, SPH asserts that the requested relief
under section 6(c) of the Act is consistent with the protection of
investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions
of the Act.

Section 45(a) of the Act

    1. Section 45(a) provides that information contained in any
application filed with the Commission under the Act shall be made
available to the public, unless the Commission finds that public
disclosure is neither necessary nor appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of investors. SPH requests an order under section
45(a) of the Act granting confidential treatment to the information in
the Supplemental Material.
    2. SPH submits that the information disclosed in the application is
sufficient to fully apprise any interested member of the public of the
basis for the relief requested under section 6(c) of the Act. SPH
states that the public will be able to see various data reflecting the
progress SPH has made in its transition to non-investment company
business and its intention to complete such transition by the
expiration of the requested exemption. SPH submits that based on such
information, any interested person will be able to assess SPH's
intention and ability to pursue a non-investment company business
strategy and its prospects for achieving non-investment company status
by the end of the requested one year exemption.
    3. SPH states that it has valid business reasons for not wanting to
make public information that relates to its future business plans,
including its intention with regard to transactions in securities of
certain companies. SPH asserts that the public disclosure of such
information, much of which relates to publicly traded securities, could
affect the prices and markets for such securities (for example, by
allowing those who view this information to ``front run'' SPH's
intended transactions) in a way that would severely burden SPH's
transition to non-investment company business. For these reasons, SPH
submits that public disclosure of the Supplemental Material is neither
necessary nor appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors.
    Applicant's Conditions:
    SPH agrees that the requested exemption will be subject to the
following conditions:
    1. SPH will continue to be engaged primarily in a non-investment
company business and to seek to decrease the percentage of its total
assets comprised of investment securities so as not to be an investment
company within the meaning of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder as soon as reasonably possible and in any event within one
year from the date of the requested order.
    2. SPH will not engage in the trading of securities for short-term
speculative purposes.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10756 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16750-16752]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69121; File No. SR-BATS-2013-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the Operation of Market Orders for BATS Options

March 12, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 27, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal for the BATS Options Market (``BATS
Options'') to amend Rule 21.1 in connection with the upcoming operation
of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule
608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan''
or ``Plan'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these

statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently allows the entry of market orders, which are
orders that are orders to buy or sell at the best price available at
the time of execution (``Market Orders''). The purpose of this proposed
rule change is to amend BATS Rule 21.1(d)(5) to reject Market Orders if
they are received when the underlying security is subject to a ``Limit
State'' or ``Straddle State'' as defined Limit in the Up-Limit Down
Plan.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that it will verify whether the
underlying security is in a Limit State or Straddle State
immediately prior to executing any Market Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is designed to prevent executions from
occurring outside of dynamic price bands disseminated to the public by
the single plan processor as defined in the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
Under the Plan, a Limit State will be declared if the national best
offer equals the lower price band and does not cross the national best
bid, or the national best bid equals the upper price band and does not
cross the national best offer. A Straddle State is when the national
best bid (offer) is below (above) the lower (upper) price band and the
security is not in a Limit State, and trading in that security deviates
from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a trading pause
would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary market
volatility. Accordingly, when the underlying security is in a Limit
State or Straddle State, there will not be a reliable price for the
security to serve as a benchmark for the price of the related option.
In such a state, the Exchange does not believe that it should permit
the execution of Market Orders, which are un-priced orders that execute
at the best price available at the time the Exchange receives such
orders. The Exchange believes that the rejection of Market Orders when
the underlying security is subject to a Limit State or Straddle State
will help to maintain a fair and efficient marketplace for the
execution of options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the rejection of options Market Orders when
the underlying security is in a Limit State or Straddle State will help
to prevent executions that might occur at prices that have not been
reliably formed. The Exchange believes that this change will help to
protect, in particular, retail investors from executions of un-priced
orders during times of significant volatility, and thus, believes the
proposal to be consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes other options exchanges are proposing to handle market orders
subject to a Limit State or Straddle State in connection with the Limit
Up-Limit Down Plan consistent with the Exchange's handling proposed by
this filing.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \11\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2013-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2013-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-BATS-2013-014 and should be submitted on or before April 8,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06155 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37032-37034]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF12-14-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned JL 47 Loop Project, Request
for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Onsite Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the JL 47 Loop Project, involving
construction and operation of facilities by Questar Pipeline Company
(Questar) in Duchesne County, Utah. The Commission will use this EA in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on July 16, 2012.
    The Commission staff will also conduct an environmental site review
of the planned JL 47 Loop Project route. All interested parties
planning to attend must provide their own transportation. Those
attending should meet at the following locations:

FERC Environmental Site Review JL 47 Loop Project

Holiday Inn Express, 1515 West U.S. Highway 40, Vernal, UT, June 27,
2012, at 8 a.m.

    Because of the driving distance, we will be leaving promptly at 8
a.m.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Questar plans to construct and operate up to about 14.7 miles of
16-inch-diameter loop pipeline \1\ from its Main Lines 40/104 at Pete's
Wash northward to its Brundage Mountain Area receipt point (about 6
miles south of Myton), all in Duchesne County, Utah. The planned loop
would be co-located with Questar's existing Jurisdictional Lateral (JL)
47 and Jurisdictional Tie Lateral 78 pipelines except where deviations
are necessary to avoid other existing natural gas facilities or terrain
constraints. The project would increase transportation capacity by
about 60,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day. Questar states its
project would provide much-needed capacity to transport Uinta Basin
production to major delivery markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The JL 47 Loop Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Up to about 14.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter steel pipeline
loop;
     A tie-in to Questar's existing Main Line 40 at Pete's Wash
(milepost 0), consisting of ancillary valves and a pig receiver; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and pushed through
the pipeline for cleaning, conducting internal inspections, or other
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A tap and valve at milepost 12.5 (North Monument Butte
Area Tap); and
     A meter, ancillary valves, and pig launcher at milepost
14.7 (Brundage Mountain Area Tap).
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 186
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. A
majority of the land required for the project is managed by the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Vernal
District. Following construction, Questar would maintain about 89 acres
for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining
acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 82 percent
of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or
road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the potential environmental impacts
that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires
us \4\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the

EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the
Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to
address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the
preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife; and
     Endangered and threatened species.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project,
and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the
various resources.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through the Commission's
eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping
process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an
allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the
opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning
on page 5.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA.\5\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management/Vernal District has expressed its intention to participate
as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to satisfy its
NEPA responsibilities related to this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are found at title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit its
views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes,
and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\6\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effect in consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office
as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the Area of
Potential Effect, at a minimum, encompasses all locations subject to
ground disturbance (examples include the construction right-of-way,
contractor/pipe storage yards, and access roads). Our EA for this
project will document our findings on the impacts on historic
properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are found at title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 800.
Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before July
16, 2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF12-14-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project. If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be
sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment.
If you wish to receive no further mailings concerning environmental
review of Questar's planned JL 47 Lateral Project, please use the
return mailer attached as appendix 2 to notify us and you will be
deleted from the environmental mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Questar files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be

heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final
ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing
a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF12-
14). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or additional site visits will be posted
on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15034 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16663-16664]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040]

SGS North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and
Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for SGS North America, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces the
addition of three test standards to the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
March 24, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of SGS of North America, Inc. (SGS), as a NRTL. SGS's
expansion covers the addition of twelve test standards to its scope of
recognition. Additionally, OSHA announces the addition of three test
standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL that details the scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the agency's website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    SGS submitted two applications, one dated February 14, 2018 (OSHA-
2006-0040-0049), another dated October 2, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0050), which
was revised on March 9, 2019 (OSHA-2006-0040-0051), to expand its scope
of recognition to include the addition of twelve test standards. OSHA
staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and
reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site
reviews in relation to these applications.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's expansion
application and proposed addition to the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards in the Federal Register on November 5, 2019
(84 FR 59649). The agency requested comments by November 20, 2019, but
it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is
proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of SGS's scope of
recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
SGS's applications, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040 contains all materials
in the record concerning SGS's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined SGS's expansion applications, the capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on a review of this evidence, OSHA finds that SGS
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the
recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant
expansion of SGS's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of
SGS's scope of recognition to testing and certification of products for
demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed in Table 1.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in SGS's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 22..................................  Standard for Amusement and
                                          Gaming Machines.
UL 430.................................  Electric Waste Disposers.
UL 466.................................  Standard for Electric Scales.
UL 574.................................  Standard for Electric Oil
                                          Heaters.
UL 826.................................  Standard for Electric Clocks.
UL 1740................................  Robots and Robotic Equipment.
UL 2524................................  In-Building 2-Way Emergency
                                          Radio Communication
                                          Enhancement Systems.
ANSI Z83.26............................  Gas-Fired Outdoor Infrared
                                          Patio Heaters.
ANSI Z21.58............................  Outdoor Cooking Gas Appliances.
ANSI Z21.89............................  Outdoor Cooking Specialty Gas
                                          Appliances.
ANSI Z83.7.............................  American National Standard/CSA
                                          Standard for Gas-Fired
                                          Construction Heaters.
ANSI Z21.1.............................  Household Cooking Gas
                                          Appliances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this notice, OSHA also announces the addition of three new test
standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Table 2, below, lists the test standards that are new to the NRTL
Program. OSHA has determined that these test standards are appropriate
test standards and will include it in the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards.

  Table 2--Test Standards OSHA Is Adding to the NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 2524................................  In-Building 2-Way Emergency
                                          Radio Communication
                                          Enhancement Systems.
ANSI Z83.26............................  Gas-Fired Outdoor Infrared
                                          Patio Heaters.
ANSI Z21.89............................  Outdoor Cooking Specialty Gas
                                          Appliances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
SGS must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. SGS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in the operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. SGS must meet all the terms of the recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. SGS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on SGS's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of SGS, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above. OSHA also adds one new test standard to the NRTL
Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 18, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-06084 Filed 3-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35977]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15930]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0984; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Expansion of R-3803 Restricted Area Complex; Fort Polk, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register of July 16, 2019, that expands the R-3803 restricted area
complex in central Louisiana by establishing four new restricted areas,
R-3803C, R-3803D, R-3803E, and R-3803F, and makes minor technical
amendments to the existing R-3803A and R-3803B legal descriptions for
improved operational efficiency and administrative standardization.
This action corrects a typographical error listed in the effective date
of that rule.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC September 12, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (84 FR
33845; July 16, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0984 expanding the R-3803
restricted area complex in central Louisiana by establishing four new
restricted areas, R-3803C, R-3803D, R-3803E, and R-3803F, and making
minor technical amendments to R-3803A and R-3803B; Fort Polk, LA.
Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified a typographical error for
the date listed in the effective date; the correct effective date is
September 12, 2019. This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Expansion
of R-3803 Restricted Area Complex; Fort Polk, LA, published in the
Federal Register of July 16, 2019 (84 FR 33845), FR Doc. 2019-15119, is
corrected as follows:
    On page 33845, in the second column, line 28, remove the text
``September 13, 2019'' and add in its place ``September 12, 2019.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-15930 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 Draft October 29, 2004  Page 1 of 14 Seafood Processing Vessels Seawater Intake Structure Modification Cost Estimate 280ft Catcher  Processor I. Introduction This EPA has identified a 280 foot catcher processor as an indicative vessel to assemble a cost estimate for retro fitting fine mesh screens ( 5mm hole size) to the sea water intake structures. Information gathered during interviews with industry representatives will be used to characterise the intake structure os a typical 280 foot vessel.

One of the key assumptions of this work is that the vessel is assumed to be in dry dock for routine maintenance. Furthermore, it is assumed that this work does not prolong the dry dock time for the vessel. No allowances have been made for docking fees.

Four primary fine mesh configurations have been costed: 1. Replace the existing grill with a fine mesh ( no other modifications), 2. Enlarge the intake structure ( internally) to achieve 0.5ft/ sec through screen velocity and a screen that is flush with the hull, 3. Install a fine mesh screen intake structure ( externally) to achieve 0.5ft/ sec through screen velocity ( the screen protrudes past the hull). 4. Install a horizontal flow modifier addition to the intake structure ( externally) to achieve 0.5ft/ sec through velocity ( protrudes past the hull).

The capital and expense costs estimated in this report are incremental costs for the facility. 10% engineering and 10% contingency has been included in the cost estimates. An allowance of 6% of the capital cost has been allowed for annual parts replacement costs. The estimates for inspection and cleaning periods have been based on vendor data and data from operators of similar equipment in high marine growth areas.

II. Technology The technology for fine mesh ( 5mm openings) barriers is widely accepted and used as a method for preventing fish entrainment in seawater intake structures. The through screen velocity ( impingement) is less well understood for vessels that may be in motion and a cross screen velocity component is present. These vessels have a large range of operating conditions and the cross screen velocity may vary from nil to several times the through screen velocity. This report does not attempt to answer this question but takes the two extremes into consideration. These are: 1. Simply replace the existing grill with a fine screen and allow the high through screen velocity, 2. Assume that the through screen velocity for peak operating intake flows should be limited to 0.5ft/ sec.

Due to the fine openings in the external mesh, bio fouling of the screen may be a serious issue. Since the intakes are often located on the bottom of the Draft October 29, 2004  Page 2 of 14 vessel, air purging is not likely to be very effective. Furthermore, air in the downstream cooling water system may cause some serious damage. As such, air sparging has not been pursued during this cost estimate. However, there may be an air sparge configuration ( not identified at this stage) that proves very effective for this application. 90/ 10 CuNi alloys have proven to be an effective static anti bio fouling solution. The use of a CuNi mesh construction has been included in this estimate.

III. Details of 280 Foot Seafood Processing Vessel In order to assemble this cost estimate, several assumptions have been made regarding the configuration of the vessel: 1. The vessel has no more than two main engines plus two auxiliary engines and a number of power generators.  A greater number of smaller engines for main propulsion is not common on large vessels ( over 150 200ft) and may make for a complicated cooling water system,

2. The catcher processor vessel total installed main engine power is approximately 4700HP.  Scaled down from the 375ft Alaska Ocean. Information from Conference Interview dated 9 May 2003.

3. The Typical Flow Rates of: 1500m3/ hr ( 9.5MGAL/ Day)  Max Possible ( all engines running inc aux plus all ancillaries running), 1000m3/ hr ( 6.3MGAL/ Day)   Typical Operational   Main Engines running plus most ancillaries 650m3/ hr ( 3.2MGAL/ Day)   Typical Stationary   Main engines off or idling, power generators and auxiliaries on.  Scaled down from the 375ft Alaska Ocean. Information from Conference Interview dated 9 May 2003.   Also supported by interview with Roger Malchevik ( American Seafood Company  Operational Manager) dated 6/ 24/ 2002 4. The enlarged mesh opening will be sized to achieve 0.5ft/ sec through screen velocity for the typical Operational flow of 1000m3/ hr ( 6.3MGAL/ Day). The mesh opening size will be ( 5mm) and have a 60% open area ratio.

5. The vessel has two primary sea chests with a " crossover" header in between. One sea chest is operated at any one time and the other is on stand by. The sea chest openings are located on either side of the vessel approximately 20' below the water line   Typical design for large vessel sea chest intakes.   Supported by interview with Roger Malchevik ( American Seafood Company  Operational Manager) dated 6/ 24/ 2002 6. The existing sea chest opening into the ocean will be assumed to have a through screen velocity of approximately 3ft/ sec ( 60% open area ratio) at 1000m3/ hr ( equivalent to a 32" diameter opening).   3ft/ sec is consistent with flow velocities quoted during operator/ designer interviews. Draft October 29, 2004  Page 3 of 14 7. The vessel is designed for cargo capacity rather than speed. As such, the hull will be primarily transversely rather than longitudinally stiffened. This is typical for most fishing vessels and will reduce the number of structural members that are altered during intake enlargement.   Advice given by local Naval Architect Company ( who do not wish to be named).

Typical Sea Chest Installation Section Trough Intake Pipe IV. Summary of Cost Estimates Notes: 1. The vessel is in dry dock for other work such as routine maintenance overhaul. 2. No production losses or dry dock fees have been included in this estimate. 3. Inspection intervals for fine mesh screens and horizontal flow modifiers are assumed to be one per year. This has been based on typical inspection frequencies for onshore and coastal facilities. 4. It is assumed that the existing sea chests are inspected annually with the use of divers. The inspection and maintenance of the new large structures ( not option 1) will take significantly longer than current practices. An allowance of an additional day per intake for options 2, 3 and 4 has been included for divers to inspect and clean the new intake structures. No Draft October 29, 2004  Page 4 of 14 mobilisation or demobilisation costs are included as this estimate is for the incremental facility cost. 5. 6% of the capital cost has been allowed for annual parts replacement cost.

Table 1 summarises the results of this cost estimate for a seafood processing vessel with two sea chest intake structures.

Table 1. Summary of Cost Estimates for Seafood Processing Vessels Capital Costs Annual O& M Costs Option 1a: Replace Grill with Stainless Steel Fine Mesh Screen $ 1,528 $ 20 Option 1b: Replace Grill with CuNi Fine Mesh Screen $ 1,930 $ 30 Option 2a: Enlarge Intake Structure Internally and add a Stainless Steel Fine Mesh Screen $ 101,846 $ 6,862 Option 2b: Enlarge Intake Structure Internally and add CuNi Fine Mesh Screen $ 104,436 $ 6,992 Option 3a: Protruding Stainless Steel Fine Mesh Screen $ 57,724 $ 5,504 Option 3b: Protruding CuNi Fine Mesh Screen $ 60,314 $ 5,634 Option 4a: Bottom Sea Chest Horizontal Flow Modifier $ 32,266 $ 4,894 Option 4b: Side Sea Chest Horizontal Flow Modifier $ 43,986 $ 5,620 Draft October 29, 2004  Page 5 of 14 V. Details of Cost Estimate ( Per Intake)

Following is the detailed information that was used to assemble this cost estimate. The diagrams indicate what was physically estimated and the spreadsheets were used for summing up materials and calculation. The schedules of rates are found in the spreadsheets. The estimates calculate the cost for the replacement of a single inlet. Doubling these values derives the total vessel costs.

Option 1: Replace the Existing Grill with a Fine Mesh1 Typical Coarse Grill over Intake Opening Replace the grill like the one shown above ( but a lot larger   32") with a fine mesh screen.

Option 2: Internal Enlargement of Intake Structure2 Replace the existing 32" intake with a new intake structure that has a large enough surface area to reduce the through screen velocity to 0.5ft/ sec.

The primary problem with this type of intake modification is that there is typically very little room at the intake. A low profile design has been developed to minimise the impacts on surrounding equipment and services. The intake pipe suction is dispersed across the face of a large mesh using a diffuser arrangement. This type of flow modifier is often used to limit vortexing problems on suction lines. It will only marginally increase the head loss through the system, as the available flow area is still large ( but at right angles to the pipe flow). The similarity with a velocity cap is easily noted.

This design also accounts for the structural members of the Vessel's hull. The insertion of a large intake will typically require the cutting of several hull stiffeners. This design is intended to transfer the loads directly through the main frame. A Naval Architect's review of this design confirmed that it was reasonable.

1 Costs were estimated for stainless steel and Cu NI and are presented as Options 1a and 1b in Table 1, respectively. 2 Costs were estimated for stainless steel and Cu NI and are presented as Options 2a and 2b in Table 1, respectively. Draft October 29, 2004  Page 6 of 14 Enlarged Fine Mesh Sea Water Intake Detail Item 1: Outer Bar Screen Draft October 29, 2004  Page 7 of 14 Detail Item 2: Fine Mesh Inner Screen Detail Item 3: Fine Mesh Frame and Inner Diffuser Draft October 29, 2004  Page 8 of 14 Detail Item 4: Main Frame Option 3: Protruding Intake Structure3 Cover the existing 32" intake with a new intake structure that has a large enough surface area to reduce the through screen velocity to 0.5ft/ sec. A protruding intake does not effect the structure of the vessel and is far easier ( and cheaper) to retro fit to an existing vessel.

The primary problem with this type of intake modification is that additional drag would be induced by its inclusion on the hull. Consequently, the low profile approach used on the internal enlargement is very useful for this configuration also. Advice from a Naval Architect's indicated that this would be negligible and the cost benefits and ease of installation would likely outweigh any detrimental effects. Furthermore, he confirmed that this design was reasonable for it's purpose.

3 Costs were estimated for stainless steel and Cu NI and are presented as Options 3a and 3b in Table 1, respectively. Draft October 29, 2004  Page 9 of 14 Protruding Fine Mesh Sea Water Intake Please refer to Option 2 above for Items 1, 2 and 3.

Detail Item 5: Protruding Main Frame Draft October 29, 2004  Page 10 of 14 Option 4: Horizontal Flow Modifier4 The horizontal flow modifier is a panel that ensures horizontal flow into the intake structure at a velocity of 0.5ft/ sec or less. This is a derivative of the velocity cap technology.

The horizontal flow modifier option is divided up into two basic configurations: one for sea chests located on the bottom of the vessel and the other for sea chests located on the sidewalls of the vessel. The arrangement on the bottom sea chests closely resembles a standard velocity cap arrangement. A plate is located over the intake opening to direct the flow to horizontal between the plate and the hull. This arrangement will be suitable for hull angles up to 30 ° off horizontal ( 87% of velocity will still be horizontal). For hull angles greater than this up to completely vertical the side sea chest arrangement will be required. This design includes a flow diffuser to spread the flow over a large area and louvres to direct the flow to the horizontal. Both of these designs are low profile to reduce any fluid dynamic effects on the hull. The existing coarse grill over the sea chest will be retained. It is intended that the assembly horizontal flow diverter be attached using hinges to the hull to allow easy access to the existing intake structure.

4 Two basic configurations, one for sea chests located on the bottom of the vessel and the other for sea chests located on the sidewalls of the vessel were costed and presented as Options 4a and 4b in Table 1, respectively. Draft October 29, 2004  Page 11 of 14 Plan View of Bottom Sea Chest Horizontal Flow Modifier Note: This modification is for use on sea chests that are located on the bottom of the vessel and no more than 30 ° of the horizontal. Flow Modifier Plate Draft October 29, 2004  Page 12 of 14 Section YY through Horizontal Flow Modifier Notes: 1. The basic assembly consists of a flow modifier plate that is stiffened using 4" flat bar welded to the under side. These flat bar stiffeners also assists in funnelling the flow into the existing intake structure. 2. A coarse mesh has been included around the perimeter of the new intake structure. This is to prevent larger animals ( like turtles) getting trapped in the gap between the hull and the flow modifier plate ( looks similar to a reef ledge to some animals). 3. 8 brackets ( 4" PFC) are permanently welded to the hull as the primary attachment points. 4. 8 legs off the flow modifier plate ( 1/ 2" plate) attach to the brackets on the hull. 3 of the bracket to leg connections use hinge pins, the other 5 legs use bolts. Releasing the bolts allows the flow modifier to swing down for maintenance or cleaning of the sea chest intake. A lifting lug should be added to the hull to allow lifting equipment can be used to safely open and close this new structure. A lifting lug has been incorporated in the costs for this item. 5. All materials used for the construction of this item will be mild steel coated in anti fouling paint. Flow Modifier Plate Draft October 29, 2004  Page 13 of 14 Plan View of Side Sea Chest Horizontal Flow Modifier Note: This modification is for use on sea chests that are located on the side of the vessel at angles greater than 30 ° of the horizontal. The direction of the flow louvres should be adjusted during the design and construction of this equipment such that they are horizontal Flow Louvres Draft October 29, 2004  Page 14 of 14 Notes: 1 The basic assembly consists of a diffuser plate nested in a number of flow louvres. The diffuser ensures that the flow is evenly distributed across the louvres and the louvres ensure that the flow is horizontal at a velocity of 0.5 ft/ sec or less. 2 2 brackets ( 2" equal angles) are permanently welded to the hull as the primary attachment points. These run the entire width and at each end of the sea chest modification. 3 The horizontal flow modifier is attached to the brackets on the hull by way of a hinge on one side and bolts on the other. By releasing the bolts, the horizontal flow modifier may be swung out away from the hull for access to the existing sea chest. 4 All materials used for the construction of this item will be mild steel coated in anti fouling paint. Flow Louvres