[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21893-21894]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice for San Carlos Airport, San Carlos,
California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the County of
San Mateo for San Carlos Airport are in compliance with applicable
requirements.

DATES: The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise
exposure maps is April 23, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille Garibaldi, Environmental
Protection Specialist, SFO-613, Federal Aviation Administration, San
Francisco Airports District Office, 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220,
Brisbane, California 94005-1835; or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for San Carlos Airport are in
compliance with applicable requirements of 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 150''),
effective April 23, 2019. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation Safety
and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet
applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance
with the requirements of Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may
submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth
the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce
existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by County of San Mateo. The
documentation that constitutes the ``Noise Exposure Maps'' as defined
in section 150.7 of Part 150 includes: Exhibit 1 the existing
condition--2017 Noise Exposure Map and Exhibit 2 the future 5-year
forecast--2022 Noise Exposure Map. The Noise Exposure Maps contain
current and forecast information including the depiction of the airport
and its boundary; the runway configuration, land uses such as
residential, commercial, industrial, and open space/recreational land
use; locations of noise sensitive public buildings (such as schools,
hospitals, and historic properties on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places); and the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) 65, 70, and 75 decibel airport noise contours resulting from
existing and forecast airport operations. The frequency of airport
operations is described in Chapter 2 of the Noise Exposure Map report.
Flight tracks associated with San Carlos Airport are depicted in
Exhibits 2C through 2F. The San Carlos Airport noise measurement
program is described in Chapter 2 and monitor locations are shown on
Exhibit 2K of the report. Estimates of the number of people residing
within the CNEL contours is located in Chapter 3, Table 3A of the Noise
Exposure Map report. The FAA has determined that

these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in
compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on April 23, 2019.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such determination
does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or
plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to
fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning
the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure
contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503
of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way
in determining the relative locations of specific properties with
regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise
exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which
properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the
Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control
and planning responsibilities of local government. These local
responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through
FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for
the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map
depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport
operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and
planning agencies with which consultation is required under section
47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the
airport operator, under section 150.21 of Part 150, that the
statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
    Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the
following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Office of
Airports, 777 S Aviation Blvd., Suite 150, El Segundo, CA 90245
Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airports District
Office, 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220, Brisbane, CA 94005-1835
San Mateo County Airports Division, San Carlos Airport, 620 Airport
Drive, Suite 10, San Carlos, CA 94070-2714

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in El Segundo, California on May 6, 2019.
Arlene B. Draper,
Acting Director, Office of Airports, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. 2019-09957 Filed 5-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73279-73282]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0672; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-261-AD;
Amendment 39-17276; AD 2012-24-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of stall events during icing
conditions where the natural stall warning (buffet) was not identified.
This AD requires replacing the stall warning computer (SWC) with a new
SWC, which provides an artificial stall

warning in icing conditions, and modifying the airplane for the
replacement of the SWC. We are issuing this AD to prevent natural stall
events when operating in icing conditions, which, if not corrected,
could result in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 14,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2012 (77 FR
38224). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) states:

    A few natural stall events, specifically when operating in icing
conditions, have been experienced on SAAB 340 series aeroplanes,
without receiving a prior stall warning. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, a modified stall
warning system, incorporating improved stall warning logic, has been
developed.
    SAAB have issued Service Bulletin (SB) 340-27-098 and SB 340-27-
099, which include instructions to replace the present Stall Warning
Computer (SWC) with a new SWC, and instructions to activate the new
SWC. The new system includes stall warning curves optimized for
operation in icing conditions, which are activated by selection of
Engine Anti-Ice.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)] AD requires the replacement of the SWC, by installing
new SWC Part Number (P/N) 0020AK6 on aeroplanes with basic wing tip,
and installing a new SWC P/N 0020AK7 on aeroplanes with extended
wing tip, as applicable to aeroplane configuration.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received. The National
Transportation Safety Board stated that it supports the NPRM (77 FR
38224, June 27, 2012).

Request To Revise Company Name and Email Address

    Saab AB (the commenter) requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR
38224, June 27, 2012) throughout to change the name of the Saab company
referenced in the NPRM from ``Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems'' to the new
company name, ``Saab AB, Aeronautics.'' The commenter also requested to
change the company email address referenced in the NPRM from
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    We agree with the intent of the commenter's request. The FAA is in
the process of changing the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) to
reflect the name change. We will use the name identified in the current
TCDS so as not to delay issuance of the final rule. Once the TCDS has
been changed, we will use the new name in subsequent ADs. We changed
the email address appropriately in paragraph (m) of this AD.

Request To Revise Text in Summary Section and Paragraph (e) of the NPRM
(77 FR 38224, June 27, 2012)

    Saab AB requested that we revise the second and third sentences in
the Summary section and a related sentence in paragraph (e) of the NPRM
(77 FR 38224, June 27, 2012). In the Summary section, the commenter
requested that we revise the following text to clarify that the
airplane had been certified with natural buffet--as the stall warning--
in icing conditions, and explained that replacement of the SWC would
increase the safety level by introducing an artificial stall warning
for icing conditions.

    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of stall events during
icing conditions which were not accompanied with a prior stall
warning. This proposed AD would require replacing the stall warning
computer (SWC) with a new SWC, and modifying the airplane for the
replacement of the SWC.

    The commenter suggested the following text.

    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of stall events during
icing conditions where the natural stall warning (buffet) was not
identified. This proposed AD would require replacing the stall
warning computer (SWC) with a new SWC, which provides an artificial
stall warning in icing conditions, and modifying the airplane for
the replacement of the SWC.

    The commenter also requested that the first sentence in paragraph
(e) of the NPRM (77 FR 38224, June 27, 2012) be changed to match the
new wording.
    We agree with the request for the reasons provided by the
commenter. Therefore, we changed the wording in the Summary section and
paragraph (e) of this AD as proposed by the commenter.

Request To Revise Text in Paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 38224, June
27, 2012)

    Saab AB requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR
38224, June 27, 2012), which reads ``As of effective date of this AD,
do not install any SWC having P/N 0020AK, 0020AK1, 0020AK2, 0020AK4, or
0020AK3 MOD 1 on any airplane,'' to ``After modification of an airplane
as required by paragraph (g) and (h) of this AD, do not install any SWC
having P/N 0020AK, 0020AK1, 0020AK2, 0020AK4, or 0020AK3 MOD 1 on any
airplane.'' The commenter stated that this change would allow an
operator, during the compliance time, to install an SWC having the same
part number of the failed SWC.
    We agree because there is a potential problem with availability of
the new part. Therefore, we have changed the wording in paragraph (i)
of this AD to match the intent of the commenter's request.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously--except for minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 38224, June 27, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 38224, June 27, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 162 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 78 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $33,000 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we

have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not
control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur
costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,420,060, or $39,630
per product.

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.
    We are 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.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 38224, June 27, 2012),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD:

2012-24-06 Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Amendment 39-17276. Docket No.
FAA-2012-0672; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-261-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 14,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model 340A (SAAB/
SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, except
airplanes that have SAAB Modification 2650 and/or 2859 installed.
This AD does not apply to airplanes with serial numbers 170, 342,
362, 363, 367, 372, 379, 385, 395, 405, 409, 431, and 455.
    (1) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, serial numbers 004
through 159 inclusive.
    (2) Model SAAB 340B airplanes, serial numbers 160 through 459
inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of stall events during icing
conditions where the natural stall warning (buffet) was not
identified. We are issuing this AD to prevent natural stall events
when operating in icing conditions, which, if not corrected, could
result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Replacement

    (1) For airplanes with basic wing tips: Within 24 months after
the effective date of this AD, replace all stall warning computers
(SWCs) having part number (P/N) 0020AK, 0020AK1, 0020AK2, or
0020AK4, with a new SWC P/N 0020AK6, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-098,
Revision 01, dated April 13, 2012.
    (2) For airplanes with extended wing tips: Within 24 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the SWC P/N 0020AK3 MOD
1 with a new SWC P/N 0020AK7, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-099, Revision 01, dated
April 13, 2012.

(h) Concurrent Modification

    Before or concurrently with the accomplishment of the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD: Modify the airplane in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service
Bulletin 340-27-097, Revision 03, dated April 19, 2012.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of
this AD and the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD,
do not install any SWC having P/N 0020AK, 0020AK1, 0020AK2, 0020AK4,
or 0020AK3 MOD 1 on any airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service bulletin specified in paragraph
(j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, which are not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (1) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-097, dated September 1, 2011.
    (2) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-097, Revision 01, dated
September 26, 2011.
    (3) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-097, Revision 02, dated October
7, 2011.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0219, dated November 11, 2011, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this
AD, for related information.
    (1) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-097, Revision 03, dated April
19, 2012.
    (2) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-098, Revision 01, dated April
13, 2012.
    (3) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-099, Revision 01, dated April
13, 2012.

(m) 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) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-097, Revision 03, dated April
19, 2012.
    (ii) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-098, Revision 01, dated April
13, 2012.
    (iii) Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-099, Revision 01, dated April
13, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden; telephone
+46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29169 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11970-11972]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-175]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61657; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC Making Permanent the Exchange's
Pilot Program With Respect to Its Continued Listing Standards

March 5, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 26, 2010, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed

with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent an amendment to the
continued listing requirements in Section 802.01B of the Exchange's
Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'') that is currently in effect on a
pilot program basis (the ``Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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
    Prior to the adoption of the Pilot Program,\4\ Section 802.01B(I)
of the Manual provided that any company that qualified to list under
the Earnings Test set out in Section 102.01C(I) or in Section
103.01B(I) (in the case of foreign private issuers) or pursuant to the
requirements set forth under the Assets and Equity Test set forth in
Section 102.01C(IV) or the ``Initial Listing Standard for Companies
Transferring from NYSE Arca'' (the ``NYSE Arca Transfer Standard'') set
forth in Section 102.01(C)(V) (the NYSE Arca Transfer Standard expired
by its terms on August 31, 2009) was considered to be below compliance
standards if such company's average global market capitalization over a
consecutive 30 trading-day period was less than $75 million and, at the
same time, total stockholders' equity was less than $75 million. Under
the Pilot Program, companies that listed under the initial listing
standards set forth in the immediately preceding sentence are
considered to be below compliance standards if average global market
capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than
$50 million and, at the same time, total stockholders' equity is less
than $50 million. The Pilot Program originally expired by its terms on
October 31, 2009, but the Exchange extended its application for an
additional five months, until February 28, 2010.\5\ NYSE has filed an
immediately effective proposed rule change to extend for a further four
months, until June 30, 2010.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to make the
Pilot Program permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59996 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26912 (June 4, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-48) (the ``Pilot
Program Notice'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60911 (November 2,
2009), 74 FR 57730 (November 9, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2009-109).
    \6\ See SR-NYSE-2010- . [sic] The Commission notes that this
proposal was noticed for comment in Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 61609 (March 1, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For companies listed under the Earnings Test, the Pilot Program
returned continued listing requirements to those in place prior to the
adoption of the current requirements on June 9, 2005.\7\ Consequently,
prior to implementation of the Pilot Program, the Exchange had
considerable historical experience with the continued listing of
companies that had continued to trade on the Exchange with global
market capitalization and stockholders' equity each below $75 million
but greater than $50 million. In addition, the Exchange's experience
under the Pilot Program has been very positive, as only one of the
companies that was deemed back in compliance as a result of the
adoption of the Pilot Program has subsequently fallen below the
standard as amended by the Pilot Program as of the date of this filing
and only two additional companies have been newly identified as being
below the Pilot Program standard. Based on this experience, the
Exchange believes that companies that exceed the continued listing
standards as amended by the Pilot Program are suitable for continued
listing on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51813 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 35484 (June 20, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2004-20). The Assets and
Equity Test set forth in Section 102.01C(IV) and the NYSE Arca
Transfer Standard set forth in Section 102.01C(V) were adopted
subsequent to this amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the continued listing standards as
amended by the Pilot Program are at least as stringent as those of any
other national securities exchange. Consequently, the Exchange believes
that the Pilot Program is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest and does not raise any novel regulatory issues.
In addition, the Exchange notes that the Commission stated in the Pilot
Program Notice \8\ that it believed that the continued listing
standards adopted under the Pilot Program met the requirements
established in Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1(a)(2)(ii) \9\ in that they were
reasonably related to the initial listing standards set forth in
paragraph (a)(20(i)[sic] of Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1 (the ``Penny Stock
Rule'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Pilot Program Notice at Note 5. [sic]
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.a51-1(a)(2)(ii). [sic]
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.a51-1. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \11\ of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes that the proposed
permanent adoption of the Pilot Program is consistent with the investor
protection objectives of the Act in that the continued listing
standards under the Pilot Program are set at a high enough level that
only companies that are suitable for continued listing on the Exchange
will exceed the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2010-15 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 Number SR-NYSE-2010-15. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Section, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing will also 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 Number SR-NYSE-2010-15 and should be submitted on or before April
2, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5299 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


If there is sufficient data, and that is generally 20 observations that are, you know, related to the same material and concentration and analyte and what not, then, certainly, robust estimation of the standard deviation and then taking that standard deviation estimate back and applying it against the data to identify outliers is probably the best way to go.

MS. PROCTOR: Okay, thank you.

MR. BRITTON: And Grubbs test is fine if you don't have 20 or more observations to use. The robust estimation techniques that I would recommend, I think there are a lot of them in SAS and other sources, but they can be as simple as estimating the center of the underlying distribution with the median and estimating the variability of the underlying good data using something like the interquartile distance or, you know, distance measurements like that, that tend to be fairly free of influence from outliers. The MAD is another one, the median absolute deviation. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 49 May 10, 2001 Those are good, robust estimates of standard deviation when you have sufficient data.

MS. PROCTOR: Thank you.

MR. TELLIARD: Thank you.

MR. COLEMAN: I would like to add just a little bit to that. Median absolute deviation from the median is a very good estimate. I use that. Also biweight. Some of you may not be familiar with it, but biweight is a robust estimate that is available in SAS and other packages.

The other thing that I know, Paul, you are well familiar with that I think is important for outlier identification and rejection is on the laboratory level, and that is also embedded in the ASTM precision and bias study protocol that you do lab ranking to identify laboratories that always report high or always report low, and you have the possibility of rejecting entire labs on that basis.

So, sometimes, it is an individual value; sometimes, it is an entire laboratory that is giving you an outlier.

MR. BRITTON: Yeah, as an aside, I think that lab ranking, I agree, in many applications, does have good relevancy to identification of outlier laboratories, but I have seen instances where the methods are extremely good and the variabilities extremely low where relatively unimportant, if you will, laboratory biases end up looking like significant biases. So, I think it has to be applied carefully.

MR. TELLIARD: Anyone else? Going to be quick?

MS. GOODMAN: I don't know. I have two questions, actually. The first one is for Ken.

I have to give my not a statistician disclaimer first, so if this was totally obvious from your talk, I apologize. We have had some discussion in ASTM D 19 about how to use quality control data, routine quality control data, for purposes of coming up with detection limits, and I wasn't quite clear on how do you take an MS and MSD that are generally in the upper part of the curve and extrapolate those downward, you know, when you don't know the model or the point at which the deflection is going to happen?

MR. OSBORN: Well, actually, the intention was to select data that is in the upper part of the curve. When you plot sigma as a concentration function, you find that your... if you were to take the slope of the data and you go along, eventually, you would find a point where you have got a slope that is constant. Take the relative standard deviation. That will approach the slope in the upper end, but not in the lower end, because you are taking the ratio of two numbers as opposed to the ratio of differences of numbers. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 50 May 10, 2001 So, you go up on that curve far enough so that your relative standard deviation is a reasonable approximation of the slope, and then that relative standard deviation is what goes back into that Rocke and Lorenzato equation, that big complex term that was in there.

And I really didn't take any time to explain how that would be used, but you have got three points in the curve. You have got your standard deviation at zero. You have got the standard deviation that you are trying to calculate at a given concentration, and you don't know what that concentration is. And you have got the relative standard deviation. So, you have got two knowns, and you have got two unknowns. Okay? So, you need two equations, and that is why, in that first cut, it was an iterative process.

I don't know whether this answers the question, but to... part of it is it is intentional. You do want it in that upper region.

Now, the other part of it is if you are using MS MSD, the concentrations are all over the place. Okay? So, you just can't take recovery values. You just can't take results. You have to take the differences, and it is the standard deviation of the differences, not of the absolute values. Okay?

MS. GOODMAN: Okay. The second question was for Wendy. Your discussion of the Horwitz equation, Horwitz original paper was based on a lot of trace metals studies, basically. I was just curious, looking at that as a way to tackle the question of interlab differences, has that ever been updated to incorporate organics methods and other similar methods? Because it is an empirical equation.

MS. CAMPBELL: Well, currently, Dr. Horwitz... it is a work in process, but what he does is he gathers data from multiple interlaboratory studies and then comes up with these curves and equations, and it has been applicable to almost... the only limitations we have found so far have been in the physical testing.

I don't know if he has, per se, done one on organics, but he has done them on food matrices.

MS. GOODMAN: So, is there a current definitive published equation, or is it a work in progress that you have to talk to him about?

MS. CAMPBELL: Yeah, what I can do is give you something.

MR. TELLIARD: Actually, there is a paper that he did showing some organics in it. I can't remember the publication, but I saw it at the last AOAC...

MS. CAMPBELL: Yes, it is in here. It is in the quality assurance principles. He put some equations in there.

MR. TELLIARD: Yeah. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 51 May 10, 2001 MS. GOODMAN: Okay.

MR. OSBORN: If any of you want further information on how to use the QC data, the part that I went through very rapidly, there is a paper that Dr. Rocke and I published, and I can send that electronically to anyone who sends me an email request for one. Okay? Or leave your card up here with your email address on it, and I can send you something.

MR. TELLIARD: Good.

MR. KOORSE: Steve Koorse again. I invite any of the panelists to respond, offer your observations about the following paradox which I perceive to be perhaps at the root of the controversy over detection and quantification levels.

When you look at the Agency's practices for validating test methods to be used in the regulatory arena, one thing that is glaring is that when the Agency does a full blown collaborative interlaboratory study, it does not start out by saying the standard we will use for either approving or disapproving this new method is that if it exceeds a precision of X, it is too variable, and if it doesn't, then it is acceptable.

Rather, the interlaboratory study is performed, and the Agency, without any standard... and I don't mean to be critical. I am trying to just raise a very important issue. They do the study. They look at the data, and, invariably, the approve the study. There have been a couple that have been bounced out of the process. The Ames test, for example, was bounced out, and we are not quite sure exactly why the variability of the Ames test was too great, whereas the variability of, let's say, a PCB method which is quite high was not too great.

So, in the validation process, we end up with approved test methods.

Now, in the regulatory arena, the Agency's position, typically, is whatever the variability of that test method is... and you can pretty much determine that variability based on the collaborative study results. In the old days, we used to have nice regression equations which allowed you to do it at any concentration.

Now, we have got sort of an averaging which makes it more difficult, but you can determine the variability, but the Agency's position, basically, the variability should not be taken into account... the analytical variability should not be taken into account in the derivation of permit limits, at least not water quality based limits.

However, when you get down to quantitation and detection levels, the Agency says at that point, the variability is too high. So, now we have sort of a flip flop. The Agency has determined that the variability is too high to be used in the regulatory process, and the Agency says we do not expect those data points to be used in the regulatory process. Okay?

The question becomes when you look at the precision for the various test methods at the quantification level, assuming you can determine... and, of course, as David pointed out earlier, with the IQE, you know exactly what it is, because you set the number, the quantification level at Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 52 May 10, 2001 a particular precision level. But if you look at the typical quantification levels for the test methods that have been approved by the Agency, you look at the variability, you look at the precision for those, the precision is all over the board, yet the Agency says that this is the appropriate level for this method with this precision, and for any other methods, there is a different precision.

So, it raises the question, how much variability is too much? In some cases, the Agency says this; in other cases, they say no, it is this much. Or in other cases, it says no, we'll only tolerate this much.

And it creates a paradox. On the one hand, the Agency is saying variability should not be taken into account. Then it says it should be, but then it says it should be when it is this big, other times when it is this big.

How do we deal with all of that?

MR. TELLIARD: Well, first of all, it is not a question for these gentlemen and ladies. I am sorry. I almost forgot.

The Agency makes that decision based on a number of issues. A good example, I think, of that is the information collection rule that was done on Cryptosporidium. The Congress of the United States decided we would do a study, we would establish a standard.

We did not have a method. We used a method that gave us, roughly, 6 to 8 percent recovery of Cryptosporidium, and that was on a good day. And we knew that, and we said we march forward, because we had a deadline, because the Congress of the United States said you will do it.

Since then, we have come up with a method that gives us, roughly, 50 to 70 recovery of oocysts. In the interim, yes, we used that method, and yes, we gathered data, and yes, we made some policy decisions based on that, because that is all we had. Now, we are going to make better policy decisions, because we have better methods.

But a lot of these methods, as you know, are driven by court orders, they are driven by Congressional mandates, and they are not necessarily at the Agency's discretion to take all the time in the world that it wants or, in many instances, as EPRI and other people in the room know, we even had the budget to do the studies. Outside people have committed actual funds. The pulp and paper industry committed a triggadollar to help generate the data base for their rule, because we didn't have the funding.

So, a lot of this question of how much variability can we stand is going to be independent, and it is going to be independent of the rule, and it is going to depend a greater part on what the Agency has been mandated to do.

So, how much can we live with? It was the gentleman in, I think Region VI asked. Where do you get to that point? And the answer is it is going to depend on the method, it is going to depend on the day, and it is going to depend on the situation. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 53 May 10, 2001 So, we would love to have every method with a standard deviation of less than 10. Okay? We would love to have a lot of things, but what we can live with and what we can't live with will be decided by the Agency and certainly not by these people. That is why we have lawyers, I think.

Henry, you had a question.

MR. KAHN: Yeah, I had a question, Bill, if I could direct the discussion back to something that I perceive to be within the purview of the panel, Steve.

I think Dr. Currie's comments about the blank and calibration error are particular important and relevant here, and I would be interested in having Dr. Currie or any other panel members address those matters a little more. In particular, in talking about the blank, in talking with chemists that we deal with, I am usually told that it is not practical to get true blank replicates. This has to do, I guess, with the sort of automated censoring in the equipment.

MR. TELLIARD: In some of the instruments, yes.

MR. KAHN: Some of the instruments. So, I was wondering if you could, Dr. Currie, elaborate a little more on that issue and also address calibration error which, I think... which you alluded to which I think has short shrift in these discussions.

Thanks.

DR. CURRIE: Thank you for the added time. I will do a poor job at both, but let me... I am going to run again, because I have illustrations.

MR. TELLIARD: You need to sit down, so you can get the microphone. They can't hear you on the other side.

DR. CURRIE: Oh, okay. Sorry. I will tell you about it, and then I'll... perhaps I...

MR. TELLIARD: Just give it to me.

DR. CURRIE: Yeah, yeah, that would be great.

MR. TELLIARD: That will be easier.

DR. CURRIE: Excellent. I have to give you the right ones. This will be the first. That for now.

This is a topic I didn't bring up, per se, but I think it is very relevant. The type of question you are asking in my presentation of the blank today, I think, can be extremely important and, in fact, limiting in many cases. Also, it can be extremely difficult and hence, in a sense, costly. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 54 May 10, 2001 I am giving you some data from our laboratory of several years ago, showing measurement of radiocarbon, C 14, by what used to be the conventional method measuring the beta particles, counting the rate of decay. That is the decay method. Shows the conventional sample size.

Then, below that is AMS accelerator mass spectrometry which was a revolution in the measurement process, and I advocate more measurement process revolutions to get over a number of these problems. And the simple little issue I wanted to show here is that if we, as scientists and statisticians and attorneys and all that, can try to address the question of what is limiting of the measurement process, that can help us a great deal.

So, in the case of decay counting, we needed about 2.5 mg to get a signal that would give us 10 percent Poisson precision. The background was equivalent to about 5 mg. This is modern carbon, living carbon. And our blank was 40

g. No problem. The blank is not an issue there.

Now we improve the measurement process by counting atoms rather than decaying particles. This is great for long lived radioactivity. The signal limit is down by over a factor of 1000, and the background is even further down, background equivalent, but now our blank, though we have reduced it here to 15

g, it is the limiting factor.

So, the little illustration I give here is to... it can be useful to ask, for the measurement processes you are interested in, which of these is the major limitation.

Now, we can go on to the second. I am going to leave the blank now. I just wanted to raise this issue of perspective, what is limiting.

I was hoping someone would ask about calibration and that aspect. This is something that I created out of, I think, a correct model for taking into account the calibration error. If you have a linear calibration curve, Y= B, for blank intercept, plus AX where A is the calibration factor and X is the concentration, you invert that and calculate concentration, the estimated concentration is X= Y, your total signal, minus the estimated blank divided by the calibration factor.

If the estimated blank, estimated calibration factor, in fact, random like measured each time, then you get a non linear relationship, and you get, at zero concentration, a distribution that has long tails peaked in the center, kurtotic. At higher concentrations, it becomes asymmetric.

In fact, this is for something that I published showing how the critical value is linked to the alpha and beta errors. The simple issue is that if the calibration uncertainty is non trivial compared to the other uncertainties, you get some interesting, non normal distributions.

That is more than you wanted to hear, probably, but did I partly address your question?

MR. KAHN: Partly, but it's not more than I want. So...

DR. CURRIE: Touché. Maybe David could do it right. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 55 May 10, 2001 MR. FOREMAN: I am Bill Foreman. I am with the U. S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality lab.

I wanted to reinforce some of the things that were said today. We have been using kind of a long term continuous approach to determine method detection levels and then set reporting levels or the less than value, and I wanted to mention a couple of things.

One is that with regards to blanks, I think those are really critical, and I think it is something we have missed, and it has not really been positioned very well within the EPA procedure, especially in terms of doing blank correction or blank offset in terms of setting the MDL. So, I think that is really important.

We have been collecting uncensored blank data for some of our inorganic methods and have been able to compute MDLs based on that and can compare them and see how they compare with spike based MDLs. In some cases, they agree well. In other cases, they don't. Usually, the indication is maybe the blank values are better than the spike, and that is because of this change in standard deviation with concentration that Ken and others have tried to address.

In terms of setting the reporting level or the quantitation limit, as Paul referred to it, I think it is very important that we consider not using that as a censoring limit, because the MDL represents... I mean... I am sorry... we have to consider if this quantitation limit is a censoring limit, we really are going to censor out a lot of values if the actual concentration is at the quantitation limit or level.

So, I think it is important to keep that in mind, and that is what we have tried to do.

Another feature, though is that in all the plots I saw today and all the representations, the distribution is always centered on 100 percent mean or median recovery. Typically, especially for organic methods but even some inorganic methods, the distribution is not 100 percent.

So, you have to keep that in mind as well when you set your reporting level. It is not just two times the critical level. It may be four times if you have a 50 percent recovery. So, it is important to keep that in mind.

With regard to outlier testing, we now have a lot of experience for doing this kind of determine this LTMDL type of determination. We get a lot of data, because we are collecting more than just seven replicates, and we are doing it over time, so, occasionally, you get outliers. So, we are using a more robust approach like Paul mentioned using the pseudo sigma and replacing the standard deviation in the determination, and we think that helps, at least from a practical standpoint, for a large scale implementation like we are doing.

But a bigger issue for us, I think, is the fact that for multi analyte kinds of methods... and for most of the methods that we run, they are not EPA methods; they are USGS methods, so we don't already know what the MDL is, because EPA or somebody else hasn't previously determined it for us. That is, likewise, the case for our new methods that we are developing, and in some cases, we may have 40 to 80 elements or analytes or more that we are dealing with. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 56 May 10, 2001 It is very difficult to try to prepare a solution with all your analytes in there at the right concentration that is 1 to 5 times the MDL. It is not very practical, and that is what we have found out.

So, this year, we have started evaluating the approach that was given... the multiconcentration approach that was advocated by Gibbons and co workers, including David Coleman, and that Ken has now suggested with the Rocke and Lorenzato method. So, we are going to see how that works for us, but from a practical standpoint, this can be very difficult.

I had a handout, a single page handout, of a poster that I presented at the SETAC meeting and also at the Pittsburgh conference as a talk recently. I don't know if there are any left. They were on the table out there, but if anybody would like a copy of what we are doing... and we also have a web site on some of the stuff we are doing... please see me.

Thank you.

MR. TELLIARD: Thank you. I always call it the Rocky and Bullwinkle to keep it in the right perspective. That way, I don't forget.

MR. BLYE: Steven Blye with Environmental Standards.

I apologize if I am asking a question that might have been addressed in the opening remarks, but I followed the outline, and I was late.

My first question is, as a result of the settlement agreement with the Agency to address method detection limits and ML, could you provide a kind of status update on where the Agency is heading with that and what the specific actions are?

Then, the second question would be I am not an attorney, but with what I understand, it seems like the 40 CFR Part 136 MDL definition is used unilaterally through all of the environmental regulatory programs. As part of that settlement, has there been any thought for the Office of Water to kind of get together with the other agencies and establish perhaps one uniform definition for MDL and quant limits?

MR. TELLIARD: Your first one is there is a schedule. I have a copy for you which lays out... the final date is February, 2004. I can check my retirement date, but I...

The other thing about... we originally started, again, something simple. We were going to amend the MDL procedure to make it a little more robust in the sense of confirming, since it was a calculated number, and Jim Lichtenburg and Jim Longbottom both agreed that we ought to do it. This is like ten years ago, and, you know, we'd get around to it type of thing. So, we were going to make this simple little change, and here we are.

So, the question is yeah, there is going to be some definitions changed. We are consolidating it in the sense that Water will do this. Office of Solid Waste has kind of an MDL Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 57 May 10, 2001 procedure, but it is not a requirement. It is kind of in and out. But, yeah, that is part of this whole process that we are going through for which this is the starting point for some of it.

We have done some laboratory studies on low level concentrations. Henry and Chuck have been working on that data, doing some data crunching. Budget is an issue in this particular program, and we are kind of at the mercy of when Chuck and Henry have time to do some of this, since we don't have a lot of contract funds. But that is the game plan, is to come up with kind of an approach.

Now, it may not be the only approach. This is not a one shoe fits all thing. I mean, we have heard here today there are a lot of different ways of skinning this animal, and we may choose to say skin it any way you want, you know, as long as you can document x, y, and z. And as I say, the Agency isn't here to reinvent the wheel if there is a wheel out there.

Lloyd pointed out also that, you know, there are a lot of things that we have been kind of parochial, looking in ASTM, AOAC, and Standard Methods. Maybe we need to look to the international scene more than we have to see how that all fits together with our package. So, yeah, that is the whole bite.

MR. BRITTON: Thanks, Bill. I have a question of David.

Recognizing the tendency of data reporters to use anything called the detection limit as a reporting limit, is it appropriate to use the IDE that way?

MR. COLEMAN: In terms of censoring below that value, I completely disagree with censoring for the reasons expressed earlier in that you are throwing away information, even at that very low level, information that you can use.

Now, if you have to make a binary decision and, as Steve, I believe, brought up earlier, no detectable amount and it has to be yes or no, then I think the IDE is applicable.

MR. BRITTON: So, you would condone use of the IDE as a reporting limit under some circumstances?

MR. COLEMAN: Not if it is used for censoring but if it is used for making a binary decision.

MR. BRITTON: Okay. I also wanted to caution that the IDE requires an interlaboratory study, and we have to recognize that a lot of these interlaboratory studies are done once and once only. Generally, that is when the method is brand new. In other words, there is no such thing as experienced users of the method.

So, the interlaboratory study is done with a body of the best available, you know, users, and they are all inexperienced, and that tends to be, because of the expense of interlaboratory studies, the last time that you have the data required to estimate IDE and IQE. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 58 May 10, 2001 The problem is... and I can show an example of this in the 600 series methods when EPA did interlaboratory studies on those methods when they were brand new in the late ` 70s, and the data were highly variable. However, later on when people really became experienced with those methods, as exampled by the data that they were reporting in performance evaluation studies, for example, you saw considerably less variability in the data from exactly the same methods, and I think it was primarily based on experience, but the users really knew how to apply the method and were generating outlier data less frequently.

This would be a really serious thing if, you know, the IQE and IDE were estimated from data on a new method using inexperienced users and really wouldn't be applicable, perhaps, a year or two or three down the line.

MR. COLEMAN: Just to comment briefly on that, I think that is a serious issue, not just for IDE and IQE but for just about any method. It is true that some other detection and quantitation limits make what I consider compromises so that they are easy to recalculate. You only need to get seven samples.

In the view of the ASTM task group, that compromise wasn't worth it, but that was a judgment. Precision and bias studies have had a place, and I think we would all recognize that. Unfortunately, they are expensive and time consuming. So, it is a legitimate issue.

MR. FLORES: Ray Flores in Region VI again.

This is a question for David about the IQE approach. It seems to me like an MDL determination using all the calibration points at some concentration about what you would normally expect for an MDL, it is kind of an attractive approach. I am lab auditor, so I am always searching for ways to manage the error that the lab has got to live with.

So, my question is, when you are doing this IQE determination within a lab, intralab, are these concentrations of these contaminants going to go through the entire analytical process? I am asking, are they going to go through the digestion, whatever prep steps are involved?

MR. COLEMAN: Generally, they would go through all the steps, but I don't think a general answer will necessarily answer your question. So, I suggest we talk privately and more specifically later.

MR. FLORES: Okay. Another question for Ken. I understand what you were doing. It is kind of an iterative approach to determining an MDL, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but can you compare that to the F test in 40 CFR 136 Appendix B?

MR. OSBORN: No.

MR. FLORES: Oh, okay.

MR. COLEMAN: Let me just mention... I don't want to take too much time, but partly for clarity, the Rocke and Lorenzato model, a version of that, is embedded within IQE in Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 59 May 10, 2001 particular. It is also allowed within IDE where it is called... in IQE anyway, it is called the hybrid model, and the F test is sort of the lowest level test one would perform to see if you have equivalent, not identical but equivalent, standard deviations.

The Rocke and Lorenzato hybrid approach is an explicit modeling approach where you say we assume that the standard deviation changes with concentration, and actually built into the IQE is a formal test to see if that is true, and if it is true, you go ahead and model.

MR. KOORSE: Let me quickly remind Paul that, again, as an attorney, I have an obligation to my clients to make sure that until a test method has gone through the rigor and the educational process and the learning curve is at the appropriate point where better controls are in place, I have got to make sure that people are not penalized unfairly. So, you have to strike a balance.

Yes, you may need to reconsider. It may need to be a separate approach for determining performance based on actual performance information, and perhaps the DMRQA program could be set up to establish some kind of a confirmation process, but we have to strike a balance whereby the due process of folks is not exceeded by the need to promote the Agency's program. Both interests are important, and we have got to strike a balance.

MR. BRITTON: Yeah, I would say that it is a chicken or the egg process, you know. I mean, you have to decide whether you are willing to wait a couple of years until the method has really been used and there is a body of people experienced with its use so you can really see what it is capable of or whether, you know, you have to do these studies on brand new methods and then, really, nobody is willing to put the effort into refining those estimates down the road.

MR. TELLIARD: Well, the other thing, too, is if we can ever get performance based in one form or another, we would allow people to upgrade these methods as they do get better. I think a good example is when we started out with dioxin, you know, 10 parts per quadrillion. Everybody died. You know, people are going oh, that is our highest calibration point. Now, we are down in the... which is wonderful, you know, and great.

Makes your life miserable, but for the analytical chemist, you know, everything is going to get better, and that is the purpose of it. For the regulatory community, they are probably a little skittish, but that is our job.

But we agree, there has got to be a way to... and, you know, like the old story was in ASTM and some of the other consensus groups where, routinely, methods come up for review to be either codified or dumped, and I think the Agency should try to do that. We have tried it twice now, and the world comes to an end, because somebody calls in and says my daddy has been using that method for 48 years, and now you want to take it away, boy?

We have never been able to revoke a method, so it's... but a lot of these should come up for reconsideration and, again, to see if the detection is better, the instrumentation is improving, and I think if we can get some sort of... like was covered in streamlining where you are allowed to make these changes, it would cover that issue. Detection/ Quantitation Workshop 60 May 10, 2001 It is now 20 after 12: 00. These people will be here until Thursday of next week unless you want to call it a day.

I would like to thank the speakers this morning. If the good Lord is willing and the river doesn't rise, same time next year, generally the same location. Don't know if it is this hotel or the one across the water but in the Norfolk Portsmouth Hampton Roads area.

I would like to thank Jan Kourmadas for doing all the minor things like getting the hotel and a bed for you to sleep in and all that other good stuff, Marion Kelly from my staff for working on the arrangements, Ellyn Hagy for helping to find out that the papers got where they were supposed to, Dale Rushneck who had the small task of putting together the program, the speakers who have come... I thought we were really fortunate this year, our co sponsors, Battelle Duxbury or wherever they may be seen, and you, the attendees. Thank you for coming. I really appreciate it, and, hopefully, we'll see you here next year for the 25th. Thank you for your attention.

( WHEREUPON, the Meeting was adjourned at 12: 22 p. m.)

CAPTION The meeting in the matter, on the date, and at the time and place set out on the title page hereof. It was requested that the meeting be taken by the reporter and that the same be reduced to typewritten form.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 17876]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2018-31]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing
Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0257
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deana Stedman, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected]; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, phone
202-267-4713, email [email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 19, 2018.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0257.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  25.901(c), 25.979(b),
25.979(c), 25.1309(b), 25.1322(a)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Boeing Defense Space and Security is
petitioning for an exemption of the affected sections of 14 CFR until
June 30, 2019, to allow supplemental type certification of the Model
767-2C tanker airplane. The subject of the petition is the aerial
refueling controller and associated software.

[FR Doc. 2018-08540 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55572-55576]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17514]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0075]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Recurring Fireworks Displays and Swim Events in
Coast Guard Sector New York Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its regulations for permanent
safety zones in the Coast Guard Sector New York Captain of the Port
Zone for recurring fireworks displays and swim events. This revision
will update the list of events, alter the means of notification, and
clarify the function of these safety zone regulations. The
establishment of the safety zones is necessary to protect event
participants, waterway users, and vessels from the potential hazards
associated with these recurring organized water events. When subject to
enforcement, no person is authorized to access the safety zones without
permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective August 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0075 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MSTC Stacy Stevenson, Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) is establishing, amending,
and updating annual and recurring swim events and fireworks safety
zones codified in 33 CFR 165.160 in Tables 1 and 2, for the COTP zone.
    On May 4, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zones; Recurring Fireworks Displays
and Swim Events in Coast Guard Sector New York Zone'' (88 FR 28444).
There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our
proposed regulatory action related to this rule. During the comment
period that ended June 5, 2023, we received two comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Six firework displays are
scheduled to occur in June. Delaying the effective date of this rule
would be impracticable because the absence of a safety zone around
barge-based fireworks displays within the COTP

zone poses a significant risk to public safety. Therefore, it is
important to enforce the safety zones without delay to mitigate
potential hazards to mariners and ensure effective management of vessel
traffic around these displays.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The revision of Table 1 and Table 2 to Sec.  165.160 amends and
updates recurring safety zones in the COTP zone. This rule will
prohibit entry into those safety zones without permission of COTP to
protect spectators, mariners, and other persons and property from
potential hazards presented during the firework display or swim event
associated with the safety zone.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published May
4, 2023 (88 FR 28444). Both comments received were in favor of the rule
overall.
    One commenter asked about the implementation of other safety
precautions if the safety zone failed or was breached. These
precautions include, but are not limited to, regular inspections,
emergency response protocols, signage, and ongoing monitoring and
evaluation of the safety zones' effectiveness. Additionally, many
fireworks displays are scheduled to occur within areas monitored by the
Vessel Traffic Center, who will ensure adequate notice and
predictability in the New York and New Jersey waters through
coordination of vessel movements and dissemination information.
    The second commenter, also in favor of the safety zones around
fireworks displays, recommended that the fireworks take place in an
area that prevents debris from entering the water and that a cleanup
plan be in place. While the Coast Guard takes its role as an
environmental steward seriously, the purpose of this safety zone is to
manage traffic around the displays and ensure safety. This rulemaking
does not contemplate the environmental concerns relative to the
fireworks themselves, but of the impact on the environment by the
safety zone. Therefore, this rule aligns with the principles of NEPA
and underscores the commitment to mitigate adverse environmental
effects while managing vessel traffic effectively. Further, the Coast
Guard is not serving as the permitting agency for these events, they
are coordinated by other government agencies.
    This rule updates Table 1 to Sec.  165.160 by consolidating all
fireworks displays launched from a barge location to one row and
removing other firework displays. This rule also completely replaces
Table 2 to Sec.  165.160 with new swim events and their respective
locations. Only event sponsors, designated participants of swim events,
and official patrol vessels will be allowed to enter safety zones
without needing to seek permission. Spectators and other vessels not
registered as swim event participants cannot enter the safety zones
without the permission of the COTP or the Designated Representative.
Finally, the rule reorganizes and updates the text of Sec.  165.160 to
be more understandable to the reader, as described in the NPRM.
    There are no changes to the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability of
other waterway users to safely transit around the safety zones in many
cases, and the size and duration of the safety zones will impact a
small, designated area of the waterway for a relatively short period of
time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will notify mariners of the enforcement
via marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media,
distribution in leaflet form, by an on-scene oral notice, or signage as
appropriate. The rule will also allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone if necessary.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and

have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule prevents vessels
from transiting areas specifically designated as safety zones during
the periods they are subject to enforcement. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.160 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.160  Safety Zones; Recuring Fireworks Displays and Swim
Events Held in Coast Guard Sector New York Zone.

    (a) Regulations. The general regulations in subpart C of this part
as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zones
associated with the recurring fireworks displays and swim events listed
in tables 1 or 2 to this section, respectively.
    (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this
part, no person may enter the safety zone described in table 1 or 2 of
this section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the
COTP's Designated Representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter the designated safety zone, contact
the COTP or the COTP's Designated Representative via VHF-FM Marine
Channel 16, or by contacting the Coast Guard Sector New York command
center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Event organizers must ensure that fireworks barges have signage
on their port and starboard side labeled ``Fireworks--Stay Away''. This
sign will consist of 10-inch-high by 1.5-inch-wide red lettering on a
white background.
    (4) Shore sites used in these locations will display a sign labeled
``Fireworks--Stay Away'' with the same dimensions.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his or her behalf. The
designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be
on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be
present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    Official Patrol Vessels means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned as an on-
scene representative or approved by the COTP.
    Spectators means all persons and vessels not registered with the
event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
    (c) Enforcement periods. (1) Safety zones for fireworks-display
events listed in Table 1 of this section will be subject to enforcement
for approximately one hour between 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. when a barge with a
``Fireworks--Stay Away'' sign on the port and starboard side is on-
scene or a ``Fireworks--Stay Away'' sign is posted in a location listed
in Table 1 to Sec.  165.160.
    (2) The regulations in this section will be subject to enforcement
for the duration of each event on or about the dates indicated in Table
2 of this section.
    (3) For events in Tables 1 and 2 that do not have a date or
location listed, or if the event occurs on a date or location other
than the one that is listed, then exact dates and times of the
enforcement period will be announced via marine broadcast, local notice
to mariners, distribution in leaflet form, local news media, or by an
on-scene oral notice as appropriate.
    (4) Notifications of enforcement times for events listed in Table 1
and 2, including any changes to the enforcement dates or times listed
in this section, may be made via marine broadcasts, local notice to
mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, or by an on-
scene oral notice and signage.
    (d) Location. If the specific location of a safety zone for
fireworks displays is not listed in Table 1, an announcement will be
made by marine broadcast, local notice to mariners, distribution in
leaflet form, local news media, or by an on-scene oral notice as
appropriate. The specific locations of swim event safety zones are
listed in Table 2. Any modification to the location of safety zones
described in this section will be listed in USCG First District Local
Notice to Mariners at: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/.

              Table 1 to Sec.   165.160--Fireworks Displays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             1.0 Event                          Location \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Twin Island, Long Island Sound  Launch Site: A land shoot located on
 Safety Zone.                        the east end of Orchard Beach, NY,
                                     in approximate position
                                     40[deg]52'10'' N, 073[deg]47'07''
                                     W. This Safety Zone includes
                                     navigable waters within a 200-yard
                                     radius from the launch site.
1.2 Arthur Kill, Elizabeth, NJ      Launch Site: A land shoot located in
 Safety Zone.                        Elizabeth, NJ, in approximate
                                     position 40[deg]38'50'' N,
                                     074[deg]10'58'' W. This Safety Zone
                                     includes navigable waters within a
                                     150-yard radius from the launch
                                     site.
1.3 Wards Island, East River, NY    Launch Site: A land shoot located on
 Safety Zone.                        Wards Island in approximate
                                     position 40[deg]46'57'' N
                                     073[deg]55'28'' W, approximately
                                     330 yards north of the Robert F.
                                     Kennedy Bridge (Triborough Bridge).
                                     This Safety Zone includes navigable
                                     waters within a 200-yard radius
                                     from the launch site.
1.4 Barge Based Fireworks Displays  All waters within the Sector New
                                     York COTP Zone within an area up to
                                     a 500-yard radius of a firework
                                     barge or barges used during the
                                     storage, preparation, and launching
                                     of fireworks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All coordinates listed in Table 1 to Sec.   165.01-165.160 reference
  Datum NAD 1983.

                 Table 2 to Sec.   165.160--Swim Events
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             1.0 Event                        Date/location \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Hudson River, Ulster, NY, Swim  Date: The first weekend after the
                                     4th of July.
                                    Location: The safety zone includes
                                     all navigable waters of the Hudson
                                     River in the vicinity of Ulster
                                     Landing, bound by the following
                                     coordinates:
                                    42[deg]00'03.7'' N,
                                     073[deg]56'43.1'' W, thence to
                                    41[deg]59'52.5'' N,
                                     073[deg]56'34.2'' W, to
                                    42[deg]00'15.1'' N,
                                     073[deg]56'25.2'' W, to
                                    42[deg]00'05.4'' N,
                                     073[deg]56'41.9'' W, thence along
                                     the shoreline to the point of
                                     origin.
1.2 Hudson River, Nyack to          Date: 2nd weekend in September.
 Kingsland Point Swim.              Location: The safety zone includes
                                     all navigable waters of the Hudson
                                     River between Nyack, NJ and the
                                     Tarrytown Lighthouse bound by the
                                     following coordinates:
                                    41[deg]05'10.7'' N, 073[deg]55'03''
                                     W, thence to
                                    41[deg]05'02'' N, 073[deg]52'25'' W,
                                     to
                                    41[deg]05'19'' N, 073[deg]52'22'' W,
                                     to
                                    41[deg]05'25'' N, 073[deg]54'51'' W
                                     thence along the shoreline to the
                                     point of origin.
1.3 Navy Seal Swim, New York        Date: One Saturday or Sunday in
 Harbor.                             August.
                                    Location: The safety zone includes
                                     all navigable waters bound by the
                                     following coordinates:
                                    40[deg]41'26'' N, 74[deg]03'17'' W,
                                     thence to
                                    40[deg]41'02'' N, 74[deg]02'25'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'40'' N, 74[deg]02'00'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]42'25'' N, 74[deg]01'08'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]42'28'' N, 74[deg]01'07'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'57'' N, 74[deg]02'07'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'40'' N, 74[deg]02'30'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'24'' N, 74[deg]02'27'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'12'' N, 74[deg]02'38'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'29'' N, 74[deg]03'15'' W,
                                     thence back to the point of origin.
1.4 Hudson River, Newburgh to       Date: One Saturday or Sunday in
 Beacon Swim.                        July.
                                    Location: The safety zone includes
                                     all navigable waters of the Hudson
                                     River between Newburgh and Beacon,
                                     NY bound by the following
                                     coordinates:
                                    41[deg]30'24.2'' N, 074[deg]0'17.4''
                                     W, thence to
                                    41[deg]30'27.8'' N,
                                     073[deg]59'16.8'' W, to
                                    41[deg]30'11.6'' N,
                                     073[deg]59'19.9'' W, to
                                    41[deg]30'03.4'' N, 074[deg]0'17.2''
                                     W, thence north along the shoreline
                                     to the point of origin.
1.5 Long Island Sound, Horseshoe    Date: 4th weekend in July and 2nd
 Harbor Swim.                        weekend in August.
                                    Location: The safety zone includes
                                     all navigable waters of the Long
                                     Island Sound bound by the following
                                     coordinates:
                                    40[deg]55'32'' N, 73[deg]44'37'' W,
                                     thence southeast to
                                    40[deg]55'28'' N, 73[deg]44'14'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]55'01'' N, 73[deg]43'59'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]54'01'' N, 73[deg]44'17'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]54'48'' N, 73[deg]45'10'' W,
                                     thence along the shoreline back to
                                     the point of origin.
1.6 New York Harbor, Liberty        Date: One weekend in July.
 Island to Morris Canal Swim.       Location: The safety zone includes
                                     all navigable waters of the New
                                     York Harbor bound by the following
                                     coordinates:
                                    40[deg]41'27'' N, 74[deg]02'25'' W,
                                     thence to
                                    40[deg]41'22'' N, 74[deg]02'13'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]41'36'' N, 74[deg]02'04'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]42'39'' N, 74[deg]01'42'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]42'42'' N, 74[deg]02'05'' W,
                                     to
                                    40[deg]42'31'' N, 74[deg]01'55'' W,
                                     thence back to the point of origin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All coordinates listed in Table 2 to Sec.   165.01-165.160 reference
  Datum NAD 1983.

    Dated: June 24, 2023.
Z. Merchant,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2023-17514 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P