From:		Joe Sopata, Chemist, USEPA/OAR/OTAQ/CD/FCC
To:		Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135
Subject:	Supplemental Proposed Regulations: Performance Based Measurement System
Date:		12/21/2011

	The following are proposed regulations as discussed in section i.ii, Option 2, Agency Approval of All Test Methods, in the preamble of this proposed rule.

5.	Section 80.47 is revised to read as follows:

§ 80.47	Performance Based Analytical Test Method Approach.

All sample handling, testing procedures and tests must be conducted using good laboratory practices.

(a)	Definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(1) 	Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach means a measurement system based upon established performance criteria for accuracy and precision with use of analytical test methods.  As used in this subpart, a measurement system used by laboratories to demonstrate that a particular analytical test method is acceptable for demonstrating compliance.
(2)	Accuracy means the closeness of agreement between an observed value from a single test measurement and an accepted reference value.
(3)	Precision means the degree of agreement in a set of measurements performed on the same property of identical test material.
(4)	Absolute fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which a gravimetric standard is practical to construct and use.   Sulfur content of gasoline, butane, or diesel fuel are examples of an absolute fuel parameter.
(5)	Gravimetric standard means a test material made by adding a carefully weighed quantity of the analyte to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain any of the analyte, resulting in a solution with an accurately known concentrate of the analyte.
(6)	Consensus named fuels are homogeneous quantities of fuel that have been analyzed by a number of different laboratories (by sending around small samples).  The average concentration of some parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the "consensus name" for that material.
(7)	Locally-named reference materials are gasoline or diesel fuels that are usually from the regular production of the facility where they are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed using the designated method (either by the facility's lab or by a referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration.
(8)	Method-defined fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which an EPA-prescribed primary test method or "designated method" defines the regulatory standard.  Examples of method-defined fuel parameters include olefin content in gasoline, Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline, distillation parameters of gasoline, benzene content of  gasoline, aromatic content of  gasoline and diesel fuel, and oxygen/oxygenates content of gasoline.
(9)	Reference Installations are designated test method installations that are used to qualify the accuracy of other method-defined parameter instruments.  Reference installations of the designated test method will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other method-defined alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations if necessary.
(10)	Correlation equation is a correction equation as determined by the use of ASTM International standard practice D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).  This standard practice determines whether the comparison between the alternative test method and the designated test method is a "null" result.  If the comparison is not "null', then the standard practice provides for a correlation equation that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method-defined alternative test method.
(11)	Statistical quality control (SQC) means a planned system of activities whose purpose is to provide a level of quality that meets the needs of compliance with the standards of Part 80.  This subpart prescribes specific SQC requirements for both absolute and method driven fuel parameters for both VCSB and non-VCSB regulated parties.
 (12)	Voluntary consensus-based standards body (VCSB) means a domestic or international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures and which possesses the attributes of openness, balance of interest, due process, and consensus, as explained in OMB Circular A-119 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, P.L. 104-113, sec. 12(d).
(13)	Non-Voluntary consensus-based standards body (non-VCSB) means a domestic or international regulated party whose analytical test method is not adopted by a VCSB organization.

(b)	Precision and accuracy criteria for approval for the absolute fuel parameter of gasoline sulfur.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning  November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at §80.195 and §80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D7039-07 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.75ppm/2.77)=0.95 ppm).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Accuracy.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at §80.195 and §80.1603:
(i)	The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.71 ppm sulfur;
(ii)	The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur; and
(iii)	In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
(3)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(4)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(5)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(6)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(7)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(c)	Precision and accuracy criteria for approval of the absolute fuel parameter of sulfur in butane.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §80.82 and §80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available butane must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D6667-10 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur butane sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77)=0.62 ppm).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Accuracy.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §80.82 and §0.1603:
(i)	The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.47 ppm sulfur;
(ii)	The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.94ppm sulfur; and
(iii)	In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
(3)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(4)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(5)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(6)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(7)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(d)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of olefins in gasoline?
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol% olefins: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.972Vol%/2.77)=0.53Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(e)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in gasoline.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards at Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline containing 32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(f)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards at Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5599-00(2010) (Example: A gasoline containing 3Mass% total oxygen: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77)=0.045Mass%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(g)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, and the volatility standards at §80.27, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5191-10b (Example: A gasoline having a RVP of 6.8psi: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.21psi/2.77)=0.11psi).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(h)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of gasoline distillation.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D86-11a for the initial boiling point, E10, E50, E90 and final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline having an initial boiling point of 20⁰C and a final boiling point of 110⁰C: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for initial boiling point<=1.5*(2.84⁰C/2.77)=1.54⁰C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E10<=1.5*(1.33⁰C/2.77)=0.72⁰C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E50<=1.5*(0.74⁰C/2.77)=0.40⁰C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E90t<=1.5*(1.79⁰C/2.77)=0.97⁰C, and maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for final boiling point<=1.5*(3.33⁰C/2.77)=1.80⁰C ).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(i)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of benzene in gasoline.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80 and theMSAT2 standards at §§80.41, 80.101, 80.1230, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D3606-10 (Example: A gasoline having a 1Vol% benzene: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77)=0.02Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(j)	Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in diesel.
(1)	Precision.  Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives subject to the motor vehicle diesel standards at §80.520, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" divided by 2.77, where "r" equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A diesel fuel containing 35Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests<=1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%).  The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.  A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(3)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(4)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(5)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(6)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(k)	Criterion for designated test method reference installations used to qualify the accuracy of other method-defined parameter instruments.
(1)	Beginning November 30, 2013, the reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must have precision equal to 1.5 times the repeatability "r" of the method-defined fuel parameter's designated test method, where "r" is the repeatability of the designated test method.
(i)	Olefins in gasoline see §80.47(d)(1).
(ii)	Aromatics in gasoline see §80.47(e)(1).
(iii)	Oxygen and Oxygenate content of gasoline see §80.47(f)(1).
(iv)	Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline see §80.47(g)(1).
(v)	Gasoline Distillation see §80.47(h)(1).
(vi)	Benzene in Gasoline see §80.47(i)(1)
(vii)	Aromatics in Diesel see §80.47(j)(1).
(2)	The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be near the middle distribution of an industry monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program for at least a period of five months.  Specifically, compute the difference between the instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable fuel standard (or to the average value for the fuel parameter in the complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in the monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program.  Standardize this difference by expressing it in robust standard deviation units.  These standardized inter-laboratory crosscheck differences should be placed in a moving average with a minimum span of five months.  The instrument's moving average in robust standard deviation units cannot be outside the central 50% of the distribution of all laboratories that participated in the inter-laboratory crosscheck program.
(3)	The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be in statistical quality control as specified in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) for a minimum period of five months.
(4)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(5)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(6)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(7)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(8)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(l)	Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods.
(1)	Beginning November 30, 2013, include full test method documentation by the Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional.
(2)	Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.
(3)	Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) and whether the comparison is a null result or whether a correlation equation needs to be applied that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method-defined alternative test method.
(4)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(5)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(6)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(7)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(8)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(m)	Qualification Criterion for Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (non-VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods.  For such a method to be approved, the following information must be submitted to the Administrator by each test facility for each method that it wishes to have approved.
(1)	Beginning November 30, 2013, full and thorough test method documentation, including a description of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking experience with the test instrument would be able to replicate its results.
(2)	Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.
(3)	Both the candidate method-defined Non-VCSB test method and its respective designated test method must be tested on a range of consensus named fuels or locally-named reference materials that are typical of those analyzed by the facility in practice and must meet the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).
(4)	The facility using the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method must statistically establish through application of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) that the candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as applicable to its respective designated test method.
(5)	If the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method has sample-specific biases due to matrix effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqualified.  If however, it is determined that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels while still meeting the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) (see (m)(3)), then the types of fuels on which the qualification was achieved and for which the method is to be approved must be specified in the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method description.  If there is any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method is to be qualified, the applicant must include a discussion of how the facility plans to screen sample for conformity to the scope.  If the candidate method-defined test method is found to have minimal matrix effects, a statement to this effect must be included by the applicant in its application.
(6)	The candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method precision qualification must be conducted in the form of "cross-method reproducibility" (Rcm) of the candidate method and applicable designated test method as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section), where the Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method.
(7)	The applicant of the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method must demonstrate through the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) whether a correlation to applicable designated test method is necessary.  If it is determined through the use of this practice that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method requires a correlation equation in order to predict designated test method results, then this correlation equation must be applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurement results for regulatory purposes.
(8)	Any additional information requested by the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(9)	Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 days.
(10)	EPA approval.  Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section.
(11)	If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method.  If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.
(12)	The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under this section for cause, including, but not limited to, a determination by the Administrator that the approved test method has proved to be inadequate in practice.
(13)	An independent third-party scientific review and written report and verification of the information provided pursuant to paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(9) of this section.  The report and verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant documents and shall separately identify each item required by paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(9) of this section, describe how the independent third-party evaluated the accuracy of the information provided, state whether the independent third-party agrees with the information provided, and identify any exceptions between the independent third-party's findings and the information provided.
	(i)  The information required under this section to be provided by an independent third party must be conducted by both a professional chemist and professional statistician as specified in paragraphs (m)(13)(i)(A) of this section.  The verifying chemist and statistician must be:
		(A)  For a refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, and oxygenate blender, a chemist and statistician who has received at least a bachelor's degree in science from an accredited college in the United States, with professional work experience in the petroleum or oxygenate field.
		(B)  [Reserved]
	(ii)  To be considered an independent third-party under this paragraph (m)(13):
		(A)  The third-party shall not be employed by the refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender, or any subsidiary or employee of the refiner, import facility, oxygenate producing facility, or oxygenate blender.
		(B)  The third party shall be free from any interest in the refiner's, importer's, oxygenate producer's, or oxygenate blender's business.
		(C)  The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender shall be free from any interest in the third-party's business.
		(D)  Use of a third-party that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment pursuant to the Government-wide Debarment and Suspension regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR, part 9, subpart 9.4 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the requirements of this section.
	(iii)  The independent third-party shall retain all records pertaining to the verification required under this section for a period of five years from the date of creation and shall deliver such records to the Administrator upon request.
	(iv)  The third-party must provide to EPA documentation of his or her qualifications as part of the scientific review, including proof of appropriate college degree.
(14)	If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provide false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.

(n)	Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Absolute Fuel Parameters.  Beginning November 30, 2013, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument used to make measurements:
(1)	Accuracy SQC.  Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a commercially available gravimetric reference material, or check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory practices.  The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice.  The facility must construct "MR" and "I" charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice.  In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the facility.  Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(2)	(i) Precision SQC.  Each facility on every instrument tests a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent.  The facility must construct and maintain an "I" chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a "MR" chart as described in section A1.5.2.  Any violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii)	Validation of New QC Material.  When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the "Q-Procedure" in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).  In following the Q-Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows not special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid.  These records must be kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.

(o)	Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method-Defined Fuel Parameters.  Beginning November 30, 2013 a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument used to make measurements:
(1)	Accuracy SQC.  Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a commercially available check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory practices.  The check standard must be an ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use for the facility.  The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard must be determined by the respective designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299.  The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice.  The facility must construct "MR" and "I" charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice.  In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the facility.  Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(2)	(i)  Precision SQC.  Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent using good laboratory practices.  The facility must construct and maintain an "I" chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a "MR" chart as described in section A1.5.2.  Any violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii)	Validation of New QC Material.  When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the "Q-Procedure" in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).  In following the Q-Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new" QC materials on its respective chart shows no special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid.  These records must be kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.

(p)	Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (Non-VCSB) Method-Defined Fuel Parameters.  Beginning November 30, 2013, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument used to make measurements:
(1)	Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB Method-Defined test methods with minimal matrix effects.  Every facility shall conduct test of every instrument with a commercially available check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory practices.  The check standard must be an ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use for the facility.  The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard must be determined by the respective designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299.  The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice.  The facility must construct "MR" and "I" charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice.  In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the facility.  Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(2)	(i)  Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB Method-Defined test methods with high sensitivity to  matrix effects.  Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a production fuel on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory practices.  The production fuel must be representative of the production fuels that are routinely analyzed by the facility.  The Accepted Reference Value of the production fuel must be determined by the respective reference installation of the designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).  The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice.  The facility must construct "MR" and "I" charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice.  In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the facility.  Documentation on the identity of the reference installation and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the "method-defined" alternative test method.  Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii)	Each facility is required to send every 20[th] production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA's laboratory, along with the facility's measurement result used to certify the batch using the respective method-defined non-VCSB test method.  The EPA retains the right to return such sample on a blind basis for a required reanalysis on the respective method-defined non-VCSB test method within 180 days upon receipt of such sample.
(3) 	Precision SQC.  Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent using good laboratory practices.  The facility must construct and maintain an "I" chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a "MR" chart as described in section A1.5.2.  Any violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii)	Validation of New QC Material.  When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the "Q-Procedure" in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).  In following the Q-Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows no special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid.  These records must be kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.

(q)	Record retention requirements for the test methods approved under this subpart.
(1)	Each individual test facility must retain records related to the establishment of accuracy and precision values, all test method documentation, and any statistical quality control testing and analysis under this section using good laboratory practices for a period for five years.
(2)	[Reserved]

(r)	Materials incorporated by reference.  The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51.  Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.  For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
(1)	ASTM International material.  Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of<EMAIL_ADDRESS>from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org.
(i)	ASTM International standard practice D6708-08 ("ASTM International D6708"), "Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material", approved December 15, 2008.
(ii)	ASTM International standard practice D6299-10[ε1] ("ASTM International D6708"), "Standard Practice for Applying Statistical Quality Assurance and Control Charting Techniques to Evaluate Analytical Measurement System Performance", approved March 1, 2010.


Summary of EPA Meeting with RMA, CKRC, and PCA

July 27, 2007

On Thursday, July 27, Matt Hale and staff from the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) met with representatives of the Rubber Manufacturers’
Association (RMA), the Portland Cement Association (PCA), and the Cement
Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC).  Representatives from these
organizations discussed the recent court decision (NRDC v. EPA,  D.C.
Circuit 2007) which held that section 129 of the CAA requires regulation
for any unit that burns “solid waste” under RCRA (including burning
for energy recovery).  The representatives stated that this decision
will cause a major disruption of scrap tire markets and other high BTU
waste.  Some facilities would cease burning tires and similar materials
due to the added regulatory confusion and burdens of regulation under
section 129.  If that occurs, more scrap tires will be stockpiled or
landfilled, and there will be more air pollution from scrap tire fires.
They stated that OSWER could help solve this problem by defining scrap
tires and similar wastes bound for energy recovery to be outside the
definition of “solid waste” under RCRA.

Bob Dellinger and Matt Hale then described how changing the definition
in the manner suggested could affect the regulation of solid and
hazardous waste in other areas, especially municipal solid waste or
hazardous waste burned for energy recovery.  The representatives from
RMA  suggested possible criteria for “walling off” this exclusion so
that it would not affect other materials, such as a requirement that the
waste in question be homogenous or that it have a threshold BTU value.
Matt Hale stated that this idea could be promising except that such
rulemakings tended to be very resource and labor-intensive.  The
industry representatives said that they had no objection to scrap tires
and other materials being regulated as solid wastes up until the time
they entered the energy recovery unit.

Matt Hale said that he would consult with states to get their input on
this issue, and that OSW would continue its discussions with OAR. The
industry representatives agreed with this approach, but stated that
facilities considering burning tires for energy recovery would need to
know how their facilities would be regulated before they could plan
operations.

Attendees were:

OSW:  Matt Hale, Bob Dellinger, Lillian Bagus, Truett DeGeare, Jesse
Miller, Frank Behan, Mike Galbraith, Sonya Sasseville, Tab Tesnau,
Marilyn Goode, and Beth Zelenski.

RMA:  Tracy Norberg

PCA:  Tyrone Wilson

CKRC:  Michelle Lusk

Law Offices of David Novello: David Novello, representing RMA, PCA, and
CKRC.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 104 (Friday, May 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 32375]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-48-000]

 PP&L Industrial Customer Alliance v. PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 21, 2020, pursuant to sections 206, 306 and
309 of the Federal Power Act, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206 (2019), PP&L Industrial Customer Alliance, (Complainant)
filed a formal complaint alleging that the current 11.18% base return
on equity of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation is excessive and should
be reduced as of the date of the complaint, as more fully explained in
the complaint.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. All interventions,
or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 Eastern Time on June 10, 2020.

    Dated: May 22, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11557 Filed 5-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


42(e)(ii). Specifically, use of the exemption under paragraph .06 would
only relieve a municipal advisor of compliance with the requirements of
Proposed Rule G-42(b) and (c), and the prohibition on principal
transactions would apply to the municipal advisor regardless.
Therefore, the MSRB has not revised paragraph .06 in response to these
comments.
    Third, NAIPFA highlighted the importance of prompt use of the safe
harbor provided by paragraph .06, suggesting that the proposed rule
require utilization within ten days of discovery of the inadvertent
advice. The MSRB has not prescribed a strict time frame for when the
documentation must be provided by the municipal advisor beyond the
general ``promptly'' standard, as doing so would create an arbitrary
bright line that would be of limited benefit to municipal advisors or
their clients. In response to the comment and to ensure that municipal
advisors seeking to obtain the relief provided under paragraph .06 do
so in a timely manner after having discovered that they inadvertently
provided advice, the MSRB modified paragraph .06 to require municipal
advisors to provide the documentation it prescribes ``as promptly as
possible after discovery'' (emphasis added).
    Fourth, SIFMA noted that there are circumstances in which a
registered municipal advisor could be engaged in municipal advisory
activities for some clients, but inadvertently provide advice to
another client, and, therefore, could not state that it ``has ceased
engaging in municipal advisory activities'' to comply with paragraph
.06. In response to the comment, the MSRB has revised the disclaimer
required by subparagraph (a) of paragraph .06 of the Supplementary
Material to state that, effective immediately, the municipal advisor
has ceased engaging in municipal advisory activities ``with respect to
that municipal entity or obligated person in regard to all transactions
and municipal financial products as to which advice was inadvertently
provided . . . .'' (emphasis added). This revision would clarify that
the municipal advisor is not required to cease all municipal advisory
activities to obtain the relief provided by paragraph .06.
    Fifth, NAIPFA highlighted the importance of the identification of
the

inadvertent advice, suggesting requiring the identification of
absolutely all of the inadvertent advice. In response to this comment,
the MSRB revised subparagraph (c) of paragraph .06 to require that the
municipal advisor identify all of the advice that was provided
inadvertently, based on a reasonable investigation. This objective
standard for the investigation would avoid requiring municipal advisors
to go to impractical lengths to ensure that all inadvertent advice was
identified, and the MSRB believes this would be sufficient to allow
municipal advisor clients to assess risk exposure from any reliance on
the advice and determine what potential mitigating actions need to be
taken.
    Finally, SIFMA suggested that the MSRB should carve out an
exception for all advice that is incidental to brokerage/securities
execution services. In the MSRB's view, SIFMA's request, as noted
above, is a request that the MSRB interpret the SEC Final Rule and the
definition of ``municipal advisor,'' therein. The authority to
interpret the Commission's rule lies with the Commission and the
request should be directed to the Commission. As such, the MSRB
declines to revise paragraph .06 of the Supplementary Material in this
manner.
Trigger for Municipal Advisor Relationship
    Subsection (f)(vi) would define ``municipal advisory relationship''
for purposes of Proposed Rule G-42 and states that a municipal advisory
relationship will ``be deemed to exist when a municipal advisor enters
into an agreement to engage in municipal advisory activities for a
municipal entity or obligated person.'' In response to the Second
Request for Comment, Columbia Capital objected to the deletion of
``engages'' from the definition of ``municipal advisory relationship''
in subsection (f)(vi) of the Revised Draft Rule. Specifically, Columbia
Capital stated that, ``[i]f a person provides `advice' he/she should
trigger the [municipal advisor] duties at the time of providing that
advice and should be considered [a municipal advisor] unless that
person qualifies for an exemption or exclusion at the time such advice
is provided.'' Under the proposed rule change, the municipal advisory
relationship would begin at the time a municipal advisor enters into an
agreement to engage in municipal advisory activities, which then
triggers the documentation requirements of Proposed Rule G-42(c).
    The MSRB believes Columbia Capital's concern is moot because the
other duties required by Proposed Rule G-42, including, but not limited
to, providing written disclosures to clients, would be triggered when a
municipal advisor engages in municipal advisory activities. The MSRB
also notes that engaging in municipal advisory activities would subject
a firm to municipal advisor registration requirements and any other
legal requirements applicable to municipal advisory activities.
Accordingly, the MSRB has not revised subsection (f)(vi) of the Revised
Draft Rule, as incorporated into the proposed rule, in response to this
comment.
Economic Analysis of Comments on Economic Implications of Proposed Rule
Economic Analysis--Cost of Compliance
    Several commenters stated that the cost of complying with the
proposed rule would be ``burdensome'' or ``significant.'' In some
cases, commenters identified alternative approaches that they
considered to be less costly. No commenter provided specific cost
information or data that would support an improved estimate of the
costs of compliance.
    FSR and SIFMA both stated that the requirement on municipal
advisors to provide disclosure of all material conflicts of interest
including any of its affiliates that provides any advice, service, or
product directly or indirectly related to performing municipal advisory
activities would be burdensome, particularly for municipal advisors
that are part of large financial conglomerates. Sanchez commented that
a ``written statement'' would be less burdensome than ``written
documentation'' when municipal advisors conclude that material
conflicts of interest exist. FSR, SIFMA, and Sanchez commented that the
detailed disclosure of disciplinary events material to the client's
evaluation of the municipal advisor could be accomplished at a lower
cost by allowing municipal advisors to reference the documentation
provided to the SEC on Forms MA and MA-I. Columbia Capital requested
that the MSRB consider allowing municipal advisors to use more than one
document to meet the requirement for documentation of the municipal
advisory relationship.
    The MSRB agrees that municipal entities and obligated persons can
be made aware of relevant conflicts of interest at a lower cost by
revising some of the requirements. To that end, the MSRB amended
Proposed Rule G-42(b)(i)(A) to narrow the scope of potential conflicts
that would need to be disclosed from those that ``might'' impair the
advisor's ability to provide advice to those that ``could reasonably be
anticipated to impair'' the advisor's ability and Proposed Rule G-
42(b)(i)(B) to remove the requirement to disclose potential conflicts
that might arise from advice, service, or products provided by
affiliates and indirectly related to the performance of municipal
advisory activities. The MSRB also amended Rule G-42(b)(i) to allow for
a written statement instead of written documentation if a municipal
advisor concludes that no known material conflicts of interest exist.
The MSRB also agrees that information regarding disciplinary events may
be disclosed by identification of the specific type of the event and
specific reference to the relevant portions of Forms MA and MA-I and
has amended Proposed Rule G-42(b)(ii) to reflect this. Finally, the
MSRB has clarified that a municipal advisor may use multiple documents
to document the relationship by adding the plural ``writings'' to
Proposed Rule G-42(c).
Economic Analysis--Transition Period
    Lewis Young urged the MSRB to adopt a transitional period to permit
advisors to honor their existing financial advisory agreements. They
stated that many financial advisory agreements are longer-term
arrangements and that advisors should be provided with a reasonable
opportunity to conform existing arrangements to the requirements of the
proposed rule when they are renewed or after a reasonable phase-in
period after the rule is finalized. Zion also urges the MSRB to include
a transitional provision to permit advisors to honor existing
contracts, including many that are multi-year contracts. Zion notes the
significant time, effort, and expense that would be involved to
supplement or amend existing contracts with additional content and
disclosure required by the proposed rule. Zion states that under
particular state and/or local procurement laws, the alterations to
existing agreements may reopen the request for proposal process for
issuers to hire municipal advisors, requiring additional (and
significant) time, effort, and expense.
    The MSRB believes that the required disclosure can generally be
accomplished without formal amendments and, therefore, that the costs
imposed will be less significant than generally anticipated.

Economic Analysis--Burden on Small Municipal Advisors
    MSRB did not receive any comments specific to the Dodd-Frank Act
requirement that MSRB rules not impose a regulatory burden on small
municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and
obligated persons provided that there is robust protection of investors
against fraud.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, the MSRB has been sensitive to the potential impact of
the requirements contained in Proposed Rule G-42. To that end, the MSRB
has made efforts to minimize costs, particularly those that might be
expected to disproportionately impact smaller firms. In addition to the
amendments discussed above that will reduce compliance costs, the MSRB
has made changes to proposals included in prior Requests for Comment
such as clarifying the obligations owed by municipal advisors to
obligated persons, narrowing the circumstances under which disclosures
related to the municipal advisory relationship and compensation
arrangements need to be made, and removing disclosure requirements
related to professional liability insurance.
    The MSRB acknowledges that there will be costs associated with
complying with this proposed rule and that some municipal advisors,
including smaller firms, may exit the market as a result. However, the
MSRB believes the costs and burdens are limited to those necessary to
meet the objectives of the rule, consistent with its statutory basis.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate 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 or disapprove such 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2015-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2015-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2015-03 and should be
submitted on or before May 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11054 Filed 5-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Notices] [Page 44348] [FR Doc No: 2011-18624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1991-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Illinois; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major

disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1991-DR), dated June 7, 2011,

and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and

Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter

dated June 7, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration

under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford

Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State

of Illinois resulting from severe storms occurring on April 19,

2011, and April 22 to May 2, 2011, and flooding resulting from those

storms beginning on April 19, 2011, and continuing, is of sufficient

severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,

42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare

that such a major disaster exists in the State of Illinois.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby

authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such

amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and

administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the

designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.

Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is

supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for

Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75

percent of the total eligible costs.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration

for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the

Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section

310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public

Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed

six months after the date of this declaration.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice

that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under

Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gregory W. Eaton, of FEMA is

appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major

disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Illinois have been designated

as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Alexander, Franklin, Gallatin, Hardin, Jackson, Lawrence,

Massac, Perry, Pope, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, White, and

Williamson Counties for Individual Assistance.

    All counties within the State of Illinois are eligible to apply

for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis

Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster

Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance

Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and

Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing

Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other

Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially

Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator,

    Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2011-18624 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71124-71125]
[DOCID:fr25no05-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

Friday, November 18, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER05-1325-001; ER05-1319-001; ER05-1324-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company; Pacific Gas &
Electric Company; San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits a compliance
filing for the wholesale distribution access tariff small generation
interconnection procedures & small generation interconnection
agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051117-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1491-001.
    Applicants: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation.
    Description: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp submits an amendment
to its 9/19/05 filing of a market-based sales tariff, designated as
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1497-001.
    Applicants: Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C.
    Description: Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C's submits
revised FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 18.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051102-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 28, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-9-001.
    Applicants: FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC.
    Description: FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC's response to
FERC Staff.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-187-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission Operator, Inc submits
a Large Generation Interconnection Agreement among Valley View
Transmission, LLC, the Midwest ISO, and Great River Energy.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051114-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-188-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a revised Network Integration Service Agreement with the City
of Eaton Rapids, MI.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051114-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-191-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc et al. jointly submits its Order
2006 compliance filing for New England's Standardization of Small
Generator Interconnection Agreements & Procedures.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-192-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to their Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-193-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. et al. submits transmittal letter
and proposed improvements to Schedule 22 of the ISO OATT pursuant to
section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-194-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an unexecuted Large Generator Interconnection Agreement among
Wisconsin Electric Co. et al.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-195-000.
    Applicants: K Road BG Management LLC.
    Description: K Road BG Management, LLC's request Commission
approval of the market-based rate authorization and request for certain
waivers and blanket authorization.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-196-000.
    Applicants: Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, L.P.
    Description: Cantor Fitzgerald Brokerage, LP submits its proposed
market-based rate schedule FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 01, 2005.
    Docket Numbers: ER06-197-000.
    Applicants: Cabrillo Power I LLC.
    Description: Cabrillo Power I LLC et al. submit revisions to the
Reliability Must-Run Service Agreements with the California Independent
System Operator Corp.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 1, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-198-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric & Power Co. dba Dominion Virginia
Power submits a revised unexecuted Mutual Operating Agreement, First
Revised Service Agreement No. 1301 with North Carolina Electric
Membership Corp.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 1, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-199-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits revisions to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff to comply with FERC's Final Rule in
RM02-12-000.
    Filed Date: 11/10/2005.

    Accession Number: 20051115-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 1, 2005.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6488 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 70362-70363]
[DOCID:fr11de07-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56894; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
the Exchange's NYSE BondsSM System and Trade Execution Fees

December 4, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 27, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
NYSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to implement a four-month pilot program,
effective December 1, 2007, that will issue liquidity providers a $20
credit for certain bond trades executed on the NYSE BondsSM
system (``NYSE Bonds'') with an execution size of less than 20 bonds.
This pilot program will terminate on the close of business March 31,
2008, and will apply to all orders. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange's principal office, in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and at 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, NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to implement a four-month pilot program
pursuant to which it will issue liquidity providers a $20 credit for
every execution on NYSE Bonds that is less than 20 bonds. This pilot
program will commence on December 1, 2007 and will terminate at the
close of business March 31, 2008.
    A liquidity provider is one who posts liquidity to the system.
During the course of clearing their bond trades, liquidity providers
absorb clearing costs. To offset these clearing costs, liquidity
providers may increase the offer price or decrease the bid price of the
bond. In doing so, the best execution of a bond order may be
compromised as clearing costs increase with smaller orders.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that liquidity providers be
issued a $20 credit for executions of bond orders with an execution
size of less than 20 bonds. For a liquidity provider to be eligible to
receive this $20 credit, the original order posted by the liquidity
provider must be for 20 bonds or more. For example, if a liquidity
provider posts an order for 100 bonds and a contra side order comes in
for 50 bonds, the liquidity provider will not receive a $20 credit.
However, if a contra side order comes in for 10 bonds against the
liquidity provider's original posted order of 100 bonds, the liquidity
provider will receive a credit of $20 for that execution from the
Exchange.
    NYSE Bonds, which was implemented in March 2007, will continue to
update its functionality to provide competitive bond trading for
customers. The Exchange believes that this $20 credit will incentivize
the liquidity provider to display the best price available on NYSE
Bonds.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2007-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-107. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE. 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-2007-107 and should be submitted on or before January 2, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23921 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P