[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6639-6643]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02314]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94104; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule

January 31, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 21, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding incentives relating to Complex
Customer Best Execution Auctions. The Exchange proposes to implement
the fee change effective January 21, 2022.\4\ The proposed change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
December 29, 2021 (SR-NYSEAmer-2021-53), with an effective date of
January 3, 2022, then withdrew such filing on January 12, 2022 (SR-
NYSEAmer-2022-05), which latter filing the Exchange withdrew on
January 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule regarding
the qualifications for (1) the Alternative Initiating Participant
Rebate, as set forth in Section I.G. (the ``Rebate''), and (2) the
credit on Customer Electronic Simple and Complex executions set forth
in Section I.H (the ``Credit'').
    As further discussed below, the proposed changes are designed to
encourage ATP Holders to initiate Complex Customer Best Execution
(``CUBE'') Auctions while also maintaining levels of both Customer and
Professional Electronic volume.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of this filing, ``Professional'' Electronic
volume includes: Professional Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE
American Options Market Maker, and Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement this fee change on January 21,
2022.
Proposed Rule Change
Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate
    Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the per contract fees
and credits for executions associated with Single-Leg and Complex CUBE
Auctions. To encourage participation in Complex CUBE Auctions, the
Exchange offers rebates on certain initiating Complex CUBE volume.
Currently, the Exchange offers the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate to
ATP Holders that also qualify for the American Customer Engagement
(``ACE'') Program \6\ and an Alternative Initiating Participant Rebate
(the ``Rebate'') for ATP Holders that do not qualify for the ACE
program.\7\ Both the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate and the Rebate
for Complex CUBE orders provide for a rebate of $0.10 per contract, and
an ATP Holder that qualifies for both rebates is entitled to only the
greater of the two.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.E., American Customer Engagement
(``ACE'') Program, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \7\ See id. at Section I.G., CUBE Auction Fees and Credits,
Complex CUBE Auction.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, to qualify for the Rebate, an ATP Holder must execute a
minimum of 5,000 contracts ADV in the Professional range (as defined in
Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule) and execute a minimum of 15,000
contracts ADV from Initiating CUBE Orders in Single-Leg and/or Complex
CUBE Auctions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the qualifications to earn the
Rebate by decreasing the required volume in Initiating CUBE Orders from
15,000 ADV from Initiating CUBE Orders in Single-Leg and/or Complex
CUBE Auctions to 10,000 ADV in Initiating CUBE orders from Complex CUBE
Auctions only. The Exchange proposes to modify this qualification to be
based only on Initiating CUBE Orders in Complex CUBE Auctions in order
to encourage increased participation in Complex CUBE Auctions. The
Exchange also proposes to delete the requirement to execute a minimum
of 5,000 contracts ADV in the Professional range and proposes two
additional qualifications to earn the Rebate. The Exchange proposes
these changes to align the requirements for this incentive with those
for the Credit (as further discussed below). Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to require, in addition to the volume requirement with respect
to Initiating CUBE Orders in Complex CUBE Auctions, that an ATP Holder
also achieve Customer Electronic executions of 0.05% of TCADV
(excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders
routed to another exchange) and Professional (as defined in Section
I.H. of the Fee Schedule) Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV
(excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders
routed to another exchange). The Exchange proposes to exclude CUBE
Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another
exchange from the calculations of Customer Electronic and Professional
Electronic volume, consistent with exclusions set forth elsewhere in
the Fee Schedule.\10\ The Exchange proposes to exclude volume from CUBE
Auctions, QCC Transactions, and orders routed to another exchange
because volume from such transactions would be subject to separate
pricing.\11\ The Exchange does not propose to modify the amount of the
Rebate (which will remain at $0.10 per contract), and an ATP Holder
that qualifies for both the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate and the
Rebate will continue to be entitled only to the greater of the two
rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Fee Schedule, Section I.C., NYSE American
Options Market Maker Sliding Scale--Electronic (excluding volumes
attributable to QCC trades and CUBE Auctions from calculation of
Market Maker Electronic monthly volumes); Section I.E., American
Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program (excluding volume resulting
from QCC trades and volume attributable to orders routed to another
exchange from calculation of an OFP's Electronic volume); Section
I.H., Professional Step-Up Incentive (excluding volumes from CUBE
Auctions and QCC transactions from the calculation of base volume
and qualifying volume for the incentive).
    \11\ See Fee Schedule, Sections I.F. (setting forth fees and
credits for QCC trades) and I.G. (setting forth fees and credits for
CUBE Auctions). Volume from orders routed to another exchange would
be subject to pricing set forth by such exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credit on Customer Electronic Simple and Complex Executions
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the qualifications to earn the
Credit. Currently, the Credit provides that ATP Holders are eligible to
receive a credit of $0.10 per contract on Customer Electronic Simple
and Complex executions, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and
volume from orders routed to another exchange, by meeting each of the
following monthly qualification levels: (a) 15,000 contracts ADV from
Initiating CUBE Orders in Complex CUBE Auctions; (b) Customer
Electronic executions of 0.05% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC
Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange; and
(c) Professional Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.H. In calculating an OFP's
Electronic volume, the Exchange will include the activity of either
(i) Affiliates of the OFP, such as when an OFP has an Affiliated
NYSE American Options Market Making firm, or (ii) an Appointed MM of
such OFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to decrease the required volume in Initiating
Complex CUBE Orders from 15,000 to 10,000 ADV, which, as discussed
above, would align the qualifying bases for the Credit with the
proposed requirements for the Rebate. While the Exchange is not
proposing any changes to the qualifying requirements with respect to
Customer or Professional Electronic executions or to the amount of the
Credit, which will remain $0.10 per contract, the Exchange proposes to
modify the Fee Schedule to clarify the Professional Electronic volume
requirement. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to specify that
qualifying Professional Electronic volume, like Customer Electronic
qualifying volume, excludes CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume
from orders routed to another exchange. The Exchange proposes this
change to improve the clarity of the Fee Schedule by providing
additional detail regarding how qualifying volume for the Credit is
currently determined.
* * * * *
    The proposed changes are designed to incent ATP Holders to direct
order flow to the Exchange and to encourage ATP Holders to engage in a
variety of transactions on the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange
notes that volume executed in auctions has increased across the
industry and thus believes the proposed change would

encourage ATP Holders to direct more auction-eligible order flow (and,
in particular, Initiating CUBE Orders in Complex CUBE auctions) to the
Exchange to qualify for the Rebate and Credit.\13\ To the extent that
the proposed changes to the Rebate and Credit achieve their intended
purpose, the increased liquidity on the Exchange would result in
enhanced market quality for all participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange's analysis of OPRA data indicates that auction
volume has fluctuated from 19.2% of all options industry volume at
the end of 2019, to as high as 23.4% in June 2020, to a current
level of 19.7% in November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as
ATP Holders may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options
exchanges, including one with an incentive program similar to the
Rebate and Credit.\14\ Thus, ATP Holders have a choice of where they
direct their order flow. The proposed modifications to the
qualifications for the Rebate and Credit are designed to encourage the
submission of Complex CUBE Orders, which should maximize price
improvement opportunities. In addition, because both the Rebate and
Credit will also have requirements based on Customer Electronic
executions and Professional Electronic order flow, as modified, the
Exchange believes all market participants stand to benefit from
increased order flow, which promotes market depth, facilitates tighter
spreads, and enhances price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Cboe Exchange Inc. Fee Schedule, Volume
Incentive Program, available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf (providing comparable per contract
credits for Customer orders based on volume from a variety of
executions, including auction volume, volume from various account
types, and volume from both simple and complex executions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\16\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\18\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in November 2021, the Exchange
had less than 8% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options trades.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \19\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply listed equity and ETF
options decreased from 9.09% for the month of November 2020 to 7.06%
for the month of November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees and rebates can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The proposed rule change is designed to continue to incent ATP
Holders to direct liquidity to the Exchange in a variety of forms and
from a variety of sources, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery, and price improvement and enhancing order execution
opportunities for market participants. In particular, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to provide ATP Holders with a rebate or
credit for achieving certain volume goals in different types of
executions, consistent with credits offered through a similarly
structured program on a competing options exchange.\20\ The Exchange
also believes that the proposed exclusions applicable to qualifying
volume for the Rebate are reasonable because they are consistent with
exclusions set forth elsewhere in the Fee Schedule, based on CUBE
Auctions, QCC trades, and volume from orders routed to another exchange
being subject to separate fees and credits.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 14.
    \21\ See supra notes 10 & 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed modifications to the
qualifications for the Rebate and the Credit are reasonably designed
because they would encourage ATP Holders to execute a variety of orders
on the Exchange and, in particular, make greater use of Complex CUBE
Auctions. The Exchange further believes that implementing the same
criteria to qualify for the Rebate or Credit should encourage greater
use of the Exchange by all ATP Holders, which may lead to greater
opportunities to trade--and for price improvement--for all
participants. The Exchange notes that all market participants stand to
benefit from increased transaction volume, as such increase promotes
market depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price discovery,
and may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modification of the Fee
Schedule regarding qualifying Professional Electronic volume for the
Credit is reasonable because it will provide additional clarity
regarding the current method of calculating qualifying volume for the
Credit.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any ATP Holders
would seek to qualify for the Rebate or the Credit, as modified, but
believes that the proposed qualifying bases for the Rebate and Credit,
which lower the volume of CUBE Orders necessary to qualify and align
the volume requirements in Customer and Professional Electronic
executions across the two incentives, are achievable for ATP Holders
and would continue to incent ATP Holders to direct volume to the
Exchange.
    Finally, to the extent the proposed changes attract greater volume
and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would improve
the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market
quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive
environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule changes
are a reasonable attempt by

the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve its market
share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and rebates. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and ATP Holders can
seek to qualify for these incentives or not. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed exclusion of CUBE Auctions, QCC trades, and
volume routed to another exchange from the qualifying Customer
Electronic and Professional Electronic volume for the Rebate is
equitable because volume from such transactions is subject to separate
pricing.\22\ Moreover, because ATP Holders would need to meet
requirements based on Initiating CUBE Orders, Customer Electronic
executions, and Professional Electronic executions in order to qualify
for either the Rebate or Credit, as modified, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes are designed to encourage ATP Holders to
aggregate their executions at the Exchange as a primary execution
venue. To the extent that the proposed changes attract more volume to
the Exchange (and, in particular, more Complex CUBE auction volume),
this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more
competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule changes would improve market quality for all market
participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order
flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price
discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to specify that
CUBE Auctions, QCC trades, and volume routed to another exchange are
excluded from the calculation of qualifying Professional Electronic
volume for the Credit is an equitable allocation of fees and rebates
because the proposed exclusion is consistent with exclusions set forth
elsewhere in the Fee Schedule and such transactions are subject to
separate pricing.\23\ The Exchange also believes that the proposed
change promotes an equitable allocation of fees and rebates by ensuring
that the Fee Schedule reflects the current method of calculating
qualifying volume for the Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra notes 10 & 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed modifications would apply to all
similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. The proposed changes are based on the amount and
type of business transacted on the Exchange, and ATP Holders are not
obligated to try to achieve either incentive. Rather, the proposals are
designed to encourage participants to utilize the Exchange as a primary
trading venue (if they have not done so previously) and increase
auction, Customer Electronic, and Professional Electronic volume sent
to the Exchange. In addition, the proposed modifications to the
requirements to qualify for the Rebate and Credit are designed to align
the requirements for the two incentives and to encourage greater use of
Complex CUBE Auctions by ATP Holders, which may lead to greater
opportunities to trade--and for price improvement--for all
participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed exclusions from
qualifying volume for the Rebate are not unfairly discriminatory
because they are consistent with exclusions set forth elsewhere in the
Fee Schedule and account for CUBE Auctions, QCC trades, and volume
routed to another exchange being subject to separate pricing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra notes 10 & 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the proposed changes attract more executions to
the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change to specify
that CUBE Auctions, QCC trades, and volume routed to another exchange
are excluded from the calculation of qualifying Professional Electronic
volume for the Credit is not unfairly discriminatory because it would
update the Fee Schedule to provide additional clarity regarding the
current method of calculating qualifying volume for the Credit.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 17, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to
continue to attract increased and diverse order flow to the Exchange by
offering competitive credits and rebates, which would enhance the
quality of quoting and may increase the volume of contracts traded on
the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change, by specifying requirements in auction, Customer Electronic, and
Professional Electronic volume, would incent ATP Holders to participate
in a variety of types of executions on the Exchange to qualify for the
Rebate or Credit. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of
the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved
market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction
volume resulting from the anticipated increase in order flow directed
to the Exchange would benefit all market participants and improve
competition on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the

16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges
and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-available
information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange
currently has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\26\ Therefore, no
exchange currently possesses significant pricing power in the execution
of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More
specifically, in November 2021, the Exchange had less than 8% market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 18.
    \27\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply listed equity and ETF
options decreased from 9.09% for the month of November 2020 to 7.06%
for the month of November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees and
rebates in a manner designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading
interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order
flow. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed change
would encourage ATP Holders to direct increased volume to the Exchange,
thereby increasing the number of executions (and executions of varying
types) on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that harmonizing
the requirements for the Rebate and Credit could make the incentives
more achievable for ATP Holders and would thus continue to make the
Exchange a more attractive and competitive venue for order execution.
To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market
participants should benefit from the improved market quality and
increased opportunities for price improvement.
    Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar pricing incentives, by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \28\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \29\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-09. 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 website (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 website 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 Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-09 and should be submitted
on or before February 25, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02314 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50726-50728]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013; FRL-9452-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water
Protection

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0013 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket Center at the Public Reading
Room, Room B3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Hall, Drinking Water Protection
Division--Prevention Branch, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(MC 4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
202-564-3756; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
State environmental and health agencies.
    Title: EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Protection.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1816.05, OMB Control No. 2040-0197.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2011. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA is collecting, on a voluntary basis, data from the
states on their progress toward substantial implementation of
prevention strategies for all community water systems (CWSs). The
information to be collected will help states and EPA understand the
progress toward the Agency's goal of increasing the number of CWSs (and
the populations they serve) with minimized risk to public health
through development and implementation of source water protection
strategies for source water areas. The Safe Drinking Water Act, while
authorizing the generation of this data, does not require the
implementation of source water protection programs by States. Section
1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act allows the use of Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund monies for support efforts in the information
collection.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 27.6
hours per annual response for each respondent, or 4,224 hours over the
next three years of the information collection. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial

resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 51.
    Frequency of response: annual.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,408.
    Estimated total annual costs: $58,325. All of this cost is
associated with labor; there are no capital investment or maintenance
and operational costs associated with this ICR.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 308 hours in the total estimated annual
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease results from reduced labor burden
associated with automated reporting of progress toward developing and
implementing prevention strategies for all community water systems via
the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). EPA estimates that
11 states will incur reduced burden by using the capabilities of SDWIS
to report to EPA on the status of contamination prevention efforts in
their states.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Ronald W. Bergman,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-20827 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42381]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17019]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form F-10. SEC File No. 270-334, OMB Control No. 3235-0380

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form F-10 (17 CFR 239.40) is a registration statement under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) that may be used by a
foreign private issuer that: is incorporated or organized in Canada;
has been subject to, and in compliance with, Canadian reporting
requirements for at least 12 months; and has an aggregate market value
of common stock held by non-affiliates of at least $75 million. The
purpose of this information collection is to permit verification of
compliance with securities law requirements and assure the public
availability of such information. We estimate that Form F-10 takes 25
hours per response and is filed by 40 respondents. We further estimate
that 25% of the 25 hours per response (6.25 hours) is prepared by the
issuer for an annual reporting burden of 250 hours (6.25 hours per
response x 40 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collections of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 15, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17019 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITION

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket I.D. Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0879

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition Number: PP# 4E8330

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 4E8330) from Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540  requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide, penoxsulam (2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N-(5,8-dimethoxy[1,2,4]
triazolo[1,5-c]pyrimidin-2-yl)-6-(trifluoromethyl)benzenesulfonamide)
in/on the following raw agricultural commodities: Fruit, Pome, group
11-10 at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), Fruit, Stone, group 12-12 at 0.01
ppm, Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except Fuzzy
Kiwifruit at 0.01 ppm, Nut, Tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm, Olive at 0.01
ppm, and Pomegranate at 0.01 ppm.  In addition, the petitioner proposes
based upon the establishment of the new tolerances above, removal of
existing tolerances at 40 CFR 180.605 for Grape at 0.01 ppm, Nut, tree,
group 14 at 0.01 ppm and Pistachio at 0.01 ppm.  EPA has determined that
the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set
forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data support granting of the petition.  Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Based on results of the metabolism studies in
plants that are summarized below, it is concluded that the residue
definition in plants is the parent compound alone, penoxsulam.

A nature of residue study (NOR) was conducted in grapes using a soil
application of penoxsulam.  Penoxsulam, 14C-labeled either in the
2-position on the triazolopyrimidine ring (TP) or uniformly labeled in
the phenyl-ring (Ph), was applied as a broadcast spray onto soil around
established grape vines at a single application rate of approximately 20
g a.i./ha.  The soil in this study was a sandy clay loam.  Application
was made when grapes vines were at growth stage BBCH 55 (early
flowering).  After application, the plots were irrigated with 1 cm of
water daily for 7 days.  Grapes and leaves were harvested at 118 days
after application.

Mature grapes contained residues below the limit of quantification
(0.0008 µg/g penoxsulam equivalents).  The PH-label and TP-label leaves
collected at maturity contained 0.016 µg/g and 0.013 µg/g penoxsulam
equivalents, respectively.  In the mature leaves, approximately 65% of
the leaf TRR was extractable with neutral solvent, of which
approximately half partitioned into organic solvent.  The majority of
the organic phase was identified as numerous low-level metabolites,
while the aqueous phase consisted of primarily polar, solvent-front
residues.  The residue was characterized as low-level degradates,
tentatively including the 5-hydroxy-penoxsulam and the
dihydroxy-penoxsulam metabolites.

In summary, very low levels of soil-applied penoxsulam and degradates
are taken up by the vine.  No penoxsulam was detected in the leaves, and
due to the low TRR levels in the grapes, no penoxsulam is predicted
there either.  The residue was characterized as low-level degradates,
tentatively including the 5-hydroxy-penoxsulam and the
dihydroxy-penoxsulam metabolites.

Metabolism studies in livestock animals with 14C-labeled penoxsulam
(2-position on the triazolopyrimidine ring or uniformly labeled in the
phenyl ring) at a concentration equivalent to about 10 ppm in the diet
indicated that approximately 99% of the administered dose was eliminated
in the excreta.  The low levels of residues (0.002-0.07 ppm) in fat and
edible tissues, milk or eggs demonstrate that residues due to penoxsulam
would not accumulate in the animals.  Additionally, the dose levels in
these studies are about 200 to 1000 times higher than the theoretical
maximum exposure in the animal diet of rice commodities treated with
penoxsulam, therefore, livestock feeding studies are not considered
necessary.

	2. Analytical method. [In the Magnitude of Residue (MOR) studies
conducted in Pome Fruit and Stone Fruit to support tolerances proposed
in this petition, residues of penoxsulam were determined using the
analytical method GRM 04.09.  Residues of penoxsulam were extracted from
the crop samples by homogenizing and shaking with an acetonitrile/water
solution (80:20 v/v).  An aliquot was diluted with 0.1N HCl and purified
using a 96-well polymeric-reverse phase extraction (SPE) plate.  The SPE
plate was washed with a 40/60 methanol/water solution and eluted with
acetonitrile into a 96-well plate containing an
acetonitrile/methanol/water mobile phase (15:15:70 containing 0.1%
acetic acid) and a stable isotope internal standard.  The final solution
was analyzed by liquid chromatography with positive-ion electrospray
tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).  The limit of detection (LOD) and
limit of quantitation (LOQ) are 0.003 µg/g and 0.010 µg/g,
respectively.

	3. Magnitude of residues. The proposed tolerances (Section F) are
supported by MOR studies in grapes, almonds and pecans conducted in the
U.S.  Trials were conducted in almonds and pecans to support a tolerance
for the nut tree crop group (Nuts, tree, group 14) including pistachios,
and almond hulls.  Additionally, trials were conducted in grapes to
support a tolerance for grapes.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  The acute toxicity of penoxsulam is considered low.
 The acute oral and dermal lethal dose (LD)50s were greater than 5000
milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), while the acute inhalation lethal
concentration (LC)50 was greater than the highest attainable aerosol
concentration (3.50 mg/L).  Only very slight, transient dermal
irritation was seen, and mild eye irritation was noted. Penoxsulam was
negative for skin sensitization in a Magnussen and Kligman maximization
test involving intradermal injection of penoxsulam with an adjuvant.

	2. Genotoxicty. Penoxsulam was negative for genotoxicity when tested in
in vitro and in vivo systems.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Penoxsulam did not have any
effect on reproductive parameters at dose levels that induced
treatment-related effects in parental rats.  At the highest dosage
tested (300 mg/kg/day), body weights and weight gains in both males and
females were depressed, liver and/or kidney weights were increased, and
histologic changes were noted in the liver (males) and kidneys
(females).  At 100 mg/kg/day, increased liver weights were recorded in
males, with no histologic correlate, and histologic changes noted in the
kidneys of females.  Transient decreases in pup body weights were seen
at the highest dosage tested, but dietary concentrations were targeted
for adults and consumption of treated diets by the pups resulted in dose
levels to the pups approximately 3-fold higher than in adults.  A
teratogenic potential was not demonstrated for penoxsulam in either rats
or rabbits.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Dietary exposure to penoxsulam identified the
liver and/or urinary tract (kidneys and bladder) as target organs in
rats, mice and dogs following 4-week and 13-week administration.
Effects on the liver were reflected in increased liver weights and
hepatocellular hypertrophy, but these effects were not associated with
increases in mixed function oxidase (MFO) enzyme activity.  Effects
noted in the kidneys included crystal deposition, most likely from
precipitation of penoxsulam from the urine, with resultant irritation,
inflammation and hyperplasia of renal pelvic transitional epithelium.
Other than the crystal deposition in the kidneys, all effects following
subchronic exposure to rats appeared to be reversible.  Very high doses
were associated with significant decreases in body weight and weight
gain, and feed consumption.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Chronic exposure in the dog indicated that the
renal effects were not exacerbated with long-term exposure.  Following
long-term exposure in rats, the kidneys and urinary bladder were the
primary target organs.  Histologic changes seen at the end of 2-years of
exposure consisted of inflammation and hyperplasia of the renal pelvic
transitional epithelium, crystal deposition in the kidneys and urinary
bladder, and hyperplasia of the mucosa of the urinary bladder.  In the
mouse, the liver was the primary target organ, and histologic changes
consisted of hepatocellular hypertrophy.  There were no
treatment-related increases in tumors in either rats or mice.  The
incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia (Fischer rat leukemia) was
increased in all groups of treated male rats compared to the concurrent
controls.  However, the incidences in the treated groups were identical
across a 50-fold increase in dosage, and well within the range of
control values reported in the literature. Penoxsulam was classified as
having “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but Not Sufficient to
Assess Human Carcinogenic Potential”. EPA has concluded that cancer
risk associated with penoxsulam is negligible.

	6. Animal metabolism. Orally administered penoxsulam is rapidly
absorbed, excreted and extensively metabolized in both male and female
rats, thus, indicating that penoxsulam is not expected to accumulate in
biological systems.  The majority of the residue was associated with the
parent, penoxsulam.  Several metabolites were also observed but the vast
majority were <1% of the administered dose.  The major route of
metabolism involves O-demethylation, producing the OH- Penoxsulam
metabolite followed by conjugation.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. A metabolism study with penoxsulam in rice
revealed the presence of the parent, a desmethylation metabolite (5-OH-
Penoxsulam), and two other polar metabolites, which may represent
conjugates of the desmethylated metabolite.  The 5-OH-Penoxsulam
metabolite and its glucuronide and glutathione conjugates have also been
identified in the plasma and liver of rats, therefore, plant metabolites
are considered of little toxicological concern.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Penoxsulam did not have any effects on
endocrine organs or tissues in mice, rats or dogs in any of the studies
conducted.  There were no indications of effects on fetal development in
either rats or rabbits, or on reproductive performance in rats.  Based
on the lack of any effects on the endocrine system, penoxsulam is not
considered an endocrine disrupter.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Tier 1 dietary risk assessments were performed
using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCID™) software (version 3.14) to determine
consumption of Fruits, Pome group 11-10, and Fruits, Stone group 12-12,
Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, Subgroup 13-07F, except Kiwifruit, olive
and pomegranate containing penoxsulam residues and to determine dietary
exposure resulting from consumption of Fruits, Pome group 11-10, and
Fruits, Stone group 12-12, Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, Subgroup 13-07F,
except Kiwifruit, Olive and Pomegranate treated with penoxsulam.

	i. Food. Penoxsulam is registered for use as an herbicide on rice.
Therefore, consumption of rice that has been treated with penoxsulam
could result in dietary exposures.  On September 24, 2004, EPA finalized
tolerances for penoxsulam in rice, grain (0.02 ppm) and rice, straw (0.5
ppm) (69 FR 57188-57197).  In establishing the tolerances for rice,
grain and rice, straw, EPA concluded that chronic dietary exposures were
<1% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), but exposure
estimates were not provided.  On July 25, 2007, EPA finalized tolerances
for penoxsulam in fish, and shellfish. On April 24, 2009 EPA finalized
tolerances for penoxsulam in or on almond hulls; grape; nut, tree, group
14; and pistachio. For the purposes of this aggregate assessment, it is
necessary to estimate dietary exposures of penoxsulam resulting from
tolerance level residues on rice, fish and shellfish, almond hulls;
grape; nut, tree, group 14; and pistachio in addition to the proposed
new uses.  Secondary residues in meat, milk and poultry were not
included because the transferability of penoxsulam to edible tissues is
quite low and tolerances are not required.  A chronic dietary exposure
and risk assessment for tolerance-level residues in existing and
proposed uses was performed using the DEEM-FCID™ software (version
3.14).  An acute dietary assessment was not performed because no
toxicity endpoint has been identified to evaluate acute dietary
exposures to penoxsulam (EPA, 2004).  To produce a conservative Tier 1
dietary risk assessment, tolerance-level residues were assumed for all
commodities, and 100 percent crop treated was assumed for all
commodities. Dietary penoxsulam exposures are low, accounting for less
than 6% of the cRfD (0.147 mg/kg/d) for all subpopulations.

	ii. Drinking water. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
for the herbicide penoxsulam in groundwater and surface water resulting
from ground spray applications in Tree crops have been calculated
according to EPA guidance.  For groundwater, EDWCs were derived using
the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and Pesticide
Root Zone Model-Ground Water (PRZM-GW) models.  For surface water, the
PRZM- Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS) model was used. The
values generated were lower than the conservative values generated for
aquatic weed control. For the purpose of these assessments, 150 ppb was
used for the chronic exposure estimate for water, and this value was
incorporated as a single point estimate for both “water, direct, all
sources” and “water, indirect, all sources” within DEEM-FCIDTM
food categories exposure modeling.  Based on the conservative
assumptions used and using a cPAD of 0.147 mg/kg/day, the chronic
dietary exposure to penoxsulam from all registered and proposed uses and
drinking water, to all population subgroups is approximately <6% of the
cPAD.  All Infants have been identified as the most highly exposed
population subgroup yet utilizing only <6% of the cPAD.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. The residential exposure portion of the risk
assessment has been updated using current EPA practices.  The proposed
changes do not impact the previous human health assessment conclusion
for penoxsulam in which it was determined that the percentages of
chronic population adjusted dose for all population subgroups were less
than 100% and therefore do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern.
The change in the dietary contribution and the estimated residential
exposures also do not change the conclusions of the previous assessment
regarding Short-Term and Intermediate-Term exposures; aggregate margin
of exposures (MOEs) remain acceptable. Thus, anticipated aggregate
exposures estimated with conservative assumptions regarding use patterns
of the full range of registered and proposed penoxsulam products are not
of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Currently no common mechanism of toxicity has been found between
penoxsulam and any other substances EPA and penoxsulam does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, it is not assumed that penoxsulam has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the
toxicity data, the aggregate exposure to penoxsulam, as determined under
the guidance of the FQPA, will utilize less than 6% of the RfD from the
dietary exposure for all subgroups of the U.S. population.  Generally
and under the FQPA, the U.S. EPA has no concern for exposures below 100%
of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily
dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to
human health.  Additionally, the chronic dietary exposure to penoxsulam
from all registered and proposed uses and drinking water, to all
population subgroups is approximately 6% of the cPAD.  Therefore, there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general U.S.
population from aggregate exposure to penoxsulam residues from the
proposed use.

	2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of penoxsulam, data from
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a
multi-generation reproduction study in the rat are considered.  The
developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects
on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during
prenatal development.  Reproduction studies provide information relating
to effects from exposure of both parents to the pesticide on the
reproductive capability and potential systemic toxicity of mating
animals and on various parameters associated with the well being of
offspring.

FFDCA section 408 provides that the U.S. EPA may apply an additional
safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects
to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the
database.  Based on the current toxicological data requirements, the
database for penoxsulam relative to pre- and post-natal effects for
children is complete.  Overall, penoxsulam had no effect on reproduction
or embryo-fetal development at any dosage tested.  No quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility was seen following pre- and post-natal
exposures.  In a rabbit developmental toxicity study, effects on
in-utero survival were observed only at a dose level where clear
maternal toxicity was seen.  In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity
study in rats, no effects on reproductive performance were observed and
effects on neonatal growth were seen only at a dose level where parental
toxicity was seen.  In addition, the no-observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) in the chronic dog study (14.7 mg/kg/day), used to calculate the
chronic reference dose (RfD) (0.147 mg/kg/day), is already lower than
the NOAEL from the rabbit developmental study (25 mg/kg/day).
Therefore, an additional FQPA uncertainty factor is not needed and the
RfD at 0.147 mg/kg/day is appropriate for assessing risk to infants and
children.  Using the conservative exposure assumptions previously
described, the percent RfD utilized by the potential exposure to
residues of penoxsulam is less than 6% for the population subgroup
predicted to be potentially the most highly exposed.  Based on the
aggregate exposure to penoxsulam, Dow AgroSciences concludes with
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children,
females 13+ years old and the prenatal development of infants.

F. International Tolerances

	A review of Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established globally
indicates that MRLs of 0.01 have been established in Japan for
penoxsulam in or on Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, grapes, Almond, and Pecan.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D. C.  20460

	OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

September 6, 2007

									PC Code: 	098301

									DP Barcode:	D343589

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Use of Aldicarb for Leaf Minors on Coffee, for Nematodes on Coffee and Sugarcane, and for Aphids and Flea Beatles on Tobacco

FROM: 	Jonathan Angier, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

		Jeannette Martinez, Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

TO:		Sherrie Kinard, PM

Robert McNally, Branch Chief

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

THROUGH:	Dana Spatz, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

This memorandum addresses the use of aldicarb on sugarcane, tobacco, and coffee.  Attached are the Risk Quotients for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife for the three uses and a succinct discussion of the results.

PRZM-EXAMS Model Results for Aldicarb Use on Sugarcane

Sugarcane Aquatic EECs (ppb):

Peak		96 hr		21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

64.602      60.283      40.75       19.908      13.5975     3.3637

      Average of yearly averages:   0.9893

PRZM-EXAMS Model Results for Aldicarb Use on Tobacco

Tobacco Aquatic EECs (ppb):

Peak		96 hr		21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

14.76          13.298     8.8929     4.3579     3.0203     0.76813

           Average of yearly averages:     0.1912

PRZM-EXAMS Model Results for Aldicarb Use on Coffee

Coffee Aquatic EECs (ppb):

Peak		96 hr		21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

103.7          93.352     61.139     28.853     19.612     6.3823

       Average of yearly averages: 1.9243

AQUATIC ANIMAL RQs

Modeled sugarcane and coffee RQs (using the EFED tier 1 PRZM-EXAMS aquatic exposure model) are similar in magnitude and, thus, are expected to result in similar risk to aquatic animals should exposure to aldicarb occur. Tobacco RQs are slightly lower and did not exceed the acute LOC for non-target fish.

Specifically, use of granular aldicarb on sugarcane with a one time application rate of 20 lbs of product (15G)/acre is expected to result in exceeded Levels of Concern (LOC) for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish as well as freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates. More specifically, there are acute and chronic LOC exceedances, acute restricted use, acute endangered species, and chronic LOC exceedances for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates.  Acute RQs range from 1.24 to 5.38; chronic RQs range from 40.8 to 55.28 (see Table 1).

Use of granular aldicarb on tobacco with a one time application rate of 20 lbs of product (15G)/acre is expected to exceed LOCs for all aquatic animals. Specifically, there are acute and chronic LOC exceedances for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, and acute restricted use, acute endangered species, as well as chronic LOC exceedances for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish. Acute RQs range from 0.28 to 1.23; chronic RQs range from 8.9 to 12.22 (see Table 2).

Much like the sugarcane scenario, use of granular aldicarb on coffee, with 14.7 lbs of product/A applied twice (four-month interval between applications), is expected to result in exceeded LOCs for all aquatic animals. There are acute and chronic LOC exceedances, acute restricted, acute endangered species, as well as chronic LOC exceedances for all aquatic animals. Acute RQs range from 1.99 to 8.64; Chronic RQs range from 61.1 to 80.28 (see Table 3).

Table 1.  Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients (Sugarcane)

Effects to Species	Aquatic Species	Toxicity Value

(ppb)	EEC

(ppb)	RQ	LOC Exceedance

Acute	Bluegill sunfish	96-hr LC50 = 52	64.6 (peak)	1.24	Yes1,2,3

Chronic	Bluegill sunfish	NOAEC = 0.46	19.9 (60-d)	43.26	Yes4

Acute	Sheepshead minnow	96-hr LC50 = 41		64.6 (peak)	1.58	Yes1,2,3

Chronic	Sheepshead minnow	Estimated NOAEC = 0.36	19.9 (60-d)	55.28	Yes4

Acute	Chironomus tetans	48-hr EC50 = 20	64.6 (peak)	3.23	Yes1,2,3

Acute	Pink shrimp	96-hr LC50 = 12 	64.6 (peak)	5.38	Yes,,

Chronic	Mysid shrimp (est/marine, freshwater inverts)	NOAEC = 1	40.8 (21-d)	40.8	Yes

Table 2.  Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients (Tobacco)

Effects to Species	Aquatic Species	Toxicity Value

(ppb)	EEC

(ppb)	RQ	LOC Exceedance

Acute	Bluegill sunfish	96-hr LC50 = 52	14.8 (peak)	0.28	Yes2,3

Chronic	Bluegill sunfish	NOAEC = 0.46	4.4 (60-d)	9.57	Yes4

Acute	Sheepshead minnow	96-hr LC50 = 41		14.8 (peak)	0.36	Yes2,3

Chronic	Sheepshead minnow	Estimated NOAEC = 0.36	4.4 (60-d)	12.22	Yes4

Acute	Chironomus tetans	48-hr EC50 = 20	14.8 (peak)	0.74	Yes1,2,3

Acute	Pink shrimp	96-hr LC50 = 12 	14.8 (peak)	1.23	Yes1,2,3

Chronic	Mysid shrimp (est/marine, freshwater inverts)	NOAEC = 1	8.9 (21-d)	8.9	Yes4

Table 3.  Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients (Coffee)

Effects to Species	Aquatic Species	Toxicity Value

(ppb)	EEC

(ppb)	RQ	LOC Exceedance

Acute	Bluegill sunfish	96-hr LC50 = 52	 103.7 (peak)	1.99	Yes1,2,3

Chronic	Bluegill sunfish	NOAEC = 0.46	 28.9 (60-d)	62.83	Yes4

Acute	Sheepshead minnow	96-hr LC50 = 41		 103.7 (peak)	2.53	Yes1,2,3

Chronic	Sheepshead minnow	Estimated NOAEC = 0.36	 28.9 (60-d)	80.28	Yes4

Acute	Chironomus tetans	48-hr EC50 = 20	 103.7 (peak)	5.19	Yes1,2,3

Acute	Pink shrimp	96-hr LC50 = 12 	 103.7 (peak)	8.64	Yes1,2,3

Chronic	Mysid shrimp (est/marine, freshwater inverts)	NOAEC = 1	61.1 (21-d)	61.1	Yes4

TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL RQs

Terrestrial exposure to birds and mammals was modeled using the OPP/EFED Tier 1 T-REX model, version 1.2.3.

Use of granular aldicarb on sugarcane and tobacco with a one time application rate of 20 lbs of product (15G)/acre is expected to result in exceeded LOCs for birds and mammals of all sizes. Small birds and mammals are at greatest acute risk from exposure to aldicarb. Sugarcane RQs (sixty inch row spacing) for small birds and mammals are 4512.34 and 1579.28, respectively, while for large birds and mammals, RQs are 50.19 and 67.69, respectively. Tobacco RQs (forty-eight inch row spacing) for small birds and mammals are 1804.94 and 631.71, respectively, while for large birds and mammals, RQs are 20.07 and 27.08, respectively (see Tables 4 through 5 for RQs).

Use of granular aldicarb on coffee with either a one time application rate of 29.4 lbs of product/A (RQs not listed here) or two applications of 14.7 lbs product/A (more conservative modeling, listed here) is expected to exceed LOCs for all birds and mammals as well. Risk Quotients for small birds are the highest (RQ = 22110.48) followed by high Risk Quotients for small mammals (7738.4) (see Table 6). These RQs are a conservative estimate because the Agency modeled 2 applications per season with a 120 day application interval (resulting in higher RQs than 1 application of 29.4 lbs/A) and because 0% incorporation was assumed due to the vague guidance on the 24(c) label (SLN # PR-870002) on how to achieve 85% – 99% incorporation of granules to avoid wildlife exposure (“Lightly incorporate granule with an appropriate implement. If no rain within 7 days after application, irrigate to move active ingredient into the root zone”). However, based on these label directions, a high incidence of avian and mammalian mortality can be expected. These RQs, while being conservative, are not excessive, but rather alert the Agency to the present lack of more specific and stringent incorporation requirements on the SLN label (providing more protection to the environment).

The Agency is currently unable to quantitatively assess chronic risk for birds due to a lack of data. However, based on inference from mammalian data, which involved comparing magnitudes of LD50’s between the mallard duck (1.0 mg/kg-bw) and rat (0.9 mg/kg-bw) and then using this information together with the chronic information available for the laboratory rat (reproductive NOAEL = 0.7 – 0.9 mg/kg-bw; MRID 42148401), the Agency expects that birds (as well as mammals) that survive acute exposure from aldicarb may suffer adverse reproductive (chronic) effects.

Table 4.  Acute Risk Quotients for Terrestrial Wildlife (Sugarcane)

Effects to Species	Terrestrial Species	Toxicity Value

	LD50/sq.ft.	LOC Exceedance

Acute	Mallard duck	LD50 = 1.0 mg/kg-bw

	Small bird  – 20 g	4512.34	Yes1,2,3

	Medium bird – 100 g	708.90	Yes1,2,3

	Large bird – 1000 g	50.19	Yes1,2,3

Acute	Laboratory rat	LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw

	Small mammal – 15 g	1579.28	Yes1,2,3

	Medium mammal – 35 g	836.52	Yes1,2,3

	Large mammal – 1000 g	67.69	Yes1,2,3

Table 5.  Acute Risk Quotients for Terrestrial Wildlife (Tobacco)

Effects to Species	Terrestrial Species	Toxicity Value

	LD50/sq.ft.	LOC Exceedance

Acute	Mallard duck	LD50 = 1.0 mg/kg-bw

	Small bird  – 20 g	1804.94	Yes1,2,3

	Medium bird – 100 g	283.56	Yes1,2,3

	Large bird – 1000 g	20.07	Yes1,2,3

Acute	Laboratory rat	LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw

	Small mammal – 15 g	631.71	Yes1,2,3

	Medium mammal – 35 g	334.61	Yes1,2,3

	Large mammal – 1000 g	27.08	Yes1,2,3

Table 6.  Acute Risk Quotients for Terrestrial Wildlife (Coffee)

Effects to Species	Terrestrial Species	Toxicity Value

	LD50/sq.ft.	LOC Exceedance

Acute	Mallard duck	LD50 = 1.0 mg/kg-bw

	Small bird  – 20 g	22110.48	Yes1,2,3

	Medium bird – 100 g	3473.62	Yes1,2,3

	Large bird – 1000 g	245.91	Yes1,2,3

Acute	Laboratory rat	LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw

	Small mammal – 15 g	7738.49	Yes1,2,3

	Medium mammal – 35 g	4098.96	Yes1,2,3

	Large mammal – 1000 g	331.68	Yes1,2,3

Appendix A: 	   T-REX Modeling for Sugarcane, Tobacco, and Coffee

Input Parameters :

Output Results:

Tobacco

 Sugarcane

Coffee

 organism ≥0.5 (aquatic animals, mammals, birds)

Acute restricted use LOC ≥0.2 (mammals, birds), ≥0.1 (aquatic animals)

 Acute endangered species LOC ≥0.1 (mammals, birds), ≥0.05 (aquatic animals)

 Chronic RQ ≥1 (aquatic animals, mammals, birds)

 Incorporation = 85%; Application type = in-furrow ; Row spacing = 60 inches; Band width = 6 inches; 1 application at 20 lbs of product/A

 Incorporation=85%; Application type = shanked; Row spacing = 48 inches; Band width =6- 12 inches (maximum of 12 inches was chosen); 1 application at 20 lbs product/A

Ü

9

W

Z

f

±

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

F

»

¼

ð

ñ

F

ˆ

”

š

º

»

¼

é

ï

ð

ñ

h7

h7

 hQ

hÐM

␅؁Ĥ摧ᯛ

hÐM

 Incorporation = 0%; Application type = in-furrow; Row spacing = 60 inches (in absence of better data, sugarcane row spacing was chosen as default value); Band width = 6 inches; 2 applications at 14.7 lbs product/A (120-d interval)

 PAGE

 PAGE   - 2 -


Memorandum From: Carey A. Johnston, P. E. USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 566 1014 johnston. carey@ epa. gov To: Public Record for the Final Rule: Streamlining the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution EPA Docket Number OW 2002 0007 ( www. epa. gov/ edockets/)

Date: June 6, 2005 Re: Example Types of Pretreatment Standards EPA may promulgate pretreatment standards ( and other effluent guidelines) in a number of ways including: ( 1) production normalized mass based ( mass pollutant/ production unit); ( 2) flow normalized mass based ( mass pollutant/ time unit); and ( 3) concentration based standards ( mass pollutant/ volume of wastewater). These three types of pretreatment standards can be converted to a mass based permit limit by using a reasonable measure of the Industrial User's actual long term daily production ( for production normalized mass based standards) or the Industrial User's actual long term average daily flow rate ( for flow normalized mass based and concentration based standards).

EPA prefers setting production normalized mass based standards, where feasible, since production normalized limitations can require flow reduction and reduces any potential for the substitution of dilution for treatment. Specifically, production normalized mass based standards are calculated from production normalized flows ( volume of wastewater/ production unit) and incorporate wastewater flow reductions representing BAT ( technology basis for PSES) or BADT ( technology basis for PSNS). Flow normalized mass based and concentration based standards may include flow reduction when estimating the PSES and PSNS incremental compliance costs, however, the standards themselves do not specifically require flow reductions to maintain compliance.

EPA reviewed effluent guidelines regulations with concentration based pretreatment standards and identified the rationales for why EPA established concentration based standards for certain categories or subcategories instead of production normalized mass based standards.

POTWs and/ or the affected industry submitted comments favoring concentration based standards, because they are easier to implement and enforce.

Due to the complexity and variation among facilities to be covered by categorical standards, EPA did not have enough data, could not adequately measure production, or could not find a consistent production normalizing relationship in order to establish production normalized mass based standards on a nationwide basis.

Because the industry covered by the categorical standards does not make a product and existing best professional judgment based permits were concentration based, EPA chose concentration standards over mass based.

For concentration based oil and grease standards, EPA based its decision on a literature review which indicated at what concentration oil and grease can interfere with a POTW's operations.

EPA could not identify any additional water reduction technologies at the time of promulgation which would necessitate setting production normalized mass based standards.

A summary of how these three example types of pretreatment standards are incorporated into permits is presented in Table 1. Finally, Table 2 presents a current summary of pretreatment standards including whether the industrial point source category is regulated by mass based or concentration based pretreatment standards. Table 1: Summary Examples of Permit Limits and Use of Effluent Guidelines Permit Limit Description and units What's Needed to Establish the Permit Limit? What's Needed to Demonstrate Compliance Concentration based ( mass pollutant)/

vol. discharged)  Identify applicable concentration based ELGs ( mass pollutant)/ vol. discharged).

 Identify sample point.

 Identify average daily flows regulated by ELGs.

 Identify average daily flows NOT regulated by ELGs.

 Concentration based permit limit is calculated for the sample point with an accounting for dilution with non regulated flows.

Direct Discharges: This type of limit is generally not available to direct dischargers unless mass based ( flow) limits are infeasible because pollutant discharges can't be correlated with production ( e. g., certain mining operations).

Indirect Discharges: This type of limit is often available to indirect dischargers ( e. g.,

metal finishers) but is not available when mass based ( flow) or mass based ( production)

limits are required.  Grab sample of wastewater at the sample point to determine pollutant concentrations and compare against the permit limits.

 Inspection to ensure no dilution is occurring.

Mass based ( flow)

( mass pollutant)/

time)  Identify applicable concentration based ELGs ( mass pollutant)/ vol. discharged).

 Identify sample point.

 Identify average daily flows regulated by ELGs.

 Identify average daily flows NOT regulated by ELGs.

 Use the concentration based ELG and flow information to calculate an adjusted concentration at the sample point to account for dilution.

 Calculate permit limit as:

adjusted concentration ( mass pollutant)/ vol. discharged) x average daily flow at sample point ( vol. discharged/ time)

Direct Discharges: This type of limit is most often required when ELGs are expressed in units of concentration unless mass based ( flow) limits are infeasible because pollutant discharges can't be correlated with production ( e. g., certain mining operations).

Indirect Discharges: This type of limit is only required for indirect dischargers in a few industrial categories ( e. g., OCPSF, Petroleum Refining, Pesticide Manufacturing).  Grab sample of wastewater at the sample point to determine pollutant concentrations.

 Wastewater flow at sample point.

 Multiply measured grab sample pollutant concentrations and sample point flow to calculate the measured mass of pollutants discharged. Compare these measured pollutant mass discharges against the permit limits.

 Inspection to ensure no dilution is occurring. Table 1: Summary Examples of Permit Limits and Use of Effluent Guidelines ( cont.)

Permit Limit Description and units What's Needed to Establish the Permit Limit? What's Needed to Demonstrate Compliance Mass based ( production)

( mass pollutant)/

time)  Identify applicable production based ELGs ( mass pollutant)/ production).

 Identify sample point.

 Identify reasonable measure of the facility's regulated actual long term daily production  Perform the following calculation:

production based ELGs ( mass pollutant)/ production) x facility's regulated actual long term daily production ( production/ time)

 Identify average daily flows regulated by ELGs.

 Identify average daily flows NOT regulated by ELGs.

 Use the above calculation and flow information to calculate an adjusted mass based limit at the sample point to account for dilution.

Direct Discharges/ Indirect Discharges: This type of limit is required when ELGs are based on production ( e. g., Iron and Steel Manufacturing).  Grab sample of wastewater at the sample point to determine pollutant concentrations.

 Wastewater flow at sample point.

 Multiply measured grab sample pollutant concentrations and sample point flow to calculate the measured mass of pollutants discharged. Compare these measured pollutant mass discharges against the permit limits.

 Inspection to ensure no dilution is occurring. Table 2: Summary of Categorical Pretreatment Standards No. Category 40 CFR Part Subparts Type of Standard Overview of Pretreatment Standards 1 Aluminum Forming 467 A F PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and monthly averages. Subpart C prohibits discharges from certain operations.

2 Battery Manufacturing 461 A G PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and monthly averages. No discharge is allowed from any process not specifically identified in the regulations.

3 Carbon Black Manufacturing 458 A D PSNS Limits are for Oil & Grease only ( no duration specified).

4 Centralized Waste Treatment 437 A D PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

5 Coil Coating 465 A D PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

6 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ( CAFO) 412 B PSNS Discharge of process wastewater is prohibited, except when there is an overflow resulting from a chronic or catastrophic rainfall event.

7 Copper Forming 468 A PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

8 Electrical and Electronic Components 469 A D PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based, daily maximums and 30 day averages or monthly averages ( varies per subpart and pollutant parameter). Certification is allowed in lieu of monitoring for certain pollutants when a management plan is approved and implemented.

9 Electroplating 413 A, B, D  H PSES Limits are concentration based ( or alternative mass based equivalents), daily maximums and four consecutive monitoring days averages. Two sets of limits exist, depending on if facility discharging more or less than 10,000 gallons per day of process wastewater. Certification is allowed in lieu of monitoring for certain pollutants when a management plan is approved and implemented.

10 Fertilizer Manufacturing 418 A G PSNS Limits may specify zero discharge of wastewater pollutants ( Subpart A),

production based daily maximums and 30 day averages ( Subparts B E), or concentration based ( Subparts F G), with no duration of limit specified.

11 Glass Manufacturing 426 H K M PSNS Limits are either concentration or production based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

12 Grain Mills 406 A PSNS Discharge of process wastewater is prohibited at a flow rate or mass loading rate( BOD 5 and TSS) that is excessive during periods when a POTW is receiving peak loads.

13 Ink Formulating 447 A PSNS Regulations specify no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to a POTW. Table 2: Summary of Categorical Pretreatment Standards No. Category 40 CFR Part Subparts Type of Standard Overview of Pretreatment Standards 14 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 415 A, B, F, L,

AH, AJ, AL, AR, AU, BC,

BL, BM, BO B  F, H,

K  N, P, Q,

T, V, AA,

AC, AE, AH AI, AJ, AL,

AN, AP, AQ AR, AU, AX BB, BC,

BH,

BK  BO PSES PSNS Limits vary for each subpart with a majority of the limits concentration based,

daily maximums and 30 day averages, or may specify no discharge of wastewater pollutants.

15 Iron and Steel Manufacturing 420 A F, H J, L PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and 30 day averages.

16 Leather Tanning and Finishing 425 A I PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based, daily maximums and monthly averages. In certain instances, applicability of pretreatment standards is dictated by volume of production.

17 Metal Finishing 433 A PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

Certification is allowed for certain pollutants where a management plan is approved and implemented.

18 Metal Molding and Casting 464 A D PSES PSNS Limits are primarily production based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

Discharges from certain processes are prohibited ( Subparts A C).

19 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders 471 A J PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and monthly averages. In some instances, the discharge of wastewater pollutants is prohibited.

20 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 421 C, F  M, P, Q, V, X, Y,

AA  AC B  Z,

AA  AE PSES PSNS Limits are production based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

21 Oil and Gas Extraction 435 D PSES PSNS Regulations specify no discharge of wastes ( e. g., produced water, drill cuttings) to a POTW.

22 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 414 B H, K PSES PSNS Limits are mass based ( concentration based standards multiplied by process flow),

daily maximums and monthly averages. Standards for metals and cyanide apply only to metal or cyanide bearing wastestreams.

23 Paint Formulating 446 A PSNS Regulations specify no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to the POTW. Table 2: Summary of Categorical Pretreatment Standards No. Category 40 CFR Part Subparts Type of Standard Overview of Pretreatment Standards 24 Paving and Roofing Materials ( Tars and Asphalt) 443 A D PSNS Limits are for Oil & Grease only ( no limit duration specified).

25 Pesticide Chemicals 455 A, C, E PSES PSNS Limits are mass based ( concentration based standards multiplied by process flow),

daily maximums and monthly averages. Subpart C specifies no discharge of process wastewater pollutants, but provides for pollution prevention alternatives.

Subpart E specifies no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

26 Petroleum Refining 419 A E PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based ( or mass based equivalent), daily maximums.

27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 439 A D PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based, daily maximums and monthly averages. These facilities may certify they do not use or generate cyanide in lieu of performing monitoring to demonstrate compliance.

28 Porcelain Enameling 466 A D PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based ( or alternative production based), daily maximums and monthly averages. Subpart B prohibits discharges from certain operations.

29 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 430 A G, I L PSES PSNS Limits are production based daily maximums and monthly averages. These facilities may certify they do not use certain compounds in lieu of performing monitoring to demonstrate compliance. Facilities subject to Subparts B and E must also implement Best Management Practices as identified.

30 Rubber Manufacturing 428 E  K PSNS Limits are concentration or production based, daily maximums and monthly averages.

31 Soap and Detergent Manufacturing 417 O  R PSNS Regulations specify no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to a POTW when the wastewater COD/ BOD 7 ratio exceeds 10.0 and the COD concentrations exceed subcategory specific concentrations.

32 Steam Electric Power Generating 423   PSES PSNS Limits are either concentration based, daily maximums, or " maximums for any time," or compliance can be demonstrated through engineering calculations.

33 Timber Products Processing 429 F  H PSES PSNS All PSNS ( and PSES for Subpart F) prohibit the discharge of wastewater pollutants. PSES for Subparts G and H are concentration based, daily maximums ( with production based alternatives).

34 Transportation Equipment Cleaning 442 A C PSES PSNS Operators subject to effluent guidelines in subparts A B must either meet concentration based, daily maximum standards or develop a Pollutant Management Plan. Operators subject to effluent guidelines in subpart C must meet concentration based, daily maximum standards.

35 Waste Combustors 444 A PSES PSNS Limits are concentration based, daily maximums and monthly averages.