[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14934-14936]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05742]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80271; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2017-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.80 To Make Permanent a Program
That Allows Transactions To Take Place at a Price That Is Below $1 per
Option Contract

March 17, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 2, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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 Rule 6.80 to make permanent a
program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below
$1 per option contract. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.80 to make permanent a
program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below
$1 per option contract.\4\ The program is currently subject to a pilot
that is scheduled to expire on July 5, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 6.80.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79565 (December 15,
2016), 81 FR 93723 (December 21, 2016) (SR-NYSE Arca-2016-163). The
Exchange initially adopted the program in 2010. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63476 (December 8, 2010), 75 FR 77930
(December 14, 2010) (SR-NYSE Arca-2010-109).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades in
listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively
traded. Trading is generally conducted in accordance with Exchange
Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 6.80, Accommodation
Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for
engaging in cabinet trades.
    Rule 6.80 currently provides that cabinet transactions at a price
of $1 per option contract to occur via open outcry in any options
series open for trading on the Exchange, except option classes
participating in the Penny Pilot Program.\6\ Rule 6.80 provides that
bids and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of
$1 per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a
Floor Broker or by a Market Maker or be provided in response to a
request by a Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but
must yield priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those orders
held by the Trading Official, and which resting cabinet orders may be
closing only). If the buyer and the seller yield to resting cabinet
orders, opening cabinet bids can trade with opening cabinet offers at
$1 per option contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The $1 cabinet trading procedures are not available in Penny
Pilot Program classes because in those classes an option series can
trade in a standard increment as low as $0.01 per share (or $1.00
per option contract with a 100 share multiplier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange amended the cabinet procedures to allow transactions
to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1
per option contract. This amendment expires on July 5, 2017. These
lower-priced transactions are permitted to be traded pursuant to the
same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids
and offers for opening transactions are permitted only to accommodate
closing transactions, and (ii) transactions in option classes
participating in the Penny Pilot Program are permitted. The Exchange
believes that allowing a price of at least $0 but less than $1 better
accommodates the closing of options positions in series that are
worthless or not actively traded, particularly when there has been a
significant move in the price of the underlying security, resulting in
a large number of series being out-of-the-money. For example, a market
participant might have a long position in a put series with a strike
price of $30 and the underlying stock might be trading at $100. In such
an instance, there is likely no market to close-out the position, even
at the $1 cabinet price.
    As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80,
transactions at prices less than $1 are not disseminated to the public
on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other accommodation
liquidations under Rule 6.80, the transactions are exempt from the
Consolidated Options Audit Trail (``COATS'') requirements of Exchange
Rule 6.67, Order Format and System Entry Requirements. However, the
Exchange maintains quotation, order and transaction information for
such transactions in the same format as the COATS data is maintained.
In this regard, all transactions for less than $1 must be reported to
the Exchange following the close of each business day.
    The Exchange notes that while the level of liquidation trades is
not meaningful, such trades serve an essential purpose in that they
allow market participants to close out options positions that are
worthless or not actively trading. To illustrate, in 2016, there were a
total of 558 Cabinet trades. Of these, 50 trades comprising 47,106
contracts were executed at a price of $0.01, while the remaining 508
trades comprising 208,078 contracts were executed for a premium of less
than $0.01. The Exchange believes this level of trading demonstrates
the benefit of the current program to market participants.
    In support of making the program permanent, the Exchange represents
that there are no operational issues in processing and clearing Cabinet
trades in penny and sub-penny increments. Each Cabinet trade is input
manually into the clearing system, and is then submitted for settlement
at the Options Clearing Corporation. Additionally, OTP Holders and OTP
Firms have not raised any concerns with the processing of Cabinet
trades.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \7\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
\8\ of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that liquidation trades promote competition and afford market
participants the opportunity to close out their options positions. The
Exchange believes that permanently approving the rules that allow for
liquidations at a price less than $1 per option contract would better
facilitate the closing of options positions that are worthless or not
actively trading, especially in Penny Pilot issues where cabinet trades
are not otherwise permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that approving the program on a permanent
basis is also consistent with the Act. With respect to the level of
liquidation trades transacted on the Exchange, the Exchange believes
that the data gathered provides meaningful support to make the program
permanent.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
approving the program on a permanent basis will not impact competition,
as it will continue to facilitate OTP Holders' ability to close
positions in worthless or not actively traded series.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period

to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as
to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission
will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2017-24 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-NYSEARCA-2017-24. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2017-24 and should
be submitted on or before April 13, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05742 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF WATER MEMORANDUM June 24, 2004 SUBJECT: Additional Feedback from State Pretreatment Coordinators to the 304( m) Planning Process for the 2004/ 2005 Plan FROM: Patricia Harrigan, USEPA/ OW/ OST ( 202) 566 1666 ( harrigan. patricia@ epa. gov)

TO: Public Record for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074 ( www. epa. gov/ edockets/)

The purpose of this memorandum is to describe suggestions and issues identified by several state pretreatment coordinators for EPA consideration during development of the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005. These suggestions were triggered by the 2003 National Coordinators Workshop and were transmitted to EPA via e mail.

Feedback gathered during the course of this workshop is documented in a separate memo titled " 2003 National Coordinators Workshop Feedback for the 304( m) Planning Process for the 2004/ 2005 Plan."

Overview As outlined in the preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 published on December 31, 2003 in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 75515), EPA is using four major factors to determine whether to revise a set of existing effluent guidelines. These four factors are:

Factor 1: Consideration of the extent to which the pollutants discharged by an industry category pose adverse impacts ( including potential risks) to human health or the environment.

Factor 2: Identification of an applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or pollution prevention alternative that can effectively reduce the pollutants discharged by the industry category and thereby substantially reduce any potential risk to human health or the environment associated with those pollutants.

Factor 3: Evaluation of the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified using the second factor. Page 2 of 4

Factor 4: Evaluation of implementation and efficiency considerations. Under this factor, EPA would consider whether existing effluent guidelines could be revised, for example, to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to technological innovation, or to promote innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including within plant trading. This factor might also prompt EPA to decide not to revise effluent guidelines for an industry category where the pollutant source is already being addressed by another regulatory program, such as EPA's stormwater requirements, or by non regulatory programs that may more effectively address the problem.

This memo consolidates suggestions received relevant to Factor 4 soon after the publication of the preliminary Plan and as a result of discussions at the 2003 National Meeting of State Pretreatment Coordinators. Eight state pretreatment coordinators contributed their feedback on the preliminary Plan:

° Steve Caspers, Kansas ° Randall Dunnette, Minnesota ° Allen Gilliam, Arkansas ° Gary Kelman, Maryland ° Rick Koplitz, Colorado ° Nilesh Naik, New Jersey ° Grace Scott, Michigan ° Al Spangler, South Dakota These suggestions are not formal comments, but EPA wanted to record them here for the public record. A transcript of the e mails we received is attached to this memo.

Dairy Products Processing ( 40 CFR 405): A coordinator identifies problems caused by cheese plants in small towns. ( AS)

Electroplating ( 40 CFR 413): There is no technical basis for the 4 day averaging approach, and there is no time frame specified for doing it. Facilities can select either consecutive days or days spread out over many months. In addition, facilities that were grand fathered into the regulation   job shops and printed circuit board manufacturing   as a way to provide them short term relief, avoid being moved to their appropriate category of metal finishing by making small replacements or repairs to their process equipment. ( GS)

Hospitals ( 40 CFR 460): The original regulations did not consider discharges of many of the pollutants causing concern today, including mercury, silver, pharmaceuticals ( including radioactive substances), chromic acid cleaners, and biologicals such as blood. ( GS)

Meat and Poultry ( 40 CFR 432): One coordinator notes that some poultry kill plants in his state are causing organic overloading ( GA). A second coordinator identifies problems caused by meat packers in small towns ( AS). A third coordinator asserts that meat processing facilities in smaller towns often overwhelm their POTW with BOD and TSS discharges. His solution has been to require installation of a dissolved air flotation system by the facility, or have them ship their wastes to a rendering facility. ( RK) Page 3 of 4 Metal Finishing ( 40 CFR 433): One coordinator asserts that pH is the only pollutant of concern for this industry, and that metal testing should be eliminated for the Phosphating subcategory. ( GK) Another coordinator suggests that iron phosphaters be exempted. In addition, there are zinc phosphaters discharging significant amounts of zinc which should not be exempted. ( SC) Many job shops and printed circuit board manufacturing facilities that belong in this category remain under the electroplating guidelines as a result of grand fathering that is still in place. ( GS)

Metal Molding and Casting ( 40 CFR 464): The guidelines for this point source category received the most attention from the pretreatment coordinators  4 out of the 8 discussed it. One coordinator notes that die casting is production based. This results in a lot of small shops being often out of compliance because they can't meet the limits at their low production volumes. ( GS). A second coordinator reports that die casters have constant problems with the total phenols and oil & grease limits. ( AG)

Another coordinator identifies a problem with the definitions for casting cleaning operations ( listed in the aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories). Because of the way the definitions at 464.02 ( a) " Aluminum Casting" and 464.02 ( b) " Ferrous Casting" are written, cleaning operations are not captured by the regulation. A simple solution is to correct the general definitions. See suggestions in the following paragraph. An alternative to changing the definitions would be to eliminate the allocations for casting cleaning from these subcategories since it applies to an operation that cannot exist under this regulation the way it is written.

For the aluminum casting definition, insert the underlined text " Processing operations following the cooling of castings not covered under aluminum forming, except for grinding scrubber operations and casting cleaning operations, which are covered here, are covered under electroplating and metal finishing point source categories ( 40 CFR 413 & 433)." For the ferrous casting definition, insert the underlined text " Except for grinding scrubber operations and casting cleaning operations which are covered here, processing operations following the cooling of castings are covered under electroplating and metal finishing point source categories ( 40 CFR 413 & 433)." ( RD)

A fourth coordinator notes that in the aluminum forming subcategory, production standards result in extremely low permit limits. Whenever production changes by as little as 20%, permit limits have to be changed accordingly. Concentration based standards would save the endless modification and the associated administrative burden. It also seems inconsistent to require metal finishers to discharge a pollutant at the ppm level while the production based industry is required to meet a ppb level. ( SC)

Nonferrous Metals Forming ( 40 CFR 421): Precious Metals Forming Subcategory has production based standards that result in below detection concentration limitations. ( NM) Page 4 of 4 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing ( 40 CFR 439): Ther are three specific parameters that facilities must monitor for annually, whether or not it is present, are isobutyraldehyde, methyl formate, and isopropyl ether Analysis must be performed using Method 1666 ( per 40 CFR 439.4). Very few labs are capable of analysis for these parameters using this method. Therefore, facilities often have to send their samples to out of state labs.( GS).

Prisons: There are a wide range of substances discharged from prisons, and includes both industrial and sanitary wastes. Discharges may be low and are often not continuous ( e. g. only during daytime hours of operation). ( GS)

Soap and Detergent Manufacturing ( 40 CFR 417): This is the only industrial category for which a COD/ BOD ratio approach is used to determine compliance. ( GS).

Steam Electric Power Generation ( 40 CFR 423): There is a footnote in section 423.16 ( pretreatment standards for existing sources) that specifies " in detectable amount" which is not included in section 423.17 ( new sources). This coordinator assumes EPA intended to include this stipulation in both sections, but it needs to be specified. In addition, " detectable amounts" have changed a lot since the regulation was promulgated, and EPA needs to provide guidelines to address this issue. Finally, these guidelines do not include mercury. ( GS)

Transportation Equipment Cleaning ( 40 CFR 442): The pollutant minimization plan ( PMP) is causing a problem, since it allows facilities to ignore the limits by implementing the plan; in addition, the plan does not need POTW acceptance or approval. This makes it difficult to evaluate facility compliance ( GS).

General for All Effluent Guidelines: One coordinator suggested that EPA develop water quality before it develops any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants. This would prevent premature efforts to regulate pollutants whose effects are not thoroughly characterized. ( GK) Leather tanning is the only guideline that requires that a minimum of 8 samples be taken when determining a facility's compliance with the regulation. ( See section 425.02 section ( i).) Without this requirement, pretreatment coordinators are often reduced to using a single sample point to determine compliance with both maximum and average limits. In addition, boiler blowdown ( produced by a lot of industries) discharge effluent containing pollutants of concern, including biocides. ( GS) Page 1 of 16 Attachment: Pretreatment Coordinator Email Discussions  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 33 AM

" Gary F. Kelman" < gkelman@ mde. state. md. us>

01/ 05/ 2004 12: 01 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator · Why regulate something if you don't know how bad it is? · Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that don't already have water quality criteria. · Don't develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing · Phosphating B eliminate metal testing · pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott · Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP · ND B Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting B Production Based · Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). · 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. · Transportation Equipment Cleaning B PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. · Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio B there has got to be a better way. · Pharmaceutical Manufacturing B Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik B NJDEP · 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette · Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous Page 2 of 16 casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: § Produces a wastewater § Is not post cooling and § Is not casting quench.

 Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 34 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Mee ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 34 AM

Grace Scott < SCOTTG@ michigan. gov>

01/ 05/ 2004 01: 52 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Mee Thanks Gary.. EPA in its wisdom has excluded indirect industries from its Effluent Guidelines Plan. Can somebody help me understand this?

Grace L. Scott Pretreatment Coordinator MDEQ Water Division Constitution Hall, 2 Flr, S PO Box 30273 Lansing, MI 48909 7773 Phone: 517 335 4107 Fax: 517 373 2040 e mail: scottg@ mi. gov >>> gkelman@ mde. state. md. us 01/ 05/ 04 12: 01PM >>> Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections. Page 3 of 16 Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator + Why regulate something if you donÆt know how bad it is? + Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that donÆt already have water quality criteria. + DonÆt develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing + Phosphating û eliminate metal testing + pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott + Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP + ND û Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting û Production Based + Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). + 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. + Transportation Equipment Cleaning û PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. + Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio û there has got to be a better way. + Pharmaceutical Manufacturing û Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik û NJDEP + 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette + Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: º Produces a wastewater º Is not post cooling and º Is not casting quench.

 Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 34 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Page 4 of 16 ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 34 AM

" Gilliam, Allen" < GILLIAM@ adeq. state. ar. us>

01/ 05/ 2004 02: 56 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Question to all to help kick this around more with some finger pointing....

If you had one or two cats or even a non cat siu that was almost continually in non compliance, who might that be? Or some that just can't stay in compliance for a half year for a parameter or two?

I got some die casters who are always fighting their ( almost n. d.) t. phenols and o& g limits and some poultry kill plants that are always causing organic overloading over here. Amsa's " don't touch our city's surcharges" hasn't caught on real good over here with the amsa non members and local politics.

Anyone got some problem industries that epa could re focus on because of unrealistic limits basis ( recycle rates unachievable, eg), water conservation, changed processes and p2, or epa being skeert off because of amsa's 4000 duplicated comments (" we don't need no more steenking regulations!")?

 Original Message From: Gary F. Kelman [ mailto: gkelman@ mde. state. md. us] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11: 01 AM To: statepretcoord Subject: [ statepretcoord] Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator · Why regulate something if you don't know how bad it is? · Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that don't already have water quality criteria. · Don't develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing Page 5 of 16 · Phosphating  eliminate metal testing · pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott · Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP · ND  Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting  Production Based · Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). · 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. · Transportation Equipment Cleaning  PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. · Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio  there has got to be a better way. · Pharmaceutical Manufacturing  Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik  NJDEP · 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette · Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: § Produces a wastewater § Is not post cooling and § Is not casting quench.

  Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 35 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov Page 6 of 16  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 35 AM

SCaspers@ kdhe. state. ks. us 01/ 05/ 2004 03: 41 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Gilliam@ adeq. state. ar. us, gkelman@ mde. state. md. ks Subject: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Allen, I do not have any IU's consistently out of compliance any longer. Once we had them install treatment systems, the occasional but chronic compliance problems all went away.

I do have one general comment regarding production based standards, like the Aluminium Forming ( casting) standard Production based standards are a pain and usually end up with unbelievably low permit limits, as mentioned by Allen. Each time production changes +/ 20%, permit limits have to change, accordingly. I finally changed our permits to have " floating" limits, in lieu of the tiered permit approach used in the past, due to the administrative headaches of having to constantly modify permits. My point is I would rather EPA develop concentration based standards in the future, in lieu of production based standards. To me it does not make any sense to allow a metal finisher to discharge a pollutant in ppm but only allow a production based industry to discharge the same pollutant in ppb.

Gary, I hope to add to your list sometime this week. I also propose you modify the item on Metal Finishing to specify that we exempt " iron phosphaters", in particular. There are cases where zinc phosphaters, subject to 433 can contribute significant amounts of zinc, which should not be exempted.

*****************************************************************************

Steve Caspers, Pretreatment Specialist, State of Kansas E mail address: SCaspers@ kdhe. state. ks. us 785 296 5551 Fax 785 296 0086 ***************************************************************************** roup:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator · Why regulate something if you don't know how bad it is? · Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that don't already have water quality criteria. · Don't develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing · Phosphating B eliminate metal testing · pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott · Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP Page 7 of 16 · ND B Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting B Production Based · Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). · 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. · Transportation Equipment Cleaning B PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. · Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio B there has got to be a better way. · Pharmaceutical Manufacturing B Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik B NJDEP · 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette · Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: § Produces a wastewater § Is not post cooling and § Is not casting quench.

 Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 36 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc b y State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 36 AM

Albert. Spangler@ state. sd. us 01/ 05/ 2004 03: 48 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc b y State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Page 8 of 16 My main problem children are the meat packers and cheese plants in small towns. The approved cities in SD have some problems with metal finishers but these are almost always local limits issues and not problems with the categorical standards.

 Original Message From: Gilliam, Allen [ mailto: GILLIAM@ adeq. state. ar. us] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1: 56 PM To: statepretcoord Subject: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Question to all to help kick this around more with some finger pointing....

If you had one or two cats or even a non cat siu that was almost continually in non compliance, who might that be? Or some that just can't stay in compliance for a half year for a parameter or two?

I got some die casters who are always fighting their ( almost n. d.) t. phenols and o& g limits and some poultry kill plants that are always causing organic overloading over here. Amsa's " don't touch our city's surcharges" hasn't caught on real good over here with the amsa non members and local politics.

Anyone got some problem industries that epa could re focus on because of unrealistic limits basis ( recycle rates unachievable, eg), water conservation, changed processes and p2, or epa being skeert off because of amsa's 4000 duplicated comments (" we don't need no more steenking regulations!")?

 Original Message From: Gary F. Kelman [ mailto: gkelman@ mde. state. md. us] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11: 01 AM To: statepretcoord Subject: [ statepretcoord] Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator · Why regulate something if you don't know how bad it is? · Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that don't already have water quality criteria. · Don't develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing · Phosphating  eliminate metal testing · pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott Page 9 of 16 · Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP · ND  Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting  Production Based · Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). · 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. · Transportation Equipment Cleaning  PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. · Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio  there has got to be a better way. · Pharmaceutical Manufacturing  Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik  NJDEP · 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette · Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: § Produces a wastewater § Is not post cooling and § Is not casting quench.

 Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 36 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 36 AM  Page 10 of 16 Rick Koplitz < rick. Koplitz@ state. co. us>

01/ 05/ 2004 03: 55 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] RE: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Since Colorado is not a delegated state we only permit categoricals in non approved programs. However I have spent most of my time in smaller towns that have meat processing facilities that overwhelm the POTW. Mostly from BOD and TSS discharges. In each case I have had to require the meat processor to install a DAF system, ( depending on the size of the facility), or completely containerize all waste and ship it off to a renderer.

Happy New Year to all you state coordinizers!

Rick Rick Koplitz Pretreatment Coordinator Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Phone: 303 692 3618 Fax: 303 782 0390 email: rick. koplitz@ state. co. us >>> GILLIAM@ adeq. state. ar. us 1/ 5/ 2004 12: 56: 13 PM >>> Question to all to help kick this around more with some finger pointing....

If you had one or two cats or even a non cat siu that was almost continually in non compliance, who might that be? Or some that just can't stay in compliance for a half year for a parameter or two?

I got some die casters who are always fighting their ( almost n. d.) t. phenols and o& g limits and some poultry kill plants that are always causing organic overloading over here. Amsa's " don't touch our city's surcharges" hasn't caught on real good over here with the amsa non members and local politics.

Anyone got some problem industries that epa could re focus on because of unrealistic limits basis ( recycle rates unachievable, eg), water conservation, changed processes and p2, or epa being skeert off because of amsa's 4000 duplicated comments (" we don't need no more steenking regulations!")?

 Original Message From: Gary F. Kelman [ mailto: gkelman@ mde. state. md. us] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11: 01 AM To: statepretcoord Subject: [ statepretcoord] Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Meeting Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Page 11 of 16 Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator · Why regulate something if you don't know how bad it is? · Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that don't already have water quality criteria. · Don't develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing · Phosphating  eliminate metal testing · pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott · Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP · ND  Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting  Production Based · Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). · 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. · Transportation Equipment Cleaning  PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. · Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio  there has got to be a better way. · Pharmaceutical Manufacturing  Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik  NJDEP · 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette · Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: § Produces a wastewater § Is not post cooling and § Is not casting quench.

 Page 12 of 16  Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 37 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 37 AM

Grace Scott < SCOTTG@ michigan. gov>

01/ 05/ 2004 04: 25 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Yes, exactly. Seems like a logical fit for it to be considered with 304( m). Will we see a 304( g) assessment performed separately?

>>> Pickrel. Jan@ epamail. epa. gov 01/ 05/ 04 03: 53PM >>>

Clean Water Act ( CWA) Section 304( m), which requires the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, is specifically for direct dischargers. The December 31, 2003, Federal Register notice states that it presents the " results of EPA's annual review of of the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under CWA section 304( b)."

Indirect dischargers are referenced in CWA Section 304( g) and are promulgated under CWA 307( b). See 68 FR 75518 of the December 31, 2003 notice ( Section IV) for discussion.

Grace: I think your question, therefore, is: " Where are the results of the annual review required by CWA 304( g)?!"

~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov Grace Scott < SCOTTG@ michigan. gov> Page 13 of 16 To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc: Subject: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc 01/ 05/ 2004 01: 52 PM by State National Mee Coordinators from 2003 Please respond to statepretcoord Thanks Gary.. EPA in its wisdom has excluded indirect industries from its Effluent Guidelines Plan. Can somebody help me understand this? Grace L. Scott Pretreatment Coordinator MDEQ Water Division Constitution Hall, 2 Flr, S PO Box 30273 Lansing, MI 48909 7773 Phone: 517 335 4107 Fax: 517 373 2040 e mail: scottg@ mi. gov >>> gkelman@ mde. state. md. us 01/ 05/ 04 12: 01PM >>> Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator + Why regulate something if you donÆt know how bad it is? + Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that donÆt already have water quality criteria. + DonÆt develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing + Phosphating û eliminate metal testing + pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott + Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP + ND û Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting û Production Based + Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). + 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. + Transportation Equipment Cleaning û PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. + Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio û there has got to be a better way. + Pharmaceutical Manufacturing û Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik û NJDEP + 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory Page 14 of 16 o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette + Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: º Produces a wastewater º Is not post cooling and º Is not casting quench.

 Forwarded by Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 02: 39 PM

Jan Pickrel 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 37 AM To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Fw: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Mee ~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~*^*~ Jan Pickrel Water Permits Division, Industrial Branch US Environmental Protection Agency phone: ( 202) 564 7904. fax: ( 202) 564 6431. pickrel. jan@ epa. gov  Forwarded by Jan Pickrel/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 06/ 07/ 2004 11: 37 AM

Grace Scott < SCOTTG@ michigan. gov>

01/ 05/ 2004 04: 56 PM Please respond to statepretcoord To: statepretcoord < statepretcoord@ lists. epa. gov> cc:

Subject: [ statepretcoord] Re: Comments on Categorical Standards, Etc by State Coordinators from 2003 National Mee As a clarification * the issue is to have all 136 info reported. 403.12( g)( 5) requires all monitoring to be reported for CIUs. 403.12( h) places the burden on the POTW to require appropriate reporting. Of course this should include all monitoring that is performed using 136, not just the minimum required. Page 15 of 16 >>> gkelman@ mde. state. md. us 01/ 05/ 04 12: 01PM >>> Group:

Here are the comments on categorical standards from the State Pretreatment Coordinators came up with at the national meeting in Seattle. I know that we have more than this judging from the conversations at our meeting. Additional comments may be included in the notes from the meeting. If I misinterpreted your comments please offer your corrections.

Gary Kelman, Maryland State Pretreatment Coordinator + Why regulate something if you donÆt know how bad it is? + Develop water quality criteria for any categorically regulated pollutants that donÆt already have water quality criteria. + DonÆt develop any new categorical limits for new or existing pollutants without first developing water quality criteria.

Metal Finishing + Phosphating û eliminate metal testing + pH only pollutant of concern Grace Scott + Need 200.8 approved for metals instead of ATP + ND û Power Plants o 4 day ave Electroplating o Grandfathering of job shops and PCB manufacturing o Die Casting û Production Based + Would like to see minimum monitoring like leather tanning ( 8 samples). + 403 needs fix to require all monitoring not just CIU to be 136. + Transportation Equipment Cleaning û PMP problem no limits. Difficult to evaluate compliance. + Soap and Detergent Manufacturing: COD/ BOD ratio û there has got to be a better way. + Pharmaceutical Manufacturing û Very few labs capable of analyis for some parameters.

Nicesh Maik û NJDEP + 471 Non Ferrous Metals Forming, Precious Metals Forming Subcategory o production based standards results in below detection concentration limitations.

Randy Dunnette + Metal Molding and Casting Category o The casting cleaning operation, listed in aluminum casting and ferrous casting subcategories, does not occur and cannot possibly occur given the definitions and conditions in the regulation. o The casting cleaning operation should be eliminated, or the definitions, etc. changed so that the casting cleaning operation applies properly. o The definitions of the specific types of casting make it clear that this categorical standard applies only to pre cooling operations ( except grinding scrubber). o All sub categories have a casting quench operation. I cannot conceive of a casting cleaning operation that: º Produces a wastewater º Is not post cooling and º Is not casting quench. Page 16 of 16


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 10534]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1600]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Tobacco Retailers; Enforcement
Policy for Certain (Provisional) Tobacco Products That the Food and
Drug Administration Finds Not Substantially Equivalent; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Enforcement Policy for
Certain (Provisional) Tobacco Products That FDA Finds Not Substantially
Equivalent.'' This draft guidance provides information to tobacco
retailers on FDA's enforcement policy regarding certain so-called
provisional tobacco products that become subject to not substantially
equivalent (NSE) orders issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this draft
guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850-3229. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your request or include a fax number to which the guidance may be sent.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-287-1373, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for tobacco
retailers entitled ``Enforcement Policy for Certain (Provisional)
Tobacco Products That FDA Finds Not Substantially Equivalent.'' In this
draft guidance, FDA provides information on its enforcement policy
regarding so-called provisional tobacco products that become subject to
NSE orders under the FD&C Act. The provisional products addressed by
this draft guidance are tobacco products that were first introduced or
delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial
distribution after February 15, 2007, and prior to March 22, 2011, and
for which a section 905(j) (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)) (or substantial
equivalent) report was submitted no later than March 22, 2011. Because
the FD&C Act permitted this specific group of products to remain on the
market pending FDA's review of the report, there will very likely be
products at retail locations within the United States when FDA issues
an order finding a tobacco product NSE. This draft guidance explains
that FDA does not intend to take enforcement action for at least 30
calendar days from the date the NSE order issues for those products
that are in the retailer's current inventory at a specific retail
location on the date FDA issues the NSE order.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on
``Enforcement Policy for Certain (Provisional) Tobacco Products That
FDA Finds Not Substantially Equivalent.'' It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.

    Dated: February 19, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-03978 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 70627]
[DOCID:fr12de07-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56900; File No. SR-CHX-2007-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rules Relating
to the Execution of Odd Lot Market Orders

 December 5, 2007.
    On October 2, 2007, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend rules relating to the execution of odd
lot market orders. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on October 31, 2007.\3\ The Commission received
no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56703 (October 25,
2007), 72 FR 61696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CHX's existing rules, odd lot orders execute in the Matching
System without regard to the protected quotations of other markets.\4\
The Exchange states that this is because such orders are not subject to
the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule \5\ and can trade through
better prices in other markets.\6\ Through this filing, the Exchange
proposes to amend its rules to provide that market odd lot orders would
execute like round lot orders (i.e., they would execute as if they were
subject to the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule), while odd lot
limit orders and odd lot crosses could continue to execute through
better prices on other markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CHX Rules, Article 20, Rule 5(b).
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \6\ The Exchange states that its handling of the execution of
odd lot orders is consistent with the requirements of Regulation
NMS. See Division of Market Regulation: Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS,
FAQ 7.03 (confirming that Rule 611 does not apply to odd lot
orders).
    \7\ The Exchange believes that a participant that submits an odd
lot cross seeks to have that order executed at a particular price,
without regard to prices in other markets. Similarly, if a
participant submits an odd lot limit order, that participant likely
only seeks the protection of the order's limit price and does not
anticipate that the order would be protected against better prices
in other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal will provide appropriate
protections to odd lot market orders, while allowing participants to
choose to have odd lot limit orders and odd lot crosses executed at
other prices.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Odd lot market orders that would trade through the protected
quotations of other markets would be rejected from the Exchange's
Matching System and either routed to another appropriate market or,
if designated as ``do not route,'' automatically cancelled. See CHX
Rules, Article 20, Rule 5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange,\9\ in particular, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\
which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and will benefit investors and the public
interest by providing additional trade-through protection, beyond the
requirements of the Order Protection Rule, for investors' odd lot
market orders that are submitted to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it as considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2007-22) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23965 Filed 12-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P