From: Kristin Parrish To: Mary Tom Kissell C439 03 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Date: January 12, 2004 Project: Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP)

Re: Meeting Minutes for the September 12, 2003 Conference Call Between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and Industry Stakeholders to Discuss Inclusion of Lumber Kilns in the PCWP Source Category I. Purpose The EPA met with wood treating industry stakeholders from Koppers Industries to discuss the issues surrounding the inclusion of all lumber kilns in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP).

The conference call was held on September 12, 2003. The list of participants is included as Attachment 1.

II. Discussion The Koppers Industries representatives began the call by expressing their continued concern about EPA's plans to include lumber kilns at all facilities in the PCWP NESHAP. They stated that the PCWP NESHAP is not a lumber kiln regulation and that all lumber kilns are covered by this NESHAP because the PCWP industry requested that they be included. The Koppers Industries representatives noted that they are not aware of all their options. They stated that they wanted to use the teleconference to share their thoughts on the issue with EPA and receive ideas on their potential options. They noted that they thought that one option might be to 2 delist the lumber kiln category completely. The EPA representatives explained that since lumber kilns are currently included the PCWP source category, there is no lumber kiln category to delist.

They noted that separating lumber kilns into a new source category might not bring the desired results. Once EPA has listed a new category, they have an obligation to consider MACT standards for that category. The EPA could only begin to consider delisting a lumber kiln category if they could conclusively prove that none of the facilities with lumber kilns were major sources. The EPA representatives noted that the requirements to delist a category are riskrelated so they would also need to ensure that no single source poses a risk, which would be a time consuming process.

The Koppers Industries representatives stated that one of their concerns about being included in the PCWP NESHAP is future regulation ( e. g., under the residual risk provisions of the Clean Air Act or by States). To avoid a situation in which all lumber kilns might be subject to a regulation that only applies to kilns used in the PCWP industry, the Koppers Industries representatives asked if several lumber kiln subcategories could be created within the PCWP source category. The EPA representatives responded that if any regulations are proposed for lumber kilns in the future, there is no reason why EPA cannot create subcategories ( e. g. large kilns and small kilns, etc.) at that time if there are technical reasons to support such an action.

Any decisions that might be made about regulating lumber kilns would not automatically apply to all kilns without an examination of the emissions levels from different types of lumber kilns.

The Koppers Industries representatives then noted that the future residual risk analysis is not as big of a concern for their industry as the possibility of more stringent regulations implemented by individual States. Even if EPA sets a MACT floor of " no emissions reduction"

for lumber kilns and finds that beyond the floor options are not cost effective, the States still may choose to require some type of control for lumber kilns. In the past, some States have gone beyond federal regulations for various reasons, including lawsuits, and required facilities in other industries to control additional process units as part of State implementation plans ( SIP). The Koppers Industries representatives are concerned that including all lumber kilns in the PCWP NESHAP without a specific control requirement will bring them to the States' attention and increase the risk that States may choose to regulate them. The EPA representatives clarified that they cannot provide the wood treating industry with protection from criteria pollutant regulations implemented by States. The EPA representatives also noted that some companies and industries 3 prefer that EPA provide some type of regulation for any process unit that might be affected so that States have guidance for implementation. These industries feel that the absence of mention in a federal regulation may leave sources more vulnerable than a determination by EPA that the MACT floor is " no emissions reduction." Any MACT floor determination made by EPA,

including a " no emissions reduction" determination, indicates to the States that someone has reviewed and analyzed the available data.

The Koppers Industries representatives then asked if EPA could specify that wood treating lumber kilns are not included in the PCWP source category and are not major sources.

The Koppers Industries representatives contended that EPA has promulgated MACT standards for as few as three sources, so small source categories are not a problem. The EPA representatives responded that they would need more information about the lumber kilns in the category before they could make that determination. The Koppers Industries representatives stated that their lumber kilns are not major sources, and wood treating facilities that are major sources are only classified as such because of other equipment at the site. They suggested that kilns at plywood plants might emit more pollutants than kilns at wood treating plants, and they asked if EPA could issue a statement of acknowledgment that lumber kilns are different sizes.

The EPA representatives stated that since neither the preamble nor the PCWP NESHAP discuss lumber kilns in detail, there is no appropriate location for such language within the regulation.

The EPA representatives noted that it might be possible to create subcategories for lumber kilns based on the amount of wood dried, but they also noted that they currently have no information to support such an action.

The Koppers Industries representatives stated that from their standpoint, the ideal solution would allow interested parties to look at the affected source list and clearly see that lumber kilns not located at PCWP facilities are not regulated by the PCWP NESHAP. They noted that the best way to accomplish that goal might be to change the affected source definition to clearly state that lumber kilns at wood treating facilities are not covered. They noted again that they may not know the best way to achieve their purposes, so they want to present their ideas and have EPA help with the logistics and implementation. The EPA representatives noted that the major point of contention for the Koppers Industries representatives appeared to be the phrase " and any other kind of facility" in the affected source definition. The Koppers Industries representatives agreed with that assessment, noting that the wording made the definition 4 ambiguous and open to interpretation. The Koppers Industries representatives again noted that the lumber kilns that they operate are not major, and they added that the wood treating industry would rather have their lumber kilns in a separate category than remain a part of the PCWP NESHAP.

The EPA representatives then explained that all lumber kilns were considered when drafting the proposal of the PCWP NESHAP. An RTI representative clarified that RTI examined lumber kilns at PCWP facilities and other facilities to the best of their ability. The operators of the kilns at other facilities were not directly surveyed, but all of the information obtained on any lumber kiln was analyzed. Therefore, the MACT floor for lumber kilns in the PCWP NESHAP is based on all lumber kilns, not just those in the PCWP industry.

The Koppers Industries representatives noted that most wood treaters do not operate more than one small lumber kiln for drying both poles and dimensional lumber, and they asked for clarification on the factors used to determine whether a source is a major source. An RTI representative responded that all of the emission sources at facility must be considered. If the only emission sources at a facility are lumber kilns, then the emissions from one lumber kiln alone usually are not high enough to classify a facility as a major source. The EPA representatives added that the major source determination and resulting Title V permits are based on a source's potential to emit, not actual emissions.

The Koppers Industries representatives then asked the EPA representatives for their ideas on how EPA might be able to help them. The EPA representatives responded that if EPA decided to remove either all lumber kilns not located at PCWP facilities or only lumber kilns in the wood treating industry from the PCWP NESHAP, the course of action would depend on the status of the lumber kilns. If any kilns were discovered to be major sources, EPA would have an obligation to list lumber kilns as a source category and develop MACT standards for the category.

Unlike the risk based process used for delisting source categories, the MACT standard setting process is technology based. The EPA would survey facilities with lumber kilns to gather emissions data and determine the emission levels of the best performing sources. The Koppers Industries representatives noted that 10 years from now, technology will be different, and there may be changes in control technology for lumber kilns. The EPA representatives agreed with that statement, adding that every industry faces that issue. However, although EPA reviews the 5 residual risks of every regulated industry every 8 years after promulgation of the regulations, they are not required to determine new MACT floors every 8 years.

The Koppers Industries representatives stated that they wanted to contact other individuals and groups about the lumber kiln issue. They mentioned that they had been working with organizations not involved in the first conference call with EPA regarding lumber kilns on August 6, 2003. They then asked how much information RTI had collected on lumber kilns not located at PCWP facilities. An RTI representative responded that RTI surveyed every PCWP facility and later collected the names of facilities in the wood treating industry. The RTI representative noted that the information on the lumber kilns in the wood treating industry is not as detailed as the information for the lumber kilns at PCWP facilities. All of the information that RTI collected can be found in the docket. The Koppers Industries representatives stated that they would examine that information before deciding on their course of action. The EPA representatives explained that since the PCWP NESHAP must be signed by February 2004, EPA will need to finish making decisions about any changes and revising the proposal by November so that the final rule can be reviewed by the U. S. Office of Management and Budget.

The teleconference was then adjourned. 6 Attachment 1 List of Participants U. S. EPA Mary Tom Kissell, OAQPS Mike Thrift, OGC Industry Stakeholders Leslie Hyde, Koppers Industries, Inc.

Ken _______, Koppers Industries, Inc.

Research Triangle Institute Katie Hanks Kristin Parrish


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9575-9576]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04804]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33395; 812-14929]

O'Shaughnessy Asset Management, LLC, et al.

March 11, 2019.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(c) of the Act and rule 22c-1
under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an
exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under
section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-
based series of certain open-end management investment companies
(``Funds'') to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations
(``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares
to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value
(``NAV''); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain
circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for
redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit
securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection
with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (copyright)
certain registered management investment companies and unit investment
trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds
(``Funds of Funds'') to acquire shares of the Funds.

Applicants: O'Shaughnessy Asset Management, LLC (the ``Initial
Adviser''), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; Advisors
Series Trust (the ``Trust''), a statutory trust created under the
Delaware Statutory Trust Act and registered under the Act as an open-
end management investment company; and Quasar Distributors, LLC (the
``Initial Distributor''), a Delaware limited liability company and
broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 18, 2018, and amended
on November 19, 2018 and March 1, 2019.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on April 5, 2019, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: O'Shaughnessy Asset
Management, LLC, 6 Suburban Avenue, Stamford, CT 06901; Advisors Series
Trust, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202; Quasar
Distributors, LLC, 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thankam A. Varghese, Attorney-Adviser,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Parisa Haghshenas, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6723 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as
index exchange traded funds (``ETFs'').\1\ Fund shares will be
purchased and redeemed at their NAV in Creation Units (other than
pursuant to a distribution reinvestment program, as described in the
application). All orders to purchase Creation Units and all redemption
requests will be placed by or through an ``Authorized Participant,''
which will have signed a participant agreement with the Distributor.
Shares will be listed and traded individually on a national securities
exchange, where share prices will be based on the current bid/offer
market. Any order granting the requested relief would be subject to the
terms and conditions stated in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to the initial fund
and any additional series of the Trust and any other existing or
future open-end management investment company or future series
thereof (each, included in the term ``Fund''), each of which will
operate as an ETF and will track a specified index comprised of
domestic and/or foreign equity securities and/or domestic and/or
foreign fixed income securities (each, an ``Underlying Index'').
Each Fund will (a) be advised by the Initial Adviser or an entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial
Adviser (each such entity and any successor thereto, an ``Adviser'')
and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application. For
purposes of the requested order, the term ``successor'' is limited
to an entity or entities that result from a reorganization into
another jurisdiction or a change in the type of business
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond
closely to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-
Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of
the Act (``Affiliated Person''), or an affiliated person of an
Affiliated Person (``Second-Tier Affiliate''), of the Trust or a Fund,
of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the
Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying
Index.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its website the
identities and quantities of the investment positions that will form
the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the
day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to
maintain full portfolio transparency will help address, together
with other protections, conflicts of interest with respect to such
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and
generally on an in-kind basis, or issued in less than Creation Unit
size to investors participating in a distribution reinvestment program.
Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the
limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be
required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified

instruments (``Deposit Instruments''), and shareholders redeeming their
shares will receive specified instruments (``Redemption Instruments'').
The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each
correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including
cash positions) except as specified in the application.
    4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants
request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the
Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management
investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation
Units.
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the
Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares
will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price
described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV.
Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not
involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an
investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist
during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as
a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand.
Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in
shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among
purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will
be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares
from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
    6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of
Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes
that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the
requirement imposed by section 22(c) in order to allow such Funds to
pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the
tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the
requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent
of section 22(c) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen
delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
    7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to
acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the
Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or
any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares
to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other
things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund
through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and
17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or
Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain
ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind.
The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the
redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be
the same for all purchases and redemptions, and Deposit Instruments and
Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those
investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek
relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section
17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from
a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions
with the Fund of Funds.\3\ The purchase of Creation Units by a Fund of
Funds directly from a Fund will be accomplished in accordance with the
policies of the Fund of Funds and will be based on the NAVs of the
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requested relief would apply to direct sales of shares
in Creation Units by a Fund to a Fund of Funds and redemptions of
those shares. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 17(a)
for, and the requested relief will not apply to, transactions where
a Fund could be deemed an Affiliated Person, or a Second-Tier
Affiliate, of a Fund of Funds because an Adviser or an entity
controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser
provides investment advisory services to that Fund of Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies
of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04804 Filed 3-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

TO: CISWI  Reconsideration Rule Docket
FROM: Steven Silverman , Attorney OGC

RE:  Discussions with Representatives of PCA regarding regulatory language dealing with when combustion occurs in a cement kiln

	On May 9, 2012, I spoke with Richard Stoll, counsel for PCA, regarding regulatory language defining when combustion occurs in a cement kiln.  Paul Versace, also of EPA's office of General Counsel, was on the call as well.  This call followed several earlier discussions between us on the same issue when I explained that the provision should be drafted without referring to "ingredients" to avoid any issues as to what an "ingredient" is and whether recycling must be legitimate in order for a secondary material to be an ingredient.  We were otherwise in agreement that the final rule should codify the principles set out in an EPA memorandum of April 25, 2011 and discussed at 76 FR 28322 (May 17, 2011).  The proposed CISWI reconsideration had attempted to codify the principles set out in the memorandum and May 17, 2011 preamble, but had failed to do so completely.

	To assure that regulatory language reflected these intentions, we sent draft rule and preamble language to Mr. Stoll on May 9 for his clients' review for technical accuracy.  His replies are appended below, along with the e mails to which he was replying.
   1.  E mail from Richard Stoll to Steven Silverman; cc; Andy O'Hare, PCA
Steve and Paul -- I have checked with Andy and this preamble language looks fine to us.  Please let us know what you think about the suggested edit to the draft regulatory language I forwarded to you earlier today.

Thanks very much, Dick

From: Steven Silverman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:32 PM
To: Stoll, Richard G.
Cc: Andrew<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Paul Versace
Subject: draft preamble language: suggestions welcome
9. Definition of "Waste-burning Kiln"
In the December 23, 2011 reconsideration proposal, we proposed revisions to the definition of "waste-burning kiln" to indicate that the term "does not include a kiln that is feeding non-hazardous secondary ingredients exclusively into the cold end of the kiln." In proposing this language, EPA intended to codify principles set out in a previous action granting and denying reconsideration of the NESHAP for Portland cement kilns. See 76 FR 28318, 28322 (May 17, 2011); see also Memorandum "Revised Floors Without Kilns That Would Have Been CISWI Kilns Had the Solid Waste Definition Applied" (EPA, April 25, 2011) (which memorandum is summarized in the May 17 Federal Register notice). The May 17 notice and April 25 memorandum state in essence that combustion does not occur in any region of a cement kiln except the hot end, and that cement kiln dust added to the hot end of a cement kiln also is not combusted since it is inorganic and essentially inert.
The language used at proposal captured some but not all of these principles, since it referred only to the "cold end" of a cement kiln, as pointed out by a number of commenters. EPA is revising the definition in the final rule to accurately reflect the May 17 preamble and April 25 Memorandum discussion of when combustion occurs in a cement kiln.
One further clarification is appropriate. The May 17 preamble contains one reference to legitimacy criteria for determining when a secondary material is being recycled. 76 FR at 28322/1-2. The threshold issue for determining if a unit is subject to section 129 is whether it "combusts" solid waste material (see section 129 (g)(1)). For cement kilns, this determination does not turn on legitimacy of recycling, but rather on the nature of the cement kiln process. Consequently, if combustion of solid waste is not occurring, a unit is not a CISWI whether or not legitimate recycling is occurring.

The preceding email message may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated otherwise the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter discussed herein.
   2.  Letter from Richard Stoll to Steve Silverman replying to EPA e mail (attached)
 Steve and Paul -- please see Andy's suggested alternative below and our reasoning behind it.  Recall when we started out with the original Keith Barnett "cold end" memo (which preceded the 4/25/11 Barnett memo that is posted on the web) all our efforts were geared to trying to describe what is part of the "cold" end and the precalciner issues came into play.  Now that the focus of your draft language turns this around and focuses on the flame zone, which is a good idea, we no longer need the clarification regarding precalciner (or riser burner) because there is no flame there at all.

I suggest that further discussions involving technical issues might best be between Keith and Andy.

Thanks, Dick

From: O'Hare, Andrew<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:13 PM
To: Stoll, Richard G.
Subject: ingredients language

Dick,

Thank you for sharing the draft ingredients language.  I have reviewed it and pasted in below my suggested alternative.  My alternative would be simpler and not make reference to the precalciner or "riser burner."  The logic for such is that there is no flame in a precalciner or riser burner.  The reactions taking place in these vessels are endothermic (heat adsorbing) rather than exothermic (heat releasing), which is what occurs in the flame zone.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Andy

EPA Proposal:
      Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA). Secondary materials used in Portland cement kilns shall not be deemed to be combusted unless they are introduced into the flame zone in the hot end of the kiln or into the into the flame zone of the precalciner or riser burner (if installed).
My preferred alternative:
      Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA). Secondary materials used in Portland cement kilns shall not be deemed to be combusted unless they are introduced into the flame zone in the hot end of the kiln.

   1.
The preceding email message may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated otherwise the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter discussed herein.