[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46282-46285]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18650]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72742; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amend Market-Maker Quoting Obligations

August 1, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 22, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or

``CBOE'') 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 Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding Market-Maker
quoting obligations. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rules 1.1(ccc),
8.7, 8.13, 8.15A, and 8.85: (i) To provide that compliance with
continuous quoting obligations apply to Market-Makers' appointed
classes collectively and (ii) to provide that the Exchange will
determine Market-Makers' compliance with continuous quoting obligations
on a monthly basis. These changes do not substantially change Market-
Makers' quoting obligations and make CBOE's Market-Maker obligations
more consistent with market-maker obligations at other options
exchanges. The proposed rule change only changes how and when the
Exchange determines a Market-Maker's compliance with continuous quoting
obligations.
Collective Application
    Rule 1.1(ccc) currently provides that a Market-Maker who is
obligated to provide continuous electronic quotes on the Exchange's
Hybrid Trading System will be deemed to have provided continuous
electronic quotes if the Market-Maker provides electronic two-sided
quotes for 90% of the time that the Market-Maker is required to provide
electronic quotes in an appointed option class on a given trading
day.\3\ Rules 8.7, 8.13, 8.15A, and 8.85 impose the following
continuous electronic quoting obligations on Market-Makers, Preferred
Market-Makers (``PMMs''), Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs''), and Designated
Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs''), respectively (collectively, ``Market-
Makers'' unless the context otherwise requires): \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1.1(ccc) also provides that if a technical failure or
limitation of a system of the Exchange prevents a Market-Maker from
maintaining or communicating to the Exchange timely and accurate
electronic quotes in a class, the duration of such failure will not
be considered in determining whether the Market-Maker has satisfied
the 90% quoting standard with respect to that class. The Exchange
may consider other exceptions to this continuous electronic quote
obligation based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or
other mitigating circumstances.
    \4\ Rule 8.15 imposes obligations on LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes.
The Exchange intends to propose similar changes to those obligations
in a separate rule filing that will update those obligations,
including codify Hybrid 3.0 LMMs' continuous quoting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.7(d)(ii)(B) requires Market-Makers to provide
continuous electronic quotes when quoting in a particular class on a
given trading day in 60% of the non-adjusted option series of the
Market-Maker's appointed class that have a time to expiration of less
than nine months; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This obligation applies in classes to which a Market-Maker
is appointed and transacts more than 20% of its contract volume
electronically. The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive,
technical changes to the introductory language and headings in Rule
8.7(d) that are consistent with the existing rule text in that
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.13(d) requires PMMs to provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series that have a time to
expiration of less than nine months or 100% of the non-adjusted option
series that have a time to expiration of less than nine months minus
one call-put pair \6\ of each class for which it receives Preferred
Market-Maker orders;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``call-put'' pair refers to one call and one put that
cover the same underlying instrument and have the same expiration
date and exercise price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.15A(b)(i) requires LMMs to provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-
adjusted option series minus one call-put pair within their assigned
classes; and
     Rule 8.85(a)(i) requires DPMs to provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-
adjusted option series minus one call-put pair in each of their
allocated classes.

These continuous electronic quoting obligations do not apply to intra-
day add-on series on the day during which such series are added for
trading.
    CBOE proposes to amend Rules 1.1(ccc),\7\ 8.7(d)(ii)(B), 8.13(d),
8.15A(b)(i), and 8.85(a)(i) to provide that the continuous electronic
quoting obligation for Market-Makers will be applied collectively
across all classes in which the Market-Maker has appointments (as
discussed above, with respect to each Market-Maker type as the Market-
Maker is approved to act), rather than on a class-by-class basis.\8\

The Exchange believes that applying the continuous electronic quoting
requirements for Market-Makers collectively across all classes is a
fair and efficient way for the Exchange and market participants to
evaluate compliance with the continuous electronic quoting obligation.
Applying the continuous electronic quoting requirements collectively
across all classes rather than on a class-by-class basis is beneficial
to Market-Makers by providing some flexibility to choose which series
in their appointed classes they will continuously electronically
quote--increasing the continuous electronic quoting in the series of
one class while allowing for a decrease in the continuous electronic
quoting in the series of another class. This flexibility, however, does
not diminish the Market-Maker's obligation to continuously
electronically quote in a significant percentage of series for a
significant part of the trading day. This flexibility is especially
important for classes that have relatively few series and may prevent a
Market-Maker from reaching the continuous electronic quoting obligation
when failing to quote 90% of the trading day in more than one series in
an appointed class. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will not diminish, and may in fact increase, market-making activity on
the Exchange, by applying continuous electronic quoting obligations in
a reasonable manner, which is already in place on other options
exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed rule change indicates that the quoting
obligation applies collectively with respect to each Market-Maker
type as the Hybrid Market-Maker is approved to act. As this rule
filing demonstrates, the Exchange has several types of Market-
Makers, each of which has separate quoting obligations. Thus, the
collective application of the continuous quoting obligation applies
to classes for each Market-Maker type (i.e. classes for which the
Market-Maker has the same quoting obligation). For example, if a
Market-Maker is a Trading Permit Holder organization with
appointments in ten classes, with 100 series in each, for a total of
1,000 series (with an obligation to quote in 60% of the series in
those classes 90% of the time it is quoting in those classes) and
acts as a DPM in three classes, with 100 series in each, for a total
of 300 series (with an obligation to quote the lesser of 99% of the
series or 100% of the series minus one call-put pair in those
classes 90% of the time), for purposes of compliance with the
continuous quoting obligation, the Trading Permit Holder must quote
in 600 series (or 60% of the series) in the ten Market-Maker classes
collectively for 90% of the time it is quoting in those classes and
297 series (or 99% of the series) in the three DPM classes
collectively for 90% of the trading day. While other exchanges do
not explicitly state this in their rules, the Exchange believes this
is consistent with the application of those exchanges' rules, as it
would not be possible to apply the collective standard across
classes for which a Market-Maker has different quoting obligations.
    \8\ With respect to Rule 8.7(d)(ii)(B), the proposed rule change
indicates that it applies collectively to all appointed classes for
which it must maintain continuous electronic quotes (i.e. those
classes in which the Market-Maker transacts more than 20% of its
contract volume electronically). The proposed rule change makes a
corresponding change to Rule 8.7(d)(iii), including adding an
example to demonstrate the collective application of the continuous
electronic quoting obligation for Market-Makers. The proposed rule
change makes corresponding changes to Rule 8.13(d) to delete rule
text that a PMM must quote the specified percentage of series in
each class it receives PMM orders, to Rule 8.15A(b)(ii) [sic] to
delete rule text that an LMM must quote the specified percentage of
series within its assigned classes, and to Rule 8.85(a)(i) to delete
rule text that a DPM must quote the specified percentage of series
in each class allocated to it. This language is no longer applicable
given the proposed collectively application of the continuous
quoting obligation.
    \9\ See, e.g., Box Options Exchange, LLC (``BOX'') Rule 8050(e);
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') Rule 804,
Supplementary Material .01; Miami International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``MIAX'') Rule 604(e); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Options
Rules 6.37B(b) and (c) and 6.88(iv); and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'')
Options Rules 925.1NY(b) and (c) and 964.1NY(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly Compliance
    The continuous electronic quoting obligations described above apply
on a daily basis. CBOE proposes to amend Rules 1.1(ccc), 8.7(d)(iii),
8.13(d), 8.15A(b)(i), and 8.85(a)(i) to provide that the Exchange will
determine compliance by Market-Makers with continuous electronic
quoting obligations on a monthly basis.\10\ Determining compliance with
these quoting obligations does not relieve Market-Makers from meeting
these quoting obligations on a daily basis, nor does it prohibit the
Exchange from taking disciplinary action against Market-Makers for
failing to meet any of these requirements each trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange will continue to provide to Market-Makers
daily reports to enable them to monitor their compliance with their
quoting obligations. On the basis of these daily reports, the
Exchange will continue to monitor Market-Maker compliance on a daily
basis and inform Market-Makers if they are failing to satisfy their
quoting obligations. Additionally, on the basis of this daily
monitoring activity, the Exchange can determine whether Market-
Makers violated any other Exchange rules, such as Rule 4.1 regarding
just and equitable principles of trade. This daily monitoring will
allow the Exchange to investigate unusual activity and to take
appropriate regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed rule change to apply continuous electronic
quoting obligations to all classes collectively, the Exchange believes
that reviewing compliance on a monthly basis is a fair and more
efficient way for the Exchange and market participants to evaluate
compliance with these quoting obligations. Reviewing compliance on a
monthly basis allows the Exchange to review a Market-Maker's daily
compliance in the aggregate and determine the appropriate disciplinary
action for single or multiple compliance failures during a one-month
period. CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will not diminish,
and in fact may increase, market-making on the Exchange by establishing
quoting compliance standards that are reasonable and, with respect to
continuous electronic quoting obligations, already in place on other
options exchanges.\11\ CBOE also believes that determining compliance
by Market-Makers with all of these quoting obligations on a monthly
basis will facilitate CBOE's determination of appropriate penalties or
other remedial measures for violation(s) of these obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 804(e), Supplementary Material .01;
MIAX Rule 604(e); and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule
1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90
days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no
later than 180 days following the effective date. Because the proposed
change provides for a monthly compliance standard, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate for implementation of the proposed rule
change to occur on the first trading day of a month. Additionally, the
implementation date will provide sufficient time for the Exchange to
make any necessary changes to its surveillances with respect to
continuous quoting obligations and for Market-Makers to make any system
changes in connection with the proposed collective standard.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
because it is consistent with standards currently in place on other
options exchanges. With respect to the application of continuous
electronic quoting obligations collectively, the Exchange believes that
providing Market-Makers with flexibility to satisfy their continuous
electronic quoting obligations collectively across their appointed
classes will not diminish Market-Makers' obligations to provide
continuous electronic quotes in a significant percentage of series for
a significant part of the trading day. With respect to the monthly
compliance standard, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will enhance compliance efforts by Market-Makers and the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that determining compliance with
continuous electronic quoting obligations on a monthly basis will
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, because it will increase
regulatory efficiency to the benefit of both the Exchange and market
participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
not diminish, and in fact may increase, market-making

activity and liquidity on the Exchange by establishing a quoting
compliance standard that is reasonable and is already in place on other
options exchanges.
    CBOE continues to believe that the balance between the obligations
imposed on and benefits provided to Market-Makers under the rules is
appropriate. The proposed rule change does not diminish any of the
obligations imposed on Market-Makers. Rather, it merely changes how the
continuous electronic quoting obligation is applied and when the
Exchange determines compliance with continuous electronic quoting
obligations. The Exchange notes that Market-Makers are subject to many
obligations under the rules, including the obligation to satisfy bid/
ask differential requirements, to meet minimum quote size requirements,
and to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in
their appointed classes, which the Exchange believes will ensure
continued liquidity on the Exchange. CBOE believes that its proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act in that providing flexibility
does not detract from the overall market-making obligations of Market-
Makers. The proposed rule change better supports a Market-Maker's
continuous obligation to engage in dealings for its own account.
Accordingly, any benefits of the proposed rule change to provide
flexibility to Market-Makers are offset by the continued
responsibilities to provide significant liquidity to the market to the
benefit of all market participants.

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

    CBOE 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 proposed rule change
applies to all Market-Makers. All Market-Makers may benefit from the
flexibility provided by the proposed rule change, which benefit is
offset by the continued responsibilities to provide significant
liquidity to the market to the benefit of all market participants. The
proposed rule change to the compliance standard does not change the
obligations imposed on Market-Makers; it merely changes the time at
which the Exchange will determine compliance with these obligations.
The proposed rule change is substantially similar to rules in place at
other options exchanges, which the Exchange believes may enhance,
rather than burden, competition among the options exchanges. CBOE is
better able to compete for liquidity providers when its Market-Maker
obligations are consistent with those of other options exchanges, which
may increase competition and liquidity on CBOE. Market participants on
other exchanges are welcome to trade at CBOE if they determine that
this proposed rule change has made CBOE more attractive or favorable to
them.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
paragraph (A) of section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \15\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\ Because the proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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-CBOE-2014-059 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-CBOE-2014-059. 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-CBOE-2014-059 and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18650 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 2879]
[FR Doc No: 2010-784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0020]

Use of Tobacco Marketing Descriptors to Convey Modified Risk;
Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is establishing a
public docket to provide an opportunity for interested parties to share
information, research, and ideas on tobacco product marketing
descriptors that may be considered similar to the prohibited terms
``light,'' ``mild,'' and ``low.'' This information will be used to
further FDA's efforts to reduce misleading and deceptive advertising
practices.

DATES: Submit electronic or written comments by February 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen K. Quinn, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850-3229,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Tobacco products are responsible for more than 440,000 deaths each
year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 70
percent of the 46 million adults who currently smoke in the United
States want to quit. Since the introduction to the American market in
the 1960s of cigarettes marketed as ``light,'' ``low,'' or ``mild,''
millions of smokers have turned to these products in the false belief
that they pose fewer health hazards and may facilitate quitting. While
scientific evidence has demonstrated that light cigarettes do not
reduce the health risks associated with smoking, sales of light
cigarettes have continued to climb, accounting for 92.7 percent of
cigarettes sold in the United States in 2006. Curbing the significant
adverse consequences of tobacco use is one of the most important public
health goals of our time. One step toward the realization of that goal
is to prevent misleading labeling claims and to regulate ``modified
risk'' tobacco products.
    On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) into law.
The Tobacco Control Act granted FDA important new authority to regulate
the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to
protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by
minors. Among its many provisions, the Tobacco Control Act added
section 911(b) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act),
banning the manufacture of any tobacco product ``the label, labeling,
or advertising of which uses the descriptors `light', `mild', or `low'
or similar descriptors;'' as of June 22, 2010.
    We are requesting comments that will inform the agency's
development of guidance on the meaning of the term ``similar
descriptors.'' A copy of the Tobacco Control Act is available at http://www.fda.gov/tobacco.

II. Request for Comments and Information

    Product packaging plays a critical role in fostering brand loyalty
and communicating messages to consumers about the risks and benefits of
product use. FDA is aware that messages of reduced harm can be conveyed
through a variety of visual cues. We are therefore requesting comment
on ways in which descriptors that may be considered similar to
``light,'' ``mild'' and ``low'' used on tobacco product packaging could
impact consumer perceptions of risk. Such descriptors may include:
     Adjectives like ``silver,'' ``fine,'' or ``smooth;''
     Colors like white, silver or pastels;
     Printed numbers associated with risk level;
     Letters (e.g., ``L'') or other symbols that connote
``light;''
     Depiction of filters or other images that imply
purification or healthfulness;
     Words used in brand names that have associations with
potency, risk, or healthfulness; and
     Use of terms such as ``natural'' and ``no additives.''
    The agency will consider information submitted to the docket in
developing guidance on the meaning of the term ``similar descriptors''
as it pertains to the label, labeling, or advertising of modified risk
tobacco products.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified by 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.

    Dated: January 12, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-784 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 1 7. Combined and Individual Filter Performance 7.1 Introduction Turbidity is an optical property that measures the amount of light scattered by suspended particles in a solution. It can detect a wide variety of particles in water ( e. g. clay, silt, mineral particles, organic and inorganic matter, and microorganisms), but cannot provide specific information on particle type, number, or size. Therefore, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) recognizes that turbidity reduction is not a direct indication of pathogen removal, but is an effective indicator of process control.

The Surface Water Treatment Rule ( SWTR), Interim Enhanced SWTR ( IESWTR), and Long Term 1 Enhanced SWTR ( LT1ESWTR) all motivate public water systems to achieve a certain level of finished water quality by requiring them to meet specified filtered water turbidity limits. Under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, combined filter effluent turbidity in conventional and direct filtration plants must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in 95 percent of samples taken each month and must never exceed 1 NTU. These plants are also required to conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter, and provide an exceptions report to the State or regulating agency when certain criteria for individual filter effluent turbidity are exceeded.

The LT2ESWTR awards additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit to certain plants that maintain finished water turbidity at levels significantly lower than currently required. This credit is not available to membrane, bag/ cartridge, slow sand, or diatomaceous earth plants, due to the lack of documented correlation between effluent turbidity and Cryptosporidium removal in these processes.

This remainder of this chapter is organized as follows:

7.2 LT2ESWTR Compliance Requirements  describes the conditions for receiving Cryptosporidium removal credit and monitoring requirements for maintaining compliance.

7.3 Reporting Requirements  describes the routine reporting requirements that systems must follow to receive credit.

7.4 Process Control Techniques  discusses modifications or operational aspects that provide the tightened process control needed to meet the turbidity requirements for this toolbox option.

7.5 Process Management Techniques  describes standard operating procedures, response plans for loss of chemical feed, adequate chemical storage, and voluntary programs that encourage full process control from administration to operation and maintenance. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 2 7.2 LT2ESWTR Compliance Requirements 7.2.1 Treatment Credit For systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to obtain an additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit, the LT2ESWTR requires the combined filter effluent ( CFE) turbidity measurements taken for any month at each plant are less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements ( 40 CFR 141.727( a)).

Alternatively, the LT2ESWTR allows systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to claim an additional 1.0 log Cryptosporidium removal credit for any month at each plant that meet both of the following individual filter effluent ( IFE) turbidity requirements ( 40 CFR 141.727( b)):

1) IFE turbidity must be less than 0.1 NTU in at least 95 percent of the maximum daily values recorded at each filter in each month, excluding the 15 minute period following return to service from a filter backwash AND 2) No individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.

Systems may not claim credit for combined filter performance AND individual filter performance in the same month ( 40 CFR 141.727( a)).

7.2.2 Monitoring Requirements For both the CFE and IFE options, compliance with the LT2ESWTR is determined by sample measurements taken for the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR ( 40 CFR 141.727( a) and ( b)). In other words, the LT2ESWTR does not require any additional monitoring from the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR.

<IP_ADDRESS> Combined Filter Effluent The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements for the CFE option are that CFE turbidity must be measured at 4 hour intervals ( or more frequently) and 95 percent of the measurements from each month must be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU ( 40 CFR 141.727( a)). Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 3 [ insert web address for LT1 Guidance Manual] <IP_ADDRESS> Individual Filter Effluent The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements for the IFE option are that IFE turbidity must be measured every 15 minutes ( excluding the 15 minute period following return to service from a filter backwash) and 95 percent of the measurements from each month must be less than or equal to 0.1 NTU ( 40 CFR 141.727( b)).

The LT2ESWTR specifies no individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart ( 40 CFR 141.727( b)). If the individual filter is not providing water which contributes to the CFE ( i. e., it is not operating, is filtering to waste, or its filtrate is being recycled) the system does not need to report the turbidity for that specific filter.

7.2.3 Turbidity Monitors An important aspect of awarding additional removal credit for lower finished water turbidity is the performance of turbidimeters in measuring turbidity below 0.3 NTU. The EPA believes that currently available turbidity monitoring equipment is capable of reliably assessing turbidity at levels below 0.1 NTU, provided instruments are well calibrated and maintained. EPA strongly recommends systems that pursue additional treatment credit for lower finished water turbidity to develop the procedures necessary to ensure accurate and reliable measurement of turbidity at levels of 0.1 NTU and less, and believes these procedures to be essential to maintain toolbox credit.

Turbidimeter maintenance should include frequent calibration by the manufacturer's methods as well as frequent verification, in order to measure accurately in the low turbidity ranges required for this toolbox option. Chapter 3 of the LT1ESWTR Turbidity Provisions Guidance Manual describes the sampling methods, operation, maintenance, and calibration for turbidimeters and discusses quality assurance and quality control measures. This section summarizes the information from that chapter, including the approved methods, commonly used turbidimeters, calibration standards, and important factors of maintaining turbidimeters. Systems are encouraged to review Chapter 3 of the LT1ESWTR Turbidity Provisions Guidance Manual to ensure their operation, maintenance, and calibration practices meet or exceed those recommended by EPA. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 4 <IP_ADDRESS> Methods Currently, EPA has approved three methods for the measure of turbidity ( described in 40 CFR 141.74).

° EPA Method 180.1 ° Standard Method 2130B ° Great Lakes Instrument Method 2 These methods are summarized in Appendices C, D, and E of the LT1ESWTR Turbidity Provisions Guidance Manual.

<IP_ADDRESS> Maintenance and Calibration Maintenance and calibration of both benchtop and on line turbidimeters are fully described in the LT1ESWTR Turbidity Provisions Guidance Manual. It is very important to follow the manufactures procedures for maintenance and calibration of turbidimeters, as they vary between manufacturers. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 list several maintenance and calibration activities common among manufacturers for on line and bench top turbidimeters. These activities should be conducted for all turbidimeters to ensure proper operation on a consistent basis. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 5 Table 7.1 Maintenance and Calibration Activities for On line Turbidimeters Activity Recommended Frequency Inspect for cleanliness Weekly Verify sample flow rate Weekly Verify calibration with primary standard, secondary standard or by comparison with bench top1 For CFE credit: Weekly on CFE turbidimeter and monthly on all IFE turbidimeters For IFE credit: Weekly on both CFE and IFE turbidimeters Clean and calibrate with primary standard Quarterly2 Verify alarm settings and response to alarms Quarterly Replace lamp Annually 1The sampling and comparative process of using a bench top turbidimeter is likely to introduce unacceptable levels of error into the verification process. Therefore, EPA recommends using a primary or secondary standard over the bench top for calibration. 2Frequency should be increased if verification indicates greater than a +/ 10 percent deviation from secondary standard.

Table 7.2 Maintenance and Calibration Activities for Bench Top Turbidimeters Activity Recommended Frequency Inspect for cleanliness Daily Verify calibration with secondary standard Weekly Clean and calibrate Quarterly1 Replace lamp Annually 1Frequency should be increased if verification indicates greater than a +/ 10 percent deviation from secondary standard. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 6 In addition to those activities listed in the tables, the following documentation or record keeping items should be developed and kept up to date.

$ Log of turbidimeter maintenance and calibration $ QA/ QC plan for accuracy and consistency $ Standard operating procedures <IP_ADDRESS> Quality Assurance / Quality Control ( QA/ QC)

Systems should develop a QA/ QC plan for measuring turbidity. This plan should include written standard operating procedures ( SOPs) to ensure that operation, maintenance, and calibration activities are carried out in a consistent manner, and that each activity is understood by all that are involved. At a minimum, systems should develop SOPs for cleaning turbidimeters, creating Formazin Standards, calibrating turbidimeters, and referencing index samples.

For bench top turbidimeters, measurement errors can be introduced by dirt, scratches, or condensation on the glassware, air bubbles in the sample, and particle settling. Operators should strictly follow manufactures procedures for sampling and maintenance.

7.3 Reporting Requirements 7.3.1 Combined Filter Performance In order to receive the 0.5 log removal credit for the LT2ESWTR, a water system must submit monthly verification of CFE turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the 4 hour CFE measurements taken each month ( 40 CFR 141.730).

7.3.2 Individual Filter Performance For the 1.0 log removal credit under the LT2ESWTR, a water system must report monthly verification of IFE turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.1 NTU in at least 95 percent of all maximum daily IFE measurements taken each month for each filter ( excluding the 15 minute period following startup after backwash), and monthly verification that there were no IFE measurements greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive readings 15 minutes apart for any filter ( 40 CFR 141.730).

As requirements of the IESWTR and the LT1ESWTR, water systems must report monthly that they have conducted individual filter turbidity monitoring. Systems are required to report actual IFE measurements only if they have exceeded one of the IFE turbidity triggers. Systems Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 7 The IESWTR guidance manuals are available on EPA's website at:

www. epa. gov/ safewater/ mdbp/ implement. html. that would apply successfully for the 1.0 log Cryptosporidium removal credit for LT2ESWTR compliance would not, by definition, be systems that were required to report IFE measurements under the earlier regulations. A system must, therefore, submit additional information about IFE turbidity measurements in order to receive the 1.0 log credit.

7.4 Process Control Techniques To meet the lower finished water turbidity requirements, systems will need a high level of process control from the source water intake to the filters. The Guidance Manual for Compliance with the IESWTR: Turbidity Provisions ( EPA 1999) discusses many design and operational aspects water systems should consider for achieving low effluent turbidity. Chapter 4 of that manual provides design and operational modifications systems can use to optimize their process for compliance with the LT2ESWTR toolbox requirements. This chapter of the Toolbox Guidance Manual builds on that information, by highlighting those modifications or operational aspects that provide the tightened process control needed to meet the turbidity requirements for this toolbox option. To meet the lower finished water turbidity requirements of the CFE or IFE performance standards, systems will need consistent process performance and the ability to maintain the high filtered water quality under sub optimal conditions and changing water quality.

Design and operational factors are not the only considerations for maintaining the high filtered water quality standards; all areas of a water system must be dedicated towards the process optimization goal, including administration and maintenance. This toolbox option will require continuing effort and commitment from management and operations staff. Table 7.3 lists several factors in the areas of administration, design, operation, and maintenance that may limit a system's ability to continually meet the LT2ESWTR lower finished water turbidity requirements. This table demonstrates the importance of considering the capabilities of the entire water system. This table was adapted from the Composite Correction Program, an EPA program for optimizing water treatment plant performance ( discussed in section <IP_ADDRESS>). Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 8 Table 7.3 Performance Limiting Factors ( Adapted from the Composite Correction Program)

ADMINISTRATION Plant Administrators Policies Do existing policies or the lack of policies discourage staff members from making required operation, maintenance, and management decision to support plant performance and reliability?

Familiarity with Plant Needs Do administrators lack first hand knowledge of plant needs?

Supervision Do management styles, organizational capabilities, budgeting skills, or communication practices at any management level adversely impact the plant to the extent that performance is affected?

Planning Does the lack of long range planning for facility replacement or alternative source water quantity or quality adversely impact performance?

Complacency Does the presence of consistent, high quality source water result in complacency within the water utility?

Reliability Do inadequate facilities or equipment, or the depth of staff capability, present a potential weak link within the water utility to achieve and sustain optimized performance?

Source Water Protection Does the water utility lack an active source water protection program?

Plant Staff Number Does a limited number of staff have a detrimental effect on plant operations or maintenance?

Plant Coverage Does the lack of plant coverage result in inadequate time to complete necessary operational activities? ( Note: This factor could have significant impact if no alarm/ shutdown capability exists  see design factors).

Personnel Turnover Does high personnel turnover cause operation and maintenance problems that affect process performance or reliability?

Compensation Does a low pay scale or benefit package discourage more highly qualified persons from applying for operator positions or cause operators to leave after they are trained?

Work Environment Does a poor work environment create a condition for " sloppy work habits" and lower operator morale?

Certification Does the lack of certified personnel result in poor O& M decisions?

Financial Operating Ratio Does the utility have inadequate revenues to cover operation, maintenance, and replacement of necessary equipment ( i. e., operating ratio less than 1.0)?

Coverage Ratio Does the utility have inadequate net operating profit to cover debt service requirements ( i. e., coverage ratio less than 1.25)?

Reserves Does the utility have inadequate reserves to cover unexpected expenses or future facility replacement? Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 9 DESIGN Source Water Quality Microbial Contamination Does the presence of microbial contamination sources in close proximity to the water treatment plant intake impact the plant's ability to produce an adequate treatment barrier?

Unit Process Adequacy Intake Structure Does the design of the intake structure result in excessive clogging of screens, build up of silt, or passage of material that affects plant equipment?

Presedimentation Basin Does the design of an existing presedimentation basin or the lack of a presedimentation basin contribute to degraded plant performance?

Raw Water Pumping Does the use of constant speed pumps cause undesirable hydraulic loading on downstream unit processes?

Flow Measurement Does the lack of flow measurement devices or their accuracy limit plant control or impact process control adjustments?

Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities Do inadequate chemical storage and feed facilities limit process needs in a plant?

Flash Mix Does an inadequate mixing result in excessive chemical use or insufficient coagulation to the extent that it impacts plant performance?

Flocculation Does a lack of flocculation time, inadequate equipment, or lack of multiple flocculation stages result in poor floc formation and degrade plant performance?

Sedimentation Does the sedimentation basin configuration or equipment cause inadequate solids removal that negatively impact filter performance?

Filtration Do filter or filter media characteristics limit the filtration process performance?

Disinfection Do the disinfection facilities have limitations, such as inadequate detention time, improper mixing, feed rates, proportional feeds, or baffling, that contribute to poor disinfection?

Sludge/ Backwash Water Treatment and Disposal Do inadequate sludge or backwash water treatment facilities negatively influence plant performance?

Plant Operability Process Flexibility Does the lack of flexibility to feed chemicals at desired process locations or the lack of flexibility to operate equipment or processes in an optimized mode limit the plant's ability to achieve desired performance goals?

Process Controllability Do existing process controls or lack of specific controls limit the adjustment and control of a process over the desired operating range?

Process Instrumentation / Automation Does the lack of process instrumentation or automation cause excessive operator time for process control and monitoring?

Standby Units Does the lack of standby units for key equipment cause degraded process performance during breakdown or during necessary preventive maintenance activities?

Flow Proportioning Does inadequate flow splitting to parallel process units cause individual unit overloads that degrade process performance? Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 10 Alarm Systems Does the absence or inadequacy of an alarm system for critical equipment or processes cause degraded process performance?

Alternate Power Source Does the absence of an alternative power source cause reliability problems leading to degraded plant performance?

Laboratory Space and Equipment Does the absence of an adequately equipped laboratory limit plant performance?

Sample Taps Does the lack of sample taps on process flow streams prevent needed information from being obtained to optimized performance?

OPERATION Testing Process Control Testing Does the absence or wrong type of process control testing cause improper operational control decisions to be made?

Representative Sampling Do monitoring results inaccurately represent plant performance or are samples collected improperly?

Process Control Time on the Job Does staff's short time on the job and associated unfamiliarity with process control and plant needs result in inadequate or improper control adjustments?

Water Treatment Understanding Does the operator's lack of basic water treatment understanding contribute to improper operational decisions and poor plant performance or reliability?

Application of Concepts and Testing to Process Control Is the staff deficient in the application of their knowledge of water treatment and interpretation of process control testing such that improper process control adjustments are made?

Operational Resources Training Program Does inadequate training result in improper process control decisions by plant staff?

Technical Guidance Does inappropriate information received from a technical resource ( e. g., design engineer, equipment representative, regulator, peer) cause improper decision or priorities to be implemented?

Operational Guidelines/ Procedures Does the lack of plant specific operating guidelines and procedures result in inconsistent operational decision that impact performance?

MAINTENANCE Maintenance Program Preventive Does the absence or lack of an effective preventive maintenance program cause unnecessary equipment failures or excessive downtime that results in plant performance or reliability problems?

Corrective Does the lack of corrective maintenance procedures affect the completion of emergency equipment maintenance?

Housekeeping Does a lack of good housekeeping procedures detract from the professional image of the water treatment plant?

Maintenance Resources Materials and Equipment Does the lack of necessary materials and tools delay the response time to correct plant equipment problems? Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 11 Skills or Contract Services Do plant maintenance staff have inadequate skills to correct equipment problems or do the maintenance staff have limited access to contact maintenance services?

7.4.1 Chemical Feed There are two main considerations for the chemical application of a coagulation and flocculation treatment process:

$ Are the chemicals and their dose optimum for the treatment process?

$ Are they properly mixed or dispersed at the right point in the system?

<IP_ADDRESS> Type of Chemical and Dose Optimizing the coagulation and flocculation for the range of water quality and demand experienced by the plant is a key factor in improving the overall treatment performance and ensuring process control. One method commonly used to evaluate the type and dose of coagulant and other chemical additives is the jar test ( AWWA 2000a).

To provide the process control necessary for producing consistently low filter water turbidity, systems should establish SOPs for changing chemical additions when raw water quality changes significantly. The SOPs should list the appropriate chemicals to be added and the dose according to specified raw water conditions. Jar tests or other chemical evaluations should be conducted with raw water samples representing conditions from high water quality to the worstcase scenario and should reasonably represent the treatment process.

<IP_ADDRESS> Mixing Adding coagulants at the proper location and providing the right amount of mixing is critical to the coagulation and flocculation processes.

$ Metal salts such as alum and ferric chloride should be added at the point of highest mixing.

$ Low weight polymers can be added with the metal salts or at a second stage mixing process.

$ High weight polymers should be added at a point of gentle mixing.

The coagulation process occurs rapidly; therefore, it is important that the coagulant is welldispersed and distributed across the width of the flow stream at the point of addition. Flash mixers are necessary for coagulants requiring instantaneous mixing. Systems with mechanical Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 12 mixers for these types of coagulants should consider changing to a design that provides more uniform dispersion as studies have indicated that mechanical mixers experience short circuiting and frequent maintenance requirements ( Kawamura 2000). Kawamura rated several flash mixer designs according to ( in order of importance) effectiveness, reliability, minimal maintenance, and cost:

1) Diffusion mixing by pressured water jets 2) In line static mixing 3) In line mechanical mixing 4) Hydraulic mixing 5) Mechanical flash mixing 6) Diffusion by pipe grid The mixing speed should be adjustable and changed with flow and raw water conditions as necessary. Cold water is more viscous and may require a higher mixing energy. Highly turbid or colored water may also require more mixing power to properly disperse the coagulant. For flash mixing, Kawamura ( 2000) recommends G × t values of 300 to 1600, where G is the mixing energy ( expressed in seconds 1) and t is time ( seconds).

<IP_ADDRESS> Streaming Current Detectors and Zeta Potential Monitors The coagulation process should be monitored continuously, with real time output. Streaming current detectors ( SCDs) can provide on line coagulation control, by measuring the net surface charge of the particle and ionic species in a sample of water. Through jar testing or other coagulant studies, the charge measurement is correlated to the optimal coagulation conditions. The SCDs are typically located directly after coagulant addition to allow the operator time to adjust the dose of the coagulant before filtration. This quick response can prevent process upsets due to fluctuations in influent water quality.

Source waters high in iron or manganese concentrations and the use of treatment chemicals with iron salts or potassium permanganate can extensively increase maintenance requirements ( AWWA, 2000a). Additionally, use of powdered activated carbon can increase maintenance requirements. AWWA recommends comparing the SCD measurements to jar tests and zeta potential monitoring results on a regular basis ( AWWA, 2000a).

Zeta potential monitors also indicate particle surface charge and can be used in the same manner as SCDs. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 13 7.4.2 Flocculation The purpose of the flocculation process is to aggregate the particles into larger groups of particles or " flocs" that will settle in the subsequent sedimentation process. Through gentle and prolonged agitation, the suspended particles collide with each other and form flocs. The mixing must be thorough enough to provide opportunities for the particles to collide but also gentle enough to prevent the flocculated particles from breaking apart. It is likely, however, that some floc breakup will occur. As aggregates grow in size, they are more likely to break up due to the shearing forces in the mixing chamber. In this situation the aggregation and breakup can occur simultaneously leading to a steady state distribution of floc sizes.

The key factors of an effective flocculation process include: adequate mixing, low floc breakup, and plug flow conditions. The following guidance can help to achieve these conditions:

$ Tapered mixing is most appropriate with variable G values ranging from 70 sec 1 to 15 sec 1.

$ If flow is split between two flocculators, they should be mixing at the same speed. Coagulant dosages are most likely optimized to one speed.

$ Basin inlet and outlet conditions should prevent floc breakup.

$ Baffling should be adequate to provide plug flow conditions.

7.4.3 Sedimentation The purpose of the sedimentation process is to enhance filtration by removing the flocculated particles. As with other unit processes, the sedimentation process must be optimized and provide a consistent settled water quality. The key factors of a good settling process include:

$ Minimization of short circuiting.

$ Sludge removal equipment should not resuspend particles or produce currents in the water.

$ Surface loading rate, or overflow rate, needs to provide enough settling time. If flocculated particles are not settling it could be a function of particle density or the surface loading rate.

$ Continuous or frequent turbidity monitoring of settled water. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 14 To provide a consistent well clarified water from the sedimentation basin, the operating parameters of the sedimentation basin may need to be adjusted with significant fluctuations in raw water quality. For example, if a runoff event causes a spike in turbidity the particles may need more time to settle, and by decreasing the flow through the basin it is possible to achieve the desired level of clarification. Table 7.4 lists sedimentation basin effluent turbidity goals for several State and industry optimization programs. Operators need knowledge and authority to modify the coagulation and flocculation processes or reduce the flow to the plant when settled water quality goals are not being met. For long term process control, tracking seasonal raw water quality changes and their impacts on the settling process can provide valuable information for optimizing the overall sedimentation process.

Table 7.4 Effluent Turbidity Goals for the Sedimentation Process Optimization Program Sedimentation Basin or Clarifier Effluent Turbidity Goal California  Cryptosporidium Action Plan 1 to 2 NTU Texas < 2 NTU Partnership for Safe Water / EPA Composite Correction Program ( CCP) 1 NTU for raw water conditions of < 10 NTU 2 NTU for raw water conditions of > 10 NTU The sludge blanket level is also an important factor for optimum settling conditions. A water system should have SOPs for sludge draw off that include routine checks of the sludge pumping lines. Sludge pumping lines can plug, causing disruption of the sludge blanket and consequently disrupting the settling process.

7.4.4 Filtration Filtration is the last step in the particle removal process. Although filter performance is a function of the coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation processes, proper filter operation is needed to provide the high quality finished water required for this toolbox option. The following factors should be considered when optimizing or evaluating filtration performance.

<IP_ADDRESS> Flow Split Systems should evaluate the flow distribution to the filters to ensure there is an even load across all filters under the range of expected operating conditions ( e. g., filter out of service, backwash). Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 15 <IP_ADDRESS> Filter Beds The filters should be operated with a design capacity that considers at least one filter as a reserve. The reserve filter is put on line to maintain flow stability to the filters; if this is not possible, flow to the filters should be reduced. This will allow consistent flow when one filter is backwashed or taken out of service for maintenance.

Media loss or disturbance can lead to particles passing through the filters. The filter should be inspected on a regular basis to detect changes in the media. Media should be inspected to ensure depths of media are proper, the media are evenly distributed, and the size distribution of the media are still to specifications. Media samples can be taken with a coring device or by excavation for the inspection. If media are lost or damaged, they should be replaced. Underdrains should also be examined regularly to be sure they are not damaged and causing disturbances to the media or allowing particles and media to pass out of the filter.

<IP_ADDRESS> Backwashing Backwashing is an integral part of the filtration process. Two important operating parameters for backwashing are the backwash flow rate and frequency of cycles. Other factors relating to backwash that affect filter effluent quality are hydraulic surges and filter start up or " ripening".

Flow rate Systems should determine the appropriate flow that will clean the filter and prevent mudball formation, but will not upset the filter media and subject the underdrain to sudden momentary pressure increases. Typical flow rates are 15 to 20 gpm/ ft2 which result in 15 to 30 percent bed expansion.

Frequency Although the filter effluent turbidity is the indicator for pathogen control and the determining factor for compliance, other operating parameters should be used to determine when backwash is needed. Emelko et al. ( 2000) performed filtration studies where pathogen breakthrough occurred towards the end of the filter cycle before an increase in turbidity was detected. Their studies emphasize the need to evaluate and optimize backwashing cycles with respect to filter effluent water quality. Most systems use filtration time, headloss, effluent turbidity, or effluent particle counts to indicate when backwashing is needed. For improved process control, it may be beneficial to use all indicators.

Systems with multiple filters also should evaluate the hydraulic surges resulting from backwashing. The timing of individual filter backwash cycles should be considered with respect to the other filters, particularly adjacent filters. Consider the following two examples: Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 16 $ If a large system with 50 filters backwashed 10 filters at the same time, this would cause a 20 percent increase in flow to the other filters. In this situation, the system could backwash fewer filters at one time or reduce the flow to the filters to avoid the filter overload.

$ When one filter is backwashed, a hydraulic surge can be experienced by an adjacent filter.

Improving filter effluent during start up It is very important for systems to conduct a full evaluation of their backwashing process and operational variations to optimize the process. At the process optimization level, systems must eliminate turbidity spikes in the filter effluent resulting from the backwashing processCit only takes a few high turbidity readings to cause non compliance. The following operational practices may provide improved filter effluent during start up:

$ Ramping the backwash rate down in increments to allow better media gradation $ Resting a filter after backwash for several minutes or up to several hours before putting the filter in service $ Adding a polymer to the backwash water $ Slowly increasing the hydraulic load on the filter as it is brought back on line <IP_ADDRESS> Filter to Waste During the beginning of a filter cycle the filter is " ripening" and the effluent turbidity is usually higher. To avoid sending this poorer quality water to the CFE stream, the filter effluent produced during the first few minutes of a filter cycle can be sent to waste ( filter to waste) or recycled to the head of the plant. Some systems filter to waste or recycle until the filter effluent reaches the desired level of turbidity. Practicing filter to waste produces an overall higher quality water and may be necessary to maintain a CFE or IFE below 0.15 NTU.

<IP_ADDRESS> Backwash Recycle Plants that recycle the backwash water to the head of the plant should evaluate the impacts the backwash stream has on the coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation processes. For example, the operator should know how the coagulation and flocculation processes need adjusting when there is a change in recycle flow. Ideally, the impacts of the recycle flow on these processes should be minimized. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 17 For systems that recycle, the Filter Backwash Rule requires spent filter backwash, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes to be returned through all the processes of a system's existing conventional or direct filtration treatment train ( 40 CFR 141.76( c)). The rule allows for alternative recycle locations with State approval ( 40 CFR 141.76( c)).

<IP_ADDRESS> Filter Assessments Filter assessments can provide valuable information for optimizing the performance of a filter. The IESTWR and LT1ESWTR require systems to conduct an individual filter selfassessment if a filter exceeds specified effluent turbidity criteria. However, systems seeking Cryptosporidium treatment credit for lower finished water turbidity should also consider conducting filter assessments to evaluate operating parameters and optimize filter performance. Chapter 5 of the IESWTR Turbidity Guidance Manual describes how to conduct an individual filter self assessment.

7.4.5 Hydraulic Control Proper hydraulic control throughout the treatment process is essential. In the coagulation and sedimentation processes it is important to minimize short circuiting so the majority of the water receives the designed coagulation and sedimentation treatment. Hydraulic surges can cause greater turbulence that may break up flocculating particles and resuspend settling particles. In the subsequent filtration process, hydraulic surges can cause particle breakthrough anytime during the filtration cycle. Systems should look at historical water demand data and other conditions that adversely affect the system's ability to control filter performance ( e. g., backwashing, changes in flow). With these data, they should develop operating plans to address the condition and allow control of the filter effluent quality.

7.5 Process Management Techniques 7.5.1 Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs)

Developing SOPs for all aspects of the operation and maintenance of a water system is essential for running a high quality system. SOPs provide the basis for ensuring that activities are accomplished in a consistent manner. They should be kept as simple as possible in order to ensure that each operator is consistent in carrying out the task at hand. The title of the procedure should be clear, concise, and descriptive of the equipment, process, or activity. SOPs should be developed with input from staff, thus enabling them to understand and implement procedures in compliance with applicable requirements. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 18 7.5.2 Prevention and Response Plan for Loss of Chemical Feed Loss of chemical feed is a common cause of increased turbidity through the treatment processes. Plants should have equipment and SOPs for preventing such occurrences or reacting to them rapidly if they do occur. The following items are necessary to prevent an upset in water quality due to a chemical feed failure.

$ SOPs to verify doses with feed response time ( lag time) accounted for $ Redundant feeds $ Routine maintenance of all chemical feed parts ( e. g., pump, feed line)

$ Inventory of spare parts available so repairs can be made quickly $ Pump or feed failure alarms $ Process monitors detecting chemical feed failure ( e. g., streaming current, zeta potential, and pH monitors)

7.5.3 Adequate Chemical Storage Sufficient chemical storage is necessary to ensure continued operation of the plant at proper dosages, including enough to run at higher dosages if an unexpected turbidity spike should occur in the raw water. Care must also be taken, however, to follow manufacturer's suggestions on the useful life of the chemical. Many coagulants will degrade over time and will not perform properly and may even cause increased turbidity if allowed to age too long. Storage tanks should also be designed so that there are no dead spaces where chemicals may accumulate with much longer residence times than the hydraulic residence time of the tank.

7.5.4 Voluntary Programs EPA, State regulatory agencies, AWWA, and other drinking water organizations have established voluntary programs for systems to ensure the delivery of safe water to their customers. These programs often focus on optimizing the treatment process and identifying the limiting factors of performance. Consequently, they are excellent aids for systems considering this toolbox option. This section discusses two programs, the Partnership for Safe Water and the Composite Correction Program ( CCP). ( The CCP is also promoted as part of the Partnership for Safe Water). Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 19 For further information about the Partnership for Safe Water and how to join, see AWWA's website: http:// www. awwa. org/ partner/ partner1. htm <IP_ADDRESS> Partnership for Safe Water The Partnership for Safe Water is a voluntary cooperative effort between EPA, AWWA, and surface water systems. The goal of the program is to " provide a new measure of safety to millions of Americans by implementing prevention programs where legislation or regulation does not exist. The preventive measures are based around optimizing treatment plant performance, and thus increasing protection against microbial contamination in America's drinking water supply." ( http:// www. awwa. org/ partner/ partner1. htm).

Water systems that participate in the program go through four phases:

Phase I: Commitment B operators and management indicate their willingness to complete the program through phase III.

Phase II: Data Collection and Analysis B the water system must collect one year of raw, settled, and filter effluent turbidity data and submit to AWWA for analysis.

Phase III: Self Assessment B allows the system to examine the capabilities of the existing plant's operation and administration and identify factors that limit performance.

Phase IV: Procedures and Applications Package B systems demonstrate they addressed areas of limited performance and produce high quality water as measured by filter effluent turbidity.

Through the efforts of monitoring, data analysis, and evaluating the capabilities of unit processes, significant improvements in water quality can be achieved. In the Partnership's 2001 Annual report, AWWA reported an increase from 20 percent to 32 percent of plants completing Phase II with finished water turbidity levels less than 0.1 NTU ( based on 95th percentiles). At the beginning of Phase III, approximately 51 percent of plants reported 95th percentile turbidity less than 0.1 NTU, and after completing Phase III approximately 70 percent of plants achieved less than 0.1 NTU.

<IP_ADDRESS> Composite Correction Program ( CCP)

The CCP was developed in 1988 to optimize surface water treatment plant performance with respect to protection from microbial pathogens. The program consists of two parts, the comprehensive performance evaluation ( CPE) and comprehensive technical assistance ( CTA). The CPE is a thorough review and analysis of a facility's design capabilities and associated Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 20 administrative, operational, and maintenance practices as they relate to achieving optimum performance from the facility. It can be conducted by the system or by a third party over a period of roughly 3 to 4 days. The CTA builds on the results of the CPE by addressing the combination of factors that limit a facility's performance. If conducted by a third party, it should be implemented by a third party who is in a position to pursue corrective actions in all areas, including politically sensitive, administrative, or operational limitations.

EPA published a handbook, Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program ( 1998), that fully describes the goals, methods, and procedures of the CCP. To obtain a copy, call the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 800 426 4791. Chapter 7  Combined and Individual Filter Performance LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 7 21 References American Water Works Association. 2000a. Operational Control of Coagulation and Filtration Processes, 2nd Edition. American Water Works Association.

American Water Works Association. 2000. Water Quality and Treatment 5th Edition. McGraw Hill.

Kawamura, Susumu. 2000. Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

USEPA. 1998. Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development. EPA 625/ 6 91/ 027.


[Federal Register: September 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 54147-54148]
[DOCID:fr03se10-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0452; FRL-8842-6]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellation of the
product, Biter Fighter, pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. The
cancellation was voluntarily requested by the registrant, Ticks and
Mosquitoes, LLC., and accepted by EPA. This cancellation order follows
a June 9, 2010 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Request from the
registrant to voluntarily cancel this product registration. In the June
9, 2010 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing
the cancellation, unless the Agency received substantive comments
within the 30 day comment period that would merit its further review of
this request, or unless the registrant withdrew his request. The Agency
did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the registrant did
not withdraw his request. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice
a cancellation order granting the requested cancellation. Any
distribution, sale, or use of the product subject to this cancellation
order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order,
including any existing stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellation is effective September 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0452. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation of the product, Biter
Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1, registered under FIFRA
section 3. Cancellation of the product, Biter Figher, containing the
chemicals calcium lactate and urea, was requested by the registrant,
Ticks or Mosquitoes,

LLC , 905 S. Kings Highway, Sikeston, MO 63801.

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments
in response to the June 9, 2010 Federal Register notice announcing the
Agency's receipt of the request for voluntary cancellation of this
product.

 IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested
cancellation of the registration of the product, Biter Fighter, EPA
Registration Number 75771-1. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that
the product registration is canceled. The effective date of the
cancellation that is the subject of this notice is September 3, 2010.
Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the product, Biter
Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1, in a manner inconsistent with
any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in
Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve
such a request. The notice of receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel
the registration of Biter Fighter was published for comment in the
Federal Register issue of June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32766) (FRL-8828-1). The
comment period closed on July 9, 2010.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

     Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the product
subject to this order are as follows.
     The registrant may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks
of Biter Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1, until September 6,
2011, which is 1 year after the publication of this Cancellation Order
in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrant is prohibited from
selling or distributing Biter Fighter, except for export in accordance
with FIFRA section 17, or proper disposal. Persons other than the
registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of Biter
Fighter until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale,
distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously
approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled product.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
W. Michael McDavit.
 Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-21952 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S