Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45579 

or before November 10, 2011. If such a 

facility (excluding oil production 

facilities) becomes operational after 

November 10, 2011, and could 

reasonably be expected to have a 

discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you 

must prepare and implement a Plan 

before you begin operations. You are not 

required to prepare a new Plan each 

time you move a mobile or portable 

facility to a new site; the Plan may be 

general. When you move the mobile or 

portable facility, you must locate and 

install it using the discharge prevention 

practices outlined in the Plan for the 

facility. The Plan is applicable only 

while the mobile or portable facility is 

in a fixed (non-transportation) operating 

mode. 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (a) of this section: 

(1) If your drilling, production or 

workover facility, including a mobile or 

portable facility, is offshore or has an 

offshore component; or your onshore 

facility is required to have and submit 

a Facility Response Plan pursuant to 40 

CFR 112.20(a), and was in operation on 

or before August 16, 2002, you must 

maintain your Plan, but must amend it, 

if necessary to ensure compliance with 

this part, and implement the amended 

Plan no later than November 10, 2010. 

If such a facility becomes operational 

after August 16, 2002, through 

November 10, 2010, and could 

reasonably be expected to have a 

discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you 

must prepare and implement a Plan on 

or before November 10, 2010. If such a 

facility (excluding oil production 

facilities) becomes operational after 

November 10, 2010, and could 

reasonably be expected to have a 

discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you 

must prepare and implement a Plan 

before you begin operations. You are not 

required to prepare a new Plan each 

time you move a mobile or portable 

facility to a new site; the Plan may be 

general. When you move the mobile or 

portable facility, you must locate and 

install it using the discharge prevention 

practices outlined in the Plan for the 

facility. The Plan is applicable only 

while the mobile or portable facility is 

in a fixed (non-transportation) operating 

mode. 

(2) If your facility has milk containers, 

associated piping and appurtenances 

constructed according to current 

applicable 3–A Sanitary Standards, and 

subject to current applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ 

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) or a 

State dairy regulatory requirement 

equivalent to current applicable PMO, 

the compliance date described in 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this section 

shall be one year from the effective date 

of a final rule addressing SPCC 

requirements specifically for these milk 

containers, associated piping and 

appurtenances; or until a rule that 

otherwise establishes the date by which 

you must comply with the provisions of 

this part. 

(c) If your oil production facility as 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section becomes operational after 

November 10, 2011, or as described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section becomes 

operational after November 10, 2010, 

and could reasonably be expected to 

have a discharge as described in 

§ 112.1(b), you must prepare and 

implement a Plan within six months 

after you begin operations. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–19075 Filed 8–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9185–2] 

RIN 2040–AF11 

Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Supplemental Notice of Data 

Availability and Request for Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of data 

availability and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This action is a supplemental 

notice of data availability and a request 

for comment related to EPA’s January 

26, 2010, notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), proposing numeric nutrient 

water quality criteria to protect aquatic 

life in lakes and flowing waters within 

the State of Florida. In the January 2010 

NPRM, EPA proposed to classify 

Florida’s streams into four regions 

(referred to in the proposed rule as 

‘‘Nutrient Watershed Regions’’) for 

application of total nitrogen (TN) and 

total phosphorus (TP) criteria. Streams 

within each of these regions (Panhandle, 

Bone Valley, Peninsula and North 

Central) reflect similar geographical 

characteristics including phosphorusrich soils, nutrient concentrations and 

nutrient ratios. In this notice, EPA is 

requesting comment on revised stream 

region boundaries based on additional 

information about watershed 

delineations and phosphorus-rich 

geological formations in Florida. Based 

on comments and additional 

information, this revised regionalization 

approach would result in five Nutrient 

Watershed Regions for Florida’s streams 

and a clarification of certain watershed 

boundaries for the Bone Valley and 

Peninsula regions. EPA is also 

requesting comment on basing the TN 

and TP criteria for the nutrient 

watershed regions on a combination of 

the 75th and 90th percentile values 

(depending on regions) of the 

benchmark sites outlined in the 

alternate approach at proposal. EPA is 

continuing to consider the primary 

approach proposed in January 2010 to 

use the 75th percentile of sites with 

healthy biological condition as 

measured by the Stream Condition 

Index (SCI). The January 2010 proposal 

also proposed application of the 

Vollenweider equation to ensure that 

nutrient criteria in streams are 

protective of downstream lakes and 

requested comment on alternative 

approaches such as the BATHTUB 

model and whether there should be an 

allowance for use of other models that 

are demonstrated to be protective and 

scientifically defensible. Today’s notice 

also requests comment on using the 

BATHTUB model in place of the 

Vollenweider equation for deriving both 

TP and TN criteria to protect 

downstream lakes, allowing the use of 

alternative models under certain 

circumstances, and providing for an 

alternative approach to protect 

downstream lakes when limited data are 

available that would use the lake criteria 

themselves as criteria for upstream 

waters flowing into the lake. EPA is 

seeking comment on alternative stream 

regionalization approaches, use of the 

benchmark dataset to derive criteria, 

and derivation of lake downstream 

protection values discussed in more 

detail below, and will consider the 

comments received before finalizing the 

proposed rule, ‘‘Water Quality Standards 

for the State of Florida’s Lakes and 

Flowing Waters.’’ This supplemental 

notice focuses solely on the delineation 

of stream nutrient regions, resulting 

criteria associated with two approaches 

(EPA’s SCI-based approach and the 

alternative benchmark distribution 

approach), and protection of 

downstream lakes in Florida. EPA is not 

soliciting comment on any other 

provisions of the January 2010 proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2009–0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

docket are listed in the http://www. 

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://www. 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at a 

docket facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

(202) 566–2426, and the Docket address 

is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Danielle Salvaterra, U.S. EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, 

Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–564–1649; fax 

number: 202–566–9981; e-mail address: 

salvaterra.danielle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

III. Supplemental Information on Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative 

Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation 

B. Downstream Protection of Lakes 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or to address a particular issue. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2009–0596. The official public docket 

consists of the document specifically 

referenced in this action, any public 

comments received, and other 

information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at the 

OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Docket telephone 

number is 202–566–1744. A reasonable 

fee will be charged for copies. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the Docket Facility 

identified in Section I.B.1. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45581 

1Scott, T.S., 1988, The lithostratigraphy of the 

Hawthorn Group (Miocene) of Florida: Florida 

Geological Survey Bulletin No. 59; 148 p.; Scott, 

T.S., K.M. Campbell, F.R. Rupert, J.D. Arthur, T.M. 

Missimer, J.M. Lloyd, J.W. Yon and J.G. Duncan, 

2001, Geologic map of the state of Florida: Florida 

Geological Survey Map Series 146; Scott, T.S., 

2001, Text to accompany the geologic map of 

Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 80; 29 p. 

II. Background 

On January 26, 2010, EPA proposed 

‘‘Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters’’ 

(75 FR 4173). EPA conducted 13 public 

hearing sessions in six cities in Florida 

and held a 90-day public comment 

period as part of the proposed rule 

generating over 22,000 public 

comments. EPA is reviewing and 

considering these comments in 

preparation of the final rule, which is 

scheduled to be signed by the EPA 

Administrator on October 15, 2010. 

Today’s notice reflects a review of 

comments and new information 

received by the Agency as part of the 

public comment process, and requests 

further comment on possible revisions, 

additional options, and new information 

related to specific approaches and 

issues identified in the January 26, 2010 

proposal. EPA is only seeking comment 

on the items presented in this 

supplemental notice. EPA is not 

soliciting comment on any other 

provisions of the January 2010 proposed 

rule. 

III. Supplemental Information on 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters 

A. Stream Regionalization and 

Alternative Approaches to Stream 

Criteria Derivation 

EPA proposed classification of 

Florida’s streams north of Lake 

Okeechobee by separating watersheds 

with substantially different stream 

molar ratios of TN to TP into Nutrient 

Watershed Regions (NWR). The 

resulting regions reflect the inherent 

differences in the natural factors that 

contribute to nutrient concentrations in 

streams (e.g., geology, soil composition, 

and/or hydrology). Reliance on a 

watershed-based classification approach 

reflects the understanding that upstream 

water quality affects downstream water 

quality. EPA requested public comment 

on the stream regionalization approach 

as well as factoring in geological 

influences from phosphorus-rich soils 

when classifying stream regions (75 FR 

4195–96). EPA received public 

comments and information that 

suggested refining the proposed stream 

regions to account for natural variability 

in soil nitrogen and phosphorus as well 

as clarifying the boundaries of the 

proposed stream regions. 

Today, EPA is requesting comment on 

a revised approach to certain stream 

regions suggested by FDEP and other 

commenters. More specifically, EPA is 

considering additional information on 

the influence of phosphorus-rich soils 

and geology in Florida (associated with 

the Hawthorne Group) for areas in the 

northern Panhandle region. Based on 

comments and information received, the 

Agency is also considering further 

refinements to the regional boundaries 

separating the Peninsula region from the 

West Central region (referred to in the 

proposed rule as ‘‘Bone Valley’’). 

Based on geological information,1

EPA is considering dividing the 

proposed Panhandle region into a 

Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich) 

and Panhandle East (more phosphorusrich) region. In drawing the boundary 

between the two regions, EPA is 

continuing to rely on the watershed 

approach described in the proposed rule 

and is considering using the eastern 

boundary of the Apalachicola River 

watershed as the dividing line between 

the two regions. EPA believes that 

dividing the Panhandle region in this 

manner may more accurately represent 

the natural influences on stream TP 

concentrations and provide finer spatial 

resolution with respect to TP criteria; 

however, we request comment on this 

conclusion. 

EPA is considering these adjustments 

in the Panhandle region to account for 

natural geological influences on stream 

phosphorus concentrations. EPA 

considered different approaches to 

classifying Florida’s streams for 

application of TN criteria, such as the 

four Nutrient Watershed Regions 

discussed in the January 2010 proposal 

and two regions as originally suggested 

by FDEP. However, differences in the 

resulting TN criteria based on these 

stream classification schemes were 

minor and the approaches were 

comparable. Therefore, to assure 

consistency and clarity in applicability 

decisions and implementation, EPA is 

also considering using the same revised 

Panhandle delineation for stream TN 

criteria as well as the TP criteria. This 

consistency in regionalization for TN 

and TP provides clarity to the public on 

which stream criteria apply at any given 

location, which can help facilitate the 

State’s implementation of both stream 

TN and TP criteria. 

EPA also reexamined the watershed 

delineations of the West Central and 

Peninsula regions based on comments 

and information from FDEP and others. 

As a result of this review, EPA has 

gained greater knowledge of the 

watershed boundaries and is 

considering refining the boundary 

delineations accordingly. The result for 

the West Central region would be a 

modified western boundary that shifts 

from Florida’s west coast shoreline 

inland to the east as explained in more 

detail below. EPA believes that these 

possible adjustments to the West Central 

and Peninsula stream region boundaries 

more accurately reflect the watershed 

boundaries; however, we request 

comment on this conclusion. 

As a result of the new information 

and possible adjustments to the 

proposed stream regionalization 

approach that are outlined above, EPA 

is considering five Nutrient Watershed 

Regions for deriving TP and TN criteria 

for streams. The five Nutrient 

Watershed Regions would include a 

Panhandle West region encompassing 

Perdido Bay Watershed, Pensacola Bay 

Watershed, Choctawhatchee Bay 

Watershed, St. Andrew Bay Watershed, 

and Apalachicola Bay Watershed. It 

would also include a Panhandle East 

region encompassing Apalachee Bay 

Watershed, and Econfina/Steinhatchee 

Coastal Drainage Area. The West Central 

(Bone Valley) and Peninsula regions 

would be revised slightly to more 

accurately reflect watershed boundaries 

(e.g., the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte 

Harbor Watersheds would move from 

the West Central (Bone Valley) to the 

Peninsula region). The proposed North 

Central region encompassing the 

Suwannee River Watershed would 

remain unchanged. 

EPA is providing the following 

information in the docket to illustrate 

and delineate the revised Nutrient 

Watershed Regions under consideration: 

1. Map of revised TN, TP regions, 2. 

Map of Hawthorne group overlaid on 

revised Panhandle regions, 3. GIS 

shapefile of revised TN, TP regions, 4. 

Florida geological information on the 

Hawthorne group (see footnote 1). 

EPA is also providing additional 

information in this notice and in the 

docket on the TN and TP criteria that 

are based on the revised Nutrient 

Watershed Regions under consideration. 

Using EPA’s previously proposed 

approach (75th percentile) and the 

revised stream regions discussed in this 

notice, the TN and TP criteria would be: 

Panhandle West—0.84 mg/L and 0.03 

mg/L, respectively; Panhandle East— 

0.77 mg/L and 0.10 mg/L, respectively; 

North Central—1.48 mg/L and 0.36 mg/ 

L, respectively; West Central—1.80 mg/ 

L and 0.73 mg/L, respectively; and 

Peninsula—1.20 mg/L and 0.10 mg/L, 

respectively. To illustrate the derivation 

of stream criteria based on the revised 

regions, EPA has re-organized the same 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
45582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2 Vollenweider, R.A. 1975. Input-output models 

with special reference to the phosphorus loading 

concept in limnology. Schweizerische Zeitschrift 

fur Hydrologie. 37:53–84; Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. 

Advances in differing critical loading levels for 

phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Mem. Ist. Ital. 

Idrobid. 33:53–83. 

3 Kennedy, R. H., 1995. Application of the 

BATHTUB Model to Selected Southeastern 

Reservoirs. Technical Report EL–95–14, U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

MS.; Walker, W. W., 1985. Empirical Methods for 

Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 

3, Phase II: Model Refinements. Technical Report 

E–81–9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.; Walker, W. W., 

1987. Empirical Methods for Predicting 

Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 4, Phase 

III: Applications Manual. Technical Report E–81–9, 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

4Walker, W.W., 1981. Empirical Methods for 

Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 

1, Phase I: Data Base Development. Technical 

Report E–81–9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.; Walker, W.W., 

1982. Empirical Methods for Predicting 

Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 2, Phase 

II: Model Testing. Technical Report E–81–9, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS.; Walker, W.W., 1999. Simplified 

Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and 

Prediction: User Manual; Instruction Report W–96– 

2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, M.S. 

nutrient dataset provided in the 

proposed rule and is making it available 

to the public in the docket for this 

notice. These data were organized on 

the basis of site averages to derive the 

proposed criteria outlined above. 

At proposal, EPA also requested 

comment on the benchmark distribution 

approach. In response to comments, the 

Agency is considering using a 

combination of the 75th and 90th 

percentile values (depending on 

regions) based on benchmark sites, with 

additional data quality screens applied, 

to establish criteria. EPA is considering 

the 90th percentile for all regions except 

the West Central, where the Agency is 

considering the 75th percentile due to 

less data available. Using the benchmark 

distribution approach and the revised 

stream regions discussed in this notice, 

the TN and TP criteria would be: 

Panhandle West—0.62 mg/L and 0.04 

mg/L, respectively; Panhandle East— 

0.97 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L, respectively; 

North Central—1.90 mg/L and 0.35 mg/ 

L, respectively; West Central—1.30 mg/ 

L and 0.35 mg/L, respectively; and 

Peninsula—1.67 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L, 

respectively. Included in the docket for 

today’s notice is the benchmark dataset 

presented at proposal with the 

additional quality assurance screens 

applied, that was used to calculate these 

values. The stream criteria using this 

approach are calculated on the basis of 

Waterbody Identifiers (WBIDs) and the 

derivation is outlined in more detail in 

the docket for today’s notice. EPA 

requests comment on this approach. 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

refined regionalization approach and 

criteria described in this supplemental 

notice. The Agency is specifically 

requesting comment on revised stream 

criteria using EPA’s previously 

proposed approach (applied to the 

revised regions) as outlined above as 

well as alternative stream criteria based 

on utilization of the benchmark 

distribution approach applied to the 

revised regions, also outlined above. 

EPA will evaluate all data and 

information submitted by the close of 

the public comment period for this 

supplemental notice with regard to 

regionalization and criteria derivation 

for Florida’s streams. 

B. Downstream Protection of Lakes 

In its January 2010 FRN, EPA 

proposed a phosphorus loading model 

equation first developed by 

Vollenweider 2 to relate a lake TP 

concentration criterion to the 

concentration necessary in incoming 

streams to support the lake criterion. 

EPA proposed to apply the equation’s 

resulting stream concentration as the 

applicable criterion for all stream 

segments upstream of the lake if those 

concentrations were more stringent than 

the otherwise applicable instream 

criteria for the stream segments. EPA 

mathematically derived this equation, 

with allowable input of lake-specific 

characteristics, to calculate values 

intended to serve as protective criteria 

necessary to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the lake numeric 

nutrient criteria also included in the 

proposal (75 FR 4198). 

The proposed Vollenweider model 

equation requires input of two lakespecific characteristics: The fraction of 

inflow due to stream flow and the 

hydraulic retention time. Because lakespecific input values may not always be 

readily available, EPA provided 

alternative preset values for percent 

contribution from stream flow and 

hydraulic retention time that could be 

used in those instances. EPA’s January 

2010 proposed rule discussed the 

flexibility for the State to use sitespecific inputs to the Vollenweider 

equation for these two parameters, as 

long as the State determines that they 

are appropriate and documents the sitespecific values. 

EPA requested comment on several 

technical aspects of this equation and its 

application. In addition, EPA requested 

comment on the potential to develop a 

corollary approach for nitrogen. Several 

commenters suggested the need for 

protective TN values to protect 

downstream lakes that are nitrogenlimited (such as many of the lakes in the 

phosphorus-rich areas of the State). EPA 

recognized that more specific 

information may be readily available for 

individual lakes that could allow the 

use of alternative approaches such as 

the BATHTUB model 3 and requested 

comment in the January 2010 proposal 

on the availability and application of 

this model. EPA also requested 

comment on whether there should be a 

specific allowance for use of alternative 

lake-specific models where 

demonstrated to be protective and 

scientifically defensible based upon 

current and readily available data. 

EPA received many comments on this 

proposed approach for protection of 

lakes downstream of rivers and streams. 

Some felt that that the Vollenweider 

equation was overly simplistic to 

represent all lakes in Florida and that it 

does not include the necessary factors to 

account for physical, hydrologic, 

chemical, and biological processes 

necessary to determine protective 

criteria. Comments included a 

recommendation to use models that can 

better represent site-specific conditions, 

such as BATHTUB. 

BATHTUB is designed to apply 

empirical eutrophication models to 

morphometrically complex lakes and 

reservoirs. The program performs 

steady-state water and nutrient balance 

calculations, uses spatially segmented 

hydraulic networks, and accounts for 

advective and diffusive transport of 

nutrients. BATHTUB predicts nutrientrelated water quality conditions such as 

total phosphorus, total nitrogen and 

chlorophyll a concentrations, 

transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen 

depletion rates. The model can apply to 

a variety of lake sizes, shapes and 

transport characteristics. A high degree 

of flexibility is available for specifying 

model segments as well as multiple 

influent streams. Because water quality 

conditions are calculated using 

empirically-derived relationships, 

BATHTUB inherently accounts for 

internal loading of phosphorus from 

bottom sediments. Additional technical 

references are available that describe the 

model and its applications.4

For the provision of EPA’s proposed 

rule for deriving criteria for protection 

of downstream lakes (§ 131.43(c)(2)(ii)), 

EPA is considering requiring the use of 

BATHTUB rather than a loading model 

equation based on Vollenweider. The 

rule would therefore require that the 

criteria for protection of downstream 

lakes would be the more stringent of the 

instream TP and TN criteria value or the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45583 

concentration of TP and TN derived 

from application of BATHTUB. The 

resulting criteria using BATHTUB could 

be either more or less stringent than the 

criteria derived using Vollenweider, 

depending on site-specific lake factors. 

EPA believes BATHTUB may be more 

appropriate for downstream protection 

value calculations than Vollenweider 

because BATHTUB has the capability to 

represent a greater number of sitespecific variables, which may influence 

nutrient responses. In addition, 

BATHTUB can estimate TN 

concentrations. As noted above, a 

number of commenters observed that a 

limitation in EPA’s original proposal 

was that it only addressed TP. 

EPA is also considering additional 

rule language that would specifically 

authorize FDEP or EPA to use a model 

other than BATHTUB when either 

determines that it would be appropriate 

to use another scientifically defensible 

technical model or approach that 

demonstrates protection of downstream 

lakes. While BATHTUB is a peer 

reviewed and versatile model, there are 

other models that, when appropriately 

calibrated and applied, can offer 

additional capability to address more 

complex situations and address an even 

greater degree of site-specificity. 

One example of an alternative model 

that FDEP or EPA might consider using 

for particularly complex site-specific 

conditions is the Water Quality Analysis 

Simulation Program (WASP) model. 

This model allows users to conduct 

detailed simulations of water quality 

responses to natural and manmade 

pollutant inputs. WASP is a dynamic 

compartment-modeling program for 

aquatic systems, including both the 

water column and the underlying 

benthos. WASP allows the user to 

simulate systems in 1, 2, or 3 

dimensions, and a variety of pollutant 

types. The model can represent time 

varying processes of advection, 

dispersion, point and diffuse mass 

loading, and boundary exchange. WASP 

also can be linked with hydrodynamic 

and sediment transport models that can 

provide flows, depths, velocities, 

temperature, salinity and sediment 

fluxes. Additional technical information 

may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

athens/wwqtsc/html/wasp.html. 

EPA is considering recommending 

BATHTUB as the method for calculating 

the TN and TP downstream protective 

values in streams that flow into lakes 

because of its ability to incorporate sitespecific factors in estimates, its use of 

data that may be readily available, and 

its ease of use and rapid processing 

time. BATHTUB has been used to model 

nutrients in lakes and reservoirs 

throughout the United States. 

BATHTUB allows for greater sitespecificity than the Vollenweider 

approach, and input of more local 

information to calculate concentrations 

of both nitrogen and phosphorus in 

streams that assure downstream 

protection of lakes. In certain 

circumstances, a more complex model 

such as WASP may be appropriate, and 

EPA is considering and requesting 

comment on adding specific provisions 

to allow either the Agency or FDEP to 

use an alternative model such as WASP 

where greater spatial or temporal detail 

in model output is called for, or where 

water quality considerations that fall 

outside the scope of BATHTUB are to be 

explicitly considered. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

including a provision in this section of 

the rule that would provide that if data 

are not readily available to derive a TN 

or TP downstream protection value 

using BATHTUB or another 

scientifically defensible model, the lake 

criteria values for TN and TP would be 

used as the downstream protection 

values where they are more stringent 

than the instream values. EPA believes 

that this approach is protective because 

the allowable concentration of nutrients 

entering the lake would be equal to 

criteria that are protective of the lake 

water itself; however, this approach may 

result in the application of more 

stringent criteria in the streams entering 

the lake than would be calculated using 

BATHTUB or another scientifically 

defensible model if site-specific data 

were available. 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

approaches to protect downstream lakes 

described in this supplemental notice. 

EPA will evaluate all data and 

information submitted by the close of 

the public comment period for this 

supplemental notice with regard to 

nutrient criteria to protect downstream 

lakes in Florida. 

Dated: July 29, 2010. 

Peter S. Silva, 

Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19140 Filed 7–30–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 272 

[EPA–R02–RCRA–2010–0249; FRL–9178–7] 

New York: Incorporation by Reference 

of State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to revise 

the codification of New York’s 

authorized hazardous waste program 

which is set forth in the regulations 

entitled ‘‘Approved State Hazardous 

Waste Management Programs’’, New 

York’s authorized hazardous waste 

program. EPA will incorporate by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) those provisions of 

the State regulations that are authorized 

and that EPA will enforce under the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended 

and commonly referred to as the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

September 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

RCRA–2010–0249, by one of the 

following methods: 

Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Æ E-mail: infurna.michael@epa.gov. 

Æ Fax: (212) 637–4437. 

Æ Mail: Send written comments to 

Michael Infurna, Division of 

Environmental Planning and Protection, 

EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 22nd 

Floor, New York, NY 10007. 

Æ Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Michael Infurna, 

Division of Environmental Planning and 

Protection, EPA, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 

10007. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The public is 

advised to call in advance to verify the 

business hours. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–RCRA–2010– 

0249. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3