85530 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

for Fair Housing Assistance Program 

(FHAP) agencies that forbid FHIP and 

FHAP recipients from using fair housing 

testers with prior felony convictions or 

convictions of crimes involving fraud or 

perjury. This proposed rule would make 

HUD’s programs as inclusive as possible 

for people with criminal records, 

consistent with Secretary Marcia 

Fudge’s April 12, 2022, Memorandum, 

‘‘Eliminating Barriers That May 

Unnecessarily Prevent Individuals with 

Criminal Histories from Participating in 

HUD Program.’’ It would also ensure 

that FHIP and FHAP funded entities are 

able to fully investigate criminal 

background screening policies that are 

potentially discriminatory under federal 

civil rights laws by using testers with 

actual criminal backgrounds. In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule may be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

HUD-2023-0091-0076. 

While the proposed rule had a 60-day 

comment period, HUD has received 

feedback from commenters requesting 

additional time to review and provide 

comments on this rule. In response, 

HUD is extending the deadline for 

comments to January 11, 2024. 

Aaron Santa Anna, 

Associate General Counsel for Legislation and 

Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27025 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2023–0378; FRL–10761–01– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AG31 

Water Quality Standards To Protect 

Human Health in Florida 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to 

establish new and revised human health 

water quality criteria for certain 

pollutants in the state of Florida. On 

December 1, 2022, the EPA issued an 

Administrator’s Determination that 

Florida’s existing human health criteria 

(HHC) are not protective of Florida’s 

designated uses and that additional 

HHC are needed for certain priority 

toxic pollutants for which Florida 

currently lacks any HHC. Accordingly, 

the EPA is proposing new and revised 

HHC to protect the human health 

designated uses of Florida’s waters. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 6, 2024. Public 

Hearing: The EPA will hold two public 

hearings during the public comment 

period. Please refer to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

additional information on the public 

hearings. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2023–0378, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Standards and Health Protection 

Division Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

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

Friday (except Federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2023–0378 for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. The EPA is offering two 

public hearings on this proposed 

rulemaking. Refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below for 

additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica Weyer, Office of Water, Standards 

and Health Protection Division (4305T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

566–2793; email address: weyer.erica@

epa.gov. Additional information is also 

available online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

wqs-tech/water-quality-standardsprotect-human-health-florida. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rulemaking is organized as 

follows: 

I. Public Participation 

A. Written Comments 

B. Participation in Public Hearings 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

III. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

B. General Recommended Approach for 

Deriving Human Health Criteria 

C. History of Florida’s Human Health 

Criteria 

IV. Derivation of Human Health Criteria for 

Florida 

A. Scope of EPA’s Proposal 

B. Tribal Reserved Rights Applicable to 

Florida’s Waters 

C. Human Health Criteria Inputs 

D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Florida 

E. Applicability 

F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and 

Implementation Mechanisms 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Identifying Affected Entities 

B. Method for Estimating Costs 

C. Results 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing our Nation’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice for All 

I. Public Participation 

A. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2023– 

0378, at https://www.regulations.gov 

(our preferred method), or the other 

methods identified in the ADDRESSES

section. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

docket. The EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit to the EPA’s docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI), 

Proprietary Business Information (PBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85531 

1USEPA. (2000, October 24). Memorandum from 

Geoffrey Grubbs and Robert Wayland, #WQSP–00– 

03. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-01/ 

documents/standards-shellfish.pdf. 

2USEPA. Final Updated Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, 80 FR 

36986 (June 29, 2015); see also USEPA. (2015). 

Final 2015 Updated National Recommended 

Human Health Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ 

national-recommended-water-quality-criteriahuman-health-criteria-table. 

3Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987, Public 

Law 100–4, 101 Stat. 7. 

4See 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A—126 Priority 

Pollutants. 

5USEPA. (December 1988). Transmittal of Final 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation for Water 

Quality Standards under CWA Section 

303(c)(2)(B),’’ https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2014-10/documents/cwa303chanmer-memo.pdf; see also USEPA. (1992, 

December 22). Establishment of Numeric Criteria 

for Priority Toxic Pollutants, 57 FR 60848, 60853. 

6 Id. 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). Please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets for additional 

submission methods; the full EPA 

public comment policy; information 

about CBI, PBI, or multimedia 

submissions; and general guidance on 

making effective comments. 

B. Participation in Public Hearings 

The EPA is offering two online public 

hearings so that interested parties may 

provide oral comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. For more details on the 

online public hearings and to register to 

attend the hearings, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-qualitystandards-protect-human-health-florida. 

If, due to unforeseen circumstances, 

either of these public hearings are 

canceled or rescheduled, the EPA will 

provide an update on this website. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities that discharge pollutants to 

surface waters under the state of 

Florida’s jurisdiction—such as 

industrial facilities and municipalities 

that manage stormwater or separate 

sanitary sewer systems—could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because the Federal water quality 

standards (WQS) in this rulemaking, 

once finalized, will be the applicable 

WQS for surface waters in Florida for 

CWA purposes. Categories and entities 

that could potentially be affected by this 

rulemaking include the following: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ........................................................................ Industrial point sources discharging pollutants to waters in Florida. 

Municipalities, including those with stormwater or 

separate sanitary sewer system outfalls.

Publicly owned treatment works or similar facilities responsible for managing stormwater 

or separate sanitary sewer systems that discharge pollutants to waters in Florida. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities that could 

be indirectly affected by this action. If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

III. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes a 

national goal of ‘‘water quality which 

provides for the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife and provides for recreation in 

and on the water,’’ wherever attainable. 

See also 40 CFR 131.2. The EPA 

interprets ‘‘fishable’’ to mean that, at a 

minimum, the designated uses promote 

the protection of fish and shellfish 

communities and that, when caught, 

these can be safely consumed by 

humans.1

Under the CWA, states have the 

primary responsibility for reviewing, 

establishing, and revising WQS 

applicable to their waters (CWA section 

303(c)). WQS define the desired 

condition of a water body, in part, by 

designating the use or uses to be made 

of the water (40 CFR 131.2 and 131.10) 

and by setting the numeric or narrative 

water quality criteria to protect those 

uses (40 CFR 131.2 and 131.11). There 

are two primary categories of water 

quality criteria: human health criteria 

(HHC) and aquatic life criteria. HHC 

protect designated uses such as public 

water supply, recreation, and fish and 

shellfish consumption. Aquatic life 

criteria protect designated uses such as 

survival, growth, and reproduction of 

fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic 

species. Water quality criteria ‘‘must be 

based on sound scientific rationale and 

must contain sufficient parameters or 

constituents to protect the designated 

use. For waters with multiple use 

designations, the criteria shall support 

the most sensitive use’’ (40 CFR 

131.11(a)(1)). 

Section 304(a) of the CWA directs the 

EPA to periodically develop and 

publish recommended water quality 

criteria ‘‘accurately reflecting the latest 

scientific knowledge’’ on the effects of 

pollutants on human health and 

welfare, including effects on aquatic 

life, as well as information on those 

pollutants, including their 

concentration and dispersal and how 

pollutants affect receiving waters (CWA 

section 304(a)(1)). Those 

recommendations are available to states 

for use in developing their own water 

quality criteria (CWA section 304(a)(3)). 

In 2015, the EPA updated its CWA 

section 304(a) national recommended 

criteria for human health for 94 

pollutants.2 When states establish 

criteria, the EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 

131.11(b)(1) specifies that they should 

establish numeric criteria based on: (1) 

the EPA’s CWA section 304(a) 

recommended criteria, (2) modified 

304(a) recommended criteria that reflect 

site-specific conditions or (3) other 

scientifically defensible methods. 

CWA section 303(c)(2)(B), added to 

the CWA in the 1987 amendments to the 

Act,3 requires states to adopt numeric 

criteria, where available, for all toxic 

pollutants listed pursuant to CWA 

section 307(a)(1) (i.e., priority toxic 

pollutants 4) for which the EPA has 

published CWA section 304(a) 

recommended criteria, the discharge or 

presence of which could reasonably be 

expected to interfere with the states’ 

designated uses. As articulated in the 

EPA’s December 12, 1988, Guidance for 

State Implementation of Water Quality 

Standards for CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) 

(‘1988 Guidance’), the EPA identified 

three options that states could use to 

meet the requirements of CWA section 

303(c)(2)(B).5 Option 1 is to adopt 

statewide numeric water quality criteria 

for all priority toxic pollutants for 

which the EPA has issued CWA section 

304(a) recommendations, regardless of 

whether those pollutants are known to 

be present in a state’s waters.6 Option 2 

is to adopt chemical-specific numeric 

water quality criteria for those priority 

toxic pollutants for which the EPA has 

issued CWA section 304(a) 

recommendations, and ‘‘where the State 

determines based on available 

information that the pollutants are 

present or discharged and can 

reasonably be expected to interfere with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85532 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. at 60857. 

10 Id. at 60873 (Explaining that ‘‘EPA expects to 

request States to continue to focus on adopting 

criteria for additional toxic pollutants and revising 

existing criteria in future triennial reviews which 

new information indicates is appropriate.’’). 

11USEPA. (October 2000). Methodology for 

Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

12While the FCR input is based on fish and 

shellfish from inland and nearshore waters, the RSC 

component accounts for other exposures where 

relevant, including from consumption of other 

species (e.g., reptiles, birds, marine fish). 

Alternatively, consumption of these other species 

could be included in the FCR input if data are 

available to determine the consumption rates and 

the associated bioaccumulation factor(s) for these 

other species. If the FCR includes additional species 

beyond fish and shellfish from inland and 

nearshore waters, EPA recommends that states 

adjust the RSC component accordingly. 

13USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

14The EPA’s 2000 Methodology also states: 

‘‘Criteria based on a 10¥5 risk level are acceptable 

for the general population as long as states and 

authorized tribes ensure that the risk to more highly 

exposed subgroups (sport fishers or subsistence 

fishers) does not exceed the 10¥4 level.’’ 

designated uses.’’ 7 Option 3 is to adopt 

a procedure to be applied to a narrative 

water quality standard to be used in 

calculating derived numeric criteria.8 In 

the 1992 National Toxics Rule, the EPA 

promulgated water quality criteria for 

priority toxic pollutants for 14 states 

based on the Administrator’s 

Determination that new or revised 

criteria were needed to bring those 

states into compliance with the 

requirements of CWA section 

303(c)(2)(B).9

States are required to hold a public 

hearing to review applicable WQS at 

least once every three years and, if 

appropriate, revise or adopt new 

standards (CWA section 303(c)(1); 40 

CFR 131.20(a)). This includes adopting 

criteria for additional priority toxic 

pollutants and revising existing priority 

toxic pollutant criteria as appropriate 

based on new information.10 Any new 

or revised WQS must be submitted to 

the EPA for review and approval or 

disapproval (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) 

and (c)(3)). CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) 

independently authorizes the 

Administrator to determine that a new 

or revised standard is necessary to meet 

CWA requirements. 

Finally, in exercising its CWA section 

303(c) authority, the EPA has an 

obligation to ensure that its actions are 

consistent with treaties, statutes, and 

executive orders reflecting Tribal 

reserved rights. Tribal reserved rights to 

aquatic resources could be impaired by 

water quality levels that limit right 

holders’ ability to utilize their rights. 

B. General Recommended Approach for 

Deriving Human Health Criteria 

The EPA’s 2000 Methodology for 

Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

for the Protection of Human Health 11

(2000 Methodology) describes the 

methods the EPA uses when developing 

national CWA section 304(a) 

recommended HHC and when 

promulgating Federal HHC. The 2000 

Methodology also serves as guidance to 

states and authorized Tribes for 

developing their own HHC. The EPA’s 

2000 Methodology informs, but does not 

dictate, the EPA’s implementation of the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements noted above. The EPA’s 

2000 Methodology recommends that 

HHC be designed to reduce the risk of 

adverse cancer and non-cancer health 

effects occurring from lifetime exposure 

to pollutants through the ingestion of 

drinking water and consumption of fish/ 

shellfish obtained from inland and 

nearshore waters. Consistent with the 

2000 Methodology, the EPA’s practice is 

to establish a criterion for both drinking 

water ingestion and consumption of 

fish/shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters combined and a separate 

criterion based on ingestion of fish/ 

shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters alone. This latter criterion 

applies in cases where the designated 

uses of a waterbody include supporting 

fish/shellfish for human consumption 

but not drinking water supply sources 

(e.g., non-potable estuarine waters). 

Consistent with the EPA’s 2000 

Methodology, the EPA establishes HHC 

based on two types of toxicological 

endpoint categories: (1) carcinogenicity; 

and (2) noncancer toxicity (i.e., all 

adverse effects other than cancer). 

Where sufficient data are available, the 

EPA derives criteria using both 

carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic 

toxicity endpoints and selects the lower 

(i.e., more health-protective) value for 

the HHC. The EPA calculates HHC for 

carcinogenic effects using the following 

input parameters: cancer slope factor 

(CSF), cancer risk level (CRL), body 

weight, drinking water intake rate, fish 

consumption rate (FCR), and a 

bioaccumulation factor(s). The EPA 

calculates HHC for both non-cancer and 

nonlinear carcinogenic effects using a 

reference dose (RfD) and relative source 

contribution (RSC) in place of a CSF and 

CRL (the remaining inputs are the same 

for both toxicology endpoints). The RSC 

is applied to apportion the RfD among 

the media and exposure routes of 

concern for a particular chemical to 

ensure that an individual’s total or 

aggregate exposure from all exposure 

sources does not exceed the RfD.12 Each 

of these inputs is discussed in more 

detail in Sections III.B.1 through III.B.4 

of this preamble and in the EPA’s 2000 

Methodology.13

1. Cancer Risk Level 

Consistent with the 2000 

Methodology, the EPA generally 

assumes, in the absence of data to 

indicate otherwise, that carcinogens 

exhibit linear ‘‘non-threshold’’ doseresponses which means that there are no 

‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘no-effect’’ levels. Therefore, 

the EPA calculates HHC for 

carcinogenic effects as pollutant 

concentrations corresponding to lifetime 

increases in the risk of developing 

cancer. The EPA calculates national 

recommended HHC using a CRL of 

10¥6 (one in one million) and 

recommends that states and authorized 

Tribes use CRLs of 10¥6 or 10¥5 (one 

in one hundred thousand) when 

deriving HHC for the general 

population.14 The EPA notes that states 

and authorized Tribes can also choose a 

more health protective risk level, such 

as 10¥7 (one in ten million), when 

deriving HHC. 

2. Cancer Slope Factor and Reference 

Dose 

For carcinogenic effects, the EPA uses 

an oral CSF to derive the HHC. The oral 

CSF is an upper bound, approximating 

a 95 percent confidence limit, on the 

increased cancer risk from a lifetime 

oral exposure to a pollutant. For noncarcinogenic effects, the EPA uses a 

chronic-duration oral RfD to calculate 

the HHC. A RfD is an estimate of a daily 

oral exposure of an individual to a 

substance that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. A RfD is often derived 

from a laboratory animal toxicity multidose study from which a no-observedadverse-effect level (NOAEL), lowestobserved-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), 

or benchmark dose level can be 

identified. Human epidemiology studies 

can also be used to derive a RfD. 

Uncertainty factors are applied to 

account for gaps or deficiencies in the 

available data (e.g., differences in 

response among humans) for a 

chemical. For the majority of the EPA’s 

2015 recommended 304(a) HHC, the 

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85533 

15USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS). https://www.epa.gov/iris. 

16USEPA. Final Updated Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, 80 FR 

36986 (June 29, 2015); see also USEPA. (2015). 

Final 2015 Updated National Recommended 

Human Health Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ 

human-health-water-quality-criteria. 

17USEPA. (2011). EPA Exposure Factors 

Handbook. 2011 edition. EPA 600/R–090/052F. 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.

cfm?deid=236252. 

18USEPA. (2014). Estimated Fish Consumption 

Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected 

Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010). EPA 820– 

R–14–002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2015-01/documents/fish-consumption-rates2014.pdf. 

19USEPA. (2013). Human Health Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates: 

Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/hh-fishconsumption-faqs.pdf. 

20USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf at 1–13. 

21 Jacobs, H.L., Kahn, H.D., Stralka, K.A., and 

Phan, D.B. (1998). Estimates of per capita fish 

consumption in the U.S. based on the continuing 

survey of food intake by individuals (CSFII). Risk 

Analysis: An International Journal 18(3). 

22USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf at 4–27. 

23USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf at 5–4. (Explaining that ‘‘[t]he 1980 

Methodology for deriving 304(a) criteria for the 

protection of human health emphasized the 

assessment of bioconcentration (uptake from water 

only) through the use of the BCF . . . The 2000 

Human Health Methodology revisions contained in 

this chapter emphasize the measurement of 

bioaccumulation (uptake from water, sediment, and 

diet) through the use of the BAF.’’). 

24USEPA. Revisions to the Methodology for 

Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health (2002), 65 FR 66444, 

66475 (November 3, 2000). 

25 Id. 

26USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

27USEPA. (2003). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health (2000). Technical Support 

Document Volume 2: Development of National 

Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA–822–B–03–030. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh-2000- 

volume2.pdf. 

28USEPA. Revisions to the Methodology for 

Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health (2002), 65 FR 66444 

(November 3, 2000). 

29USEPA. Final Updated Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, 80 FR 

36986 (June 29, 2015). See also USEPA. (2015). 

Final 2015 Updated National Recommended 

Human Health Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ 

human-health-water-quality-criteria. 

System (IRIS) 15 was the source of both 

cancer and noncancer toxicity values 

(i.e., RfD and CSF).16 For some 

pollutants, the EPA selected risk 

assessments produced by other EPA 

program offices (e.g., Office of Pesticide 

Programs), other national and 

international programs, and state 

programs. 

3. Exposure Assumptions 

The EPA’s general population default 

exposure assumptions provide an 

overall level of protection targeted at the 

high end of the general population, as 

stated in the 2000 Methodology. The 

EPA selects a combination of high-end 

and central tendency inputs to the 

criteria derivation equation. Consistent 

with the 2015 recommended 304(a) 

HHC, for the general population the 

EPA uses a default drinking water 

intake rate of 2.4 liters per day (L/day) 

and default rate of 22 grams per day (g/ 

day) for consumption of fish and 

shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters, multiplied by pollutant-specific 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) to 

account for the amount of the pollutant 

in the edible portions of the ingested 

species. 

The EPA’s national default drinking 

water intake rate of 2.4 L/day represents 

the per capita estimate of combined 

direct and indirect community water 

ingestion at the 90th percentile for 

adults ages 21 and older.17 The EPA’s 

national FCR of 22 g/day represents the 

90th percentile consumption rate of fish 

and shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters for the U.S. adult population 21 

years of age and older, based on 

National Health and Nutrient 

Examination Survey (NHANES) data 

from 2003 to 2010.18 The EPA’s national 

default FCR is based on the total rate of 

consumption of fish and shellfish from 

inland and nearshore waters (including 

fish and shellfish from local, 

commercial, aquaculture, interstate, and 

international sources). This is consistent 

with a health protective principle that 

each state does its share to protect 

people who consume fish and shellfish 

that originate from multiple 

jurisdictions.19 The EPA calculates 

national recommended HHC using a 

default body weight of 80 kilograms 

(kg), the average weight of a U.S. adult 

age 21 and older, based on NHANES 

data from 1999 to 2006. 

For subsistence fishers, EPA 

recommends a default FCR of 142 g/day 

in the absence of local data.20 This rate 

is the estimated 99th percentile FCR 

from the 1994–96 Continuing Survey of 

Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) 

conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.21 The EPA’s 2000 

Methodology noted that at the time, 142 

g/day was ‘‘representative of average 

rates for highly exposed groups such as 

subsistence fishermen, specific ethnic 

groups, or other highly exposed 

people.’’ 22

Prior to publication of the 2000 

Methodology, in which the EPA began 

recommending the use of BAFs to 

reflect the uptake of a contaminant from 

all sources by fish and shellfish,23 the 

EPA relied on bioconcentration factors 

(BCFs) to estimate chemical 

accumulation of waterborne chemicals 

by aquatic organisms. However, BCFs 

only account for chemical accumulation 

in aquatic organisms through exposure 

to chemicals in the water column. In 

2000, the EPA noted that ‘‘there has 

been a growing body of scientific 

knowledge that clearly supports the 

observation that bioaccumulation and 

biomagnification occur and are 

important exposure issues to consider 

for many highly hydrophobic organic 

compounds and certain 

organometallics.’’ 24 For that reason, the 

EPA observed that ‘‘[f]or highly 

persistent and bioaccumulative 

chemicals that are not easily 

metabolized, BCFs do not reflect what 

the science indicates.’’ 25 Therefore, 

consistent with the 2000 Methodology, 

when data are available, the EPA uses 

measured or estimated BAFs. BAFs 

account for chemical accumulation in 

aquatic organisms from all potential 

exposure routes, including, but not 

limited to, food, sediment, and water.26

The EPA uses separate BAFs for each 

trophic level to account for potential 

biomagnification of chemicals in aquatic 

food webs, as well as physiological 

differences among organisms that may 

affect bioaccumulation.27

The EPA derives national default 

BAFs, in part, as a resource for states 

and authorized Tribes with limited 

resources for deriving site-specific 

BAFs.28 The EPA’s approach for 

developing national BAFs represents the 

long-term average bioaccumulation 

potential of a pollutant in aquatic 

organisms that are commonly consumed 

by humans across the United States. In 

the 2015 recommended 304(a) HHC 

update, the EPA relied on fieldmeasured BAFs and laboratorymeasured BCFs available from peerreviewed, publicly available databases 

to develop national BAFs for three 

trophic levels of fish.29 If this 

information was not available, the EPA 

selected octanol-water partition 

coefficients (Kow values; i.e., the ratio of 

a pollutant’s solubility in fat vs. water) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85534 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

30 Id. 

31USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

32As noted by the National Environmental Justice 

Advisory Council in the 2002 publication Fish 

Consumption and Environmental Justice, ‘‘a 

suppression effect may arise when fish upon which 

humans rely are no longer available in historical 

quantities (and kinds), such that humans are unable 

to catch and consume as much fish as they had or 

would. Such depleted fisheries may result from a 

variety of affronts, including an aquatic 

environment that is contaminated, altered (due, 

among other things, to the presence of dams), 

overdrawn, and/or overfished. Were the fish not 

depleted, these people would consume fish at more 

robust baseline levels.’’). National Environmental 

Justice Advisory Council. (2002). Fish Consumption 

and Environmental Justice at 44, 46. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-02/ 

documents/fish-consump-report_1102.pdf (‘‘NEJAC 

Fish Consumption Report’’). 

33 ‘‘The RSC is the percentage of total exposure 

to a pollutant attributed to drinking water and 

eating fish and shellfish.’’ USEPA. May 2023 

Virtual WQS Academy: Human Health Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2023-06/06_

HumanHealthCriteri_Pres_VirtualWQSA_May2023_

508c.pdf. 

34USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

35USEPA. (2023). EPA Legal Tools to Advance 

Environmental Justice: Cumulative Impacts 

Addendum. Publication No.: 360R22002. https://

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/ 

bh508-Cumulative%20Impacts%20

Addendum%20Final%202022-11-28.pdf. 

36USEPA. (December 1988). Transmittal of Final 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation for Water 

Quality Standards under CWA Section 

303(c)(2)(B).’’ https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2014-10/documents/cwa303chanmer-memo.pdf. 

37USEPA. (1991). Amendments to the Water 

Quality Standards Regulation to Establish the 

Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants 

Necessary to Bring All States Into Compliance With 

Section 303(c)(2)(B), 56 FR 58420, November 19, 

1991. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2015-06/documents/ntr-proposal-1991.pdf; see also 

USEPA. Establishment of Numeric Criteria for 

Priority Toxic Pollutants, 57 FR 60848, 60853 

(December 22, 1992). 

38See 40 CFR 131.20 (‘‘State review and revision 

of water quality standards’’); 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2) 

(‘‘States must review water quality data and 

information on discharges to identify specific water 

bodies where toxic pollutants may be adversely 

affecting water quality or the attainment of the 

designated water use or where the levels of toxic 

from publicly available, published peerreviewed sources for use in calculating 

national BAFs. As an additional line of 

evidence, the EPA reported modelestimated BAFs for every chemical to 

support the field-measured or predicted 

BAFs.30

Finally, although the EPA uses 

national default exposure-related input 

values to calculate national CWA 

section 304(a) recommended criteria, 

the EPA’s methodology encourages 

states to use local data, when available, 

to calculate HHC (e.g., locally derived 

FCRs, drinking water intake rates and 

body weights, and waterbody-specific 

bioaccumulation rates) over national 

default values. Using local data helps 

ensure that HHC represent local 

conditions.31 Where sufficient data are 

available, selecting a FCR that reflects 

consumption that is unsuppressed by 

factors such as concerns about the safety 

of available fish furthers the restoration 

goals of the CWA and ensures 

protection of human health as pollutant 

levels decrease and fish habitats and 

populations are restored.32

4. Relative Source Contribution 

The inclusion of an RSC33 is 

important for protecting public health 

from exposure to certain chemicals from 

multiple sources and routes. When 

deriving HHC for non-carcinogens and 

nonlinear carcinogens, the EPA 

recommends including an RSC to 

account for sources of exposure other 

than drinking water and consumption of 

fish and shellfish from inland and 

nearshore waters. These other sources of 

exposure include ocean fish 

consumption (which is not included in 

the EPA’s default national FCR), nonfish food consumption (e.g., fruits, 

vegetables, grains, meats, poultry), 

dermal exposure, and inhalation 

exposure. Using an RSC ensures that the 

level of a chemical allowed by a water 

quality criterion, when combined with 

other exposure sources, will not result 

in exposures that exceed the RfD (toxic 

threshold level) and helps prevent 

adverse health effects from exposure to 

a given chemical over a person’s 

lifetime. The EPA’s 2000 

Methodology 34 includes an approach 

for determining an appropriate RSC for 

a given pollutant ranging in value from 

0.2 to 0.8 to ensure that drinking water 

and fish consumption alone are not 

apportioned the entirety of the RfD. This 

approach, known as the Exposure 

Decision Tree, considers the adequacy 

of available exposure data, levels of 

exposure, relevant sources/media of 

exposure, and regulatory agendas. As 

noted in the EPA’s January 2023, EPA 

Legal Tools to Advance Environmental 

Justice: Cumulative Impacts 

Addendum,35 the RSC is one way that 

the EPA considers aggregate chemical 

exposure to potentially affected 

communities, including communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

C. History of Florida’s Human Health 

Criteria 

1. Florida’s Existing Human Health 

Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants 

Florida elected to comply with CWA 

section 303(c)(2)(B) by following Option 

2 in the EPA’s 1988 Guidance.36 In 

accordance with Option 2, in 1992 

Florida adopted HHC for 43 priority 

toxic pollutants that it determined were 

present or discharged, and could 

reasonably be expected to interfere with 

designated uses, utilizing EPArecommended procedures and science 

available at that time.37 Additionally, 

the EPA promulgated HHC for Florida 

for the priority toxic pollutant dioxin in 

its 1992 National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 

131.36). 

Florida’s existing HHC apply to four 

classifications of waterbodies in the 

state with potable water supply and fish 

consumption uses (Chapter 62–302, 

Florida Administrative Code): 

—Class I—Potable Water Supplies; 

—Class II—Shellfish Propagation or 

Harvesting; 

—Class III—Fish Consumption; 

Recreation, Propagation and 

Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife; or 

—Class III—Limited—Fish 

Consumption; Recreation or Limited 

Recreation; and/or Propagation and 

Limited Maintenance of a Limited 

Population of Fish and Wildlife. 

In 1992, EPA recommended a national 

default FCR of 6.5 g/day, based on the 

average per-capita consumption rate of 

fish from inland and nearshore waters 

for the U.S. population, for states to 

consider inputting into their calculation 

of HHC. Florida used this national 

default 6.5 g/day FCR, which was not 

based on any Florida-specific data, to 

derive its HHC in 1992 and did not 

subsequently revise those HHC. As 

noted above in Section III.B.3. of this 

preamble, the EPA’s national default 

FCR for the general U.S. adult 

population 21 years of age and older is 

now 22 g/day. 

2. Florida’s Actions To Reexamine Its 

Existing Human Health Criteria 

In accordance with CWA section 

303(c)(1) and 40 CFR 131.20, Florida is 

required to review all of its applicable 

WQS, including its existing HHC, at 

least once every three years and, if 

appropriate, revise those WQS or adopt 

new WQS. This includes evaluating 

whether its existing HHC should be 

updated to account for more recent data 

on FCRs, and whether additional 

priority toxic pollutants are now present 

in or discharged to Florida’s waters such 

that new HHC for those pollutants are 

warranted.38


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85535 

pollutants are at a level to warrant concern and 

must adopt criteria for such toxic pollutants 

applicable to the water body sufficient to protect 

the designated use.’’) 

39Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf. Note that Florida’s 2016 

Technical Support Document refers to 43 revised 

HHC and 39 new HHC; however, a small subset of 

the HHC in each of those groups were for nonpriority toxic pollutants. 

40 Id. 

41 Id. 

42 Id. at 5–7. 

43 Id. 

44Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (February 9, 2018). Notice of 

Development of Rulemaking: 62–302.530—Surface 

Water Quality Criteria. https://www.flrules.org/ 

Gateway/View_notice.asp?id=20029450 (last 

accessed September 9, 2022). 

45Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. Fish Consumption Survey Project. 

https://floridadep.gov/dear/water-qualitystandards/content/fish-consumption-survey-project 

(last accessed September 15, 2022). 

46Letter from Radhika Fox, Assistant 

Administrator of the EPA Office of Water, to Shawn 

Hamilton, Secretary of the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Re: EPA’s 

Administrator’s Determination that new and revised 

water quality standards in Florida are necessary to 

satisfy the requirements of the CWA (December 1, 

2022) (Administrator’s Determination or 

Determination). 

47Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf at 2 (‘‘At the time the 

criteria were first adopted, the U.S. EPA assumed 

fish consumption and surface water drinking rates 

of 6.5 g/day and 2.0 L/day, respectively. The HHC 

currently listed in Rule 62–302.530, F.A.C., were 

developed based on these point values. However, 

more recent fish consumption survey information 

indicates that consumption patterns have changed 

over time, necessitating a re-evaluation of the 

criteria.’’). 

48USEPA. (2014). Estimated Fish Consumption 

Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected 

Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010), EPA 820– 

R–14–002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2015-01/documents/fish-consumption-rates2014.pdf. 

49 Id. 

50Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf. 

51See Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (October 24, 2013). Final Report: 

Mercury TMDL for the State of Florida. https://

floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/MercuryTMDL.pdf. 

52 57 FR 60848 at 60873, December 22, 1992. 

In 2016, Florida conducted a review 

of its criteria using updated science 

including updated FCRs based on stateand region-specific data.39 In particular, 

Florida found in 2016 that ‘‘more recent 

fish consumption survey information 

indicates that consumption patterns 

have changed over time, necessitating a 

re-evaluation of the criteria.’’ 40 As an 

example, Florida cited a 1994 FCR study 

of Florida residents that ‘‘suggested that 

Floridians eat significantly more fish 

than [EPA’s 1992 national default FCR 

of 6.5 g/day].’’ 41 In addition, in 

response to public comments, in 2016 

Florida evaluated the majority of the 

priority toxic pollutants for which the 

EPA has national recommendations, and 

documented the uses of each chemical, 

data on concentrations of each of the 

pollutants in Florida’s waters and fish, 

and information on environmental 

releases of those pollutants in Florida 

and neighboring states.42 As a result of 

this review, Florida determined that 

new HHC for 36 priority toxic pollutants 

were warranted.43

Florida’s 2016 revised and new HHC 

were never finalized or submitted to the 

EPA. Then in 2018, Florida initiated a 

rulemaking to consider proposed 

revisions to its HHC, stating its intent to 

conduct a state-wide fish consumption 

survey ‘‘to accurately determine the 

amount and types of fish commonly 

eaten by Floridians in advance of 

criteria development and adoption.’’ 44

However, the survey plans were 

disrupted and ultimately terminated.45

3. December 1, 2022, Administrator’s 

Determination That Florida’s Existing 

Health Criteria for Priority Toxic 

Pollutants Are Not Protective of Its 

Designated Uses 

Based on the information above, on 

December 1, 2022, the EPA issued an 

Administrator’s Determination that new 

and revised HHC for Florida were 

necessary pursuant to CWA section 

303(c)(4)(B).46 As the EPA stated in that 

determination, one of the primary 

deficiencies with Florida’s existing HHC 

is their reliance on the EPA’s national 

default FCR from 1992. As Florida has 

acknowledged, its existing HHC are 

based on an FCR that is far lower than 

national, regional or state-specific 

studies suggest Floridians consume.47

This finding is consistent with the 

EPA’s 2014 analysis of NHANES data 

from 2003 to 2010, which indicates that 

the 90th percentile consumption rate of 

fish and shellfish from Florida’s inland 

and nearshore waters ranges from 

approximately 22 g/day to 30 g/day.48 In 

2016, Florida used these same data from 

the EPA’s 2014 report 49 as the basis for 

the FCRs to derive the HHC that the 

state ultimately did not finalize.50

Regarding new HHC, the EPA 

determined that Florida needs new HHC 

for 37 additional priority toxic 

pollutants. Available information 

included in the state’s rulemaking 

record and other state actions related to 

priority toxic pollutants 51 indicates that 

more of these pollutants are likely 

present in state waters than originally 

understood in 1992. As the EPA has 

explained, ‘‘the criteria development 

and the standards programs are 

iterative,’’ and states are expected to 

adopt ‘‘criteria for additional toxic 

pollutants . . . which new information 

indicates is appropriate.’’ 52 These 

additional HHC are necessary in order 

to ensure that the state’s designated uses 

are protected. 

IV. Derivation of Human Health 

Criteria for Florida 

A. Scope of EPA’s Proposal 

In the process of developing this 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA 

concluded that there are instances 

where Florida’s existing HHC for certain 

pollutants listed in EPA’s December 1, 

2022, Administrator’s Determination are 

as stringent as or more stringent than 

the HHC the EPA found would be 

protective of the state’s designated uses 

and based on sound scientific rationale, 

using the approaches and inputs 

outlined below. CWA section 510 (33 

U.S.C. 1370) preserves the authority of 

states to adopt more stringent standards 

than otherwise required by the CWA, 

and, pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c), EPAapproved WQS remain in effect ‘‘unless 

or until EPA has promulgated a more 

stringent water quality standard.’’ 

(Emphasis added). Therefore, the EPA is 

not proposing Federal HHC where 

Florida’s existing HHC are as stringent 

as or more stringent than the HHC that 

the EPA calculated using the 

approaches and inputs below, 

consistent with CWA requirements and 

the EPA’s implementing regulations, 

specifically 40 CFR 131.11. 

As noted in Section III.C.1 of this 

preamble, the EPA promulgated HHC 

for Florida for the priority toxic 

pollutant dioxin in its 1992 National 

Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). For clarity 

in organization, the EPA is proposing to 

withdraw Florida from 40 CFR 131.36 

and to incorporate Florida’s CWAeffective dioxin criteria from the 

National Toxics Rule into this 

rulemaking so there would be a single 

comprehensive set of federally 

promulgated HHC for Florida. The EPA 

is not proposing to revise Florida’s 

CWA-effective dioxin criteria from the 

National Toxics Rule; this proposal to 

move Florida’s existing dioxin criteria 

into this rulemaking is purely 

administrative. The EPA did not 

determine in the agency’s December 1, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85536 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

53See 18 U.S.C. 1151 for definition of Indian 

Country. 

54See USEPA. (2016). EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes: 

Guidance for Discussing Tribal Treaty Rights. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-02/ 

documents/tribal_treaty_rights_guidance_for_

discussing_tribal_treaty_rights.pdf. 

55 16 U.S.C. 698(j); 16 U.S.C. 410(b). The 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida was 

originally part of the Seminole Tribe, but the Tribes 

split due to disagreements over dealings with the 

United States government. See Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Fla. v. United States, 716 F.3d 535, 545 

n.21 (11th Cir. 2013). In 1957, the Seminole became 

a federally-recognized Tribe. In 1962, the Federal 

government distinguished between the Seminole 

and the Miccosukee Tribes, and granted the 

Miccosukee Federal recognition. Id. at 547. 

Therefore, references to the ‘‘Seminole Indians’’ in 

the Everglades National Park Enabling Act can be 

construed to also pertain to the present-day 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. 

56 25 U.S.C. 1741 et seq. (‘‘Florida Indian 

(Miccosukee) Land Claims Settlement Act’’ or 

‘‘FILCSA’’), Public Law 97–399, 96 Stat. 2012 

(1982). 

57 25 U.S.C. 1772 et seq. (‘‘Florida Indian 

(Seminole) Land Claims Settlement Act’’ or 

‘‘SILCSA’’), Public Law 100–228, 101 Stat. 1556 

(1987). 

58Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf. 

59USEPA. (2014). Estimated Fish Consumption 

Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected 

Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010). EPA 820– 

R–14–002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2015-01/documents/fish-consumption-rates2014.pdf. 

60 Degner et al. (1994). Per Capita Fish and 

Shellfish Consumption in Florida. Florida 

Agricultural Market Research Center, University of 

Florida. 

61USEPA. (2014). Estimated Fish Consumption 

Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected 

Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010), EPA 820– 

R–14–002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2015-01/documents/fish-consumption-rates2014.pdf. 

62 Degner et al. (1994). Per Capita Fish and 

Shellfish Consumption in Florida. Florida 

Agricultural Market Research Center, University of 

Florida. 

2022, Administrator’s Determination 

that revised dioxin HHC were needed in 

Florida and any substantive comments 

on HHC for dioxin in Florida would be 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

The final criteria resulting from this 

proposed rulemaking would supersede 

the state’s corresponding HHC for these 

pollutants. The HHC in this proposed 

rulemaking, including the new Federal 

HHC for pollutants where Florida lacks 

any corresponding HHC, would apply to 

surface waters in the state of Florida, 

excluding waters within Indian 

country.53

B. Tribal Reserved Rights Applicable to 

Florida’s Waters 

In accordance with EPA’s 2016 Policy 

on Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes: Guidance for Discussing 

Tribal Treaty Rights,54 the EPA initiated 

consultation with Tribes that may be 

affected by this proposed rulemaking to 

seek information and recommendations 

about any Tribal reserved rights 

applicable to Florida’s waters. Based on 

information shared with and reviewed 

by the EPA, and as set forth in the 

docket for this proposed rule, the 

agency understands that the two 

federally recognized Tribes in Florida— 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida—hold federally reserved rights 

to hunt, fish, and trap on a subsistence 

basis and for use in traditional Tribal 

ceremonials in Big Cypress National 

Preserve and Everglades National 

Park.55 The Miccosukee Tribe also has 

the right to hunt and fish for subsistence 

purposes and to take frogs for food and 

for commercial purposes in the lands it 

leases from the state of Florida within 

Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA– 

3A).56 The Seminole Tribe has the right 

to hunt, trap, fish and frog in the 

portions of WCA–3A that it transferred 

to the state of Florida pursuant to a 1987 

agreement.57 The docket for this 

rulemaking includes copies of the 

Federal laws and other documents that 

reflect these reserved rights. It also 

includes a map depicting, as of the date 

of publication of this proposed 

rulemaking, the areas with reserved 

rights based on the relevant statutes and 

related documents provided by the 

Tribes, Tribal reservation and trust 

lands, and associated geographical 

information system (GIS) layers. The 

EPA requests comment on whether 

these maps accurately reflect the 

relevant reserved rights. 

As noted in Section III.B. of this 

preamble, HHC are designed to protect 

humans from lifetime exposure to 

pollutants through the ingestion of 

drinking water and consumption of fish/ 

shellfish obtained from inland and 

nearshore waters. The RSC component 

accounts for sources of exposure other 

than drinking water and consumption of 

fish and shellfish from inland and 

nearshore waters (e.g., consumption of 

frogs and other foods, dermal and 

inhalation exposure, and other potential 

exposure sources/routes). The specific 

Tribal reserved rights that the EPA has 

concluded could be affected by this 

HHC rulemaking in Florida are the 

Seminole Tribe’s and Miccosukee 

Tribe’s reserved rights to fish for 

subsistence purposes and to take frogs 

for food. The EPA requests comment on 

this conclusion. While Florida has other 

types of criteria in place that are 

relevant to protection of the aquatic and 

aquatic-dependent resources that the 

Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe 

may hunt and trap pursuant to their 

reserved rights (e.g., amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, and mammals), those 

other types of criteria are not the subject 

of, nor are they affected by, this 

rulemaking. See Section IV.C.1. of this 

preamble for a discussion of how the 

EPA considered the Tribes’ rights to fish 

for subsistence purposes and to take 

frogs for food in certain waters in 

Florida when selecting the FCR input to 

derive the proposed HHC in this 

rulemaking. 

C. Human Health Criteria Inputs 

1. Fish Consumption Rate 

a. General Population Rate 

As discussed, both state-specific and 

national data show that fish 

consumption rates within the state have 

increased since Florida first established 

its existing HHC.58 For protection of the 

general population in all waters of the 

state except in those waters where the 

Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe 

have reserved rights to fish for their 

subsistence, EPA proposes to derive 

new and revised HHC for Florida using 

the national default FCR of 22 g/day 

(comprised of 8, 9 and 5 g/day for 

consumption of trophic level 2, 3, and 

4 fish, respectively).59 The selected FCR 

is based on consideration of the 

following information: 

• A 1994 state-specific study, Per 

Capita Fish and Shellfish 

Consumption in Florida 60

• The EPA’s 2014 analysis of 2003– 

2010 NHANES data. 61

The only state-specific FCR study the 

EPA is aware of is a 1994 study funded 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (Florida DEP) 

and conducted by Dr. Robert Degner of 

the University of Florida.62 This study 

reported average FCRs ranging from 

approximately 20–60 g/day for different 

population groups in the state. While 

Florida used this comprehensive 1994 

study to inform its 2016 HHC, the state 

ultimately decided that it could not use 

it as the sole basis for determining a 

Florida-specific FCR, in large part 

because the 1994 study had been 

superseded by newer data and study 

methodologies. The EPA has similarly 

concluded that it would be preferable to 

select a FCR based on newer data and 

methodologies and therefore is not 

proposing to use the 1994 study to 

calculate the HHC in this rulemaking. 

However, the EPA notes that its selected 

FCR of 22 g/day is within the range of 

FCRs from the 1994 study. 

As mentioned above, the EPA’s 

national default general population FCR 

of 22 g/day represents the 90th 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85537 

63USEPA. (2014). Estimated Fish Consumption 

Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected 

Subpopulations (NHANES 2003–2010), EPA 820– 

R–14–002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2015-01/documents/fish-consumption-rates2014.pdf. 

64See Id. p. 7–8 for which states comprise each 

region, based on the regions as defined by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. 

65The 95% confidence interval increases as the 

sample size decreases. In all but one instance, the 

95% confidence interval associated with the 

national default FCR (19.1–25.4 g/day) overlaps 

with the 95% confidence interval for the geographic 

regions relevant to Florida, suggesting that the 

geographic-specific FCRs may not be meaningfully 

different from the national default FCR: (South 

(21.6–32 g/day), Atlantic (25.3–37.5 g/day), Gulf of 

Mexico (22.5–36.4) and Inland South (18.6–27.9). 

66USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. UEPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf at 1–13. EPA proposes to apply the same 

ratios of trophic level-specific consumption to the 

142 g/day as to the 22 g/day. For the 142 g/day total 

consumption rate, the trophic level-specific 

consumption rates for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4 are 

52, 58 and 32 g/day, respectively. 

67USEPA. (2016). Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Tissue Contaminant Study for Big Cypress and 

Brighton Reservations. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and 

Ecosystem Support Division. SESD Project ID #: 16– 

0380. 

68Ridolfi Environmental. (2017). Evaluation of 

Heritage Aquatic Species Consumption Rates, 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. 

69USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

70USEPA. (2016). Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Tissue Contaminant Study for Big Cypress and 

Brighton Reservations. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and 

Ecosystem Support Division. SESD Project ID #: 16– 

0380. 

71Ridolfi Environmental. 2017. Evaluation of 

Heritage Aquatic Species Consumption Rates, 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. 

72USEPA. (2016). Guidance for Conducting Fish 

Consumption Surveys. EPA–823B16002. 

73 Id. 

74The Tribes’ anticipated future exercise of those 

rights could be informed by the importance of fish 

consumption as a protein source as well as realistic 

potential consumption rates that reflect the modernday availability of alternative protein sources and 

current lifestyles. For example, the EPA approved 

the Spokane Tribe’s HHC based on a FCR of 865 g/ 

day. This FCR maintains the caloric intake 

characteristic of a traditional subsistence lifestyle 

while accounting for the lesser quantity and 

diversity of fish currently available to the Tribe as 

a result of the construction of the Grand Coulee 

Dam. See U.S. EPA Region 10. (December 11, 2013). 

Technical Support Document for Action on the 

Revised Surface Water Quality Standards of the 

Spokane Tribe of Indians Submitted April 2010. 

percentile consumption rate of fish and 

shellfish from inland and nearshore 

waters for the U.S. adult population 21 

years of age and older and is based on 

the EPA’s analysis of NHANES data 

from 2003 to 2010.63 The EPA also 

analyzed the 2003–2010 NHANES data 

based on geographic areas in the U.S., 

four of which are relevant to the 

selection of a FCR for Florida.64 Each of 

these FCRs are based on the 

consumption of fish and shellfish from 

inland and nearshore waters for adults 

21 years of age and older. The 90th 

percentile FCR for those living in the 

South is 26.3 g/day. The 90th percentile 

FCR for those living in the Atlantic 

Coast region—or coastal counties in the 

16 states that border the Atlantic 

Coast—is 30.8 g/day. The 90th 

percentile FCR for those living in the 

Gulf of Mexico Coast region—those 

coastal counties in the five states that 

border the Gulf of Mexico—is 28.6 g/ 

day. Finally, the 90th percentile FCR for 

those living in the Inland South 

region—the remaining non-coastal 

counties in the South—is 22.8 g/day. 

While each of these FCRs is likely 

representative of certain areas in 

Florida, the EPA concluded that they 

were not different enough from the 

EPA’s national default FCR of 22 g/day 

to warrant the increased uncertainty 

that these smaller geographic-specific 

datasets would introduce.65 Therefore, 

the EPA is proposing to use the national 

default FCR of 22 g/day to calculate 

HHC in this rule to protect the general 

population in the state. The EPA 

requests comment on whether it should 

consider using one of the geographicspecific FCRs to derive HHC for Florida, 

and if so, how the EPA should account 

for the smaller sample sizes and 

associated uncertainty. 

b. Subsistence Rate 

For protection of subsistence 

consumers in the geographic areas 

where the Seminole Tribe and 

Miccosukee Tribe have reserved rights 

to fish for subsistence purposes and to 

take frogs for food, the EPA proposes to 

derive new and revised HHC for Florida 

using the national default subsistence 

FCR of 142 g/day.66 The selected FCR is 

based on consideration of the following 

information, which the EPA discusses 

in turn below: 

• A 2016 Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Tissue Contaminant Study for Big 

Cypress and Brighton Reservations 67

• A 2017 Evaluation of Heritage 

Aquatic Species Consumption Rates 

for the Seminole Tribe of Florida 68

• The EPA’s 2000 default FCR for 

subsistence fishers 69

In 2016, EPA Region 4 published the 

report Seminole Tribe of Florida Tissue 

Contaminant Study for Big Cypress and 

Brighton Reservations, which had been 

requested by the Seminole Tribe.70 The 

study analyzed fish tissue samples from 

the Big Cypress and Brighton 

Reservations for toxic pollutants and, 

based on the level of toxins found, 

proposed species-specific meal 

frequencies that the Tribe could use to 

post fish consumption advisories. The 

study used a suggested meal size from 

the EPA’s Guidance for Assessing 

Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in 

Fish Advisories, Volumes 1 and 2 (EPA 

823–B–00–007 and 008) of 227 g. 

However, the study does not identify a 

meal frequency to pair with the 227 g 

meal size and therefore the EPA could 

not determine an appropriate FCR from 

this study. The EPA requests comment 

on whether, as a potential alternative to 

the proposed default FCR of 142 g/day, 

227 g/day is an appropriate meal size for 

Tribal subsistence consumers in Florida, 

and if so, whether there are data and 

information to support a meal 

frequency, such as one or two meals per 

day, to associate with subsistence 

practices. 

The 2017 Ridolfi, Inc. study 

Evaluation of Heritage Aquatic Species 

Consumption Rates for the Seminole 

Tribe of Florida identifies heritage 

consumption rates for the Seminole 

Tribe, based on a literature review of 

historical and ethnographic materials.71

A heritage rate is the amount of fish 

consumed prior to non-indigenous or 

modern sources of contamination and 

interference with the natural lifecycle of 

fish, in addition to changes in human 

society.72 While often thought of as a 

historic rate, heritage rates may be 

useful in establishing a subsistence 

consumption baseline (i.e., 

unsuppressed consumption level) in 

areas where Tribes have reserved rights 

to fish for subsistence (such as the case 

here for the two Tribes in Florida).73

The 2017 Ridolfi, Inc. study estimated a 

heritage consumption rate of 800 g/day 

for freshwater fish, amphibians and 

reptiles, and a heritage consumption 

rate of 47 g/day for anadromous fish and 

marine shellfish. 

The EPA is proposing to rely on the 

default subsistence FCR of 142 g/day, 

rather than the heritage rates from the 

2017 Ridolfi, Inc. study, for the 

following reasons. First, the 2017 

Ridolfi, Inc. study focuses solely on 

historic consumption patterns, and does 

not contain information indicating that 

the heritage rates in the study are 

consistent with the Tribes’ anticipated 

exercise of their subsistence rights 

moving forward.74 Namely, the EPA 

lacks information indicating that these 

heritage rates reflect the amount of 

aquatic species that the Tribes would 

actually consume in the absence of 

factors such as, for example, concerns 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85538 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

75USEPA. (2016). Guidance for Conducting Fish 

Consumption Surveys. EPA–823B16002. 76The EPA understands that both Tribes are 

currently considering their plans for each of their 

next WQS triennial reviews and whether revisions 

to their on-reservation HHC, which are currently 

based on default FCRs that the EPA has 

recommended for the general population, would be 

warranted. On their own reservations, the Tribes are 

responsible for determining the criteria to protect 

their designated uses, based on a sound scientific 

rationale. If the Tribes were in the future to each 

develop an FCR to protect subsistence fishing on 

their reservations, such information could help 

inform a future revision to Florida’s HHC in the 

geographic areas where the two Tribes have offreservation reserved rights to fish for subsistence 

purposes and to take frogs for food. 

77USEPA. Final Updated Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, 80 FR 

36986 (June 29, 2015). See also USEPA. (2015). 

Final 2015 Updated National Recommended 

Human Health Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ 

human-health-water-quality-criteria. 78USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

79 Jacobs, H.L., Kahn, H.D., Stralka, K.A., and 

Phan, D.B. (1998). Estimates of per capita fish 

consumption in the U.S. based on the continuing 

survey of food intake by individuals (CSFII). Risk 

Analysis: An International Journal 18(3). 

80 Institute of Medicine. (2005). Dietary Reference 

Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty 

acids, cholesterol, protein and amino acids. 

Washington (DC): National Academies Press. 

81Richter, M., Baerlocher, K., Bauer, J.M., 

Elmadfa, I., Heseker, H., Leschik-Bonnet, E., Stangl, 

G., Volkert, D., Stehle, P. (2019). Revised Reference 

Values for the Intake of Protein. Annals of Nutrition 

and Metabolism 74(3):242–250. 

82Hudson, J.L., Wang, Y., Bergia, I., R.E., 

Campbell, WW. (2020). Protein Intake Greater than 

the RDA Differentially Influences Whole-Body Lean 

Mass Responses to Purposeful Catabolic and 

Anabolic Stressors: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Advances in Nutrition 11(3):548–558. 

83Pasiakos, S.M., Agarwal, S., Lieberman, H.R., 

Fulgoni III, V.L. (2015). Sources and Amounts of 

Animal, Dairy, and Plant Protein Intake of US 

Adults in 2007–2010. Nutrients 7(8): 7058–7069. 

84Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO). (2014). The state of world 

fisheries and aquaculture. Opportunities and 

challenges. Rome, Italy. 

85Ahmed, I., Jan, K., Fatma, S., Dawood, M.A.O. 

(2022). Muscle proximate composition of various 

food fish species and their nutritional significance: 

A review. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal 

Nutrition. Volume 106, Issue 3 (690–719). 

86U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

(December 2020). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2020–2025. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_

Americans-2020-2025.pdf at 96. 

about water quality.75 Further, a 

relevant data point regarding the Tribes’ 

anticipated future exercise of their 

rights is the FCR of either 17.5 g/day or 

22 g/day used by the Tribes in their 

federally approved WQS applicable on 

their reservations.76 Based on 

information obtained through 

consultation and coordination with both 

Tribes, reflected in the docket for this 

rulemaking, the EPA does not have 

sufficient information to conclude that 

the heritage rates identified in the 2017 

Ridolfi, Inc. study are representative of 

the anticipated exercise of those rights 

moving forward for both the Seminole 

Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe. 

Second, as noted in Section III.B.3. of 

this preamble, in the 2015 national 

recommended 304(a) HHC, the EPA 

developed national BAFs for three 

trophic levels of fish.77 These BAFs 

reflect the uptake of each contaminant 

by fish and shellfish and would not be 

appropriate to use to reflect uptake by 

amphibians or reptiles. At this time, the 

EPA does not have available data to 

calculate BAFs for amphibians or 

reptiles for the pollutants of concern in 

this proposed rulemaking such that the 

agency could utilize the corresponding 

heritage consumption rates for 

amphibians and reptiles in the 2017 

Ridolfi, Inc. study. The EPA concluded 

that its proposed HHC for the 

geographic areas where the Seminole 

Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe have 

reserved rights to fish on a subsistence 

basis are health protective because the 

agency applied an RSC of 0.2, which 

allows for 80% of a chemical’s exposure 

to come from sources other than 

drinking water and inland and 

nearshore fish and shellfish. This health 

protective approach is consistent with 

the EPA’s longstanding practice and 

peer reviewed 2000 Methodology.78

For these reasons, the EPA is not 

proposing to use the heritage 

consumption rates from the 2017 

Ridolfi, Inc. study to calculate the HHC 

in this rulemaking. The EPA requests 

comment on whether, as a potential 

alternative to the proposed default FCR 

of 142 g/day, there are data and 

appropriate methodologies with which 

to re-evaluate the heritage rates based on 

the anticipated exercise of applicable 

tribal reserved rights moving forward 

where the two Tribes have reserved 

rights to fish for subsistence purposes 

and to take frogs for food. 

Finally, as noted above, the EPA’s 

2000 Methodology recommends a 

default FCR of 142 g/day for subsistence 

fishers, based on the 1994–1996 

Continuing Survey of Food Intake by 

Individuals conducted by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, in the 

absence of local data.79 Due to the lack 

of local fish consumption data to 

determine a current unsuppressed 

subsistence FCR, the EPA is proposing 

to use the default subsistence rate for 

the geographic areas where the 

Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee Tribe 

have reserved rights to fish for 

subsistence purposes and to take frogs 

for food. One way to evaluate the 

reasonableness of the default FCR of 142 

g/day for application to subsistence 

rights is to consider the nutritional 

needs of those relying on fish and 

shellfish as a dietary staple. The 

Recommended Dietary Allowance 

(RDA) for protein intake for nutritional 

needs is 0.8 g per kg body weight per 

day.80 However, research suggests that a 

protein intake rate of 1.0 g/kg/day may 

be more appropriate for older adults.81

This rate would also benefit individuals 

who are more physically active 

regardless of age.82 Using data for U.S. 

adults from NHANES for 2007–2010, 

researchers found that the percentages 

of total protein intake derived from 

animal, dairy, and plant protein were 

46%, 16%, and 30%, respectively (8% 

of intake could not be classified).83 The 

same study found that fish comprise 5% 

of (non-dairy) animal protein intake 

(2.5% of total protein intake). This puts 

the high-end of protein intake from all 

animal/dairy sources at 70% (assuming 

all unclassified protein intake is from 

animal sources). There may be many 

potential ways to determine an 

appropriate percent of protein from 

animal sources that come from fish as a 

staple food. A United Nations synthesis 

study highlighted that in certain parts of 

the world where fish protein is a crucial 

nutritional component and considered a 

staple, fish contributes (or exceeds) 50% 

of total animal protein intake.84

Considering that protein comprises 

approximately 20% of fish wet 

weight, 85 then putting together the 

figures cited above yields a subsistence 

FCR of 140 g/day (1 g/kg/day protein 

allowance * 80 kg body weight/20% 

protein content in fish * 70% of protein 

from all animal/dairy sources * 50% of 

animal protein from fish (for high 

consuming fish populations)). This 

example calculation provides additional 

support for using the default FCR for 

subsistence fishers of 142 g/day. Further 

support is provided by the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, which 

recommends adults consume 5–7 

ounces of ‘‘protein foods’’ daily 

depending on total calorie intake.86

Since 142 grams equals 5 ounces, this 

level of fish consumption would reflect 

70–100% of this recommendation, 

consistent with use of fish as a staple 

protein food. 

Additionally, the EPA evaluated 

whether 142 g/day is still representative 

of current consumption rates for highly 

exposed groups, as noted in the 2000 

Methodology. Post-2000 consumption 

surveys of high fish consuming 

populations (e.g., Tribes and Asian 

Pacific Islanders) resulted in mean FCRs 

ranging from 18.6 g/day to 233 g/day 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85539 

87Polissar, N.L., Salisbury, A., Ridolfi, C., 

Callahan, K., Neradilek, M., Hippe, D.S., and 

Beckley, W.H. (2016). A Fish Consumption Survey 

of the Nez Perce Tribe. The Mountain-WhisperLight Statistics, Pacific Market Research, Ridolfi, 

Inc. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2017-01/documents/fish-consumption-survey-nezperce-dec2016.pdf; Polissar, N.L., Salisbury, A., 

Ridolfi, C., Callahan, K., Neradilek, M., Hippe, D.S., 

and W.H. Beckley. (2016). A Fish Consumption 

Survey of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The 

Mountain-Whisper-Light Statistics, Pacific Market 

Research, Ridolfi, Inc. https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2017-01/documents/fishconsumption-survey-shoshone-bannockdec2016.pdf; Seldovia Village Tribe. (2013). 

Assessment of Cook Inlet Tribes Subsistence 

Consumption. Seldovia Village Tribe 

Environmental Department; Suquamish Tribe. 

(2000). Fish Consumption Survey of The Suquamish 

Indian Tribe of The Port Madison Indian 

Reservation, Puget Sound Region. Suquamish, 

W.A.; Sechena, R., Liao, S., Lorenzana, R., Nakano, 

C., Polissar, N., Fenske., R. (2003). Asian American 

and Pacific Islander seafood consumption—a 

community-based study in King County, 

Washington. J of Exposure Analysis and Environ 

Epidemiology. (13): 256–266; Lance, T.A., Brown, 

K., Drabek, K., Krueger, K., and S. Hales. (2019). 

Kodiak Tribes Seafood Consumption Assessment: 

Draft Final Report, Sun’aq Tribe of Kodiak, Kodiak, 

AK. https://sunaq.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 

09/Kodiak-Tribes-Seafood-ConsumptionAssessment-DRAFT-Final-Report-26Feb19- 

FINAL.pdf. 

88USEPA. (June 29, 2015). Final Updated 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health, 80 FR 36986. See also USEPA. 

(2015). Final 2015 Updated National Recommended 

Human Health Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ 

national-recommended-water-quality-criteriahuman-health-criteria-table. 

89While there may be new toxicity information 

available for certain pollutants that is not yet 

reflected in the EPA’s CWA section 304(a) national 

recommended HHC, such information has not yet 

been reviewed through the EPA’s CWA section 

304(a) criteria development process and therefore is 

not incorporated into this proposal. For example, 

there is new toxicity information available for 

benzo(a)pyrene, the index PAH used to derive the 

toxicity values for six other PAHs. The EPA is 

considering this new toxicity information. Once 

EPA has developed updated CWA section 304(a) 

criteria for these pollutants, the State should 

evaluate its HHC for these pollutants during its next 

triennial review. See 40 CFR 131.20(a). 

90The EPA issued a recommended HHC for 

beryllium in 1980 (USEPA. [October 1980]. 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium. EPA 

440 5–80–024) but then withdrew that HHC 

recommendation in the 1992 National Toxics Rule 

(USEPA. [December 1992]. Establishment of 

Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants, 57 

FR 60848, December 22, 1992). The EPA cited the 

need to further evaluate whether beryllium in water 

could pose a carcinogenic risk to humans as the 

basis for the withdrawal. The EPA calculated the 

HHC for beryllium using the non-carcinogenic 

endpoint (i.e., the RfD) for the purposes of this 

rulemaking. 

91USEPA. IRIS Assessments: Beryllium and 

compounds. https://iris.epa.gov/ChemicalLanding/ 

&substance_nmbr=12 (last accessed July 5, 2023). 

92Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf. 

93EPA 2000 Methodology, p. 2–6. The 

Methodology recommends that states set human 

health criteria CRLs for the target general 

population at either 10¥5 or 10¥6 (p. 2–6) and also 

notes that states and authorized tribes can always 

choose a more stringent risk level, such as 10¥7 (p. 

1–12). 

94Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf at 11. 

and 90th percentile FCRs ranging from 

48.9 g/day to 528 g/day.87 Therefore, 

142 g/day appears to still be 

representative of current consumption 

rates for certain highly exposed groups, 

albeit possibly on the low end. These 

data are for illustrative purposes only; 

the surveyed populations cited here are 

not local to Florida and these current 

consumption rates may be suppressed 

by fish availability or concerns about 

the safety of available fish. 

2. Body Weight 

The EPA proposes to calculate new 

and revised HHC for Florida using a 

body weight of 80 kg. As noted above, 

this represents the average weight of a 

U.S. adult age 21 and older, based on 

NHANES data from 1999 to 2006 (see 

Section III.B.3. of this preamble). 

3. Drinking Water Intake 

The EPA proposes to calculate new 

and revised HHC for Florida using a 

drinking water intake rate of 2.4 L/day. 

In 2015, the EPA updated its national 

default drinking water intake rate to 2.4 

L/day based on national survey data (see 

Section III.B.3. of this preamble). The 

EPA is not aware of any local data 

applicable to Florida that suggest a 

different rate. 

4. Pollutant-Specific Reference Doses 

and Cancer Slope Factors 

As part of the EPA’s 2015 updates to 

its 304(a) recommended HHC, the EPA 

conducted a systematic search of eight 

peer-reviewed, publicly available 

sources to obtain the most current 

toxicity values for each pollutant (RfDs 

for non-carcinogenic effects and CSFs 

for carcinogenic effect).88 The EPA 

proposes to calculate new and revised 

HHC for Florida using the same toxicity 

values that the EPA used in its 2015 

recommended 304(a) HHC update, to 

ensure that the resulting criteria are 

based on a similar, sound scientific 

rationale.89

For benzene, the EPA’s 2015 304(a) 

recommended HHC are presented as a 

range, based on a range of CSFs. In this 

rule, the EPA proposes to use the upper 

end of the range of CSFs to derive the 

HHC for benzene as the approach 

resulting in the most health-protective 

value. EPA requests comment on this 

decision. 

Where the EPA did not update criteria 

for certain pollutants in 2015, the EPA 

proposes to use the toxicity values that 

the agency used the last time it updated 

its 304(a) criteria for those pollutants as 

the best available scientific information. 

For beryllium, where the EPA has no 

304(a) recommended HHC,90 the EPA 

calculated draft HHC using the most 

recent toxicity value from IRIS, which is 

an RfD from 1998.91 This is consistent 

with the approach that Florida was 

proposing to follow in 2016.92 When 

using the 1998 RfD for beryllium, in 

conjunction with the other inputs 

described above and below, the 

resulting HHC are less stringent than 

Florida’s existing HHC for beryllium. 

Therefore, as noted above consistent 

with CWA section 510, EPA is not 

proposing Federal HHC for beryllium in 

this rule. See Table 1 of this preamble, 

columns B1 and B3 for a list of 

pollutant-specific toxicity factors that 

the EPA proposes to use to calculate 

new and revised HHC for Florida. If the 

resulting draft HHC values are less 

stringent than Florida’s existing HHC, 

those values are noted with an asterisk 

in Table 1 of this preamble and are 

excluded from the EPA’s proposed 

HHC. 

5. Cancer Risk Level 

The EPA proposes to derive HHC for 

Florida using a CRL of 10¥6 for all 

pollutants and for all waters in the state, 

including waters where Tribes have 

reserved rights to fish on a subsistence 

basis. The EPA’s selection of a 10¥6

CRL is consistent with EPA’s 2000 

Methodology, which states that the EPA 

intends to use the 10¥6 level when 

promulgating water quality criteria for 

states and Tribes.93 In addition, 

Florida’s existing HHC are based on a 

10¥6 CRL.94

Moreover, as noted above, the 

Miccosukee Tribe and Seminole Tribe 

have reserved rights to fish for 

subsistence in certain waters of the 

state. The EPA’s selection of a 10¥6 CRL 

ensures that Tribal members exercising 

their legal rights to harvest and consume 

fish and shellfish at subsistence levels 

are protected to the same risk level as 

the general population is protected in 

other state waters. 

6. Relative Source Contribution 

When developing national 

recommended HHC, the EPA applies an 

RSC for non-carcinogens and nonlinear 

carcinogens to account for sources of 

exposure other than drinking water and 

consumption of inland and nearshore 

fish and shellfish (see Section III.B.4. of 

this preamble). In 2015, after evaluating 

information on chemical uses, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85540 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

95USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

96USEPA, Final Updated Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, 80 FR 

36986 (June 29, 2015). See also USEPA. (2015). 

Final 2015 Updated National Recommended 

Human Health Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/ 

human-health-water-quality-criteria. 

97USEPA. (2002). National Recommended Water 

Quality Criteria: 2002 Human Health Criteria 

Calculation Matrix. EPA–822–R–02–012. https:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/ 

upload/2002_12_30_criteria_wqctable_hh_calc_

matrix.pdf. 

98USEPA. (2000). Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. EPA–822–B–00–004. https://

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/ 

documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh2000.pdf. 

99USEPA. (October 1980). Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria for Beryllium. EPA 440 5–80–024. 100 Id. 101Chapman, W.H., Fisher, H.L. & Pratt, M.W. 

(1968). Concentration factors of chemical elements 

in edible aquatic organisms. Lawrence Radiation 

Laboratory.; Shigematsu et al. Spectrophotometric 

Determination of Beryllium in biomaterials and 

Natural Water. Eunseki Kagaku. 102ATSDR. (January 2022). Toxicological Profile 

for Beryllium. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

ToxProfiles/tp4.pdf. 103Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. (2016). Technical Support Document: 

Derivation of Human Health-Based Criteria and 

Risk Impact Statement. https://floridadep.gov/sites/ 

default/files/HH_TSD.pdf. 

104Table 1 of this preamble includes the 77 

pollutants that EPA identified in its December 2022 

Administrator’s Determination as needing new or 

revised HHC. As explained further above (see 

Section IV.A. of this preamble), when EPA 

calculated the new and revised HHC for those 77 

pollutants using a sound scientific rationale, 

including a revised FCR of either 22 g/day or 142 

g/day, the resulting draft criteria that the agency 

found would be protective of the State’s designated 

uses were in some cases less stringent than 

Florida’s existing HHC. For four pollutants—1,1- 

Dichloroethylene, Beryllium, Chrysene and 

Phenol—all four of the associated HHC were less 

stringent than Florida’s existing HHC. EPA has 

included those pollutants in Table 1 here for clarity 

and transparency on the approach that the EPA 

followed, but not in the proposed regulatory text 

where the agency is not proposing any HHC 

associated with those pollutants. 

properties, occurrences, releases to the 

environment and regulatory restrictions, 

the EPA developed chemical-specific 

RSCs for non-carcinogens and nonlinear 

carcinogens ranging from 0.2 (20 

percent) to 0.8 (80 percent) following 

the Exposure Decision Tree approach 

described in the EPA’s 2000 Human 

Health Methodology.95 96 For these 

pollutants, the EPA proposes to use the 

same RSCs to derive the HHC. For 

pollutants where the EPA did not 

update the 304(a) HHC in 2015, the EPA 

proposes to use an RSC of 0.2 to derive 

HHC following the Exposure Decision 

Tree approach described in the EPA’s 

2000 Methodology; this approach takes 

into consideration potential significant 

exposure sources to Floridians other 

than drinking water and inland and 

nearshore fish and shellfish and results 

in the most health protective HHC. In 

the case of antimony (for which the EPA 

did not update the 304(a) recommended 

HHC in 2015), EPA proposes to use an 

RSC of 0.4 consistent with the RSC 

value used the last time the agency 

updated this criterion.97

7. Pollutant-Specific Bioaccumulation 

Factors 

Where data are available, the EPA 

uses BAFs to account for the uptake and 

retention of waterborne chemicals by 

aquatic organisms from all surrounding 

media and to ensure that resulting 

criteria are science-based and protect 

designated uses for human health. For 

the 2015 recommended 304(a) HHC 

update, the EPA estimated chemicalspecific BAFs for three different trophic 

levels of fish (levels 2 through 4), using 

a framework for deriving national BAFs 

described in EPA’s 2000 Methodology.98

The EPA proposes to use those BAFs to 

calculate the proposed HHC. Where 

BAFs are not available at this time for 

certain pollutants, the EPA proposes to 

use the bioconcentration factors (BCFs) 

that the EPA used the last time it 

updated its CWA section 304(a) 

recommended criteria for those 

pollutants as the best available scientific 

information. The EPA specifically 

invites comment on whether there are 

any robust, publicly available statespecific BAF data that the EPA should 

consider. See Table 1 of this preamble, 

columns B4 through B7 for a list of 

EPA’s proposed bioaccumulation factors 

by pollutant. As noted above, if the 

resulting draft HHC values are less 

stringent than Florida’s existing HHC, 

those values are noted with an asterisk 

in Table 1 of this preamble and are 

excluded from the EPA’s proposed 

HHC. 

As mentioned above, the EPA no 

longer has 304(a) recommended HHC 

for beryllium after having withdrawn its 

1980 beryllium 304(a) 

recommendations.99 However, the EPA 

is not aware of any science-based BAFs 

or even more recent BCFs to suggest that 

the BCF of 19 from the EPA’s 1980 

304(a) recommended criteria 100 is not 

the best available scientific information 

for beryllium. A 1968 study by 

Chapman et al. reports a BCF of 100 for 

fish, but this study pre-dates the EPA’s 

1980 criteria document.101 Additionally, 

the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry’s January 2022 draft 

Toxicological Profile for Beryllium notes 

that beryllium does not bioconcentrate 

in aquatic organisms, and that the 

agency did not find evidence of 

beryllium bioaccumulation in the food 

chain of humans.102 Therefore, the EPA 

calculated draft HHC for beryllium 

using the BCF of 19 from the EPA’s 

withdrawn 1980 304(a) recommended 

beryllium criteria document. This is 

consistent with the approach that 

Florida was proposing to follow in 

2016.103 When using this BCF for 

beryllium, in conjunction with the other 

inputs described above, the resulting 

draft HHC are less stringent than 

Florida’s existing HHC for beryllium. 

Therefore, as noted above consistent 

with CWA section 510, the EPA is not 

proposing Federal HHC for beryllium in 

this rulemaking. 

D. Proposed Human Health Criteria for 

Florida 

The EPA proposes new HHC for 37 

priority toxic pollutants and revised 

HHC for 36 priority toxic pollutants to 

protect the designated uses of Florida’s 

waters (see Table 1 of this preamble).104

The criteria in columns C1 and C2 of 

Table 1 of this preamble apply to state 

waters where the Seminole Tribe and 

Miccosukee Tribe do not have reserved 

rights to fish on a subsistence basis. The 

criteria in columns D1 and D2 of Table 

1 of this preamble apply to state waters 

where the Seminole Tribe and 

Miccosukee Tribe have reserved rights 

to fish on a subsistence basis. The 

water-plus-organism criteria in either 

column C1 or D1 of Table 1 of this 

preamble are the applicable criteria for 

any waters that include the Class I use 

(potable water supplies) defined in 

Florida’s WQS (Chapter 62–302, Florida 

Administrative Code). The organismonly criteria in either column C2 or D2 

of Table 1 of this preamble are the 

applicable criteria for any waters that do 

not include the Class I use and that are 

defined at Chapter 62–302 of the Florida 

Administrative Code as the following: 

—Class II—Shellfish Propagation or 

Harvesting; 

—Class III—Fish Consumption; 

Recreation, Propagation and 

Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife; or 

—Class III—Limited—Fish 

Consumption; Recreation or Limited 

Recreation; and/or Propagation and 

Limited Maintenance of a Limited 

Population of Fish and Wildlife. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

criteria and the inputs the EPA used to 

derive these criteria. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

EP08DE23.033</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Table 1. EPA Prooosed Human Health Criteria for Florida 

A B C 

Bioaccumu 

Cancer lotion 

Slope Relative Factor for Bioaccumul Bioaccumul Bioconce 

Chemical CAS Factor, Source Reference Trophic ation Factor ation Factor ntration 

Number CS!<' Contrib Dose, Level2 for Trophic for Trophic t'actor Water& Or

(per ution, RID (Ukg Level3 Level4 (L/kg Organisms s

mg/kg·d) RSC(-) (mg/kg·d) tissue) (Ukg (Ukg tissue) (μg/L) (

(Bl) (B2) (B3) (B4) tissue) CBS) tissue) CB6) (B7) (Ct) 

I I, 1,1-'J'richloroethane 71556 - 0.20 2 6.9 9.0 10 - 10000 2

2 1, 1,2,2-Telrachloroelhane 79345 0.2 - - 5.7 7.4 8.4 - (0.2)* 

3 I. 1.2-Trichloroelhane 79005 0.057 - - 6.0 7.8 8.9 - 0.55 

4 I, 1-Dichloroelhykne 75354 - 0.20 0.05 2.0 2.4 2.6 - (300)* (2

5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 0.029 - - 2,800 1,500 430 - 0.068 

6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 - 0.20 0.3 52 71 82 - 1000 

7 1,2-D ich loroethane 107062 0.0033 - - 1.6 1.8 1.9 - 9.9 

8 1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 0.036 - - 2.9 3.5 3.9 - 0.9 

9 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122667 0.8 - - 18 24 27 - 0.03 

10 1,2-Trans- 156605 - 0.20 0.02 3.3 4.2 4.7 - 100 

Dichloroethy Jene 

11 1,3-Dichloro benzene 541731 - 0.20 0.002 31 120 190 - 7 

12 1,3-Dichloropropene 542756 0.122 - - 2.3 2.7 3.0 - 0.27 

13 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 - 0.20 0,07 28 66 84 - 300 

14 2,4,6-Trichloropheno I 88062 0.011 - - 94 130 150 - 1.4 

15 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832 - 0.20 0.003 31 42 48 - 10 

16 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 - 0.20 0.02 4.8 6.2 7.0 - 100 17 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285 - 0.20 0.002 4.4 4.4 4.4 - to 

18 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121142 0.667 - - 2.8 3.5 3.9 - 0.048 

19 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 - 0.80 0.08 150 210 240 - 800 

20 2-Chlorophenol 95578 - 0.20 0.005 3.8 4.8 5.4 - 30 (

21 2-Mcthyl-4,6- 534521 - 0.20 0.0003 6.8 8.9 10 - 2 

Dinitro1Jhenol 

22 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91941 0.45 - - 44 60 69 - 0.049 

23 3-Methy 1-4-Chlorophenol 59507 - 0.20 0.1 25 34 39 - 500 

24 4,4'-DDT 50293 0.34 - - 35,000 240,000 1,100,000 - 3.0E-05 3

25 Acenaphthene 83329 - 0.20 0.06 510 510 510 - 70 26 Acrolein 107028 - 0.20 0.0005 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 3 

27 Acrylonitrilc 107131 0.54 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 0.061 

EP08DE23.034</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

28 Aldrin 309002 17 - - 18,000 310,000 650,000 - 7.6E-07 7

29 Anthracene 120127 - 0.20 0.3 610 610 610 - 300 

30 Antimony 7440360 - 0.40 0.0004 - - - 1 5 

31 Denzene 71432 0.055 - - 3.6 4.5 5.0 - 0.58 

32 Benzidine 92875 230 - - 1.4 1.6 1.7 - 0.00014 

33 Denzo(a) Anthracene 56553 0.73 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.001 

34 Denzo(a) Pyrene 50328 7.3 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.0001 0

35 Denzo(b) Fluoranthene 205992 0.73 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.001 

36 Bcnzo(k) Fluoranthcnc 207089 0.073 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - (0.01)• (

37 Derylliurn 7440417 - 0.20 0.002 - - - 19 (10)* 

b~ta38 Hexachlorocyclohexane 319857 1.8 - - 110 160 180 - 0.0079 

(HCH) 

39 Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 111444 1.1 - - 1.4 1.6 1.7 - 0.03 

40 Bis(2-Chloro-1- 108601 - 0.20 0.04 6.7 8.8 10 - 200 

Methvlelhvl) Ether 

41 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117817 0.014 - - 710 710 7IO - 0.32 

Phthalate 

42 Bromoform 75252 0.0045 - - 5.8 7.5 8.5 - (7)* 43 Buty 1 benzy I Phthalate 85687 0.0019 - - 19,000 19,000 19,000 - 0.1 

44 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.07 - - 9.3 12 14 - (0.4)* 

45 Chlordane 57749 0.35 - - 5,300 44,000 60,000 - 0.00031 0

46 Chlorobenzene 108907 - 0.20 0.02 14 19 22 - 100 

47 Chlorodibromomethane 124481 0.040 - - 3.7 4.8 5.3 - (0.80)* 

48 Chloroform 67663 - 0.20 0.01 2.8 3.4 3.8 - (60)* (2

49 Chrysene 218019 0.0073 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - (0.1)* (

50 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53703 7.3 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.0001 0

51 Oichlorohrornomethane 75274 0.034 - - 3.4 4.3 4.8 - (0.94)* 

52 Dieldrin 60571 16 - - 14,000 210,000 410,000 - 1.2E-06 153 Diethyl Phthalate 84662 - 0.20 0.8 920 920 920 - 600 

54 Dimethyl Phthalate 131113 - 0.20 10 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 2000 

55 Di-n-Dutyl Phthalate 84742 - 0.20 0.1 2,900 2,900 2,900 - 20 

56 Ethyl benzene 100414 - 0.20 0.022 100 140 160 - 67 

57 Pluoranthene 206440 - 0.20 0.04 1,500 1,500 1,500 - 20 58 Fluorene 86737 - 0.20 0.04 230 450 710 - 50 

59 lleptachlor 76448 4.1 - - 12,000 180,000 330,000 - 5.8£-06 5

60 Hcptach lor Epoxidc 1024573 5.5 - - 4,000 28,000 35,000 - 3.2E-05 3

EP08DE23.035</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

61 Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 0.04 - - 23,000 2,800 1,100 - 0.009 

62 Ilexachlorocyclopentadien 77474 - 0.20 0.006 620 1,500 1,300 - 4 

e 

63 Hexachloroethane 67721 0.04 - - 1,200 280 600 - 0.1 64 lndeno(l,2,3-cd) Pyrene 193395 0.73 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.001 

65 Tsophorone 78591 0.00095 - - 1.9 2.2 2.4 - 34 

66 Methyl Bromide 74839 - 0.20 0.02 1.2 1.3 1.4 - 100 167 Methylene Chloride 75092 0.002 - - 1.4 1.5 1.6 - (20)* 

68 Melhy !mercury 22967926 - 2.70E-05 0.0001 - - - - - 

69 Nitro benzene 98953 - 0.20 0.002 2.3 2.8 3.1 - 10 

70 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 87865 0.4 - - 44 290 520 - 0.03 

71 Phenol 108952 - 0.20 0.6 1.5 1.7 1.9 - (4000)* (30

72 Polychlorinatcd Biphcnyls 2 - - - - - 31,200 (6.0E-05)* (

(PCRs) 

73 Pyrene 129000 - 0.20 O.o3 860 860 860 - 20 74 Tetraehloroethylene 127184 0.0021 - - 49 66 76 - (10)* 75 Toluene 108883 - 0.20 0.0097 11 15 17 - 57 76 Trichloroethylene 79016 0.05 - - 8.7 12 13 - 0.6 77 Vinyl Chloride 75014 1.5 - - 1.4 1.6 1.7 - 0.022 

* Calculated draft HHC value is less stringent than FL' s corresponding HHC. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing these HHC. Draft HHC provided for 
85544 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

105 80 FR 51022 (August 21, 2015). 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

E. Applicability 

Under the CWA, Congress gave states 

primary responsibility for developing 

and adopting WQS for their navigable 

waters (CWA section 303(a) through (c)). 

Although the EPA is proposing revised 

HHC for Florida, Florida continues to 

have the option to adopt and submit to 

the EPA revised HHC for the state’s 

waters consistent with CWA section 

303(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 131. 

Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4), 

if Florida adopts and submits revised 

HHC and the EPA approves such criteria 

before finalizing this proposed 

rulemaking, the EPA would not proceed 

with the final rule for those waters and/ 

or pollutants for which the EPA 

approves Florida’s criteria. 

If the EPA finalizes this proposed 

rulemaking, and Florida subsequently 

adopts and submits new HHC, the EPA’s 

federally promulgated criteria will 

remain applicable for purposes of the 

CWA until the EPA withdraws the 

federally promulgated criteria. The EPA 

would undertake such a rulemaking to 

withdraw the Federal criteria for those 

waters and/or pollutants if and when 

Florida adopts and the EPA approves 

corresponding criteria that meet the 

requirements of section 303(c) of the 

CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 131. 

F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches 

and Implementation Mechanisms 

The Federal WQS regulation at 40 

CFR part 131 provides several 

approaches that Florida may utilize, at 

its discretion, when implementing or 

deciding how to implement the final 

HHC resulting from this proposed 

rulemaking. Among other things, the 

EPA’s WQS regulation: (1) allows states 

and authorized Tribes to authorize the 

use of compliance schedules in NPDES 

permits to meet water quality-based 

effluent limits (WQBELs) derived from 

the applicable WQS (40 CFR 131.15); (2) 

specifies the requirements for adopting 

criteria to protect designated uses, 

including criteria modified to reflect 

site-specific conditions (40 CFR 131.11); 

(3) authorizes and provides a regulatory 

framework for states and authorized 

Tribes to adopt WQS variances where it 

is not feasible to attain the applicable 

designated use and criterion for a period 

of time (40 CFR 131.14); and (4) 

specifies how states and authorized 

Tribes adopt, revise, or remove 

designated uses (40 CFR 131.10). Each 

of these approaches is discussed in 

more detail in the next sections. 

1. NPDES Permit Compliance Schedules 

The EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

122.47 and 131.15 address how 

permitting authorities can use schedules 

for compliance if the discharger needs 

additional time to undertake actions like 

facility upgrades or operation changes 

that will lead to compliance with the 

WQBEL based on the applicable WQS. 

The EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 122.47 

allows a permitting authority to include 

a compliance schedule in the NPDES 

permit, when appropriate as long as it 

requires compliance with the WQBEL as 

soon as possible and any schedule 

longer than 1 year includes interim 

requirements and the dates for their 

achievement. The EPA’s regulation at 40 

CFR 131.15 requires that a state that 

intends to allow the use of NPDES 

permit compliance schedules adopt 

specific provisions authorizing their use 

and obtain the EPA’s approval under 

CWA section 303(c) to ensure that a 

decision to allow a permit compliance 

schedule is transparent and allows for 

public input.105 Consistent with 40 CFR 

131.15, Florida is authorized to grant 

permit compliance schedules to meet 

WQBELs based on the Federal HHC in 

Florida, if such permit compliance 

schedules are consistent with 40 CFR 

122.47. 

2. Site-Specific Criteria 

The regulation at 40 CFR 131.11 

specifies requirements for modifying 

water quality criteria to reflect sitespecific conditions. In the context of 

this rulemaking, a site-specific criterion 

(SSC) is an alternative value to the 

Federal HHC that would be applied on 

an area-wide or water body-specific 

basis that meets the regulatory standard 

of protecting the designated uses, being 

based on sound science, and ensuring 

the protection and maintenance of 

downstream WQS. A SSC may be more 

or less stringent than the otherwise 

applicable Federal criterion. A SSC may 

be called for when further scientific data 

and analyses indicate that a different 

criterion may be needed to protect the 

human health designated uses in a 

particular water body or portion of a 

water body. 

3. WQS Variances 

Florida could adopt and submit for 

the EPA’s approval WQS variances, 

consistent with 40 CFR 131.14, to aid in 

implementation of the Federal HHC 

once promulgated. The Federal 

regulation at 40 CFR 131.3(o) defines a 

WQS variance as a time-limited 

designated use and criterion, for a 

specific pollutant or water quality 

parameter, that reflects the highest 

attainable condition during the term of 

the WQS variance. A WQS variance may 

be appropriate if attaining the use and 

criterion would not be feasible during 

the term of the WQS variance because 

of one of the seven factors specified in 

40 CFR 131.14(b)(2)(i)(A) but may be 

attainable in the future. These factors 

include where complying with NPDES 

permit limits more stringent than 

technology-based effluent limits would 

result in substantial and widespread 

economic and social impact. When 

adopting a WQS variance, states and 

authorized Tribes specify the interim 

requirements by identifying a 

quantifiable expression that reflects the 

highest attainable condition (HAC) 

during the term of the WQS variance, 

establishing the term of the WQS 

variance, and justifying the term by 

describing the pollutant control 

activities expected to occur over the 

specified term of the WQS variance. 

WQS variances provide a legal avenue 

by which NPDES permit limits can be 

written to comply with the WQS 

variance rather than the underlying 

WQS for the term of the WQS variance. 

WQS variances adopted in accordance 

with 40 CFR 131.14 (including a public 

hearing consistent with 40 CFR 25.5) 

provide a flexible but defined pathway 

for states and authorized Tribes to issue 

NPDES permits with limits that are 

based on the highest attainable 

condition during the term of the WQS 

variance, thus allowing dischargers to 

make incremental water quality 

improvements. If dischargers are still 

unable to meet the WQBELs derived 

from the applicable designated use and 

criterion once a WQS variance term is 

complete, the regulation allows the state 

to adopt a subsequent WQS variance if 

it is adopted consistent with 40 CFR 

131.14. 

4. Designated Uses 

The EPA’s proposed HHC apply to 

waters that Florida has designated for 

the following: 

Æ Class I—Potable Water Supplies; 

Æ Class II—Shellfish Propagation or 

Harvesting; 

Æ Class III—Fish Consumption; 

Recreation, Propagation and 

Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife; or 

Æ Class III—Limited—Fish 

Consumption; Recreation or Limited 

Recreation; and/or Propagation and 

Limited Maintenance of a Limited 

Population of Fish and Wildlife. 

The Federal regulation at 40 CFR 

131.10 provides requirements for 

adopting, revising, and removing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85545 

106 If a state or authorized Tribe adopts a new or 

revised WQS based on a required use attainability 

analysis, then it must also adopt the highest 

attainable use (40 CFR 131.10(g)). The highest 

attainable use is the modified aquatic life, wildlife, 

or recreation use that is both closest to the uses 

specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA and 

attainable, based on the evaluation of the factor(s) 

in 40 CFR 131.10(g) that preclude(s) attainment of 

the use and any other information or analyses that 

were used to evaluate attainability. There is no 

required highest attainable use where the state 

demonstrates the relevant use specified in section 

101(a)(2) of the Act and sub-categories of such a use 

are not attainable (see 40 CFR 131.3(m)). 

designated uses related to HHC when 

attaining the use is not feasible based on 

one of the six factors specified in the 

regulation. If Florida removes the 

human health-related designated use to 

which the EPA is proposing this HHC to 

apply for any waters, the state must 

adopt the highest attainable human 

health-related use 106 and criteria to 

protect the newly designated highest 

attainable use for those waters 

consistent with 40 CFR 131.11. It is 

possible that criteria other than the 

federally promulgated criteria would 

protect the highest attainable use. If the 

EPA were to find Florida’s designated 

use revision to be consistent with CWA 

section 303(c) and the implementing 

regulation at 40 CFR part 131, the 

agency would approve the revised WQS. 

The HHC promulgated here, once 

finalized, would not apply to those 

waters to which the human healthrelated use no longer applies upon the 

EPA’s approval. 

V. Economic Analysis 

The EPA focused its economic 

analysis on the potential cost impacts to 

current holders of individual NPDES 

permits and costs the state of Florida 

may bear to further assess waters 

identified as having exceedances and to 

develop Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) for waters newly identified as 

impaired under CWA section 303(d) 

using the proposed WQS. In its analysis 

of point sources, the EPA did not 

include facilities with individual 

permits for concentrated animal feeding 

operations or stormwater discharges or 

facilities covered under general permits. 

These permits typically focus on best 

management practices and relevant data 

for such facilities are limited. Costs 

might arise to facilities covered under 

these permits should the state modify 

the permits as a result of the final WQS. 

In addition, costs might arise to sectors 

with operations that include nonpoint 

sources of pollutants through 

implementation of TMDLs or through 

other voluntary, incentivized, or stateimposed controls. The proposed 

rulemaking does not directly regulate 

nonpoint sources, and under the CWA 

states are responsible for the regulation 

of nonpoint sources. The EPA 

recognizes that controls for nonpoint 

sources may be part of future TMDLs, 

but such future decisions will be made 

by the state. Nonpoint sources are 

intermittent, variable, and occur under 

hydrologic or climatic conditions 

associated with precipitation events. 

Data to model and evaluate the potential 

cost impacts associated with nonpoint 

sources were not available and any 

estimate would be too uncertain to be 

informative. 

A. Identifying Affected Entities 

Any HHC finalized as a result of this 

proposed rulemaking may serve as a 

basis for development of NPDES permit 

limits. Florida has NPDES permitting 

authority and retains considerable 

discretion in implementing WQS. The 

EPA evaluated the potential costs to 

NPDES dischargers associated with state 

implementation of the EPA’s proposed 

HHC. This analysis is documented in 

‘‘Economic Analysis for Water Quality 

Standards Applicable to the State of 

Florida’’ (Economic Analysis), which 

can be found in the record for this 

rulemaking. Any NPDES permitted 

facility that discharges pollutants for 

which the proposed HHC are more 

stringent than Florida’s current criteria 

(or for which Florida has no currently 

applicable criteria) could potentially 

incur compliance costs. The types of 

affected facilities include sewerage 

systems and industrial facilities 

discharging wastewater to surface 

waters (i.e., point sources). 

The EPA identified 376 point source 

facilities that could be affected by this 

proposed rulemaking. Of these 

potentially affected facilities, 171 are 

major dischargers and 205 are minor 

dischargers. As noted, the EPA did not 

include concentrated animal feeding 

operations with individual permits, 

stormwater discharges with individual 

permits, or facilities covered under 

general permits in its analysis because 

of limited data for such facilities and 

permit requirements that typically focus 

on best management practices. 

Of the potentially affected facilities, 

the EPA evaluated a sample of 78 major 

facilities (38 wastewater treatment 

facilities categorized under Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4952 

and 40 facilities categorized under other 

SIC Codes). Most facilities categorized 

under SIC Code 4952 are publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs), but 

some are privately owned. Minor 

facilities are less likely to monitor for 

proposed HHC parameters and are less 

likely to incur costs as a result of 

implementation of the rule because of 

the reduced potential for significant 

presence of toxic pollutants in their 

effluent. The EPA did not evaluate 

minor facilities for this analysis. Table 

2 of this preamble summarizes these 

potentially affected facilities by type 

and category. 

TABLE 2—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FACILITIES

Category Minor Major All 

Sewerage Systems (SIC Code 4952) ..................................................................................................... 76 92 168 

Industrial (Other SIC Codes) ................................................................................................................... 129 79 208 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 205 171 376 

B. Method for Estimating Costs 

The EPA selected a certainty sample 

consisting of the 6 facilities in SIC Code 

4952 (Sewerage Systems) with design 

flows greater than 50 million gallons per 

day (mgd) and the industrial facility 

with the largest reported flow (which 

was in SIC Code 4911—Electric 

Services) to capture the facilities with 

the potential for the largest costs. The 

EPA evaluated a stratified random 

sample of the remaining major facilities. 

For facilities in SIC Code 4952, EPA 

grouped facilities by design flow range 

and took a random sample of facilities 

from each group. The EPA grouped 

industrial facilities by SIC Code and 

took a random sample of industrial 

facilities by SIC Code grouping. For all 

sample facilities, the EPA evaluated 

existing baseline permit conditions, 

assessed whether the discharge would 

cause, have the reasonable potential to 

cause, or contribute to an exceedance of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85546 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the proposed HHC, and evaluated the 

potential to exceed projected effluent 

limitations derived from the proposed 

HHC based on the last five years of 

effluent monitoring data (if available). 

Only the costs of compliance actions 

above the level of controls needed to 

comply with existing Florida criteria are 

attributable to the proposed rulemaking. 

The EPA assumed that dischargers 

would pursue the least cost means of 

compliance with WQBELs derived from 

the proposed HHC. Compliance actions 

attributable to the proposed rulemaking 

may include one-time costs (e.g., 

conducting a mixing zone study, 

completing a treatment optimization 

study) or annualized costs (e.g., 

treatment modification, additional 

treatment). To determine annual costs 

for a specific facility, the EPA 

annualized capital costs over 20 years 

using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent and added incremental 

operation and maintenance costs to 

obtain total annual costs. To obtain an 

estimate of total costs to point sources, 

the EPA extrapolated both the one-time 

and annualized costs for the random 

sample based on the flow volume for the 

sample facilities in a facility group and 

the flow volume for facilities outside the 

sample for that facility group. 

The EPA also evaluated potential 

administrative costs to the state for 

additional water body assessment and 

for developing additional TMDLs under 

CWA section 303(d) for waters that may 

be newly identified as impaired as a 

result of the proposed HHC. Using 

available ambient monitoring data, the 

EPA compared pollutant concentrations 

to existing Florida criteria and the 

proposed HHC, identifying waterbodies 

that may be incrementally impaired 

(i.e., impaired under the proposed HHC 

but not under the existing Florida 

criteria). An exceedance of a criterion is 

sufficient to place an assessment unit 

(Waterbody Identification Number or 

WBID) on Florida’s Planning List and 

allows Florida DEP to collect additional 

data and information to evaluate 

whether the water is impaired and a 

TMDL is needed for the WBID. The EPA 

considered any exceedance of the 

proposed HHC that did not also exceed 

Florida’s current criteria a new 

exceedance. If the annual average 

concentration for a pollutant in a WBID 

exceeds the corresponding HHC, that 

WBID is placed on Florida’s Impaired 

Waters Rule (IWR) Verified List and 

would require developing a TMDL. To 

calculate an annual average there must 

be a minimum of three samples in the 

year collected over a minimum of three 

quarters of the year. If these data 

requirements are not met, an annual 

average is not calculated. 

C. Results 

Based on the results for the 78 sample 

facilities across SIC Code 4952 and 11 

industrial SIC code categories, the EPA 

estimated a range of total one-time and 

total annual costs to point sources as 

shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED ONE-TIME AND ANNUAL COSTS TO POINT SOURCES

[2022 Dollars] 

Total estimated one-time cost Total estimated annual cost 

(20 years, 3 percent discount rate) 

Low High Low High 

$622,000 $1,390,000 $0 $5,990,000 

The low end of the one-time cost 

range reflects an assumption that most 

facilities potentially impacted would be 

able to comply with revised effluent 

limitations or would conduct a mixing 

zone study and request a revised mixing 

zone in order to achieve compliance. 

The high end of the one-time cost range 

assumes that these facilities would 

conduct a study to determine how to 

optimize or modify existing treatment. 

For example, the estimated costs for 

most facilities in SIC Code 4952 are 

attributable to chlorodibromomethane, a 

disinfection byproduct. A potential onetime cost for these facilities would be a 

study to determine how to optimize 

existing chlorine disinfection processes 

or assess the feasibility of using an 

alternative disinfectant. 

The low end of the annual cost range 

reflects an assumption that one-time 

actions (e.g., mixing zone studies, 

process optimization) result in 

compliance with revised effluent 

limitations. The high end of the annual 

cost range assumes that facilities incur 

capital and operation and maintenance 

costs associated with installing and 

operating new or additional treatment. 

For example, for chlorodibromomethane 

the high end of the annual cost range 

assumes that some facilities replace 

chlorine disinfection with ultraviolet 

(UV) disinfection in order to comply 

with revised WQBELs derived from the 

proposed HHC. 

The EPA identified 65 instances of 

new exceedances in WBIDs under the 

proposed HHC, which would place the 

WBIDs and pollutants on Florida’s 

Planning List. Of these 65 exceedances, 

an assessment of available annual 

average data indicated 45 potential 

incremental impairments, which could 

place these WBIDs and pollutants on 

Florida’s IWR Verified List. To 

determine whether the remaining 20 

WBIDs and pollutants would be placed 

on the IWR Verified List, Florida DEP 

staff would need to collect three 

additional samples from at least three 

different quarters of the same year. The 

EPA estimated the total costs associated 

with this determination, which include 

the cost of staff time to collect the 

samples, costs associated with travel 

(e.g., gasoline), the cost of shipping the 

samples to the Florida DEP’s Bureau of 

Laboratories for analysis, and the cost of 

the laboratory analysis. The EPA also 

estimated a range for the total cost to 

develop TMDLs for the 45 WBIDs and 

pollutants potentially placed on 

Florida’s IWR Verified List. These costs 

were based on single-cause singlewaterbody TMDL development costs. 

Actual costs may be lower if the state 

develops multi-cause or multiwaterbody TMDLs. Table 4 of this 

preamble summarizes the 

administrative costs associated with 

additional assessment of waters on 

Florida’s Planning List and TMDL 

development for waters potentially 

placed on the IWR Verified List. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85547 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREMENTAL IMPAIRMENTS

[2022 Dollars] 

Total additional assessment costs for WBIDs and pollutants on 

planning list Total TMDL development costs for incrementally impaired WBIDs 

$28,100 $1.99–2.14 million 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, and was 

therefore not subject to a requirement 

for Executive Order 12866 review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection activities contained in the 

existing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2040–0049. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA). Small entities, such as small 

businesses or small governmental 

jurisdictions, are not directly regulated 

by this rule. This proposed rulemaking 

will not impose any requirements on 

small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This rule does not 

alter Florida’s considerable discretion in 

implementing these WQS, nor would it 

preclude Florida from adopting WQS 

that the EPA concludes meet the 

requirements of the CWA, either before 

or after promulgation of the final rule, 

which would eliminate the need for 

Federal standards. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comments 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has Tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized Tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

This rule could affect federally 

recognized Indian Tribes in Florida 

because the numeric criteria for Florida 

will apply to waters adjacent to Tribal 

waters and to waters where Tribes have 

reserved rights to fish for subsistence. 

The EPA consulted with Tribal 

governments under the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes early in the process of 

developing this regulation to ensure 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. In March and May 2023, 

the EPA held consultation and 

coordination meetings with Tribal 

environmental staff and leadership to 

share information, hear their views and 

answer questions on the rulemaking. 

A Summary of Consultation, 

Coordination and Outreach with 

Federally Recognized Tribes on EPA’s 

Proposed Water Quality Standards to 

Protect Human Health in Florida is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal 

agencies to include an evaluation of the 

health and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. As noted in Section III.B of 

this preamble, the EPA recommends 

that HHC be designed to reduce the risk 

of adverse cancer and non-cancer effects 

occurring from lifetime exposure to 

pollutants through the ingestion of 

drinking water and consumption of fish/ 

shellfish obtained from inland and 

nearshore waters. The EPA’s proposed 

HHC for Florida are similarly based on 

reducing the chronic health effects 

occurring from lifetime exposure and 

therefore are expected to be protective 

of a person’s exposure during both 

childhood and adult years. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action result in or 

have the potential to result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. Florida’s current FCR of 6.5 g/ 

day is far lower than national, regional 

or state-specific studies suggest 

Floridians consume. In addition, Florida 

does not have HHC for certain priority 

toxic pollutants that are likely to be 

present in Florida’s waters. As a result, 

Florida’s HHC are not protective of 

Florida’s designated uses. Many groups 

in Florida, such as subsistence and 

recreational Tribal and non-Tribal 

fishers, consume self-caught fish and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85548 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

107Tampa Wastewater Department, Howard F. 

Curren Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, 

https://www.tampa.gov/wastewater/info/advancedwastewater-treatment-plant?utm_

source=direct&utm_medium=alias&utm_

campaign=tampagovnet (last accessed July 17, 

2023). 

108See the Economic Analysis for Water Quality 

Standards to Protect Human Health in Florida in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

109Tampa Wastewater Department, About Us— 

Wastewater, https://www.tampa.gov/wastewater/ 

about-us (last accessed July 17, 2023). 

110U.S. Census, Bonifay City, Florida, https://

data.census.gov/profile?g=160XX00US1207450 (last 

accessed July 24, 2023). 

111USEPA, the EPA’s Environmental Justice 

Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen), https://

ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ (last accessed July 24, 

2023). 

112Florida Commerce, Find Your Local LowIncome Household Water Assistance Program 

Provider for Help, https://www.floridajobs.org/ 

community-planning-and-development/ 

community-services/low-income-household-waterassistance-program/find-your-local-low-incomehousehold-water-assistance-program-provider-forhelp (last accessed July 28, 2023). 

113USEPA. (February 2023). Clean Water Act 

Financial Capability Assessment Guidance, https:// 

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/cwafinancial-capability-assessment-guidance.pdf. 

shellfish. Florida’s current HHC expose 

these higher fish consumers to greater 

risk from toxic pollutants. Florida’s low 

FCR and lack of HHC for additional 

priority toxic pollutants potentially 

present in the state’s waters 

disproportionately affect these groups. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

likely to reduce existing 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. Specifically, this rule would 

establish HHC based on a FCR of 142 g/ 

day in areas where Tribes have reserved 

rights to fish for subsistence, which 

would help protect higher fish 

consumers, and it would increase the 

statewide FCR to 22 g/day in areas 

where Tribes do not have reserved 

rights to fish for subsistence, which 

would help protect the general 

population of fish consumers in the 

state. Additionally, it would establish 

new HHC for priority toxic pollutants 

for which there are currently no HHC. 

This will ensure that Florida’s HHC 

protect all users of Florida’s waters, 

including Tribes who engage in 

subsistence fishing where they have a 

reserved right to do so. 

To achieve the benefits associated 

with a final rule, the EPA recognizes 

that some facilities may need to add 

pollution control measures and incur 

additional compliance costs over time to 

meet any WQBELs needed to achieve 

the HHC. As discussed in Section V of 

this preamble, the EPA estimates that 

there are 376 point source facilities that 

could be affected by this proposed 

rulemaking. Due to the large number of 

potentially affected facilities and the 

time intensive nature of ascertaining 

potential costs for each individual 

facility, the EPA did not perform a 

facility-by-facility analysis of potential 

environmental justice impacts and 

instead only costed for a sample of 

facilities. To assess generally whether 

compliance costs would overburden any 

regions of the state, the EPA mapped the 

376 point source facilities (see the 

Economic Analysis in the docket for this 

rule for more information). In mapping 

the facilities, the EPA did not find that 

the facilities were concentrated in such 

a way that particular regions of the state 

were likely to be financially 

overburdened by the rulemaking. The 

potentially affected facilities are spread 

across the state, though they tend to be 

concentrated in more populated areas. 

However, in more populous areas, costs 

can be shared more broadly across the 

larger population size. 

In addition, the EPA analyzed the 

potential environmental justice impacts 

on some of those facilities in the sample 

for which it estimated potential costs, in 

order to better understand the range of 

potential impacts to affected 

communities. The EPA finds that there 

is a considerable range of potential 

impacts. Many facilities are estimated to 

have no potential new costs (see Section 

V of this preamble). Others sampled had 

relatively low costs per household. For 

illustration, the Howard F. Curren 

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant 

treats all wastewater discharged to 

Tampa’s collection system from both 

Tampa and surrounding suburbs.107

Using EJScreen, the EPA examined 

income levels and the unemployment 

rate in the area served. Some areas 

showed low environmental justice 

concerns (not low income and low 

unemployment rate), whereas other 

areas in the county had slightly higher 

environmental justice concerns (low 

income and higher unemployment). The 

EPA estimates that the facility could 

potentially incur annual costs of up to 

$559,317 per year.108 The facility serves 

over 100,000 customers,109 which could 

result in a per-customer cost of $5.59 

per year, if costs are distributed evenly 

across all customers. This potentially 

modest increase in the per customer 

sewerage bill is unlikely to 

disproportionally impact low-income 

populations and/or communities with 

high unemployment rates. 

On the other end, some facilities have 

higher projected per-household costs. 

The City of Bonifay’s Waste Water 

Treatment Facility is projected to have 

annual costs of $221,253. Bonifay has 

1110 households,110 resulting in annual 

per-household costs of $199.68 per year, 

assuming that all costs are passed onto 

residential customers. According to 

EJScreen, Bonifay ranks between the 

70th and 100th percentile—depending 

on the area of the City—in terms of the 

percentage of the population that is low 

income.111 Significant portions of 

Bonifay rank high in terms of the 

percentage of the population 

experiencing unemployment, as well. 

Such large costs, then, have the 

potential to disproportionately affect 

low-income households or people 

experiencing unemployment. However, 

actual impacts depend on a number of 

factors, including how the state 

implements the new criteria, how costs 

are financed, and how costs are 

distributed among rate-payers. States 

have wide latitude in how they 

implement the criteria, including the 

authority to adopt variances for those 

facilities for which meeting the 

standards would cause substantial and 

widespread economic and social 

impact. Some communities could apply 

for grants for such upgrades or the state 

may share part of the cost burden. In 

addition, the Bipartisan Infrastructure 

Law included $50 billion in funding for 

infrastructure improvements to the 

Nation’s wastewater and drinking water 

systems. Moreover, some municipalities 

have customer assistance programs 112

or could implement progressive rate 

structures that reduce the cost burden 

on low-income households.113 Finally, 

the costs of any such upgrades must be 

balanced against the potential benefits 

of having access to cleaner water. The 

EPA seeks comment on potential 

environmental justice impacts of the 

rulemaking. 

To ensure that this rulemaking 

considers the interests and perspective 

of Tribes, the EPA engaged with Tribes 

that may be affected by this action to 

receive meaningful and timely input 

from Tribal officials. See Section VI.F of 

this preamble for a summary of Tribal 

consultation. 

In addition to Executive Orders 12898 

and 13175, and in accordance with Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, each 

Federal agency shall ensure that all 

programs or activities receiving Federal 

financial assistance that affect human 

health or the environment do not 

directly, or through contractual or other 

arrangements, use criteria, methods, or 

practices that discriminate on the basis 

of race, color, or national origin. With 

that directive in mind, in August 2011 

the Environmental Justice Interagency 

Working Group established a Title VI 

Committee to address the intersection of 

agencies’ environmental justice efforts 

with their Title VI enforcement and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85549 

compliance responsibilities. If Florida 

receives Federal funds for CWA 

implementation, they are legally 

prohibited from discriminating on the 

basis of race, color or national origin 

under Title VI when engaging in CWA 

implementation activities. Additionally, 

and in compliance with Executive Order 

12898, the EPA expects that Florida will 

consider disproportionately high 

adverse human health and 

environmental effects on communities 

with environmental justice concerns 

when implementing this rule under the 

CWA. 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

the above preamble, the document titled 

Summary of Consultation, Coordination 

and Outreach with Federally 

Recognized Tribes on EPA’s Proposed 

Water Quality Standards to Protect 

Human Health in Florida and the 

Economic Analysis for this rule. The 

latter two documents can be found in 

the docket for this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Indians— 

lands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 131 as follows: 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Subpart D—Federally Promulgated 

Water Quality Standards 

§ 131.36 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 131.36 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (d)(6). 

■ 3. Add § 131.XX to read as follows: 

§ 131.XX Water quality standards to 

protect human health in Florida. 

(a) Scope. This section promulgates 

human health criteria for priority toxic 

pollutants in surface waters in Florida. 

(b) Criteria for priority toxic 

pollutants in Florida. The applicable 

human health criteria are shown in 

Table 1 to Paragraph (b). 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

EP08DE23.036</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

A B C 

Bioaccumu 

Cancer lation 

Slope Relative Factor for Bioaccumul Bioaccumul Bioconce 

Chemical CAS Factor, Source Reference Trophic ation Factor atiou Factor ntration 

Number CS!<' Contrib Dose, Level2 for Trophic for Trophic t·actor Water& Or

(per ution, RID (llkg Level3 Level4 (L/kg Organisms s

mg/kg·d) RSC(-) (mg/kg·d) tissue) (Ukg (Ukg tissue) (μg/L) (

(Bl) (B2) (B3) (B4) tissue) (BS) tissue) (B6) (B7) (Ct) 

I I, l,l·'J'richlorocthanc 71556 . 0.20 2 6.9 9.0 10 - 10000 2

2 l, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 0.2 - - 5.7 7.4 8.4 - - 

3 l, l,2-· J'richloroethane 79005 0.057 - - 6.0 7.8 8.9 - 0.55 

4 1,2,4-Tri~hlorobenzene 120821 0.029 - - 2,800 1,500 430 - 0.068 

5 1,2-Dichloro benzene 95501 - 0.20 0.3 52 71 82 - 1000 

6 1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 0.0033 - - 1.6 1.8 1.9 - 9.9 

7 1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 0.036 - - 2.9 3.5 3.9 - 0.9 

8 1,2-Dipheny !hydrazine 122667 0.8 - - 18 24 27 - 0.03 

9 1,2-Trans- 156605 - 0.20 0.02 3.3 4.2 4.7 - 100 

Vichloroethvlene 

JO 1,3-Dichloro benzene 541731 - 0.20 0.002 31 120 190 - 7 

11 1,3-Dichloropropene 542756 0.122 - - 2.3 2.7 3.0 - 0.27 

12 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 - 0.20 0.o7 28 66 84 - 300 

13 2,3, 7.8-TCDD (Dioxin)' 1746016 156,000 5.000 l.3£-08 l.

14 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88062 0.011 - - 94 130 150 - 1.4 

15 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832 - 0.20 0.003 31 42 48 - IO 

16 2,4-0imethylphenol 105679 - 0.20 0.02 4.8 6.2 7.0 - 100 17 2,4-0initrophenol 51285 - 0.20 0.002 4.4 4.4 4.4 - 10 

18 2,4-0initrotoluene 121142 0.667 - - 2.8 3.5 3.9 - 0.048 

19 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 - 0.80 0.08 150 210 240 - 800 

20 2-Chlorophenol 95578 - 0.20 0.005 3.8 4.8 5.4 - 30 

21 2-Mcthyl-4,6- 534521 - 0.20 0.0003 6.8 8.9 10 - 2 

Oinitronhenol 

22 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91941 0.45 - - 44 60 69 - 0.049 

23 3-Methy 1-4-Chlorophenol 59507 - 0.20 0.1 25 34 39 - 500 

24 4,4'-DDT 50293 0.34 - - 35,000 240,000 1,100,000 - 3.0E-05 3

25 Acenaphthene 83329 - 0.20 0.06 510 510 510 - 70 

26 Acrolein 107028 - 0.20 0.0005 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 3 

EP08DE23.037</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

27 Aery lonitrile 107131 0.54 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 0.061 28 Aldrin 309002 17 - - 18,000 310,000 650,000 - 7.6Fr07 7

29 Anthracene 120127 - 0.20 0.3 610 610 610 - 300 

30 Antimony 7440360 - 0.40 0.0004 - - - 1 5 

31 Benzene 71432 0.055 - - 3.6 4.5 5.0 - 0.58 

32 Benzi dine 92875 230 - - 1.4 1.6 1.7 - 0.00014 

33 Benzo(a) Anthracene 56553 0.73 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.001 

34 Oenzo(a) Pyrene 50328 7.3 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.0001 0

35 Oenzo(b) Fluoranthene 205992 0.73 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.001 

36 Oenzo(k) Pluoranthene 207089 0.073 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - - 

beta37 Rexach lorocvcl ohexane 319857 1.8 - - 110 160 180 - 0.0079 

(HCH) 

38 Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 111444 I.I - - 1.4 1.6 1.7 - 0.03 

39 Bis(2-Chloro-1- 108601 - 0.20 0.04 6.7 8.8 10 - 200 

Mdhvldhyl) Eth~r 

40 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 117817 0.014 - - 710 710 710 - 0.32 

Phthalate 

41 Bromoform 75252 0.0045 - - 5.8 7.5 8.5 - - 42 Buly lbenzy I Ph!halate 85687 0.0019 - - 19,000 19,000 19,000 - 0.1 43 Carbon T~lrochlorid~ 56235 0.07 - - 9.3 12 14 - - 

44 Chlordane 57749 0.35 - - 5,300 44,000 60,000 - 0.00031 0

45 Chlorobenzene 108907 - 0.20 0.02 14 19 22 - 100 

46 Chlorodibromomethane 124481 0.040 - - 3.7 4.8 5.3 - - 

47 Chloroform 67663 - 0.20 0.01 2.8 3.4 3.8 - - 48 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53703 7.3 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.0001 0

49 Dichlorobromomethane 75274 0.034 - - 3.4 4.3 4.8 - - 

50 Dieldrin 60571 16 - - 14,000 210,000 410,000 - l.2E-06 l.

51 Diethyl Phthalate 84662 - 0.20 0.8 920 920 920 - 600 

52 Dimethyl Phthalate 131113 - 0.20 10 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 2000 53 Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 84742 - 0.20 0.1 2,900 2,900 2,900 - 20 

54 Ethylhenzene 100414 - 0.20 0.022 100 140 160 - 67 

55 Pluoranthene 206440 - 0.20 0.04 1,500 1,500 1,500 - 20 

56 Pluorene 86737 - 0.20 0.04 230 450 710 - 50 

57 lleptachlor 76448 4.1 - - 12,000 180,000 330,000 - 5.8£-06 558 Ikptachlor Epoxide 1024573 5.5 - - 4,000 28,000 35,000 - 3.2E-05 3

59 llexachlorobutadiene 87683 0.04 - - 23,000 2,800 1,100 - 0.009 
(c) Applicability. (1) The criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section apply to cited in paragraph (d) of this section and 

waters with Florida’s designated uses 

applicable water quality criteria. 

apply concurrently with other 


EP08DE23.038</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

60 Hexach lorocyclopentadien 77474 - 0.20 0.006 620 1,500 1,300 - 4 

e 

61 Hexachloroethane 67721 0.04 - - 1,200 280 600 - 0.1 

62 Tndeno( 1,2,3-cd) Pyrene 193395 0.73 - - 3,900 3,900 3,900 - 0.001 

63 lsophorone 78591 0.00095 - - 1.9 2.2 2.4 - 34 

64 Methyl Bromide 74839 - 0.20 0.02 1.2 1.3 1.4 - 100 

65 Methylene Chloride 75092 0.002 - - 1.4 1.5 1.6 - - 

66 Methylmercuryb 22967926 - 2.70E-05 0.0001 - - - - - 

67 Nitro benzene 98953 - 0.20 0.002 2.3 2.8 3.1 - 10 

68 Pentachlorophenol ( PCP) 87865 0.4 - - 44 290 520 - 0.03 

69 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2 - - - - - 31,200 - 

(PCBsl' 

70 Pyrene 129000 - 0.20 0.03 860 860 860 - 20 

71 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.0021 - - 49 66 76 - - 

72 Toluene 108883 - 0.20 0.0097 11 15 17 - 57 

73 Trichloroethylene 79016 0.05 - - 8.7 12 13 - 0.6 

74 Vinyl Chloride 75014 1.5 - - 1.4 1.6 1.7 - 0.022 

• These criteria were promulgated for Florida in the National Toxics Rule at 40 CFR 131.36 and are moved here to have one comprehensive human health criteria rule fo

b This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human He

01-00 I, January 3. 200 l) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EP A's 2000 Human Health Methodology rearranged to solve for a protective co

in water. 

'This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses. 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85553 

(2) The criteria established in this 

section are subject to Florida’s general 

rules of applicability in the same way 

and to the same extent as are other 

federally promulgated and state-adopted 

numeric criteria when applied to the 

same use classifications in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(i) For all waters with mixing zone 

regulations or implementation 

procedures, the criteria apply at the 

appropriate locations within or at the 

boundary of the mixing zones; 

otherwise the criteria apply throughout 

the waterbody including at the end of 

any discharge pipe, conveyance or other 

discharge point within the waterbody. 

(ii) When determining critical low 

flows, the state must not use a low flow 

value below which numeric noncarcinogen and carcinogen human 

health criteria can be exceeded that is 

less stringent than the harmonic mean 

flow for waters suitable for the 

establishment of low flow return 

frequencies (i.e., streams and rivers). 

Harmonic mean flow is a long-term 

mean flow value calculated by dividing 

the number of daily flows analyzed by 

the sum of the reciprocals of those daily 

flows. 

(iii) If the state does not have such a 

low flow value for numeric criteria, then 

none will apply and the criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section herein 

apply at all flows. 

(d) Applicable use designations. (1) 

All waters in Florida assigned to the 

following use classifications are subject 

to the criteria identified in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section: 

(i) Class I—Potable Water Supplies; 

(ii) Class II—Shellfish Propagation or 

Harvesting; 

(iii) Class III—Fish Consumption; 

Recreation, Propagation and 

Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife; or 

(iv) Class III—Limited—Fish 

Consumption; Recreation or Limited 

Recreation; and/or Propagation and 

Limited Maintenance of a Limited 

Population of Fish and Wildlife. 

(2) The criteria in columns C1 and C2 

of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply to Florida waters where 

the Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee 

Tribe do not have reserved rights to fish 

on a subsistence basis. Where these 

waters include the use classification of 

Class I—Potable Water Supplies, the 

criteria in column C1 of Table 1 in 

paragraph (b) of this section apply. 

Where these waters do not include the 

use classification of Class I—Potable 

Water Supplies, the criteria in column 

C2 of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply. 

(3) The criteria in columns D1 and D2 

of Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this 

section apply to Florida waters where 

the Seminole Tribe and Miccosukee 

Tribe have reserved rights to fish on a 

subsistence basis. Where these waters 

include the use classification of Class 

I—Potable Water Supplies, the criteria 

in column D1 of Table 1 in paragraph 

(b) of this section apply. Where these 

waters do not include the use 

classification of Class I—Potable Water 

Supplies, the criteria in column D2 of 

Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this section 

apply. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26734 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 25 

[IB Docket Nos. 22–411, 22–271; FCC 23– 

73; FR ID 188524] 

Expediting Initial Processing of 

Satellite and Earth Station Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) continues its longstanding practice of reviewing its 

licensing rules and practices in light of 

innovation and development in the 

satellite industry and seeks further 

comment on possible further 

streamlining and expediting of its rules. 

Proposals include: elimination of the 

procedural requirement to print and 

maintain a paper copy of a license; 

changing the default status of space and 

earth station proceedings to permit-butdisclose; allowing earth station 

operators to apply for and receive a 

limited license without an identified 

satellite point of communication. The 

Commission also seeks comment on: 

additional minor modifications to be 

made by operators without prior 

authorization from the Commission; 

whether to provide a process for market 

access petitioners to seek the equivalent 

of a special temporary authorization 

(STA); whether to expand the window 

for operators to file renewal applications 

for existing licenses; further 

streamlining some of its coordination 

requirements for earth and space station 

operators; expanding the conditions 

under which earth station operators 

could access the new, streamlined 

‘‘deemed-granted’’ process for adding 

points of communications; timeframes 

for taking action on license applications; 

allowing operators to file STA 

extensions concurrently with an STA 

application; and on the creation of a 

permitted list that would include NGSO 

operators. 

DATES: Comments are due January 8, 

2024. Reply comments are due February 

6, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket Nos. 22–411, 

22–271, by any of the following 

methods: 

• FCC Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Malette, Satellite Programs and Policy 

Division, Space Bureau, 202–418–2453 

or julia.malette@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 23–73, adopted 

September 21, 2023, and released 

September 22, 2023. The full text is 

available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/ 

public/attachments/FCC-23-73A1.pdf. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 

Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format, etc.), send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Procedural Matters 

Comment Filing Requirements 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments in 

response to this further notice of 

proposed rulemaking on or before the 

dates indicated in the DATES section 

above. Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS