Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 **EPA Responses to Public Comments “Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards**  **for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters”**  This document is a compilation of the public comments received b y the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) from its proposed rule entitled, “Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters”, which was published in the Federal Register (Volume 7 7 , Number 96 ) on May 17 , 201 2 . The 30 - day

public comment period en ded on June 18 , 2012 . The EPA’s responses have been inserted directly into each comment letter. The original comments letters and any supporting documentation submitted by the public can be found in the official docket for this rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID EPA - HQ - OW - 20 09 - 0596 .Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 MN Crop Production Retailers William E Bond [Comment submitted electronicall y to docket on May 17, 2012] MCPR suports [sic] the delay to allow resolution of an administrative challenge filed with the Florida Department of Administrative Hearings. EPA said it expects an administrative judge to issue a ruling in May . The extension also would allow time for Florida to notify EPA, if the state prevails, that numeric nutrient criteria consistent with the Clean Water Act have been officially adopted as revisions to the state's water quality standards. State Government are a much preferrable [sic] level of government to monitor and address clean water issues. EPA agre es with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule. As stated in previous rulemakings on extension of EPA’s inland waters rule effective date, EPA prefers that the State of Florida implement its own numeric nutrient water quality criteria and is prepared to withdraw federal rules for any waters that become covered by State law that meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

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

**2980** Old Chemstrand Road Cantonment, FL **32533** ph: **850 9693380 fax: 850 969 -**  **6675** May 25, 2012 Attention: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0598 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20460 S ubmitted via email to ow

–docket@epa.gov RE: PROPOSED EXTENSION OF EFFECTIVE DATES FOR EPAPublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 NUMERI C NUTRIENT CRI TERIA RULES To Whom It May

Concern: On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to extend the effective date of its final rule setting numeric water quality criteria for inland waters in Florida from July 6, 2012 until October 6, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 29271 (May 17, 2012). The notice also solicited comments on the prospect of an additional extension out to July 6, 2013 or further. On behalf of Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), I appreciate the opportunity

to submit these comments strongl y supporting EPA's proposed effective date extension. Of the two alternative dates provided, EC UA supports the extension to July 6, 2013. ECUA would also support any further delay

deemed necessary

to allow the full consideration of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP ’ s) alternative nutrient criteria rules and withdraw of all f ederal numeric nutrient criteria rulemakings in Florida. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to w ithdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. ECUA bel ieves that FDEP ’ s comprehensive nutrient criteria rules should render moot EPA's nutrient rules as well as EPA's planned rulemakings for canals, estuaries, and coastal waters. The state rules are stringent and will lead to significant environmental improvements. Importantly , the state rules also take into account the diversity of Florida's water s ys tems and will work in concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs. The state rules thereb y will avoid the unintended negative environmental and economic consequences associated with EPA's nutrient rules. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. Elizabeth S. Campbell Lois Benson Ehrin McCorvey Dale Perkins Lany WalkerPublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 District One District T wo Distrid Three D istrict Four District F iv e **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Re: Proposed Extension of Effective Dates for**  **EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rules**  **May 25, 2012 Page 2**  In addition to delaying the effective date of its final criteria, ECUA also recommends that EPA suspend its planned nutrient criteria rulemakings for Florida's estuaries, coastal waters, and canals. FDEP has promulgated a holistic numeric nutrient criteria program that obviates the perceived need for additional federal rulemakings. The state rules should be evaluated without the complication of any additional and unneeded federal rulemakings. EPA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on an other EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. ECUA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerel y,

Donald C. Palmer, P.E. Water Reclamation Director pc: Stephen E. Sorrell, PE/MPA, Executive Director, ECUA Edward T. McMath, Deputy Executive Director - Utility Operations, ECUA DCP:sm 3c: \ word\l2admin\epa nnc rules extension

---------------------------------------------------------Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 [LOGO] Water Docket U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Subject: Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's

Lakes and Flowing Waters. We are in receipt of the attached EPA notice in the Federal Register, Volume 77, dated May 17, 2012, regarding the above referenced topic. We want to go on record as supporting the EPA's proposal to delay

the effective date of the implementation of the EPA NNC rule, as it would be very

counterproductive to proceed with the implementation of the EPA NNC rule, onl y to revert to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) NNC rule if it is approved b y the EPA. We bel ieve the extension to July 6, 2013 would make the most sense and would give all parties the necessary time to finalize any

modification that may

occur if the FDEP's version of the rule is adopted. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule to January 6, 2013, but not to July

6, 2013 because EPA has not yet taken action on FDEP’s NNC rule at this time , which if EPA had taken and approved the rule, would have justified an extension until July 6, 2013 . As a little background, the Clay County Utility Authority, through its attorney Mr. Fred Aschauer of the firm of Sundstrom, Friedman and Fumero, LLP (then Rose, Sundstrom and Bentley , LLP), filed substanti al comments on the original draft EPA NNC rule. While the EPA chose not to implement any of our suggested changes to the EPA NNC rule, many of our comments and concerns are addressed b y the FDEP version of the proposed NNC rules. As you know, part of th e outcry against the EPA rule was the anticipated cost to comply with same. Indeed, based upon many expert ’ s opinions, compliance with the EPA NNC rule would require treatment beyond the current AWT technology , the technology which we have spent millions o f dollars investing in and installing at many of our various wastewater treatment facilities. The EPA has explained, however, that the EPA's rule offers several exceptions and other means to recognize special circumstances that may not require treatment to the levels defined b y the criteria promulgated in the EPA rule; while these exceptions may be applied for under the EPA rule, the cost of background data required of the applicant for such an exception would be outrageous, with no assurance to the applicant that the relief would be granted in thePublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 end. This unreasonable approach, potentiall y requiring needless expenditure of funds (both private and public), is part of what has caused the tremendous public objection to the EPA's proposed NNC rule. EPA reque sted comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. We respectfull y request that you allow the Florida Rule process to run its course through a final decision b y EPA. Although the Florida DEP r ule may still be a very expensive hit to the econom y of the State of Florida, it does offer some flexibility and a reasonable approach to the implementation of the criteria (e.g. requiring the confirmation of nutrient impact before we are required to cure a problem that may not exist). EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule. Respectfully

Submitted CLAY COUNTY UTILTIY AUTHORITY [Signature] Ray O Avery , Executive Director [Copy of proposed rule attached without comment]

-------------------------------------------------------------- [L ogo ] Ray mond E. Hanson, P.E., Director 9150 Curry

Ford Road Orlando. Florida 32825 - 7600 Telephone: 407 - 254 - 9809 Fax: 407 - 254 - 9899 Email: Ray .Hanson@octl.net May 29, 2012 Attention: Docket ID No EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0598Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Submitted via email to ow - docket@epa.qov Re: Proposed Extension of Effective Dates for **EPA** Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rules To Whom It May

Concern: On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to extend the effective date of its final rule setting numeric water quality criteria for inland waters in Florida from July 6, 2012 until October 6, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 29271 (May 17, 2012). The notice also solicited comments on the prospect of an additional extension out to July 6, 2013 or further. On behalf of Orange County Utilities, Iappreciate the opportunity to submit these comments strongl y supporting EPA's proposed effective date extension. Of the two alternative dates provided, Orange County Utilities supports the extension to July 6, 2013. Orange Co unty Utilities would also support any further delay deemed necessary to allow the full consideration of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) alternative nutrient criteria rules and withdraw of all federal numeric nutrient criteria rulemakings in Florida. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c ). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corre sponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. Orange County Utilities believes that FDEP's comprehensive nutrient criteria rules should render moot EP A 's nutrient rules as well as EPA's planned rulemakings for canals, estuaries, and coastal waters. The state rules also take into account the diversity of Florida's water sy stems and will work in concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs. The state rules thereb y will avoid the unintended negative environmental and economic consequences as sociated with EPA's nutrient rules. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 In addition to delaying the effective date of its final criteria, Orange County Utilities also rec ommends that EPA suspend its planned nutrient criteria rulemakings for Florida's estuaries, coastal waters, and canals. FDEP has promulgated a holistic numeric nutrient criteria program that obviates the perceived need for additional federal rulemakings. The state rules should be evaluated without the complication of any additional and unneeded federal rulemakings. EPA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. Orange County Utili ties appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. Since rel y, [Signature] Ray mo nd E . Hanson, P.E.

---------------------------------------------------------- [LOGO] **FWEA Utility Council**

**Protecting Florida's Clean Water Environment** P.O. Box 10755. Tallahassee, Florida 32302 .. (850) 425 - 3428

**www.fweauc.org** Attention: Docket ID No, EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0598 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20460 **Submitted via email to ow** **- docket@epa.gov.**  **Re: Proposed Extension of** **Effective Dates/or EPA Numeric Nutrient CriteriaRules**  To Whom It May

Concern: The FWEA Utility

Council is Florida's statewide umbrella organization of community utilities that own and operate domestic wastewater treatment, disposal, reuse, and recycling facilities. Protecting the environment is our members' core business.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to extend the effective date of its final rule setting numeric water quality criteria for inland waters in Florida from July 6, 2012 until October 6, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 29271 (May 17, 2012). The notice also solicited comments on the prospect of an additional extension out to July 6, 2013 or further. For the reasons provided below, the FWEA Utility Council requests that EPA extend the effective date of its criteria till July 6, 2013, or even further, if more time is needed to withdraw its federal nutrient rules. EPA agrees that an extens ion of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. The FWEA Utility

Council has been supportive of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's'(FDEP's) alternative nutrient rules. The state rules include important - implementing provisions such as biological veri fication steps and clearer alter n ative criterion methodologies to help ensure that public investments are well - targeted and result in meaningful environmental benefits. The state nutrient rules will lead to environmentall y beneficial reductions in nutrient discharges from both point sources and non - point sources. The state rules also take into account the diversity of Florida's water s ys tems and will work in concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs, including the extensively

implemented and successful nutrient total maximum daily load program. EPA's approval of the state rules will thereby avoid the unintended negative environmental and economic consequences associated with EPA's nutrient rules.

This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a fur ther extension of the January

6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved by EPA. We understand that EPA expects to be evaluating that alternative rule in the near future, and that if approved, EPA would formally withdraw its federal nutrient rule for Florida. Accordingl y, the Utility Council appreciates EPA's efforts to avoid the regulatory dy sfunction that would occur b y having newly promulgated federal nutrient rules take effect at the same time EPA is expecting to consider FDEP's alternative state rules. In addition to delaying the effective date of its final criteria, the FWEA Utility Council also recommends that EPA suspend its planned nutrient criteria rulemakings for Florida's estuaries, coastal waters, and canals. FDEP has promulgated a holistic numeric nutrient criteria program that obviates the need for any additional federal rulemakings. The state rules should thus be evaluated without the complication of any additional and unneeded federal rulemakings.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 EPA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which b ecame effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. The FWEA Utility

Council appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerel y, [SI GNATURE] David Richardson, P.E. President, FWEA Utility

Council

---------------------------------------- [L ogo] June 14, 2012 The Honorable L isa Jackson Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 **RE: Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of**  **Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Docket No. EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2009 -**  **0596; FRL -**  **9670 -**  **7** Dear Administrator Jackson: The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is pleased to provide the following comments on the proposed rule entitled Effective Date for the W ater Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing W aters (EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596; FRL - 9670 - 7; published in the Federal Register Thursday May 17, 2012). Initiated in 1898, NCBA is the marketing organization and trade association for America’s beef cattle producers. With offices in Denver and Washington, DC, NCBA is a consumer - focused, producer - dire cted organization representing tens of thousands of America’s cattlemen and women, including those located in the state of Florida. Our members are proud of their tradition as stewards and conservators of America’s land, and good neighbors to their communi ties. Florida cattlemen utilize the state’s rivers, lakes, streams and springs to raise cattle to feed a growing world. These producers have a significant interest in this rulemakingPublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 because the proposed rule will directly affect their legal obligations re garding the waters that are essential to their operations. NCBA supports the Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA) proposed rule to extend the implementation deadline for the federal nutrient criteria for Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters. The agency ’ s proposal is necessary in light of multiple litigation actions and state rule development. Without the delay in the implementation date, it will be impossible for cattle producers in the state to adequatel y understand and implement the final federal criteria following the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee’s order invalidating the federal criteria for Florida streams and downstream protection values. This action by the federal district court alone has left cattlemen with large uncertainties about their obligations under the law. The short amount of time remaining before the implementation deadline is not enough to address these uncertainties. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule. Additionally , with litigation over the state - developed nutrient criteria rule just completed and slated to proceed through EPA’s approval process, not extending the deadline to allow for c ompletion of that process could leave cattle producers in Florida with a misunderstanding of what rules appl y to them. The approval/disapproval process at the federal level can take many months. The state - developed rule has been upheld through the state’s administrative appeals process and is near finalization, but to avoid a confusing and inconsistent process, a delay in the implementation date for the federal criteria is warranted. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the eff ective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule. NCBA further supports EPA’s proposal to move the implementation deadline from July 6, 2 012 to July 6, 2013, instead of the short extension of Oct. 6, 2012. Considering the length of time that went into the development of the streams criteria that was struck down b y the federal district court, a three month delay is an inadequate amount of time for the agency to revise their streams criteria to be scientifically defensible. While NCBA believes even a delay of one year is an inadequate amount of time to revise the federal criteria, that length of time would allow for conclusion of the approval/disapproval process of the state - developed rule and, in the case of approval, would allow for a withdraw al of the federal criteria. A simple three month delay , however, is not sufficient for this process to reach completion. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extensio n will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the J anuary 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 NCBA urges EPA to quickly adopt a delay

to the implementation date of the federal criteria for Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters and further encourages EPA to set that date for July 6, 2013 to protect Florida ranchers from being caught in the middle of a confusing and unclear process. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the propo sed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permi ssion from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. Sincerel y, [Signature] Ashley Lyon McDon ald Deputy Environmental Counsel National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20004 Government Affairs • 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW • Suite 300 • Washington, DC 20004 • 202.347.0228 • www.BeefUSA.org

----------------------------------------------------------- **Georgia -**  **Pacific LLC** Traylor Champion Vice President, Environmental Affairs

133 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, Georgia 30303 btchampi@gapac.com (404) 652 - 4776 June 15, 2012 Submitted to Regulations.gov EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) Environmental Protection AgencyPublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Subject: **Comments on Proposed Rule to Extend the Effect ive Date for the**  **Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing**  **Waters Docket ID No. EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OW**  **- 2009**  **- 0596**  To those concerned: Georgia - Pacific LLC (GP) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA) proposal to extend the effective date for the Water Quality Standards (WQS) for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 CFR 131, Subpart D, Section 131.43). Georgia - Pacific is one of the world's leading manufacturers of tissue, pulp, paper, packaging, consumer products, building products and related chemicals. GP has over 300 manufacturing facilities across North America, South America and Europe, ranging from large facilities, such as pulp, paper and tis sue operations; to moderatel y sized facilities, such as gypsum plants, chemical plants, and building products complexes; to small facilities, such as Dixie® product plants and box plants. Georgia - Pacific has several operating facilities in Florida includin g a major pulp and paper mill, woodyards, wood products plants, and a chip mill. GP also operates pulp and paper mills in Georgia and Alabama that discharge into water bodies that flow into Florida waters. Many of these facilities possess NPDES permits and will be affected by implemented numeric nutrient water quality

criteria for the State of Florida. Georgia - Pacific strongl y supports the efforts b y the State of Florida and specificall y, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in developing a state regulatory program for numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). The DEP has worked diligentl y to develop a sound program that has involved substantial technical and regulatory input from affected stakeholders and EPA. However, since the state rule was a dministrativel y challenged and the challenge has just been resolved in favor of the DEP, additional time is still needed as EPA describes to “avoid the confusion and inefficiency” of having State standards in a state of uncertainty simultaneously while Fed eral standards become e ffective. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule. EPA has proposed a three month extension of the effective date of the EPA regulatio ns from July 6, 2012 to October 6, 2012. The extension EPA previously granted from March 6, 2012 to July 6, 2012 was quickl y consumed by administrative and legal proceedings. Because of the significant im implications of the State or Federal standards, Geo rgia - Pacific full y supports an extension of the effective date. However, instead of the three months proposed by EPA, we strongl y support a ye ar’s extension of the effective date of the EPA regulations until July 6, 2013 as outlined in thePublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 alternative ext ension that EPA proposed. A full year’s extension will allow sufficient time for the completion of all administrative and legal Page 2 proceedings, State notifications to EPA, submittal of final rules, EPA review and approval and State final promulgatio n. A rule of this significance and scope should not be rushed. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. We again appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the above proposed amendments. If yo u have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at (40 4) 652 - 4776. Sincerel y,

B. Traylor Champion Vice President

– Environmental Affairs Georgia - Pacific LLC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **[LOGO]** June 15, 2012 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Re: AF&PA Comments on Comments on Proposed Rule to Extend the Effective Date for the Water Quality

Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters ( Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596) (77 FR 29271, May 17, 2012) Dear Sir or Madam: We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on EPA’s proposal to extend the effective date for the federal water quality standards for certain Florida waters (the “Proposal”). The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national trade association of the forest products industry , representing pulp, paper, packaging and wood products m anufacturers, and forest landowners. Our companies make products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment. The forest products industry accounts for approximately

5 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP. Industry companies produce about $175 billion in products annually and employ

nearly 900,000 men and women, exceeding employ ment levels in the automotive, chemicals and plastics industries. The industry meets a pay roll of approximately

$50 billio n annually

and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 states. AF&PA recently established a new initiative, Better Practices, Better Planet 2020 , the next phase in the forest products industry ’s efforts to build on our legacy as a leader i n sustainability . The initiative includes one of the most extensive set of quantifiable sustainability

goals for a major U.S. manufacturing industry , with a commitment to transparentl y report progress towards achieving those goals. AF&PA members own and operate facilities subject to Clean Water Act permits in the State of Florida. AF&PA, therefore, has a direct interest in this rulemaking. AF& PA supported EPA’s previous rulemaking to extend the effective date of the federal rule which is the subject of this extension proposal -- numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for inland waters. At the time, the State of Florida was in the final stages of its regulatory and legislative process for adopting its own NNC, but the administrative proceeding in response to the challenge brought b y environmental organizations had not yet concluded and the Page 2 June 15, 2012 state legislature had not yet ratified th e rule. Previously , EPA had indicated in a November 2011 letter to DEP that it was inclined to approve the draft NNC rule Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had developed, and that if it approved the final DEP rules, the agency

would initiate a subsequent rulemaking to withdraw the federal NNC. 1111 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪ 202 463 - 2700 Fax: 202 463 - 2785 ▪ www.afandpa.org [LOGO]Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 AF& PA again supports EPA providing sufficient time for this process to reach an orderly conclusion. An administrative law judge ruled on June 7 in favor of DEP in the state administrative proceeding and the state legislature has already ratified the rule. EPA should extend the effective date of the federal rule to allow an orderly conclusion of the rulemakings that are needed. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rul e. EPA in this proceeding has proposed a three month extension of the effective date of the EPA regulations from July

6, 2012 to October 6, 2012. While we support an extension, instead of the three months proposed by EPA, we strongly support a year’s exte nsion of the effective date of the EPA regulations until July 6, 2013 as outlined in the alternative extension that EPA proposed. A full ye ar’s extension will allow sufficient time for EPA to approve the Florida rule and to withdraw the federal rule. It wo uld be a better use of resources and prevent further confusion if EPA provided extra time now, instead of the agency having to initiate another rulemaking to extend the effective date because the 90 - day extension did not provide sufficient time to complete these remaining steps. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303( c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. If you have any questions about this request, please contact me at (202) 463 - 2581 or jerry _schwartz@afandpa.org. Respectfully , Jerry Schwartz Senior Director, Energy

and Environmental Policy

**-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 [LOGO] CF Industries, Inc. Phosphate Operations PO Drawer L Plant City , FL 33564 813 - 782 - 1591 www.cfindustries.com June 18, 2012 Water Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 2822 1T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20460 RE : Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, Proposed Delay of Effective Date; 77 Federal Register 29271 - 29275, May 17, 2012 Attention: Docket ID No.: EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 To Whom It May

Concern: CF Industries appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments in response to EPA's notice of proposed agency action, published in the Federal Register May 17, 2012, that would delay

the implementation of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria for Fl orida lakes and flowing waters from July

6, 2012, to October 6, 2012, or to July 6, 2013. CF Industries, Inc. CF Industries, Inc. (CF) is a global leader in nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, serving both agricultural and industrial customers throughout the world. CF maintains substantial operations in Florida, for which CF is required to maintain numerous state and federal environmental permit authorizations, including surface water discharge approvals under the NPDES per

mitting program. Accordingly , CF is directly and substantially

affected by the Agency's nutrient water quality standards (WQS) rule associated with this docket. Comments Concerning EPA's May 17, 2012, Proposal CF supports EPA's proposal to delay the ef fective date of its criteria, as published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2011, and agrees with EPA that extending the effective date to July 6, 2013 (and potentially

beyond) "would avoid the confusion and inefficiency that may occur should Federal criteria become effective while EPA reviews State criteria for approval or disapproval under CWA section 303(c)." Extending the date to July 6, 2013, would avoid similarPublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 confusion, should federal criteria become effective, as noted in the May 17 notice, " after State criteria have been approved and while EPA is in the process of withdrawing Federal criteria for corresponding waters." EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extensio n of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. EPA Water Docket #EPA - HQ - 02 - 2009 - 0596 June 18, 2012 Page 2 CF believes that the basis for th e delay in implementation to July 6, 2013, (or later) articulated by EPA in the May

17, 2012, notice - i.e., the confusion caused by federal criteria becoming effective after EPA has approved State criteria - is exactly the same reason that EPA should withdraw its January

14, 2009, necessity determination or, at the very least, publish a clear statement that EPA's obligations under the January 2009 determination have been full y discharged upon EPA approval of State nutrient criteria. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaki ng concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. CF supports EPA's delay in implementing the federal criteria in order to (1) allow the State to complete its administrative process; (2) allow EPA time to review and approve the State standards under § 303(c) of the Clean Water Act; (3) allow EPA time to withdraw its federal criteria; and (4) allow EPA an opportunity to withdraw its January

14, 2009, determination. To provide adequate opportunity to accomp lish these tasks, CF believes that EPA's proposed date of July

6, 2013, is preferable to and more appropriate than the short term alternative of October 6, 2012, also proposed for consideration in the May 17 notice. EPA agrees that an extension of the ef fective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension wi ll also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Finally , C F notes that letter writing campaigns in opposition to this necessary delay in effective date from entities involved in dilatory litigation over the State's nutrient rules, which rules were just upheld by

the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings on June 7, 2012, are uncompelling if not disingenuous. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. CF appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and supports EPA's pro posal to appropriatel y delay

implementation of its inland waters rule to July 6, 2013, or later. Sincerel y, [Signature] For Craig A. Kovach Director, Environmental Affairs

---------------------------------------------- [LOGO] [Return address and contact information] June 18, 2012 **VIA EMAIL [OW -**  **DOCKET@EPA.GOV]** Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Attention: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 200 9 0596 Re: Proposed Delay

of Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596. Dear Sir/Madam:Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC ("Mosaic") supports EPA's proposed three - mo nth delay of the effective date for EPA' s rule establishing numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in Florida ("Inland Waters Rule"), as described in 77 Fed. Reg. 29,271 - 29,272 (May 17, 2012). EPA's proposed action would defer the effectiv e date of the inland waters rule until October 6, 2012. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule. As EPA noted, the Florida Department of Environmental Protec tion ("FDEP") has developed its own proposal for addressing the impacts of nutrients in Florida waters ("FDEP Nutrient Rule"). See 77 Fed. Reg. at 29273. The FDEP Nutrient Rule -- after approval by the Florida Environmental Review Commission and after being upheld b y an Administrative L aw Judge in the State Division of Administrative Hearings upon hearing the matter of a petition challenging the Rule's validity -- was submitted to EPA for approval on June 13, 2012. However, absent an extension, the Inland Wat ers Rule would become effective July 6, 2012. This means that during the period of time that EPA is considering approval of the FDEP Nutrient Rule, Florida regulated entities or other affected parties in Florida would be subject to the Inland Waters Rule t emporaril y, with the possibility of shortly

thereafter becoming subject to the FDEP Nutrient Rule instead. This inherent uncertainty and lack of constancy would, absent an extension, impose unnecessary

and burdensome obligations on affected parties and would create regulatory confusion, without enhancing the protection of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. As EPA recognizes, implementation of the FDEP and/or EPA nutrient rules will be complex, costly and time - consuming. Dischargers subject to nutrient regulations will need to develop new technical compliance measures and compliance strategies, where appropriate . It is highl y inefficient to undertake compliance measures for one rule if it likely will be superseded by

another. Moreover, now that the FDEP Nutrient Rule has been approved by the State of Florida, there June 18, 2012 U.S. EPA, Water Docket Comments Page 2 may be confusion among dischargers as to whether FDEP requirements or EPA requirements are applicable. See id. at 29,273 - 29,274. As EPA has noted, deferral of the effective date of the inland waters rule b y 90 days will provide the short additio nal time needed to enable EPA to review and approve the FDEP Nutrient Rule and avoid any confusion created during this interim period. Id. Accordingl y, in the interest of ensuring regulatory stability and clarity, we support EPA's proposal to defer the eff ective date for the Inland Waters Rule. EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 EPA also solicited comment on a proposal to extend the effective date of th e Inland Waters Rule for one ye ar, to July 6, 2013. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 29,274. Mosaic supports further extensions so that, in the event that EPA does not approve the FDEP Nutrient Rule, the effective dates for the Inland Waters Rule are consistent with th e schedule for proposing and finalizing criteria for streams established by the Court in Florida W

ildlife Federation v. Jackson, Case No. 4:08cv324 - RH/WCS (N.D. Fla.). The Court - ordered schedule calls for EPA to propose criteria for streams and downstream protection criteria for unimpaired lakes b y November 30, 2012, and to finalize these criteria by August 31, 2013. It will greatly facilitate both efficient regulation and the achievement of compliance to establish the same effective dates for all of the criteria (i.e., lakes, spring and streams). Absent that consistency, there will be considerable confusion about the extent and nature of obligations imposed under these related rules. Accordingl y, Mosaic supports setting effective dates for all elements of the Inland Waters Rule for a date in 2013 at least 90 day s after the final criteria for streams and downstream protection values for unimpaired lakes are published in final form in the Federal Register, consistent with the schedule established in Florida W

ildlife Federation v. Florida. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Fede ral criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel y, [Signature] James Voyles Director U.S. Environmental Affairs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 338 Baronne St., Suite 200 1152 15th Street NW, Suite 300 New Orleans, LA Washington, DC 20005 504 - 525 - 1528 (202) 289 - 2361 matt@healthygulf.org jdevine@nrdc.org May 25, 2012 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvani a Avenue NW Washington, DC 20406 ATTN: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 2596 ow - docket@epa.gov **RE: Comments on “Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing waters,” Docket ID No. EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OW**  **- 2009**  **- 2596**  To Whom It May

Concern: On behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 1 , please accept these comment regarding “Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing waters,” Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 2596, as noticed in the Federal Register, Vol 77, No. 96, May 17, 2012. GRN and NRDC have worked for several years to promote protective numeric nutrient criteria for Florida, Gulf States, and the Nation. The proposed extensions, es peciall y the extension to July

6, 2013, are unacceptable. The reason EPA promulgated the rules in the first place was because Florida was not timely in its own development of protective standards. Further, the original deadline has already been extended to give Florida more time. 1 GRN is a diverse coalition of individual citizens and local, regional, and national organizations committed to uniting and empowering people to protect and restore the resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Members of GRN are located in each of the states along the Gulf of Mexico, including Florida.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. If Florida wants to promulgate trul y protective numeric standards for nutrient pollution, a July 6, 2012 deadline, or an October 6, 2012 deadline will not prevent this. Currently , Florida is experiencing nitrogen and phosphorus - fueled algae blooms throughout the state. 2 The sooner numeric criteria are put in place, the sooner Florida waters will be on the path to being fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. EPA agrees with the commenter that control of excess nitrogen and phosphorus is important, however, EPA is finalizing this six - month ex tension of the effective date to allow EPA time to review the submitt ed Florida nutrient standards (discussed earlier) for approval or disapproval under CWA section 303(c). As mentioned earlier, having EPA’s criteria take effect while EPA is reviewing the State standards could cause confusion and administrative inefficienc y for the State and regulated entities, something the EPA wants to avoid. Further, EPA should not grant a ye ar extension due to the fact that the current draft of the proposed Florida numeric nutrient criteria are not adequatel y protective of Florida’s waters. We have submitted comments to the Florida Regulation Commission stating our objections, and they

are attached for your reference (Attachment B). This draft, which is even worse than the draft that was presented to EPA and which was the subject of the November 2, 2011 letter of Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Nancy Stoner, plainl y cannot be legally approved by U.S. EPA under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. There is, thus, no reason to believe that legal and protective Florida standards are anywhere in sight. EPA agrees with the commenter that a one - year extension is too long and has finalized a six month extension. EPA acknowledges and thanks the commenter for the comments on the FL numeric nutrient criteria; however , these comments are outside the scope of this rule. Due to nutrient pollution, many of Florida’s waters are not fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. Postponing implementation of criteria, or approving Florida’s proposal would not move us forward towards the goals of the Clean Water Act. EPA has previously

acknowledged the need for control of excess nitrogen and phosphorus to improve Florida’s ambient waters. EPA is finalizing this six - month ex tension of the effective date to allow EPA time to review the submitted State stan dards (discussed earlier) for approval or disapproval under CWA section 303(c). Sincerel y,Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Matt Rota Science and Water Policy Director Gulf Restoration Network Jon Devine Senior Attorney , Water Program Natural Resources Defense Council CC: Kay Buchanan, FDEP Albert Ettinger, Attorney Jennifer Hecker, Southwest Florida Conservancy Cris Costello, Sierra Club David Guest, EarthJustice Linda Young, Clean Water Network of Florida 2

2 Many recent pictures of these algae blooms can be found in Attachment A and at http://www.flickr.com/photos/slime_crimes/#. 

### ATTACHMENT A [Attachment A (containing pictures of recent blooms) remains in the original comment letter in the docket to this rulemaking; however was not included in this document . E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This information o n recent algal blooms is outside the scope of this action. ] 

### ATTACHMENT **B**Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 [Attachment B (containing comments to the Florida Regulation Commission) remains in the original comment letter in the docket to this rulemaking; however; was not included in this document . E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only

the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria prov ision, which became effective on Feb ruary 4, 2011). These comments to the Florida Regulation Commission are outside the scope of this action. ]



### ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [LOGO] May 31, 2012 U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue; Mail Code: 2822T Washington, D.C. 20460 Attn: Docket **ID** No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0598 Water Docket Submitted via email to ow - docket@epa.gov. Re: Proposed Extension of Effective Dates for EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rules To Whom It May

Concern: On May 1 7, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) proposed to extend the effective date of its final rule setting numeric water quality criteria for inland waters in Florida from July 6 ,2012 until October 6, 2012 (77 FR 29271). The notice also solicited comments on extending the July6 th effective date b y an additional extension to July 6, 2013. On behalf of Palm Beach County W ater Utili ties Department (PBCWUD), we strongl y support EPA's proposed effective date extension to July 6 , 2013. PBCWUD would also support any further delay s deemed necessary t o allow full consideration of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's ) alternative nutrient criteria rules and withdrawal of all federal numeric nutrient criteria rulemakings in Florida. Furthermore, this time extension should provide ample time to further the development of a full range of appropriate implementation guidelines for regulated industries. EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three month extension is needed. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January 6, 2013, effective date for a periodPublic comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria approved b y EPA. PBCWUD believes that FDEP's comprehensive nutrient criteri a rules should render moot EPA's nutrient rules as well as EPA's planned rulemakings for canals, estuaries, and coastal waters. The state rules are stringent and will lead to significant environmental improvements. Importantl y, the state rules also take into account the diversity o f Florida's water sy stems and will work in concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs. The state rules thereb y will avoid the unintended negative environmental and economic consequences associated with EPA's nutrient rules. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This c omment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. Ina ddition to delaying the effective date of its final criteria; PB CWOD also recommends that EPA suspend its planned nutrient criteria rulemakings for Florida's estuaries, coastal waters, and canals. E PA requested comment on and is limiting this final action to only the issue of extending the effective date of the inland waters rule (except for the site - specific alternative cri teria provision, which became effective on February 4, 2011). This comment on another EPA rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the scope of this action. **May** 31, **2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Attn:**  **Docket ID No. EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -** **2009 -**  **0596 Water Docket RE: Proposed Extension of Effective Dates for EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rules**  **Page Two** FDEP has promulgated a holistic numeric nutrient criteria program that obviates the perceived need for additional f ederal rulemakings. The state rules should be evaluated without the complication of any additional and unneeded federal rulemakings. This six - month extension will provide EPA time to review and approve or disapprove Florida’s rule under CWA section 303(c). If EPA approves Florida’s rule, this six - month extension will also allow EPA to request permission from the Court to finalize a further extension of the January

6, 2013, effective date for a period of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria correspon ding to those State criteria approved b y EPA.Public comments received by the EPA and EPA’s responses inserted into the document

EPA Response to comments for Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596 Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Sincerel y, [Signature] Bevin Beaudet, P.E. Director of Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department cc: Rober Weisman, P.E., County Administrator, PBC Shannon LaRocque - Baas, P.E., Assistant County Administrator, PBC Michael Jones, Assistant County Attorney , PBC Brian Shields, P.E., Deputy Director, PBC Water Utilities Thomas Miller, Legislative Affairs Manager, PBC Water