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 by 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 77, Number 96) on May 17, 2012. The 30-day public comment period 

ended 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-2009-0596.
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 electronically 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 agrees 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

Submitted via email to ow –docket@epa.gov

RE: PROPOSED EXTENSION OF EFFECTIVE DATES FOR 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

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 Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), I appreciate the

opportunity to submit these comments strongly supporting EPA's proposed

effective date extension. Of the two alternative dates provided, ECUA

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 federal numeric nutrient criteria

rulemakings in Florida.

EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three monthextension 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 by EPA. 

ECUA believes 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 systems and will

work in concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs. The state

rules thereby will avoid the unintended negative environmental and

economic consequences associated with EPA's nutrient rules.

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.

Elizabeth S. Campbell Lois Benson Ehrin McCorvey Dale Perkins Lany Walker
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

District One District Two Distrid Three District Four District Five

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 another 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.

Sincerely,

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. Environmental 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, only 

to revert to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) NNC rule if it is 

approved by the EPA. We believe 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 substantial 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 by the FDEP version of the proposed NNC rules.

As you know, part of the 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 of 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 by 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 the 
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

end. This unreasonable approach, potentially 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 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.

We respectfully request that you allow the Florida Rule process to run its course through 

a final decision by EPA. Although the Florida DEP rule may still be a very expensive hit to the 

economy 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]

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

[Logo]

Raymond 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-2009-0598
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

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, I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments

strongly supporting EPA's proposed effective date extension. Of the two alternative dates

provided, Orange County Utilities supports the extension to July 6, 2013. Orange County 

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 monthextension 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 by EPA. 

Orange County Utilities believes 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 also take into account the diversity of Florida's water systems and will 

work in concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs. The state rules thereby will

avoid the unintended negative environmental and economic consequences associated with EPA's 

nutrient rules.

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.
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

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 another EPA 

rulemaking concerning waters not covered under the inland waters rule is outside the 

scope of this action.

Orange County Utilities appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments.

Sincerely, 

[Signature]

Raymond 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 extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three monthextension 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 by 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 verification steps and clearer alternative criterion methodologies to help 

ensure that public investments are well-targeted and result in meaningful environmental benefits. The 

state nutrient rules will lead to environmentally 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 systems 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 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 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. Accordingly, the Utility 

Council appreciates EPA's efforts to avoid the regulatory dysfunction that would occur by 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 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.

The FWEA Utility Council appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Sincerely, 

[SIGNATURE]

David Richardson, P.E. 

President, FWEA Utility Council 

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

[Logo]

June 14, 2012 

The Honorable Lisa 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 Water Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters (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-directed 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 communities. 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 rulemaking 
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

because the proposed rule will directly affect their legal obligations regarding 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 adequately 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 

completion of that process could leave cattle producers in Florida with a misunderstanding of 

what rules apply 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 effective date 

and has promulgated an extension in the final rule.

NCBA further supports EPA’s proposal to move the implementation deadline from July 6, 2012 

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 by 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 withdrawal 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 monthextension 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 by 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 proposed three monthextension 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 by EPA. 

Sincerely, 

[Signature]

Ashley Lyon McDonald 

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 Agency
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

Mail Code: 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

Subject: 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

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 tissue operations; to moderately 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 including 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 strongly supports the efforts by the State of Florida and specifically, the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in developing a state regulatory program for 

numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). The DEP has worked diligently to develop a sound program 

that has involved substantial technical and regulatory input from affected stakeholders and EPA. 

However, since the state rule was administratively 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 Federal standards become effective.

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 regulations from July

6, 2012 to October 6, 2012. The extension EPA previously granted from March 6, 2012 to July 6, 

2012 was quickly consumed by administrative and legal proceedings. Because of the significant 

im implications of the State or Federal standards, Georgia- Pacific fully supports an extension of 

the effective date. However, instead of the three months proposed by EPA, we strongly support a 

year’s extension of the effective date of the EPA regulations until July 6, 2013 as outlined in the 
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

alternative extension 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 promulgation. 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 monthextension 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 by EPA. 

We again appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the above proposed amendments. If 

you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at (404) 652-4776.

Sincerely,

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-2009-0596 
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

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 manufacturers, 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 

employment levels in the automotive, chemicals and plastics industries. The industry meets a 

payroll of approximately $50 billion 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 in 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 transparently 

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 by environmental organizations had not yet concluded and the 

Page 2

June 15, 2012 state legislature had not yet ratified the 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 rule.

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 extension of the effective date of 

the EPA regulations until July 6, 2013 as outlined in the alternative extension that EPA 

proposed. A full year’s extension will allow sufficient time for EPA to approve the Florida rule 

and to withdraw the federal rule. It would 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 monthextension 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 by 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 Florida 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 permitting 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 effective 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 similar 
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

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 monthextension 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 by EPA. 

EPA Water Docket #EPA-HQ-02-2009-0596

June 18, 2012 

Page 2 

CF believes that the basis for the 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 fully 

discharged upon EPA approval of State nutrient criteria. 

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.

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 accomplish 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 effective date longer than the proposed three monthextension 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 by 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, CF 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. 

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.

CF appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and supports EPA's proposal to 

appropriately delay implementation of its inland waters rule to July 6, 2013, or later. 

Sincerely, 

[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-2009

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-month 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 effective 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 Protection ("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 by an Administrative Law 

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 Waters 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 temporarily, 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 highly 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 by 90 days will provide the short additional time needed to enable EPA to 

review and approve the FDEP Nutrient Rule and avoid any confusion created during this interim 

period. Id. Accordingly, in the interest of ensuring regulatory stability and clarity, we support 

EPA's proposal to defer the effective 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 the Inland 

Waters Rule for one year, 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 the schedule for proposing and finalizing 

criteria for streams established by the Court in Florida Wildlife 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 by 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. Accordingly, Mosaic 

supports setting effective dates for all elements of the Inland Waters Rule for a date in 2013 at 

least 90 days 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 Wildlife Federation v. Florida. 

EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed three monthextension 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 by EPA. 

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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[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 Pennsylvania 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, especially

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 truly 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.2The 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 extension of the effective date to allow EPA time to 

review the submitted 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 inefficiency for the 

State and regulated entities, something the EPA wants to avoid.

Further, EPA should not grant a year extension due to the fact that the current draft of

the proposed Florida numeric nutrient criteria are not adequately 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, plainly 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 sixmonth 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 extension of the effective 

date to allow EPA time to review the submitted State standards (discussed earlier) for approval 

or disapproval under CWA section 303(c).

Sincerely,
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. 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 sitespecific alternative criteria provision, which became effective on February 4, 

2011). This information on 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. 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). These comments to the Florida 

Regulation Commission are outside the scope of this action.]

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

[LOGO]

May 31, 2012 

U.S. Environmental 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 17, 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 by an additional extension to July 6, 2013. 

On behalf of Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department (PBCWUD), we strongly support 

EPA's proposed effective date extension to July 6, 2013. PBCWUD would also support any 

further delays deemed necessary to 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 monthextension 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 
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

of time for EPA to withdraw the Federal criteria corresponding to those State criteria 

approved by EPA. 

PBCWUD believes 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 systems and will work in 

concert with existing state nutrient reduction programs. The state rules thereby will avoid the 

unintended negative environmental and economic consequences associated with EPA's nutrient 

rules. 

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.

In addition to delaying the effective date of its final criteria; PBCWOD also recommends that 

EPA suspend its planned nutrient criteria rulemakings for Florida's estuaries, coastal waters, and 

canals.

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.

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 federal 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 corresponding to those State criteria approved by 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.

Sincerely,

[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