Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Withdrawal, 18494-18497 [2014-07387]
Download as PDF
18494
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: March 27, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2014–07295 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9908–18–
OW]
RIN 2040–AF50
Water Quality Standards for the State
of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters;
Withdrawal
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw
federal water quality standards
applicable to waters of the state of
Florida now that Florida has adopted
and EPA has approved relevant state
standards. On December 6, 2010, EPA
published a rule finalizing numeric
nutrient standards for Florida’s lakes,
springs, and flowing waters outside of
the South Florida Nutrient Watershed
Region. EPA established these water
quality standards to protect Florida’s
Class I and III freshwaters from nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution. On
November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013, and
September 26, 2013, EPA approved
numeric nutrient standards adopted by
the state of Florida for certain waters in
the state.
Some of the water body types and
provisions covered by state-adopted
water quality standards were also
included in EPA’s final inland waters
rule (criteria for Florida’s lakes and
springs, approaches to protect
downstream lakes, and a provision for
developing Site-Specific Alternative
Criteria). EPA is now proposing to
withdraw the overlapping federallypromulgated water quality standards to
allow Florida to implement their state-
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
adopted, EPA-approved water quality
standards to address nutrient pollution
in Florida’s waters. Additionally, EPA is
not finalizing three 2012 federal
proposed rules related to nutrient
pollution in Florida.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2009–0596, by one of the following
methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov
3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention:
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–
0596.
4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–
0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
a docket facility. The Office of Water
(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30
a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
OW Docket Center telephone number is
(202) 566–2426, and the Docket address
is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erica Fleisig, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
566–1057; email address: fleisig.erica@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed rule is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Which water bodies are affected by this
action?
B. What entities may be affected by this
action?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
D. How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
II. Background
A. Background on EPA’s Inland Rule,
Amended Determinations, and Approval
of State Criteria
B. 2014 District Court Ruling and
Modification of Consent Decree
C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Criteria
for Lakes, Springs, and DPVs
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
I. General Information
A. Which water bodies are affected by
this action?
In this document, EPA is proposing to
withdraw federally promulgated water
quality standards (WQS) from a group of
inland waters of the United States
within Florida. Specifically, as defined
below and in EPA’s December 6, 2010
final inland waters rule (40 CFR 131.43),
EPA is proposing to withdraw the
federal criteria for Florida’s Class I and
III 1 freshwater lakes and springs, as
well as downstream protection values
(DPVs) to protect downstream lakes and
a provision for developing site-specific
alternative criteria (SSAC) in all water
bodies.
EPA’s final inland waters rule defined
‘‘Predominantly fresh waters’’ to mean
surface waters in which the chloride
concentration at the surface is less than
1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L). EPA
defined ‘‘Lake’’ as a slow-moving or
standing body of freshwater that
occupies an inland basin that is not a
stream, spring, or wetland. Finally, EPA
defined ‘‘Spring’’ as a site at which
ground water flows through a natural
opening in the ground onto the land
surface or into a body of surface water.
B. What entities may be affected by this
action?
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
This action proposes to withdraw
federal WQS applicable to certain
waters in Florida for which the state has
adopted criteria that EPA has
determined are consistent with the
CWA and EPA’s implementing
regulations. Citizens concerned with
water quality, as well as the state of
Florida—who was previously required
to implement federal numeric nutrient
criteria before this withdrawal, but will
no longer be required to do so after this
withdrawal is finalized—may be
interested in this rulemaking. Also,
entities discharging nitrogen or
phosphorus to waters of Florida may be
interested in this rulemaking because
WQS are used in determining National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit limits. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
1 Subsection 62–302.400(1), Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.) provides as follows:
All surface waters of the state have been
classified according to designated uses as follows:
CLASS I Potable Water Supplies
CLASS II Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting
CLASS III Fish Consumption; Recreation,
Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and Wildlife.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit
confidential business information (CBI)
to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date, and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
D. How can I get copies of this
document and other related
information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OW–
2009–0596. The official public docket
consists of the document specifically
referenced in this action, any public
comments received, and other
information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket,
the public docket does not include CBI
or other information whose disclosure is
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18495
restricted by statute. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the
OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is (202) 566–2426. A reasonable
fee will be charged for copies.
2. Electronic Access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An
electronic version of the public docket
is available through EPA’s electronic
public docket and comment system,
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets
at https://www.regulations.gov to view
public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. For additional
information about EPA’s public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage
at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm. Although not all docket
materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any
of the publicly available docket
materials through the Docket Facility
identified in Section I.D(1).
II. Background
A. Background on EPA’s Inland Rule,
Amended Determinations, and
Approval of State Criteria
On December 6, 2010, pursuant to a
January 14, 2009 EPA determination
and December 30, 2009 consent decree,
EPA published the inland waters rule to
establish numeric nutrient criteria for
Florida’s lakes, springs, and flowing
waters outside of the South Florida
Nutrient Watershed Region.2 These
criteria also included three approaches
for deriving DPVs, applicable to flowing
waters at the point where they enter
downstream lakes, which would ensure
protection of downstream lakes as
required by EPA’s implementing
regulations (40 CFR 131.10(b)).
On November 30, 2012, EPA amended
its January 14, 2009 determination
stating that numeric criteria for
downstream protection are not
necessary to meet CWA requirements in
Florida. This was because Florida’s
approach to downstream protection, in
2 EPA defined the South Florida Nutrient
Watershed Region as the area south of Lake
Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee River watershed
(including Estero Bay) to the west of Lake
Okeechobee, and the St. Lucie watershed to the east
of Lake Okeechobee.
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
18496
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
combination with nutrient criteria for
nutrient-sensitive downstream water
bodies, achieves timely and effective
protection of downstream waters. With
the additional clarification provided in
Florida’s ‘‘Implementation of Florida’s
Numeric Nutrient Standards’’ rulereferenced document on the scope of
waters covered by state-adopted
numeric nutrient criteria, EPA amended
its January 2009 determination for a
second time on June 28, 2013,
concluding that numeric nutrient
criteria are not necessary for a limited
number of waters in the state of Florida
(specifically, flowing waters in the
South Florida Region, marine lakes,
tidally-influenced flowing waters, and
conveyances primarily used for water
management purposes with marginal or
poor stream habitat components).
These actions, coupled with EPA’s
November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013, and
September 26, 2013 approvals of
Florida’s numeric nutrient criteria,
result in Florida having EPA-approved
numeric nutrient criteria for all fresh
water lakes, springs, estuaries and
coastal waters, and the majority of
flowing waters in the state.
B. 2014 District Court Ruling and
Modification of Consent Decree
On January 7, 2014, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of
Florida granted an EPA motion to
modify the consent decree (Case No.
4:08–cv–324–RH, Florida Wildlife Fed’n
v. McCarthy, 2014 WL 51360 (N.D. Fla.
Jan. 7, 2014)). As a result of this ruling,
EPA is no longer obligated to
promulgate numeric nutrient criteria for
any of Florida’s waters, and will
therefore not be finalizing its November
30, 2012 federal proposed rules
addressing Florida’s estuaries and
coastal waters, inland waters in the
South Florida Nutrient Watershed
Region, and the remanded portions of
the inland waters rule (77 FR 74923 and
77 FR 74985, December 18, 2012). In
addition, EPA will no longer be
finalizing its December 14, 2012
proposal to temporarily stay portions of
the inland waters rule. EPA can now
withdraw already promulgated federal
criteria so Florida’s nutrient criteria can
take effect.
For more specifics on the Agency and
court actions leading to this proposal,
refer to the following:
EPA Determination Regarding Florida
and Consent Decree: https://
water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/
florida_consent.cfm.
Florida Adoption of Numeric Nutrient
Criteria in 2012 and EPA Approval:
https://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epaflorida.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
EPA’s 2012 Proposed Rulemaking:
https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/
rulesregs/florida_index.cfm.
2013 EPA and FDEP Agreement in
Principle and Path Forward: https://
content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/
FLDEP–713cfb.
C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal
Criteria for Lakes, Springs, and DPVs
Florida now has state-adopted, EPAapproved criteria for lakes and springs
that are applicable for CWA purposes.
Thus there is no need for overlapping
federal criteria for such waters. With
respect to federal DPVs, EPA
determined on November 30, 2012 that
numeric criteria for downstream
protection are not necessary in Florida
and that same day approved Florida’s
quantitative downstream protection
approach. Finally, since Florida has its
own process for developing SSAC, a
federal SSAC process is unnecessary.
Thus, EPA is proposing to withdraw the
federal criteria for lakes and springs,
federal DPVs, and the federal SSAC
provision that took effect on January 6,
2013 (with the exception of the federal
SSAC provision that went into effect on
February 4, 2011) and solicits comments
on this proposal.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review)
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and is therefore not
subject to review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new
information-collection burden because
it is administratively withdrawing
federal requirements that are no longer
needed in Florida. It does not include
any information-collection, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201 (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local or tribal governments or
the private sector. Therefore, this action
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
rule proposes to remove federallypromulgated water quality standards
addressing nutrient pollution in Florida
in order to allow Florida to implement
their state-adopted, EPA-approved water
quality standards.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This rule
proposes to remove federallypromulgated water quality standards
addressing nutrient pollution in Florida
in order to allow Florida to implement
their state-adopted, EPA-approved water
quality standards. Thus, Executive
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from state and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This rule imposes no regulatory
requirements or costs on any tribal
government. It does not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866 and because the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present
a disproportionate risk to children.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities,
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Apr 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
18497
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
Subpart D—Federally Promulgated
Water Quality Standards
J. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
40 CFR Part 761
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because: (1) Florida’s WQS apply to
waters across the state, and thus this
action will not disproportionately affect
any one group over another, and (2) EPA
has previously determined, based on the
most current science, that Florida’s
adopted and EPA-approved criteria are
protective of human health and aquatic
life.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Environmental protection, Florida,
Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution,
Nutrients, Water quality standards.
Dated: March 26, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 131 as follows:
PART 131—WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 131
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 131.43
■
[Removed]
2. Section 131.43 is removed.
[FR Doc. 2014–07387 Filed 4–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396; FRL–9909–00–
OSWER]
RIN 2050–AG79
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is proposing to take action on a petition
from the United States Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) to import foreignmanufactured polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
‘‘manufacture’’ is defined to include the
import of chemical substances into the
customs territory of the United States.
With certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3)
of TSCA bans the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs. One of these
exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B),
which gives EPA authority to grant
petitions to import PCBs into the
customs territory of the United States
for a period of up to 12 months,
provided EPA can make certain findings
by rule. On April 23, 2013, EPA
received a petition from DLA, a
component of the United States
Department of Defense (DOD), to import
foreign-manufactured PCBs that DOD
currently owns in Japan for disposal in
the United States. EPA is proposing to
grant DLA’s petition as of July 1, 2014.
This proposal to grant the petition, if
finalized, would allow DLA to
manufacture (i.e., import) certain PCBs
for disposal. EPA has granted two
previous exemptions in 2003 and 2007
to DLA for similar petitions to import
PCBs for disposal. Without an
exemption granted by EPA, DLA would
not be allowed to import the PCB waste
to the U.S. for proper disposal. In fact,
if the exemption is not granted, it is very
likely that DLA will not be able to find
any country willing to accept and
properly dispose of the PCB waste.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18494-18497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07387]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9908-18-OW]
RIN 2040-AF50
Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and
Flowing Waters; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
withdraw federal water quality standards applicable to waters of the
state of Florida now that Florida has adopted and EPA has approved
relevant state standards. On December 6, 2010, EPA published a rule
finalizing numeric nutrient standards for Florida's lakes, springs, and
flowing waters outside of the South Florida Nutrient Watershed Region.
EPA established these water quality standards to protect Florida's
Class I and III freshwaters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. On
November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013, and September 26, 2013, EPA approved
numeric nutrient standards adopted by the state of Florida for certain
waters in the state.
Some of the water body types and provisions covered by state-
adopted water quality standards were also included in EPA's final
inland waters rule (criteria for Florida's lakes and springs,
approaches to protect downstream lakes, and a provision for developing
Site-Specific Alternative Criteria). EPA is now proposing to withdraw
the overlapping federally-promulgated water quality standards to allow
Florida to implement their state-adopted, EPA-approved water quality
standards to address nutrient pollution in Florida's waters.
Additionally, EPA is not finalizing three 2012 federal proposed rules
related to nutrient pollution in Florida.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0596, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov
3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at a docket facility. The Office
of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566-2426, and the Docket address is OW
Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica Fleisig, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1057; email address:
fleisig.erica@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Which water bodies are affected by this action?
B. What entities may be affected by this action?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
D. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. Background on EPA's Inland Rule, Amended Determinations, and
Approval of State Criteria
B. 2014 District Court Ruling and Modification of Consent Decree
C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Criteria for Lakes, Springs,
and DPVs
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in
[[Page 18495]]
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)
I. General Information
A. Which water bodies are affected by this action?
In this document, EPA is proposing to withdraw federally
promulgated water quality standards (WQS) from a group of inland waters
of the United States within Florida. Specifically, as defined below and
in EPA's December 6, 2010 final inland waters rule (40 CFR 131.43), EPA
is proposing to withdraw the federal criteria for Florida's Class I and
III \1\ freshwater lakes and springs, as well as downstream protection
values (DPVs) to protect downstream lakes and a provision for
developing site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) in all water
bodies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsection 62-302.400(1), Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) provides as follows:
All surface waters of the state have been classified according
to designated uses as follows:
CLASS I Potable Water Supplies
CLASS II Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting
CLASS III Fish Consumption; Recreation, Propagation and
Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and
Wildlife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's final inland waters rule defined ``Predominantly fresh
waters'' to mean surface waters in which the chloride concentration at
the surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L). EPA defined
``Lake'' as a slow-moving or standing body of freshwater that occupies
an inland basin that is not a stream, spring, or wetland. Finally, EPA
defined ``Spring'' as a site at which ground water flows through a
natural opening in the ground onto the land surface or into a body of
surface water.
B. What entities may be affected by this action?
This action proposes to withdraw federal WQS applicable to certain
waters in Florida for which the state has adopted criteria that EPA has
determined are consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing
regulations. Citizens concerned with water quality, as well as the
state of Florida--who was previously required to implement federal
numeric nutrient criteria before this withdrawal, but will no longer be
required to do so after this withdrawal is finalized--may be interested
in this rulemaking. Also, entities discharging nitrogen or phosphorus
to waters of Florida may be interested in this rulemaking because WQS
are used in determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit limits. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit confidential business information
(CBI) to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
D. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. The official public
docket consists of the document specifically referenced in this action,
any public comments received, and other information related to this
action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does
not include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-2426. A
reasonable fee will be charged for copies.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at https://www.regulations.gov to view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Although not
all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the
Docket Facility identified in Section I.D(1).
II. Background
A. Background on EPA's Inland Rule, Amended Determinations, and
Approval of State Criteria
On December 6, 2010, pursuant to a January 14, 2009 EPA
determination and December 30, 2009 consent decree, EPA published the
inland waters rule to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's
lakes, springs, and flowing waters outside of the South Florida
Nutrient Watershed Region.\2\ These criteria also included three
approaches for deriving DPVs, applicable to flowing waters at the point
where they enter downstream lakes, which would ensure protection of
downstream lakes as required by EPA's implementing regulations (40 CFR
131.10(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA defined the South Florida Nutrient Watershed Region as
the area south of Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee River
watershed (including Estero Bay) to the west of Lake Okeechobee, and
the St. Lucie watershed to the east of Lake Okeechobee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2012, EPA amended its January 14, 2009
determination stating that numeric criteria for downstream protection
are not necessary to meet CWA requirements in Florida. This was because
Florida's approach to downstream protection, in
[[Page 18496]]
combination with nutrient criteria for nutrient-sensitive downstream
water bodies, achieves timely and effective protection of downstream
waters. With the additional clarification provided in Florida's
``Implementation of Florida's Numeric Nutrient Standards'' rule-
referenced document on the scope of waters covered by state-adopted
numeric nutrient criteria, EPA amended its January 2009 determination
for a second time on June 28, 2013, concluding that numeric nutrient
criteria are not necessary for a limited number of waters in the state
of Florida (specifically, flowing waters in the South Florida Region,
marine lakes, tidally-influenced flowing waters, and conveyances
primarily used for water management purposes with marginal or poor
stream habitat components).
These actions, coupled with EPA's November 30, 2012, June 27, 2013,
and September 26, 2013 approvals of Florida's numeric nutrient
criteria, result in Florida having EPA-approved numeric nutrient
criteria for all fresh water lakes, springs, estuaries and coastal
waters, and the majority of flowing waters in the state.
B. 2014 District Court Ruling and Modification of Consent Decree
On January 7, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida granted an EPA motion to modify the consent decree
(Case No. 4:08-cv-324-RH, Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. McCarthy, 2014 WL
51360 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2014)). As a result of this ruling, EPA is no
longer obligated to promulgate numeric nutrient criteria for any of
Florida's waters, and will therefore not be finalizing its November 30,
2012 federal proposed rules addressing Florida's estuaries and coastal
waters, inland waters in the South Florida Nutrient Watershed Region,
and the remanded portions of the inland waters rule (77 FR 74923 and 77
FR 74985, December 18, 2012). In addition, EPA will no longer be
finalizing its December 14, 2012 proposal to temporarily stay portions
of the inland waters rule. EPA can now withdraw already promulgated
federal criteria so Florida's nutrient criteria can take effect.
For more specifics on the Agency and court actions leading to this
proposal, refer to the following:
EPA Determination Regarding Florida and Consent Decree: https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_consent.cfm.
Florida Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Criteria in 2012 and EPA Approval:
https://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-florida.
EPA's 2012 Proposed Rulemaking: https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_index.cfm.
2013 EPA and FDEP Agreement in Principle and Path Forward: https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/FLDEP-713cfb.
C. Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Criteria for Lakes, Springs, and DPVs
Florida now has state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria for lakes and
springs that are applicable for CWA purposes. Thus there is no need for
overlapping federal criteria for such waters. With respect to federal
DPVs, EPA determined on November 30, 2012 that numeric criteria for
downstream protection are not necessary in Florida and that same day
approved Florida's quantitative downstream protection approach.
Finally, since Florida has its own process for developing SSAC, a
federal SSAC process is unnecessary. Thus, EPA is proposing to withdraw
the federal criteria for lakes and springs, federal DPVs, and the
federal SSAC provision that took effect on January 6, 2013 (with the
exception of the federal SSAC provision that went into effect on
February 4, 2011) and solicits comments on this proposal.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new information-collection burden
because it is administratively withdrawing federal requirements that
are no longer needed in Florida. It does not include any information-
collection, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201 (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule proposes
to remove federally-promulgated water quality standards addressing
nutrient pollution in Florida in order to allow Florida to implement
their state-adopted, EPA-approved water quality standards.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule proposes to remove
federally-promulgated water quality standards addressing nutrient
pollution in Florida in order to allow Florida to implement their
state-adopted, EPA-approved water quality standards. Thus, Executive
[[Page 18497]]
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule
imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any tribal government.
It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action do not
present a disproportionate risk to children.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure.
H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because: (1) Florida's
WQS apply to waters across the state, and thus this action will not
disproportionately affect any one group over another, and (2) EPA has
previously determined, based on the most current science, that
Florida's adopted and EPA-approved criteria are protective of human
health and aquatic life.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Environmental protection, Florida, Nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution, Nutrients, Water quality standards.
Dated: March 26, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 131 as follows:
PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Subpart D--Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards
Sec. 131.43 [Removed]
0
2. Section 131.43 is removed.
[FR Doc. 2014-07387 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P