UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

								   	PC Code: 031301			          	DP Barcode: D294451

          Date: October 17, 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Response to Phase 4 Comments on EFED’s Environmental Fate and
Ecological Risk Assessment for DCNA (Dicloran)

TO:		James Parker, Chemical Review Manager

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

Kelly Sherman, Team Leader

Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

FROM:	Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

		Christopher Salice, Ph.D., Biologist

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

REVIEWED

BY:		Thomas M. Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

APPROVED

BY:		Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed its
review of Phase 4 comments received from the technical registrant, Gowan
Company, on the final environmental fate and ecological risk assessment
for DCNA (dicloran).  This memo includes each of the registrant’s
comments and EFED’s response to each.

The EFED responses indicate that the following data requirements have
already been fulfilled or may not be required:  1) Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism (835.4300) – previously fulfilled; 2) Droplet Size Spectrum
(840.1100) – fulfilled; 3) Drift Field Evaluation (840.1200) –
fulfilled; 4) Aquatic Field Dissipation (835.6200) – no data
requirement established.  The following data requirements may be needed:
 1) Accumulation in Aquatic Non-Target Organisms (850.1950); 2) Mysid
Life Cycle (850.1450).

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

1.	Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (835.4300)

An acceptable aerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted in 2003 and
reviewed by EFED in November, 2005.  The DER was sent to Gowan Company
in February, 2006 [MRID 46657101;  EPA DP Barcode D313901].   Therefore,
no additional study is required.  Gowan Company does not think it is
necessary to request a waiver from this study because it appears that
this proposed data requirement is in error.

EFED RESPONSE:

The registrant is correct that the data requirement is in error.  MRID
46657101 was reviewed by EPA and found acceptable.  Additional aerobic
aquatic metabolism data are not needed.  While the EFED environmental
fate and ecological effects chapter and the RED document both contain
estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) that were determined using
the newly submitted acceptable data, portions of the amended EFED
chapter text were inadvertently not included in the version of the text
used in the RED document.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

2.	Aquatic Field Dissipation (835.6200)

Even EFED seems to have concluded that there is little indication of
risk to aquatic organisms [cf. RED pages 24 – 25] so Gowan Company
found this data requirement surprising.

Gowan Company requests a waiver from this data requirement for three
reasons:

Criteria Not Met

First of all, OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 835.6200 does seem to not
exist.  It is not publicly available even in draft form.  We assume the
Agency intended to refer to the earlier OPP Guideline 164-2.  This brief
guideline in the 1982 Subdivision N Pesticide Assessment Guidelines
states when this study is required:  “…to support the registration
of an end-use product intended for

aquatic food crops

aquatic non-crop uses (which include anti-fouling paints and other
outdoor protective uses where the pesticide-containing surface is in
contact with water, and also pesticide application to ditchbanks and
shorelines)

any aquatic impact uses involving direct discharge of treated water into
outdoor aquatic sites.”

No registered use of dicloran meets any of these criteria.  We conclude
that the requirement of this study is inappropriate and unjustified.

Perceived Persistence

Secondly, we think that EFED perceives dicloran to be more persistent
than it actually is.  The first paragraph of the Environmental Risk
Assessment in the RED (page 20) states that “in aerobic mineral soils,
the half-life ranged from six to eighteen months.  In anaerobic sandy
soils, the half-life ranged from twenty-four to thirty-eight days.”
That information was derived from a 1988 soil metabolism study in which
the microbiological health of the test soils was questionable [MRID
40894801].  Subsequent work has shown that dicloran is not nearly as
persistent as the 1988 study suggests:

In the 2002 aerobic aquatic metabolism study discussed above, the
half-life in two systems was calculated to be 2.6 – 2.9 days in water,
3.8 – 4.9 days in sediment and 3.4 – 3.5 days in the total systems.

In a 1995 anaerobic aquatic soil metabolism study [MRID 43866501 and
45333301] the initial half-life was 0.45 day but “lengthened” to 3.0
days between Day 1 and Day 14.

In an acceptable 1997 California field soil dissipation study [MRID
44414201] the half-life was 32.8 days.

Therefore, dicloran is not persistent in soil and particularly not in
aquatic sites where anaerobicity in the sediment often occurs.

Perceived High Residues in Water

Thirdly, we think that EFED may have felt this study necessary because
high residues in water were perceived.  EFED has predicted surface water
residues up to 42.3 ppb [cf. RED page 21].  This number is derived from
a Tier 0/Tier 1 screening model in which the default assumption is that
87% of the watershed is treated with the chemical in question.

Real-world data always supplants default numbers used in screening
models, however.    Dicloran is a very specialized and geographically
limited product, and approximately 41% of all dicloran usage nationwide
is in Monterey County, California, where it is used mostly on celery.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation records show that in 2004
(the latest year for which results have been tabulated), dicloran was
used on 50,805 acres in Monterey County.  This is equivalent to 79.4
square miles.  The area of Monterey County is 3322 square miles, so
dicloran was applied to 2.4% of the county.  This is approximately 37
times less than the Agency’s modeling program assumes, and so the
presumed concentration in water calculated by the Agency, 42.3 ppb, can
safely be reduced by a factor of 37 for Monterey County.  Obviously this
number can be reduced by a much larger factor for all other areas of the
United States.

Gowan Company conducted a groundwater study in Monterey County.  Our
groundwater study [MRID 45237401] can also be viewed as a very large
runoff study.  It was in fact difficult for us to find an acceptable
agricultural test site in the county that had not previously been
treated with dicloran.  The Salinas River, which runs through Monterey
County, was analyzed for dicloran 18 times over a 592-day period,
including during some flooding events.  Dicloran was detected only once,
at 0.3 ppb.  It can therefore be concluded that dicloran will not reach
surface water in appreciable quantities, and certainly not in
concentrations remotely as high as those envisioned by EFED.

For these reasons Gowan Company respectfully requests a waiver from this
data requirement.

EFED RESPONSE:

No data requirement has been established for an Aquatic Field
Dissipation study, thus this waiver request is not technically accurate.
 Completion of the study is not likely to add significant information to
the body of environmental fate data already available for DCNA.  The
acceptable aquatic metabolism study data, both aerobic and anaerobic,
indicate that the persistence of DCNA is quite low in aquatic systems.

Although a data requirement has not been established, there are a number
of statements in the registrant’s comment (Perceived High Residues in
Water) that are inaccurate.  These statements are listed below in
Italics.

EFED has predicted surface water residues up to 42.3 ppb [cf. RED page
21].  This number is derived from a Tier 0/Tier 1 screening model in
which the default assumption is that 87% of the watershed is treated
with the chemical in question.

Tier II modeling was conducted for this screening assessment.
Additional data (such as monitoring data) may be useful in refining a
screening assessment, but do not replace the values predicted in the
screening level assessment which were determined using peer-reviewed
methods.

Real-world data always supplants default numbers used in screening
models, however.

EFED notes that simulation modeling and monitoring data are
complementary rather than a competitive source of information on the
concentrations of pesticides in water. Simulation modeling, as used in
the Office of Pesticide Programs, provides an upper bound estimate on
potential concentrations that can occur in the environment. With
modeling, it is possible to observe the effects of events that are
difficult to capture in monitoring. Monitoring provides a more direct
measurement of environmental concentration. However, infrequent
sampling, and sampling in places where there is little use of the
pesticide of concern or little vulnerability to runoff, tend to make
monitoring an underestimate of exposure in the environment, particularly
for acute exposure.  Monitoring data are often difficult to interpret
because the ancillary data on pesticide usage in the basin, and factors
that could make the location more or less vulnerable, are often not
available. Taken together, modeling and monitoring typically provide a
more complete picture of exposure than either alone. Because the
modeling is generally conservative, and the OPP ecological risk
assessments for DCNA are considered to be screening assessments, the
risk quotients are based on the modeling.

Dicloran is a very specialized and geographically limited product, and
approximately 41% of all dicloran usage nationwide is in Monterey
County, California, where it is used mostly on celery.  California
Department of Pesticide Regulation records show that in 2004 (the latest
year for which results have been tabulated), dicloran was used on 50,805
acres in Monterey County.  This is equivalent to 79.4 square miles.  The
area of Monterey County is 3322 square miles, so dicloran was applied to
2.4% of the county.  This is approximately 37 times less than the
Agency’s modeling program assumes, and so the presumed concentration
in water calculated by the Agency, 42.3 ppb, can safely be reduced by a
factor of 37 for Monterey County.  Obviously this number can be reduced
by a much larger factor for all other areas of the United States.

The method recommended by the registrant for assessing percentage
cropped area (PCA) does not accurately describe peer-reviewed EPA
methodologies.  The document describing PCAs can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/regional_pca.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/regional_pca.htm

Gowan Company conducted a groundwater study in Monterey County.  Our
groundwater study [MRID 45237401] can also be viewed as a very large
runoff study.  It was in fact difficult for us to find an acceptable
agricultural test site in the county that had not previously been
treated with dicloran.  The Salinas River, which runs through Monterey
County, was analyzed for dicloran 18 times over a 592-day period,
including during some flooding events.  Dicloran was detected only once,
at 0.3 ppb.  It can therefore be concluded that dicloran will not reach
surface water in appreciable quantities, and certainly not in
concentrations remotely as high as those envisioned by EFED.

The criteria used to select a site for a ground water study are
inconsistent with those that would be used to select a site for surface
water monitoring.  This discussion is fundamentally scientifically
flawed.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

3.	Accumulation in Aquatic Non-Target Organisms (850.1950)

Gowan Company vehemently objects to the imposition of this data
requirement.

The correct title of OPPTS Guideline 850.1950 is “Field Testing for
Aquatic Organisms.”  This guideline primarily concerns mesocosm
studies, and field studies are mentioned only in passing.

First we must emphatically state that the Agency is unjustified in
requiring a Tier 4 study when, as we have shown, Tier 1 evaluations of
dicloran give no cause for concern.

Secondly, the Agency effectively rescinded the requirement for mesocosm
studies many years ago.  That was because the Agency itself concluded
that mesocosm studies were uninterpretable and of no value for risk
analysis.  Mesocosm studies today remain uninterpretable and of no value
for risk analysis.  This is because detailed protocols still have not
been validated and subjected to appropriate peer review.  We are aware
of the recommendation of SAP in 1997 for the Agency to reinstate
mesocosm studies.  However, if the Agency wishes to pursue the basic,
preliminary research and validation work on mesocosm studies that would
be required for mesocosm studies to be of regulatory value, then this
work should be funded by the Agency itself.  Gowan Company contends that
it is a breach of the Agency’s authority to demand funding of such
blue-sky research by the regulated community.

Furthermore, even if mesocosm data for dicloran were to exist today, and
if EFED were to attempt to use such data for regulatory purposes, Gowan
Company would charge that this would be a violation of the Agency’s
own Information Quality Guidelines, in contravention to the Office of
Management and Budget guideline of 2002 and in contravention to Section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2001
(Public Law 106-554).

Any concerns of EFED regarding the potential for bioaccumulation of
dicloran should have been answered by our acceptable bluegill
bioaccumulation study [MRID 43782001].  The RED concluded (page 20) that
dicloran has only a moderate 136X potential for bioconcentration, and
residues are eliminated quickly.  EFED has provided no rationale or
justification for requiring any further work on accumulation in
non-target species.

For these reasons Gowan Company respectfully requests a waiver from this
data requirement.

EFED RESPONSE:

No data requirement has been established for Field Testing for Aquatic
Organisms (OPPTS Guideline 850.1950), thus this waiver request is not
technically accurate.  EFED agrees that such data are not necessary at
this time, as an Accumulation in Aquatic Non-Target Organisms study is
not deemed likely to add significant information to the body of
environmental fate data already available for DCNA.  While properly
designed mesocosm studies have utility for more refined assessments,
such refinements are not presently planned for DCNA.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

4.	Droplet Size Spectrum (840.1100)

5.	Drift Field Evaluation (840.1200)

This information has been developed by the Spray Drift Task Force.
Gowan Company is a member of the SDTF and thereby references the studies
already on file with the Agency.  These data requirements are considered
to be fulfilled.

EFED RESPONSE:

EFED concurs with the registrant.  The data requirements are fulfilled
by the registrant’s participation in the Spray Drift Task Force.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

6.	Mallard Duck Reproduction (850.2300)

Gowan Company will conduct a reproduction study with the mallard duck.
A recent study with bobwhite quail was acceptable [MRID 46218900;  EPA
DP Barcode D304580].

EFED RESPONSE:

EFED will review the study following its submission to the Agency.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

7.	Sheepshead Minnow Acute LC50 (850.1075)

8.	Mysid Acute LC50 (850.1025)

Gowan Company recognizes that toxicity data on estuarine/marine species
are incomplete.  We will conduct acute toxicity studies with the
sheepshead minnow and mysid shrimp.

EFED RESPONSE:

EFED will review the studies following their submission to the Agency.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

9.	Rainbow Trout Early Life-Stage (850.1300)

10.	Fathead Minnow Full Life Cycle (850.1500)

EFED has provided no credible justification for the requirement of these
Tier 2 and Tier 3 studies.  Even when EFED used a simple screening model
to evaluate risk to aquatic organisms, in only one scenario was the RQ
above the Level of Concern (LOC).  The RED on pages 24 and 25 states,

“No acute or chronic RQs exceeded the LOCs for freshwater fish or
invertebrates, with the exception of the use of DCNA on celery…in
which the RQ exceeded the listed-species acute risk LOC for freshwater
fish at the peak predicted EEC. “

In response to requirement No. 2 above, Gowan Company above demonstrated
that EFED’s screening model substantially overestimates aquatic
exposure and aquatic risk.  As we said earlier, real-world use data
always prevails over a default assumption of percent treated land in a
watershed (87% in this case).  When actual use data are considered, it
can safely be concluded that the use of dicloran will not exceed the LOC
in Monterey County and certainly not in any other region of the United
States.  Therefore EFED is without justification in requiring these
studies.  Since the LOC is in fact not exceeded, then these studies
would add no additional useful decision-making information regarding the
evaluation of risk to fish.  Gowan Company therefore respectfully
requests the Agency to waive these two data requirements.

EFED RESPONSE:

Sufficient justification for fish chronic toxicity studies on DCNA is
based on the CFR 40 Part 158.490.  Specifically, for DCNA, a fish
chronic toxicity study is being requested because (1) the fish LC50 is
less than 1 mg/l, (2) the estimated EECs are greater than 0.01 of any
EC50/LC50 (RQ > 0.01) for several uses for both fish and invertebrates,
and (3) DCNA is persistent in water (>4 day half life; DCNA is stable to
hydrolysis).  According to the CFR, the toxicity and fate
characteristics of DCNA are such that a fish chronic toxicity study
would reduce uncertainties associated with potential risks to fish.
Therefore, EFED has recommended a freshwater fish chronic toxicity
study, preferably a fish early life stage toxicity (850.1400).

The registrant also commented that “EFED’s screening model
substantially overestimates aquatic exposure and aquatic risk.”  And
that “real-world use data always prevails over a default assumption of
percent treated land in a watershed”.  Similar comments by the
registrant were fully addressed above.  However, it is important to
stress that the Office of Pesticide Programs uses peer-reviewed
simulation models that provide upper bound estimates of potential
environmental concentrations.  Modeling and monitoring data are
complementary rather than competitive sources of information that, taken
together, can provide a more complete picture of exposure.  However,
because modeling results are generally considered more conservative and
given the potential for monitoring data to underestimate exposure, risk
quotients are based on modeling results for screening-level assessments.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

11.	Mysid Life Cycle (850.1450)

It is entirely inappropriate for EFED to require this Tier 2 study
before the results of the Tier 1 acute toxicity study with mysids
(requirement No. 8 above) are completed.  Gowan Company requests the
Agency to hold this requirement in reserve pending a review of the
results of the mysid acute toxicity study.

EFED RESPONSE:

EFED agrees, the mysid life cycle study requirement may not be needed
and a final determination will be made pending review of the mysid acute
toxicity study.

REGISTRANT COMMENT:

12.	Tier I Terrestrial Plant Toxicity (850.4025)

Gowan Company will conduct a Tier 1 terrestrial plant toxicity study
with dicloran.

EFED RESPONSE:

EFED will review the study following its submission to the Agency.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34988-34989]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application for
Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR 107, Subpart
B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of
transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is
indicated by a number in the ``Nature of special permits thereof''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2008.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC or at http://dms.dot.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permits is published
in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials
transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2008.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Regulation(s)         Nature of special
   Application No.           Docket No.            Applicant             affected            permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NEW SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14706-N..............  .....................  Toyota Motor Sales,  49 CFR 172.200,      To authorize the one-way
                                               U.S.A., Inc.         172.504, and         transportation in
                                               Torrance, CA.        173.25.              commerce of certain
                                                                                Class 8 and 9 hazardous
                                                                                materials not subject
                                                                                to shipping papers,
                                                                                placarding and marking
                                                                                and labeling of
                                                                                overpacks when moving
                                                                                Toyota's warehouse
                                                                                approximately 15 miles
                                                                                by motor vehicle. (mode
                                                                                1).
14710-N..............  .....................  Brenner Tank, LLC,   49 CFR 178.345-2...  To authorize the
                                               Fond Du Lac, WI.                          manufacture, marking,
                                                                                sale and use of certain
                                                                                DOT 400 series
                                                                                specification cargo
                                                                                tanks using titanium
                                                                                instead of the
                                                                                specified metal. (mode
                                                                                1)
14711-N..............  .....................   Department of       49 CFR 173.62......  To authorize the
                                               Defense,                                  transportation in
                                               Albuquerque, NM.                          commerce of certain
                                                                                approved desensitized
                                                                                explosives in bulk
                                                                                packaging by motor
                                                                                vehicle. (mode 1)
14712-N..............  .....................  Clean Earth          49 CFR               To authorize the
                                               Systems, Inc.,       173.173(b)(2);       manufacture, marking,
                                               Tampa, FL.           173.242.             sale and use of UN 11G
                                                                                fiberboard intermediate
                                                                                bulk containers for use
                                                                                as the outer packaging
                                                                                for certain Class 3
                                                                                waste paints and waste
                                                                                paint related material.
                                                                                (mode 1)
14717-N..............  .....................  Amvac Chemical       49 CFR 173.241 and   To authorize the
                                               Corporation, Axis,   173.243.             transportation in
                                               AL.                                       commerce of plastic
                                                                                receptacles containing
                                                                                the residue of certain
                                                                                pesticide products in a
                                                                                non-DOT specification
                                                                                closed bulk bins.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2)
14718-N..............  .....................  Catalina Cylinders,  49 CFR 178.65(i)...  To authorize the
                                               Cliff Impact                              manufacture, marking,
                                               Division, Hampton,                        sale and use of a
                                               VA.                                       cylinder conforming in
                                                                                all respects to a DOT
                                                                                Specification 39 except
                                                                                for a procedure in
                                                                                completing the marking
                                                                                requirement. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3,4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-13769 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


                       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" (inland waters rule), which was published in the Federal Register (Volume 76, Number 246) on December 22, 2012.  The 30-day public comment period ended on January 23, 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.

FLORIDA ELECTRIC POWER COORDINATING GROUP, INC. (FCG)
1408 N. WESTSHORE BLVD., SUITE 1002
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33607-4512
(813) 289·5644· FAX (813) 289·5646

[Logo]
_____________________________________________________________________

January 20, 2012

Water Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Attention: Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596

Re: 	Comments Provided by the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Environmental Committee in response to EPA's December 22,2011 Notice: Effective Date for Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida 's Lakes and Flowing Waters

To Whom It May Concern:

The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc., Environmental Committee (FCG) provides the following comments in response to EPA's notice of proposed agency action, published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2011, to delay the implementation of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters from March 6, 2011 to June 4, 2012.

The FCG 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 data [sic] to June 4, 2012 (and perhaps beyond) is appropriate.

 	EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule.

The FCG, through its Environmental Committee, represents investor-owned electric utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and municipal electric utilities on environmental issues affecting Florida's electric utility industry. FCG was established in 1976 and currently has twenty-eight (28) members. FCG members provide electricity to nearly 5 million customers in Florida, which represents over half of the State's electrical energy supply. Many FCG members discharge treated wastewater to Florida surface waters under the authority of state discharge permits issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) consistent with the State's EPA-approved National Pollutant Discharge elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Permit conditions imposed by DEP are derived from, based upon, and implement, the State's federally approved Water Quality Standards Program and Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) program.

The FCG has actively participated as an interested stakeholder in Florida's development of its numeric nutrient criteria. The FCG has consistently taken the position, in comment letters and through court filings, that EPA was premature in issuing its January 14, 2009 necessity determination and developing federal numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters. The FCG is pleased to see that EPA is proposing to recognize the State's efforts in developing its own

Water Docket
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
January 20, 2012
Page 2

comprehensive nutrient rule and supports EPA's proposal to delay implementation of the federal criteria to allow the State time to complete its administrative process and submit its rule to EPA for review under § 303 of the Clean Water Act.

	EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule.

As noted in EPA's December 22, 2011 proposal, an additional time period, beyond June 4, 2012 may be necessary to accommodate the Department's submission, and EPA's review, of the State rule. Petitions have been filed with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) challenging the State rule; these petitions have been filed by the same parties who initially sued EPA in 2008 to force EPA to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters.  These advocacy groups have pursued a "shotgun approach" in their attack on the State rule and have filed lengthy meandering petitions attacking all aspects of the State rule-including provisions and concepts which also serve as the basis for EPA's criteria as finalized on December 6, 2011.

      EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed 90- day extension is needed to allow enough time for the State's rulemaking process to conclude. EPA is promulgating a slightly longer extension (four months) than was proposed (90 days) in order to provide sufficient time to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, Florida DEP and the Florida legislature have continued to make progress in their rulemaking process. EPA is finalizing an extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date of the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule" (inland waters rule) for four months to July 6, 2012.

      If FDEP has formally adopted its final rule before July 6, 2012, EPA will consider proposing a further extension of the effective date of the inland waters rule to allow FDEP to submit the rule to EPA for review and action under section 303(c) of the CWA, for EPA to complete its review of and take action on the State rule, and for EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria that have been approved by EPA, as appropriate.

On January 9, 2012, counsel for these same organizations appeared in federal court attacking elements of EPA's final rule as arbitrary and capricious; in that same hearing, counsel for the advocacy groups criticized EPA's December 22nd proposal to delay implementation of the federal criteria to accommodate the State's administrative process.

The advocacy groups should not be allowed to cause the delay with their dilatory petitions and then cry foul when EPA offers time to allow cooperative federalism to work and for the State to complete its rulemaking process-which includes defending the very rule challenges filed by the petitioners.

As noted by EPA in its December 22nd notice, the proposed extension of the implementation date "would avoid the confusion and inefficiency that may occur should Federal criteria become effective while state criteria are being finalized by the State and reviewed by EPA." The FCG fully supports EPA's rationale and indeed encouraged DEP to include language in the State rule consistent with EPA's goal of avoiding redundant and inconsistent state and federal regulatory programs.

The FCG appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and supports EPA's proposal as published December 22, 2011.

		Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group
		Environmental Committee

		[Signature]

		Winston K. Borkowski
		Hopping Green & Sams
		On behalf of the FCG Environmental Committee

Copy to:    Tanya Portillo, Director of Environmental Affairs
         James S. Alves, Esquire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                             Florida Department of
                           Environmental Protection
                       Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
                          3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
                        Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
[Logo]
                                                                     Rick Scott
                                                                       Governor

                                                               Jennifer Carroll
                                                                   Lt. Governor

                                                        Herschel T. Vinyard Jr.
                                                                      Secretary
January 20, 2012

Jeff Lape, Acting Director
Office of Science and Technology
Environmental Protection Agency
Mail code: 4301T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20460

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.

Dear Mr. Lape:

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is pleased to see that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a delay in the implementation
of the federally promulgated nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters,
acknowledging that the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission recently
approved for adoption numeric nutrient standards for Florida's streams, lakes, springs,
and southern Florida estuaries. The Division of Environmental Assessment and
Restoration (Division) is writing this letter on behalf of DEP to inform you of critical
factors to consider when making the final decision on a new effective date, and to
discuss the upcoming deadline for EPA to propose additional criteria.

EPA proposed a delay in the effective date of the federal nutrient criteria until June 6,
2012 to avoid the confusion and inefficiency that would occur should Federal criteria
become effective while criteria are being finalized by the State and reviewed by EPA.
This June 6 date may not give EPA sufficient time to approve these rules. DEP believes
this may not be sufficient time because third parties have challenged the proposed
water quality improvement rules which delay the effective date of those rules. The trial
date has already been moved back twice and DEP does not know when the final order
for the hearing will be issued. In addition, DEP also recognizes that EPA will need
some time to review the adopted rules once they are submitted to EPA for formal
approval as changes to Florida's surface water quality standards. DEP would also like
to note that the state's rules will not go into effect until after EPA formally approves
them and concludes its own rulemaking to repeal its numeric nutrient criteria for
Florida.

      EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed 90- day extension is needed to allow enough time for the State's rulemaking process to conclude. EPA is promulgating a slightly longer extension (four months) than was proposed (90 days) in order to provide sufficient time to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, Florida DEP and the Florida legislature have continued to make progress in their rulemaking process. EPA is finalizing an extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date of the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule" (inland waters rule) for four months to July 6, 2012.

      If FDEP has formally adopted its final rule before July 6, 2012, EPA will consider proposing a further extension of the effective date of the inland waters rule to allow FDEP to submit the rule to EPA for review and action under section 303(c) of the CWA, for EPA to complete its review of and take action on the State rule, and for EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria that have been approved by EPA, as appropriate.

Assuming that DEP submits a final rule and supporting documentation to EPA on April
1, 2012, EPA follows the 60-day Clean Water Act timeframe to approve the rules, and

                              www.dep.state.f/.us

Water Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
Page 2
January 20, 2012

EPA takes 120 days to conclude rulemaking in response to their approval, the State rule
would then take effect around October 1, 2012. These are ambitious timeframes given
our experience in these matters. EPA may want to reconsider whether a 90-day
extension is sufficient time if the Agency wants to avoid the complications that would
be created by temporary federal rules.

DEP also requests that EPA observe our commitment in the proposed rules for the
establishment of estuary criteria and postpone its proposal of criteria for marine waters.
Quite simply, this is not a good and proper use of State and Federal resources to invest
in two parallel government procedures that ultimately have the same goal. If both
agencies instead could continue to work together on one process, it would eliminate
unnecessary burden on our agencies. A single rulemaking effort would also ease the
burden on those stakeholders that engage in this rulemaking and generally avoid
confusion for the public. Should EPA feel compelled to propose criteria for marine
waters under the Consent Decree, DEP respectfully requests that EPA not propose
criteria for the estuaries that are already covered under DEP's approved rules,
including those based on Total Maximum Daily Loads.

      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.

Furthermore, upon EPA approval of DEP's estuary criteria, which include regulatory
timeframes to establish criteria for all remaining estuaries, DEP asks that EPA also
conclude that these rules have sufficiently addressed the January 9, 2009, determination
that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary and discontinue further rulemaking in the
state. Once that occurs, both Agencies will be able to concentrate on one State level
rulemaking procedure, and adoption and approval of State water quality standards can
resume as envisioned by the authors of the Clean Water Act.

      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.

DEP looks forward to continuing to work with EPA to advance the most comprehensive
nutrient pollution program in the nation. Accordingly, DEP will keep you apprised of
any developments regarding the administrative challenge and legislative ratification.

Sincerely,

[Signature]

Drew Bartlett
Director, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

cc: James D. Giattina, EPA Region 4

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

                                                            Georgia-Pacific LLC
                                                               Traylor Champion
                                          Vice President, Environmental Affairs
                                                        133 Peachtree Street NE
                                                         Atlanta, Georgia 30303
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>

January 19, 2012
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 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(R) 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 in 2011 to develop a sound program that has involved substantial technical and regulatory input from affected stakeholders and EPA. However, although the Environmental Regulation Commission has voted to adopt the state NNC rule, the state rule has been challenged and cannot go into effect until the challenge is resolved. GP is supporting the DEP in that process. Likewise, due to its cost, the state NNC rule requires legislative ratification and has been submitted to the legislature for that purpose. GP supports the ratification.

EPA has proposed a 90 day extension of the effective date of the EPA regulations. Georgia- Pacific fully supports an extension, but instead of 90 days, we suggest and support a 180 day extension of the effective date of the EPA regulations to allow ample time for the rulemaking process to be completed: 90 days is a relatively short time for rules that have generated such a high level of interest and involvement from stakeholders, regulators and legislators. The

                                                                         Page 2

necessary discussions, procedures and votes must be completed. In addition, the  challenge to the rule is set to go to hearing in early February. The Administrative Law Judge will need time to complete his review and prepare an issuance of a final order. Time is also required for submittal of the state rule to EPA, EPA's review and then action on that review. A rule of this significance and scope should not be rushed.

      EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed 90- day extension is needed to allow enough time for the State's rulemaking process to conclude. EPA is promulgating a slightly longer extension (four months) than was proposed (90 days) in order to provide sufficient time to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, Florida DEP and the Florida legislature have continued to make progress in their rulemaking process. EPA is finalizing an extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date of the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule" (inland waters rule) for four months to July 6, 2012.

      If FDEP has formally adopted its final rule before July 6, 2012, EPA will consider proposing a further extension of the effective date of the inland waters rule to allow FDEP to submit the rule to EPA for review and action under section 303(c) of the CWA, for EPA to complete its review of and take action on the State rule, and for EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria that have been approved by EPA, as appropriate.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

B. Traylor Champion
Vice President  -  Environmental Affairs
Georgia-Pacific LLC

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

                                  January 23, 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

	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) (76 FR 79604)

      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 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 strongly supports the efforts by the State of Florida to develop a state regulatory program for numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been one of the leaders in the nation addressing nutrient issues, spending several years and millions of dollars to collect and analyze nutrient data in order to establish a sound scientific basis for establishing NNC.

      1111 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 800 ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> ▪ www.afandpa.org

      January 23, 2012
      Page 2

      The State of Florida is now in the final stages of its regulatory and legislative process for adopting NNC. In 2011, this process included a rigorous program of technical and regulatory input from affected stakeholders and EPA. However, while substantial progress has been made, additional steps remain (i.e., resolution of a challenge to the Environmental Regulation Commission's adoption of the state NNC rule and ratification by the state legislature).

      EPA has indicated in a November, 2011 letter to DEP that it was inclined to approve the draft NNC rules DEP had developed. EPA also indicated that if it approved the final DEP rules, the agency would initiative a subsequent rulemaking to withdraw the federal rule which is the subject of the Proposal.

      AF&PA supports EPA providing sufficient time for this process to reach an orderly conclusion. The pending Proposal includes only a 90-day extension of the effective date of the underlying EPA rule. While we support an extension of the effective date, we believe it should be 180 days to allow the time needed for the State of Florida to complete the administrative review of the legal challenge, action by the Florida legislature, and an EPA rulemaking to withdraw the underlying 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. We note that DEP has raised the same issue in its comments on the Proposal.

             EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed 90- day extension is needed to allow enough time for the State's rulemaking process to conclude. EPA is promulgating a slightly longer extension (four months) than was proposed (90 days) in order to provide sufficient time to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, Florida DEP and the Florida legislature have continued to make progress in their rulemaking process. EPA is finalizing an extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date of the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule" (inland waters rule) for four months to July 6, 2012.

            If FDEP has formally adopted its final rule before July 6, 2012, EPA will consider proposing a further extension of the effective date of the inland waters rule to allow FDEP to submit the rule to EPA for review and action under section 303(c) of the CWA, for EPA to complete its review of and take action on the State rule, and for EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria that have been approved by EPA, as appropriate.

      If you have any questions about this request, please contact me at 202/463-2581 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

      					Respectfully,

      					Jerry Schwartz
      					Senior Director, Energy and Environmental 						Policy

_______________________________________________________________________

									CF Industries, Inc.
									Phosphate Operations
									PO Drawer L
									Plant City, FL 33564
<PHONE_NUMBER>
[Logo]

January 20, 2012

Water Docket
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Attention: Docket 10 No.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596

Re: Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's
	Lakes and Flowing Waters - Comments Submitted by CF Industries

To Whom It May Concern:

CF Industries appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to EPA's  notice of proposed agency action, published in the Federal Register December 22, 2011, that would delay the implementation of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters from March 6, 2011 to June 4, 2012.

CF Industries is an industry leader in fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, the largest
nitrogen fertilizer producer in North America, the second largest nitrogen fertilizer producer in the world and the third largest phosphate fertilizer producer among public companies. The Company strives to conduct its business and operate its facilities in a manner designed to protect the environment, the health and safety of its employees, and the communities where its facilities are located. We are committed to compliance with all applicable environmental laws, rules and regulations; continuous improvement in its environmental, health and safety programs; and to pollution prevention, energy efficiency, and conservation of natural resources as fundamental requirements of all its operations. CF Industries is a long-term participant stakeholder in both the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and is a founding member of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium.

EPA Water Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596
January 20, 2012
Page 2

CF Industries 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 data [sic] to June 4, 2012 (and perhaps beyond) "would avoid the confusion and inefficiency that may occur should Federal criteria become effective while state criteria are being finalized by the State and reviewed by EPA." The Company supports scientifically sound environmental regulations and policies that will protect and restore Florida waters. As detailed in comments submitted to this docket and in court filings, CF Industries has expressed serious concerns regarding EPA's Water Quality
Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters as published in the
Federal Register on December 6, 2011.

      EPA agrees with the comment supporting the proposed extension of the effective date and has promulgated an extension in the final rule.

The State rules approved by the ERC and forwarded to the Florida Legislature for ratification incorporate the EPA criteria as thresholds but attempt to bridge some of the gaps in science and implementation issues not addressed in the EPA rule but well known to State scientists, policy makers and the regulated community.

In the interest of avoiding unnecessary and undesirable regulatory uncertainty and conflicts referenced in EPA's notice of December 22, 2011, CF Industries supports the
Agency's delay in implementing the federal criteria in order to allow the State to complete its administrative process and forward the rule to EPA for review under § 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.

CF Industries notes that substantial uncertainty surrounds when the State will be able to submit its new nutrient rules to EPA for review. The same parties who filed the original suit against EPA also have filed petitions with Florida's Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) challenging the State rules. It appears evident that the intent of these parties is to delay the State process in order to force implementation of the EPA criteria; although as recently as January 9, 2012, associated counsel appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida arguing that EPA's criteria were deficient and should be selectively remanded back to the federal agency. We urge EPA to not reward such tactics and to further extend its implementation deadline beyond June 4, 2012, if necessary to accommodate the legal proceedings impeding the State's progress in submitting its rules to EPA for formal review.

       EPA agrees that an extension of the effective date longer than the proposed 90- day extension is needed to allow enough time for the State's rulemaking process to conclude. EPA is promulgating a slightly longer extension (four months) than was proposed (90 days) in order to provide sufficient time to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, Florida DEP and the Florida legislature have continued to make progress in their rulemaking process. EPA is finalizing an extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date of the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule" (inland waters rule) for four months to July 6, 2012.

      If FDEP has formally adopted its final rule before July 6, 2012, EPA will consider proposing a further extension of the effective date of the inland waters rule to allow FDEP to submit the rule to EPA for review and action under section 303(c) of the CWA, for EPA to complete its review of and take action on the State rule, and for EPA to withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria that have been approved by EPA, as appropriate.

Again, CF Industries appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and fully supports EPA's December 22, 2011, proposal to delay implementation of the Agency's numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters.

                                 	  Sincerely,

                                 		[Signature]

						Craig A. Kovach, P.G.
						Director, Environmental Affairs
						Phosphate Operations
________________________________________________________________________

                           COMMENTS BY EARTHJUSTICE
       ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER,
              SIERRA CLUB, CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, AND
               ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
                                      ON
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             PROPOSED RULE ON EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE WATER QUALITY
                          STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF
                     FLORIDA'S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS

                EPA Docket I.D. No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2009 - 0596

Proposed Rule Published: 76 Federal Register 79604 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)

     Amended Comments With Appendices Submitted January 23, 2012 via Email

I. 	INTRODUCTION

	This letter and its attachments contain the comments of Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Conservancy of Southwest Florida and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida on the proposed rule on the Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida`s Lakes and Flowing Waters. 76 Fed. Reg. 79604-79607. Earthjustice represented these organizations in the lawsuit that resulted in the Consent Decree which required the proposal and finalization of the rule for which EPA seeks to extend the effective date.

II. 	GENERAL COMMENTS

A.  EXTENSION OF THE RULE'S EFFECTIVE DATE IS INCONSISTENT WITH EPA'S DETERMINATION THAT NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA ARE NECESSARY FOR FLORIDA

	Many members of the organizations Earthjustice represented are personally and economically adversely affected by the eutrophication of Florida`s waters caused by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.[1] The pollution has resulted in the greening of Florida`s waters to the detriment of Florida`s public drinking water sources, its tourism industry, and its waterfront based property values all of which has been acknowledged by EPA during this rulemaking process.2 That state itself has identified --major issues of concern with regard to the following nutrient related degradation of Florida`s waters:
______________________
[1] Appendix 1: Standing Affidavits from EPA Rule Challenge Proceeding.
2 Commentators incorporate by reference all comments they have previously submitted during this rulemaking..

                                       1

      :: Since the 1970s, scientists have documented increasing levels of nutrients in surface water.

	:: Water quality has declined in most springs since the 1970s; in particular, levels 	of nitrate (a nutrient) have increased.

      :: Freshwater harmful algal blooms (HABs) are increasing in frequency, duration, and magnitude and therefore may be a significant threat to surface drinking water resources and recreational areas. Abundant populations of blue-green algae, some of them potentially toxigenic, have been found statewide in numerous lakes and rivers. In addition, measured concentrations of cyanotoxins -- a few of them above the suggested guideline levels -- have been reported in finished water from some drinking water facilities.

2008 Integrated Report at p. 37.3

	The most vivid expression of the adverse effects of excessive nutrient pollution are the toxic algae outbreaks that now plague Florida`s rivers and lake and, most particularly, its springs and spring fed rivers. An Assessment of Cyanotoxins in Florida's Lakes, Reservoirs, and River produced by a team of scientists for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in 2000 found that these outbreaks indicate the potential for a significant threat to public health:

      During the summer of 1999, the Cyanobacteria Survey Project at the SJRWMD collected a total of 167 water samples from sites throughout the state of Florida. Eighty-eight of these samples, representing 75 individual water bodies, were found to contain significant levels of toxin- producing blue-green algae. Thus far, algal toxins (particularly liver toxins) have been positively identified in all 88 of these water samples, and 80% of these samples have been shown to be lethally toxic to mice.

      The widespread distribution and relatively high levels of toxin-producing blue-green algae in Florida's waters, in addition to the demonstrated acute toxicity of the algal toxins, indicate the potential for a significant threat to public health from a poisonous HAB event. Algal toxins were found in water bodies that are presently being used as drinking water resources, which is of particular concern as these chemicals are highly toxic to humans and yet are virtually unnoticeable (no smell, discoloration, or off-flavor).

As reported by FDEP in its 2008 Integrated Report to EPA:

      Over the last several years, concern has grown in Florida about the potential public health threat from harmful algal blooms (HABs). In general, researchers believe that freshwater algal blooms are increasing in frequency, duration, and magnitude and therefore may be a significant threat to surface drinking water resources and recreational sites (Williams, April 14, 2004). Typically caused by excess nutrients, these blooms may produce toxins
__________________________________
[3] The 2008 Integrated Report is already part of the record of this rulemaking. See footnote 1 at 75 Fed. Reg. 4175.

                                       2

      that can harm humans through exposure to contaminated fish, dermal contact, and even the inhalation of aerosols.

	A Florida laboratory which performs testing for cyanotoxins (toxins produced by bluegreen algae), has photographs of algae outbreaks and accompanying toxin levels. See http://www.greenwaterlab.com/photo_bloom_020410.htm. One of those photograph shows a toxic algae bloom on Christopher Point Creek off the St. Johns River that was taken on July 31, 2009. The toxin concentration level of 800 ug/L for that bloom was 800 times above the WHO drinking standard of 1 ug/L and 40 times above WHO`s recreational standard of 20 ug/L.

			Microcystis Algae: Christopher Point Canal (July 31, 2009)

	Recent algae outbreaks evidence the fact that the necessity for implementation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida`s freshwater flowing waters, springs, and lakes has not abated. For example, in June 2011, a part of the Caloosahatchee River which is designated as a Class I waterbody (potable water supply) was subjected to a massive algae outbreak which again shut down the Olga Drinking Water Treatment Plant. The River, which smelled like an open septic tank, was posted with signs reading: WARNING: ALGAE ALERT  -  STAY OUT OF WATER. NO DRINKING BY HUMANS OR ANIMALS. NO EATING FISH. The signs also warned against fishing and swimming.

                                       3

		Warning Sign: Caloosahatchee River, June, 2011

	Also, during the summer of 2010, the St. Johns River suffered a massive toxic algae outbreak and a related 100-mile fish kill in which the fish died from destroyed red blood cells believed to be related to algae toxins.[4]

	Florida's springs also continue to be infested with thick algal mats of Lyngbya wollei (Plectonema wollei). This organism is a type of blue-green algae known to produce neurotoxins, dermatoxins, and other toxins that can cause severe neurological and dermatological damage in humans. Recreational spring users have reported rashes, believed to be caused by elevated levels of cyanotoxins from Lyngbya wollei to the Florida Department of Health's Harmful Algal Bloom Illness-Related Surveillance System. Seven incidents were reported at Wakulla Springs between 2007 and 2011. Between June 2002 and August 2006, over 20 similar incidents were reported at Ichetucknee Springs, located northwest of Fort White. According to the Florida Department of Health`s surveillance system, another 20 incidents were reported at Ichetucknee Springs between 2007 and 2011. Similar incidents were reported in seven other springs around the state during the 2007 to 2011 time period[5]

      EPA agrees with the commenter that a significant number of Florida's lakes and flowing waters are impaired by excessive levels of nutrients.  EPA agrees with the commenter that the current levels of nutrients found in many of Florida's lakes and flowing waters adversely affect the economy and people of Florida.  EPA also agrees that excess nutrient concentrations pose a serious risk to public drinking water sources, tourism and waterfront property values as well as many other public health, environmental and economic issues.  EPA discussed its concerns at length in the preamble to the rule promulgating the  numeric water quality criteria for nitrogen/phosphorus pollution to protect aquatic life in lakes, flowing waters, and springs within the State of Florida (75 FR 75762).

      However, EPA does not agree that the extension of the effective date is inconsistent with EPA's determination that the numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida. As EPA stated in the preamble to the final inland waters rule, the opportunity that is presented by numeric nutrient criteria -- for substantial nitrogen and phosphorus loadings reductions in the State -- "would be greatly facilitated and expedited by strongly coordinated and well-informed stakeholder engagement, planning, and support before a rule of this significance and broad scope begins to take effect and be implemented through the State's regulatory programs."  75 FR 75787.  Florida has continued to make progress in their water quality standards process and development of numeric nutrient criteria, and therefore, EPA believes that a four-month extension is warranted to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion.  EPA has extended the effective date of the inland waters rule to allow the State time to finish its process to develop its own numeric criteria for nutrients and to avoid the administrative inefficiency and confusion that would occur if federal criteria took effect in March 2012 but then State criteria took effect several months later.

	B.	 EPA'S EXTENSION OF THE RULE'S EFFECTIVE DATE IS
		INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT

	Once EPA makes a determination that revised water quality criteria are necessary for a state to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, EPA has a mandatory duty to act promptly in establishing the criteria that satisfy the Clean Water Act`s requirements. EPA cites
______________________________
[4] Appendix 2: FWC PowerPoint on 2010 St. Johns River Fish Kill.
[5] Appendix 3: FDOH, HAB Illness Data 2007-11 Final

                                       4

deference to the state`s rulemaking process as the basis for its decision to delay implementation of its numeric nutrient criteria rule. Clean Water Act section 303(c)(2)(4) does not give EPA the authority to delay implementation of rules it has found necessity under the Clean Water Act based on its desire to defer to the state`s rulemaking process.

      EPA disagrees with the commenter that the extension of the effective date is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.  Clean Water Act section 303(c)(4)(B) directs  EPA to "promptly" propose and then promulgate new or revised WQS where the Administrator has determined that such WQS are necessary to meet CWA requirements.  EPA laid out its plans to "promptly" propose numeric nutrient criteria in its determination, which dates were later memorialized (among others) in a consent decree entered into with commenters and entered by the district court.  EPA has met those dates by proposing and signing a notice of final rulemaking for such criteria on time, consistent with CWA requirements.

	C. 	EPA'S EXTENSION OF THE RULE'S EFFECTIVE DATE IS
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE EPA DOES NOT KNOW WHEN, IF EVER, THE STATE'S RULES WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE

	EPA arbitrarily and capriciously fails to consider (or for that matter even mention) the existing proposed rule challenge filed by petitioners which challenges the validity of the proposed rules under state law. See Docket for Consolidated Case No. 11-6137, Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. Unlike federal law, Florida law allows challenges to proposed rules which by law cannot be adopted if an administrative law judge determines that they are an invalid exercise of delegated statutory authority under Florida law. EPA also arbitrarily and capriciously fails to consider that one of the amendments to the proposed rules adopted at the December 8, 2012 Environmental Regulation Commission meeting prohibits the entirety of the state`s rules from being implemented should "any provision" of the state`s proposed rules be determined to be invalid in an administrative proceeding. Rule 62-302.531(9), F.A.C.6 This same rule halts effectiveness of the state`s rules unless EPA withdraws its necessity determination.

      EPA disagrees with the commenter that promulgating this extension is arbitrary and capricious because it is unknown when the State's rules will become effective. EPA stated in the proposed rule (75 FR 79606) that  "Should the State decide not to proceed with final numeric nutrient criteria after the ninety-day extension is finalized, EPA anticipates the inland waters rule would become effective at the end of the ninety days, on June 4, 2012."  EPA reiterates this principle in this final rule in that should the State decide not to proceed with final numeric nutrient criteria after the four-month extension, EPA anticipates the inland waters rule would become effective at the end of the four months, on July 6, 2012.  The purpose of the extension is to allow time for the State rulemaking process to come to an end, including the resolution of any administrative challenge to the State rule filed by commenters.  Also, EPA will only "withdraw any Federal numeric nutrient criteria corresponding to any State-adopted numeric nutrient criteria that have been approved by EPA."  Therefore the federal numeric nutrient criteria will remain in place if there are no approved State numeric nutrient criteria for the corresponding waters.

      As EPA stated in the preamble to the final inland waters rule, the opportunity that is presented by numeric nutrient criteria -- for substantial nitrogen and phosphorus loadings reductions in the State -- "would be greatly facilitated and expedited by strongly coordinated and well-informed stakeholder engagement, planning, and support before a rule of this significance and broad scope begins to take effect and be implemented through the State's regulatory programs."  75 FR 75787.

      D. 	EPA'S EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND A VIOLATION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE WHICH REQUIRES IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA'S DUTIES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT

	EPA`s rulemaking was undertaken pursuant to a Consent Decree that EPA lawfully entered into with commentators.[7] The basis for that Consent Decree was EPA`s "explicit and unequivocal" determination that "the existing Florida nutrient standard was inadequate and that a revised or new standard was necessary to meet the Clean Water Act`s requirements."  [D.E. 152: Order Approving Consent Decree, p. 13, Case No. 08-324, Northern District of Florida]. The Clean Water Act "mandates `prompt' action when a state standard is determined to be inadequate. The Consent Decree sets deadlines for EPA`s execution of its nondiscretionary duty which is to promulgate" any new or revised standard.  "Promulgation" is defined as setting out a rule with the force of law. An unimplemented law lacks force of law and violates EPA`s non-discretionary duty under both the Consent Decree and the Clean Water Act.

      EPA disagrees that the extension of the effective date violates the provisions of the consent decree.  The consent decree does not address the effective date of the rule. Rather, the consent decree specified a date by which EPA must "sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice(s) of final rulemaking".  Furthermore, this commenter was involved with the negotiation of the consent decree and did not challenge the initial effective date of March 6, 2012 for the final inland waters rule.

_____________________________
[6] Commentators incorporate by reference Florida`s proposed rules which are published on DEP`s website at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/.

[7] Appendix 4: Order Approving Consent Decree and Consent Decree, FWF, et al, v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al., Case No. 08-334, Northern District of Florida.

III. 	CONCLUSION

	Commentators have not agreed to EPA`s proposal to delay implementation of EPA's rules to await the uncertain outcome of the state`s rulemaking process. As set forth in the attached standing declarations, commentators are prejudiced and adversely affected by EPA`s unwarranted delay. As EPA stated in its motion to extend one of the Consent Decree deadlines, the rule at issue "is for the protection of human health, aquatic life, and the long-term recreational uses of Florida`s waters." EPA lacks the discretion to not carry through with its agreement under the Consent Decree or its Clean Water Act obligations.

				___________________________
				Monica K. Reimer on Behalf of
				Florida Wildlife Federation, St. Johns
				Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Conservancy of
				Southwest Florida, and Environmental
				Confederation of Southwest Florida


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 44699]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18446]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T, SEC File No. 270-359, OMB Control No.
3235-0410.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T (17
CFR 240.17h-1T and 17 CFR 240.17h-2T), under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17h-1T requires a broker-dealer to maintain and preserve
records and other information concerning certain entities that are
associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the
financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates
and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to
have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Rule 17h-2T requires a broker-dealer to file with the
Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report
concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved
under Rule 17h-1T.
    The collection of information required by Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T,
collectively referred to as the ``risk assessment rules,'' is necessary
to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer
affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a
material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable
to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities
on the broker-dealer.
    There are currently 275 respondents that must comply with Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T. Each of these 275 respondents requires approximately
10 hours per year, or 2.5 hours per quarter, to maintain the records
required under Rule 17h-1T, for an aggregate annual burden of 2,750
hours (275 respondents x 10 hours). In addition, each of these 275
respondents must make five annual responses under Rule 17h-2T. These
five responses require approximately 14 hours per respondent per year,
or 3.5 hours per quarter, for an aggregate annual burden of 3,850 hours
(275 respondents x 14 hours).
    In addition, there are approximately twenty-five new respondents
per year that must draft an organizational chart required under Rule
17h-1T and establish a system for complying with the risk assessment
rules. The staff estimates that drafting the required organizational
chart requires one hour and establishing a system for complying with
the risk assessment rules requires three hours, thus requiring an
aggregate of 100 hours (25 new respondents x 4 hours). Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is approximately 6,700 burden hours (2,750 +
3,850 + 100).
    Rule 17h-1T specifies that the records required to be maintained
under the Rule must be preserved for a period of not less than three
years. There is no specific retention period or record keeping
requirement for Rule 17h-2T. The collection of information is mandatory
and the information required to be provided to the Commission pursuant
to the risk assessment rules is deemed confidential, notwithstanding
any other provision of law under Section 17(h)(5) of the Exchange Act
(15 U.S.C. 78q(h)(5)) and Section 552(b)(3)(B) of the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(B)).
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: July 24, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18446 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 38275]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4451-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4451-DR), dated July 9, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 15, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective July 5, 2019.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-16787 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 14066]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06695]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 4, 2018.

PLACE:  Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Peirce, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: March 28, 2018.
Brent Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06695 Filed 3-29-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

NCS Herald Cohort Study Instrument # 29 Female New Home Location Questionnaire Update for any new addresses Eligibility: Any woman who moved to a new address Mode of administration: Interviewer, home visit 8/ 4/ 2005 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Dr. Pauline Mendola, US EPA, MD 58A, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. E mail: mendola. pauline@ epa. gov. Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

PRELOADED DATA:

Today's date Language of interview ( English/ Spanish)

Respondent Name Respondent Address and Phone QUESTIONNAIRE: Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

Home Environment/ Conditions ( Full)

The next series of questions are related to your home environment, including your water sources, heating, and air conditioning.

1. How long have you lived at this address: { FILL PRELOAD ADDRESS}?

______ YEARS _______ MONTHS 2. Which water source is used more than half the time for cooking?

1 Tap water 2 Bottled water, or 3 Water from some other source? ( SPECIFY) __________________

3. Which water source is used more than half the time for drinking?

1 Tap water 2 Bottled water, or 3 Water from some other source? ( SPECIFY) __________________

4. Do you use any of the following to treat your water at home? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 A water softener? 2 Charcoal filters? 3 Reverse osmosis? 4 Distillation? 5 Something else? ( SPECIFY)_______________________

Heat and Air Conditioning 1. Which fuels are used for heating this residence? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Gas: from underground pipes serving the neighborhood 2 Gas: bottled, tank, or LP 3 Electricity 4 Fuel oil, kerosene, etc 5 Coal or coke 6 Wood 7 Solar energy 8 Propane 9 Other fuel ( SPECIFY) ____________________

2. Does this residence have a central heating system with ducts that blow air into most rooms?

1 YES 2 NO 3. During which month do you usually start using heating devices? Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

_____

4. During which month do you usually stop using heating devices?

_____

5. During the months that you use heating devices, do you use portable kerosene heaters in this residence?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q7 6. How often do you use your kerosene heater during the heating season?

1 Less than one day a month 2 One to three days per month 3 One or two days a week 4 3 5 days a week 5 More than 5 days a week 7. During the heating season, is a portable or nonvented gas ( non kerosene) heater used in this residence?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q9 8. How often do you use a portable or nonvented gas heater during the heating season?

1 Less than one day a month 2 One to three days per month 3 One or two days a week 4 3 5 days a week 5 More than 5 days a week 9. During the heating season, is a wood or coal burning stove or a wood burning fireplace used in this residence?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q11 10. How often do you use a wood or coal burning stove or a wood burning fireplace during the heating season?

1 Less than one day a month 2 One to three days per month 3 One or two days a week 4 3 5 days a week 5 More than 5 days a week 11. Is air conditioning ( refrigeration) used to cool this residence? Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO NEXT SECTION 12. Which of the following types of air conditioning units do you use? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Central unit/ units? 2 Window or wall unit/ units? 3 Portable unit/ units?

13. During which month do you usually start using air conditioning to cool this residence?

_____

14. During which month do you usually stop using air conditioning?

_____

Cooking 1. Do you use a gas stove for cooking?

1 YES 2 NO 2. Do you use a gas stove for any other purpose than cooking, for example, drying clothes or heating a room?

1 YES 2 NO Pesticides and Lawn Care Now I'm going to ask you about the use of pesticides and lawn treatments in and around your home.

1. In the past 6 months, were any chemicals used inside this residence for the control of termites, insects, rodents, or other pests?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q6 2. In the past 6 months, what rooms in your home were treated with products for the control of termites, insects, rodents, or other pests? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Living room 2 Family room 3 Dining room 4 Kitchen 5 Bathroom( s) Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

6 Bedroom( s) 7 Other rooms 3. In the past 6 months, how many times....

a. did a professional exterminator apply these products inside this residence? _______

b. did you apply these products inside this residence? _______

4. In what month were they last used inside this residence?

_____

5. What were the names of the products last used inside this residence?

_________________ _________________ _________________

6. In the past 6 months, were any chemicals used outside this residence for the control of termites, insects, rodents, or other pests?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q10 7. In the past 6 months, how many times....

a. did a professional exterminator apply these products outside this residence? _______

b. did you apply these products outside this residence? _______

8. In what month were they last used outside this residence?

_____

9. What were the names of the products last used outside this residence?

_________________ _________________ _________________

10. In the past 6 months, have you had any regular lawn or yard treatments?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO NEXT SECTION 11. Who usually applies these treatments? Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

1 You, 2 A professional, or 3 Someone else? The next few questions are about the general condition of your home.

Renovations and Paint 1. In the last 6 months, which of the following have been performed in this home? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Adding a room? 2 Putting up or taking down a wall? 3 Replacing windows? 4 Refinishing floors? 5 Exterior painting? 6 Interior painting 2. Over the last 6 months, how would you rate the typical condition of the painted surfaces   the walls, trim, etc.   inside this residence? Would you say

1 Excellent, 2 Very good, 3 Fair, or 4 Poor?

Water Damage / Mold 1. Water damage includes water stains on the ceiling or walls, rotting wood, and flaking sheetrock or plaster. This damage may be from broken pipes, a leaky roof or floods. Have you seen any water damage in your home?

1 YES 2 NO 2. Have you seen any mold or mildew on walls or other surfaces other than food, inside your home?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO NEXT SECTION 3. In which rooms have you seen the mold or mildew? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Kitchen 2 Living room 3 Hall/ landing 4 Your bedroom 5 Other bedrooms 6 Bathroom/ toilet { END OF HOME ENVIRONMENT MODULE} Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

Neighborhood ( Full)

Now I'd like to ask you about the neighborhood you live in.

1. In your opinion, is your neighborhood

1 A very good place to live 2 A fairly good place to live 3 Not a very good place to live, or 4 Not at all a good place to live?

2. How often do people in your neighborhood

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always DK a. Visit your home? 0 1 2 3 4  1 b. Argue with you? 0 1 2 3 4  1 c. Look after your children? 0 1 2 3 4  1 d. Keep to themselves? 0 1 2 3 4  1 e. Attend religious services? 0 1 2 3 4  1 3. Is your neighborhood

Not at all Sometimes Usually a. Lively? 0 1 2 b. Polluted/ dirty? 0 1 2 c. Friendly? 0 1 2 d. Noisy? 0 1 2 e. Clean? 0 1 2 f. Attractive? 0 1 2 4. Have you ever asked a neighbor  ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 To help with minor household tasks or repairs? 2 To give you a ride somewhere? 3 To help take care of you or a family member when you are sick? 4 To borrow money? 5 To borrow other items such as food or tools?

5. Do you feel that your neighborhood is

1 Very safe 2 Somewhat safe 3 Somewhat unsafe, or 4 Very unsafe?

6. In your opinion, does your neighborhood have problems with  ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Property crimes such as break ins or burglaries? 2 Personal crimes such as muggings or beatings? 3 Violent crimes? 4 Drug dealing? Female New Home Location Questionnaire   update to new address ( Instrument # 29)

7. From where you live, is it relatively easy for you to get to  ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 stores to get the groceries you need? 2 public parks or recreational facilities? 3 doctor's offices or clinics? 4 your religious institution? 5 your children's schools? [ DISPLAY ONLY IF R HAS CHILD] 6 daycare programs? [ DISPLAY ONLY IF R HAS CHILD]

8. Are you a member of any religious faith?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO END 9. How often do you go to a place of worship?

1 At least once a week 2 At least once a month 3 At least once a year 4 Or not at all?

{ END OF NEIGHBORHOOD MODULE}