42052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 OF T01–0533—Continued 

42°19.4′ N, 071°02.9′ W. 

8.2 Celebrate the Clean Harbor Swim ................................................... • Date: August 13, 2011. 

• Rain Date: following day. 

• Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

• Location: All waters of Gloucester Harbor within the following points 

(NAD 83): 

42°35.3′ N, 070°39.8′ W. 

42°35.9′ N, 070°39.2′ W. 

42°35.9′ N, 070°39.8′ W. 

42°35.3′ N, 070°40.2′ W. 

8.3 Boston Light Swim ........................................................................... • Date: August 13, 2011. 

• Time: 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

• Location: All waters of Boston Harbor between the L Street Bath 

House and Little Brewster Island within the following points (NAD 

83): 

42°19.7′ N, 071°02.2′ W. 

42°19.9′ N, 071°10.7′ W 

42°19.8′ N, 070°53.6′ W. 

42°19.6′ N, 070°53.4′ W. 

9 September 

9.1 Mayflower Triathlon .......................................................................... • Date: September 3, 2011. 

• Time: 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 

• Location: All waters of Plymouth Inner Harbor within the following 

points (NAD 83): 

41°58.3′ N, 070°40.6′ W 

41°58.7′ N, 070°39.1′ W. 

41°56.8′ N, 070°37.8′ W. 

41°57.1′ N, 070°39.2′ W. 

9.2 Duxbury Beach Triathlon ................................................................. • Date: September 24, 2011. 

• Time: 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. 

• Location: All waters of Duxbury Bay on the south side of the Powder 

Point Bridge within the following points (NAD 83): 

42°02.8′ N, 070°39.1′ W. 

42°03.0′ N, 070°38.7′ W. 

42°02.8′ N, 070°38.6′ W. 

42°02.7′ N, 070°39.0′ W. 

Dated: July 7, 2011. 

J.N. Healey, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Boston. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17983 Filed 7–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; FRL–9439–2] 

RIN 2060–AO55 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Petroleum Refineries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; partial withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On October 28, 2009, the EPA 

proposed to withdraw the residual risk 

and technology review portions of the 

final rule amending the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries. 

EPA is now providing final notice of the 

partial withdrawal. 

DATES: As of August 17, 2011, EPA 

withdraws portions of the final rule 

signed by then Administrator Stephen 

Johnson on January 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Brenda Shine, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Refining and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–3608; fax 

number: (919) 541–0246; e-mail address: 

shine.brenda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background Information 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. In the first stage, 

after the EPA has identified categories of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42053 

1We note that on January 30, 2009, the litigants 

notified EPA by letter that they believed the Agency 

had discharged its obligation under the Consent 

Decree, and that ‘‘further review of the rule 

pursuant to the Emanuel memo will not violate the 

Consent Decree.’’ (See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0146–0209.) 

2Letter to U.S. EPA Information Quality 

Guidelines staff from the Honorable Bill White, 

Mayor of Houston, July 9, 2008, Docket Item No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146–0166.3; EPA’s response 

is Letter to Mayor Bill White, Houston, Texas, from 

Elizabeth Craig, Acting Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA, April 7, 

2009. (See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0146–0210.) 

sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, 

section 112(d) calls for the 

Administrator to promulgate national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants for those sources. The EPA is 

then required to review these 

technology-based standards, and to 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). The second stage 

in standard-setting focuses on reducing 

any remaining ‘‘residual’’ risk according 

to CAA section 112(f). 

On January 16, 2009, then 

Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a 

final rule amending the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, 

and the signed rule was made publicly 

available on the EPA’s website. The 

signed rule included several different 

actions. First, it promulgated maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 

and (3) for heat exchange systems, 

which the EPA had not addressed in the 

original Refinery MACT 1 rule (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC). Second, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f)(2), the rule 

addressed residual risk for all Refinery 

MACT 1 sources, including heat 

exchange systems. Third, it addressed 

the technology review pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(6) for all sources 

addressed in the original Refinery 

MACT 1 rule. Finally, the rule updated 

the table in the Refinery MACT 1 

standards (Table 6) that cross-references 

the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart A, and made a few 

additional clarifications to dates and 

cross-references in the Refinery MACT 1 

standards. 

The signed rule was submitted to the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. Rahm Emanuel, Assistant 

to the President and Chief of Staff, 

issued a memorandum on January 20, 

2009, directing Agencies to withdraw 

from the Office of the Federal Register 

‘‘all proposed or final regulations that 

have not been published in the Federal 

Register so that they can be reviewed 

and approved by a department or 

agency head.’’ Although there was an 

exception for ‘‘regulations subject to 

statutory or judicial deadlines,’’ the 

Agency chose not to apply the exception 

in this case. One portion of the final 

rule, the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, 

was performed pursuant to the terms of 

a Consent Decree, which, as modified, 

required that by January 16, 2009, the 

EPA ‘‘shall sign and promptly forward 

to the Federal Register for publication 

either final revisions to the standards for 

petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

7412(d)(6) or a final determination that 

no revisions are necessary.’’ Then 

Administrator Stephen Johnson signed 

the rule on January 16, 2009, and 

promptly forwarded it to the Office of 

the Federal Register, thus, fulfilling this 

obligation.1

Upon further review, the EPA 

determined that the residual risk and 

technology reviews may not accurately 

characterize the risk posed by this 

source category. Shortly after the rule 

was signed, the EPA responded to a 

Request for Correction under the EPA’s 

Information Quality Guidelines from the 

city of Houston.2 In that response, we 

recognized that we were currently 

taking action (and planned to take 

additional action) to gather better 

emissions information from the refining 

industry. Additionally, we noted that, 

during the comment period on the 

proposed rule, similar issues were 

raised concerning the representativeness 

of the emissions data and whether they 

provided an accurate basis for 

characterizing the risks posed. 

After consideration of the public 

comments on the proposal to withdraw 

portions of the final rule, we are 

providing final notice of the Agency’s 

decision to partially withdraw the final 

rule. As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed withdrawal, the EPA will 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment on any new proposed rule 

that may be issued addressing the 

residual risk and technology review 

requirements of the CAA for this source 

category. 

II. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

The EPA received a total of six 

comment letters concerning the 

proposed partial withdrawal. Comment 

letters were received from industry 

trade associations, local environmental 

organizations, environmental groups, 

and members of the public. Summaries 

of the comments and our complete 

responses are included in the following 

section. 

Comment: Four commenters 

supported the EPA’s proposed partial 

withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1 

standards signed on January 16, 2009, 

and supported further analysis leading 

to a revised set of proposed standards. 

Several of these commenters asserted 

that the withdrawal is necessary 

because the EPA failed to adequately 

address their comments on the 

standards that were proposed on 

September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50716), and 

November 10, 2008 (73 FR 66694). Some 

of the comments submitted on those 

previous proposals and reiterated by the 

commenters included: (1) Objections to 

the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA 

requirement that the standards provide 

an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’; (2) 

assertions that the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk allowed by the CAA 

is 1 in 1 million; (3) objections to the 

length of time allowed for compliance 

with standards for storage vessels with 

floating roofs; (4) identification of 

multiple deficiencies in the risk 

assessment methodology, including use 

of actual emissions rather than 

allowable emissions and the estimation 

of emissions at census block centroids 

rather than property lines; and (5) 

assertions that the emissions data used 

in the risk assessment were 

underestimated and unrepresentative. 

The commenters requested that the EPA 

collect more accurate emissions data 

and re-analyze the residual risk for 

Refinery MACT 1 using a methodology 

without the identified deficiencies. 

Response: We appreciate the four 

commenters’ support for the withdrawal 

of the residual risk and technology 

review portions of the revisions to the 

Refinery MACT 1 standards. In this 

notice, the EPA is not making any 

decisions regarding the scope of 

residual risk and technology review 

standards under the CAA or on the 

specific data that would form the basis 

for a particular decision. Substantive 

comments on those issues should be 

raised in the context of future proposed 

rules addressing the CAA residual risk 

and technology review for one or more 

specific source categories. 

Comment: Two commenters objected 

to the proposed withdrawal of the 

residual risk and technology review 

portions of the Refinery MACT 1 

standards that were signed on January 

16, 2009. These commenters noted that 

the EPA spent several years collecting 

data and considering stakeholder 

comments, finally reaching the 

conclusion that the Refinery MACT 1 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety based on data that the EPA judged 

to be representative of the source 

category. The commenters asserted that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

42054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the docket for the Refinery MACT 1 

rulemaking (Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0146) does not include any 

specific support for the EPA’s decision 

to reject that previous conclusion. 

According to the commenters, the only 

support for withdrawing the rule and 

redoing the analyses is provided in 

public comments submitted for the 

proposed rules, and the EPA considered 

those comments prior to finalizing the 

rule signed on January 16, 2009. The 

commenters requested that the EPA 

present any additional data received or 

analyses performed since January 16, 

2009, to support withdrawal of the 

standards, and clearly explain any 

differences in assumptions or 

methodologies used in the analyses. 

One commenter asserted that residual 

risk and technology review for Refinery 

MACT 1 has been a time- and resourceconsuming process, and due to the 

EPA’s other obligations under the CAA, 

it is not in the best interest of the public 

for the EPA to repeat the entire process 

without good cause. The commenter 

detailed a number of analyses in the 

docket showing that the EPA believed 

its emissions estimates and risk 

assessment methodologies were 

appropriate for the rulemaking. The 

commenter also noted that, if the EPA 

always postponed regulatory action 

because data may become available in 

the future, no regulatory actions would 

ever be completed. According to the 

commenter, refiners continue to make 

improvements in emissions reductions, 

and the heat exchange system standards 

will reduce emissions from cooling 

towers, so further data collection would 

only serve to support the conclusion 

that the current standards provide an 

ample margin of safety. 

Two commenters addressed the EPA’s 

responsibilities under the Data Quality 

Act (DQA) related to the Request for 

Correction filed by Mayor White of 

Houston (RFC 02003). The commenters 

stated that the EPA fulfilled its DQA 

obligations through its response to 

Mayor White on April 7, 2009 (Docket 

Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146– 

0210), which describes the steps that the 

EPA plans to take to improve annual 

emissions estimates. Since the EPA has 

addressed the DQA concerns raised by 

Mayor White, the commenters asserted 

that it is not necessary for the Agency 

to take action on the proposed 

withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1 

standards to further address those 

concerns. 

Response: As the commenters noted, 

we did reach the conclusions presented 

in the rule that was signed on January 

16, 2009, through analysis of the data 

we had at the time. The commenters are 

correct that, as of the time of the 

proposed withdrawal, we had not yet 

received any specific, additional data to 

support changing the conclusions 

reached in the final rule. However, our 

proposal was not based on the receipt of 

such information. Our decision to 

withdraw the residual risk and 

technology review portions of the 

January 16, 2009, rule does not mean 

that we have made a decision to change 

our conclusions regarding what 

requirements are necessary and 

appropriate for the Refinery MACT 1 

standards. Instead, as we noted when 

we proposed the withdrawal, we believe 

it is necessary to develop a more robust 

analysis based on the improved 

information we are in the process of 

gathering and developing. 

With respect to duplicating the ‘‘timeand resource-consuming process’’ 

associated with the risk and technology 

review, we note that the EPA is now 

initiating the risk and technology review 

for the Refinery MACT 2 standards (40 

CFR part 63, subpart UUU) and plans to 

conduct the Refinery MACT 1 and 2 

reviews at the same time. Thus, our data 

collection efforts for purposes of the 

Refinery MACT 2 risk and technology 

review will also provide a significant 

portion of the information we will need 

for purposes of our new residual risk 

and technology review of the Refinery 

MACT 1 standards. Moreover, we 

believe that by more closely aligning our 

risk and technology review for Refinery 

MACT 1 and 2 sources, we will be able 

to develop a significantly improved 

analysis of the risks associated with 

petroleum refineries, and, therefore, can 

better determine the most effective way 

to address any residual risk posed by 

emissions from petroleum refineries. We 

see significant benefits in combining 

these efforts, both in terms of a more 

transparent risk evaluation of these colocated sources for the neighboring 

public and in terms of more 

consolidated standards for the regulated 

community. The EPA has already taken 

action to gather better emissions 

information from the refining industry, 

and to follow through on the 

commitments made in the response 

letter to Mayor White of Houston 

(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0146–0210). For these reasons, we have 

concluded that the benefits of a 

consolidated risk and technology review 

outweigh the incremental analytical 

effort required to perform a new risk 

assessment for Refinery MACT 1 

sources after collecting this more robust 

data. 

One commenter suggested that the 

additional data may lead to the 

conclusion that the existing standards 

provide an ample margin of safety. We 

agree that is a possible outcome; 

however, any conclusions regarding the 

residual risk review for the Refinery 

MACT 1 standards will need to await 

our consideration of the more robust 

data we are now gathering. Those data 

will provide greater certainty for the 

final conclusions, and help to ensure 

the final standards are technically and 

legally defensible. 

Finally, the EPA agrees that it has 

responded to the DQA request from 

Mayor White of Houston through the 

April 7, 2009, letter identified by the 

two commenters (Docket Item No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0146–0210). In that 

letter, we outlined several initiatives 

that were either ongoing or planned for 

the near future in order to improve the 

quality of data we have concerning 

emissions from petroleum refineries, 

and we are continuing to move forward 

with all of those initiatives. We plan to 

use this improved information as we 

move forward to address emissions from 

petroleum refineries, including 

performing the residual risk and 

technology review for Refinery MACT 1 

and 2 sources. 

Comment: Two commenters noted 

that, if the EPA proceeds with the 

proposed partial withdrawal of Refinery 

MACT 1 standards, the Agency should 

make clear that the withdrawal 

completes the action related to the 

September 4, 2007, proposal. In other 

words, the commenters stated that the 

date for determining compliance with 

any new standards would be the 

proposal date of those new standards 

rather than September 4, 2007. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters. The appropriate dates for 

determining compliance with future 

standards would be the dates those 

standards are proposed and finalized. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

withdrawing a final action that was 

signed by the Administrator and made 

publicly available on the the EPA 

website, but that never took effect 

through publication in the Federal 

Register. This action: 

• Is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42055 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and 

• This notice does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 8, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17901 Filed 7–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 97 

[FRL–9435–6] 

Data Availability Concerning Transport 

Rule Allowance Allocations to Existing 

Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of data availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: In the Transport Rule Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs), EPA 

finalized allowance allocations for 2012 

and thereafter to existing units subject 

to the Transport Rule FIP trading 

programs in Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. As required in 

the Transport Rule, this NODA notifies 

the public of the availability of data on 

these allowance allocations for existing 

units. Through this NODA, EPA is also 

making available to the public the data 

upon which the allocations were based. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions concerning this action should 

be addressed to Brian Fisher, telephone 

(202) 343–9633, and e-mail 

fisher.brian@epa.gov, Michael Cohen, 

telephone (202) 343–9497 and e-mail 

cohen.michael@epa.gov, or Robert 

Miller, telephone (202) 343.9077, and 

e-mail miller.robertl@epa.gov. The 

mailing address for the aforementioned 

contacts is U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, CAMD (6204J), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

detailed unit-by-unit data, calculations, 

and allowance allocation 

determinations are set forth in a 

technical support document in an Excel 

spreadsheet format titled ‘‘Unit Level 

Allocations Under the Transport Rule 

FIP’’ and available on EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ 

actions.html. 

EPA is not requesting responses to the 

data made available through this NODA, 

which makes available data on 

allowance allocations finalized in the 

Transport Rule. Providing an allocation 

to an existing unit does not constitute a 

determination that the unit is a covered 

unit, and not providing an existing-unit 

allocation to a unit does not constitute 

a determination that the unit is not a 

covered unit. See §§ 97.411(a)(1), 

97.511(a)(1), 97.611(a)(1), and 

97.711(a)(1) of the Transport Rule. 

Under the Transport Rule FIPs, EPA 

must record allowance allocations by 

certain deadlines. In particular, 

allowance allocations addressed by this 

NODA for existing units for 2012 must 

be recorded, within 90 days of the 

publication of the Transport Rule in the 

Federal Register, in the compliance 

accounts of existing units. See 

§§ 97.421(a), 97.521(a), 97.621(a), and 

97.721(a) of the Transport Rule. 

For 2013 and beyond, the 

Administrator must record, by certain 

specified deadlines, allowance 

allocations for existing units. See 

§§ 97.421(b) through (f), 97.521(b) 

through (f), 97.621(b) through (f), and 

97.721(b) through (f) of the Transport 

Rule. 

Under certain circumstances, the 

allowance allocations addressed in this 

NODA to existing units are subject to 

termination or correction, and the 

provisions establishing these allocations 

may be replaced by a SIP revision. See 

§§ 97.411(a)(2), 97.511(a)(2), 

97.611(a)(2), and 97.711(a)(2) 

(concerning termination of allocations 

of non-operating units) and 97.411(c), 

97.511(c), 97.611(c), and 97.711(c) 

(concerning incorrect allocations) of the 

Transport Rule and §§ 52.38(a)(3) 

through (5) and (b)(3) through (5) and 

52.39(d) through (i) of the Transport 

Rule (concerning SIP revisions). 

Dated: July 6, 2011. 

Jackie Krieger, 

Chief of Staff, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17903 Filed 7–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9440–4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 24, 2011, EPA 

published a Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion (76 FR 30081) and a direct final 

rule of Partial Deletion (76 FR 30027) for 

the remaining portions of Operable Unit 

9 (OU9), the Residential Populated 

Areas, of the California Gulch 

Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake 

County, Colorado, from the National 

Priorities List. The EPA is withdrawing 

the Final Rule of Partial Deletion due to 

adverse comments that were received 

during the public comment period. 

After consideration of the comments 

received, if appropriate, EPA will 

publish a Notice of Partial Deletion in 

the Federal Register based on the 

parallel Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion and place a copy of the final 

partial deletion package, including a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES