Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 30027 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rules, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Parties with objections to this direct 

final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: April 25, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(378)(i)(B) and (C) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(378) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 245, ‘‘Surface Coating of 

Metal Parts and Products,’’ amended on 

August 20, 2009. 

(C) Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 74.12, ‘‘Surface Coating of 

Metal Parts and Products,’’ adopted on 

April 8, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–12611 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 268 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0851; FRL–9310–2] 

Land Disposal Restrictions: SiteSpecific Treatment Variance for 

Hazardous Selenium-Bearing Waste 

Treated by U.S. Ecology Nevada in 

Beatty, NV and Withdrawal of SiteSpecific Treatment Variance for 

Hazardous Selenium-Bearing Waste 

Treatment Issued to Chemical Waste 

Management in Kettleman Hills, CA 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: Because EPA received 

adverse comment, we are withdrawing 

the Direct Final rule that granted a sitespecific treatment variance to U.S. 

Ecology Nevada in Beatty, Nevada and 

withdrew an existing site-specific 

treatment variance issued to Chemical 

Waste Management, Inc. in Kettleman 

Hills, California. The Direct Final rule 

pertains to the treatment of a hazardous 

waste generated by the OwensBrockway Glass Container Company in 

Vernon, California that is unable to meet 

the concentration-based treatment 

standard for selenium established under 

the Land Disposal Restrictions program. 

EPA also issued a parallel proposal to be 

used as the basis for the final action in 

the event that EPA received any adverse 

comments on the Direct Final rule. 

DATES: Effective May 24, 2011, EPA 

withdraws the Direct Final rule 

published at 76 FR 18921 on April 6, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more information, contact Jesse Miller, 

Materials Recovery and Waste 

Management Division, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(MC 5304 P), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone (703) 308–1180; fax (703) 

308–0522; or miller.jesse@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because 

EPA received adverse comment, we are 

withdrawing the Direct Final rule that 

amended the Land Disposal Restrictions 

treatment standards (40 CFR part 

268.44(o)) by granting a site-specific 

treatment variance to U.S. Ecology 

Nevada in Beatty, Nevada and 

withdrawing an existing site-specific 

treatment variance issued to Chemical 

Waste Management, Inc. in Kettleman 

Hills, California, published on April 6, 

2011 at 76 FR 18921. We stated in that 

Direct Final rule that if we received 

adverse comment by May 6, 2011, the 

Direct Final rule would not take effect 

and we would publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register. We 

subsequently received adverse comment 

on that Direct Final rule. We will 

address those comments in any 

subsequent final action, which will be 

based on the parallel proposed rule also 

published on April 6, 2011 at 76 FR 

18921. As stated in the Direct Final rule 

and the parallel proposed rule, we will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, and Variances. 

Dated: May 17, 2011. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

Accordingly, the amendments to the 

rule published on April 6, 2011 (76 FR 

18921) are withdrawn as of May 24, 

2011. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12783 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9310–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 8 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of 

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 (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
30028 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final partial deletion is being published 

by EPA with the concurrence of the 

State of Colorado, through the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) because EPA has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions at these identified 

parcels under CERCLA, other than 

operation, maintenance, and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this partial deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

This partial deletion pertains to the 

remaining portions of OU9, the 

Residential Populated Areas. Subunits 

A and B, residential waste rock piles, 

and the parks and playgrounds within 

Operable Unit 9 were partially deleted 

from the NPL on January 30, 2002. In 

addition, OU2, OU8, and OU10 have 

been partially deleted from the NPL. 

The Yak Tunnel (OU1), D&RGW Slag 

Piles and Easement (OU3), Upper 

California Gulch (OU4), ASARCO 

Smelter/Colorado Zinc-Lead Mill Site 

(OU5), Stray Horse Gulch (OU6), 

Apache Tailing (OU7), Arkansas River 

Floodplain (OU11), and Site-wide 

Surface and Groundwater Quality 

(OU12) will remain on the NPL and are 

not being considered for deletion as part 

of this action. 

DATES: This direct final partial deletion 

is effective July 25, 2011 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 23, 

2011. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final partial deletion in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the partial deletion will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Linda Kiefer, 

kiefer.linda@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–7151. 

• Mail: Linda Kiefer, Remedial 

Project Manager, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 

8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129. 

• Hand delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 

8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket 

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., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region 8, Superfund Records 

Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

CO 80202. (303) 312–6473 or toll free 

(800) 227–8917; Viewing hours: 8 a.m. 

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

excluding holidays. 

and 

Lake County Public Library, 1115 

Harrison Avenue, Leadville, CO 

80461, (719) 486–0569 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode EPR–SR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6689 e-mail: 

kiefer.linda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion 

V. Partial Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Partial Deletion for the 

remaining portions of Operable Unit 9 

(OU9), Residential Populated Areas, of 

the California Gulch Superfund Site 

(Site), from the National Priorities List 

(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B 

of 40 CFR part 300, of the National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Sites on the NPL may be 

the subject of remedial actions financed 

by the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). This partial deletion of the Site 

is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 

300.425(e) and is consistent with the 

Notice of Policy Change: Partial 

Deletion of Sites Listed on the National 

Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 

1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from 

the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial action if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective July 25, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by June 23, 2011. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is 

co-publishing a Notice of Intent for 

Partial Deletion in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of the Federal Register. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this partial deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

before the effective date of the partial 

deletion and the partial deletion will 

not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, 

prepare a response to comments and 

continue with the deletion process on 

the basis of the Notice of Intent for 

Partial Deletion and the comments 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 30029 

already received. There will be no 

additional opportunity to comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the remaining portion of 

OU9, Residential Populated Areas, of 

the California Gulch Superfund Site and 

demonstrates how it meets the deletion 

criteria. Section V discusses EPA’s 

action to partially delete the Site parcels 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to the 

deletion of the remaining portions of 

OU9 of the Site: 

(1) EPA has consulted with the State 

of Colorado prior to developing this 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

and the Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion co-published in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel Notice of Intent for 

Partial Deletion prior to their 

publication today, and the State, 

through the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, has 

concurred on the partial deletion of the 

Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Partial 

Deletion, a notice of the availability of 

the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion is being published in a major 

local newspaper, the Leadville Herald 

Democrat. The newspaper notice 

announces the 30-day public comment 

period concerning the Notice of Intent 

for Partial Deletion of the Site from the 

NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the partial 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this partial deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely notice of 

withdrawal of this direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion before its effective date 

and will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and 

the comments already received. 

Deletion of a portion of a site from the 

NPL does not itself create, alter, or 

revoke any individual’s rights or 

obligations. Deletion of a portion of a 

site from the NPL does not in any way 

alter EPA’s right to take enforcement 

actions, as appropriate. The NPL is 

designed primarily for informational 

purposes and to assist EPA 

management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP states that the deletion of a site 

from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for further response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the 

remaining portion of OU9, Residential 

Populated Areas of the California Gulch 

Superfund Site from the NPL. 

Site Background and History 

The California Gulch Superfund Site 

(Site), EPA ID No. COD980717938, is 

located in Lake County, Colorado 

approximately 100 miles southwest of 

Denver. The Site was proposed for 

inclusion on the National Priorities List, 

December 30, 1982, 47 FR 58476, and 

listed on September 8, 1983, 48 FR 

40,658. The Site is in a highly 

mineralized area of the Colorado Rocky 

Mountains covering approximately 18 

square miles of a watershed that drains 

along California Gulch to the Arkansas 

River. The Site includes the City of 

Leadville, various parts of the Leadville 

Historic Mining District, Stringtown, 

and a section of the Arkansas River from 

the confluence of California Gulch to 

the confluence of Two-Bit Gulch. Being 

a Rocky Mountain community, the City 

of Leadville (population 2,801) has a 

high percentage of second homes. 

Commercial, residential, and industrial 

properties and vacant lots are mixed in 

together. Mining, mineral processing, 

and smelting activities have occurred at 

the Site for more than 130 years. Mining 

in the district began in 1860, when 

placer gold was discovered in California 

Gulch. As the placer deposits were 

exhausted, underground workings 

became the principal method for 

removing gold, silver, lead and zinc ore. 

As these mines were developed, waste 

rock was excavated along with the ore 

and placed near the mine entrances. Ore 

was crushed and separated into metallic 

concentrates at mills, with mill tailing 

generally slurried into tailing 

impoundments. The Leadville area was 

the site of extensive gold, silver, lead 

and zinc mining, milling and smelting 

operations. Most of the facilities ceased 

operations around 1900, although 

several facilities continued operations 

into the 1920s (Western Zinc) and the 

1960s (AV Smelter). 

All of the mines within the Site 

boundaries are presently inactive, and 

all of the mills and smelters have been 

demolished. As a result of these 

operations, the Site contains mill tailing 

(the fine-grained residue remaining after 

milling and separation has removed the 

metal concentrates form the ore) 

impoundments, fluvial deposits, slag 

piles, mine waste rock piles (mine 

development rock and low grade ore 

removed to gain access to an ore body, 

and often deposited near adits and shaft 

openings), and mine water drainage 

tunnel which have further distributed 

heavy metals throughout the area. In 

addition, smelters, which previously 

operated at the Site, have historically 

been a source of heavy metals from dust 

and stack emissions. 

The Site was placed on the NPL due 

to concerns regarding the impact of 

acidic and metals laden mine drainage 

on surface waters leading to California 

Gulch and the impact of heavy metals 

loading into the Arkansas River. A Sitewide Phase I Remedial Investigation 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
30030 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(Phase I RI), which primarily addressed 

surface and groundwater contamination, 

was issued in January 1987. As a result 

of the Phase I RI, EPA identified the first 

operable unit, the Yak Tunnel, to 

address the largest single source of 

metallic loading. A number of 

additional Site-wide studies followed 

the Phase I RI. 

EPA agreed, pursuant to a May 2, 

1994 Consent Decree (1994 CD), to 

divide the Site into 12 operable units 

(OUs). With the exception of OU12, the 

operable units pertain to distinct 

geographical areas corresponding to 

areas of responsibility for the identified 

responsible parties and/or to distinct 

sources of contamination. The OUs are 

as follows: 

1. Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant 

2. Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments 

and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial 

Tailing 

3. D&RGW Slag Piles and Easement 

4. Upper California Gulch 

5. ASARCO Smelter Sites/Slag/Mill 

Sites 

6. Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/Lower 

Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste 

Pile 

7. Apache Tailing Impoundments 

8. Lower California Gulch 

9. Residential Populated Areas 

10. Oregon Gulch 

11. Arkansas River Valley Floodplain 

12. Site-wide Surface and Groundwater 

To date, OU2; OU8; OU10; and parts 

of OU9—Subunits A and B, residential 

mine waste rock piles, and the parks 

and playgrounds—have been partially 

deleted from the NPL. 

OU9 Background and History 

The soils in OU9 have been highly 

disturbed by human activities. The 

yards of most residences have grass 

cover over either native soil or imported 

fill. The sources of fill materials have 

included areas outside the Site and 

waste rock and tailing from California 

and Stray Horse Gulch. Even though 

mining operations are no longer active 

at the Site, waste products and other 

residues from past mining and smelting 

activities are present in OU9—some as 

visible features. Additionally, smelter 

emissions and slag may have 

contaminated some residential soils. 

OU9 includes residential area soils in 

those portions of the Site where the land 

use is residential or that were zoned as 

residential/populated areas and as lowdensity residential areas on or before 

September 2, 1999. A map of OU9, 

named OU9 Partial Deletion— 

Residential Areas, can be found in the 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

under California Gulch. Residential area 

soils are defined as soils in the 

residential area of the Site (see 

Attachment A of the 1994 CD) which 

may have been impacted by past 

smelting and mining activities. This 

encompasses the City of Leadville, 

Stringtown, and outlying areas zoned 

for residential use. Included are 

residential properties, yards, parks, 

vacant lots, schools yards, playgrounds, 

and community use areas, including 

unpaved streets and alleys. Additionally 

OU9 includes 38 mine waste piles 

located within the populated areas of 

eastern Leadville. For ease in 

determining compliance with blood 

monitoring performance standards, OU9 

was geographically divided into 

statistical subunits A through G. 

Subunits A and B (the shaded area of 

OU9 on the map in the docket), 38 

residential waste rock piles, and the 

parks and playgrounds within OU 9 

were partially deleted from the NPL on 

January 30, 2002. 

The remaining portion of OU9 (shown 

in yellow on the map in the docket) are 

the subject of this deletion. EPA is the 

lead agency for OU9; Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) is the support 

agency. Under the 1994 CD, ASARCO 

assumed responsibility for OU9. 

Remedial Investigations and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

Remedial Investigations 

The State of Colorado, EPA and 

certain Potentially Responsible Parties 

have conducted various studies and 

investigations to evaluate the nature and 

extent of contamination within the Site. 

In 1991, Remedial Investigations (RIs) 

began for several areas within the Site, 

including mine waste rock piles, tailing 

disposal areas, surface water and 

aquatics, groundwater, smelter sites, 

residential/populated area soils, slag 

piles, and terrestrial studies. These 

studies have determined lead in soils to 

be the primary contaminant of concern 

in OU9. 

Interim Response—The Kids First 

Program 

ASARCO and many community 

members argued that there are 

numerous environmental sources of 

lead in the residential areas of Leadville. 

One primary source was mining-related 

primary sources such tailing and mine 

waste piles. Other primary sources 

include lead-containing paint on 

interior and exterior surfaces of homes 

and lead found in food, water, and 

residential soils. As recommended by 

ASARCO and the community, the 

interim response was designed to 

reduce overall lead-related risk to 

children in Leadville, including 

responses that address sources that 

would not normally be remediated 

under CERCLA authorities. As part of 

the 1994 CD with EPA and the State, 

ASARCO agreed to undertake actions to 

address all sources of lead in lieu of soil 

removal only at each residence. To 

determine the effectiveness of the 

actions, the level of lead in children’s 

blood was voluntarily monitored and 

performance standards in relation to 

concentrations of lead in the blood of 

children were established. 

In 1995, ASARCO began 

implementing the Lead Risk Reduction 

Program (LRRP), more commonly 

known as the Kids First Program (KF). 

ASARCO agreed to operate KF as an 

interim response action until EPA 

selected a remedy for OU9. 

The purpose of KF, a risk reduction 

response program based on voluntary 

participation, was to: (1) Provide 

information to the community, and (2) 

reduce children’s exposure to secondary 

sources of lead. KF consisted of a 

variety of services and remedial 

response activities designed to: (1) 

Gather information from the 

community, (2) identify residences for 

which response actions are needed, (3) 

plan and prioritize the risk reduction 

responses for these residences, (4) 

perform the risk reduction responses, 

and (5) provide additional information 

and services to the community. 

Initially KF targeted residences where 

sample soil lead levels were found 

above 3,500 mg/kg because EPA 

established an interim response level of 

3,500 mg/kg lead for Leadville 

residential soils. The basis for this value 

is presented in the 1994 CD, along with 

a discussion of trigger criteria for other 

significant environmental media (dust, 

paint and water). These trigger criteria 

were used by the KF work group to 

identify and prioritize locations for 

response actions. 

Residences with children that had 

blood-lead levels greater than 10 μg/dl, 

measured during the 1991 Blood-Lead 

Study or any subsequent blood-lead 

monitoring, were targeted for priority 

response in the program. 

Information used in the evaluation of 

residences and the selection of 

appropriate response actions (if needed) 

came from a variety of sources. 

Response programs included within KF 

were: 

• The blood-lead monitoring program 

by Lake County Health Department; 

• A lead information hotline and a 

door-to-door survey within priority 

exposure areas; and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 30031 

• Additional environmental sampling 

and property assessment. 

The Lake County Health Department 

managed the voluntary blood-lead 

monitoring program, which was funded 

by ASARCO. The blood-lead monitoring 

program was a key component of the 

interim response program. Ongoing 

blood-lead monitoring was provided 

upon request for children below the age 

of 72 months (6 years) and for pregnant/ 

nursing women. The data were used as 

one means of identifying individuals 

who had blood-lead levels greater than 

10 μg/dl. The data were also used in the 

finalization of the Baseline Risk 

Assessment. 

All homeowners or residents who 

responded via the hotline/office or doorto-door surveys received information 

about the program. The Information 

Hotline and the door-to-door surveys 

resulted in the need for additional 

environmental sampling of soils, paint, 

dust, water, and blood-lead levels. 

Environmental sampling was conducted 

if the residence: (1) Was located in the 

3,500 mg/kg lead soils priority area, (2) 

had a child with a blood-lead level 

greater than 10 μg/dl, (3) had a pregnant 

or nursing woman in the home, (4) was 

known to have paint in poor condition 

or known to have another possible lead 

source (lead pipes, certain hobbies, etc.), 

or (5) was requested by a resident who 

is not within the designated priority risk 

area. 

The first year remediations were 

performed at 37 properties in 

accordance with Action Memoranda 

prepared for each property. The KF 

work group developed and approved all 

action and no-action determinations. 

The property owners consented on all 

investigations and remediations. 

KF integrated a variety of lead toxicity 

intervention and abatement methods. 

Additionally, KF addressed reducing 

children’s exposure to lead in soils, 

dust-containing lead in residences, and 

additional lead sources such as paint 

and tap water. For these reasons, KF 

was presented as an alternative in the 

feasibility study when it was revised 

and renamed the Lake County 

Community Health Program (LCCHP). 

Risk Assessments 

Concurrent with the interim response, 

numerous risk assessments were 

conducted as part of the investigation. 

They included Baseline Human Health 

Risk Assessments (BRAs): Part A 

(Weston 1996), Part B (Weston 1996), 

and Part C (Weston 1995); Ecological 

Risk Assessment for Terrestrial 

Ecosystems (Weston 1997); Surface 

Water Human Health Risk Assessment 

(Golder 1996); Groundwater Baseline 

Human Health Rick Assessment 

(Golder, June 1996) and Baseline 

Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment 

(Weston 1995). 

The Baseline Human Health Risk 

Assessments (BRAs) concluded that 

lead was the only contaminant of 

concern (COC) for OU9. There are no 

locations on-Site where antimony, 

barium, cadmium, beryllium, 

chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, 

silver, thallium, or zinc are of 

significant concern in residential soil. 

The risk assessment also concluded that 

non-lead metals (including arsenic and 

manganese) in residential soils do not 

pose a significant health risk to 

residents. 

The risk assessment for lead was 

supported by a large body of Sitespecific data. Included were: (1) 

Extensive measurements of lead in soil 

and dust in residential locations, (2) an 

extensive demographics survey, data on 

lead levels in water and paint (both 

interior and exterior), (3) data on the 

physical and chemical forms of lead at 

various locations around the 

community, and (4) an informative 

community-wide blood-lead study 

involving 314 children (about 65% of 

the total population of children at the 

Site). This data was used to support two 

parallel lines of investigation and 

assessment. The first of these employed 

EPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake and 

Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to calculate 

the expected impact of lead levels in 

soil and dust on blood-lead levels in 

area children. The second approach 

compared the measured blood-lead 

values in area children with relevant 

national blood-lead statistics in order to 

help evaluate the current effects of 

actual Site exposure to lead. 

Several ecological risk assessments 

were performed on a site-wide basis for 

the California Gulch Site. These are 

available in the docket or on the EPA 

Web site, http://www.epa.gov/region8/ 

superfund/co/calgulch/. These 

assessments showed a potential 

unacceptable risk to small mammals 

and breeding birds. However, given the 

data available, there was little evidence 

of population-level effects on small 

mammals or breeding birds. In addition, 

calculated ecological risk due to 

potential exposure to tailing or waste 

rock media found in other operable 

units was higher than risks resulting 

from potential exposure to surrounding 

soils found in OU9. 

Feasibility Study (FS) 

The Final Residential Soil Feasibility 

Study, completed by Golder Associates 

in November of 1998, evaluated seven 

remedial alternatives to address the 

residential soils of properties, yards and 

open space areas within OU9 where 

lead levels exceeded the trigger level of 

3,500 mg/kg. 

One alternative in the FS was the 

LCCHP, a revised version of the KF used 

during the interim response. The 

LCCHP combined blood-lead 

monitoring, education, community 

awareness, and residence specific 

response actions reduced the potential 

for children to be exposed to lead in 

Leadville and surrounding areas. This 

program addressed lead in soil and dust, 

interior and exterior paint, plumbing 

fixtures, and dietary and household 

sources. It also included institutional 

controls to ensure effectiveness of the 

LCCHP. Operation and maintenance 

activities included LCCHP 

administration and the blood-lead 

monitoring program. 

Selected Remedy 

Signed on September 2, 1999, the 

OU9 Record of Decision (1999 ROD) 

selected a remedy for addressing lead in 

soils in residential population areas. 

The selected remedy was the LCCHP 

with institutional controls (ICs) to 

ensure the effectiveness of the LCCHP. 

In September 2009, an Explanation of 

Significant Differences required ICs for 

the 17 mine waste piles remaining in 

OU9. 

The Remedial Action Objectives 

(RAO) from the 1999 ROD are: 

• RAO–1: No more than 5% of 

children age 0–72 months residing 

within OU9, either now or in the future, 

should have blood-lead values 

exceeding 10 μg/dl. 

• RAO–2: No more than 1% of 

children age 0–72 months residing 

within OU9, either now or in the future, 

should have blood-lead values 

exceeding 15 μg/dl. 

• RAO–3: Reduce direct exposure of 

lead incurred by children which result 

in optimal risk reduction through 

effective use of resources. 

LCCHP 

The LCCHP combined (1) Community 

awareness and education, (2) residencespecific response actions to reduce the 

risk of lead exposure to children in 

Leadville and (3) blood-lead monitoring. 

Funding for the LCCHP was from a trust 

fund established by ASARCO under the 

1994 CD. 

LCCHP Community Awareness and 

Education 

The LCCHP involved an extensive 

education and intervention program to 

manage lead exposure at the Site. The 

educational program focused on raising 

public awareness about risks from lead 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
30032 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

and encouraged participation in the 

LCCHP. Outreach included the hotline, 

door-to-door contacts, public notices, 

mailings, publications, meetings and 

incentives. Education included 

individual face-to-face consultations 

with residents and customized 

recommendations for specific actions 

that reduced the residents’ risk to lead 

exposure. The recommendations made 

to each resident were based on the 

results of environmental lead sampling 

at their homes and specific information 

collected by the program about their 

daily habits and activities. Follow-up 

education, consultation, and 

intervention continued with families 

that had young children by the Lake 

County Health Department through their 

blood-lead monitoring program; 

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); 

and Head Start. 

LCCHP Residence-Specific Actions 

Through this program, Leadville 

residents were able to request an 

investigation of lead levels in soil, dust, 

paint, and water on their property. 

Properties owners could also request a 

re-investigation if conditions changed. 

The LCCHP investigated and remediated 

lead concentrations in soil, paint, dust, 

and water on a property-by-property 

basis. Sampling plans were designed for 

each individual investigated property. 

Action was taken when trigger levels 

were exceeded. All investigations and 

remediations were performed with the 

consent of the property owners. Owner 

contact and consent, sampling plans, 

analytical data, remediation activities 

and final closeout procedures were 

extensively documented. Property 

Documentation Reports (completion 

reports) were sent to property owners 

and are kept on file at EPA. 

LCCHP Blood-Lead Monitoring 

The LCCHP also included voluntary 

blood-lead monitoring (with financial 

incentives, as appropriate) for all 

children six years old and under, and 

pregnant or nursing women. As part of 

the program, appropriate actions were 

taken when the concentration of lead in 

blood of a child or a pregnant or nursing 

woman exceeded the blood-lead 

criterion, or when the concentration of 

lead exceeded a specified set of trigger 

criteria for one or more of the 

environmental media at a residence. 

LCCHP Trigger Levels 

These trigger criteria are summarized 

below: 

• Blood-lead greater than or equal to 10 

μg/dL; 

• Soil with lead concentrations greater 

than or equal to 3,500 mg/Kg; 

• Dust in houses with lead 

concentrations greater than or equal 

to 2,000 ppm; 

• Tap water with lead concentrations 

greater than or equal to 15 μg/l; and 

• Interior or exterior paint, in poor 

condition, with the following lead 

levels: 

• Greater than or equal to 1 mg/cm2

triggers educational action, and 

• Greater than or equal to 6 mg/cm2

triggers active remediation 

When one or more of the trigger 

criteria were exceeded, a work group 

evaluated a range of different response 

actions. The most appropriate response 

action was determined by evaluating the 

nature and extent of the exceedance, 

overall protectiveness of the action, 

compliance with applicable or relevant 

and appropriate requirements, long-term 

effectiveness and permanence, shortterm effectiveness, implementability, 

cost effectiveness, and community 

impacts. The work group also 

considered the views of the property 

owner, and only implemented response 

actions when property owners provided 

permission. Extensive education and 

intervention programs to manage lead 

exposure at the Site were an integral 

component of each action considered. 

Scientific Review of LCCHP 

Since the LCCHP was considered a 

‘‘pilot project’’ that involved a number of 

innovative approaches, the program was 

(1) evaluated by a group of outside 

scientists and (2) included ongoing 

review to ensure that the program was 

operating as intended and that human 

health was being adequately protected. 

The ongoing review included the 

establishment of performance standards 

which when met would indicate the 

successful completion of the LCCHP 

and the beginning of operation and 

maintenance. 

Performance Standards 

The 1999 ROD provided that 

performance standards would be 

established during the remedial design 

phase. These performance standards 

were necessary to determine if the 

blood-lead monitoring program met the 

RAOs. The performance standards were 

set out in a July 2002 addendum to the 

OU9 remedial design and are 

summarized in the Final Methods and 

Standards for Evaluating the 

Performance of the LCCHP. 

As documented in annual reports 

beginning in 2002, the data collected 

was analyzed, and the results were 

compared to the performance standards, 

expressed as goals for blood-lead levels 

in children, to determine the 

effectiveness of the program. 

During the calendar year 2005, the 

performance standards established by 

EPA for the selected remedy were met. 

This conclusion is supported and 

documented in the 2005 LCCHP annual 

report. 

The LCCHP was implemented as 

required by the ROD and under the 

Methods and Standards for Evaluating 

the Performance of the Program. 

ASARCO continued to execute the 

LCCHP until July 2005 when ASARCO 

declared bankruptcy, after which EPA 

managed the LCCHP soil investigations 

and cleanups. The work group 

continued the blood-lead monitoring 

and education/outreach programs. 

Response Actions 

KF conducted several time critical 

removal actions from October 1995 to 

April 2000. Under the LCCHP from 

April 2000 to the summer of 2009, time 

critical removal actions were completed 

on multiple residences, commercial 

properties and vacant lots. 

From October 1995 to the summer of 

2009, 1040 properties were investigated. 

270 of those properties required a soil 

removal action. Forty properties, which 

may or may not have had soil removals, 

have had dust removed or paint 

repaired/replaced. The EPA conducted 

the last property assessment and 

response actions in the summer of 2009. 

‘‘Last Call’’ 

In an effort to include any property 

that had not participated in the LCCHP, 

a ‘‘last call’’ for property owners to have 

their property investigated was given in 

2006 by the EPA and ASARCO. EPA 

sent a letter notifying property owners 

of the ‘‘last call’’ and published several 

notices in the Leadville Herald 

Democrat. EPA completed 

investigations and remediation of ‘‘last 

call’’ properties in the summer of 2009. 

Due to ASARCO’s bankruptcy in 

2005, EPA proceeded to finish the 

assessment and cleanup of properties 

that were already scheduled for work. 

Additionally, EPA also investigated and 

cleaned up properties from the ‘‘last 

call.’’ Due to the short construction 

season in Lake County, the last Site 

assessment and on the ground 

construction work was not completed 

until the summer of 2009. 

Institutional Controls (ICs) 

On March 15, 2010, Lake County 

passed a resolution approving the 

LCCHP Phase 2 Work Plan and adopting 

the LCCHP Phase 2 as an IC for OU9. 

With the County’s passing of the 

resolution to adopt the LCCHP Phase 2 

Work Plan as an IC for OU9, remedial 

action was completed. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 30033 

Moreover on December 23, 2009, the 

County also passed a resolution, which 

serves as an IC. The resolution amends 

the Lake County Land Development 

Code Chapter 3.2. The Lake County 

Building and Land Use Department 

(LCBLUD) is required to provide 

building permit applicants within the 

boundaries of the remaining 38 mine 

waste piles in OU9 with a handout 

regarding Best Management Practices for 

managing potentially contaminated soils 

in Lake County. Each applicant is 

obligated to sign a document attesting to 

the fact that he/she received, read and 

understood the Lake County Best 

Management handout. No building 

permit will be issued without the 

applicant’s written acknowledgement 

provided to the LCBLUD. Additionally, 

written proof of approval from the 

CDPHE is a condition precedent to 

issuance of a building permit by the 

LCBLUD. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The LCCHP Phase 2 Work Plan also 

serves as the operations and 

maintenance (O & M) plan for OU9. The 

goal of the LCCHP Phase 2 is to 

maintain the progress made in reducing 

overall lead-related risk to children and 

pregnant and nursing women who live 

in Leadville through education, bloodlead monitoring of children, 

investigation when elevated blood lead 

is detected, and a cleanup response, if 

appropriate. 

In addition to blood-lead monitoring, 

the LCCHP Phase 2 includes community 

education and outreach. Under the 

modified program, Lake County 

provides information to residents and 

families with children to promote 

ongoing community awareness of health 

risks from lead exposures. The Lake 

County Public Health Agency provides 

this information several ways, including 

periodic public notices in the 

newspaper, brochures in physicians’ 

offices, and handouts during 

immunization visits. Additionally, Lake 

County provides counseling, education 

and small incentives to families who 

participate in the modified program’s 

blood-lead monitoring program. 

The most significant change from the 

LCCHP (remedial action) is that 

residential environmental sampling and 

cleanup for soil, dust and paint are only 

offered: 

(1) When children or pregnant/ 

nursing mothers living at a property 

have blood-lead levels at or above the 

Center for Disease Control’s level of 

concern, currently 10 μg/dl; or 

(2) At the specific recommendation of 

either the work group or the Lake 

County Public Health Agency. 

The original program allowed 

residents to request environmental 

sampling with no preconditions. This 

service is no longer available. In 

addition, the work group may not offer 

environmental sampling if preliminary 

investigation indicates the source of 

lead exposure is solely from household 

items such as consumer goods, toys, 

candy, etc. Environmental sampling and 

cleanup will occur as directed by the 

work group and only with the consent 

of the resident and/or property owner. 

The County and State administer the 

LCCHP Phase 2 with EPA oversight. The 

Lake County Public Health Agency 

monitors blood-lead concentrations in 

individual children who live within the 

County, and provides workshops and 

educational material to families about 

preventing exposure to lead. CDPHE 

performs data management, 

environmental sampling and cleanup 

upon recommendation of the work 

group. 

Five-Year Review 

The remedies at the entire Site, 

including OU9, require ongoing fiveyear reviews in accordance with 

CERCLA Section 121(c) and Section 

300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The next 

five-year review for the California Gulch 

Site is scheduled for 2012. 

In the 2007 five-year review for the 

Site, the OU9 remedy that was 

determined was protective of human 

health and the environment. However, 

concerns were noted about continued 

protectiveness because ICs were not in 

place and an O & M Plan did not exist. 

Those concerns were resolved when the 

work group approved the LCCHP Phase 

2 as an IC and O & M Plan for properties 

in OU9, and Lake County adopted ICs 

by resolution. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

Section 113(k), 42 U. S. C. 9613(k) and 

CERCLA Section 117, 42 U. S. C. 9617. 

Documents in the partial deletion 

docket which the EPA relied on for 

recommendation for the partial deletion 

from the NPL are available to the public 

in the information repositories and a 

notice of availability of the Notice of 

Intent for Partial Deletion has been 

published in the Leadville Herald 

Democrat to satisfy public participation 

procedures required by 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(4). 

A fact sheet outlining the new LCCHP 

Phase 2 was presented to the public in 

June 2009. The public commented and 

EPA responded. The State, the Lake 

County Commissioners and the Mayor 

of Leadville are supportive of the 

deletion of OU9. 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

More specifically for OU9, EPA and 

the State have determined that the 

responsible parties completed all 

appropriate response actions. EPA has 

consulted with the State, Lake County 

Commissioners, and the City of 

Leadville, Colorado, on the proposed 

partial deletion of OU9 from the NPL 

prior to developing this Notice of Partial 

Deletion. Through the five-year reviews, 

EPA has also determined that the 

response actions taken are protective of 

public health or the environment and, 

therefore, taking of additional remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA will finalize the next 

five-year review in 2012 to ensure the 

continued protectiveness of remedial 

actions where hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remain at 

the Site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Colorado through the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment on February 16, 2011, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, 

monitoring and five-year reviews, have 

been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the remaining portions of OU9, 

the Residential Populated Areas, from 

the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective July 25, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by June 23, 2011. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of partial deletion before the 

effective date of the partial deletion and 

it will not take effect. EPA will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to partially delete 

and the comments already received. 

There will be no additional opportunity 

to comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
30034 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: May 10, 2011. 

James Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 

3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Appendix B—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by revising the entry under 

‘‘California Gulch’’, Colorado to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

*******

CO .............................................................. California Gulch ......................................... Leadville ..................................................... P 

* * * * * * * 

(a)* * * 

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

[FR Doc. 2011–12763 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 930792–3265] 

RIN 0648–XA431 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp 

Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic 

States; Reopening of Commercial 

Penaeid Shrimp Trawling Off South 

Carolina 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reopening. 

SUMMARY: NMFS reopens commercial 

penaeid shrimp trawling, i.e., for brown, 

pink, and white shrimp, in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) off South Carolina 

in the South Atlantic. NMFS previously 

closed commercial penaeid shrimp 

trawling in the EEZ off South Carolina 

on March 22, 2011. The reopening is 

intended to maximize harvest benefits 

while protecting the penaeid shrimp 

resource. 

DATES: The reopening is effective 12:01 

a.m., local time, June 7, 2011, until the 

effective date of a notification of a 

closure which will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305; 

e-mail: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Penaeid 

shrimp in the South Atlantic are 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Shrimp 

Fishery of the South Atlantic Region 

(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (Council) and is implemented 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Under 50 CFR 622.35(d)(1), NMFS 

may close the EEZ adjacent to South 

Atlantic states that have closed their 

waters to the harvest of brown, pink, 

and white shrimp to protect the white 

shrimp spawning stock that has been 

severely depleted by cold weather. 

Consistent with those procedures and 

criteria, after determining that 

unusually cold temperatures resulted in 

at least an 80-percent reduction of the 

white shrimp populations in its state 

waters, the state of South Carolina 

closed its waters on January 10, 2011, to 

the harvest of brown, pink, and white 

shrimp. South Carolina subsequently 

requested that the Council and NMFS 

implement a concurrent closure of the 

EEZ off South Carolina. 

The Council approved South 

Carolina’s request and requested that 

NMFS concurrently close the EEZ off 

South Carolina to the harvest of brown, 

pink, and white shrimp. NMFS 

determined that the recommended 

closure conformed with the procedures 

and criteria specified in the FMP and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and, 

therefore, implemented the closure 

effective as of March 22, 2011 (76 FR 

16698, March 25, 2011). 

During the closure, as specified in 

50 CFR 622.35(d)(2), no person could: 

(1) Trawl for brown, pink, or white 

shrimp in the EEZ off South Carolina; 

(2) possess on board a fishing vessel 

brown, pink, or white shrimp in or from 

the EEZ off South Carolina unless the 

vessel is in transit through the area and 

all nets with a mesh size of less than 4 

inches (10.2 cm) are stowed below deck; 

or (3) for a vessel trawling within 25 

nautical miles of the baseline from 

which the territorial sea is measured, 

use or have on board a trawl net with 

a mesh size less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), 

as measured between the centers of 

opposite knots when pulled taut. 

The FMP and implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 622.35(d) state 

that: (1) The closure will be effective 

until the state’s requested ending date of 

the closure in the respective state’s 

waters, but may be ended earlier based 

on the state’s request; and (2) if the state 

closure is ended earlier, NMFS will 

terminate the closure of the EEZ by 

filing a notification to that effect with 

the Office of the Federal Register. Based 

on biological sampling and the initial 

request from the state of South Carolina, 

the reopening of the EEZ waters off 

South Carolina would occur no later 

than June 7, 2011. Therefore, NMFS 

publishes this notification to reopen the 

EEZ off South Carolina to the harvest of 

brown, pink, and white shrimp effective 

12:01 a.m., local time, June 7, 2011. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Allowing prior 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment on the reopening is 

unnecessary because the rule 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1