Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20867 

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Huntington—Ashland 8- 

Hour Ozone Section 

110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan.

A portion of Greenup 

County.

May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Lexington 8-Hour Ozone 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan Section 

110(a)(1).

Fayette and Scott Counties.May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Edmonson County 8-Hour 

Ozone Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan.

Edmonson County ............ May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Owensboro 8-Hour Ozone 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.

Daviess County and a portion of Hancock County.May 27, 2008 .................... 4/14/11 [Insert citation of 

publication].

For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9092 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 5 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice 

is hereby given of the following meeting 

of the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee on Designation of Medically 

Underserved Populations and Health 

Professional Shortage Areas. 

DATES: Meetings will be held on May 18, 

2011, 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; May 19, 2011, 

9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and May 20, 2011, 

9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the 

Legacy Hotel and Meeting Centre, 1775 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, (301) 881–2300. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more information, please contact Nicole 

Patterson, Office of Shortage 

Designation, Bureau of Health 

Professions, Health Resources and 

Services Administration, Room 9A–18, 

Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone 

(301) 443–9027, E-mail: 

npatterson@hrsa.gov or visit http:// 

www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/ 

shortage/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Status: The meeting will be open to 

the public. 

Purpose: The purpose of the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas (Committee) is to 

establish criteria and a comprehensive 

methodology for Designation of 

Medically Underserved Populations and 

Primary Care Health Professional 

Shortage Areas, using a Negotiated 

Rulemaking (NR) process. It is hoped 

that use of the NR process will yield a 

consensus among technical experts and 

stakeholders on a new rule for 

designation of medically underserved 

populations and primary care health 

professions shortage areas, which would 

be published as an Interim Final Rule in 

accordance with Section 5602 of the 

Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111– 

148. 

Agenda: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, May 18; Thursday, May 19; 

and Friday, May 20. It will include a 

discussion of various components of a 

possible methodology for identifying 

areas of shortage and underservice, 

based on the recommendations of the 

Committee in the previous meeting. The 

Friday meeting will also include 

development of the agenda for the next 

meeting. Members of the public will 

have the opportunity to provide 

comments during the meeting on Friday 

afternoon. 

Requests from the public to make oral 

comments or to provide written 

comments to the Committee should be 

sent to Nicole Patterson at the contact 

address above at least 10 days prior to 

the first day of the meeting, Wednesday, 

May 18. The meetings will be open to 

the public as indicated above, with 

attendance limited to space available. 

Individuals who plan to attend and 

need special assistance, such as sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

notify the contact person listed above at 

least 10 days prior to the meeting. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Reva Harris, 

Acting Director, Division of Policy and 

Information Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9081 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 393 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0177] 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for 

Safe Operation; Grant of Exemption for 

Flatbed Carrier Safety Group 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) grants 

an exemption from certain commodityspecific cargo securement rules 

applicable to motor carriers transporting 

metal coils. The Flatbed Carrier Safety 

Group (FCSG) applied for an exemption 

to allow motor carriers transporting 

metal coils to secure them in a manner 

not provided for in current regulations, 

specifically to secure coils grouped in 

rows with eyes crosswise and the coils 

in contact with each other in the 

longitudinal direction. FCSG requested 

the exemption so all commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) operators will be able to 

use FMCSA’s pre-January 1, 2004 cargo 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

securement procedures for the 

transportation of groups of metal coils 

with eyes crosswise. The Agency 

believes that permitting motor carriers 

to haul metal coils in this manner will 

maintain a level of safety that is 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

of safety achieved without the 

exemption. 

DATES: This exemption is effective from 

April 14, 2011, through April 14, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside 

Operations Division, Office of Bus and 

Truck Standards and Operations, MC– 

PSV, (202) 366–0676, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) and 

31136(e), FMCSA may grant exemptions 

from many of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for a twoyear period if it finds ‘‘such exemption 

would likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level of safety that would be achieved 

absent such exemption’’ (49 CFR 

381.305(a)). 

FCSG’s Request for Exemption 

FCSG applied for an exemption from 

FMCSA’s cargo securement 

requirements specified in 49 CFR 

393.120 to allow motor carriers to 

comply with the pre-January 1, 2004, 

cargo securement regulations (then at 49 

CFR 393.100(c)) for the transportation of 

groups of metal coils with eyes 

crosswise. FMCSA published notice of 

the exemption application on June 14, 

2010, and asked for public comment (75 

FR 33667). 

On September 27, 2002, FMCSA 

published a final rule revising the 

regulations concerning protection 

against shifting and falling cargo for 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) 

engaged in interstate commerce (67 FR 

61212). The new rules were based on 

the North American Cargo Securement 

Standard Model Regulations, the motor 

carrier industry’s best practices, and 

recommendations presented during a 

series of public meetings involving U.S. 

and Canadian industry experts, Federal, 

State, and Provincial enforcement 

officials, and other interested parties. 

Motor carriers were required to ensure 

compliance with the rule by January 1, 

2004. 

The September 2002 final rule 

established detailed requirements for a 

number of specific commodities (logs; 

dressed lumber; metal coils; paper rolls; 

concrete pipe; intermodal containers; 

automobiles, light trucks and vans; 

heavy vehicles, equipment and 

machinery; flattened and crushed 

vehicles; roll-on/roll-off containers; and 

large boulders). These commodities 

were identified in public meetings 

during the development of the model 

regulations as causing the most 

disagreement between industry and 

enforcement agencies. The commodityspecific requirements for these items 

supersede the general rules when 

additional requirements are given for a 

commodity listed in those sections. This 

means all cargo securement systems 

must meet the general requirements, 

except to the extent that a commodityspecific rule imposes additional 

requirements for the securement method 

to be used. 

Currently, 49 CFR 393.120 specifies 

requirements for the securement of one 

or more metal coils which, individually 

or grouped together, weigh 5,000 

pounds or more. Metal coils can be 

transported with eyes vertical, 

lengthwise, or crosswise. 

Unlike the requirements for securing 

coils with eyes vertical (49 CFR 

393.120(b)) and lengthwise (49 CFR 

393.120(d)), the current securement 

requirements for coils with eyes 

crosswise (49 CFR 393.120(c)) only 

speak of individual coils; there are no 

specific requirements for securing rows 

of coils. As such, a motor carrier 

transporting a row of coils with eyes 

crosswise must secure each coil as an 

individual coil in accordance with 49 

CFR 393.120(c). 

FCSG noted that the regulations in 

place prior to January 1, 2004 directly 

addressed the securement of groups of 

coils loaded with eyes crosswise. 

Section 393.100(c) read as follows: 

(c)(3)(ii) Coils with eyes crosswise: Each 

coil or transverse row of coils loaded side by 

side and having approximately the same 

outside diameters must be secured by— 

(a) A tiedown assembly through the eye of 

each coil, restricting against forward motion 

and making an angle of less than 45° with the 

horizontal when viewed from the side of the 

vehicle; 

(b) A tiedown assembly through the eye of 

each coil, restricting against rearward motion 

and making an angle of less than 45° with the 

horizontal when viewed from the side of the 

vehicle; and 

(c) Timbers, having a nominal cross section 

of 4 x 4 inches or more and a length which 

is at least 75 percent of the width of the coil 

or row of coils, tightly placed against both 

the front and rear sides of the coil or row of 

coils and restrained to prevent movement of 

the coil or coils in the forward and rearward 

directions. 

(d) If coils are loaded to contact each other 

in the longitudinal direction and relative 

motion between coils, and between coils and 

the vehicle, is prevented by tiedown 

assemblies and timbers— 

(1) Only the foremost and rearmost coils 

must be secured with timbers; and 

(2) A single tiedown assembly, restricting 

against forward motion, may be used to 

secure any coil except the rearmost one, 

which must be restrained against rearward 

motion. [Emphasis added] 

FCSG stated that, without a temporary 

exemption, adherence to the existing 

regulations at 49 CFR 393.120(c)—i.e., 

treating each coil as an individual coil— 

places a burden on the motor carrier to 

carry significantly more coil bunks and 

timbers to secure each coil in a raised 

bunk off the deck. FCSG argued that 

individual securement of each coil 

produces no added safety benefit (but 

increases securement complexity in 

terms of coil bunks and timbers) 

compared to the ‘‘unitized’’ securement 

of multiple coils with eyes crosswise in 

rows in contact each other in the 

longitudinal direction. FCSG stated that 

securing groups of coils in this manner 

would allow the load to be unitized 

while still meeting the aggregate 

working load limit requirements of 49 

CFR 393.106(d). 

FCSG is working cooperatively with 

the North American Cargo Securement 

Harmonization Forum to effect these 

changes in the North American Cargo 

Securement Model Regulation, which 

both the U.S. and Canada have 

committed to use to update both the 

FMCSRs and Canada’s National Safety 

Code 10. FCSG argued that the 

‘‘unitized’’ securement of adjacent coils 

with eyes crosswise was deemed safe 

prior to the January 2004 revisions to 

the cargo securement regulations and 

should be still be considered safe today. 

For the reasons stated above, FCSG 

requested that motor carriers be allowed 

to comply with the pre-January 2004 

cargo securement provisions (then 49 

CFR 393.100(c)) during the period of the 

exemption, if granted. FCSG believes 

that utilization of the pre-January 2004 

regulations will allow carriers 

transporting metal coils to maintain a 

level of safety that is equivalent to the 

level of safety achieved without the 

exemption. A copy of FCSG’s 

application for exemption is available 

for review in the docket of this notice. 

Comments 

FMCSA received two comments to the 

published exemption notice. 

1. Richard Moskowitz responded on 

behalf of the American Trucking 

Associations (ATA), a large trade 

association representing State CMV 

associations. ATA supported the FCSG 

application for exemption and noted 

that the preamble to the September 2002 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20869 

1Congress enacted the Bridge Formula in 1975 to 

limit the weight-to-length ratio of a vehicle crossing 

a bridge. This is accomplished either by spreading 

weight over additional axles or by increasing the 

distance between axles. 

final rule did not explain why the 

previous provision governing the 

transportation of unitized coils with 

eyes crosswise was being omitted. ATA 

agreed with FCSG’s assertion that there 

is no additional safety benefit from 

securing rows of metal coils with eyes 

crosswise and in contact each other as 

individual coils under the current 49 

CFR 393.120(c). 

2. Gerald A. Donaldson, Ph.D., 

commented on behalf of the Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety 

(Advocates) in opposition to the FCSG 

application, arguing that the exemption 

would (1) undermine the current cargo 

securement regulation, and (2) place the 

traveling public in an increased risk of 

catastrophic events involving the 

ejection or dislodgement of heavy metal 

coils weighing up to 40,000 pounds. 

Advocates stated that FCSG does not 

cite any independently gathered, 

credible evidence to support the claim 

that a ‘‘unitized’’ carriage of coils as 

described by the applicant is just as safe 

as separate, independent securement of 

these coils through the use of tiedowns 

in conjunction with bunks, chocks, or 

cradles. Advocates commented that 

granting the application for temporary 

exemption would essentially reject the 

recommendations produced by the 

deliberations of leading cargo 

securement experts from the U.S. and 

Canada that led to the development of 

the North American Cargo Securement 

Model Regulation. 

Advocates noted that FMCSA relied 

on two research studies ‘‘in proposing 

and adopting new cargo securement 

regulations that specifically addressed, 

in considerable detail, the need to 

ensure the independent securement of 

each transverse coil in the ‘suicide 

arrangement’ of multiple rows of such 

coils.’’ Advocates stated that both the 

1995 Illinois Transportation Research 

Center report entitled ‘‘Analysis of Rules 

and Regulations for Steel Coil Truck 

Transport: Final Report’’ and the 1997 

Canadian Council of Motor Transport 

Administrators (CCMTA) report entitled 

‘‘Tests On Methods of Securement for 

Metal Coils’’ ‘‘explicitly evaluate the 

need for intervening blocks, chocks, or 

cradles for each transverse coil so that 

excessive forces are not generated 

during vehicle and cargo acceleration 

(which is non-linear as acceleration 

force increases) that place excessive 

demands on tiedowns.’’ Advocates 

stated that the cargo securement 

requirements for metal coils are ‘‘based 

on both static and dynamic tests and are 

of record.’’ 

FMCSA Response: 

As a result of rulemaking petitions 

submitted by various parties, FMCSA 

published a final rule on June 22, 2006, 

amending its September 2002 final rule 

concerning protection against shifting 

and falling cargo (71 FR 35819). Among 

other things, this rule amended the 

definition of metal coil to read ‘‘an 

article of cargo comprised of elements, 

mixtures, compounds, or alloys 

commonly known as metal, stamped 

metal, metal wire, metal rod, or metal 

chain that are packaged as a roll, coil, 

spool, wind, or wrap, including plastic 

or rubber coated electrical wire and 

communications cable.’’ This revised 

definition meant that the commodityspecific rules for securing metal coils 

would apply to a wider variety of coils. 

Some of these products are substantially 

lighter than coils of flat sheet metal and 

can therefore be transported in groups 

on a single vehicle without causing 

violations of interstate truck (or axle) 

weight limits designed to protect 

pavements and bridges from damage 

and excessive wear and tear.1

While the two reports cited by 

Advocates examined various aspects of 

metal coil securement, it is important to 

note that neither of these studies 

discussed or evaluated—either 

analytically or through actual testing— 

the securement of rows of coils grouped 

together with eyes crosswise. Instead, 

each of the reports cited by Advocates 

evaluated only the securement of single 

coils with eyes vertical, crosswise, or 

lengthwise. 

• The 1995 Illinois Transportation 

Research Center report on steel coil 

transport consists of (1) a 1994 field 

survey at seven Illinois vehicle scale 

locations, and (2) engineering analyses 

of metal coil securement through rigid 

body dynamics analysis, scaled model 

testing, and finite element analysis. At 

the time of that report, there was no 

specific definition of metal coils in the 

FMCSRs. Further, the term ‘‘suicide 

arrangement’’ in the Illinois 

Transportation Research Center report 

was used as an anecdotal reference only, 

and was not supported by crash or 

fatality data that showed CMV drivers to 

be at a higher risk in the event of a crash 

in which rows of metal coils grouped 

together with eyes crosswise were 

transported and secured according to 

the pre-2004 rules. While the report 

recommended a number of amendments 

to the cargo securement regulations for 

metal coils, none of these 

recommendations questioned the thenexisting securement requirements for 

groups of coils with eyes crosswise, or 

identified specific changes necessary to 

improve the securement of groups of 

coils with eyes crosswise. 

• The metal coils tested as part of the 

1997 CCMTA report weighed 

individually 18,220 lbs, 23,200 lbs, and 

44,400 lbs. These coils could not be 

tested in groups, since any substantial 

grouping would push the trailer over the 

34,000-pound tandem axle weight 

allowed on the Interstate System. Like 

the Illinois Transportation Research 

Center report, the CCMTA report 

provided a number of recommendations 

for the securement of metal coils. 

Similarly, none of these 

recommendations questioned the thenexisting securement requirements for 

groups of coils with eyes crosswise, or 

addressed specific changes necessary to 

improve the securement of groups of 

coils with eyes crosswise. 

Advocates stated that ‘‘Granting the 

exemption would * * * essentially 

reject the recommendations produced 

by the deliberations of leading cargo 

securement experts from the U.S. and 

Canada conducted over several years 

that supported strengthening 

securement requirements in numerous 

respects.’’ Representatives of both 

FMCSA and CCMTA who served on the 

North American Cargo Securement 

Harmonization Committee, including 

the Chairman for the subcommittee on 

metal coil securement, have been 

contacted regarding this issue. Each of 

these representatives has confirmed that 

the lack of specific securement methods 

for rows of coils grouped together with 

eyes crosswise appears to have been an 

inadvertent omission when the Model 

Regulation was developed. 

Subsequently, given that no such 

requirements exist in the Model 

Regulation, no requirements for this 

loading pattern were included in the 

2002 revisions to the FMCSRs. This 

omission has been brought to the 

attention of the North American Cargo 

Securement Harmonization Public 

Forum for consideration. 

FMCSA acknowledges that FCSG did 

not present specific studies or data 

concerning the safety impact of granting 

this exemption. However, for the 

reasons discussed above, the Agency 

believes that granting the temporary 

exemption to allow securement of rows 

of metal coils loaded to contact each 

other in the longitudinal direction, with 

relative motion between coils and 

between coils and the vehicle prevented 

by tiedown assemblies and timbers, 

provides a level of safety that is 

equivalent to, or greater than the level 

of safety achieved without the 

exemption. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

20870 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

FMCSA has decided to grant FCSG’s 

exemption application. FMCSA 

encourages any party having 

information that motor carriers utilizing 

this exemption are not achieving the 

requisite level of safety immediately to 

notify the Agency. If safety is being 

compromised, or if the continuation of 

the exemption is not consistent with 49 

U.S.C. 31315(b) and 31136(e), FMCSA 

will take immediate steps to revoke the 

exemption. 

Terms and Conditions for the 

Exemption 

Based on its evaluation of the 

application for an exemption, FMCSA 

has decided to grant FCSG’s exemption 

application. The Agency believes that 

the level of safety that will be achieved 

using the pre-2004 cargo securement 

regulations to secure of rows of metal 

coils with eyes crosswise during the 

2-year exemption period will likely be 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

of safety achieved without the 

exemption. 

The Agency hereby grants the 

exemption for a two-year period, 

beginning April 12, 2011, and ending 

April 12, 2013. 

During the temporary exemption 

period, motor carriers must meet the 

following requirements while still 

meeting the aggregate working load 

limit requirements of 49 CFR 

393.106(d). 

Coils with eyes crosswise: If coils are 

loaded to contact each other in the 

longitudinal direction, and relative motion 

between coils, and between coils and the 

vehicle, is prevented by tiedown assemblies 

and timbers: 

(1) Only the foremost and rearmost coils 

must be secured with timbers having a 

nominal cross section of 4 x 4 inches or more 

and a length which is at least 75 percent of 

the width of the coil or row of coils, tightly 

placed against both the front and rear sides 

of the row of coils and restrained to prevent 

movement of the coils in the forward and 

rearward directions; and 

(2) The first and last coils in a row of coils 

must be secured with a tiedown assembly 

restricting against forward and rearward 

motion, respectively. Each additional coil in 

the row of coils must be secured to the trailer 

using a tiedown assembly. 

Interested parties possessing 

information that would demonstrate 

that motor carriers using the cargo 

securement exemption for rows of metal 

coils with eyes crosswise are not 

achieving the requisite statutory level of 

safety should provide that information 

to the Agency, which will place it in 

Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0177. We will 

evaluate any such information, and, if 

safety is being compromised or if the 

continuation of the exemption is not 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) 

and 31136(e), will take immediate steps 

to revoke this exemption. 

Preemption 

During the period the exemption is in 

effect, no State shall enforce any law or 

regulation that conflicts with or is 

inconsistent with this exemption to 

allow the securement of metal coils 

loaded with eyes crosswise, grouped in 

rows, in which the coils are loaded to 

contact each other in the longitudinal 

direction with respect to a person 

operating under the exemption. 

Issued on: April 5, 2011. 

Anne S. Ferro, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8563 Filed 4–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 070821475–91169–02] 

RIN 0648–AV15 

Protective Regulations for Killer 

Whales in the Northwest Region Under 

the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), establish 

regulations under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) to prohibit 

vessels from approaching killer whales 

within 200 yards (182.9 m) and from 

parking in the path of whales when in 

inland waters of Washington State. 

Certain vessels are exempt from the 

prohibitions. The purpose of this final 

rule is to protect killer whales from 

interference and noise associated with 

vessels. We identified disturbance and 

sound associated with vessels as a 

potential contributing factor in the 

recent decline of this population during 

the development of the final rule 

announcing the endangered listing of 

Southern Resident killer whales and the 

associated Recovery Plan for Southern 

Resident killer whales (Recovery Plan). 

The Recovery Plan calls for evaluating 

current guidelines and assessing the 

need for regulations and/or protected 

areas. To implement the actions in the 

Recovery Plan, we developed this final 

rule after considering comments 

submitted in response to an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

and proposed rule, and preparing an 

environmental assessment (EA). This 

final rule does not include a seasonal 

no-go zone for vessels along the west 

side of San Juan Island that was in the 

proposed rule. We will continue to 

collect information on a no-go zone for 

consideration in a future rulemaking. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this rule and the 

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory 

Impact Review and Finding of No 

Significant Impact related to this rule 

can be obtained from the Web site 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. Written 

requests for copies of these documents 

should be addressed to Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Protected 

Resources Division, Northwest Regional 

Office, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Seattle, WA 98115. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynne Barre, Northwest Regional Office, 

206–526–4745; or Trevor Spradlin, 

Office of Protected Resources, 301–713– 

2322. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Viewing wild marine mammals is a 

popular recreational activity for both 

tourists and local residents. In 

Washington, killer whales (Orcinus 

orca) are the principal target species for 

the commercial whale watch industry 

(Hoyt 2001, O’Connor et al. 2009). Since 

monitoring of this population segment 

has begun, the number of whales peaked 

at 97 animals in the 1990s, and then 

declined to 79 in 2001. At the end of 

2010 there were 86 whales. NMFS listed 

the Southern Resident killer whale 

distinct population segment (DPS) as 

endangered under the ESA on 

November 18, 2005 (70 FR 69903). In 

the final rule announcing the listing, 

NMFS identified vessel effects, 

including direct interference and sound, 

as a potential contributing factor in the 

recent decline of this population. Based 

on monitoring data regarding the large 

number of vessels in close proximity to 

the whales (i.e., within 1⁄2 mile), 

research results regarding behavioral 

and acoustic impacts caused by vessels, 

and the risk of vessel strikes, NMFS is 

concerned that some whale watching 

activities may harm individual killer 

whales, potentially reducing their 

fitness and increasing the population’s 

risk of extinction. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES