69900 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

purposes. The Compact Council 

Chairman shall refer the response letter 

to the Sanctions Committee for 

appropriate action. 

(4) If no response letter is received 

under paragraph (b)(3) of this section 

within the allotted time, or if the 

Sanctions Committee deems the 

response to be insufficient, the 

Sanctions Committee shall report its 

finding to the Compact Council. If the 

Compact Council agrees with the 

Sanctions Committee’s finding, the 

Compact Council Chairman or the FBI 

Director or Designee shall direct the FBI 

Compact Officer to take appropriate 

action to suspend noncriminal justice 

access to the III System by the offending 

agency. If the offending agency is a 

criminal justice agency, the Compact 

Council Chairman shall request the 

Director of the FBI to take appropriate 

action to suspend noncriminal justice 

access to the III System by the offending 

agency. 

(5) Reinstatement of full service by 

the FBI shall occur after the Compact 

Officer of the FBI or a Party State or the 

chief administrator of the state 

repository in a Nonparty State provides 

satisfactory documentation that the 

deficiencies have been corrected or a 

process has been initiated to correct the 

deficiencies. Upon approval of the 

documentation by the Sanctions 

Committee in consultation with the 

Compact Council Chairman, the 

Compact Council Chairman or the FBI 

Director or Designee shall request the 

FBI Compact Officer to take appropriate 

action to reinstate full service. Letters to 

this effect shall be sent to all persons 

who have previously received letters 

relating to the deficiencies and resulting 

suspension of service. The decision to 

reinstate full service shall be considered 

for ratification by the Compact Council 

at its next regularly scheduled meeting. 

(c) For good cause, the Compact 

Council Chairman and the FBI Director 

or Designee shall be authorized to 

extend the number of days allowed for 

the response letters required by 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

§ 907.5 Sanction adjudication. 

(a) A Compact Officer of the FBI or a 

Party State or the chief administrator of 

the state repository in a Nonparty State 

may dispute a sanction under this Part 

by asking the Compact Council 

Chairman for an opportunity to address 

the Compact Council. 

(b) Unresolved disputes based on the 

Compact Council’s issuance of sanctions 

under this Part may be referred to the 

Compact Council Dispute Adjudication 

Committee when pertaining to disputes 

described under ARTICLE XI(a) of the 

Compact. 

(c) Nothing prohibits the Compact 

Council from requesting the FBI to 

exercise immediate and necessary 

action to preserve the integrity of the III 

System pursuant to Article XI(b) of the 

Compact. 

Dated: November 1, 2005. 

Donna M. Uzzell, 

Compact Council Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 05–22850 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–7998–8] 

Massachusetts: Extension of Interim 

Authorization of State Hazardous 

Waste Management Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Immediate final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the 

expiration date from January 1, 2006 to 

January 1, 2011 for the interim 

authorization under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, of the 

Massachusetts program for regulating 

Cathode Ray Tubes (‘‘CRTs’’). 

Massachusetts was granted interim 

authorization to assume the 

responsibility under the Toxicity 

Characteristics Rule (‘‘TC Rule’’) for 

regulating CRTs, on November 15, 2000 

with an expiration date of January 1, 

2003. This expiration date was 

subsequently extended until January 1, 

2006. As this interim authorization is 

soon due to expire, an extension is 

needed for the reasons explained below. 

EPA is publishing this rule to authorize 

the extension without a prior proposal 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

extension during the comment period, 

the decision to extend the interim 

authorization will take effect. If we get 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register withdrawing this rule before it 

takes effect and the separate document 

in the proposed rules section of this 

Federal Register will serve as the 

proposal to authorize the changes. 

DATES: This extension of the interim 

authorization will become effective on 

January 17, 2006 and remain in effect 

until January 1, 2011 unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

December 19, 2005. If EPA receives such 

comment, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of this immediate final rule 

in the Federal Register and inform the 

public that this extended authorization 

will not take immediate effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: Robin Biscaia, 

biscaia.robin@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous 

Waste Unit (CHW), EPA New England, 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023; 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to Robin Biscaia, 

Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA New 

England, One Congress Street, Suite 

1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–2023; 

Instructions: We must receive your 

comments by December 19, 2005. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov, or email. The Federal 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 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. 

Dockets containing copies of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’

revision application, the materials 

which the EPA used in evaluating the 

revision, and materials relating to the 

State-specific and site-specific Federal 

regulation changes, have been 

established at the following two 

locations: (i) Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Protection, Business 

Compliance Division, One Winter 

Street—8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, 

business hours Monday through Friday 

9 a.m. to 5 p.m., tel: (617) 556–1096; 

and (ii) EPA Region I Library, One 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69901 

Congress Street—11th Floor, Boston, 

MA 02114–2023, business hours 

Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 3 

p.m., tel: (617) 918–1990. Records in 

these dockets are available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, 

Office of Ecosystems Protection, EPA 

New England, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–

2023, telephone: (617) 918–1642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why Are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary? 

Pursuant to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq., states which have 

been authorized to administer the 

Federal hazardous waste program under 

RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 

6926(b), have a continuing obligation to 

update their programs to meet revised 

Federal requirements. As the Federal 

program changes, States must change 

their programs and ask EPA to authorize 

the changes. Changes to State programs 

may be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

revise their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

For example, States must revise their 

programs to regulate the additional 

wastes determined to be hazardous as a 

result of using the Toxicity 

Characteristics Leaching Procedure 

(‘‘TCLP’’) test adopted by the EPA on 

March 29, 1990, in the TC Rule 55 FR 

11798. The EPA may grant final 

authorization to a State revision if it is 

equivalent to, consistent with, and no 

less stringent than Federal RCRA 

requirements. 

In the alternative, as provided by 

RCRA section 3006(g), 42 U.S.C. 

6926(g), for updated Federal 

requirements promulgated pursuant to 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), such as 

the TC Rule, the EPA may grant interim 

(i.e., temporary) authorization to a State 

revision so long as it is substantially 

equivalent to Federal RCRA 

requirements. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

1. Background 

The TC Rule grants authority over 

wastes which first became classified as 

hazardous as a result of using the 

‘‘TCLP’’ test, such as many CRTs. See 55 

FR 11798, 11847–11849 (March 29, 

1990). CRTs are the glass picture tubes 

found inside television and computer 

monitors. Because of their high lead 

content, CRTs generally fail the TCLP 

test. Thus, under the EPA’s current 

regulations, CRTs generally become 

hazardous wastes when they are 

discarded (e.g., when sent for disposal 

or reclamation rather than being 

reused). However, the EPA has 

recognized that certain widely generated 

wastes may pose lower risks during 

accumulation and transport than other 

hazardous wastes. Thus the EPA has 

listed certain wastes as Universal 

Wastes which are subject to reduced 

regulation and has allowed authorized 

States to add other appropriate wastes 

as Universal Wastes. See 40 CFR part 

273. 

On August 4, 2000, Massachusetts 

adopted regulations which revised its 

regulatory program as it relates to CRTs. 

The State adopted a three-part 

approach: (1) Intact CRTs being 

disposed are subject to full hazardous 

waste requirements (along with crushed 

or ground up CRTs); (2) intact CRTs that 

may still be reused (without 

reclamation) generally are considered 

commodities exempt from hazardous 

waste requirements; and, finally, (3) 

intact CRTs which will not be reused, 

but which instead will be crushed and 

recycled (i.e., as spent materials being 

reclaimed), are subject to reduced 

requirements which track some but not 

all of the EPA’s Universal Waste Rule 

requirements. As explained in the 

Federal Register on November 15, 2000, 

65 FR 68915, and further explained in 

a legal memorandum contained in the 

Administrative Record, dated January 

21, 2000 entitled ‘‘Massachusetts’

Regulation of CRTs,’’ the EPA 

determined that the State program was 

‘‘substantially equivalent’’ to Federal 

RCRA requirements. Therefore, the EPA 

granted Massachusetts interim 

authorization to regulate CRTs under 

the TC Rule. The State program was 

determined to be only ‘‘substantially’’

rather than fully equivalent to the 

federal RCRA program because the 

maximum flexibility allowed under the 

federal program was to regulate 

hazardous CRTs being reclaimed as a 

Universal Waste, whereas 

Massachusetts regulates intact CRTs 

heading to reclamation less stringently 

in certain respects than does the 

Universal Waste Rule. 

2. Today’s Decision 

There have been no changes in either 

the Federal or Massachusetts regulations 

applicable to CRTs since November 15, 

2000. Therefore, the State program 

remains substantially equivalent (but 

not fully equivalent) to current Federal 

RCRA requirements, for the reasons 

previously stated. Absent further EPA 

action, the authority to regulate the 

CRTs would revert to the EPA as of 

January 1, 2006, and full hazardous 

waste regulations would become 

applicable to many CRTs in 

Massachusetts. 

Like Massachusetts, the EPA has 

recognized that regulating intact CRTs 

as a fully regulated hazardous waste can 

discourage recycling of the CRTs and, 

thus, be counter-productive. Therefore, 

it is environmentally important not to 

allow the interim authorization of the 

Massachusetts regulations to expire. 

On June 12, 2002, the EPA proposed 

to adopt regulations to reduce RCRA 

regulatory requirements for CRTs. See 

67 FR 40508. If the proposed rule is 

adopted, intact CRTs heading for 

reclamation will no longer be classified 

as solid or hazardous wastes. Thus, they 

will no longer need to be handled in 

accordance with either full hazardous 

waste or Universal Waste Rule 

requirements. Therefore, if and when 

the proposed rule is adopted, the 

Massachusetts CRT program will no 

longer be less stringent than the federal 

program. It will be equivalent to the 

federal program in exempting 

commodity CRTs from regulations while 

fully regulating CRTs being disposed, 

and will be more stringent than the 

federal program in partially regulating 

intact CRTs being reclaimed and in fully 

regulating crushed or ground up CRTs 

even when they are recycled. However, 

the final EPA CRT rule is not expected 

to be issued until after January 1, 2006. 

The general deadline for the 

expiration of interim authorization for 

HSWA regulations set in 40 CFR 271.24 

is January 1, 2003. The EPA believes 

that extension of the interim 

authorization of the Massachusetts CRT 

program beyond the generally 

applicable deadline of January 1, 2003 

is appropriate in the unusual 

circumstances presented. An extension 

to January 1, 2011 will enable the 

Massachusetts program to continue to 

operate pending the EPA’s final 

decision on its own CRT Rule. This 

should give the EPA sufficient time to 

finalize its own CRT Rule. If the final 

EPA CRT Rule is the same as the 

proposed rule or otherwise remains at 

least as flexible as the Massachusetts 

CRT Rule, then the EPA should be able 

to later grant final authorization to the 

Massachusetts CRT Rule, as soon as the 

EPA CRT Rule is adopted. If the final 

EPA CRT Rule is more stringent than 

the Massachusetts CRT Rule, the EPA 

69902 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

and State can address the resulting 

situation at that time. 

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s 

Authorization Decision? 

The effect of this decision is that for 

CRTs regulated under the TC Rule, a 

facility in Massachusetts subject to 

RCRA will have to continue to comply 

with the authorized State requirements 

instead of the Federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA. The 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts has 

enforcement responsibilities under its 

State hazardous and solid waste 

programs for violations of such 

programs, but EPA also retains its full 

authority under RCRA sections 3007, 

3008, 3013, and 7003. 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the state 

regulations for which interim 

authorization to Massachusetts is being 

extended by today’s action are already 

in effect under state law, and are not 

changed by today’s action. 

D. Why Wasn’t There a Proposed Rule 

Before Today’s Rule? 

EPA did not publish a proposal before 

today’s rule because we view this as a 

routine program change and do not 

expect comments that oppose this 

approval. We are providing an 

opportunity for public comment now. In 

addition to this rule, in the proposed 

rules section of today’s Federal Register 

we are publishing a separate document 

that proposes to authorize the State 

program changes. 

E. What Happens if EPA Receives 

Comments That Oppose This Action? 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

this authorization, we will withdraw 

this rule by publishing a document in 

the Federal Register before the rule 

becomes effective. EPA will base any 

further decision on the authorization of 

the State program changes on the 

proposal mentioned in the previous 

paragraph. We will then address all 

public comments in a later final rule. 

You may not have another opportunity 

to comment. If you want to comment on 

this authorization, you must do so at 

this time. 

F. What Has Massachusetts Previously 

Been Authorized For? 

Massachusetts initially received Final 

Authorization on January 24, 1985, 

effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3344) 

to implement its base hazardous waste 

management program. EPA granted 

authorization for changes to their 

program on September 30, 1998, 

effective November 30, 1998 (63 FR 

52180), October 12, 1999, effective that 

date (64 FR 55153) and March 12, 2004, 

effective that date (69 FR 11801), in 

addition to the previously discussed 

November 15, 2000 interim 

authorization of the Massachusetts CRT 

Rule (65 FR 68915) and the extension 

EPA granted to that rule on October 31, 

2002, effective January 1, 2003 (67 FR 

66338). 

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing 

in Today’s Action? 

The Massachusetts regulations 

authorized by today’s action are the 

same as those listed in the chart set forth 

in the Federal Register document dated 

November 15, 2000 (65 FR 68915, 

68918). Today’s action simply extends 

the interim authorization previously 

granted from January 1, 2006 to January 

1, 2011. 

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules 

Different From the Federal Rules? 

The differences between the State and 

Federal regulations with respect to CRTs 

are discussed in the November 15, 2000 

Federal Register document. 

Notwithstanding these differences, the 

EPA believes that the State regulations 

are substantially equivalent to the 

Federal regulations and, thus, the State 

continues to qualify to have interim 

authorization. During the interim 

authorization period, for CRTs regulated 

under the TC Rule, these state 

regulations will operate in lieu of the 

Federal hazardous waste regulations. 

I. Who Handles Permits After This 

Authorization Takes Effect? 

Massachusetts will issue permits for 

all the provisions for which it is 

authorized and will administer the 

permits it issues. EPA will continue to 

administer any RCRA hazardous waste 

permits or portions of permits which we 

issued prior to the effective date of this 

authorization. EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Massachusetts 

is not yet authorized. 

J. How Does Today’s Action Affect 

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in 

Massachusetts? 

Massachusetts is not authorized to 

carry out its hazardous waste program 

in Indian country within the State (land 

of the Wampanoag tribe). Therefore, this 

action has no effect on Indian country. 

EPA will continue to implement and 

administer the RCRA program in these 

lands. 

K. What Is Codification and Is EPA 

Codifying Massachusetts’ Hazardous 

Waste Program as Authorized in This 

Rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. We do this by 

referencing the authorized State rules in 

40 CFR part 272. We are today 

authorizing, but not codifying the 

enumerated revisions to the 

Massachusetts program. We reserve the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

W for the codification of Massachusetts’

program until a later date. 

L. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this action from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 

therefore this action is not subject to 

review by OMB. This action authorizes 

State requirements for the purpose of 

RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this action authorizes 

pre-existing requirements under State 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by State law, it 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). For 

the same reason, this action also does 

not significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of Tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 

merely authorizes State requirements as 

part of the State RCRA hazardous waste 

program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. This rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69903 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a 

State’s application for authorization as 

long as the State meets the criteria 

required by RCRA. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a State 

authorization application, to require the 

use of any particular voluntary 

consensus standard in place of another 

standard that otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the Executive Order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

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 rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this document 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 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). This 

action, nevertheless, will be effective 60 

(sixty) days after publication pursuant 

to the procedures governing immediate 

final rules. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Indian lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 05–22891 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 041213348–5285–02; I.D. 

110904E] 

RIN 0648–AS95 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Endangered Status for 

Southern Resident Killer Whales 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a 

final determination to list the Southern 

Resident killer whale distinct 

population segment (DPS) as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of (ESA) 1973. Following an 

update of the status review of Southern 

Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

under the ESA, NMFS published a 

proposed rule to list the Southern 

Resident killer whale DPS as threatened 

on December 22, 2004. After 

considering public comments on the 

proposed rule and other available 

information, we reconsidered the status 

of Southern Residents and are issuing a 

final rule to list the Southern Resident 

killer whale DPS as an endangered 

species. The prohibition on take of an 

endangered species will go into effect at 

the time this final rule is effective (see 

DATES). 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 16, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection by appointment during 

normal business hours at the NMFS, 

Protected Resources Division, 7600 

Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98115. 

The final rule, references and other 

materials relating to this determination 

can be found on our website at 

www.nwr.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lynne Barre at the address above or at 

(206) 526–4745, or Ms. Marta Nammack, 

Office of Protected Resources, Silver 

Spring, MD (301) 713–1401, ext. 180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 2, 2001, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity and 11 co-petitioners (CBD, 

2001) to list Southern Resident killer 

whales as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. On August 13, 2001, we 

provided notice of our determination 

that the petition presented substantial 

information indicating that a listing may 

be warranted and requested information 

to assist with a status review to 

determine if Southern Resident killer 

whales warranted listing under the ESA 

(66 FR 42499). To assist in the status 

review, we formed a Biological Review 

Team (BRT) of scientists from our 

Alaska, Northwest, and Southwest 

Fisheries Science Centers. We convened 

a meeting on September 26, 2001, to 

gather technical information from comanagers, scientists, and individuals 

having research or management 

expertise pertaining to killer whale 

stocks in the North Pacific Ocean. 

Additionally, the BRT discussed its 

preliminary scientific findings with 

Tribal, State and Canadian co-managers 

on March 25, 2002. The BRT considered 

information from the petition, the 

September and March meetings, and 

comments submitted in response to our 

information request in preparing a final 

scientific document on Southern 

Resident killer whales (NMFS, 2002). 

After conducting the status review, 

we determined that listing Southern 

Resident killer whales as a threatened or 

endangered species was not warranted 

because Southern Resident killer whales 

did not constitute a species as defined 

by the ESA. The ESA’s definition of 

species includes subspecies and 

‘‘distinct population segments.’’ The 

agency considers a group of organisms 

to be a DPS when it is both discrete 

from other populations and significant 

to the taxon to which it belongs (61 FR 

4722; February 7, 1996). We considered 

Southern Resident killer whales in the 

context of the global taxon (i.e., all killer 

whales worldwide) and found that the 

population did not meet the significance 

criterion for consideration as a DPS. The 

finding, along with supporting 

documentation, was published on July