Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-Subpart B, Federal Subsistence Board, 7758-7762 [2011-2959]
Download as PDF
7758
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
an expanded HIN, but ultimately
withdrew the rulemaking, stating:
‘‘There is no consensus on format for an
expanded HIN and the Coast Guard
lacks sufficient data to demonstrate that
the benefits clearly outweigh the costs
and burdens’’ 65 FR 40069 (June 29,
2000, Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking; termination); see also 59 FR
23651 (May 6, 1994, Notice of proposed
rulemaking); 59 FR 55823 (November 9,
1994, Notice of workshop and reopening
of comment period); 62 FR 7971
(February 21, 1997, Supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking); 63 FR
63638 (November 16, 1998, Request for
comments).
The Coast Guard again looked into the
possibility of an expanded HIN with
publication of the 2008 request for
comments.
Discussion of Comments
The comments received covered a
range of support and opposition to the
Coast Guard’s proposal for an expanded
HIN. Several commenters addressed the
Coast Guard’s request for specific
comments and data, although there was
no consensus among commenters and
the data and information provided was
in an aggregate form with estimates
which varied widely. For example, one
commenter stated that certain
recreational vessel manufacturers
already use an expanded HIN format for
their products (which include
recreational vehicles as well as vessels),
while several other commenters
indicated by the substance of their
comments that many recreational vessel
manufacturers do not. Additionally,
some commenters stated that the costs
of an expanded HIN would be minimal
and described why, while other
commenters provided cost estimates to
show that costs would be excessive. The
Coast Guard found these comments
helpful in showing a variety of opinions
and possible data regarding the proposal
to expand the HIN. These comments,
however, also indicate that currently
there are no definitive means to address
this issue.
Although some commenters provided
certain requested data, the request for
comments did not garner any
quantitative data or specific information
regarding the benefits of an expanded
HIN. Some commenters specifically
agreed with the Coast Guard’s
discussion of possible benefits from an
expanded HIN, such as enhanced
assistance in the recovery of stolen
vessels, reduced recreational vessel
fraud, improved accuracy of accident
data analysis, and increased remote
identification of a ‘‘suspect’’ vessel.
None of the commenters provided any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
benefit-specific data or information to
support the commenters’ expressed
views. Challenges to an expanded HIN
proposal and its potential benefits were
also general statements—opposing the
proposal or disagreeing with the Coast
Guard’s discussion of the proposal—and
did not contain sufficiently specific data
or information.
In addition to seeking information
from the public on an expanded HIN
proposal, the Coast Guard also
performed its own evaluation of the
potential costs and benefits of such a
proposal. The Coast Guard found a lack
of available data regarding potential
costs and benefits.
Conclusion
At this time, the Coast Guard has
decided that it is in the best interest of
the public and the boating safety
community to focus its attention and
devote its resources to other regulatory
actions. If the Coast Guard decides in
the future to reconsider an expanded
HIN, we will provide notice in a new
Federal Register publication.
Dated: February 2, 2011.
K.S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Director of
Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–3037 Filed 2–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 242
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2011–0004;
70101–1261–0000L6]
RIN 1018–AX52
Subsistence Management Regulations
for Public Lands in Alaska—Subpart B,
Federal Subsistence Board
Forest Service, Agriculture;
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCIES:
This proposed rule would
revise the regulations concerning the
composition of the Federal Subsistence
Board (Board). On October 23, 2009, the
Secretary of the Interior announced the
initiation of a Departmental review of
the Federal Subsistence Management
Program in Alaska. The review focused
on how the program is meeting the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
purposes and subsistence provisions of
the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA),
and how the program is serving rural
subsistence users. The review proposed
several administrative and regulatory
changes to strengthen the program and
make it more responsive to rural users.
One proposed change called for adding
two public members representing rural
Alaskan subsistence users to the
existing Board, which would afford
additional regional representation and
increase stakeholder input in the
decisionmaking process.
DATES: Public meetings: The Federal
Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils
will hold public meetings to receive
comments and make proposals to
change this proposed rule on several
dates between February 15, 2011, and
March 24, 2011, and to make
recommendations on the proposed rule
to the Federal Subsistence Board. The
Board will discuss and evaluate
proposed regulatory changes during a
public meeting in Anchorage, AK, on
May 3, 2011, and make
recommendations on the proposed rule
to the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific
information on dates and locations of
the public meetings.
Public comments: Comments and
proposals to change this proposed rule
must be received or postmarked by
April 12, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The
Federal Subsistence Board and the
Regional Advisory Councils’ public
meetings will be held at various
locations in Alaska. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for specific information on
dates and locations of the public
meetings.
Public comments: You may submit
comments by one of the following
methods:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
FWS–R7–SM–2011–0004, which is the
docket number for this rulemaking.
• By hard copy: U.S. mail or handdelivery to: USFWS, Office of
Subsistence Management, 1011 East
Tudor Road, MS 121, Attn: Theo
Matuskowitz, Anchorage, AK 99503–
6199, or hand delivery to the Designated
Federal Official attending any of the
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory
Council public meetings. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
additional information on locations of
the public meetings.
We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Review Process section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Attention: Peter J. Probasco, Office of
Subsistence Management; (907) 786–
3888 or subsistence@fws.gov. For
questions specific to National Forest
System lands, contact Steve Kessler,
Regional Subsistence Program Leader,
USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region;
(907) 743–9461 or skessler@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under Title VIII of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126),
the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries)
jointly implement the Federal
Subsistence Management Program
(Program). This Program provides a
preference for take of fish and wildlife
resources for subsistence uses on
Federal public lands and waters in
Alaska. The Secretaries published
temporary regulations to carry out this
Program in the Federal Register on June
29, 1990 (55 FR 27114), and final
regulations were published in the
Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57
FR 22940). The Program has
subsequently amended these regulations
a number of times. Because this Program
is a joint effort between Interior and
Agriculture, these regulations are
located in two titles of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 36,
‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public Property,’’
and Title 50, ‘‘Wildlife and Fisheries,’’ at
36 CFR 242.1–28 and 50 CFR 100.1–28,
respectively. The regulations contain
subparts as follows: Subpart A, General
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Provisions; Subpart B, Program
Structure; Subpart C, Board
Determinations; and Subpart D,
Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife.
Only the Secretaries can promulgate
changes to the subpart A and B
regulations.
Consistent with subpart B of these
regulations, the Secretaries established a
Federal Subsistence Board to administer
the Federal Subsistence Management
Program. The Board is made up of:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary
of the Interior with concurrence of the
Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S.
National Park Service;
• The Alaska State Director, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
• The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S.
Forest Service.
Through the Board, these agencies
participate in the development of
regulations for subparts C and D, which,
among other things, set forth program
eligibility and specific harvest seasons
and limits. As the Secretaries are
responsible for promulgating changes to
subparts A and B; the Board is assisting
the Secretaries in this effort.
In administering the program, the
Secretaries divided Alaska into 10
subsistence resource regions, each of
which is represented by a Regional
Council. The Regional Councils provide
a forum for rural residents with personal
knowledge of local conditions and
resource requirements to have a
meaningful role in the subsistence
management of fish and wildlife on
Federal public lands in Alaska. The
Regional Council members represent
varied geographical, cultural, and user
interests within each region.
1—Southeast Regional Council ............................................................
2—Southcentral Regional Council ........................................................
3—Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Council .................................................
4—Bristol Bay Regional Council ...........................................................
5—Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Council .....................................
6—Western Interior Regional Council ..................................................
7—Seward Peninsula Regional Council ...............................................
8—Northwest Arctic Regional Council ..................................................
9—Eastern Interior Regional Council ...................................................
10—North Slope Regional Council .......................................................
A notice will be published of specific
dates, times, and meeting locations in
local and statewide newspapers prior to
this series of meetings. Locations and
dates may change based on weather or
local circumstances. The amount of
work on each Regional Council’s agenda
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Proposed Regulatory Changes
On October 23, 2009, Secretary of the
Interior Salazar announced the
initiation of a Departmental review of
the Federal Subsistence Management
Program in Alaska. The review focused
on how the Program is meeting the
purposes and subsistence provisions of
the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA),
and how the Program is serving rural
subsistence users as envisioned when
the program was begun in the early
1990s.
On August 31, 2010, the Secretaries
announced the findings of the review.
The Program review proposed several
administrative and regulatory changes
to strengthen the Program and make it
more responsive to the concerns of
those who rely on it for their
subsistence needs. One proposal called
for adding two public members
representing rural Alaskan subsistence
users to the Federal Subsistence Board,
which would allow additional regional
representation and increased
stakeholder input in the decisionmaking
process. Conforming regulatory changes
are also proposed to clarify the
designation of alternates for Federal
Board members and to increase the size
of a quorum.
Public Review Process—Comments,
Proposals, and Public Meetings
The Regional Councils have a
substantial role in reviewing this
proposed rule and making
recommendations for the final rule. The
Federal Subsistence Board, through the
Regional Councils, will hold meetings
on this proposed rule at the following
locations in Alaska, on the following
dates:
Sitka ....................................................
Anchorage ...........................................
Kodiak .................................................
Naknek ................................................
Mtn. Village .........................................
Galena .................................................
Nome ...................................................
Kotzebue .............................................
Fairbanks ............................................
Barrow .................................................
determines the length of each Regional
Council meeting.
The Board will discuss and evaluate
proposed changes to the subsistence
management regulations during a public
meeting scheduled to be held in
Anchorage, AK, on May 3, 2011. The
Council Chairs, or their designated
Sfmt 4702
7759
March 22, 2011.
March 16, 2011.
February 16, 2011.
March 9, 2011.
February 23, 2011.
March 1, 2011.
February 15, 2011.
March 18, 2011.
March 3, 2011.
March 7, 2011.
representatives, will present their
respective Councils’ recommendations
at the Board meeting. Additional oral
testimony may be provided to the Board
at that time. At that public meeting, the
Board will deliberate and make final
recommendations to the Secretaries on
this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
7760
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Tribal Consultation and Comment
As expressed in Executive Order
13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ the
Federal officials that have been
delegated authority by the Secretaries
are committed to honoring the unique
government-to-government political
relationship that exists between the
Federal Government and Federally
Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as
listed in 75 FR 60810 (October 1, 2010)
and the relationship required by statute
for consultation and coordination with
Alaska Native corporations.
Consultation with Alaska Native
corporations is based on Public Law
108–199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004,
118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public
Law 108–447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518,
Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which
provides that: ‘‘The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and
all Federal agencies shall hereafter
consult with Alaska Native corporations
on the same basis as Indian Tribes
under Executive Order No. 13175.’’
The Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act does not provide
rights to Tribes for the subsistence
taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish.
However, because Tribal members are
affected by subsistence fishing, hunting,
and trapping regulations, the
Secretaries, through the Board, will
provide Federally recognized Tribes and
Alaska Native corporations an
opportunity to consult on this rule.
The Board will engage in outreach
efforts for this rule, including a
notification letter, to ensure that Tribes
and Alaska Native corporations are
advised of the mechanisms by which
they can participate. The Board
provides a variety of opportunities for
consultation: Commenting on proposed
changes to the existing rule; engaging in
dialogue at the Regional Council
meetings; engaging in dialogue at the
Board’s meetings; and providing input
in person, by mail, e-mail, or phone at
any time during the rulemaking process.
The Board will commit to efficiently
and adequately providing an
opportunity to Tribes and Alaska Native
corporations for consultation with
regard to subsistence rulemaking.
The Board will consider Tribes’ and
Alaska Native corporations’
information, input, and
recommendations, and address their
concerns as much as practicable. The
Board will inform the Tribes and Alaska
Native corporations how their
recommendations were considered.
Compliance With Statutory and
Regulatory Authorities
National Environmental Policy Act
A Draft Environmental Impact
Statement that described four
alternatives for developing a Federal
Subsistence Management Program was
distributed for public comment on
October 7, 1991. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
was published on February 28, 1992.
The Record of Decision (ROD) on
Subsistence Management for Federal
Public Lands in Alaska was signed April
6, 1992. The selected alternative in the
FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the
administrative framework of an annual
regulatory cycle for subsistence
regulations.
Several alternatives were considered
for the composition of the Board
including all Federal agency heads and
all public members representing
subsistence users. This proposed
regulation adding two additional public
members to the Board falls within the
scope of alternatives. For this reason,
the impacts described in the FEIS and
ROD are deemed sufficient for this
proposed regulation and require no
further analysis.
Even in the absence of the
consideration of alternatives in the
existing programmatic FEIS and ROD,
no further NEPA analysis would be
required in this instance. There are two
reasons for this. The first is that this
action is merely administrative in
nature and has no environmental
impact. The second is that activities of
this nature are categorically excluded
from the requirements of NEPA under
both Department of the Interior (DOI)
regulations and Department of
Agriculture (DOA) regulations.
Specifically, DOI regulations at 43 CFR
46.210 set forth categorical exclusions
for both internal organizational changes
and the adoption of regulations that are
of an administrative nature. Similarly,
DOA regulations at 7 CFR 1b.3(a)
provide a categorical exclusion for
routine activities such as personnel and
organizational changes, and similar
administrative functions.
A 1997 environmental assessment
dealt with the expansion of Federal
jurisdiction over fisheries and is
available at the office listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The
Secretary of the Interior, with
concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture, determined that expansion
of Federal jurisdiction does not
constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the human
environment and, therefore, signed a
Finding of No Significant Impact.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Section 810 of ANILCA
An ANILCA section 810 analysis was
completed as part of the FEIS process on
the Federal Subsistence Management
Program. The intent of all Federal
subsistence regulations is to accord
subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on
public lands a priority over the taking
of fish and wildlife on such lands for
other purposes, unless restriction is
necessary to conserve healthy fish and
wildlife populations. The final section
810 analysis determination appeared in
the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded
that the Federal Subsistence
Management Program, under
Alternative IV with an annual process
for setting subsistence regulations, may
have some local impacts on subsistence
uses, but will not likely restrict
subsistence uses significantly. This
analysis describes impacts of the
alternative Board compositions. This
proposed action falls within that
analysis and no further analysis is
warranted.
During the subsequent environmental
assessment process for extending
fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of
the effects of this rule was conducted in
accordance with § 810. That evaluation
concluded that, because this is merely
an administrative action, the rule will
not reach the ‘‘may significantly restrict’’
threshold that would require notice and
hearings under ANILCA § 810(a).
Paperwork Reduction Act
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This proposed
rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
OMB approval. OMB has reviewed and
approved the following collections of
information associated with the
subsistence regulations at 36 CFR 242
and 50 CFR 100: Subsistence hunting
and fishing applications, permits, and
reports, Federal Subsistence Regional
Advisory Council Membership
Application/Nomination and Interview
Forms (OMB Control No. 1018–0075
expires January 31, 2013).
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant and has
not reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866. OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other agencies’
actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of flexibility analyses for
rules that will have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small
entities, which include small
businesses, organizations, or
governmental jurisdictions. In general,
the resources to be harvested under this
rule are already being harvested and
consumed by the local harvester and do
not result in an additional dollar benefit
to the economy. However, we estimate
that two million pounds of meat are
harvested by subsistence users annually
and, if given an estimated dollar value
of $3.00 per pound, this amount would
equate to about $6 million in food value
statewide. Based upon the amounts and
values cited above, the Departments
certify that this rulemaking will not
have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Under the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. It
does not have an effect on the economy
of $100 million or more, will not cause
a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, and does not have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises.
Executive Order 12630
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the
Secretaries to administer a subsistence
priority on public lands. The scope of
this program is limited by definition to
certain public lands. Likewise, these
regulations have no potential takings of
private property implications as defined
by Executive Order 12630.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Secretaries have determined and
certify pursuant to the Unfunded
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et
seq., that this rulemaking will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. The
implementation of this rule is by
Federal agencies and there is no cost
imposed on any State or local entities or
Tribal governments.
Executive Order 12988
The Secretaries have determined that
these regulations meet the applicable
standards provided in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, regarding
civil justice reform.
Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the proposed rule does not have
sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA
precludes the State from exercising
subsistence management authority over
fish and wildlife resources on Federal
lands unless it meets certain
requirements.
Executive Order 13175
The Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act does not provide
rights to Tribes for the subsistence
taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish.
However, the Board will provide
Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska
Native corporations an opportunity to
consult on this rule. Consultation with
Alaska Native corporations is based on
Public Law 108–199, div. H, Sec. 161,
Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended
by Public Law 108–447, div. H, title V,
Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267,
which provides that: ‘‘The Director of
the Office of Management and Budget
and all Federal agencies shall hereafter
consult with Alaska Native corporations
on the same basis as Indian Tribes
under Executive Order No. 13175.’’
The Secretaries, through the Board,
will provide a variety of opportunities
for consultation: Commenting on
proposed changes to the existing rule;
engaging in dialogue at the Regional
Council meetings; engaging in dialogue
at the Board’s meetings; and providing
input in person, by mail, e-mail, or
phone at any time during the
rulemaking process.
Executive Order 13211
This Executive Order requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. However, this proposed rule is
not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply,
distribution, or use, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7761
Drafting Information
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these
regulations under the guidance of Pat
Pourchot, Special Assistant to the
Secretary of the Interior for Alaska
Affairs, Department of the Interior,
Anchorage, Alaska. Additional
assistance was provided by:
• Peter J. Probasco, Office of
Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; and
• Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional
Office, U.S. Forest Service.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Secretaries propose to
amend 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100, as
set forth below.
PART ___—SUBSISTENCE
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR
PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA
1. The authority citation for both 36
CFR Part 242 and 50 CFR Part 100
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd,
3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C.
1733.
2. Amend § __.10 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1) and (d)(2) to read as
follows:
§ __.10
Federal Subsistence Board.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) The voting members of the Board
are: A Chair to be appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior with the
concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture; two public members
representing rural Alaskan subsistence
users to be appointed by the Secretary
of the Interior with the concurrence of
the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Alaska Regional
Director, National Park Service; Alaska
Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service;
the Alaska State Director, Bureau of
Land Management; and the Alaska
Regional Director, Bureau of Indian
Affairs. Each Federal agency member of
the Board may appoint a designee.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
7762
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(2) A quorum consists of five
members.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 2, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, Department of the Interior.
Dated: January 18, 2011.
Beth G. Pendleton,
Regional Forester, USDA—Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–2959 Filed 2–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0692, EPA–HQ–OW–
2009–0297; FRL–9262–8]
RIN 2040–AF08
Drinking Water: Regulatory
Determination on Perchlorate
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Regulatory determination.
AGENCY:
This action presents EPA’s (or
the Agency’s) regulatory determination
for perchlorate in accordance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Specifically, EPA has determined that
perchlorate meets SDWA’s criteria for
regulating a contaminant—that is,
perchlorate may have an adverse effect
on the health of persons; perchlorate is
known to occur or there is a substantial
likelihood that perchlorate will occur in
public water systems with a frequency
and at levels of public health concern;
and in the sole judgment of the
Administrator, regulation of perchlorate
in drinking water systems presents a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public
water systems. Therefore, EPA will
initiate the process of proposing a
national primary drinking water
regulation (NPDWR) for perchlorate.
DATES: For purposes of judicial review,
the regulatory determination is issued as
of February 11, 2011, as provided in 40
CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets
for this action under Docket ID numbers
EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0692 and EPA–
HQ–OW–2009–0297. All documents in
these dockets are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
is not placed on the Internet, but will be
publicly available in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566–2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Burneson, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Standards and Risk
Management Division, at (202) 564–
5250 or e-mail burneson.eric@epa.gov.
For general information contact the EPA
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800)
426–4791 or e-mail: hotlinesdwa@epa.gov.
I. General Information
Does this action impose any requirements
on my public water system?
II. Background
A. What is the purpose of this action?
B. Background on Perchlorate Regulatory
Determinations
C. What is EPA’s final regulatory
determination on perchlorate and what
happens next?
III. Final Regulatory Determination for
Perchlorate
A. May perchlorate have an adverse effect
on the health of persons?
B. Is perchlorate known to occur or is there
a substantial likelihood that perchlorate
will occur in public water systems with
a frequency and at levels of public health
concern?
C. Is there a meaningful opportunity for the
reduction of health risks from
perchlorate for persons served by public
water systems?
D. Regulatory Determination
E. Key Commenter Issues
1. Health Implications of Perchlorate
Exposure above the RfD
2. Other Thyroid Inhibiting Chemicals
3. Perchlorate in Food
4. Iodide Nutritional Status
5. Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) Modeling
F. Next Steps
IV. References
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CBI—confidential business information
CCL—Contaminant Candidate List
EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR—Federal Register
HRL—health reference level
kg—kilogram
L—liter
MCL—maximum contaminant level
MRL—Minimum Reporting Limit
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOEL—no observed effect level
NPDWR—National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation
NRC—National Research Council
PBPK—Physiologically-Based
Pharmacokinetic
PWS—public water system
RfD—reference dose
SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act
UCMR—Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule
μg—microgram (one-millionth of a gram)
U.S.—United States
I. General Information
Does this action impose any
requirements on my public water
system?
Today’s action notifies interested
parties of EPA’s determination to
regulate perchlorate, but imposes no
requirements on public water systems
(PWSs). However, this action also
initiates the process to develop a
national primary drinking water
regulation (NPDWR) for perchlorate. At
such time as the Agency establishes an
NPDWR, certain PWSs will be required
to take action to comply with the
regulation in accordance with the
schedule specified in the regulation.
II. Background
A. What is the purpose of this action?
The purpose of today’s action is to
present EPA’s final determination to
regulate perchlorate in drinking water,
the rationale EPA used to make this
regulatory determination, and EPA’s
response to certain key issues raised by
commenters on previous Federal
Register (FR) notices on the drinking
water regulatory determination for
perchlorate. (All comments are
addressed in a Response to Comments
document that is available in EPA’s
docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0297
for this regulatory determination.)
B. Background on Perchlorate
Regulatory Determinations
The statutory and regulatory
background for this action is described
in detail in the October 10, 2008, FR
notice discussing EPA’s preliminary
regulatory determination for perchlorate
(73 FR 60262; USEPA 2008a). Briefly,
SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(A), as
amended in 1996, requires EPA to make
a determination whether to regulate at
least five contaminants from its
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) every
five years. To regulate a contaminant in
drinking water, EPA must determine
that it meets three criteria: (1) The
contaminant may have an adverse effect
on the health of persons; (2) the
contaminant is known to occur or there
is a substantial likelihood that the
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7758-7762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2959]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 242
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2011-0004; 70101-1261-0000L6]
RIN 1018-AX52
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska--
Subpart B, Federal Subsistence Board
AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the regulations concerning the
composition of the Federal Subsistence Board (Board). On October 23,
2009, the Secretary of the Interior announced the initiation of a
Departmental review of the Federal Subsistence Management Program in
Alaska. The review focused on how the program is meeting the purposes
and subsistence provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), and how the program is serving rural
subsistence users. The review proposed several administrative and
regulatory changes to strengthen the program and make it more
responsive to rural users. One proposed change called for adding two
public members representing rural Alaskan subsistence users to the
existing Board, which would afford additional regional representation
and increase stakeholder input in the decisionmaking process.
DATES: Public meetings: The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory
Councils will hold public meetings to receive comments and make
proposals to change this proposed rule on several dates between
February 15, 2011, and March 24, 2011, and to make recommendations on
the proposed rule to the Federal Subsistence Board. The Board will
discuss and evaluate proposed regulatory changes during a public
meeting in Anchorage, AK, on May 3, 2011, and make recommendations on
the proposed rule to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific information on
dates and locations of the public meetings.
Public comments: Comments and proposals to change this proposed
rule must be received or postmarked by April 12, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The Federal Subsistence Board and the
Regional Advisory Councils' public meetings will be held at various
locations in Alaska. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific
information on dates and locations of the public meetings.
Public comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov and search for FWS-R7-SM-2011-0004, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
By hard copy: U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: USFWS, Office
of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 121, Attn: Theo
Matuskowitz, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199, or hand delivery to the
Designated Federal Official attending any of the Federal Subsistence
Regional Advisory Council public meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for additional information on locations of the public
meetings.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
[[Page 7759]]
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Review Process section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Peter J. Probasco, Office of
Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or subsistence@fws.gov. For
questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Steve
Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service,
Alaska Region; (907) 743-9461 or skessler@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the
Federal Subsistence Management Program (Program). This Program provides
a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence
uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries
published temporary regulations to carry out this Program in the
Federal Register on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 27114), and final regulations
were published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940).
The Program has subsequently amended these regulations a number of
times. Because this Program is a joint effort between Interior and
Agriculture, these regulations are located in two titles of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 36, ``Parks, Forests, and Public
Property,'' and Title 50, ``Wildlife and Fisheries,'' at 36 CFR 242.1-
28 and 50 CFR 100.1-28, respectively. The regulations contain subparts
as follows: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program
Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence
Taking of Fish and Wildlife. Only the Secretaries can promulgate
changes to the subpart A and B regulations.
Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries
established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal
Subsistence Management Program. The Board is made up of:
A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with
concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service;
The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service;
The Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management;
The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs; and
The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service.
Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of
regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth
program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits. As the
Secretaries are responsible for promulgating changes to subparts A and
B; the Board is assisting the Secretaries in this effort.
In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into
10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a
Regional Council. The Regional Councils provide a forum for rural
residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource
requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of
fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Regional
Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user
interests within each region.
Proposed Regulatory Changes
On October 23, 2009, Secretary of the Interior Salazar announced
the initiation of a Departmental review of the Federal Subsistence
Management Program in Alaska. The review focused on how the Program is
meeting the purposes and subsistence provisions of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), and how the Program
is serving rural subsistence users as envisioned when the program was
begun in the early 1990s.
On August 31, 2010, the Secretaries announced the findings of the
review. The Program review proposed several administrative and
regulatory changes to strengthen the Program and make it more
responsive to the concerns of those who rely on it for their
subsistence needs. One proposal called for adding two public members
representing rural Alaskan subsistence users to the Federal Subsistence
Board, which would allow additional regional representation and
increased stakeholder input in the decisionmaking process. Conforming
regulatory changes are also proposed to clarify the designation of
alternates for Federal Board members and to increase the size of a
quorum.
Public Review Process--Comments, Proposals, and Public Meetings
The Regional Councils have a substantial role in reviewing this
proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. The
Federal Subsistence Board, through the Regional Councils, will hold
meetings on this proposed rule at the following locations in Alaska, on
the following dates:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1--Southeast Regional Council.... Sitka...................... March 22, 2011.
Region 2--Southcentral Regional Council. Anchorage.................. March 16, 2011.
Region 3--Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Kodiak..................... February 16, 2011.
Council.
Region 4--Bristol Bay Regional Council.. Naknek..................... March 9, 2011.
Region 5--Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Mtn. Village............... February 23, 2011.
Council.
Region 6--Western Interior Regional Galena..................... March 1, 2011.
Council.
Region 7--Seward Peninsula Regional Nome....................... February 15, 2011.
Council.
Region 8--Northwest Arctic Regional Kotzebue................... March 18, 2011.
Council.
Region 9--Eastern Interior Regional Fairbanks.................. March 3, 2011.
Council.
Region 10--North Slope Regional Council. Barrow..................... March 7, 2011.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A notice will be published of specific dates, times, and meeting
locations in local and statewide newspapers prior to this series of
meetings. Locations and dates may change based on weather or local
circumstances. The amount of work on each Regional Council's agenda
determines the length of each Regional Council meeting.
The Board will discuss and evaluate proposed changes to the
subsistence management regulations during a public meeting scheduled to
be held in Anchorage, AK, on May 3, 2011. The Council Chairs, or their
designated representatives, will present their respective Councils'
recommendations at the Board meeting. Additional oral testimony may be
provided to the Board at that time. At that public meeting, the Board
will deliberate and make final recommendations to the Secretaries on
this proposed rule.
[[Page 7760]]
Tribal Consultation and Comment
As expressed in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the Federal officials
that have been delegated authority by the Secretaries are committed to
honoring the unique government-to-government political relationship
that exists between the Federal Government and Federally Recognized
Indian Tribes (Tribes) as listed in 75 FR 60810 (October 1, 2010) and
the relationship required by statute for consultation and coordination
with Alaska Native corporations. Consultation with Alaska Native
corporations is based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23,
2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V,
Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: ``The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal
agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the
same basis as Indian Tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.''
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act does not
provide rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish,
and shellfish. However, because Tribal members are affected by
subsistence fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations, the
Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this
rule.
The Board will engage in outreach efforts for this rule, including
a notification letter, to ensure that Tribes and Alaska Native
corporations are advised of the mechanisms by which they can
participate. The Board provides a variety of opportunities for
consultation: Commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule;
engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in
dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by
mail, e-mail, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process. The
Board will commit to efficiently and adequately providing an
opportunity to Tribes and Alaska Native corporations for consultation
with regard to subsistence rulemaking.
The Board will consider Tribes' and Alaska Native corporations'
information, input, and recommendations, and address their concerns as
much as practicable. The Board will inform the Tribes and Alaska Native
corporations how their recommendations were considered.
Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
National Environmental Policy Act
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four
alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program
was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28,
1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for
Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected
alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative
framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.
Several alternatives were considered for the composition of the
Board including all Federal agency heads and all public members
representing subsistence users. This proposed regulation adding two
additional public members to the Board falls within the scope of
alternatives. For this reason, the impacts described in the FEIS and
ROD are deemed sufficient for this proposed regulation and require no
further analysis.
Even in the absence of the consideration of alternatives in the
existing programmatic FEIS and ROD, no further NEPA analysis would be
required in this instance. There are two reasons for this. The first is
that this action is merely administrative in nature and has no
environmental impact. The second is that activities of this nature are
categorically excluded from the requirements of NEPA under both
Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations and Department of
Agriculture (DOA) regulations. Specifically, DOI regulations at 43 CFR
46.210 set forth categorical exclusions for both internal
organizational changes and the adoption of regulations that are of an
administrative nature. Similarly, DOA regulations at 7 CFR 1b.3(a)
provide a categorical exclusion for routine activities such as
personnel and organizational changes, and similar administrative
functions.
A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal
jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Secretary of the Interior, with
concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, determined that expansion
of Federal jurisdiction does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the human environment and, therefore, signed a
Finding of No Significant Impact.
Section 810 of ANILCA
An ANILCA section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS
process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of
all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of
fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish
and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is
necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final
section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD
and concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program, under
Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence
regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will
not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly. This analysis
describes impacts of the alternative Board compositions. This proposed
action falls within that analysis and no further analysis is warranted.
During the subsequent environmental assessment process for
extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of this
rule was conducted in accordance with Sec. 810. That evaluation
concluded that, because this is merely an administrative action, the
rule will not reach the ``may significantly restrict'' threshold that
would require notice and hearings under ANILCA Sec. 810(a).
Paperwork Reduction Act
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This
proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require OMB approval. OMB has reviewed and approved the following
collections of information associated with the subsistence regulations
at 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100: Subsistence hunting and fishing
applications, permits, and reports, Federal Subsistence Regional
Advisory Council Membership Application/Nomination and Interview Forms
(OMB Control No. 1018-0075 expires January 31, 2013).
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 12866. OMB bases its determination upon the following
four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on
[[Page 7761]]
the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs,
the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which
include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions.
In general, the resources to be harvested under this rule are already
being harvested and consumed by the local harvester and do not result
in an additional dollar benefit to the economy. However, we estimate
that two million pounds of meat are harvested by subsistence users
annually and, if given an estimated dollar value of $3.00 per pound,
this amount would equate to about $6 million in food value statewide.
Based upon the amounts and values cited above, the Departments certify
that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. It does not have an
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, and does not have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Executive Order 12630
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a
subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is
limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these
regulations have no potential takings of private property implications
as defined by Executive Order 12630.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State governments or private entities. The
implementation of this rule is by Federal agencies and there is no cost
imposed on any State or local entities or Tribal governments.
Executive Order 12988
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the
applicable standards provided in Sec. Sec. 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.
Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does
not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State
from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife
resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.
Executive Order 13175
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act does not
provide rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish,
and shellfish. However, the Board will provide Federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this
rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations is based on Public
Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended
by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118
Stat. 3267, which provides that: ``The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult
with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian Tribes
under Executive Order No. 13175.''
The Secretaries, through the Board, will provide a variety of
opportunities for consultation: Commenting on proposed changes to the
existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings;
engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in
person, by mail, e-mail, or phone at any time during the rulemaking
process.
Executive Order 13211
This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting
energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects
is required.
Drafting Information
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of
Pat Pourchot, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for
Alaska Affairs, Department of the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska.
Additional assistance was provided by:
Peter J. Probasco, Office of Subsistence Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; and
Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Forest
Service.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Secretaries propose to
amend 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100, as set forth below.
PART --------SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN
ALASKA
1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR Part 242 and 50 CFR Part
100 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C.
3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
2. Amend Sec. ----.10 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (d)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. ----.10 Federal Subsistence Board.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The voting members of the Board are: A Chair to be appointed by
the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture; two public members representing rural Alaskan subsistence
users to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Regional Director,
National Park Service; Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service;
the Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management; and the Alaska
Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Each Federal agency member
of the Board may appoint a designee.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 7762]]
(2) A quorum consists of five members.
* * * * *
Dated: February 2, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the
Interior.
Dated: January 18, 2011.
Beth G. Pendleton,
Regional Forester, USDA--Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-2959 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P; 4310-55-P