Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves, 52595-52602 [2014-20881]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• National Park Service

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52595-52602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20881]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 13

[NPS-AKRO-15122; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000]
RIN 1024-AE21


Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Park Service proposes to amend its regulations 
for sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves in Alaska. This 
proposed rule would not adopt state laws or regulations that authorize 
taking of wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or management 
actions involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or 
potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and 
associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of 
ungulates by humans. The rule would maintain long-standing prohibited 
sport hunting and trapping practices; update procedures for closing an 
area or restricting an activity in National Park Service areas in 
Alaska; update obsolete subsistence regulations; prohibit obstructing 
persons engaged in lawful hunting or trapping; and authorize use of 
native species as bait for fishing.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier 
Number (RIN) 1024-AE21, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional 
Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 
99501.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received 
will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. For additional information see ``Public 
Participation'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andee Sears, Regional Law Enforcement 
Specialist, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 
99501. Phone (907) 644-3417. Email: AKRRegulations@nps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 52596]]

Background

    In enacting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
(ANILCA) (Pub. L. 96-487, Dec. 2 1980; 16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh5; 3101-
3233) in 1980, Congress' stated purpose was to establish nationally 
significant areas including National Park System units in Alaska in 
order to preserve them ``for the benefit, use, education, and 
inspiration of present and future generations[.]'' ANILCA Sec. 101(a); 
16 U.S.C. 3101(a). Included among the express purposes in ANILCA are 
preservation of wildlife, wilderness values, and natural undisturbed, 
unaltered ecosystems while allowing for recreational opportunities, 
including sport hunting. ANILCA, Sec. 101(a)-(b); 16 U.S.C. 3101(a)-
(b).
    The legislative history of ANILCA reinforces the purpose of the 
National Park System units to maintain natural, undisturbed ecosystems. 
``Certain units have been selected because they provide undisturbed 
natural laboratories--among them the Noatak, Charley, and Bremner River 
watersheds.'' Alaska National Interest Lands, Report of the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Report No. 96-413 at page 
137 [hereafter Senate Report]. Legislative history identifies Gates of 
the Artic, Denali, Katmai, and Glacier Bay National Parks as ``large 
sanctuaries where fish and wildlife may roam freely, developing their 
social structures and evolving over long periods of time as nearly as 
possible without the changes that extensive human activities would 
cause.'' Senate Report, at page 137.
    The congressional designation of ``National Preserves'' in Alaska 
was for the specific and sole purpose of allowing sport hunting and 
commercial trapping, unlike areas designated as national parks. 126 
Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). Section 
1313 directs that National Preserves shall be managed ``in the same 
manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and 
wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be 
allowed in a national preserve[.]'' Under ANILCA and as used in this 
document, the term ``subsistence'' refers to subsistence activities by 
rural Alaska residents authorized by Title VIII of ANILCA, which ANILCA 
identifies as the priority consumptive use of fish and wildlife on 
federal public lands. ANILCA, Sec. 804; 16 U.S.C. 3144. Subsistence 
taking of fish and wildlife in NPS areas is generally regulated by the 
Department of the Interior. Taking wildlife for sport purposes in 
National Preserves is generally regulated by the State of Alaska (SOA).
    In addressing wildlife harvest, the legislative history provided 
``the Secretary shall manage National Park System units in Alaska to 
assure the optimum functioning of entire ecological systems in 
undisturbed natural habitats. The standard to be met in regulating the 
taking of fish and wildlife and trapping, is that the preeminent 
natural values of the Park System shall be protected in perpetuity, and 
shall not be jeopardized by human uses.'' 126 Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 
12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall).
    Activities related to taking wildlife remain subject to other 
federal laws, including the mandate of the NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 
1, et. seq.) ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 
objects and the wild life therein'' and provide for visitor enjoyment 
of the same for this and future generations. Policies implementing the 
NPS Organic Act require the National Park Service (NPS) to protect 
natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, 
diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, 
populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS 
Management Policies 2006 Sec. Sec.  4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The 
legislative history of ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to 
modify the NPS Organic Act in this respect: ``the Committee recognizes 
that the policies and legal authorities of the managing agencies will 
determine the nature and degree of management programs affecting 
ecological relationships, population's dynamics, and manipulations of 
the components of the ecosystem.'' Senate Report, at pages 232-331. 
Activities to reduce native species for the purpose of increasing 
numbers of harvested species (i.e. predator control) are not allowed on 
lands managed by the NPS. NPS Management Policies 2006 Sec.  4.4.3.
    The SOA's legal framework for managing wildlife in Alaska is based 
on sustained yield, which is defined by state statute to mean ``the 
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a 
high level of human harvest of game[.]'' AS Sec.  16.05.255(k)(5). To 
that end, the Alaska Board of Game (BOG) ``shall adopt regulations to 
provide for intensive management programs to restore the abundance or 
productivity of identified big game prey populations as necessary to 
achieve human consumptive use goals[.]'' AS Sec.  16.05.255(e). 
Allowances that manipulate natural systems and processes to achieve 
these goals, including actions to reduce or increase wildlife 
populations for harvest, conflict with laws and policies applicable to 
NPS areas that require preserving natural wildlife populations. See, 
e.g., NPS Management Policies 2006 Sec. Sec.  4.1, 4.4.3.
    This potential for conflict was recognized by the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources prior to the passage of ANILCA, which 
stated that ``[i]t is contrary to the National Park Service concept to 
manipulate habitat or populations to achieve maximum utilization of 
natural resources. Rather, the National Park System concept requires 
implementation of management policies which strive to maintain natural 
abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological integrity of native 
animals as part of their ecosystem, and that concept should be 
maintained.'' Senate Report, at page 171.
    In the last several years, the SOA has adopted an increasing number 
of liberalized methods of hunting and trapping wildlife and extended 
seasons to increase opportunities to harvest predator species. Among 
the predator harvest practices recently authorized on lands in the 
state, which included several National Preserves:
     Hunting black bears, including sows with cubs, with 
artificial light at den sites;
     harvesting brown bears over bait (which often includes dog 
food, bacon/meat grease, donuts, and other human food sources); and
     taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the 
denning season when their pelts have little trophy, economic, or 
subsistence value.
    These practices are not consistent with the NPS implementation of 
ANILCA's authorization of sport hunting and trapping in National 
Preserves. To the extent such practices are intended or reasonably 
likely to manipulate wildlife populations for harvest purposes or alter 
natural wildlife behaviors, they are not consistent with NPS management 
policies implementing the NPS Organic Act. Additional liberalizations 
by the SOA that are inconsistent with NPS management directives and 
policy are anticipated in the future.
    ANILCA Section 1313 (16 U.S.C. 3201) provides ``within national 
preserves the Secretary may designate zones where and periods when no 
hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted for reasons of 
public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public 
use and enjoyment.'' In order to comply with federal law and NPS 
policy, the NPS has adopted temporary restrictions to prevent the 
application of the above

[[Page 52597]]

listed predator harvest practices to National Preserves in Alaska (see, 
e.g., 2013 Superintendent's Compendium for Denali National Park and 
Preserve). These restrictions protect fauna and provide for public use 
and enjoyment consistent with ANILCA. While the NPS prefers a state 
solution to these conflicts, the SOA has been mostly unwilling to 
accommodate the different management directives for NPS areas. In the 
last 10 years, the NPS has objected to more than 50 proposals to 
liberalize predator harvest in areas that included National Preserves 
and each time the BOG has been unwilling to exclude National Preserves 
from state regulations designed to manipulate predator/prey dynamics 
for human consumptive use goals. Had these requests been accommodated, 
this proposed rule would not be necessary.
    In deciding not to treat NPS lands different from state and other 
lands, the BOG suggested the NPS is responsible for ensuring that 
taking wildlife complies with federal laws and policies applicable to 
NPS areas, and that the NPS should use its own authority to ensure 
National Preserves are managed in a manner consistent with federal law 
and NPS policy. Statement of BOG Chairman Judkins to Superintendent 
Dudgeon, BOG Public Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska (February 27, 2010) 
(NPS was testifying in opposition to allowing the take of black bear 
cubs and sows with artificial light in National Preserves). In the 
absence of state action excluding preserves, this rulemaking is 
required to make the temporary restrictions permanent. 36 CFR 13.50(d). 
This rule would also respond to the BOG's suggestion by promulgating 
NPS regulations to ensure preserves are managed consistent with federal 
law and policy and prevent historically illegal sport hunting practices 
from being authorized in National Preserves.
    The scope of this rule is limited--sport hunting and trapping are 
still allowed throughout National Preserves and the vast majority of 
state hunting regulations are consistent with federal law and policy 
and would continue to apply in National Preserves. This proposed rule 
would only affect sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves, 
which constitute less than 6% of the lands in Alaska open to hunting. 
The proposed rule would not limit the taking of wildlife for 
subsistence uses under the federal subsistence regulations.

The Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would separate taking of fish and taking of 
wildlife into two sections; 13.40 and 13.42, respectively. The proposed 
rule would make the following substantive changes:
    (1) In accordance with NPS policies, taking wildlife, hunting or 
trapping activities, or management actions involving predator reduction 
efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural 
predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to 
increase harvest of ungulates by humans would not be allowed on NPS-
managed lands. It would also explain how the NPS would notify the 
public of specific activities that are not consistent with this 
section.
    (2) Prohibit historically illegal practices for taking wildlife for 
sport purposes, including the practices recently authorized by the 
state for taking predators: (i) Taking black bear cubs and sows with 
artificial light at den sites; (ii) taking brown bears over bait; and 
(iii) taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season.
    (3) Prohibit intentionally obstructing or hindering persons 
actively engaged in lawful hunting or trapping.
    (4) Update procedures for implementing closures or restrictions in 
park areas, including taking fish and wildlife for sport purposes, to 
more effectively engage the public.
    (5) Update NPS regulations to reflect federal assumption of the 
management of subsistence hunting and fishing under Title VIII of 
ANILCA from the SOA in the 1990s.
    (6) Allow the use of native species to be used as bait, commonly 
salmon eggs, for fishing in accordance with non-conflicting state law. 
This would supercede for park areas in Alaska the Service-wide 
prohibition on using certain types of bait in 36 CFR 2.3(d)(2).

Prohibiting Methods and Means of Taking Wildlife in National Preserves

    Activities or management actions involving predator reduction 
efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural 
ecosystems or processes (including natural predator/prey dynamics, 
distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, 
genetics, or behavior of a species) are inconsistent with the laws and 
policies applicable to NPS areas. The proposed rule would clarify in 
regulation that these activities are not allowed on NPS lands in 
Alaska. Under the proposed rule, the regional director would compile a 
list updated at least annually of activities prohibited by this section 
of the proposed rule. Notice would be provided in accordance with 36 
CFR 13.50(e).
    The proposed rule would codify in federal regulations applicable to 
National Preserves what had been traditional and long-standing 
prohibited sport hunting and trapping practices, some of which have 
been recently authorized by the state for taking predators. It would 
also prohibit the use of electronic devices not specifically approved 
by the Regional Director, the use of airborne devices controlled 
remotely and used to spot or locate game with the use of a camera, 
video, or other sensing device, and eliminate an allowance under 
adopted state laws that authorizes sport hunters to take caribou while 
swimming in certain National Preserves.
    In 2013, the NPS adopted temporary restrictions on taking brown 
bears over bait in National Preserves which the proposed rule would 
make permanent. At that time, the NPS received several comments 
suggesting that black bear baiting also be prohibited. The NPS 
specifically seeks comment on whether taking black bears over bait 
should be allowed in National Preserves.
    Unlike the practice of taking brown bears over bait, black bear 
baiting has been authorized in Alaska for several decades, including in 
National Preserves. Black bear baiting is authorized by the state 
pursuant to a permit. State regulations prohibit setting up a bait 
station within a mile of a home or other dwelling, business, campground 
and other places. State regulations also prohibit setting up a bait 
station within a quarter mile of a road or trail. As mentioned above, 
items that are inexpensive and highly attractive are used to bait 
bears; commonly old bread, donuts, bacon grease, dog food, and 
marshmallows, among other things.
    Though authorized since the 1980s, the practice of black bear 
baiting in National Preserves is relatively uncommon. From the harvest 
data reported to the SOA, <=37 black bears were hunted over bait in 
National Preserves, and <=34 of these were harvested in Wrangell-St. 
Elias National Preserve. Of the 37 reported, only three black bears 
were harvested over bait by rural Alaska residents from NPS preserves 
between the commencement of federal subsistence regulation in 1992 and 
2010.
    Many of the same concerns with taking brown bears over bait also 
apply to black bear baiting. It is generally agreed that food-
conditioned bears are more likely to be a danger to humans than bears 
that are not food-conditioned and are also more likely to be killed in 
defense of life and property. For these reasons, natural resource 
agencies throughout North America discourage intentionally feeding 
bears.

[[Page 52598]]

    The NPS also specifically seeks comment on whether to continue to 
allow the practice of using dogs to hunt black bears in National 
Preserves. Current state hunting regulations allow individuals to 
obtain a state permit to use dogs to hunt black bears. These state 
regulations apply in National Preserves. The proposed rule would 
maintain current state prohibitions on taking big game with the aid or 
use of a dog, except for using a leashed dog to track wounded big game 
and using dogs to take black bears pursuant to a state permit. The 
proposed rule would not limit the use of dogs in support of hunting 
wildlife other than big game, such as waterfowl or game birds.

Prohibiting the Obstruction of Persons Engaged in Lawful Hunting or 
Trapping

    This proposed rule would prohibit the intentional obstruction or 
hinderance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities. 
This would include (i) placing one's self in a location in which human 
presence may alter the behavior of the game that another person is 
attempting to take; or the imminent feasibility of taking game by 
another person; or (ii) creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or 
physical stimulus in order to alter the behavior of the game that 
another person is attempting to take. These actions are prohibited by 
state law but are not adopted under the existing regulations for 
National Preserves because the state law does not directly regulate 
hunting and trapping. The proposed rule would codify these prohibitions 
as federal law to prevent the frustration of lawful hunting and 
trapping in National Preserves.

Updating Closure and Restriction Procedures

    This proposed rule would also amend the procedures for implementing 
closures and restrictions on certain activities in NPS areas in Alaska. 
The proposed rule would update the current procedures to reflect the 
availability of alternative communications technologies and approaches 
that have emerged or evolved over the last 33 years. Current 
regulations rely on public hearings to engage the public and 
newspapers, radio broadcast, and notices posted at postal offices to 
provide public notice. The proposed changes recognize the internet has 
become a primary method to communicate with the public and is often 
more effective tool for engaging Alaskans and the broader American 
public.
    The proposed changes are not intended to limit public involvement 
or reduce public notice; rather the NPS intends to engage in ways more 
likely to encourage public involvement in a manner that is fiscally 
sustainable. For example, in 2013, the NPS held seven public hearings 
on three restrictions to taking wildlife for sport purposes. In total, 
about 75 individuals attended the hearings. One of the hearings was 
attended by fewer than five individuals. On the same topics, the NPS 
received over 59,000 email comments and significant interest and 
participation in NPS-hosted web chats. This year, the NPS expects to 
hold 15-20 public hearings on the same three wildlife harvest 
restrictions, including those part of this proposed rule.
    The NPS does recognize that in-person public meetings will still be 
the most effective way to engage Alaskans on some issues and in certain 
areas and the NPS intends to continue that practice when appropriate. 
The NPS also recognizes that many individuals in rural Alaska do not 
have access to high speed internet and for that reason the NPS will 
continue to use other methods of communication, such as newspapers, 
where available to provide adequate notice.
    The NPS is also proposing to simplify categories of restrictions. 
The current regulations address emergency, temporary and permanent 
closures and restrictions. We propose a duration of up to 60 days for 
emergency closures and restrictions which is the same as adopted by the 
Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) after notice and comment. See 50 CFR 
100.19(a)(2). Non-emergency closures and restrictions or the 
termination and relaxation of them would not require rulemaking after a 
specific period of time. Instead, rulemaking would be required if these 
closures or restrictions (or the termination and relaxation of them) 
are of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a 
significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area, adversely 
affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, or 
require a long-term or significant modification in the resource 
management objectives of the area. These rulemaking criteria are 
modeled after the rulemaking criteria in 36 CFR 1.5(b) that apply to 
NPS areas outside of Alaska.
    The following table summarizes changes from the existing procedures 
in the proposed rule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Current procedures                  Proposed procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Criteria used to determine whether to close an area or restrict an
                                activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria only apply to emergency         Apply to all types of closures
 closures or restrictions.                or restrictions.
                                         Clarifies the critieria to
                                          include protecting the
                                          integrity of naturally-
                                          functioning ecosystems as an
                                          appropriate reason for a
                                          closure or restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspaper, radio, and signs are the      Updated to reflect the internet
 primary methods of notifying the         as the primary source of
 public of closures or restrictions.      information for closures or
                                          restrictions. Other methods
                                          will be utilized as
                                          appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Non-Emergency Closures or Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration: Cannot exceed 12 months, no    Duration: No time limit
 extensions. Permanent closures or        provided rulemaking criteria
 restrictions published as rulemaking.    are not triggered.
Fish and wildlife related:               Fish and wildlife related:
    --consultation with the state and       --consultation with the
     representatives of affected user        state and
     groups and
    --notice and hearing in the             --Opportunity for public
     vicinity of the area directly           comment required prior to
     affected prior to adopting a            adopting a closure or
     closure or restriction                  restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 52599]]

 
                   Emergency Closures or Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration: 30 days, no extensions.......  Duration: 60 days, extensions
                                          subject to nonemergency
                                          procedures.
Fish and wildlife related: Effective     Fish and wildlife related:
 upon notice and hearing.                 Effective upon notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update Subsistence Regulations To Reflect Federal Management

    The proposed rule would update the subsistence provisions in NPS 
regulations (36 CFR 13.470, 13.480, and 13.490) to reflect the federal 
government's assumption of the management and regulation of subsistence 
take of fish and wildlife under ANILCA and the transfer of subsistence 
management under Title VIII from the SOA to the FSB.

Allowing the Use of Native Species as Bait for Fishing

    NPS regulations generally prohibit the use of bait for fishing to 
help protect against the spread of nonnative species. Fish eggs from 
native species (usually salmon), are commonly used for fishing in 
Alaska. This proposed rule would allow use of local native species as 
bait for fishing.

Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy 
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system 
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, 
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available 
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public 
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this 
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-
benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report 
entitled ``Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed 
Revisions to Wildlife Harvest Regulations in National Park System 
Alaska Region'' which can be viewed online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking the link entitled ``Cost-Benefit 
and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed Revisions to Wildlife 
Harvest Regulations in National Park System Preserves in Alaska'' and 
then clicking the link entitled ``Document List.''

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. 
This rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings 
implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule 
is limited in effect to federal lands managed by the NPS in Alaska and 
would not have a substantial direct effect on state and local 
government in Alaska. A Federalism summary impact statement is not 
required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be 
written to minimize litigation; and
    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all 
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal 
standards.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Department Policy) and 
ANCSA Corporations

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a 
commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their 
right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this 
rule under the Department's Tribal consultation and Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies. While the 
NPS has determined the rule would not have a substantial direct effect 
on federally recognized Indian tribes or ANCSA Native Corporation 
lands, water areas, or resources, the NPS is consulting Alaska Native 
tribes and Alaska Native Corporations regarding potential NPS 
restrictions on taking of wildlife for sport purposes on preserves.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you 
are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

[[Page 52600]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    The NPS has analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of 
the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. We have prepared an 
environmental assessment to determine whether this rule will have a 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. An 
environmental assessment entitled ``Wildlife Harvest On National Park 
System Preserves In Alaska'' (EA) has been prepared and is available 
for public comment during the comment period for this proposed rule. 
The EA is available available online at https://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking on the link entitled 
``Wildlife Harvest On National Park System Preserves In Alaska'' and 
then clicking on the link entitled ``Document List.''

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition 
in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not 
required.

Clarity of This Regulation

    The NPS is required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 
12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than 
jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. 
To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific 
as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the 
sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or 
sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables 
would be useful, etc.

Drafting Information

    The primary authors of this regulation are Jay P. Calhoun, 
Regulations Program Specialist, National Park Service, Division of 
Jurisdiction, Regulations, and Special Park Uses; Philip Hooge, Denali 
National Park and Preserve; and Debora Cooper, Joel Hard, Grant 
Hilderbrand, Brooke Merrell, Sandy Rabinowitch, and Andee Sears of the 
Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service.

Public Participation

    It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever 
practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the 
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written 
comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in 
the ADDRESSES section above.

Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

    Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service 
proposes to amend 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et seq.; Subpart N also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h), 20, 1361, 1531, 3197; Pub. L. 105-
277, 112 Stat. 2681-259, October 21, 1998; Pub. L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 
72, May 21, 1999; Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 
104-333, 110 Stat. 4240.

0
2. In Sec.  13.1, add in alphabetical order the terms ``Bait'', ``Big 
game'', ``Cub bear'', ``Fur animal'', ``Furbearer'', and ``Trapping'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  13.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bait means, for purposes of taking wildlife other than fish, any 
material used to attract wildlife by sense of smell or taste except:
    (1) Parts of legally taken wildlife that are not required to be 
salvaged as edible meat under state law if the parts are not moved from 
the kill site; or
    (2) Game that died of natural causes, if not moved from the 
location where it was found.
    Big game means black bear, brown bear, bison, caribou, Sitka black-
tailed deer, elk, mountain goat, moose, muskox, Dall's sheep, wolf, and 
wolverine.
* * * * *
    Cub bear means a brown (grizzly) bear in its first or second year 
of life, or a black bear (including the cinnamon and blue phases) in 
its first year of life.
* * * * *
    Fur animal means a classification of animals subject to taking with 
a hunting license which consists of beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red 
fox, lynx, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, or red squirrel that has 
not been domestically raised.
    Furbearer means a beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, 
marten, mink, least weasel, short-tailed weasel, muskrat, land otter, 
red squirrel, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, Alaskan marmot, hoary 
marmot, woodchuck, wolf and wolverine.
* * * * *
    Trapping means taking furbearers under a trapping license.
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  13.42 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.42  Taking of wildlife in national preserves.

    (a) Hunting and trapping are allowed in national preserves in 
accordance with applicable Federal and non-conflicting State law and 
regulation.
    (b)-(e) [Reserved]
    (f) State of Alaska laws or regulations that authorize taking of 
wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or management actions 
involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to 
alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated 
natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans 
are not adopted in park areas.
    (1) The Regional Director will compile a list updated at least 
annually of state laws and regulations not adopted under this paragraph 
(f).
    (2) Taking of wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or 
management actions identified in this paragraph (f) are prohibited. 
Notice of activities prohibited under this paragraph (f)(2) will be 
provided in accordance with Sec.  13.50(e) of this chapter.
    (g) This paragraph applies to the taking of wildlife in national 
preserves except for subsistence uses by local rural residents pursuant 
to applicable Federal law and regulation. The following are prohibited:

[[Page 52601]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Prohibited acts                      Any exceptions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Shooting from, on, or across a park  None.
 road or highway.
(2) Using any poison or other substance  None.
 that kills or temporarily
 incapacitates wildlife.
(3) Taking wildlife from an aircraft,    If the motor has been
 off-road vehicle, motorboat, motor       completely shut off and
 vehicle, or snowmachine.                 progress from the motor's
                                          power has ceased.
(4) Using an aircraft, snowmachine, off- None.
 road vehicle, motorboat, or other
 motor vehicle to harass wildlife,
 including chasing, driving, herding,
 molesting, or otherwise disturbing
 wildlife.
(5) Taking big game while the animal is  None.
 swimming.
(6) Using a machine gun, set gun, or a   None.
 shotgun larger than 10 gauge.
(7) Using the aid of a pit, fire,        Killer style traps with an
 artificial salt lick, explosive,         inside jaw spread less than 13
 expanding gas arrow, bomb, smoke,        inches may be used for
 chemical, or a conventional steel trap   trapping, except to take any
 with an inside jaw spread over nine      species of bear or ungulate.
 inches.
(8) Using any electronic device to       (i) Rangefinders may be used.
 take, harass, chase, drive, herd, or    (ii) Electronic calls for big
 molest wildlife, including but not       game animals except moose.
 limited to: Artificial light; laser     (iii) Artificial light may be
 sights; electronically enhanced night    used for the purpose of taking
 vision scope; any device that has been   furbearers under a trapping
 airborne, controlled remotely, and       license during an open season
 used to spot or locate game with the     from Nov. 1 through March 31
 use of a camera, video, or other         where authorized by the state.
 sensing device; radio or satellite      (iv) Artificial light may be
 communication; cellular or satellite     used by a tracking dog handler
 telephone; or motion detector.           with one leashed dog to aid in
                                          tracking and dispatching a
                                          wounded big game animal.
                                         (v) Electronic devices approved
                                          in writing by the Regional
                                          Director.
(9) Using snares, nets, or traps to      None.
 take any species of bear or ungulate.
(10) Using bait........................  (i) Using bait to trap
                                          furbearers.
                                         (ii) Using bait to hunt black
                                          bears.
(11) Taking big game with the aid or     (i) Leashed dog for tracking
 use of a dog.                            wounded big game.
                                         (ii) Taking black bears
                                          pursuant to a permit issued
                                          from the State.
(12) Taking wolves and coyotes from May  None.
 1 through August 9.
(13) Taking cub bears or female bears    None.
 with cubs.
(14) Taking a fur animal or furbearer    None.
 by disturbing or destroying a den.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) The Superintendent may prohibit or restrict the non-subsistence 
taking of wildlife in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  13.50 of 
this chapter.
    (i) A person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another 
person's lawful hunting or trapping by:
    (1) Placing one's self in a location in which human presence may 
alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to 
take or the imminent feasibility of taking game by another person; or
    (2) Creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus in 
order to alter the behavior of the game that another person is 
attempting to take.
0
4. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) of Sec.  
13.40 as paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively, of Sec.  
13.42.
0
5. In Sec.  13.40, revise the section heading and paragraphs (d) and 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  13.40  Taking of fish.

* * * * *
    (d) Use of native species as bait. Use of species native to Alaska 
as bait for fishing is allowed in accordance with applicable Federal 
law and non-conflicting State law and regulations.
    (e) Closures and restrictions. The Superintendent may prohibit or 
restrict the non-subsistence taking of fish in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  13.50 of this chapter.
0
6. Amend Sec.  13.50 by revising paragraphs (a) through (e), removing 
paragraph (f), and redesignating paragraphs (g) through (i) as 
paragraphs (f) through (h), respectively, to read as follows:


Sec.  13.50  Closure and restriction procedures.

    (a) Applicability and authority. The Superintendent may close an 
area or restrict an activity, or terminate or relax a closure or 
restriction, in NPS areas in Alaska in accordance with this section.
    (b) Criteria. In determining whether to close an area or restrict 
an activity, or whether to terminate or relax a closure or restriction, 
the Superintendent must ensure that the activity or area is managed in 
a manner compatible with the purposes for which the park area was 
established. The Superintendent's decision under this paragraph must 
therefore be guided by factors such as public health and safety, 
resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, 
subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, 
protecting the integrity of naturally-functioning ecosystems, and other 
management considerations.
    (c) Duration. This paragraph applies only to a closure or 
restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a 
nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant 
alteration in the public use pattern of the area; adversely affect the 
area's natural, aesthetic, scenic, or cultural values; or require a 
long-term modification in the resource management objectives of the 
area. Except in emergency situations, the closure or restriction, or 
the termination or relaxation of such, must be published as a 
rulemaking in the Federal Register. Emergency closures or restrictions 
may not exceed a period of 60 days.
    (d) Restrictions on taking fish or wildlife. Except in emergencies, 
the NPS will consult with the State agency having responsibility over 
fishing, hunting, or trapping and provide opportunity for public 
comment before adopting closures or restrictions relating to the taking 
of fish or wildlife.
    (e) Notice. Closures or restrictions will be effective upon 
publication on individual park Web sites accessible through the NPS Web 
site at www.nps.gov. A list of closures and restrictions will be 
available at park headquarters. Additional means of notice reasonably 
likely to inform residents in the affected vicinity will also be 
provided where available, such as:
    (1) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the State 
or in local newspapers;
    (2) Use of electronic media, such as the internet and email lists;
    (3) Radio broadcast; or

[[Page 52602]]

    (4) Posting of signs in the local vicinity.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  13.400, remove paragraph (e) and redesignate paragraph (f) 
as paragraph (e).
0
8. Revise Sec.  13.470 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.470  Subsistence Fishing.

    Fish may be taken by local rural residents for subsistence uses in 
park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with 
applicable Federal law and regulation, including the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  2.3 and 13.40 of this chapter. Local rural residents in park 
areas where subsistence uses are allowed may fish with a net, seine, 
trap, or spear; or use native species as bait, where permitted by 
applicable Federal law and regulation.
0
9. Revise Sec.  13.480 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.480  Subsistence Hunting and Trapping.

    Local rural residents may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence 
uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance 
with this chapter and 50 CFR Part 100.
0
10. In Sec.  13.490, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  13.490  Closures and restrictions to subsistence uses of fish and 
wildlife.

    (a) The Superintendent may temporarily restrict a subsistence 
activity or close all or part of a park area to subsistence uses of a 
fish or wildlife population in accordance with the provisions of this 
section. The Superintendent may make a temporary closure or restriction 
notwithstanding any other provision of this part, and only if the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) The restriction or closure must be necessary for reasons of 
public safety, administration, or to ensure the continued viability of 
the fish or wildlife population;
    (2) The Superintendent must provide public notice and hold a public 
hearing;
    (3) The restriction or closure may last only so long as reasonably 
necessary to achieve the purposes of the closure.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 25, 2014.
Michael Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-20881 Filed 9-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P