Special Regulations; Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve
[Federal Register: February 25, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8481-8484]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe02-8]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 13
RIN 1024-AC83
Special Regulations; Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations for Wrangell-St. Elias
[[Page 8482]]
National Park (WRST) by adding the communities of Dot Lake, Healy Lake,
Northway (including Northway, Northway Village and Northway Junction),
Tanacross, and Tetlin to the park subsistence resident zone. The
regulation provides for the addition of communities to park subsistence
resident zones. Park subsistence resident zones include nearby areas
and communities with a significant concentration of residents who are
eligible to engage in subsistence activities in the park. Permanent
residents of subsistence resident zone communities are allowed to
participate in subsistence activities in the park without a subsistence
permit.
DATES: This rule is effective March 27, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Superintendent, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska 99573, (907) 822-7210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devi Sharp, Chief, Natural and
Cultural Resources, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, P.O.
Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska 99573, (907) 822-7236
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The principal authors of this rule are Devi
Sharp, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Janis Meldrum and
Paul Hunter, Alaska System Support Office, Anchorage, Alaska, and Kym
Hall, Regulations Manager, Washington, DC.
I. Background
A proposed rule to amend 36 CFR 13.73 was published by the National
Park Service (NPS) in the Federal Register on June 14, 2001 (66 FR
32282). The intent of this regulation change is to add five communities
to the WRST subsistence resident zone in accordance with the provisions
of 36 CFR 13.43(b). Section 13.43 provides for the addition and
deletion of nearby communities to park subsistence resident zones in
Alaska based on stated criteria in the section. The community of
Northway made the first request to be added to the WRST subsistence
resident zone in 1985. Subsequently four additional communities
requested consideration. The request has been the subject of review and
favorable recommendations by the park Subsistence Resource Commission
(SRC), a federal advisory group for subsistence activities, since the
initial request in 1985. After review and study, including public
notice, hearing and comment, as well as environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact, the NPS has determined the five
communities are qualified to be added to the park subsistence resident
zone. A collateral administrative change to more clearly describe
community and area boundaries is also adopted by this revised rule.
II. Responses to Public Comments
Two respondents commented on the proposed regulations during the
60-day public comment period that closed August 13, 2001. Those
comments and our responses follow.
Quantity Test
Comment: A public interest organization questioned the methodology
used to determine significant concentrations of subsistence users. They
recommended that a ``quantity test'', in which at least 51% of
community residents are shown to be eligible park subsistence users,
should be used.
NPS Response: While the ``quantity test'' idea continues to be
debated among interested park constituencies, including agency managers
and staffers, NPS policy favors use of a more flexible methodology that
considers a wider range of variables. We believe the existing
methodology is consistent with the legislative mandate for subsistence
activities in the Alaska parks and monuments.
Re-evaluation of Existing Communities
Comment: The public interest organization recommended that existing
resident zone communities should be re-examined periodically using the
``quantity test'' and current census data to evaluate continuing
eligibility. A State of Alaska agency expressed concern that the
addition of new communities might lead to unnecessary re-evaluation of
current resident zone communities.
NPS Response: The NPS is committed to re-evaluating resident zone
communities on a case-by-case basis as necessary. A regular established
schedule for reviewing resident zone communities would be costly and
does not appear to be warranted at this time. The State concern for
unnecessary reviews is not warranted by program experience to date.
Defer Action
Comments: The public interest organization recommended deferring
action on the five new communities until resident zone evaluation
methodology is revised and existing communities re-evaluated as
discussed above. The State agency supported the rulemaking analysis and
the addition of the five communities to the park resident zone.
NPS Response: The NPS believes the existing methodology used to
apply the eligibility criteria is consistent with the authorizing
legislation. While the resident zone concept has been the subject of
much debate from the start, the actual application of the program
criteria has been stable. The same criteria used to establish the
existing resident zone communities have been uniformly applied to the
five new communities. Therefore, we believe there is no reason to defer
action on adding these communities to the park resident zone as
proposed.
Compliance With Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, Local, or tribal governments or
communities. The net effect of adoption of this rule would be to reduce
costs by eliminating the need for subsistence users to apply for a
permit. The cost saving would accrue to the affected user groups and
the park through reduction of actual and potential administrative
costs.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. There will
be no change in the manner or substance of interaction with other
agencies.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients. Current and potential subsistence permittees will
continue to be eligible under the resident zone system.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. This
rule is the direct consequence of an existing regulatory method for
administering the resident zone system.
While the decision concerning adding or deleting a particular
community could be controversial, the regulatory process for making the
decision is well established in existing regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
[[Page 8483]]
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic consequences of this rule will be to
reduce administrative costs for private citizens and for the park. The
permitting process that would be eliminated for the residents of five
communities operates directly between individual subsistence users and
the park. Therefore, there is no impact on small entities and a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Small Entity Compliance Guide are
not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. This rule applies to individual subsistence users. It has no
applicability to small businesses.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. This rule will reduce costs for
private citizens and the federal government. It will eliminate the need
for subsistence users in five communities to apply to the National Park
Service for a subsistence permit. The rule will eliminate application
costs to individual subsistence users such as the cost of a phone call,
postage, or travel to the park office, and will reduce the current and
potential administrative processing costs for the park.
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. This
rule does not affect foreign trade. The interaction of the subsistence
economy and the general economy is unchanged by this rule.
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. This rule affects
the permitting process between individual subsistence users and the
park. There is no involvement of small governments in this
relationship. The subsistence activities affected occur only on federal
public lands within a national park.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. This rule will modify regulations in
a manner that reduces the regulatory impact on private citizens, and
is, therefore, excluded from EO 12630.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment. This rule applies to the permitting relationship
between individual subsistence users and the park for activities
occurring on federal public lands within the park. The rule does not
change or impact the relationship of the park with State and local
governments.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of Secs. 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not require an information collection from 10
or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is
not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required. This rule will
eliminate permit applications for residents of the five affected
communities, thus reducing the level of previously approved information
collection (see 46 FR 31854) associated with subsistence management in
the park.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. However, Environmental
Assessments (EAs) and findings of no significant impact (FONSIs) have
been completed and are on file in the NPS office at 2525 Gambell St.,
Anchorage, AK 99503 and at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve offices in Copper Center.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with Executive Order 13175 ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' and the President's
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951), and 512 DM 2 we
have evaluated potential effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule
applies to individual subsistence users and will result in the
elimination of the need for certain subsistence users to apply for a
permit to engage in allowable subsistence activities in the park.
Subsistence use on federal public lands is not managed as a tribal
activity and the federal subsistence program does not apply on Native
owned lands.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13
Alaska, National Parks; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Park
Service amends 36 CFR part 13 as follows:
PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA
Subpart C--Special Regulations--Specific Park Areas in Alaska
1. The authority citation for Part 13 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et seq.; Sec. 13.65 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h), 1361, 1531.
2. Amend Sec. 13.73 as follows:
a. By revising the heading of paragraph (a)(1) and by adding the
following entries in alphabetical order to the list of communities in
paragraph (a)(1);
b. By redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a)(3);
c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(2);
d. By revising the heading of newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 13.73 Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.
(a) Subsistence--(1) What communities and areas are included in the
park resident zone?
* * * * *
Dot Lake
* * * * *
Healy Lake
* * * * *
Northway/Northway Village/Northway Junction
* * * * *
Tanacross
* * * * *
Tetlin
* * * * *
(2) How are boundaries determined for communities added to the park
resident zone? Boundaries for communities and areas added to the park
resident zone will be determined by the Superintendent after
consultation with the affected area or community. If
[[Page 8484]]
the Superintendent and community are not able to agree on a boundary
within two years, the boundary of the area or community added will be
the boundary of the Census Designated Place, or other area designation,
used by the Alaska Department of Labor for census purposes for that
community or area. Copies of the boundary map will be available in the
park headquarters office.
(3) What communities are exempted from the aircraft prohibition for
subsistence use?
* * * * *
Dated: February 1, 2002.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-4340 Filed 2-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}