Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60957

History 

On August 11, 2004, a notice 

proposing to amend Part 71 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

Part 71) by establishing a Class E 

airspace area at Jonesville, VA, was 

published in the Federal Register (69 

FR 48826–48827). The proposed action 

would provide controlled airspace to 

accommodate Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures (SIAP), based on 

area navigation (RNAV), to Lee County 

Airport. Interested parties were invited 

to participate in this rulemaking 

proceeding by submitting written 

comments on the proposal to the FAA 

on or before September 10, 2004. No 

comments to the proposal were 

received. The rule is adopted as 

proposed. 

The coordinates for this airspace 

docket are based on North American 

Datum 83. Class E airspace area 

designations for airspace extending 

upward from the surface of the earth are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, 

and effective September 16, 2004, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published in the Order. 

The Rule 

This amendment to Part 71 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 71) provides controlled Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface for aircraft 

conducting IFR operations within an 8-

mile radius of Lee County Airport, 

Jonesville, VA. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an establish 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and rountine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule will not have 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation administration amends 

14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

■ 1. Authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

The incorporation by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9M, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 30, 2004, and 

effective September 16, 2004, is 

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA VA E5 Jonesville, VA (New) 

Lee County Airport, Jonesville, VA 

(Lat. 36°39′15′′ N., long. 83°13′04′′ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius 

of Lee County Airport.

* * * * *

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on October 

5, 2004. 

John G. McCartney, 

Staff Manager, Eastern Terminal Service Unit.

[FR Doc. 04–23070 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Part 170

RIN 1076–AE17

Indian Reservation Roads Program

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of 

implementation. 

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2004, the Bureau 

of Indian affairs published a Final Rule 

in the Federal Register (69 FR 43090) 

which established policies and 

procedures governing the Indian 

Reservation Roads (IRR) Program. The 

IRR Program is a part of the Federal 

Lands Highway Program established to 

address transportation needs of tribes. 

The program is jointly administered by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 

Federal Highway Administration’s 

Federal Lands Highway Office. The 

Final Rule has an announced effective 

date of October 1, 2004. The 

Congressional Review Act requires a 60-

day delay in the effective date of a major 

rule from the date of publication in the 

Federal Register or receipt of the rule by 

Congress, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(3)(A). Because of an inadvertent 

clerical error, the Final Rule was not 

received by Congress until September 

13, 2004. Therefore, implementation of 

the Final Rule by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is delayed until November 13, 

2004.

DATES: Implementation of the Final Rule 

published at 69 FR 43090 will be 

delayed until November 13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of 

Transportation, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

MS 320 SIB, Washington, DC 20240, 

Telephone 202–513–7711 or Fax 202–

208–4696.

Dated: October 7, 2004. 

Duncan L. Brown, 

Regulatory Specialist, Office of the Executive 

Secretariat, Department of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 04–22984 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–LH–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

RIN 1018–AT58 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska

AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies the 

membership qualifications for Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils 

established under Subsistence 

Management Regulations. The 

rulemaking is necessary because of an 

order entered by the U.S. District Court 

for Alaska. The final rule also removes 

the definition of ‘‘regulatory year’’ from 

Subpart A and places it in Subpart D of 

the regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o

60958 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Attention: Thomas H. Boyd, Office of 

Subsistence Management; (907) 786–

3888. For questions specific to National 

Forest System lands, contact Steve 

Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program 

Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, (907) 786–3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Title VIII of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126) 

requires that the Secretaries implement 

a program to grant a preference for 

subsistence uses of fish and wildlife 

resources on public lands, unless the 

State of Alaska enacts and implements 

laws of general applicability that are 

consistent with ANILCA and that 

provide for the subsistence definition, 

preference, and participation specified 

in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of 

ANILCA. The State implemented a 

program that the Department of the 

Interior previously found to be 

consistent with ANILCA. However, in 

December 1989, the Alaska Supreme 

Court ruled in McDowell v. State of 

Alaska that the rural preference in the 

State subsistence statute violated the 

Alaska Constitution. The Court’s ruling 

in McDowell required the State to delete 

the rural preference from the 

subsistence statute and, therefore, 

negated State compliance with ANILCA. 

The Court stayed the effect of the 

decision until July 1, 1990. 

As a result of the McDowell decision, 

the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Agriculture 

(Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, 

responsibility for implementation of 

Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. 

On June 29, 1990, the Temporary 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska were 

published in the Federal Register (55 

FR 27114). With the State unable to 

create a program in compliance with 

Title VIII by May 29, 1992, the 

Departments published a final rule in 

the Federal Register (57 FR 22940). On 

January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the 

Departments published a final rule to 

extend jurisdiction to include waters in 

which there exists a Federal reserved 

water right. This amended rule became 

effective October 1, 1999, and 

conformed the Federal Subsistence 

Management Program to the Ninth 

Circuit’s ruling in Alaska v. Babbitt.

Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C 

of these regulations, as revised January 

8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the Departments 

established a Federal Subsistence Board 

(Board) to administer the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program. The 

Board’s composition consists 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, USDA 

Forest Service. Through the Board, these 

agencies participate in the development 

of Federal Subsistence Management 

Regulations (Subparts A, B, C, and D). 

The Board has reviewed this rule. 

Because this rule relates to public lands 

managed by an agency or agencies in 

both the Departments of Agriculture and 

the Interior, identical text will be 

incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 

50 CFR part 100. 

Applicability of Subparts A, B, and C 

Subparts A, B, and C (unless 

otherwise amended) of the Subsistence 

Management Regulations for Public 

Lands in Alaska, 50 CFR 100.1 to 100.24 

and 36 CFR 242.1 to 242.24, remain 

effective and apply to this rule. 

Therefore, all definitions located at 50 

CFR 100.4 and 36 CFR 242.4 will apply 

to regulations found in this subpart. 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils 

Pursuant to the Record of Decision, 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, 

April 6, 1992, and the Subsistence 

Management Regulations for Federal 

Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR 242.11 

(1999) and 50 CFR 100.11 (1999), and 

for the purposes identified therein, 

Alaska is divided into 10 subsistence 

resource regions, each of which is 

represented by a Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory 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 Alaska public lands. 

The Board reviews applications for 

membership on the Councils and makes 

recommendations to the Secretaries on 

the appointments to the Councils. The 

appointments are actually made by the 

Secretary of the Interior with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture. The Regional Council 

members represent varied geographical 

areas, cultures, interests, and resource 

users within each region. A Regional 

Council member must be a resident of 

the region in which he or she is 

appointed and be knowledgeable about 

the region and subsistence uses of the 

public lands therein. 

In 1998, Safari Club International and 

others filed suit in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Alaska. This 

suit, as ultimately ruled upon, 

challenged the Board’s customary and 

traditional use determination process, 

specific customary and traditional use 

determinations, and the balance of 

membership on the Regional Councils 

required by the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, Pub. L. 

92–463, 86 Stat. 770 (Safari Club v. 

Demientieff, No. A98–0414–CV). In the 

meantime, the Secretary of the Interior, 

as part of a national review of advisory 

councils and in response to inquiries 

related to the Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Councils in Alaska, 

requested the Board to examine its 

process for selecting nominees, and ‘‘see 

that’’ groups such as ‘‘residents of nonrural areas, commercial users of fish and 

wildlife resources and sportsmen are 

represented on the RACs.’’ Based on 

Board recommendations following that 

in-depth examination, the Secretary of 

the Interior with concurrence of the 

Secretary of Agriculture in 2002 

increased the size of nine of the 

Regional Councils; established the goal 

of making appointments to the Regional 

Council so as to achieve, where 

possible, a representation goal of 70% 

subsistence users and 30% sport/

commercial users; revised the 

application/evaluation/selection process 

and forms; and approved a 3-year 

implementation period. 

The Native Village of Venetie Tribal 

Government et al. were permitted to 

intervene in the Safari Club case and to 

challenge the 70/30 ratio 

representational goals established by the 

Secretaries. In January 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for Alaska entered an 

order dismissing the first two of Safari 

Club’s claims and staying proceedings 

on the balance of Regional Council 

membership. The court did note in part 

with respect to the Regional Councils 

‘‘that a council comprised of only 

subsistence users is not fairly balanced. 

Subsistence users are not the only 

persons directly affected by regional 

advisory council recommendations and 

subsistence users are not the only 

persons who might be interested in the 

management of fish and wildlife on 

federal lands * * * Non-subsistence 

users of fish and wildlife are directly 

affected by management of fish and 

wildlife for subsistence uses and have a 

legitimate interest in the proper 

scientific management of same * * *. 

While all points of view and all persons 

directly affected are not entitled to 

representation on a FACA committee, in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60959

this instance, a cross-section of those 

affected by fish and wildlife 

management on federal public lands 

must be, in a reasonable and fair 

manner, afforded representation on 

regional advisory councils.’’

In ruling on a cross-claim of the 

Native Village of Venetie, the Court 

invalidated the Secretaries’ policy of a 

goal of a 70/30 (subsistence users/sport 

and commercial users) membership 

ratio for failure to procedurally comply 

with the provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act found at 

5 U.S.C. 553, and found that the policy 

should have been put before the public 

for comment in a rulemaking process. 

The District Court also ordered that the 

Secretaries promptly initiate and 

conclude a rulemaking to promulgate an 

appropriate Regional Council regulation 

consistent with FACA after compliance 

with 5 U.S.C. 553. The Secretaries 

initiated action with a proposed rule 

published on April 15, 2004, (69 FR 

19964) and received testimony on the 

proposed rule at a May 2004 public 

hearing. 

The underlying purpose of the change 

to §l.11(b), while complying with the 

District Court’s order, is to ensure 

continued compliance with both the 

fairly balanced representational 

requirements of FACA and the 

requirements and purposes of Title VIII 

of ANILCA in the appointments to the 

Regional Councils. In the change, the 

Secretaries recognize that some persons 

with interests other than subsistence 

uses are entitled under FACA to be 

represented on the Regional Councils, 

while recognizing that Congress 

intended in Title VIII for rural Alaska 

residents ‘‘who have personal 

knowledge of local conditions and 

requirements * * * to have a 

meaningful role in the management of 

fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses 

on public lands in Alaska,’’ and that 

Congress also intended that ‘‘large urban 

population centers’’ not be allowed to 

dominate the Regional Council system. 

The 70/30 representational goals of the 

change to §l.11(b) assures the 

appropriate representation and 

meaningful majority role for rural 

Alaska residents, while providing an 

appropriate representation for the 

interests of nonrural residents and 

nonsubsistence users. 

The change to §l.11(b) establishes 

representational goals only in 

recognition that the actual appointments 

are dependent on the receipt of 

applications and nominations of highly 

qualified individuals. The change also 

requires the Board to identify to the 

Secretaries the interests that the 

applicant would represent. The 

Secretaries retain their role in making 

the appointments to the Regional 

Councils. They also approve the 

Regional Council charters, wherein the 

size of each Regional Council is set. 

This is reflected in a change to identify 

the Secretaries as establishing the 

number of members for each Council. 

These changes to §l.11(b) are 

consistent with FACA and ANILCA. 

Additionally, we modified the 

definition of ‘‘regulatory year’’ for fish 

and shellfish fisheries to mean April 1 

through March 31 and shifted the 

placement of this definition from §l.4 

to §l.25. This change in dates allows 

more opportunity for development of 

public booklets informing subsistence 

users of regulatory changes, and the 

shift in placement of the definition 

within the regulations allows the Board 

more flexibility to make adjustments in 

the future. 

Summary of Comments Received on the 

Proposed Rule 

In addition to comments from the 

Regional Councils, we received written 

comments and/or oral testimony from 

11 individuals or organizations. Their 

comments and the responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment: Participating in the 

rulemaking process is costly and time 

consuming. 

Response: We appreciate the time and 

effort that many individuals and 

organizations have dedicated to 

reviewing and commenting on the 

proposed rule. 

Comment: The Regional Councils do 

not have the opportunity to comment on 

this rule. The comment period should 

be extended to allow the Councils to 

comment during their fall meetings. 

Response: We were aware that the 

comment period would not coincide 

with the regular Regional Council 

meeting cycle. However, the Court 

ordered us to proceed promptly with a 

rulemaking action. Therefore, we made 

special effort to brief each Regional 

Council on the content of the proposed 

rule during its winter meeting. We then 

provided each Council with an 

opportunity to ask questions and to offer 

comments. Further, members of the 

Councils also had opportunity to 

comment on this rule during the public 

comment period. 

Comment: The recommendations on 

this rule from the Regional Councils 

must be given deference in accordance 

with Section 805(c) of ANILCA. 

Response: Section 805(c) requires the 

Secretaries to consider and give 

deference to Regional Councils’

recommendations relative to the taking 

of fish and wildlife on the public lands. 

The proposed membership balance rule 

is not a policy or regulation addressing 

the taking of fish and wildlife on public 

lands, and therefore, is not subject to the 

requirements of Section 805(c). We 

have, however, fully considered the 

comments from the Regional Councils 

in making our decision in this final rule. 

Comment: The proposed change may 

potentially affect the interests of Tribal 

members. The proposed changes are 

subject to consultation with recognized 

tribes. 

Response: We have provided all 

Alaskan Tribes and Native organizations 

the opportunity to provide comments on 

the proposed rule. In accordance with 

the President’s memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 

Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 

2000) ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,’’

government-to-government consultation 

is appropriate in cases where there is 

the potential for substantial direct 

effects on Tribes. In this case, 

redesignating a small number of seats to 

increase the diversity of viewpoints on 

the Regional Councils does not rise to 

the level of a substantial direct effect. 

Comment: Without a significant 

majority of subsistence users on the 

Councils, it is difficult to get subsistence 

proposal passed. 

Response: The 70/30 membership 

goal in the rule provides for a significant 

majority of members representing the 

subsistence interest on the Councils. 

The purpose of providing a goal for a 

minority of seats (30%) for sport and 

commercial interests is to ensure that 

those interests that are directly affected 

are represented on the Councils in 

compliance with FACA. We expect that 

all Regional Council members would 

continue to examine each proposal, 

policy, or plan and develop Regional 

Council recommendations based on 

recognized principles of fish and 

wildlife conservation, satisfaction of 

subsistence needs, and substantial 

evidence, consistent with Title VIII of 

ANILCA. 

Comment: Rural communities should 

be allocated one seat on the Council. 

Regional Council composition needs to 

be representative of the population base 

of the rural communities. The proposal 

rule leaves out rural Alaska Natives and 

other rural residents because urban 

areas outnumber rural residents. 

Response: This comment 

misconstrues both the statutory priority 

and the proposed rule. First, the statute 

creates a priority for all rural Alaska 

residents, not just rural Alaska Native 

residents. Further, by statute, all 

60960 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

members of a Regional Council must be 

residents of the region. Since most 

regions contain no nonrural areas, all 

members of those Councils will be rural 

Alaska residents. Even where the region 

includes nonrural areas, 70% of the 

members representing subsistence 

interests on the Council will likely be 

rural residents. Additionally, Alaska 

Natives are seated on every Regional 

Council. To have one representative 

from each rural community in Alaska 

sitting on the Councils would create 

excessively large and unworkable 

bodies. The current size of the Regional 

Councils and the diversity of their 

members provide good representation 

for the users in each region. 

Comment: Sport users should be 

banned from sitting on these Councils. 

FACA’s balanced representational 

requirement doesn’t require the 

appointment of sport and commercial 

interests to the Councils. Representation 

from other interest groups (i.e., 

commercial and sport interests) dilutes 

the purpose of the Councils. 

Response: The U.S. District Court for 

Alaska found that FACA requires that a 

cross-section of those affected must be 

afforded reasonable representation on 

the Regional Councils. The court also 

stated that a Council comprised only of 

subsistence users is not fairly balanced 

and that sport and commercial users 

have legitimate points of view that must 

be considered. Consequently, inclusion 

of representatives of sport and 

commercial users is required and 

assures a diversity of views on the 

Regional Councils. 

Comment: The wording should be 

modified as follows: ‘‘* * *the Board 

will strive to ensure that no more than

70 percent of the members represent 

subsistence interests within a region 

and no less than 30 percent of the 

members represent commercial and 

sports interests within a region. The not 

less than 30 percent of the membership 

who represent the commercial and sport 

interests shall include at least one 

representative from the sport hunting 

community and one representative from 

the commercial fishing community in 

regions where these interests exist.’’

Response: We have modified the 

wording from the proposed rule to 

reflect that we shall include at least one 

representative from the sport 

community and one representative from 

the commercial community where 

possible. We have not made the other 

suggested change, believing it to be an 

unnecessarily restrictive stipulation. 

Comment: Regional Councils should 

have an 80/20 representational balance.

Response: We have engaged in a 

thorough review and do not believe an 

80/20 split would generally provide the 

best cross-section of interests and 

balanced membership. The 70/30 ratio 

provides a clear majority for subsistence 

users and a meaningful representation 

for other users. We have retained the 70/

30 balance as a reasonable approach to 

providing the cross-section of interests 

suggested by the court ruling. 

Comment: The Councils are already 

balanced because many members 

already participate in and represent 

various interests. The representational 

balance should be derived from the 

percentage of each individual member’s 

activities. FACA does not require that 

each member make an arbitrary 

declaration of intent to support a single 

interest. An individual who primarily 

considers himself a subsistence user 

cannot represent the commercial fishing 

community simply because he holds a 

commercial fishing license. Similarly, a 

recreational hunter cannot represent the 

subsistence community simply because 

he eats the meat from the animal that he 

has hunted. 

Response: We recognize that there are 

and have been individuals serving on 

the Councils who may participate in 

many types of uses (subsistence, sport 

and commercial) and are knowledgeable 

about the different interests. However, 

we are required by FACA to 

demonstrate that the Regional Advisory 

Councils continue to be fairly balanced 

in terms of points of view represented 

and the functions to be performed by 

the Council. Consequently, we have 

requested that people applying for 

Council seats declare their primary 

interest because it is the individual 

applicant who is the most 

knowledgeable about his/her 

viewpoints. This declaration should be 

supported by the information provided 

by the applicant and by an evaluation of 

the applicant’s qualifications. This 

declaration assists the Federal 

Subsistence Board and the Secretaries in 

determining whether or not 

appointments to the Councils comply 

with the FACA requirements for 

balance. 

Comment: Each Regional Council 

should have at least one member who 

will represent the public interest in the 

management of those Park Service units 

open to subsistence activities. 

Response: In addition to the Regional 

Councils, ANILCA also designated a 

separate system of Subsistence Resource 

Commissions (16 U.S.C. 3118) to 

provide advice and recommendations 

for National Parks and Monuments 

where subsistence occurs. It has been 

our experience that the Regional 

Councils carefully consider 

recommendations of the Subsistence 

Resource Commissions. The Regional 

Councils whose regions include 

national park or monument lands 

represented by an SRC also appoint 

three members to the nine-member SRC. 

Comment: A ‘‘cross section of those 

affected’’ requires inclusion of other 

interests, such as conservation, Native 

heritage, and recreation interests. The 

Councils should include representation 

for the majority of people who do not 

want to see wildlife killed. 

Response: ANILCA Title VIII is a 

statute that provides for the taking of 

fish and wildlife on Federal lands and 

waters. Therefore, on a committee 

providing advice on the taking of fish 

and wildlife resources, only 

representatives of groups involved in 

various aspects of consumptive use of 

the resources are appropriate members. 

Groups and individuals representing 

other interests have opportunity to 

express their opinions by providing 

public testimony at Regional Council 

and Board meetings. 

Comment: Guidelines for Council 

composition should also maintain 

ethnic, gender, and geographical 

balance. 

Response: Other than the guidelines 

for membership balance, there are no 

additional regulatory guidelines used by 

the Federal Subsistence Board in 

making appointment recommendations 

to the Secretaries. However, the Board 

does consider and attempt to maximize 

various diversity factors when making 

its recommendations. The Secretaries 

consider the Board’s recommendations 

and must follow FACA and ANILCA 

requirements when making their 

appointments. 

Comment: Current subsistence 

representatives should not be displaced 

by appointments representing sport or 

commercial interests. 

Response: The 70/30 policy is to be 

implemented under a 3-year phase-in 

period to avoid displacement of sitting 

members. All members may conclude 

their current terms. We will maintain 

the FACA balance through appointment 

to open seats over a 3-year period. 

Comment: The Seward Peninsula 

Regional Council should be increased in 

size from 10 to 13. 

Response: The Board will examine 

this issue during the charter renewal 

process that will start at the fall 2004 

meeting and conclude with charter 

approval by the Secretaries in 2005. 

Comment: Evaluation panel 

guidelines should also include 

consideration of an applicant’s 

command of traditional ecological 

knowledge. 

Response: Evaluation panel 

guidelines are not a part of this 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60961

rulemaking process. However, the 

evaluation guidelines used by the Board 

do include an applicant’s knowledge of 

subsistence customs and traditions. 

Comment: The Board should evaluate 

all applicants by the same criteria. 

Response: The Board evaluates all 

applicants on these same five criteria: 

knowledge of fish and wildlife resources 

in the region, knowledge of subsistence 

customs and traditions, knowledge of 

recreational and/or commercial uses, 

leadership, and communication. 

Comment: The appointment of 

members creates divisiveness in rural 

communities. In every group or 

community there are always different 

factions. 

Response: We expect that the persons 

appointed for membership are 

individuals who can overlook 

factionalism and engage in a meaningful 

dialog that considers the views of 

various users in their area. 

Comment: The ethics disclosure 

requirement in the Regional Council 

charters is being applied too 

restrictively. 

Response: The application of the 

ethics disclosure requirement is 

coordinated with the Department of the 

Interior’s Office of the Solicitor and is 

not a part of this current rulemaking 

process. 

Conformance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Authorities 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance 

A Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for developing a 

Federal Subsistence Management 

Program was distributed for public 

comment on October 7, 1991. That 

document described the major issues 

associated with Federal subsistence 

management as identified through 

public meetings, written comments, and 

staff analysis, and examined the 

environmental consequences of four 

alternatives. Proposed regulations 

(Subparts A, B, and C) that would 

implement the preferred alternative 

were included in the DEIS as an 

appendix. The DEIS and the proposed 

administrative regulations presented a 

framework for an annual regulatory 

cycle regarding subsistence hunting and 

fishing regulations (Subpart D). The 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) was published on February 28, 

1992. 

Based on the public comment 

received, the analysis contained in the 

FEIS, and the recommendations of the 

Federal Subsistence Board and the 

Department of the Interior’s Subsistence 

Policy Group, the Secretary of the 

Interior, with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Agriculture, through the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest 

Service, implemented Alternative IV as 

identified in the DEIS and FEIS (Record 

of Decision on Subsistence Management 

for Federal Public Lands in Alaska 

(ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS 

and the selected alternative in the FEIS 

defined the administrative framework of 

an annual regulatory cycle for 

subsistence hunting and fishing 

regulations. The final rule for 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, 

B, and C (57 FR 22940, published May 

29, 1992, and amended January 8, 1999, 

64 FR 1276; June 12, 2001, 66 FR 31533; 

May 7, 2002, 67 FR 30559; and February 

18, 2003, 68 FR 7703) implemented the 

Federal Subsistence Management 

Program and included a framework for 

an annual cycle for subsistence hunting 

and fishing regulations. 

Compliance With Section 810 of 

ANILCA 

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. A Section 810 analysis was 

completed as part of the FEIS process. 

The final Section 810 analysis 

determination appeared in the April 6, 

1992, ROD, which concluded that the 

Federal Subsistence Management 

Program may have some local impacts 

on subsistence uses, but the program is 

not likely to significantly restrict 

subsistence uses. 

There is nothing in this rulemaking 

that affects the prior NEPA or Section 

810 analysis and so no additional 

analysis is required for this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act

These changes do not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. We 

may not conduct or sponsor, and you 

are not required to respond to, an 

information collection request unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Other Requirements 

Economic Effects—This rule is not a 

significant rule subject to OMB review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

rulemaking will impose no significant 

costs on small entities; this rule is 

administrative in nature only and does 

not restrict any existing sport or 

commercial fishery on the public lands, 

and subsistence fisheries will continue 

at essentially the same levels as they 

presently occur. The number of 

businesses and the amount of trade that 

will result from this Federal land related 

activity is unknown but expected to be 

insignificant. 

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 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities, which include small 

businesses, organizations, or 

governmental jurisdictions. 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. 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. 

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. 

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. 

The Secretaries have determined that 

these regulations meet the applicable 

standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 

regarding civil justice reform. 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the 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 their program meets certain 

requirements. 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

60962 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated possible effects on Federally 

recognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that there are no effects. The 

Bureau of Indian Affairs is a 

participating agency in this rulemaking. 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use. This Executive 

Order requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this rule 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 13211, affecting 

energy supply, distribution, or use, this 

action is not a significant action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Drafting Information 

William Knauer drafted these 

regulations under the guidance of 

Thomas H. Boyd of the Office of 

Subsistence Management, Alaska 

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor 

Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of 

Land Management; Greg Bos, Carl Jack, 

and Rod Simmons, Alaska Regional 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

Sandy Rabinowitch and Bob Gerhard, 

Alaska Regional Office, National Park 

Service; Warren Eastland and Dr. Glenn 

Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs; and Steve Kessler, 

USDA-Forest Service, provided 

additional guidance.

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 presented in the 

preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board 

amends Title 36, part 242, and Title 50, 

part 100, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below.

PART —SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT 

REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN 

ALASKA [AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for both 36 

CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 

continues 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.

§l.4 [Amended]

■ 2. In Subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 

50 CFR part 100, §l.4, the definition of 

‘‘Regulatory year’’ is removed.

■ 3. In Subpart B of 36 CFR part 242 and 

50 CFR part 100, §l.11(b)(1) is revised 

to read as follows:

§l.11 Regional advisory councils. 

(a) * * * 

(b) Establishment of Regional 

Councils; membership. (1) The 

Secretaries, based on Board 

recommendation, will establish the 

number of members for each Regional 

Council. To ensure that each Council 

represents a diversity of interests, the 

Board will strive to ensure that 70 

percent of the members represent 

subsistence interests within a region 

and 30 percent of the members 

represent commercial and sport 

interests within a region. The portion of 

membership that represents the 

commercial and sport interests shall 

include, where possible, at least one 

representative from the sport 

community and one representative from 

the commercial community. A Regional 

Council member must be a resident of 

the region in which he or she is 

appointed and must be knowledgeable 

about the region and subsistence uses of 

the public lands therein. The Board will 

accept nominations and make 

recommendations to the Secretaries for 

membership on the Regional Councils. 

In making their recommendations, the 

Board will identify the interest(s) the 

applicants propose to represent on the 

respective Regional Councils. The 

Secretary of the Interior with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture will make the appointments 

to the Regional Councils.

* * * * *

■ 4. In Subpart D of 36 CFR part 242 and 

50 CFR part 100, §l.25(a) is amended by 

adding the definition ‘‘Regulatory year’’

immediately before the definition ‘‘Ring 

net’’ to read as follows:

§l.25 Subsistence taking of fish, wildlife, 

and shellfish: general regulations. 

(a) * * * 

Regulatory year means July 1 through 

June 30, except for fish and shellfish for 

which it means April 1 through March 

31.

* * * * *

Dated: September 20, 2004. 

Gale A Norton, 

Secretary of the Interior, Department of the 

Interior. 

Dated: September 30, 2004. 

Dennis E. Bschor, 

Regional Forester, USDA-Forest Service.

[FR Doc. 04–22820 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA 307–0464a; FRL–7818–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from glass coating operations. 

We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 13, 2004, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 15, 2004. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http://

www.regulations.gov.

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revision, EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD), and other 

materials relevant to this action at our 

Region IX office during normal business 

hours by appointment. You may also see 

copies of the submitted SIP revision by 

appointment at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room B–102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), 

Washington, DC 20460.