Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39269 

(3) Whether the population of 

mountain whitefish in the Big Lost 

River is a separate species or subspecies. 

(4) Whether the population of 

mountain whitefish in the Big Lost 

River is discrete, as defined in the DPS 

policy, including, but not limited to, 

information indicating that the 

mountain whitefish population in the 

Big Lost River is markedly separated 

from other populations of mountain 

whitefish due to physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

(5) Whether the population of 

mountain whitefish in the Big Lost 

River is significant to the remainder of 

the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., to the 

remainder of the species of mountain 

whitefish throughout its range), as 

defined in the DPS Policy, including, 

but not limited to: 

(a) Information indicating the 

ecological setting, including such 

factors as temperature, moisture, 

weather patterns, etc., in which the Big 

Lost River population of mountain 

whitefish persists, is unusual or unique 

for the taxon; 

(b) Information indicating that the 

loss of the population of mountain 

whitefish in the Big Lost River would or 

would not result in a significant gap in 

the range of the taxon; or 

(c) Information indicating that the Big 

Lost River population of mountain 

whitefish differs markedly in its genetic 

characteristics from other populations of 

mountain whitefish in the United 

States. 

(6) If the population of mountain 

whitefish in the Big Lost River is not a 

species or subspecies, whether that 

population constitutes a significant 

portion of the range of the species or 

subspecies to which it belongs. 

(7) The effects of potential threat 

factors that are the basis for making a 

listing determination under section 4(a) 

of the Act, which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

If we determine that listing the 

population of mountain whitefish in the 

Big Lost River is warranted, it is our 

intent to propose critical habitat to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable at the time we propose to 

list the species. Therefore, with regard 

to areas within the geographical range 

currently occupied by the species, we 

also request data and information on 

what may constitute physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, where these 

features are currently found, and 

whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. In 

addition, we request data and 

information regarding whether there are 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Please provide specific 

comments and information as to what, 

if any, critical habitat you think we 

should propose for designation if 

mountain whitefish in the Big Lost 

River are proposed for listing, and why 

such habitat meets the requirements of 

the Act. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is a threatened or endangered 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ At the 

conclusion of the status review, we will 

determine whether listing is warranted, 

not warranted, or warranted but 

precluded by other pending proposals. 

You may submit your information by 

one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. If you submit 

information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee we will be able to do so. We 

will post all hardcopy submissions on 

http://www.regulations.gov. Please 

include sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. 

Information and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation 

used, will be available for public 

inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Idaho Fish and 

Wildlife Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: July 24, 2009 

James J. Slack, 

Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18802 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 0812191631–91125–02] 

RIN 0648–AX53 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence 

Fishing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

revise the criteria for rural residents to 

participate in the subsistence fishery for 

Pacific halibut in waters in and off 

Alaska. Currently, certain rural 

residents who reside in locations 

outside the legal boundaries of specified 

communities are prohibited by 

regulations from participating in the 

subsistence halibut fishery. This action 

is necessary to allow subsistence halibut 

fishing opportunities for these rural 

residents. This action is intended to 

allow inadvertently excluded rural 

residents to participate in the 

subsistence halibut fishery and to 

support the conservation and 

management provisions of the Northern 

Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than September 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 0648– 

AX53’’ by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
39270 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Federal eRulemaking Portal website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, Alaska. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and generally will be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

portable document file (pdf) formats 

only. 

Electronic copies of the Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR) prepared for this 

action, and the environmental 

assessment (EA) prepared for the 

original subsistence halibut action (68 

FR 18145; April 15, 2003) may be 

obtained from http:// 

www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska 

Region website at http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS at the 

above address and by e mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202 395 7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Carls, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Management of the Pacific halibut 

(Hippoglossus stenolepis) (hereafter 

halibut) fishery in and off Alaska is 

based on an international agreement 

between Canada and the United States. 

This agreement, entitled the 

AConvention between the United States 

of America and Canada for the 

Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of 

the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering 

Sea@ (Convention), was signed at 

Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and 

amended by the AProtocol Amending 

the Convention,@ signed at Washington, 

D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention, 

administered by the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), is 

given effect in the United States by the 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 

(Halibut Act). 

The IPHC promulgates regulations 

pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC=s 

regulations are subject to approval by 

the Secretary of State with concurrence 

from the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary). After approval by the 

Secretary of State and the Secretary, the 

IPHC regulations are published in the 

Federal Register as annual management 

measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. 

NMFS published the IPHC=s current 

annual management measures on March 

19, 2009 (74 FR 11681). 

The Halibut Act also authorizes the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) to develop halibut 

fishery regulations, including limited 

access regulations, in its geographic area 

of concern that would apply to nationals 

or vessels of the United States (Halibut 

Act, section 773(c)). Such an action by 

the Council is limited to only those 

regulations that are in addition to, and 

not in conflict with, IPHC regulations. 

Council-developed regulations must be 

approved and implemented by the 

Secretary. Any allocation of halibut 

fishing privileges must be fair and 

equitable and consistent with other 

applicable Federal law. The Council 

used its authority under the Halibut Act 

to recommend a subsistence halibut 

program in October 2000 to recognize 

and manage the subsistence fishery for 

halibut. Like the original subsistence 

halibut program and subsequent 

amendments to it, this action was 

developed by the Council under the 

authority of the Halibut Act. 

The Halibut Act at sections 773c (a) 

and (b) provides the Secretary with the 

general responsibility to carry out the 

Convention with the authority to, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the 

department in which the U.S. Coast 

Guard is operating (currently the 

Secretary of Homeland Security), adopt 

such regulations as may be necessary to 

carry out the purposes and objectives of 

the Convention and the Halibut Act. 

The Secretary has delegated authority to 

NMFS to implement the Halibut Act. 

Need for Action 

The subsistence halibut regulations 

authorize eligible persons to conduct 

subsistence halibut fishing in waters in 

and off Alaska. Currently, a person is 

eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if 

he or she is a rural resident of a 

community with customary and 

traditional uses of halibut that is listed 

in the tables at § 300.65(g)(1) (hereafter 

‘‘listed community’’), or a member of an 

Alaska Native tribe with customary and 

traditional uses of halibut that is listed 

in the tables at § 300.65(g)(2). Persons 

eligible to fish must possess a 

subsistence halibut registration 

certificate (SHARC) to exercise the 

privilege. 

The definition of the term ‘‘rural 

resident’’ is the primary issue in this 

proposed action. For purposes of the 

subsistence halibut program, a rural 

resident currently is defined as a person 

domiciled in a listed community, who 

has maintained a domicile in a listed 

rural community for the 12 consecutive 

months immediately preceding the time 

when the assertion of residence is made, 

and who is not claiming residency in 

another state, territory, or country. A 

minimum threshold of 25 residents was 

used when the list of eligible rural 

places originally was developed by the 

Council and approved by the Secretary. 

The list of rural communities was 

developed by the Council based on 

customary and traditional findings for 

halibut and bottomfish made by the 

State of Alaska Board of Fisheries 

(Board). Therefore, the process for 

including additional communities in the 

subsistence halibut program has been 

for an interested party to first send a 

written request to the Board that then 

may recommend inclusion of additional 

communities in the subsistence halibut 

program. 

The current regulations have 

inadvertent, adverse impacts on some 

rural residents; individuals who reside 

outside the boundaries of designated 

communities do not qualify for a 

SHARC. The boundaries of many rural 

Alaska communities are not adjacent to 

the boundaries of other communities 

due to Alaska’s large size and relatively 

sparse population. Areas between 

incorporated communities are 

unincorporated areas. Individuals who 

reside in these extremely remote 

locations between listed communities 

likely have the same if not greater 

customary and traditional use of halibut 

as currently eligible participants, and 

otherwise may be deemed eligible to 

participate in the subsistence halibut 

program except for the location of their 

residence outside the boundaries of a 

listed community. Initially, SHARCs 

were issued to individuals who resided 

close to listed communities. Beginning 

in 2007, SHARCs have been denied to 

individuals who previously received 

them because these individuals reside 

outside the legal boundaries of listed 

communities. SHARCs were either 

returned voluntarily or were not 

renewed by NMFS. 

Description of the Proposed Action 

The Council used a community-based 

approach to determine rural eligibility 

in its original subsistence halibut action 

as cited in the proposed rule published 

August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54767). In June 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39271 

2008, the Council revised its policy 

based on information that numerous 

individuals and their families have been 

disadvantaged under the current 

regulations. The Council recommended 

a wider geographic scope for rural 

resident eligibility to include 

individuals who reside in remote 

homesteads outside the boundaries of 

listed communities. The Council 

determined that those individuals or 

families in remote locations within the 

subsistence halibut use areas of Alaska 

practice the same patterns of use as 

residents of nearby listed communities 

that have customary and traditional 

uses, and, therefore, should be eligible 

to participate in subsistence fishing for 

halibut. 

The Council’s original intent for the 

subsistence halibut program was to 

allow persons who had customarily and 

traditionally used halibut for food in the 

past to continue in that practice. This 

action would amend the regulations to 

conform the subsistence halibut 

program regulations to the Council=s 

original intent for the program. If the 

proposed action is implemented, 

additional rural residents of Alaska 

south of Cape Espenberg who reside 

within a designated ten-statute-mile 

boundary adjacent to the waters of the 

Bering Sea and Pacific Ocean or in other 

designated places, and who do not 

reside in specified non-rural areas, 

would be eligible to subsistence fish for 

halibut. This action would include in 

the subsistence halibut program certain 

individuals who live a subsistence 

lifestyle and who rely on halibut as a 

customary and traditional source of food 

for themselves and their families, but 

who do not reside in a listed 

community. This action would provide 

them with the subsistence halibut 

fishing opportunities contemplated in 

the original subsistence halibut 

program. 

The proposed change in the criteria 

for rural eligibility does not include 

residents living in non-rural areas and 

does not apply to Alaska Native tribal 

members. To include non-rural 

residents would expand subsistence 

eligibility beyond the Council’s original 

intent. Members of Alaska Native tribes 

listed at § 300.65(g)(2) are eligible for 

SHARCs regardless of the location of 

their residences. Therefore, the 

discussion of rural versus non-rural 

eligibility in the preamble of this 

proposed action does not apply to 

Alaska Native tribal members. Members 

of Alaska Native tribes would not be 

directly affected by this action. 

When the Council considered the 

areas to include as rural areas for 

purposes of the subsistence halibut 

program, it consulted with State of 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Subsistence Division experts regarding 

customary and traditional use of the 

halibut resource. Cape Espenberg was 

chosen as the northern limit of the rural 

area because it is the most prominent 

point of land north of the northern most 

listed community of Shishmaref, 

Alaska. The ten-statute-mile limit was 

selected to define a band of land that 

included listed communities so that 

people living between listed 

communities would become eligible 

under this action. The land areas 

adjacent to the current non-subsistence 

marine waters areas are proposed to be 

included as non-subsistence areas. 

Approximately 600 additional rural 

residents could be expected to receive 

SHARCs according to estimates in the 

RIR prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). Most of these rural 

residents reside in the Kodiak Island 

Borough. Some of these rural residents 

previously had received a SHARC but 

were later found to be ineligible based 

on a closer examination of the 

regulatory language. These rural 

residents may have fed their families 

with halibut harvested under sport 

fishing regulations or by purchasing 

other protein sources from commercial 

entities. Up to 9,400 residents may 

benefit from this action through the 

customary and traditional practices of 

sharing food. Currently, the affected 

rural residents may harvest halibut with 

a sport fishing license, but the sport 

daily bag limits are smaller than are 

allowed under subsistence halibut 

regulations. This action would reduce 

the cost of acquiring halibut for 

subsistence purposes, reduce associated 

fishing time and effort, and provide 

comparable opportunity to harvest this 

subsistence resource for the affected 

rural residents to that enjoyed by 

residents of listed communities. 

The amount of halibut that is 

projected to be harvested under this 

action is small compared to the harvest 

in the commercial and sport fisheries. 

The subsistence halibut harvest was 

estimated to be 1.4 percent, or 1,032,293 

lb, of the total halibut removals of 

74,389,000 lb in 2007, the most recent 

year for which subsistence harvest 

information is available. This action is 

expected to increase the subsistence 

halibut harvest by 105,000 lb, or about 

10 percent of the current subsistence 

halibut harvest. However, without this 

action, some of this expected increase in 

the subsistence halibut harvest would 

be harvested as part of the sport fishery 

for halibut. 

Under the proposed regulations, rural 

residents would be considered eligible 

to participate in the subsistence halibut 

program if they met the criteria for rural 

residency under one of two options. 

First, a person would continue to be 

considered a rural resident if he or she 

were domiciled in a community 

specified at § 300.65(g)(1). Second, 

under the new definition for a rural 

area, a person would be considered a 

rural resident if he or she were 

domiciled in one of the following rural 

areas of Alaska that would be listed at 

§ 300.65(g)(3): 

• Southeast Alaska east of 141° W. 

long., except for the land areas of the 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough as these 

areas are described below, the land 

areas of the City and Borough of Juneau, 

and the Ketchikan and Juneau nonsubsistence marine waters areas (see 

Figures 2 and 3); 

• The Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian 

Islands, Kodiak Island Archipelago, and 

the area south of the northern boundary 

of the Bristol Bay Borough and south of 

58° 39.2′ N. lat. (see Figures 5, 6, and 

7); 

• Nelson, Nunivak, and Saint 

Lawrence Islands (see Figure 6); and 

• All other areas of Alaska within ten 

statute miles of mean high water on the 

Bering Sea and Pacific Ocean coasts, 

south of Cape Espenberg, including 

along the Kuskokwim River to Bethel, 

and that are not specified as non-rural 

areas and that are not specified as the 

Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai or Valdez nonsubsistence marine waters areas (see 

Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7). 

The area along the Kuskokwim River 

to Bethel was not specified in the 

Council’s action, but was specifically 

included on the maps delineating rural 

areas in the RIR (see ADDRESSES) used by 

the Council when it took action. This 

rural area along the Kuskokwim River is 

beyond ten statute miles from the 

marine coastline of the Bering Sea and 

would leave a gap between the rural 

community of Bethel and Kuskokwim 

Bay. The State of Alaska has determined 

that the rural residents of this area 

historically participated in the 

customary and traditional harvest of 

subsistence halibut. Therefore NMFS is 

proposing this modification to the 

Council’s preferred alternative. 

Additionally, the Council adopted 

language specifying the area ‘‘south of 

the Bristol Bay Borough’’ but this is 

vague. The maps used by the Council to 

describe the boundaries in this area 

clearly show that the entire Bristol Bay 

Borough is to be included, so the 

proposed regulations clarify that the 

area south of the northern boundary of 

the Bristol Bay Borough is included as 

a rural area. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
39272 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

An applicant for a rural SHARC 

would be required to maintain a 

domicile in a rural area of Alaska for the 

12 consecutive months immediately 

preceding the time when the assertion 

of residence is made, and not claim 

residency in another state, territory, or 

country. The definitions for ‘‘rural’’ and 

‘‘rural resident’’ listed at § 300.61 would 

be revised to include the residents of 

these newly described rural areas. 

Other alternatives for expanding the 

areas defined as rural were considered 

but rejected. The addition of small 

communities to the list of eligible places 

would have continued to exclude 

individuals who reside outside the 

boundaries of listed communities and 

likely would have resulted in continued 

petitions to add to the list of places with 

customary and traditional use of 

halibut. Another alternative that was 

considered, and on which the Council’s 

preferred alternative was based, was less 

specific in its descriptions of included 

areas. 

The proposed action would require 

specification of non-rural areas. A 

resident of a non-rural area does not 

qualify for a SHARC. Currently, rural 

residents must reside within 

communities specified in regulations at 

§ 300.65(g)(1) to be considered eligible 

for SHARCs. As a result, specifying the 

boundaries of non-rural areas has been 

unnecessary. However, expansion of the 

rural resident definition as proposed 

would require definitive specification of 

non-rural areas as exceptions to the 

proposed rural areas. In general, the 

non-rural areas would be those land 

areas adjacent to the current nonsubsistence marine waters areas and 

would include the non-subsistence 

marine waters areas. The Council 

recommended that the boundaries for 

the non-rural areas match the 

boundaries for ‘‘non-subsistence use 

areas’’ established by the State of Alaska 

Joint Board of Fisheries and Game. This 

recommendation was made because 

these boundaries were determined by 

the State of Alaska based on the role of 

subsistence uses in the economy and 

not on population size. Also, the marine 

boundaries of these areas were used to 

set the boundaries of the current nonsubsistence marine waters areas. The 

descriptions of the boundaries that are 

used by the State of Alaska (5AAC 

99.015) were analyzed to determine the 

geographic coordinates that precisely 

define those boundaries. For the Juneau 

non-rural area alone, this resulted 

initially in a table of 3,000 geographic 

coordinates. By ignoring some minor 

turns of the boundary, this could be 

simplified to hundreds of geographic 

coordinates for one non-rural area. 

NMFS determined that a long, multipage table for each non-rural area would 

not be practical for public use or for 

NMFS staff who must determine 

whether an applicant for a SHARC is 

domiciled in a specified rural area. 

Therefore, NMFS proposes in this 

action to use the legal boundaries for 

cities and boroughs adjacent to the nonsubsistence marine waters areas, 

excluding the southern tip of the Kenai 

Peninsula (see Figure 5), to describe the 

non-rural land areas. The current nonsubsistence marine waters areas would 

be retained because they do not always 

match the marine boundaries of the 

non-rural cities and boroughs and they 

purposely were chosen to match the 

‘‘non-subsistence use area’’ boundaries 

used by the State of Alaska. The land 

areas of the following cities and 

boroughs would be non-rural areas for 

the purposes of the subsistence halibut 

fishery: the Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

as those boundaries existed on May 18, 

2008; the City and Borough of Juneau; 

the Greater Anchorage Area Borough; 

the Matanuska-Susitna Borough; the 

Kenai Peninsula Borough, excluding the 

southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula that 

includes the Seldovia Census 

Designated Place; and the City of 

Valdez. For comparison, the maps that 

show the areas the Council designated 

as non-subsistence areas are included in 

the RIR for this action (see ADDRESSES). 

The land area in the Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough that would be 

designated as non-rural would fall 

within the boundaries of the borough 

prior to its annexation of 4,510 square 

miles (11,681 square kilometers) on May 

19, 2008. These older boundaries would 

be described at § 300.65(g)(4)(i) and 

closely match the boundaries adopted in 

the Council action on June 4, 2008. 

Also, these boundaries closely match 

the Ketchikan Nonsubsistence Area 

established by the State of Alaska. The 

current boundaries of the Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough encompass a much 

larger area than that recommended by 

the Council as the Ketchikan non-rural 

area and, therefore, were rejected by 

NMFS as the boundaries to describe the 

Ketchikan non-rural area. The status of 

the municipality of Saxman would be 

unaffected by this action; Saxman 

would remain a listed community under 

this proposed rule. 

The land area in the Kenai Peninsula 

Borough that would be designated as 

rural would include the Seldovia 

Census Designated Place, the area south 

and west of that place, and the area 

south and west of a line that runs from 

59° 27.5′ N lat., 151° 31.7′ W. long. to 

59° 12.5′ N lat., 151° 18.5′ W. long., as 

shown in Figure 5. This area of the 

Kenai Peninsula Borough was specified 

as a rural area in the Council’s 

recommendation and closely matches 

the boundary established by the State of 

Alaska for the ‘‘Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai 

Nonsubsistence Area.’’ 

The land area enclosed by these city 

and borough boundaries are close to the 

Council’s recommendation; however, 

more land area would be classified as 

rural under this proposal than was 

recommended by the Council. The 

proposed non-rural boundaries would 

not include any land area that was 

classified as rural under the Council’s 

action. In fact, the proposed boundaries 

would classify as rural some land areas 

outside city or borough boundaries that 

would have been classified as non-rural 

under the Council’s recommendation. 

The proposed non-rural area boundaries 

would be consistent with the current 

regulations that limit eligible rural 

residents to those who reside within the 

boundaries of specified rural 

communities. Finally, the proposed 

descriptions of non-rural areas would 

greatly simplify the regulations for 

public and agency use rather than tables 

of hundreds and potentially thousands 

of geographic coordinates for complex 

non-rural areas. NMFS anticipates that 

applicants might know, or could readily 

determine, whether their domiciles are 

located inside or outside of non-rural 

city or borough boundaries based on the 

tax status of the properties. The nonsubsistence marine waters areas’ 

boundaries would remain unchanged, 

except for correcting an error to the 

southern boundary for Valdez that is 

discussed below. 

The current figures that display the 

‘‘non-subsistence marine waters areas’’ 

described at § 300.65(h)(3) in which 

subsistence fishing for halibut is 

prohibited would be revised to include 

the adjacent non-rural land areas. These 

revised figures would show the rural 

and non-rural areas of Southern 

Southeast Alaska, including Ketchikan; 

Northern Southeast Alaska, including 

Juneau; Prince William Sound, 

including Valdez; and AnchorageMatsu-Kenai. Two new figures would be 

added to show the rural and non-rural 

areas of the Alaska Peninsula and 

Aleutian Islands and of Western and 

Central Alaska. Because revised and 

new figures are included with this 

action, the references to figure numbers 

would be revised under § 300.65 at 

paragraphs (j)(3)(i)(B), (k)(3)(i)(A), and 

(k)(3)(i)(B). 

The southern boundary for the Valdez 

non-subsistence marine waters area 

would be corrected in the regulations at 

§ 300.65(h)(3)(iv). The coordinates for 

the boundaries used in the original 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39273 

subsistence halibut regulations (68 FR 

18145; April 15, 2003) were believed to 

match the boundary of the City of 

Valdez. However, an error in converting 

the legal description of the boundaries 

of the City of Valdez into geographic 

coordinates was discovered in preparing 

the analysis for this action. Therefore, 

this regulatory amendment would revise 

the southern boundary from waters 

north of 61° 02.24′ N. lat., to waters 

north of 61° 01.38′ N. lat. This would 

move the boundary farther south by 

5,300 ft (1,620 m). The maps provided 

to the Council and to the public for the 

June 2008 meeting reflected this 

revision. 

The SHARC application would be 

revised to incorporate the changes that 

would be necessitated by this action. 

Currently, one combined application is 

used by rural residents and by Alaska 

Native tribal members. To simplify the 

application process for the public, 

separate applications would be used by 

rural residents and by Alaska Native 

tribal members. Additionally, the 

regulations at § 300.65(i)(2) would be 

revised to simplify the application 

requirements that are listed in the 

regulations. The SHARC application 

requirements for a rural resident would 

include indicating the basis upon which 

the applicant is eligible to harvest 

subsistence halibut as a rural resident. 

Additional requirements would include 

listing a post office box number, 

describing the physical location of the 

domicile if there is no street address, 

and adding Aor area@ to the 

requirement to list the community that 

qualifies the fisherman as eligible to fish 

for subsistence halibut. The SHARC 

application for an Alaska Native tribal 

member would clearly state what is 

needed for address or location 

information and include listing the 

community or area of residence, and 

would no longer require the dates of 

residence in a community because that 

information is not necessary for an 

Alaska Native tribal member. 

The specific location of any SHARC 

holder’s domicile would be provided on 

the SHARC application due to 

regulations related to cash 

reimbursement for subsistence halibut 

fishing expenses. Cash reimbursement 

for subsistence halibut is restricted to 

actual trip expenses for ice, bait, food, 

and fuel directly related to the harvest 

of subsistence halibut because it is 

illegal for subsistence halibut to enter 

the commercial market. Regulations at 

§ 300.66(j)(1) and § 300.66(j)(2) limit the 

reimbursement of a fisherman’s actual 

expenses to residents of the same 

community for people who are not 

members of an Alaska Native tribe. 

Therefore, regulations at § 300.66(j)(1) 

and § 300.66(j)(2) would be revised to 

include: (A) references to the proposed 

new qualification for a rural resident 

that would be described at 

§ 300.65(g)(3), and (B) a limit for 

qualified persons who reside outside 

listed rural communities, that the 

fisherman’s actual expenses could be 

reimbursed only by those rural residents 

who reside within ten statute miles of 

the rural location listed on the 

fisherman§ s SHARC application. The 

ten-statute-mile limit was selected by 

NMFS to match the boundary that 

would be described at § 300.65(g)(3)(iv) 

and to maintain the intent of the 

Council to limit the scope of 

reimbursement to residents of a 

localized area. NMFS is seeking public 

comment regarding the size of this tenstatute-mile limit. 

Additionally, the text at § 300.66(j)(2) 

would be revised to specify that Alaska 

Native tribal members may be 

reimbursed for only actual expenses for 

ice, bait, food and fuel. The words 

‘‘actual expenses’’ were inadvertently 

omitted from the regulatory text. This 

revision would parallel the construction 

that is used at § 300.66(j)(1) regarding 

reimbursement of rural residents. 

The SHARC application for a rural 

resident would include the requirement 

to provide the name, complete mailing 

address, and phone number of an adult 

age 18 years or older who can verify that 

the residence listed by the applicant is 

the applicant’s domicile and that it was 

the applicant§ s domicile for 12 months 

prior to the date of the application. The 

verifying person may not be the 

applicant’s wife, husband, parent, or 

child and may not be living at the rural 

residence listed by the applicant. This 

requirement for a verifier would 

enhance the ability of NMFS to discern 

whether a SHARC applicant is truly 

qualified as a rural resident eligible to 

fish for subsistence halibut. 

Other Regulatory Changes 

Several other minor changes to the 

regulations are proposed. First, a 

definition for SHARC, which is the 

documentation, issued by NMFS, of the 

registration required to participate in 

subsistence fishing, would be added to 

the regulations at § 300.61 because that 

term is used in the current and 

proposed regulations but is not defined. 

Second, the regulations at § 300.65(g) 

would be revised to include a reference 

to the new qualification for a rural 

resident described at § 300.65(g)(3). 

Third, a misspelling of Sheldon Point 

(Nunam Iqua) would be corrected in the 

regulations at § 300.65(g)(2) in the table 

for the IPHC halibut regulatory area 4E. 

Fourth, the regulations at § 300.65(h)(3) 

would no longer specify ‘‘non-rural 

areas’’ but ‘‘non-subsistence marine 

waters areas’’ instead, therefore, 

regulations at § 300.65(h)(4) and 

§ 300.66(g) would be revised to reflect 

that change. Finally, the meaning of the 

‘‘area of tribal membership’’ that is 

defined at § 300.65(h)(4)(iii) would be 

revised to specify that this means the 

IPHC regulatory area under which an 

organized tribal entity is listed at 

§ 300.65(g)(2), or the area of the Bering 

Sea that is closed to commercial halibut 

fishing and adjacent to the rural area in 

which the Alaska Native tribal 

headquarters is located. 

Classification 

Regulations governing the U.S. 

fisheries for Pacific halibut are 

developed by the IPHC, the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, the 

Council, and the Secretary. Section 5 of 

the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows 

the Regional Council having authority 

for a particular geographical area to 

develop regulations governing the 

allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. 

Convention waters as long as those 

regulations do not conflict with IPHC 

regulations. The proposed action is 

consistent with the Council’s authority 

and the Secretary’s authority to allocate 

halibut catches among fishery 

participants in the waters in and off 

Alaska. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

This proposed rule also complies with 

the Secretary’s authority under the 

Halibut Act to implement management 

measures for the halibut fishery. 

The Chief Council for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Basis and Purpose of Rule 

The United States and Canada 

participate in the International Pacific 

Halibut Commission (IPHC) and 

promulgate regulations governing the 

Pacific halibut (hereafter halibut) fishery 

under the authority of the Northern 

Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut 

Act). The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) may 

develop regulations governing the 

allocation and catch of halibut in its 

area of concern that would apply to 

nationals or vessels of the United States 

and that are in agreement with IPHC 

regulations. The Secretary of Commerce 

must approve regulations recommended 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
39274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

by the Council before implementation 

by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). The Council prepared 

an environmental assessment/regulatory 

impact review (EA/RIR) for subsistence 

halibut fisheries in January 2003, and 

NMFS published the final rule to 

implement subsistence halibut 

regulations in April 2003 (68 FR 18145). 

These regulations include criteria, based 

on community of residence, for rural 

residents to qualify as participants in 

the subsistence halibut fishery. 

The criteria for rural residency that 

were approved in 2003 would be 

revised under the proposed rule in order 

for more Alaskans with customary and 

traditional use of halibut to participate 

in the subsistence halibut fishery in 

waters in and off Alaska. Beginning in 

2007, based on a closer examination of 

the regulatory language, subsistence 

halibut registration certificates that 

permit fishermen to subsistence fish for 

halibut have been denied to individuals 

who previously received them. These 

rural residents were determined to be 

ineligible because they reside outside 

the legal boundaries of communities 

specified in the regulations. Individuals 

who reside in these extremely remote 

locations likely have the same if not 

greater customary and traditional use of 

halibut as currently eligible 

participants, and otherwise may be 

deemed eligible to participate in the 

subsistence halibut program except for 

the location of their residence outside 

the boundaries of a specified 

community. 

This action is necessary to allow 

subsistence halibut fishing 

opportunities for these affected rural 

residents. Currently, the affected rural 

residents may harvest halibut with a 

sport fishing license, but the sport daily 

bag limits may be smaller than would be 

allowed under the subsistence halibut 

fishery. The intended effect of this 

action is to reduce the cost of acquiring 

subsistence halibut, reduce associated 

fishing time and effort, and provide 

comparable opportunity to harvest this 

subsistence resource for the affected 

rural residents. 

Factual Basis for Certification 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Rule 

Applies 

No small entities would be directly 

regulated by the proposed rule. Small 

entities are defined as small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions in Section 

601(3)-(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) of 1980. This action would 

apply uniquely to individual natural 

persons who are not considered small 

entities within the meaning of the RFA. 

All of the persons that would be 

directly regulated by the action are 

natural persons. The proposed 

subsistence halibut regulation at 50 CFR 

300.65(g)(3) would specify that ‘‘A 

person is eligible to harvest subsistence 

halibut if he or she is a resident in one 

of the rural areas of Alaska described [in 

this paragraph].’’ The regulations further 

specify at § 300.61 that halibut caught 

for subsistence purposes is defined as 

halibut caught by a rural resident or a 

member of an Alaska Native tribe for 

direct personal or family consumption 

as food, sharing for personal or family 

consumption as food, or customary 

trade. Additionally, the definition for 

rural resident only specifies that an 

individual, clearly indicating a natural 

person, may qualify to be a rural 

resident. 

Description and Estimate of Economic 

Impacts on Small Entities by Entity Size 

and Industry 

No small entities are directly 

regulated by the proposed rule. 

Therefore, there are no economic 

impacts on directly regulated small 

entities. 

Criteria Used to Evaluate Whether the 

Rule Would Impose Impacts on ‘‘A 

Substantial Number’’ of Small Entities 

The Small Business Administration 

criteria for what constitutes a small 

entity, described in Section 601(6) of the 

RFA, and the definition of a business 

concern that appears at 13 CFR 121.105 

were used to determine that there are no 

impacts on any small entities. Only 

individual natural persons would be 

directly regulated by this proposed rule 

and such persons are not considered 

small entities under Small Business 

Administration guidelines. 

Criteria Used to Evaluate Whether the 

Rule Would Impose ‘‘Significant 

Economic Impacts’’ 

Because no small entities are directly 

regulated by the proposed rule, no 

criteria were applied. 

Description of, and an Explanation of 

the Basis for, Assumptions Used 

The finding that no small entities 

would be directly regulated by this 

action is based on the definition of 

small entities in the RFA and 

implementing regulations, and a 

determination that only individual 

natural persons, and not small entities, 

would be directly regulated by the 

proposed action. 

As a result, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required and 

none has been prepared. 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection of information requirement 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) and which has been approved by 

OMB under control number 0648 0460. 

Public reporting burden for the SHARC 

applications for a rural resident or an 

Alaska Native tribal member are each 

estimated to average ten minutes per 

response. This estimate includes the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202 395 7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Executive Order 13175 of November 

6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the 

Executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Policy of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the 

responsibilities of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service in matters affecting 

tribal interests. Section 161 of Public 

Law 108–199 (188 Stat 452), as 

amended by section 518 of Public Law 

108–447 (118 Stat 3267), extends the 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 to Alaska Native 

corporations. Consultations occurred 

with the Alaska Native Subsistence 

Halibut Working Group in December 

2008, pursuant to the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 

Alaska, Alaska Natives, Fisheries, 

Pacific halibut fisheries, Recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart E is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39275 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries 

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 300, subpart E continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k. 

2. In § 300.61 revise the definitions for 

‘‘Rural’’ and ‘‘Rural resident’’ and add a 

new definition for ‘‘Subsistence halibut 

registration certificate (SHARC)’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 300.61 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Rural means, for purposes of the 

subsistence fishery for Pacific halibut in 

waters in and off Alaska, a community 

of Alaska listed at § 300.65(g)(1) or an 

area of Alaska described at 

§ 300.65(g)(3) in which the noncommercial, customary, and traditional 

use of fish and game for personal or 

family consumption is a principal 

characteristic of the economy or area 

and in which there is a long-term, 

customary, and traditional use of 

halibut. 

Rural resident means, for purposes of 

the subsistence fishery for Pacific 

halibut in waters in and off Alaska:(1) 

An individual domiciled in a rural 

community listed in the table at 

§ 300.65(g)(1) and who has maintained a 

domicile in rural communities listed in 

the table at § 300.65(g)(1), or in rural 

areas described at § 300.65(g)(3), for the 

12 consecutive months immediately 

preceding the time when the assertion 

of residence is made, and who is not 

claiming residency in another state, 

territory, or country; or 

(2) An individual domiciled in a rural 

area described at § 300.65(g)(3) and who 

has maintained a domicile in rural areas 

described at § 300.65(g)(3), or in rural 

communities listed in the table at 

§ 300.65(g)(1), for the 12 consecutive 

months immediately preceding the time 

when the assertion of residence is made, 

and who is not claiming residency in 

another state, territory, or country. 

* * * * * 

Subsistence halibut registration 

certificate (SHARC) means 

documentation, issued by NMFS, of the 

registration required at § 300.65(i). 

* * * * * 

3. In § 300.65: 

A. Revise paragraphs (g) introductory 

text, (h)(3) introductory text, (h)(3)(iii) 

introductory text, (h)(3)(iv), (h)(4) 

introductory text, (h)(4)(iii), (i)(2), 

(j)(3)(i)(B), (k)(3)(i)(A) introductory text, 

and (k)(3)(i)(B). 

B. In paragraph (g)(2), in the table 

entitled ‘‘Halibut Regulatory Area 4E’’, 

revise the entry for ‘‘Sheldon Point 

(Nuna Iqua)’’. 

C. Add new paragraphs (g)(3) and 

(g)(4). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic 

management measures in waters in and off 

Alaska. 

* * * * * 

(g) Subsistence fishing in and off 

Alaska. No person shall engage in 

subsistence fishing for halibut unless 

that person meets the requirements in 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

HALIBUT REGULATORY AREA 4E 

Place with Tribal 

Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity 

*****

Sheldon Point 

(Nunam Iqua) Native Village of 

Sheldon’s Point 

*****

(3) A person is eligible to harvest 

subsistence halibut if he or she is a rural 

resident in one of the rural areas of 

Alaska described as follows: 

(i) Southeast Alaska east of 141 W. 

long., except for the land areas of the 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough as 

described at (g)(4)(i) of this section, the 

land areas of the City and Borough of 

Juneau, and the Ketchikan and Juneau 

non-subsistence marine waters areas as 

defined in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and 

(h)(3)(ii) of this section (see figures 2 

and 3 to this subpart E). 

(ii) The Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian 

Islands, Kodiak Island Archipelago, and 

the area south of the northern boundary 

of the Bristol Bay Borough and south of 

58° 39.2′ N. lat. (see figures 5, 6, and 7 

to this subpart E). 

(iii) Nelson, Nunivak, and Saint 

Lawrence Islands (see figure 6 to this 

subpart E). 

(iv) All other areas of Alaska within 

ten statute miles of mean high water on 

the Bering Sea and Pacific Ocean coasts, 

south of Cape Espenberg, including 

along the Kuskokwim River to Bethel, 

and that are not specified as non-rural 

land or water areas as defined in 

paragraph (g)(4) of this section (see 

figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 to this subpart E). 

(4) Non-rural areas consist of the nonsubsistence marine waters areas defined 

in paragraph (h)(3) of this section and 

the land areas of the following cities and 

boroughs for purposes of the subsistence 

fishery for Pacific halibut in waters in 

and off Alaska: 

(i) The Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

on May 18, 2008. This area encompasses 

all those islands bounded on the east, 

north, and west by Behm Canal, Behm 

Narrow, and Clarence Strait to its 

junction with Nichols Passage, and on 

the south by Nichols and Revillagigedo 

Channel to its junction with Behm 

Canal. The designated boundaries 

extend to the center line of Behm Canal, 

Behm Narrows, Clarence Strait, Nichols 

Passage, and Revillagigedo Channel, and 

include all the area of Revillagigedo, 

Gravina, Pennock, Betton, Grant and 

other Clover Passage and Naha Bay 

Islands, Hassler, Gedney, Black, 

Smeaton, Manzanita, Rudyerd, and Bold 

Islands, and all other offshore and 

adjacent islands and inlets thereto (see 

figure 2 to this subpart E). 

(ii) The City and Borough of Juneau 

(see figure 3 to this subpart E). 

(iii) The Greater Anchorage Area 

Borough (see figures 4 and 5 to this 

subpart E). 

(iv) The Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

(see figure 5 to this subpart E). 

(v) The Kenai Peninsula Borough 

excluding the area of the Seldovia 

Census Designated Place, the area south 

and west of that place, and the area 

south and west of a line that runs from 

59 27.5′ N. lat., 151° 31.7′ W. long. to 

59° 12.5′ N. lat., 151° 18.5′ W. long (see 

figure 5 to this subpart E). 

(vi) The City of Valdez (see figures 4 

and 5 to this subpart E). 

(h) * * * 

(3) Subsistence fishing may be 

conducted in any waters in and off 

Alaska except in the four nonsubsistence marine waters areas defined 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

(iii) The Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai nonsubsistence marine waters area in 

Commission Regulatory Area 3A (see 

figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 to this subpart E) 

is defined as: 

* * * * * 

(iv) Valdez non subsistence marine 

waters area in Commission regulatory 

area 3A (see figures 4 and 5 to this 

subpart E) is defined as the waters of 

Port Valdez and Valdez Arm located 

north of 61° 01.38′ N. lat., and east of 

146° 43.80′ W. long. 

(4) Waters in and off Alaska that are 

not specifically identified as nonsubsistence marine waters areas in 

paragraph (h)(3) of this section are rural 

for purposes of subsistence fishing for 

halibut. Subsistence fishing may be 

conducted in any rural area by any 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
39276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

person with a valid subsistence halibut 

registration certificate in his or her 

name issued by NMFS under paragraph 

(i) of this section, except that: 

* * * * * 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph 

(h)(4), Aarea of tribal membership@ 

means rural areas of the Commission 

regulatory area under which the 

Organized Tribal Entity is listed in the 

tables set out in paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section, or the Bering Sea closed area 

adjacent to the rural area in which the 

Alaska Native tribal headquarters is 

located. 

(i) * * * 

(2) Registration. To register as a 

subsistence halibut fisherman, a person 

may request a cooperating Alaska Native 

tribal government or other entity 

designated by NMFS to submit an 

application on his or her behalf to the 

Alaska Region, NMFS. Alternatively, a 

person may apply by submitting a 

completed application to the Alaska 

Region, NMFS. Application forms are 

available on the NMFS Alaska Region 

website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. Applications must be mailed 

to: Restricted Access Management 

Program, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

NMFS will process a SHARC 

Application for an Alaska Native Tribal 

Member or a SHARC Application for a 

Rural Resident provided that a paper 

application is completed, with all 

applicable fields accurately filled-in, 

and all required additional 

documentation is attached. The 

applicant must sign and date the 

application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Within the Ketchikan, Juneau, 

Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai, and Valdez 

non-subsistence marine waters areas as 

defined in paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section (see figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 

to this subpart E). 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) In the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai 

non-subsistence marine waters area 

defined in paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section (see figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 to this 

subpart E), only the following tribes 

may use a Ceremonial or Educational 

permit: 

* * * * * 

(B) In the Valdez non-subsistence 

marine waters area defined in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section (see figures 4 and 

5 to this subpart E), only the Native 

Village of Tatitlek may use a Ceremonial 

or Educational permit. 

* * * * * 

4. In § 300.66, revise paragraphs (g), 

(j)(1), and (j)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 300.66 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Fish for subsistence halibut in and 

off Alaska in a non-subsistence marine 

waters area specified at 300.65(h)(3). 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) Persons who qualify as rural 

residents under § 300.65(g)(1) or (g)(3) 

and hold a SHARC in the person’s name 

under § 300.65(i) may be reimbursed for 

actual expenses for ice, bait, food, and 

fuel directly related to subsistence 

fishing for halibut, by residents of the 

same rural community or by rural 

residents residing within ten statute 

miles of the rural location listed on the 

person’s SHARC application; or 

(2) Persons who qualify as Alaska 

Native tribal members under 

§ 300.65(g)(2) and hold a SHARC in the 

person’s name under § 300.65(i) may be 

reimbursed for actual expenses for ice, 

bait, food, and fuel directly related to 

subsistence fishing for halibut, by any 

Alaska Native tribe, or its members, or 

residents of the same rural community 

or by rural residents residing within ten 

statute miles of the rural location listed 

on the person’s SHARC application. 

* * * * * 

5. Revise figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 to 

subpart E of part 300 and add figures 6 

and 7 to subpart E of part 300 to read 

as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39277 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06AU09.045</GPH>
39278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06AU09.046</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39279 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06AU09.047</GPH>
39280 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06AU09.048</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39281 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06AU09.049</GPH>
39282 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. E9–18841 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06AU09.050</GPH>