Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37863

understanding the rule so that they can

better evaluate its effects on them and

participate in the rulemaking process.

Small entities may contact the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT for assistance in understanding

and participating in this rulemaking. We

also have a point of contact for

commenting on actions by employees of

the Coast Guard. Small businesses may

send comments on the actions of

Federal employees who enforce, or

otherwise determine compliance with

Federal regulations to the Small

Business and Agriculture Regulatory

Enforcement Ombudsman and the

Regional Small Business Regulatory

Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman

evaluates these actions annually and

rates each agency’s responsiveness to

small business. If you wish to comment

on actions by employees of the Coast

Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–

734–3247).

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13132 and have

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those unfunded mandate

costs. This rule will not impose an

unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under E.O. 12630,

Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O.

12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and

reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O.

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or safety

that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this action and

has determined under figure 2–1,

paragraph 32(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, that this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket for inspection

or copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. From June 7, 2000 to July 31, 2000,

§ 117.261(ll) is suspended and a new

paragraph (ss) is added to read as

follows:

§ 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Wateray

from St. Marys River to Key Largo.

* * * * *

N.E. 163rd Street (SR826) bridge, mile

1078.0 at Sunny Isles. The draw shall

open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m.

to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday

except Federal holidays, and from 10

a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays,

and Federal holidays, the draw need

open only on the quarter-hour and

three-quarter hour. The south leaf may

remain in the closed position unless two

hours advance notice for a double leaf

opening is provided to the bridge

tender.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

T.W. Allen,

Rear Admiral, Commander, Seventh Coast

Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–15324 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Parts 5 and 13

RIN 1024–AC58

National Park System Units in Alaska;

Denali National Park and Preserve,

Special Regulations

AGENCY: National Park Service, (NPS),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: For the portion of Denali

National Park and Preserve formerly

known as Mount McKinley National

Park (the Old Park) only, this rule

establishes a definition for ‘‘traditional

activities’’ as the term is used in Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA) section 1110(a) and

related Department of the Interior

regulations. The rule also applies this

definition and determines that, for the

Old Park only, prior to the enactment of

ANILCA, no traditional activities took

place during periods of adequate snow

cover for which snowmachines

(snowmobiles) may now be used. In

addition, the rule implements the June,

2000 Statement of Finding: Permanent

Closure of the Former Mt. McKinley

National Park Area of Denali National

Park and Preserve To The Use of

Snowmachines and determines that any

snowmachine use in the Old Park

would be detrimental to the resource

values of the area. The rule also

consolidates, expands and codifies

certain designations, closures and

permit requirements for Denali National

Park and Preserve, including

requirements for vehicular traffic,

vehicle use limits, and public health

and safety. The rule also replaces the

out-of-date references to ‘‘Mount

McKinley National Park’’ with the

Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act name ‘‘Denali

National Park and Preserve.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Superintendent, Denali

National Park and Preserve, PO Box 9,

Denali National Park, AK 99755.

Attention: Ken Kehrer, Jr.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken

Kehrer, Jr. at the above address or by

calling 907–683–2294.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

As used in this Rule, the term ‘‘Old

Park’’ means the portion of Denali

National Park and Preserve that was

formerly known as Mount McKinley

National Park. This Rule incorporates

37864 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

all the information in the Environmental

Assessment for Permanent Closure Of

the Former Mount McKinley National

Park to Snowmachine Use, the Finding

of No Significant Impact for the

Proposed Permanent Closure of the

Former Mount McKinley National Park

to Snowmachine Use, the Statement of

Finding: Permanent Closure of the

Former Mt. McKinley National Park area

of the Denali National Park and Preserve

to the Use of Snowmachines and the

Final Cost-Benefit analysis: Denali

National Park and Preserve Special

Regulations.

In 1903, United States Geological

Survey geologist Alfred Brooks wrote:

‘‘* * * the abundance of sheep, bear,

moose and caribou found along the

north slope of the Alaska Range rank it

as one of the finest hunting grounds in

North America.’’ In 1917, to protect and

preserve natural and scenic resources

and for public enjoyment and

recreation, Congress directed that

Mount McKinley National Park ‘‘shall

be, and is hereby established as a game

refuge.’’ 39 Stat. 938. Congress

expanded the Park in 1922 and 1932.

Horace Albright, the National Park

Service (NPS) Director, welcomed these

additions, in part, as a means to better

protect wildlife, particularly to improve

protection of Dall sheep and moose in

the Park by giving them additional

winter range protection. House

Committee on the Public Lands, Report

207, Letter of January 20, 1932.

In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA), which enlarged Mount

McKinley National Park and renamed it

Denali National Park and Preserve (Pub.

L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat 2371).

Consistent with the 1917 Act that

created the Park, ANILCA recognized

the importance of protecting habitat for,

and populations of, fish and wildlife.

The legislative history of ANILCA states

that certain NPS units in Alaska,

including ‘‘Mount McKinley [National

Park] * * * are intended to be large

sanctuaries where fish and wildlife may

roam freely, developing their social

structures and evolving over long

periods of time as nearly as possible

without the changes that extensive

human activities would cause.’’ Sen.

Rep. No. 96–413, 96th Cong., 1st Sess.

137 (1979); and, Cong. Rec. H10532

(Nov. 12, 1980). The heart of the Park

and preserve lies on the lands that once

comprised Mount McKinley National

Park (the Old Park); there, on lands that

ANILCA designated as Wilderness,

predator-prey relationships have

functioned for decades without

significant human interference.

Under NPS management for the past

83 years, the wildlife and the wilderness

have remained virtually unchanged. It is

the human recreational element that has

undergone a dramatic evolution. During

the summer of 2000, the National Park

Service (NPS) expects that over 400,000

people will visit the Old Park.

Nevertheless, like Alfred Brooks, they

will see an abundance of sheep, bear,

moose and caribou, and the occasional

wolf, against a spectacular backdrop of

pristine, subarctic, alpine landscape—

taiga and tundra, glaciers, glacier-fed

rivers and cathedral peaks. The health

of this shielded ecological system is also

the cornerstone of a multimillion-dollar

tourism industry in Alaska which is

very dependent upon the presence of

this diverse wildlife along the Denali

road corridor.

Limiting motor vehicle use on the

Denali Park Road, educating

backcountry users and prohibiting

snowmachine use in the Denali

wilderness have been essential factors

in maintaining the natural systems in

the Park interior, and in providing

continued outstanding visitor

experiences; experiences that depend,

in large part, on seeing the spectacular

variety of wildlife along the Park road

and the opportunity to observe natural

predator-prey interactions. The wildlife

populations in the Old Park are

available for this unparalleled viewing

opportunity precisely because they have

been protected from intrusive

interactions with humans for decades.

Vehicle use of the road corridor beyond

certain levels has been determined by

NPS to displace the wildlife that can be

seen from the road and otherwise

disrupts the Park’s ecosystems, thereby

impairing the resources, values and

purposes for which the Park was

established.

During the difficult interior Alaska

winters, any increase in stress on the

wildlife through added energy

expenditure or loss of preferred habitat

is a concern. The braided river valleys

and the high open tundra of the Old

Park leave little opportunity for wildlife

to avoid intrusions and take refuge. Any

snowmachine use in the Old Park

would result in detriment to the

resource values of the Old Park and a

significant change from the longstanding patterns of non-intrusive

human interaction with wildlife. A

major change in the level and extent of

human activity in this historically

undisturbed winter environment would

be detrimental to many animals over a

large area. The possibility of many

additional miles of snowmachine trails

and increased snowmachine activity

levels throughout the Old Park threatens

all types of habitat. This area of

previously protected habitat is

particularly vulnerable to increased

disturbance given its proximity to

access points along the George Parks

Highway. In the long term, preserving

the Old Park wilderness and its

continually evolving natural processes

is essential to ensuring opportunities for

outstanding resource-based visitor

experiences.

The historical limitations on

motorized use have also created a

unique wilderness recreation

opportunity in Alaska. There is no other

comparably sized, naturally regulated

ecosystem in Alaska that has been as

protected from motorized use during

winter months. As a result, the resource

values of solitude and natural quiet,

which are the source of this

opportunity, remain at exceptional

levels during the winter and are enjoyed

by skiers, mushers, snowshoers and

winter campers.

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 directs

NPS to manage National Parks and

Monuments to ‘‘* * * conserve the

scenery and the natural and historic

objects and the wildlife therein and to

provide for the enjoyment of the same

in such manner and by such means as

will leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generations.’’ 16

U.S.C. 1. ANILCA section 1110(a)

provides that snowmachine use may be

prohibited if such use would be

detrimental to the resource values of the

unit or area. Additional information

upon which NPS relied is found in the

June, 2000 Statement of Finding:

Permanent Closure of the Former Mt.

McKinley National Park Area of Denali

National Park and Preserve To the Use

of Snowmachines. In that Finding NPS

concluded that any snowmachine use in

the Old Park would be detrimental to

the resource values of the area and that

snowmachine usage for travel to and

from villages and homesites and for

traditional activities did not occur. That

Finding is available from the

superintendent or on the Denali

National Park and Preserve web page at

www.nps.gov/dena.

Administrative History of ANILCA

Section 1110(a), Special Access for

Snowmachines

National Park Service Rulemakings

On December 2, 1980, President

Carter signed ANILCA into law. On

January 2, 1981, NPS published a

proposed rule (46 FR 5642). The

purpose of the proposed rule was

‘‘* * * to harmonize the statutory

directives [of ANILCA] with existing

[national monument] regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37865

* * *’’ and ‘‘* * * to provide public

guidance as soon as practicable.’’ Id.

According to the rule, expeditious

rulemaking was needed to, among other

reasons, address new directives in

ANILCA such as section 1110(a) access.

NPS regulations then in effect, generally

prohibited aircraft and snowmachine

use in Parks. Id. NPS described the

proposed regulations as those minimally

necessary to provide proper

management in Park areas in Alaska and

noted that further comprehensive

rulemaking would follow. Id.

The proposed rule stated that: ‘‘* * *

[s]ections 13.10–13.12 would initially

open all Park areas to access by

snowmachine, aircraft and motorboat

for any purpose.’’ Id. at 5644. The

proposal sought to reduce the need for

persons to obtain individual access

permits and distinguished between

recreational uses and traditional

activities:

Sections 13.10–13.12 of these proposed

regulations initially open all Park areas in

Alaska to access by snowmachine (on areas

with adequate snow cover or frozen rivers),

motorboat, and aircraft, without the need for

individual access permits. Access by these

methods of transportation is authorized for

any purpose (e.g. travel between villages, to

a homesite, for mineral development, for

recreation, or for traditional activities except

as is specifically provided for subsistence

uses in ss 13.45 and 13.46 discussed below

under subsistence. Sections 13.10–13.12

implement section 1110(a) of the Alaska

Lands Act which provides access for

‘‘traditional activities * * * and for travel to

and from villages and homesites.’’ This

approach extends the statutory concept to

access for all purposes, except the special

provisions concerning access for subsistence

uses.’’

Id., (emphasis added).

Under the corresponding access

section for subsistence users (13.46), the

proposal noted:

At all times when not engaged in

subsistence uses, local rural residents would

be able to use snowmachines, motorboats,

and other means of surface transportation

[sic] in accordance with the appropriate

Subpart A regulations. For example, local

rural residents engaged in recreational uses

of snowmachines, motorboats, and other

means of surface transportation would

comply with the provisions of ss 13.10, 13.11,

and 13.13, respectively, and local rural

residents seeking otherwise-closed access to

Inholdings or temporary access would

comply with the provisions of ss 13.14 and

13.15, respectively.

Id. at 5654, (emphasis added).

This explanation was repeated in the

final rulemaking (46 FR 31836, 31852).

It is instructive to note that, from the

beginning, the authors of the rule

distinguished recreational activities

from traditional activities. On June 17,

1981, NPS published the final rule (46

FR 31836). The preamble to the rule also

noted that:

A substantial number of comments (203)

objected to making these regulations

applicable to all Park areas in Alaska (see ss

13.1(m), 13.2), including pre-ANILCA areas

like the former Mt. McKinley National Park

and Katmai and Glacier Bay National

Monuments. The proposed regulations were

viewed by these commentors as an

unwarranted lessening of protective measure

for these ‘‘old’’ Park areas.

Id. at 31837.

NPS concluded that there was no

basis under the statutory language to

exclude the Old Park from the

conservation system units subject to

section 1110(a).

NPS agreed with comments made that

the findings required by Executive

Order 11644 would not allow a general

opening for snowmachine use—thus the

final rule limited snowmachine use to

the uses enumerated in section 1110(a),

while allowing motorboats, airplanes

and non-motorized surface

transportation means to be used for any

purpose. Executive Order 11644

requires that off-road vehicle use,

including that of snowmachines, must

be limited to specific areas and trails

that: minimize damage to soils and

vegetation; minimize harassment of

wildlife or significant disruption of

wildlife habitat; and minimize conflicts

with, and danger to, other existing or

proposed recreational uses.

Furthermore, snowmachine use was not

to be authorized in designated

Wilderness Areas, and could be

authorized in areas of the National Park

system only if it would not adversely

affect natural, aesthetic or scenic values.

Consequently, the final rule authorized

snowmachine use during periods of

adequate snow cover or frozen river

conditions only for traditional activities

and village to village travel that were

still permitted in park areas. The final

rule provided two examples of uses that

were not authorized, because the land

use was no longer permitted in parks:

snowmachine use to locate new mining

claims and sport hunting. The rule also

cautioned that ‘‘* * * [p]rospective

snowmachine users should note that the

legislative history of section 1110(a)

defines a traditional activity in terms of

a use generally occurring in a park area

prior to its designation. See S. Rep. No.

96–413, supra at 248; H. Rep. No. 96–

97, Part 1, supra at 239.’’

On April 6, 1983, NPS proposed

regulations that would have effectively

closed much of the Old Park to

snowmachine and other motorized uses

(48 FR 14978). The proposed rule noted

that ‘‘* * * [o]ne of the primary

purposes for establishing Denali

National Park and Preserve was to

provide protection to certain species of

wildlife and their habitats * * *’’

‘‘Motorized use of certain areas of

Denali National Park is believed to be

detrimental to its ecosystem and the

values for which it was established.’’ Id.

William P. Horn, then Deputy Under

Secretary of the Interior announced the

proposal by stating:

The proposed regulations * * * would

correct an oversight in the 1980 Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act

(ANILCA). When Congress enacted Section

1110(a) of ANILCA it opened all units of the

vastly expanded conservation system to

snowmachine * * * use. Prior to ANILCA,

the critical wildlife habitat and natural

resource areas of [Mount McKinley were]

essentially closed to motorized access.

Congress inadvertently opened [Mount

McKinley] to this kind of use. By reestablishing the historical public use

restrictions, the National Park Service seeks

to correct the action and restore the historical

level of resource protection.

Department of the Interior, News

Release, April 6, 1983.

The April 6,1983 proposal was never

adopted in a final rule.

Department of the Interior Rule Making

On July 15, 1983, the Department of

the Interior proposed regulations that

would implement portions of ANILCA

Title XI that had not been promulgated

by any of the bureaus. The rule also

proposed to repeal and replace the

bureaus’ various special access,

temporary access and access to

inholdings regulations, to codify all

Title XI regulations in a single part.

These regulations essentially mirrored

NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) regulations that generally tracked

the language of ANILCA section 1110(a).

The proposed rule would authorize

snowmachine use during periods of

adequate snow cover or frozen river

conditions only for traditional activities

that were still permitted in Park areas,

and for travel to and from villages and

homesites, pursuant to an access permit,

and for subsistence purposes. The rule

also proposed a definition for ‘‘adequate

snow cover.’’

On September 4, 1986, the

Department of the Interior published

final regulations implementing ANILCA

Title XI. Following the precedent

established by NPS and FWS, the

proposed regulations on motorboat,

aircraft and nonmotorized surface

transportation access were not restricted

to traditional activities and travel to and

from villages and homesites, as in the

statutory authorization. In the final rule,

the Department noted that EO 11644,

regarding off-road vehicles (ORV), does

37866 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

not apply to motorboats or aircraft.

Therefore, the Department exercised its

discretion under other applicable

statutes in order to authorize airplane

and motorboat use beyond that

mandated in ANILCA. The fact that the

Department did not limit airplane and

motorboat access to only traditional

activities under section 1110(a)

demonstrates that traditional activities

are a distinct subset of all the legally

permissible activities that may occur in

a Park area consistent with its enabling

legislation.

The Department again also declined

to endorse comments that supported a

blanket exception from the provisions of

1110(a) for the parks and monuments

that predated ANILCA.

The argument is made that Congress did

not intend to open the pre-ANILCA areas to

the uses described in Section 1110(a), since

these pre-ANILCA areas had been closed to

such uses prior to the enactment of ANILCA.

Interior does not find any statutory support

for this position, since Section 1110(a)

provides no exception for the pre-ANILCA

areas. Accordingly, no exception for preANILCA areas is provided for in these

regulations.’’

Id. (emphasis added).

While the statutory language must be

read to apply to the Old Park, NPS and

the Department continue to believe that

the Department’s 1983 characterization

is correct, and that inclusion of the Old

Park was inadvertent.

The Department also declined to

accept comments to define ‘‘traditional

activities,’’ even though, under the

regulations, snowmachines are limited

to use for traditional activities and

travel to and from villages and

homesites. The Department noted that:

‘‘* * * [o]ne suggestion was made that

the regulations should limit access to

traditional activities to the means

traditionally employed, and should

define what those means are.’’ Id. at

31626, (emphasis added). The

Department chose to neither reject nor

accept this suggestion. Instead the

Department stated that:

Because these regulations apply to a

number of areas under the administrative

jurisdiction of three agencies, it has been

decided that it would be unwise, and

perhaps impossible to develop a definition

that would be appropriate for all areas under

all circumstances. Exactly what ‘‘traditional

activities’’ are must be decided on a case-bycase basis. Once the agencies have had the

opportunity to review this question for each

area under their administration, it may be

possible to specifically define ‘‘traditional

activity’’ for each area. Accordingly, these

regulations do not contain a definition of

‘‘traditional activity.’’

Id.

Denali National Park and Preserve 1986

General Management Plan

In the 1986 General Management Plan

(GMP) for Denali National Park and

Preserve, NPS followed the suggestion

in the 1986 regulations for the

development of area specific definitions

of ‘‘traditional activity’’ (GMP, page

195). The GMP also indicated that

recreational snowmachining can be

treated as either a means of access or as

a distinct activity in and of itself. The

GMP identified recreational

snowmachining as a distinct activity

that needed to be evaluated against the

definition of traditional that was

provided in the GMP in order to

determine if it was a traditional activity

within the Old Park (GMP, page 37).

This definition was not incorporated

into regulation, but the Old Park was

closed for 19 years to this activity by

way of Superintendent’s Orders

(Compendium) based on an

interpretation that recreational

snowmachining was not a traditional

activity in the Old Park.

Denali National Park and Preserve:

2000 Final Rule

Under Section 1110(a) of ANILCA,

snowmachines may be used in

conservation system units for traditional

activities, unless a particular traditional

activity is barred by ANILCA or other

applicable law, and for travel to and

from villages and homesites. The use of

snowmachines for such purposes may

not be prohibited unless, after notice

and hearing in the vicinity of the

affected unit, it is determined that such

use ‘‘would be detrimental to the

resource values’’ of the unit.

There are no villages, homesites and

other valid occupancies within the Old

Park. Access by snowmachine through

the Old Park in transit to homesites,

villages and other valid occupancies did

not lawfully occur prior to ANILCA and

is available through routes outside the

Old Park that have been historically

used for that purpose, both prior to and

since the enactment of ANILCA. Thus,

no snowmachine use within the Old

Park is authorized by Section 1110(a) or

43 CFR 36.11(c) for travel to and from

villages, homesites and other

occupancies.

Consumptive use as stated in the final

rule definition of ‘‘traditional activity’’

was derived by the Department after

careful review of the legislative history

of ANILCA. The four specific examples

found in that history are sport hunting,

fishing, trapping and berry picking. In

the context of the proposed rule, NPS

requested specific information on other

activities which the public felt might be

traditional activities. Based on its

review of the comments, NPS has not

identified any other consumptive

activities in the Old Park which are

traditional activities under the adopted

definition.

The definition of traditional activities

in this final rule differs from the

November 12,1999 proposed rule

definition in two main ways. First, the

application of the final rule definition is

limited. The final rule definition is for

the Old Park only, while the proposed

definition was a general definition that

would have applied to all the NPS units

in Alaska. This is because the public

comments indicated there was some

confusion over the applicability of the

definition to other than the Old Park.

NPS also believes that further

consideration of the definition in the

context of the other park areas in Alaska

is needed before a definition applicable

to them is promulgated due to the

possibility of different historical use

patterns in those areas.

Second, the final rule definition is

now clearer about what NPS considers

to be traditional activities in the Old

Park. The revised definition clearly

states that traditional activities are

related to consumptive use, and that

recreational snowmobiling is not a

traditional activity in the Old Park.

These changes are described in further

detail below. Because the meaning of

the phrase ‘‘utilitarian Alaska lifestyle’’

was not clear to many commentators we

have replaced it with language which

we believe accomplishes the same

purpose, but defines the term traditional

activity in a manner that is more readily

understood by the public.

The November 12,1999 proposed rule

suggested the following definition of a

traditional activity for NPS units in

Alaska: An activity that generally and

lawfully occurred in a unit or a

geographically defined area of a unit

prior to enactment of ANILCA, and that

was typically associated with that

region as an integral and established

part of a utilitarian Alaska lifestyle or

cultural pattern.

This final rule adopts the following

definition of a traditional activity for the

former Mount McKinley National Park

portion of Denali National Park and

Preserve:

An activity that generally and lawfully

occurred in the Old Park contemporaneously

with the enactment of ANILCA, and that was

associated with the Old Park, or a discrete

portion thereof, involving the consumptive

use of one or more natural resources of the

Old Park such as hunting, trapping, fishing,

berry picking or similar activities.

Recreational use of snowmachines was not a

traditional activity. If a traditional activity

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37867

generally occurred only in a particular area

of the Old Park, it would be considered a

traditional activity only in the area where it

had previously occurred. In addition, a

traditional activity must be a legally

permissible activity in the Old Park.

As a general definition for all NPS

units in Alaska, and under which an

area-by-area analysis would be done, the

proposed definition of traditional

activities generally received widespread

support. However, in reviewing the

public comment, NPS realized that the

proposed definition was not entirely

clear; accordingly, NPS has made

several clarifying changes in the final

definition. To produce a more

understandable definition, the

description ‘‘involving the consumptive

use of one or more natural resources of

the Old Park such as hunting, trapping,

fishing, berry picking or similar

activities’’ has been added consistent

with the legislative history which uses

these examples of traditional activities

for purposes of section 1110(a). This

consumptive use is part of a life style or

cultural pattern that remain practical

and essential components of subarctic

life. Clarification that the recreational

uses of snowmachines (such as

picnicking, sightseeing, wildlife

viewing, photography and camping)

were not traditional activities in the Old

Park has been added. Although nonsnowmobile based recreational activities

did take place in the Old Park these

activities were not the type of activities

offered during the Congressional

deliberations as the traditional activities

to be preserved. Clarification that a

traditional activity that only took place

in a portion of the Old Park is a

traditional activity only in the area

where it generally occurred has also

been added. After analysis and

consideration of the public comments,

NPS has decided to define and apply

this definition only to the Old Park at

this time. NPS intends to define

traditional activities and apply such

definitions to other park areas,

including the remainder of Denali

National Park and Preserve, in

subsequent processes, such as future

rulemakings to implement backcountry

management plans for some of the

national parks in Alaska.

NPS emphasizes that the definition of

traditional activities in this rule is

applicable to the Old Park only. NPS

could develop and apply a different

definition of traditional activities for the

remainder of Denali National Park and

Preserve and other Alaska Parks, based

on historical use patterns for those

areas. While NPS has found that certain

activities did not occur in the Old Park

during periods of adequate snow cover,

and has developed and applied in this

rule the definition of traditional

activities for that area only, NPS could

find differently for other NPS areas. NPS

notes that the use of the Old Park may

be distinct as compared to the ANILCA

established portions of the Alaska Park

units, due to the use restrictions that

have been historically applied to the

Old Park.

NPS has previously provided

separately for snowmachine use for

subsistence activities under 36 CFR

13.46, but subsistence is not authorized

in the Old Park.

Applying this park specific definition

to the Old Park, NPS is unable to

identify any traditional activities or

travel to and from villages, homesites

and other valid occupancies during

periods of adequate snow cover. In

response to the request for comments

regarding the identification of

traditional activities within the Old

Park, NPS received no comments that

identified a history of any traditional

activities as defined in this rule legally

taking place contemporaneous with the

enactment of ANILCA. The NPS has

additionally concluded that any

snowmachine use in the Old Park

would be detrimental to the resource

values of the area. Accordingly, NPS has

inserted in the regulations for the Old

Park only, that snowmachine use is not

permitted for any reason within the Old

Park portions of Denali National Park

and Preserve.

The legislative history of ANILCA

contains several examples of traditional

activities: sport hunting; fishing; berry

picking; trapping. The House and

Senate Committee Reports that

accompany ANILCA list the first three

of these activities as examples of

traditional activities. Trapping was

discussed as a traditional activity during

Senate mark-up. The Committee Reports

state that if traditional uses were

generally occurring in an area prior to

its designation the uses shall be allowed

to continue. NPS notes that hunting,

fishing, berry picking and trapping

share a common characteristic; they are

all consumptive, resource gathering

activities. Congress sought to specially

protect access for these activities (where

the activities were authorized by

ANILCA or other law) within areas that

were being created to protect natural

resources. Section 1110(a) was drafted

to address Congressional concern that

many Alaskans who practiced these

kinds of activities would not qualify as

subsistence users under Title VIII and

therefore would not qualify for

snowmachine access under section

811(b). Section 1110(a) was adopted to

provide similar access for consumptive

activities to these non-qualifying

members of the public.

With respect to the Old Park, NPS is

certain that Congress did not expressly

intend and did not create, an exception

to the Wilderness Act that would allow

snowmachines in wilderness areas—

because someone on the snowmachine

intended to look around, or happened to

be carrying a sandwich or disposable

camera—or because non-motorized

sightseeing, picnicking and photography

were permissible in the Old Park prior

to ANILCA. If a contrary interpretation

were correct, Congress need not have

linked snowmobile access to traditional

activities, but would have allowed it for

any purpose since virtually any use of

the Park entails an element of

sightseeing. Such an interpretation

would render the term ‘‘traditional

activities’’ as the equivalent of ‘‘for any

purpose’’. NPS has found no evidence of

such intent in the legislative history.

The Senate Committee on Energy and

Natural Resource mark-up sessions that

were the origin of this section, and the

Committee Reports on the Act

consistently reference traditional

hunting, fishing and berry picking.

Congress did not identify other

activities, such as recreational activities,

in deliberations on section 1110(a).

Conversely Congress made its intent

clear in other provisions of ANILCA,

specifically opening conservation

system units to recreation by

authorizing such access specifically,

and separately from access for

traditional activities. See e.g., section

201(2) Bering Land Bridge National

Preserve (‘‘in a manner consistent with

the foregoing [the preserve shall be

managed] for public access for

recreational purposes to the Serpentine

Hot Springs area.’’); section 202(5)

Kenai Fjords National Park (‘‘the

Secretary is authorized to develop

access to the Harding Icefield and to

allow use of mechanized equipment on

the Icefield for recreation.’’); section

202(6) Kobuk Valley National Park (‘‘the

Secretary shall permit aircraft to

continue to land at sites in the upper

Salmon River watershed.’’) and section

202(10) Yukon-Charley Rivers National

Preserve (‘‘the Secretary shall permit

aircraft to land on sites in the upper

Charley River watershed’’).

With respect to the authorization of

landing sites in the upper Salmon and

Charley River watersheds, amendments

approved at the October 10, 1979 Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources mark-up struck the phrase

‘‘traditionally used for such purposes’’

from the end of each sentence. The

amendments put a period after the word

‘‘watershed’’. The accompanying markVerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:01 Jun 16, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 19JNR1
37868 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

up colloquy explains the Committee’s

intent to authorize access beyond where

and what was traditional in these two

areas due to their high potential for

compatible recreational use.

As the Alaska Conservation

Foundation commented:

[T]he only mention of recreational use in

the ‘‘Purposes’’ section of ANILCA states that

the intent of Congress was ‘‘to preserve

wilderness resource values and related

recreational opportunities including but not

limited to hiking, canoeing, fishing and sport

hunting.’’ Unquestionably, recreational

snowmachining is not a recreational

opportunity that related to wilderness

resource values. (Section 101(b)). The other

purposes outlined in Section 101 are either

antithetical to recreational snowmachining or

are in no way supportive of recreational

snowmachining.

With respect to Section 1110(a) and the

term ‘‘traditional activities’’, first and

foremost, it is instructive to consider the

explanatory title for the section, which is

‘‘Special Access and Access to Inholdings.’’

Congress expected this section to only apply

to ‘‘special’’ access situations—which are, by

definition ‘‘distinguished by some unusual

quality, being other than the usual.’’

Therefore, Congress limited access to these

areas, allowing intrusions only for

‘‘traditional activities’’ or for access to

homesites and villages.

NPS also notes that due to the

distance that may be traveled by modern

snowmachines and the resulting noise

impacts, even only a few snowmachines

would cause detriment to the special

resource values of the Old Park, in

particular the wilderness and wildlife

values of the Old Park. These values

have developed over time as a result of

the unique management history of the

area, and are therefore coincident with

the boundaries of that former unit. See

Statement of Finding, June, 2000.

Summary and Analysis of Public

Comment on Snowmachine Issues

Summary of Comments

ANILCA section 1110(a) and 43 CFR

36.11(h) require notice and hearing(s) in

the vicinity of the area(s) directly

affected by such closures. NPS provided

notice of the hearings in a press release

that was mailed to approximately 450

Alaskans and businesses in the

Anchorage-Fairbanks rail-belt. The press

release was posted on Denali’s website

and faxed directly to 31 community,

local and national news organizations,

including print, radio and television in

mid-November 1999. The press release

was published in the Fairbanks Daily

News-Miner, Anchorage Daily News,

Valley Sun and Mat-Su Frontiersman.

Two follow-up press releases were also

faxed to the 31 news organizations and

were published in the Fairbanks and

Anchorage newspapers. NPS also placed

newspaper advertisements in Fairbanks

and Anchorage newspapers to inform

the public of the purpose for, and the

times, dates and locations of, the

hearings. Alaska’s congressional

delegation was also informed. Four

public meetings were held from

December 6, 1999, to December 9, 1999,

in McKinley Village, Talkeetna,

Fairbanks and Anchorage. Comments on

the proposed rule were originally due

by Jan. 11, 2000, but were subsequently

extended until Jan. 25, 2000. Public

discussion of the proposal was

extensive, with many articles, editorials,

and opinion pieces published, as well as

television and radio coverage broadcast.

At the public meetings: 81 people

testified in favor of closing the Old Park

to snowmachine use, and 44 people

testified against the proposed closure;

34 speakers voiced support for the

proposed definition of traditional

activities, and 11 spoke against it.

Including written comments,

approximately 6,039 timely comments

were received on the November 12,

1999 proposed rulemaking. Some

commentors sent comments by both

conventional and electronic mail. NPS

attempted to match such duplicate

mailings and count them as one.

Additionally, many comments were

signed by more than one person—

particularly comments that supported

the proposed rule. NPS acknowledges

this point, but for this rulemaking,

chose to count a letter or post card as

a single comment, regardless of the

number of signatures. The numbers

shown in parentheses are the portions of

the totals that were received from

Alaska residents.

Total Comments—6039

(2334, 39% of responses are from

Alaskans)

Supporting Closure—5784 (96% of total

response on this issue)

(2105, 91% of Alaskans on this issue)

Opposed to Closure—226 (4% of total

response on this issue)

(201, 9% of Alaskans on this issue)

NPS proposed Definition of

Traditional Activities.

Supporting comments—3176 (98% of

total response on this issue)

(1215, 96% of Alaskans on this issue)

Opposing comments—68 (2% of total

response on this issue)

(57, 4% of Alaskans on this issue)

Many commentors on both sides of

the issue identified themselves as

snowmachine owners. Quite a few

commentors wrote of the detrimental

effects snowmachines have had on

Yellowstone National Park and urged

NPS to protect Denali from similar

impacts. The comments NPS received

concerning the superintendent’s

determination of adequate snow cover

supported this provision.

Response to Public Comment

Comment: The State of Alaska, Office

of the Governor commented that it

would support selected snowmachine

closures in Denali National Park if NPS

agrees to meet additional procedural

steps such as a management regime less

restrictive then a total closure. Other

commentors simply disagree with the

NPS assertion that any snowmachine

use in the Old Park would be

detrimental due to the unique values of

the area. They suggest that just by the

act of allowing snowmachine use into

wilderness areas in Alaska, Congress

was acknowledging that some impact

was acceptable and therefore cannot be

considered detrimental for the purposes

of regulating use. The State suggests that

in determining what would be

detrimental to the resource values of the

Park, NPS should be ‘‘focusing greater

attention on the intrinsic values of the

unit, which are becoming increasingly

important to the public.’’

NPS response: NPS agrees that in

many cases the limited snowmachine

use envisioned by Congress in ANILCA

for traditional activities may not

represent a significant change or a

significant threat to the resource values

of much of the previously unreserved

federal lands that were used to create

new Parks and wilderness areas. This is

because snowmachine use had been

occurring on many of those lands before

their establishment as new conservation

system units by ANILCA. Use of

snowmachines for traditional activities,

subsistence activities and village to

village travel was the status quo

condition in many of these areas.

However in the Old Park, essentially

the area that is now the Denali

Wilderness, it is dramatically different.

McKinley was Alaska’a only national

park prior to ANILCA, and as a result

it has a very special set of resource

values that have developed since 1917,

through protective management. The

health of this shielded ecological system

is the park’s most intrinsic value. It is

the foundation for one of the world’s

finest wildlife viewing opportunities.

The possibility of seeing in a single day,

bears, wolves, caribou, moose, Dall

sheep, and other animals against the

backdrop of a spectacular subarctic,

alpine landscape and vegetation is the

cornerstone of a multimillion-dollar

tourism industry in Alaska. Wildlife

populations within the historical

boundaries of the Old Park are available

for unparalleled viewing opportunity

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37869

precisely because they have been

protected for decades from intrusive

interactions with humans. The

opportunity to see natural predator-prey

interactions is one of the primary visitor

attractions at Denali National Park and

Preserve.

Another important long-term value of

this area is the possibility of recording

and gaining understanding of a

naturally functioning subarctic system

with minimal disturbance by people.

This largely undisturbed core area is

regularly referred to as a comparison

site in scientific studies throughout the

circumpolar region. Denali National

Park and Preserve has been designated

an International Biosphere Reserve for

its unique scientific values and the

presence of the protected core area. The

area defined by the boundaries of the

Old Park is recognized as a distinct area

in the reserve unit because of its

different management history. It has

also been selected for long-term

ecological monitoring by NPS and other

federal agencies because of its historic

level of protection and ecological

integrity.

Section 701 of ANILCA designated

about 95 per cent of the Old Park as the

Denali Wilderness. The boundaries of

the Old Park are essentially now the

boundaries of the Denali Wilderness.

This area provides a unique wilderness

recreation opportunity in Alaska. There

is no other large, naturally regulated

ecosystem in the entire 375 million

acres of Alaska that is as free from

motorized use in the winter months. As

a result, the fundamental wilderness

resource values of solitude, natural

quiet and extensive untracked vistas,

which are the source of this

opportunity, remain at exceptional

levels during winter. This area provides

a unique opportunity to those members

of the public who seek to exercise their

‘‘quiet rights.’’ No other area with such

special qualities is readily available or

adjacent to the road system of Alaska.

Given this unique situation in the

public lands of Alaska, the NPS believes

it is justified in its finding that the

introduction of any snowmachine use

into the Old Park represents a

fundamental change to the condition of

the unique resource values of the area.

This shift from no use to the levels of

use that are now possible with modern

technology is completely different from

the continuation of pre-existing types

and levels of use that Congress

envisioned when it moved to protect

access for resource gathering related

activities associated with an ongoing

Alaska lifestyle. Any snowmachine use

in the Old Park is a fundamental

change; and therefore, such use alone

would have a significant, detrimental

effect on resource values. (See

Statement of Finding, June, 2000.)

Furthermore, when enacting ANILCA

in 1980, Congress did not envision that

snowmachines would carry large

numbers of people into the backcountry.

Nor did the framers of ANILCA envision

the potential for resource harm that is

now possible due to the dramatic

increases in snowmachine use caused

by technological advances, increases in

urban population and increased

expendable income.

Comment: Several commentors,

including the Alaska State Legislature,

suggested that, as proposed, the

definition of a traditional activities

requires that a utilitarian activity must

have a cultural component to qualify as

traditional. The Legislature also

objected to the requirement that a

qualifying activity must have been an

integral and established part of a

utilitarian Alaska lifestyle or cultural

pattern. Other commentors, including

the State of Alaska, Office of the

Governor, pointed out that the statute

does not require such a showing and

joined in that objection.

NPS response: Based on the

comments submitted, NPS realized that

the reference to ‘‘utilitarian Alaska

lifestyle’’ was not well understood by

the commentors. Accordingly, NPS has

modified the final definition and

eliminated this phrase to more clearly

describe the activities falling within

section 1110(a).

Comment: Many of the same

commentors felt that the definition of

traditional activities should have been

written more broadly to include

activities that these commentors

generally concede are recreational in

nature, such as sightseeing, picnicking,

wildlife viewing, camping and

photography. These commentors insist

that if these activities generally occurred

in the Old Park prior to ANILCA, they

are ‘‘traditional activities.’’ Most

commentors, however, strongly

disagreed with this approach; they felt

that NPS had correctly identified

‘‘traditional activities’’ as activities that

are necessarily connected with a

generally rural—and from the Alaska

perspective, generally unique—Alaska

lifestyle or Alaska culture.

NPS response: NPS notes that it is

rare that people visit National Parks,

especially an Alaska Park like Denali,

without sightseeing. It’s also our

experience that visitors often carry a

camera and bring something to eat. NPS

also notes that many visitors to Alaska

go sightseeing, take pictures and eat

take-out food in downtown Anchorage.

NPS finds no specific reference in

ANILCA or its legislative history that

indicates that Congress intended to

include any recreational activities under

section 1110(a). With respect to the Old

Park, NPS is certain that Congress did

not expressly intend and did not create,

an exception to the Wilderness Act that

would allow snowmachines in

wilderness areas—because someone on

the snowmachine intended to look

around, or happened to be carrying a

sandwich or disposable camera—or

because non-motorized sightseeing,

picnicking and photography were

permissible in the Old Park prior to

ANILCA. If a contrary interpretation

were correct, Congress need not have

linked snowmobile access to traditional

activities, but would have allowed it for

any purpose since virtually any use of

the Park entails an element of

sightseeing. Such an interpretation

would render the term ‘‘traditional

activities’’ as the equivalent of ‘‘for any

purpose’’. NPS has found no evidence of

such intent in the legislative history.

Comment: Building on its analysis of

what should qualify as traditional

activities, the Alaska Governor’s Office

contends that NPS cannot justify a postANILCA snowmachine closure in the

Old Park on the fact that snowmachines

were prohibited there pre-ANILCA. The

proper analysis, the Governor suggests,

is whether traditional activities were

conducted in the Park prior to ANILCA,

not whether snowmachines were used

there. The Alaska Outdoor Council

made a similar comment. The

Wilderness Society, the Trustees for

Alaska and numerous other

commentors, on the other hand, argue

that ANILCA must be interpreted to

prohibit any snowmachine use in the

Old Park regardless of how traditional

activities are defined. They believe there

having been no use in the Old Park prior

to ANILCA, there can be none after

ANILCA. In a recent court decision,

ASSA v. Babbitt, A99–59 CV (JWS), the

United States District Court, District of

Alaska, agreed with the Wilderness

Society that the statutory language of

ANILCA does not foreclose the

interpretation that they suggest.

NPS response: NPS first notes that it

has conducted, with this rule’s

definition, an analysis of whether

traditional activities occurred in the Old

Park in the manner suggested by the

Governor. For reasons that are explained

in this preamble, NPS cannot identify

any traditional activities that generally

occurred in the Old Park prior to

ANILCA, for which a snowmachine

could be now used during periods of

adequate snow cover. Prior to ANILCA,

park regulations prohibited such

traditional Alaska activities as hunting

37870 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

and trapping in the Old Park; those

activities are still prohibited. Other

subsistence activities have never been

authorized and despite our request for

comments, we can find no evidence that

fishing or berry picking took place

during periods of adequate snow cover

contemporaneous with the enactment of

ANILCA. There are no villages or

homesites in the Old Park, and villages

and homesites to the west or north of

the Old Park have been commonly and

more easily reached by a flatter, more

northern route.

NPS has, however, reviewed the

comments of the Wilderness Society

and the legislative history of ANILCA

that they submitted with their

comments. NPS has also reviewed

similar comments and legislative history

submitted by the Trustees for Alaska on

behalf of a number of conservation

groups. NPS also conducted its own

review of ANILCA’s legislative history,

prior rulemaking and interpretive case

law. ANILCA does not define the term

‘‘traditional activities’’. The relevant

Committee Report explanation from the

Senate is itself ambiguous:

The Committee recommends that

traditional uses be allowed to continue in

those areas where such activities are allowed.

This is not a wilderness type of pre-existing

use test. Rather, if uses were generally

occurring in the area prior to its designation,

those uses shall be allowed to continue and

no proof of pre-existing use will be required.

Report of the Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources, Report

No. 96–413, p. 248.

While the statute itself addresses the

use of snowmachines for traditional

activities, the Committee Report speaks

in terms of continuing ‘‘traditional

uses’’. Although Congress did not define

the term ‘‘traditional activities’’, the

Department has determined that

Congress intended to allow traditional

activities to continue where they were

taking place prior to the enactment of

ANILCA. The report only identifies

hunting, fishing and berry picking as

traditional activities. In view of its

ambiguity, ANILCA has left it to the

Secretary to define this term.

ANILCA section 1110(a), as enacted,

was derived from section 1110(a) of the

Senate Committee’s reported version of

the bill. S. Rep. No. 413, 96th Cong. 1st

Sess. (1979). In exercising the

Secretary’s discretion to define this

term, we have attempted to review all

potentially relevant information. In this

regard, NPS believes the Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources mark-up sessions on August

1 and 8, 1978, are informative of the

concerns expressed even though they do

not represent binding legislative history.

The mark-up colloquies reveal that, in

consideration of the large size of the

new conservation system units and the

remoteness of rural Alaska, Congress

carefully fashioned an exception to the

1964 Wilderness Act in ANILCA section

1110(a). Motorized access for specific

traditional activities, where they were

generally occurring, was allowed to

continue in Alaska wilderness because

Congress recognized that continued

access for these activities was necessary

to sustain the Alaska lifestyle. Where

snowmachines were being used for such

things as hunting or trapping, or service

functions such as hauling freight to

villages, snowmachine use for these

purposes would continue regardless of

wilderness designations. Congress

understood that where access for these

activities was ongoing, it supported

Alaskan lives and defined Alaskan

identity. However, there is no

suggestion in ANILCA or its legislative

history that Congress intended to

authorize new snowmachine use in the

Old Park, which ANILCA designated as

wilderness, when there had been no

authorized snowmachine use there prior

to ANILCA (for any activities). Indeed

the legislative history shows that

Congress intended to tailor this

authorization narrowly. (Senate Energy

and Natural Resources Committee

Alaska (d)(2) Lands—Mark-up, August

1, 1978, pages 47–74). The August 8th

discussion focused particularly on

authorizing mechanized use where it

had been done in the past. In order to

prohibit a traditional use of this type of

vehicle or mechanized equipment in a

wilderness area the land manager must

find that it would cause damage. (Senate

Energy and Natural Resources

Committee Alaska (d)(2) Lands—Markup, August 8, 1978, pages 10–14, 49–50,

60–64).

Comment: Some commentors thought

NPS should ban all recreational uses of

snowmachines from all of Denali

National Park and Preserve. Others

thought NPS should be able to

accommodate some recreational use in

areas other than the Old Park.

NPS response: Unlike the proposed

rule, the final definition adopted here

applies only to the Old Park. NPS

intends to use park planning processes,

particularly the backcountry

management planning process for the

Denali addition areas and other park

units, in developing and applying the

definitions of ‘‘traditional activities’’

outside the Old Park. Although NPS

makes no decision at this time on such

definitions, based on its present review

of the statute and its legislative history,

NPS believes that such future processes

could conclude that recreational

activities independent of the types of

activities discussed in this preamble are

not traditional activities for purposes of

section 1110(a) in these other areas. NPS

intends nevertheless to examine, as part

of these planning processes, where

snowmobile use for recreational

activities then determined to be outside

the scope of section 1110(a) could be

appropriate within individual park

units, consistent with the applicable

statutes and Executive Orders pertaining

to the National Park System in Alaska.

Comment: A few commentors

suggested that the definition of

traditional activities will have major

impacts on other forms of access such

as sightseeing flights that want to land

on NPS lands.

NPS response: The definition of

traditional activities adopted by this

rule does not have the broad effect

described by some. The Department’s

1986 regulations went beyond the scope

of section 1110(a) and, based on other

statutory authorities, authorized the

non-commercial use of motorboats and

airplanes in all DOI areas without regard

to the purpose. 43 CFR 36.11(d) & (f).

That extended authorization not only

remains unchanged, but the definition

adopted here applies solely to

snowmachines in the Old Park. This

rulemaking has no effect on access by

means other than by snowmachines.

Commercial activities, including

sightseeing landings, have been and will

continue to be, regulated under NPS

concessions authority.

Comment: The Alaska State

Legislature and Territorial Sportsmen

Inc. commented that the proposed

definition of traditional activities is a

major regulatory departure by NPS.

NPS response: NPS has consistently

managed the two-million-acre Old Park

as closed to snowmachine use and open

for nonmotorized winter recreation in a

way that allows visitors to experience

solitude and natural sounds, such as

dog mushing, snowshoeing, and crosscountry skiing. Pre-ANILCA regulations

and policy prohibited snowmachine

use. As early as 1981, in the

implementing regulations to ANILCA,

NPS cautioned ‘‘[p]rospective

snowmachine users [to] note that the

legislative history of section 1110(a)

defines traditional activities in terms of

a use generally occurring in a Park area

prior to its designation.’’ 46 FR 3184,

June 17, 1981. Based on this

interpretation, every post-ANILCA

superintendent closed the Park to

snowmachine use through a

compendium order since snowmachine

use had not lawfully occurred in the

Old Park contemporaneous with the

enactment of ANILCA.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37871

Interpreting the term ‘‘traditional

activities’’ so as to distinguish

recreational snowmachining from it, as

a distinct activity in and of itself, was

presented to the public in the Park’s

1986 GMP. Then, as now, the public

strongly supported such a distinction.

Consequently, the definition adopted by

this rule does not represent a change in

the public understanding of the

implementation of ANILCA section

1110(a) relative to the Old Park. Nor

does it alter the actual patterns of use

that are currently occurring in the Old

Park. Since Congress did not define the

term ‘‘traditional activities’’ the NPS has

done so within its discretion.

Comment: Three commentors

suggested that this closure would

discriminate against persons with

disabilities because it would limit their

access to the Old Park.

NPS response: The decision treats all

potential users equally in that

snowmachine use is prohibited for

everyone in the Old Park. Additionally,

as noted above, NPS has determined

that any snowmachine use would be

detrimental to the resource values of the

Old Park. The commercial dog sled

companies that operate in the Old Park

have expressed a willingness to take any

interested individuals, including those

with disabilities, into the Old Park.

Summary and Analysis of Public

Comment on Other Issues

Comments and Responses on

Regulations Affecting Management of

the Denali National Park Road

Background

This regulation is the culmination of

several years of planning and public

involvement on managing the Denali

National Park Road. Detailed direction

for managing the road was outlined in

the Draft Entrance Area and Road

Corridor Development Concept Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement that

was available for public review between

June 21 and August 19, 1996. This draft

plan was based on the recommendations

of the Denali Task Force, a committee

formed at the request of the Secretary of

the Interior in 1994, on proposals

received during public scoping during

1995, on previous plans, and on

planning team work and impact

analysis. NPS management proposals

affecting the Park road received

widespread support during the public

comment period. The final plan was

distributed in early 1997, and elements

of the plan calling for safety

improvements on the road and for

replacing some private vehicles with

buses were implemented beginning later

that year. The additional bus trips

provided for in the plan-without

increasing the overall number of

vehicles-resulted in more people having

the opportunity to travel into the Park

interior. The specific vehicle allocations

outlined in the proposed regulations

were also evaluated in the 1996 draft

Entrance Area and Road Corridor

Development Concept Plan and

published in the final plan as part of the

‘‘Road Management’’ section. The need

for regulations for management of the

Park road is listed as the first item under

provisions affecting general vehicle

traffic. NPS kept the public informed of

actions to implement the plan and

progress on the regulations through

press releases and newsletters. The

concept of restricted vehicle access on

the Denali National Park road has been

supported by the public since it was

started in 1972. The overall traffic limit

on the park road, 10,512 vehicle trips

during the summer allocation season,

was evaluated as part of the 1986

General Management Plan, which

included public review and comment.

Public support for the road management

provisions in the draft Development

Concept Plan was expressed during

studies along the park road and in

unsolicited visitor comments. Those

who commented on the road regulations

during late 1999 and early 2000

demonstrated even greater support. Of

the 6,039 comments received on the

proposed regulations, 382 addressed

management of the Denali National Park

Road. Of these 382 comments, 368 were

in favor of the road regulations as

proposed and 7 were opposed to the

regulations as proposed. Another 7

comments were generally in favor of

restrictions on road use but expressed a

preference for other methods than those

in the proposed regulations. Public

involvement and continued planning for

management of the park road indicate

that the road regulations are long

overdue. These regulations are

consistent with ANILCA, and all

decisions have been made with full

participation of the public, above and

beyond the requirements of ANILCA

and the National Environmental Policy

Act.

Comment: The State of Alaska and

one individual commented that

ANILCA does not allow for the

regulation of the Park road as proposed.

NPS response: ANILCA does provide

for the reasonable regulation included

in the final rule. See section 1110(b) of

ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3171(b)): ‘‘Such

rights shall be subject to reasonable

regulations issued by the Secretary to

protect the natural and other values of

such lands.’’ The permit system

identified in the regulation affords the

superintendent the flexibility to

accommodate the access allowances in

ANILCA while managing the Park

pursuant to the NPS Organic Act and

other applicable authorities. The 1997

Entrance Area and Road Corridor

Development Concept Plan identified

methods to increase the numbers of

visitors to the core of Denali National

Park. These provisions have been

implemented and the overall number of

visitors has increased as a result.

Comment: One individual noted that

in his view the proposed regulations are

confusing, the process is misleading,

public comment was inadequate and

Kantishna landowners and stakeholders

were not provided adequate notice.

NPS response: The proposed

regulations affecting road use in Denali

National Park followed two previous

planning processes involving the public,

the General Management Plan in 1986

and the 1997 Entrance Area and Road

Corridor Development Concept Plan.

Public notice of the 1997 plan was

widely published. The plan specifically

addressed the promulgation of special

regulations for management of the Park

road, establishing the GMP limit of

10,512 vehicle trips during the

allocation season in regulation, setting

formal ‘‘Rules of the Road,’’ and setting

a seasonal allocation limit for Kantishna

business traffic.

Several Kantishna landowners and

lodge operators commented on the 1997

Development Concept Plan. The Park

also produced a strategic plan that

included the need for special

regulations. The 1997 Strategic Plan

includes the following long-term goal on

page 20: ‘‘By 2002, regulations affecting

road use and snowmachine use are

implemented and enforced.’’

The National Park Service has

continued meeting with individuals and

groups interested in the process and has

kept the public informed through

newsletters and press releases.

Newsletters discussing implementation

of the 1997 development concept plan

and the need for road regulations were

distributed to the public twice during

1996, twice during 1997, once during

1998, twice during 1999, and once in

early 2000. Four press releases on the

issue were sent to the media, and

information has been available on the

Park’s web site since early 1997.

Comment: One individual commented

that the proposed regulations will deny

people the opportunity to visit their

Park.

NPS response: The National Park

Service disagrees. The 1997 Entrance

Area and Road Corridor Development

Concept Plan identified methods to

increase the numbers of visitors to the

37872 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

core of Denali National Park. These

provisions have been implemented

during the past three seasons, and the

overall number of visitors has increased

as a result. The 1997 plan and

accompanying environmental impact

statement also outlined resource

protection needs and the need for the

proposed regulations.

Comment: A few individuals and one

mining company commented that they

saw no reason to limit traffic on the Park

road. They proposed that safety

concerns could be resolved through

road improvements and constructing an

additional access route into the Park

from the north creating a one-way loop.

NPS response: The NPS considered

these issues in the 1997 Entrance Area

and Road Corridor Development

Concept Plan and the 1997 North

Access Feasibility Study. The 1997

development concept plan provides for

improvements to the existing road to

address safety issues and for increasing

the numbers of visitors traveling into

the interior of the park.

The North Access Feasibility Study

determined that a new north access

route, either road or rail, would be

feasible, but notes that much more study

and planning is needed. As stated in the

opening paragraph, the 1997 study

‘‘does not contain recommendations and

is not a decision document.’’

In the cover letter accompanying the

document, the Acting Assistant

Secretary for Policy, Management and

Budget found that:

The projected costs of either new road

access or rail access into Denali would

exceed the projected costs for the National

Park Service’s 10-year, visitor access

development program for the entire State of

Alaska. Thus, we believe this study must be

considered in conjunction with the other

National Park Service proposals for visitor

facilities and access in Alaska-proposals

developed with input from the State of

Alaska, the visitor industry and the public.

The National Park Service believes

that it is a far more efficient use of

funding to expand upon the existing

visitor opportunities along the Park

road, following the widely supported

direction in the 1997 development

concept plan, than to explore the much

more controversial and expensive north

access route. Park visitors have

continued to support the management

decision to maintain most of the Park

road in its rustic, historic condition.

Comment: The Alaska Visitors

Association commented that the number

of trips on the Denali National Park

Road apportioned to businesses and

park visitors should not decrease over

time in order to accommodate any

National Park Service increase in the

administrative and temporary

categories.

NPS response: The National Park

Service vehicle trip allocation in the

1986 General Management Plan (1754

total) was amended slightly by the 1997

Entrance Area and Road Corridor

Development Concept Plan, which sets

the limit of 1,776 vehicle trips. Under

the regulations, the park would adhere

to that limit for its administrative use.

NPS notes that there have been fewer

than 10 emergency vehicle trips in each

of the past three years. Such additional

emergency trips will not effect the

allocations for other users. The NPS

believes that some flexibility must

remain in the system and that

emergency traffic should not be

constrained. While the NPS has

committed to restraint in its

administrative travel, the same cannot

be done with emergency traffic. The

agency must be able to respond to

emergencies along the park road to

provide for safe and enjoyable visitor

use. NPS also notes that emergency or

other non-routine road maintenance

may require NPS to make or to authorize

a NPS/Federal Highway Administration

contractor to make additional trips to

effect repairs. However, NPS will make

every effort to schedule repairs pre- and

post-season.

Comment: The State of Alaska

commented that the final rule should

incorporate an annual notice

requirement and some sort of built in

administrative appeal mechanism and

that the ‘‘Rules of the Road’’ part of the

regulations should not be used to

indirectly restrict public access outside

the Section 1110(a) and (b) processes.

NPS response: As discussed above,

operation of the regulations including

issuance of permits is consistent with

section 1110(b) of ANILCA. The ‘‘Rules

of the Road’’ will continue to be

conditions of a permit. These driving

rules are designed to increase safety on

the Park road and are not a means of

indirectly restricting access. Public

access is enhanced by the operation of

the visitor transportation system and the

tour buses. Annual notice and

administrative appeal provisions are

already in place and will continue to be

utilized.

Comment: The State of Alaska, the

Alaska Outdoor Council, and two

individuals commented that ANILCA

‘‘guarantees’’ economic and feasible

access to inholdings and that the NPS

cannot diminish the scope of this broad

statutory right through regulation.

NPS response: These comments

generally omitted the last sentence of

Section 1110(b) of ANILCA: ‘‘Such

rights shall be subject to reasonable

regulations issued by the Secretary to

protect the natural and other values of

such lands.’’

The regulations do not deny access;

they regulate access along the park road

to protect natural and other values. The

result of such protection within the road

corridor is the high economic value of

the inholdings in question. What were

once mining claims are now instead

valued by their proximity to the core of

Denali and their access via the Park

road, with its superlative wildlife

viewing opportunities. The National

Park Service is proposing to regulate,

not deny this access.

As stated in the text of the proposed

regulations, the traffic limits being

proposed have also been reviewed as

part of the General Management Plan in

1986 and the 1997 Entrance Area and

Road Corridor Development Concept

Plan. During the more recent planning

process, the NPS received 262 written

comments and heard testimony from 40

people. No comments were received

opposing the overall level of 10,512

motor vehicle trip permits, although

there were numerous comments that

supported more restrictive regulation of

vehicle traffic than was adopted in the

final plan.

Comment: One individual commented

that the proposed regulations threaten

the economic viability of Kantishna

businesses.

NPS response: As stated earlier, the

regulations are consistent with section

1110(b) of ANILCA as well as providing

for annual adjustments of permit levels.

The National Park Service notes that

only one individual raised the question

of economic viability of the several

Kantishna businesses. In addition to the

current level of permits which more

than afford adequate and feasible access

to inholders, the visitor transportation

system provides access to Kantishna.

Area businesses also utilize the

Kantishna airstrip.

Comment: One individual and one

business owner noted that the proposed

rules do not provide any incentive to

voluntarily reduce vehicle use of the

Park road.

NPS response: The final rule has not

been modified to address voluntary

actions. The NPS agrees it is in the best

interests of Park visitors, including the

Kantishna business visitors, and the

government to limit their use of the

road. The National Park Service hopes

other users agree and will voluntarily

limit access without regulatory

incentives, and NPS will work on such

efforts with all interested parties.

Comment: One individual commented

that the rule prohibiting motor homes,

campers, and trailers to travel to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37873

Kantishna is too restrictive and should

allow exceptions by the Superintendent.

NPS response: The final rule retains

the prohibition of the use of motor

homes, campers and trailers to travel to

transport guests to Kantishna

businesses. This provision does not

prohibit private inholder use of these

types of vehicles provided they are

operated during specific times of the

day. Adequate and feasible access using

buses is available for Kantishna

businesses to transport guests. The

prohibited types of vehicles pose a

safety concern if frequently used

commercially.

Comment: The State of Alaska

commented that the regulations must

provide a mechanism for currently

active inholders to seek adjustments of

individual allocations and must provide

for other inholders to acquire access for

their possible future ‘‘economic and

other purposes.’’

NPS response: The current allocations

afford more than adequate and feasible

access for inholders. In addition, the

final regulation contemplates

reallocation to address future needs.

Comment: The Wilderness Society

and two Kantishna businesses

commented that each Kantishna

business should be allocated the same

number of permits.

NPS response: The distribution of

permits among Kantishna businesses as

outlined in the 1997 plan and as

provided for in the regulation is

appropriate in that it is fair to Kantishna

businesses (i.e., provides reasonably

necessary and economically feasible

access), considers the unique

characteristics of individual operations,

and maintains the overall travel limits.

Comment: One Kantishna business

commented that the superintendent

should not have the authority to revoke

road allocations in the case of a sale or

transfer of a Kantishna business, since it

would be a severe encumbrance upon

the business.

NPS response: The final regulation

continues to provide for a reevaluation

of access needs upon sale or other

change. Additional visitor use may be

accommodated by the reevaluation

while continuing adequate access for

the business needs of the inholding. To

address these concerns, the NPS intends

to retain the established limit for an

individual Kantishna business for 12

months after the sale of the business

while the access requirements of the

new owner are being evaluated.

Comment: One business and the

Alaska Visitors Association commented

that the proposed rule should stipulate

that the National Park Service will work

on transfer of the concession agreement

and the vehicle permit allocation

simultaneously.

NPS response: A regulation is not

necessary, as consideration of any

concession authorizations will also

likely include consideration of vehicle

permits at the same time.

Comment: Two individuals

commented that the National Park

Service has not provided adequate

evidence, such as scientific studies, of

the need for regulating traffic on the

Park road.

NPS response: Studies addressing the

importance of this regulation are

identified and the topic discussed in the

1997 Entrance Area and Road Corridor

Development Concept Plan. Other

considerations including the large

growth in visitor numbers, the condition

of the road and the success

demonstrated by road restrictions also

make it clear that continuing the

restrictions at the 1986 levels is best for

the Park and the visitors.

Comment: The Denali Citizens

Council, one Kantishna business, and

several individuals commented that the

regulations should include daily bus

trip limits. The Wilderness Society,

Denali Citizens Council, one Kantishna

business, and several individuals also

noted that the regulations should

include daily limits on the Denali

Natural History Tour.

NPS response: The National Park

Service has already implemented daily

bus trip limits including limits on the

Denali Natural History Tour as outlined

in the 1997 Entrance Area and Road

Corridor Development Concept Plan.

Since the bus systems are operated

under concessions contracts, the

National Park Service has the authority

to enforce these restrictions as part of

the conditions of the contracts.

Comment: The Alaska Visitors

Association commented that the

National Park Service should provide at

least one year advance notice of specific

numbers of the annual permit

allocation.

NPS response: The regulations

provide that an annual date to evaluate

requests will be established. The

National Park Service recognizes that

businesses desire to know as far in

advance as possible and the

Superintendent will consider that desire

in establishing the date.

Comment: The Alaska Visitors

Association commented that absent

documented safety or resource issues,

the regulations should not be expanded

to further control vehicular traffic.

NPS response: The National Park

Service believes that safety and resource

issues should be addressed in a

proactive way rather than waiting for

damage to resource values or injury to

visitors to occur. The National Park

Service will continue to monitor all

aspects of Park use and resource

considerations and manage accordingly.

In any event, the final rule is consistent

with current motor vehicle practices on

the park road, and do not constitute an

expansion.

Comment: Several commentors noted

that the Denali Natural History Tour

(also known as the short tour) does not

stop at the Savage River, but instead

turns around 2.3 miles further into the

park at the Primrose Overlook. A few

questioned why NPS does not count the

short tour bus trips as part of the 10,512

annual permits.

NPS response: While the park road

changes from pavement to gravel at the

Savage River and that has traditionally

been the site of the check station and

the beginning of the restricted access

section, that location does not readily

accommodate large buses. The limited

parking there is often filled with private

vehicles and backing busses (as is

required to turn around there) would be

a hazard to pedestrians. The short tour

buses are better and more safely

accommodated at the Primrose Overlook

where they can turn around without

backing. As these buses only travel 2.3

miles up the moderate and improved

grade past the Savage River before

returning, there are no resource nor road

wear reasons to include these trips in

the annual limits and these trips have,

therefore, always been excepted. This

issue received thorough public review

in the 1997 Entrance Area and Road

Corridor Development Concept Plan and

the accompanying Environmental

Impact Statement.

Analysis of Comments on Kantishna

Firearms Safety Zone

Although many comments expressed

general support for the entire proposed

rule, NPS received a few comments

specific to the seasonal prohibition on

the discharge of firearms on public

lands within the developed area of

Kantishna. The closure applies on: the

Kantishna Airstrip; the approximately

4.5 mile-long State Omnibus Act Road

right-of-way; and all public lands

located within one mile of the

Kantishna Airstrip or the State Omnibus

Act Road right-of-way (within the Park

addition area surrounding Kantishna).

Fourteen comments expressed specific

support for the closure or suggested a

more stringent closure was appropriate.

Comment: The Alaska Outdoor

Council and the State of Alaska Office

of the Governor did not oppose the

closure. They suggested, however, that

further evaluation of the need for this

37874 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

closure was warranted and that NPS

should guard against incremental

expansions of or additions to this

closure that favor non-consumptive Park

uses and have cumulative impacts on

consumptive uses. The state also

pointed out that the state uses a one-half

mile closure in many areas.

NPS response: NPS anticipates that

public use will increase in this

developed area. The fact that this area

is developed distinguishes it from the

approximately four million acres of Park

addition and preserve land that is open

to various types of hunting. The rule

will only have a minimal effect as the

Kantishna area is closed to sport

hunting, protection of life and property

is excluded, and there is only a small

overlap of the permissible subsistence

hunting periods and the visitor season.

NPS finds that the closure is warranted.

Analysis of Comments on Wildlife

Protection

Most commentors generally supported

the wildlife closure regulations. Several

people spoke in favor of the proposal at

the public hearings and NPS received 25

written comments specifically

supporting the proposed flexible

closures for wildlife and wildlife habitat

protection; two written comments were

opposed. As explained below, NPS

disagrees with the comments in

opposition to this proposal and

concludes that it does have the

necessary legal authority for the closure

provision as proposed. However, after

reviewing the comments and further

consideration of the proposal, we have

determined that the proposed regulation

is simply redundant with respect to the

existing regulatory authorities

pertaining to closures under 36 CFR 1.5

and 1.7. Accordingly, NPS has chosen

not to promulgate this regulation but to

instead continue to utilize existing

regulations when wildlife closures are

required.

The Department in 1986 concluded

that the NPS regulations at 36 CFR 1.5

were not superceded by section 1110(a)

and its implementing regulations:

* * * Our review of section 1110(a) leads

us to conclude that the closure of areas to the

authorized uses (snowmachines, motorboats,

airplanes, and nonmotorized surface

transportation methods) should occur only

under standards of the law which this section

is to implement. Accordingly, the final

regulations have been amended to provide

that no closure to any use authorized under

this section may be made unless the ‘‘area

manager determines that the use would be

detrimental to the values of the unit or area.’’

It is Interior’s view however, that these

uses may be limited or restricted pursuant to

other applicable law. The Secretary of the

Interior has the authority in the areas

administered by Interior to close areas or

restrict use for a variety of reasons, such as

for health and safety. We do not believe that

the provisions of this section of ANILCA were

intended to preclude the Secretary from

utilizing other statutory authorizations to

restrict these uses. The proposed and interim

regulations attempted to incorporate these

other laws and the standard stated above, for

emergency closures. After reconsideration of

these closure provisions as a result of the

comments made about the standard for

closure under section 1110(a), Interior has

determined that these regulations should be

limited to closures under the authority of that

section. Accordingly, by, limiting these

regulations to closures authorized by section

1110(a), it was determined that the category

of closure ‘‘emergency’’ was no longer

necessary, and as such is covered by other

established authority. Regulations providing

for the closure of areas for reasons other than

the provisions of section 1110(a) include: For

NPS, 36 CFR 1.5; for FWS, 50 CFR 25.21; and

for BLM, 43 CFR 8364.

51 FR 31619, 31627–8 (September 4,

1986) (emphasis added).

Comment: The Alaska State

Snowmachine Association and the

Alaska Outdoor Council question the

legal authority of the NPS to permit the

Superintendent to make seasonal

closures and take other actions to

protect wildlife and indicates that such

authority is inconsistent with ANILCA

section 1110(a). The State of Alaska,

Office of the Governor recognized that

NPS needs flexibility, but suggested the

proposed rule was too wide-ranging and

offered several suggestions to limit the

range of the rule.

NPS response: The Department

regulations at 43 CFR 36.11(h)(6)

explicitly provide that nothing in that

section limits the authority of the

appropriate federal agency to restrict or

limit uses of an area under other

statutory authority. The quote in the

previous response demonstrates that the

Department has consistently maintained

that the closure provisions of 1.5 are

available when appropriate and are not

preempted by the regulations

implementing section 1110(a). The 1986

regulations recognize and confirm the

responsibility of the NPS to protect the

resource values of the Park units in

Alaska not only through a finding of

detriment to Park resources under

section 1110(a), but also, where

applicable, the use of other closure

authorities such as those in 36 CFR 1.5.

For example, if NPS sought to close

an area only to snowmachines due to

the detrimental effects of snowmachines

to that area, that closure must be

implemented under the section 1110(a)

regulations (43 CFR 36.11(h)). However,

if high avalanche danger necessitated

closing an area to all entry or use

(thereby including snowmachines), such

a closure can be appropriately

implemented in accordance with 36

CFR 1.5 and 1.7. Similarly, closing an

area to all uses under 36 CFR 1.5 for

resource protection purposes is

permissible so long as the closure is

reasonable under the given

circumstances. Most uses of this closure

authority in the past within the Park

have occurred during the summer

visitor season and are unrelated to

section 1110(a) access issues.

Section-by-Section Analysis

36 CFR 5.2(b), 5.4(a) and 5.10(a)

To reflect the name change to the Park

that occurred with the enactment of

ANILCA, the rule changes the name of

the Park, as it appears in these sections,

from Mount McKinley National Park to

Denali National Park and Preserve (Pub.

L. 96–487 section 202(3)(a), Dec. 2,

1980). In § 5.4(a) the reference to

‘‘McKinley Park Hotel’’ in the existing

regulations is replaced with ‘‘Denali

Park Railroad Depot.’’ This change

reflects the fact that the 1996 Final

Denali Entrance Area and Road Corridor

Development Concept Plan

Environmental Impact Statement (1996

Final Entrance and Road Plan), which

was approved in a 1997 Record of

Decision, adopted September 2001 as

the closing date for the hotel. The

railroad depot, which is just across the

road, is substituted for the hotel because

the depot will remain open. No change

is made to the regulatory content of the

other sections.

36 CFR 13.2(c)

This section lists those Parks

statutorily excepted from applicability

of the subsistence regulations found in

Part 13, subpart B. In the case of Denali,

only part of the Park was statutorily

excepted (i.e., that ‘‘core’’ part formerly

known as Mount McKinley National

Park, and referred to herein as the ‘‘Old

Park’’) (Pub. L. 96–487, section

202(3)(a), Dec. 2, 1980). The rule revises

this section to use that terminology to

clarify the meaning of the current

§ 13.2(c) phrase ‘‘* * * and parts of

Denali National Park.’’ The new

language more clearly specifies the

intended area and does not change the

regulatory application of the section.

36 CFR 13.63(d), Denali Park Road:

Motor Vehicle Traffic

This rule codifies the 1986 Denali

National Park and Preserve General

Management Plan (GMP) motor vehicle

use level of 10,512 vehicle round trips

on the Denali Park road west of the

Savage River from Memorial Day

weekend through mid-September.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37875

Consideration of factors such as natural

resource protection (including

maintaining the opportunity for

unparalleled wildlife watching), road

wear and maintenance, environmental

impacts and traffic safety led to this

limit. The 1997 Final Entrance Area and

Road Corridor Development Concept

Plan considered these issues and called

for retaining the annual season motor

vehicle traffic level (10,512) as

established in the 1986 GMP. Public

comment on the draft development

concept plan, which was designed to be

applicable for 10–15 years, indicated

widespread support for retaining the

GMP level.

Because a portion of the motor vehicle

traffic on the Denali Park road is

destined for commercial lodges and

other private inholdings in Kantishna at

the western end of the road, the

proposed regulation includes

consideration of the requirements of

ANILCA section 1110(b). ANILCA

section 1110(b) affords inholders such

rights as may be necessary to ensure

adequate and feasible access to their

land for economic and other purposes,

subject to reasonable regulations that

protect the natural and other values of

the conservation system unit. Therefore,

this section would be implemented with

consideration of, and in compliance

with, 43 CFR 36.10 (Access to

Inholdings).

The primary visitor attraction at the

Park is the unparalleled array of Alaska

wildlife regularly seen from the Denali

Park Road and the opportunity to see

natural predator-prey interactions. In

1972, to ensure that the increasing

number of visitors would continue to

see grizzly bears, caribou, moose, Dall

sheep, the occasional wolf, as well as

other species of Alaska wildlife in their

natural habitat, the National Park

Service developed a shuttle bus system

that replaced most of the private

vehicular traffic with buses capable of

transporting more passengers.

Concurrently, general private vehicular

traffic was limited to the easternmost 15

miles of the 88-mile Park road. Adding

additional traffic to the road, especially

private vehicular traffic, has been

shown to displace wildlife. Private

vehicle use causes the greatest

disturbance because the vehicles can

stop at will and passengers approach

wildlife on foot. Although bus

passengers may choose to be dropped

off at any safe point along the road,

when wildlife is near, passenger

discharge is controlled to avoid conflicts

with, and displacement of, wildlife.

Accordingly, opportunities for viewing

and photographing wildlife abound

while the bus is stopped for those

purposes.

Traffic safety is also a significant

factor for limiting use to the GMP

allocation. Park visitors consistently

support the NPS decision to maintain

most of the Denali Park Road in its

rustic, historic condition. The character

of the Park road and its relationship

with the landscape through which it

passes are integral to the visitor

experience at Denali. Consequently, 72

miles of the road are graded gravel,

much of which varies between one and

one-and-one-half lanes wide. As the

road traverses scenic mountain passes

between broad river valleys, it often

dips and climbs and winds as it clings

precipitously to the mountains’

supporting contours. The road, which

was originally designed for 1930s era

vehicles and levels of use, now

accommodates larger traffic levels—a

mix of large tour and shuttle buses,

private vehicles for inholder access,

park administrative and maintenance

traffic, and service vehicles traveling to

Kantishna lodges.

National Park Service concern over

traffic safety is also based on bus

accidents that have occurred in 1969,

1974, 1981 and 1989, and that have

resulted in six fatalities and numerous

serious injuries to park visitors. The

historic character of the road warrants

special attention to safety procedures for

its use. Known locally as the ‘‘Rules of

the Road,’’ practices such as driving

with lights on and specific procedures

for yielding to buses have developed

through time. NPS will hereafter apply

these practices as a term and condition

of a permit to operate a vehicle on the

restricted access section of the Denali

Park Road.

This rule provides the superintendent

with the regulatory authority to

annually evaluate anticipated-use

requirements and to reasonably

apportion motor vehicle permits for the

restricted access section of the road

among authorized users. Specific

allocations for Kantishna motor vehicle

traffic will help ensure long-term

protection of the current visitor

experience and of wildlife populations

along the road corridor. Motor vehicle

permits for present and future

Kantishna businesses would be

reallocated in accordance with proposed

section 13.63(d)(2) within the annual

limit of 10,512 permits. A total of 1,360

vehicle round trips for Kantishna

inholders are authorized, comprising 13

percent of all annual traffic. This total

includes all Kantishna traffic

(individual inholders, mining claim

owners, lodges and others). As mining

claims continue to be acquired by the

federal government, some Kantishna

traffic will decrease. Kantishna

businesses can also continue using both

the Kantishna airstrip and the NPS

visitor transportation system buses for

guest access, as well as operate buses

and other vehicles on the Park road as

allocated below. The current number of

round trips during the visitor season for

the existing businesses are:

• Denali Backcountry Lodge: 315.

• Kantishna Roadhouse: 420.

• Northface Lodge/Camp Denali: 315.

Each business may determine the type

of vehicle use to best suit their needs.

However, recreational vehicle (RV)

travel (motor homes, trailers, and

campers) for the purpose of transporting

guests to and from Kantishna businesses

is not permitted. Motor vehicle permits

will not be transferable from one

business operation to another.

Additionally, when a business is sold to

a different entity, National Park Service

will re-evaluate the access requirements

of the new entity. If a business ceases to

operate, or changes dramatically, it is

intended that the superintendent would

re-allocate the permits. The National

Park Service intends to retain the

established limit for an individual

Kantishna business for 12 months after

the sale of the business while access

requirements of the new owner are

being evaluated.

36 CFR 13.63(g), Firearms

The rule establishes a seasonal

closure to the discharge of firearms on

public lands in the developed area of

Kantishna, except for the protection of

life or property. The closure applies on:

the Kantishna Airstrip; the

approximately 4.5 mile-long State

Omnibus Act Road right-of-way, and; all

public lands located within one mile of

the Kantishna Airstrip or the State

Omnibus Act Road right-of-way (within

the Park addition area surrounding

Kantishna).

The closure is effective seasonally

beginning the Saturday of Memorial Day

weekend through the second Thursday

following Labor Day, or September 15,

whichever comes first. This period is

the time of heaviest overlap between

subsistence hunting and other seasonal

visitor activities in the Kantishna area.

The purpose of the closure is to reduce

the level of risk of firearm-related injury

inherent in heavy use areas without

unduly affecting authorized subsistence

uses. The restriction does not apply on

private property. This closure follows

consultation with the State of Alaska.

37876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

36 CFR 13.63(h), Snowmachines

(Snowmobiles)

The rule defines ‘‘traditional

activities,’’ as the term is used in the

Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA) section

1110(a) and 43 CFR 36.11, for the

portion of Denali National Park and

Preserve formerly known as Mount

McKinley National Park (Old Park). For

that area only, traditional activity is: an

activity that generally and lawfully

occurred in the Old Park

contemporaneously with the enactment

of ANILCA, and that was associated

with the Old Park, or a discrete portion

thereof, involving the consumptive use

of one or more natural resources of the

Old Park such as hunting, trapping,

fishing, berry picking or similar

activities. Recreational use of

snowmachines was not a traditional

activity. If a traditional activity

generally occurred only in a particular

area of the Old Park, it would be

considered a traditional activity only in

the area where it had previously

occurred. In addition, a traditional

activity must be a legally permissible

activity in the Old Park.

The rule closes the former Mount

McKinley National Park to all

snowmachine use. The closure does not

affect the Park’s four-million-acre

ANILCA additions where snowmachine

use is permitted for traditional activities

and for travel to and from villages and

homesites, subject to reasonable

regulations. (43 CFR 36.11(c)). The rule

also requires the superintendent to

determine that snow cover is adequate

in order to protect the underlying

vegetation and soils before seasonally

opening the latter areas. This

determination is necessary to prevent

damage to soils and exposed vegetation

and is similar to a provision at the Kenai

National Wildlife Refuge (50 CFR

36.39(i)(4)(i)) which NPS understands

has worked well since 1986. (See also,

Denali State Park, 11 AAC section

20.425). NPS again notes that where

snowmachine activity is presently

authorized by section 1110(a), that

activity is subject to the regulations

found at 36 CFR 2.18(a), (b), (d) and (e).

A copy of the June, 2000, Statement

of Finding prepared in connection with

this rule and maps of the affected area

can be obtained by visiting the Park’s

web site at www.nps.gov/dena/

statement.htm or by writing or calling

the superintendent at the address or

number printed at the top of this rule.

Drafting information. The primary

authors of this rule are Ken Kehrer, Jr.,

Mike Tranel, Joe Van Horn, Steve

Carwile and Russel J. Wilson, Denali

National Park and Preserve; Lou Waller

and Paul Hunter, NPS Alaska Support

Office also contributed.

Compliance With Laws, Executive

Orders and Department Policy

Regulator Planning and Review

(Executive Order 12866)

This rule is a significant rule and has

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866. This rule will

not have an effect of $100 million or

more on the economy. It will not

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. The NPS

has prepared a Final Cost-Benefit

Analysis that is available from the

Denali National Park and Preserve

superintendent. Based on this analysis,

the NPS anticipates positive net benefits

such as: increased public safety;

improved public understanding of Park

regulations; and, continued protection

of wildlife, preservation of natural

interactions among wildlife, and the

minimization of habitat disturbances

that contributes to visitors’ use and

enjoyment of Park resources. This rule

will not create a serious inconsistency

or otherwise interfere with an action

taken or planned by another agency.

The rule does not alter the budgetary

effects, entitlements, grants, user fees,

loan programs or the rights or

obligations of their recipients. The rule

may raise novel legal or policy issues,

however, the primary effect of the

proposed action is to consolidate in the

Code of Federal Regulations or

otherwise clarify requirements that

already exist under separate NPS

authorities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this regulatory action

will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The primary

effect of this action is to consolidate in

the Code of Federal Regulations or

otherwise clarify requirements that

already exist under separate authorities.

Only one of the requirements addressed

by the action is new. The new

requirement would apply specific

‘‘Rules of the Road’’, such as driving

with lights on and following procedures

for yielding to buses, as a permit

condition for vehicle use on the

restricted access section of the Denali

Park Road. This new requirement is not

anticipated to inconvenience drivers or

otherwise adversely impact any small

entity. Substantial areas exist nearby

where Park users can go who may be

displaced as a result of firearms and

snowmachine closures in this proposed

action. The wide availability of such

substitute-use areas would lessen, or

eliminate, any impact on Park users,

including small entities. The only direct

compliance cost that would be imposed

by this proposed action is the

requirement to provide drivers license

information, vehicle license plate

information, and a vehicle description

for purposes of issuing a permit to

operate a motor vehicle on the restricted

access section of the Denali Park Road.

That requirement is not anticipated to

impose significant costs on the public,

including small entities. No other direct

compliance costs would be imposed.

Therefore, significant impacts on small

entities are not expected from this

proposed action.

A qualitative Cost-Benefit Analysis

was done and indicates positive net

benefits for each component of the

regulatory action. Two specific

components that had the most public

interest were the snowmobile and the

road regulations. The road regulations

codified the existing trip limits and the

‘‘Rules of the Road’’. The trip limits

have been in effect since the 1986

general management plan and are

sufficient to provide adequate and

feasible access for the private holdings

in Kantishna along with the current

levels of Park visitors. The benefits

exceed the potential costs in this case

since this action protects the premier

wildlife watching that is the main

reason the public comes to the Park and

local businesses. The ‘‘Rules of the

Road’’ have been in place for years and

most drivers already follow them. The

codifying of these rules will improve

safety and reduce accidents. The

snowmobile regulation reinstates a

closure of the Old Park to snowmachine

use. There will be very little cost

associated with this regulation since

almost no snowmachine activity has

taken place in the Old Park since it was

created 83 years ago. There is very little

commercial snowmachine operation in

the area and there will be some benefits

to the local dog mushing and skiing

operations. Therefore both of these

components will have a net economic

benefit (see the Final Cost-Benefit

Analysis that is available from the

Denali National Park and Preserve

superintendent).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37877

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule does not have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more; will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, Federal, State, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions; 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. The

primary effect of this action is to

consolidate in the Code of Federal

Regulations or otherwise clarify

requirements that already exist under

separate NPS authorities. Copies of a

Final Cost-Benefit Analysis are available

from the Denali National Park and

Preserve superintendent. The analysis

found that no significant costs would

result from this action.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The NPS has determined and certifies

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.), that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, state or tribal governments or

private entities. Copies of a Final CostBenefit Analysis are available from the

Denali National Park and Preserve

superintendent. A statement containing

the information required by the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. The

rule applies only to Federal Park land

and there should be no cost to the State

from any of these regulations. The State

was consulted on the topics that were of

mutual concern. The NPS determined

that there are no effects to any Federally

recognized tribes.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order

12360, the rule does not have significant

takings implications. The primary effect

of this proposed action is to consolidate

in the Code of Federal Regulations or

otherwise clarify requirements that

already exist under separate NPS

authorities. A takings implication

assessment is not required.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have federalism

implications which warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The substantive provisions of this rule

apply mainly to the portion of Denali

National Park and Preserve that was

formerly known as Mount McKinley

National Park which is under the

exclusive jurisdiction of the United

States. The primary effect of this

proposed action is to consolidate in the

Code of Federal Regulations or

otherwise clarify requirements that

already exist under separate NPS

authorities.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order

12988)

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that this rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

does not meet the requirements of

sections 3 (a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This regulation requires an

information collection from 10 or more

parties and a submission under the

Paperwork Reduction Act is required.

The information collection requirements

contained in this rule at § 13.63(d)(2)

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget and assigned

clearance number 1024–0026. This

information is being collected to solicit

information that is necessary for the

Superintendent to issue vehicle permits.

The public is being asked to provide

this information in order for the Park to

track the number of permits issued and

to whom they are issued. The

information will be used to grant

administrative benefits. The obligation

to respond is required to obtain a

benefit.

Specifically, the NPS needs the

following information to issue the

permit:

(1) Drivers license number and State

of issue.

(2) Vehicle license plate number and

State.

(3) Vehicle description, including

year, make and model.

The public reporting burden for the

collection of information in this

instance is estimated to be 0.10 hours

per response, including the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. This would make a total

of about 25 hours annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

NPS has determined that most aspects

of this rulemaking, with the exception

of the portion concerning a

snowmachine closure, have been

previously addressed pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act, 42

U.S.C. 4332, in environmental

documents prepared in conjunction

with Park management plans. These are

the environmental assessments prepared

in conjunction with the Park General

Management Plan which was approved

in a 1986 Finding of No Significant

Impact, or the environmental impact

statement prepared in conjunction with

the Denali Entrance Area and Road

Corridor Development Concept Plan

which was approved in a 1997 Record

of Decision. Copies of these documents

are available from the Denali National

Park and Preserve superintendent.

An environmental assessment (EA)

was prepared by the NPS, in accordance

with NEPA and its implementing

regulations at 40 CFR 1508.9, on a

proposed special regulation to

permanently close the Old Park to

snowmachine use. The EA was released

for 60 days of public comment on

November 9, 1999. The EA evaluated

four alternatives: (1) No action, a

continuation of snowmachine use for

traditional activities in the Old Park; (2)

closing all but a 180,000 acre area in the

southeast part of the Old Park to

snowmachine use for traditional

activities; (3) instituting a series of

temporary closures to the use of

snowmachines in the Old Park by use of

the procedures required in Section

1110(a) of ANILCA, including hearings

in the vicinity and a published finding

of detriment, and (4) permanently

closing the Old Park to snowmachine

use via a special regulation and a

regulatory definition of ‘‘traditional

activities.’’ A Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI)was approved on June 6,

2000. The environmental consequences

of the snowmachine use closure in the

old Mount McKinley National Park are

minimal and are documented within the

Environmental Assessment for the

Permanent Closure of the Former Mt.

McKinley National Park to

Snowmachine Use and the FONSI. The

action is also in the scope of the impacts

anticipated in the approval given for the

Park’s General Management Plan in

1986.

A Summary Evaluation and Findings,

pursuant to Section 810(a) of ANILCA,

was attached to the Environmental

Assessment for the Permanent Closure

of the Former Mt. McKinley National

Park to Snowmachine Use to document

the impacts of a closure and alternatives

on subsistence activities within the area.

Lands in the Former Mount McKinley

National Park are closed to subsistence

activities; and, therefore, the analysis

concluded that a closure would not

result in a significant restriction to

subsistence uses. Copies of these

documents are also available from the

Denali National Park and Preserve

superintendent.

37878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 5

Alcohol and alcoholic beverages,

Business and industry, Civil rights,

Equal employment opportunity,

National parks, Transportation.

36 CFR Part 13

Alaska, National parks, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

NPS amends 36 CFR Chapter I, Parts 5

and 13 as follows:

PART 5—COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE

OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 5

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 17j–2, 462.

§ 5.2 [Amended]

2. In § 5.2(b) introductory text, the

words ‘‘Mount McKinley’’ in the first

sentence are revised to read ‘‘Denali’’.

§ 5.4 [Amended]

3. In § 5.4(a) introductory text, the

words ‘‘Mount McKinley (prohibition

does not apply to that portion of the

Denali Highway between the Nenana

River and the McKinley Park Hotel)’’ in

the first sentence are revised to read,

‘‘Denali National Park and Preserve

(prohibition does not apply to that

portion of the Denali Park road between

the Highway 3 junction and the Denali

Park Railroad Depot)’’.

§ 5.10 [Amended]

4. In § 5.10(a) the words ‘‘Mount

McKinley’’ in the first sentence are

revised to read, ‘‘Denali’’.

PART 13—NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

UNITS IN ALASKA

5. The authority citation for part 13

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et

seq.; Sec. 13.65 also issued under 16 U.S.C.

1a–2(h), 20, 1361, 1531, 3197; Pub L. 105–

277, 112 Stat. 2681, October 21, 1998; Pub.

L. 106–31, 113 Stat. 57, May 21, 1999.

§ 13.2 [Amended]

6. In § 13.2(c), the words ‘‘and parts

of Denali National Park’’ are revised to

read ‘‘the former Mt. McKinley National

Park’’.

7. Section 13.63 is amended by

adding paragraphs (d), (g) and (h) to

read as follows:

§ 13.63 Denali National Park and Preserve.

* * * * *

(d) Operation of motor vehicles on the

Denali Park road west of the Savage

River—(1) Do I need a permit to operate

a motor vehicle on the Denali Park road

west of the Savage River? Yes, you must

obtain a permit from the superintendent

to operate a motor vehicle on the

restricted section of the Denali Park

road. The restricted section begins at the

west end of the Savage River Bridge

(mile 14.8) and continues to the former

Mt. McKinley National Park boundary

north of Wonder Lake (mile 87.9).

(2) How many permits will be issued

each summer? The superintendent is

authorized, under this section, to issue

no more than 10,512 motor vehicle

permits each year for access to the

restricted section of the road. The

superintendent will issue the permits

for the period that begins on the

Saturday of Memorial Day weekend and

continues through the second Thursday

following Labor Day or September 15,

whichever comes first. Each permit

allows one vehicle one entry onto the

restricted portion of the Park road.

(3) How will the superintendent

manage the permit program? (i) The

superintendent will apportion motor

vehicle permits among authorized users

following the procedures in § 13.31.

Authorized users are individuals,

groups and governmental entities who

are allowed by law or policy to use the

restricted section of the road.

(ii) The superintendent will establish

an annual date to evaluate permit

requests and publish that date, along

with the results of the annual

apportionment, in the superintendent’s

compendium of rules and orders. The

superintendent’s compendium is

available to the public upon request.

(iii) The superintendent will reevaluate the access requirements of any

business that is sold, ceases to operate

or that significantly changes the services

currently offered to the public.

(4) What is prohibited? (i) No one may

operate a motor vehicle on the restricted

section of the Park road without a valid

permit.

(ii) No one may use a motor home,

camper or trailer to transport guests to

a lodge or other business in Kantishna.

(iii) No one may transfer or accept

transfer of a Denali Park road permit

without the superintendent’s approval.

* * * * *

(g) Kantishna area summer season

firearm safety zone—(1) What is

prohibited? No one may fire a gun

during the summer season in or across

the Kantishna area firearm safety zone,

unless they are defending life or

property.

(i) The summer season begins on the

Saturday of Memorial Day weekend and

continues through the second Thursday

following Labor Day or September 15,

whichever comes first.

(ii) The Kantishna Area firearm safety

zone includes: the Kantishna Airstrip;

the State Omnibus Act Road right-ofway; and all public lands located within

one mile of the Kantishna Airstrip or the

State Omnibus Act Road right-of-way,

from the former Mt. McKinley National

Park boundary at mile 87.9 to the south

end of the Kantishna Airstrip.

(h) Snowmachine (snowmobile)

operation in Denali National Park and

Preserve—(1) What is the definition of a

traditional activity for which Section

1110(a) of ANILCA permits

snowmachines to be used in the former

Mt. McKinley National Park (Old Park)

portion of Denali National Park and

Preserve? A traditional activity is an

activity that generally and lawfully

occurred in the Old Park

contemporaneously with the enactment

of ANILCA, and that was associated

with the Old Park, or a discrete portion

thereof, involving the consumptive use

of one or more natural resources of the

Old Park such as hunting, trapping,

fishing, berry picking or similar

activities. Recreational use of

snowmachines was not a traditional

activity. If a traditional activity

generally occurred only in a particular

area of the Old Park, it would be

considered a traditional activity only in

the area where it had previously

occurred. In addition, a traditional

activity must be a legally permissible

activity in the Old Park.

(2) May a snowmachine be used in

that portion of the park formerly known

as Mt. McKinley National Park (Old

Park)? No, based on the application of

the definition of traditional activities

within the park to the factual history of

the Old Park, there are no traditional

activities that occurred during periods

of adequate snow cover within the Old

Park; and, thus, Section 1110(a) of

ANILCA does not authorize

snowmachine access. Hunting and

trapping were not and are not legally

permitted activities in the Old Park at

any time of the year. Sport fishing has

not taken place in the Old Park during

periods of adequate snow cover due to

weather conditions that are adverse to

sport fishing, and the limited fishery

resources within the Old Park. During

periods of adequate snow cover, berry

picking is not feasible, and has not

taken place in the Old Park. Under the

definition, recreational use of

snowmachines is not a traditional

activity. There are no villages,

homesites or other valid occupancies

within the Old Park. Access by

snowmachine through the Old Park in

transit to homesites, villages and other

valid occupancies was not lawful prior

to the enactment of ANILCA and is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37879

available through routes outside the Old

Park that have been historically used for

that purpose. Therefore, the use of

snowmachines is not authorized by

section 1110(a) for such travel. Further,

Congress did not authorize subsistence

activities in the Old Park. In addition,

the National Park Service has

determined that the use of even a few

snowmachines in the Old Park would be

detrimental to the resource values of the

area. Therefore, because no usage is

authorized in the Old Park by section

1110(a) the Old Park remains closed to

all snowmachine use in accordance

with 36 CFR 2.18.

(3) Where can I operate a

snowmachine in Denali National Park

and Preserve? You can use a

snowmachine outside of the Old Park

for traditional activities or travel to and

from villages and homesites and other

valid occupancies as authorized by 43

CFR 36.11(c), or when lawfully engaged

in subsistence activities authorized by

§ 13.46.

(4) What types of snowmachines are

allowed? The types of snowmachines

allowed are defined in § 13.1(q) under

snowmachine or snowmobile.

(5) What other regulations apply to

snowmachine use? Snowmachine use is

governed by regulations at § 2.18(a) of

this chapter, traffic safety, § 2.18(b) of

this chapter, state laws, and § 2.18(d)

and (e) of this chapter, prohibited

activities; and 43 CFR 36.11(a)(2)

adequate snow cover, and 43 CFR

36.11(c) traditional activities.

(6) Who determines when there is

adequate snow cover? The

superintendent will determine when

snow cover is adequate for

snowmachine use. The superintendent

will follow the procedures in §§ 1.5 and

1.7 of this chapter to inform the public.

(7) Nothing in this section shall limit

the authority of the superintendent to

restrict or limit uses of an area under

other statutory authority.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 00–14754 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH–132–2; KY–116–2; KY–84–2; FRL–

6717–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio and Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are determining that the

Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone

nonattainment area (CincinnatiHamilton area) has attained the 1-hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) by its extended

attainment date. The CincinnatiHamilton area includes the Ohio

Counties of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont,

and Warren and the Kentucky Counties

of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton. This

determination is based on three years of

complete, quality-assured, ambient air

monitoring data for the 1996 to 1998

ozone seasons that demonstrate that the

ozone NAAQS has been attained in the

area, as well as the most recent 3-year

period of data from 1997–1999, which

shows the area is continuing to attain.

On the basis of this determination, EPA

is also determining that certain

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other related

requirements of Part D of Title 1 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA), are not applicable

to the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.

We are also approving an exemption

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from

the nitrogen oxides (NOX) requirements

as provided for in section 182(f) of the

CAA. Section 182(f) establishes NOX

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. However, it also provides, in

subsection 182(f)(1)(A), that these

requirements shall not apply to an area

if the Administrator determines that

additional NOX reductions would not

contribute to attainment of the ozone

NAAQS in that area. Because the

Cincinnati-Hamilton area is currently

attaining the ozone NAAQS without

benefit of additional NOX reductions,

we are granting the area a NOX

exemption. As a result, the CincinnatiHamilton area will no longer be subject

to the section 182(f) NOX requirements;

however, all NOX controls previously

approved for the area by EPA must

continue to be implemented.

We are also approving the State of

Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency’s (OEPA) and the

Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural

Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet’s (Cabinet) requests

to redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. The original redesignation

request from OEPA, dated June 28,

1999, was received on July 2, 1999, and

completed on December 22, 1999. The

Cabinet’s redesignation request to EPA

was dated October 29, 1999. In

approving these redesignation requests,

EPA is also approving, as revisions to

the Ohio and Kentucky State

Implementation Plans, the States’ plans

for maintaining the 1-hour ozone

standard for the next 10 years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on July 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the OEPA’s and

the Cabinet’s submittals and other

information are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. The reference

file numbers are OH–132, KY–116 and

KY–84.

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), Regulation

Development Section, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Air Planning

Branch, Regulatory Planning Section,

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Jones, Environmental Scientist,

United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J),

Regulation Development Section, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6058,

(jones.william@epa.gov).

Allison Humphris, Environmental

Scientist, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch,

Regulatory Planning Section, 61

Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303, (404) 562–9030,

(humphris.allison@epa.gov).

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for these actions?

II. What comments did we receive and what

are our responses?

III. What actions are we taking?

IV. Why are we taking these actions?

V. What are the effects of these actions?

VI. Approving SIP Revisions in Audit Law

States.

VII. Administrative requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866