Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 39815

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 242

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 100

RIN 1018–AD68

Subsistence Management Regulations

for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A,

B, C, and D, Redefinition To Include

Waters Subject to Subsistence

Priority; Correcting Amendment

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Fish

and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: This correction amends the

Subsistence Management Regulations

for Public Lands in Alaska, published in

the Federal Register on January 8, 1999,

(64 FR 1276) redefining the area subject

to the subsistence priority for rural

residents of Alaska under Title VIII of

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act of 1980. The January

8, 1999, final rule also established

regulations for seasons, harvest limits,

methods, and means relating to the

taking of fish and shellfish for

subsistence uses during the 2000

regulatory year.

DATES: The correcting amendment to

§l.26 is effective June 28, 2000

through February 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, telephone (907) 786–3888. for

questions specific to National Forest

System Lands, contact Ken Thompson,

Regional Subsistence Program Manager,

USDA–Forest Service, Alaska Region,

telephone (907) 786–3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Title VIII of the Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act

(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126)

requires that the Secretary of the Interior

and the Secretary of Agriculture

(Secretaries) implement a joint program

to grant a preference for subsistence

uses of fish and wildlife resources on

public lands, unless the State of Alaska

enacts and implements laws of general

applicability that are consistent with

ANILCA and that provide for the

subsistence definition, preference, and

participation specified in Sections 803,

804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State

implemented a program that the

Department of the Interior previously

found to be consistent with ANILCA.

However, in December 1989, the Alaska

Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v.

State of Alaska that the rural preference

in the State subsistence statute violated

the Alaska Constitution. The Court’s

ruling in McDowell required the State to

delete the rural preference from the

subsistence statute and, therefore,

negated State compliance with ANILCA.

The Court stayed the effect of the

decision until July 1, 1990.

As a result of the McDowell decision,

the Department of the Interior and the

Department of Agriculture

(Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990,

responsibility for implementation of

Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands.

On June 29, 1990, the Temporary

Subsistence Management Regulations

for Public Lands in Alaska were

published in the Federal Register (55

FR 27114–27170). Consistent with

Subparts A, B, and C of these

regulations, as revised January 8, 1999,

(64 FR 1276), the Departments

established a Federal Subsistence Board

to administer the Federal Subsistence

Management Program. The Board’s

composition includes a Chair appointed

by the Secretary of the Interior with

concurrence of the Secretary of

Agriculture, the Alaska Regional

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service; the Alaska

Regional Director, U.S. National Park

Service; the Alaska State Director, U.S.

Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska

Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian

Affairs; and the Alaska Regional

Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through

the Board, these agencies participated in

the development of regulations for

Subparts A, B, and C, and the annual

Subpart D regulations.

Because this rule relates to public

lands managed by an agency or agencies

in both the Departments of Agriculture

and the Interior, identical text would be

incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and

50 CFR part 100.

Proposed Subpart D regulations for

the 2000 seasons and bag limits, and

methods and means were published on

December 17, 1998, in the Federal

Register (62 FR 66216). A comment

period providing for public review of

the proposed rule was advertised by

mail, radio, and newspaper. Following

that comment period the Proposed Rule

was modified to respond to comments

and to make it coincide with State

regulations wherever possible. Also, we

removed regulations that were

unnecessary because there were no

areas of Federal jurisdiction present.

The final regulations, published on

January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276) reflect the

joint efforts of the Federal agencies to

simplify, clarify, and remove any

extraneous provisions.

This correcting amendment is

necessary because, in the effort to

remove unnecessary provisions, one

regulation protecting fish populations in

the Cook Inlet Fishery Management

Area was inadvertently and incorrectly

omitted.

Subpart D

Both State subsistence regulations, as

well as previous Federal subsistence

regulations and the Proposed Rule,

contained a prohibition on the use of

gillnets in freshwater in the Cook Inlet

Fishery Management Area. This

prohibition, in place in Federal

regulations since 1990, was necessary to

protect freshwater species susceptible to

serious overharvest with the use of

gillnets. Without such a prohibition,

populations of rainbow trout, steelhead,

or other freshwater species could

quickly be decimated in certain areas.

Reexamination of the comments that

were received on the Proposed Rule and

the preliminary drafts of the Final Rule

revealed no specific intent to remvoe

this gillnet prohibition. In our efforts to

remove unnecessary regulations, we

inadvertently removed the regulation

prohibiting the use of gillnets in fresh

water. This correcting amendment

would reinsert that gillnet prohibition

into 50 CFR 100.26(i)(10) and 36 CFR

242.26(i)(10).

The Board finds that additional public

notice and comment requirements

under the Administration Procedures

Act (APA) for this correcting

amendment are impracticable,

unnecessary, and contrary to the public

interest. Lack of appropriate

conservation measures could seriously

affect the continued viability of fish

populations, adversely impact future

subsistence opportunities for rural

Alaskans, and would generally fail to

serve the overall public interest.

Therefore, the Board finds good cause

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive

additional public notice and comment

procedures prior to publication of this

rule. The Board finds good cause under

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule

effective upon publication.

Conformance With Statutory and

Regulatory Authorities

National Environmental Policy Act

Compliance

A Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) that described four

alternatives for developing a Federal

39816 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Subsistence Management Program was

distributed for public comment on

October 7, 1991. That document

described the major issues associated

with Federal subsistence management

as identified through public meetings,

written comments, and staff analysis

and examined the environmental

consequences of the four alternatives.

Proposed regulations (Subparts A, B,

and C) that would implement the

preferred alternative were included in

the DEIS as an appendix. The DEIS and

the proposed administrative regulations

presented a framework for an annual

regulatory cycle regarding subsistence

hunting and fishing regulations (Subpart

D). The Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) was published on

February 28, 1992.

Based on the public comment

received, the analysis contained in the

FEIS, and the recommendations of the

Federal Subsistence Board and the

Department of the Interior’s Subsistence

Policy Group, the Secretary of the

Interior, with the concurrence of the

Secretary of Agriculture, through the

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest

Service, decided to implement

Alternative IV as identified in the DEIS

and FEIS (Record of Decision on

Subsistence Management for Federal

Public Lands in Alaska (ROD), signed

April 6, 1992). The DEIS and the

selected alternative in the FEIS defined

the administrative framework of an

annual regulatory cycle for subsistence

hunting and fishing regulations. The

final rule for Subsistence Management

Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska,

Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940–

22964, published May 29, 1992)

implemented the Federal Subsistence

Management Program and included a

framework for an annual cycle for

subsistence hunting and fishing

regulations.

Compliance With Section 810 of

ANILCA

The intent of all Federal subsistence

regulations is to accord subsistence uses

of fish and wildlife on public lands a

priority over the taking of fish and

wildlife on such lands for other

purposes, unless restriction is necessary

to conserve healthy fish and wildlife

populations. A Section 810 analysis was

completed as part of the FEIS process.

The final Section 810 analysis

determination appeared in the April 6,

1992, ROD which concluded that the

Federal Subsistence Management

Program, under Alternative IV with an

annual process for setting hunting and

fishing regulations, may have some local

impacts on subsistence uses, but the

program is not likely to significantly

restrict subsistence uses.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This amendment does not contain

information collection requirements

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Other Requirements

This rule was not subject to OMB

review under Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires

preparation of flexibility analyses for

rules that will have a signfiicant effect

on a substantial number of small

entities, which include small

businesses, organizations, or

governmental jurisdictions. The

Departments determined that this

rulemaking will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities within the meaning of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The rulemaking will impose no

signficant costs on small entities; the

exact number of businesses and the

amount of trade that will result from

this Federal land-related activity is

unknown. The aggregate effect is an

insignificant positive economic effect on

a number of small entities, such as

ammunition, snowmachine, and

gasoline dealers. The number of small

entities affected is unknown; but, the

fact that the positive effects will be

seasonal in nature and will, in most

cases, merely continue preexisting uses

of public lands indicates that they will

not be significant.

In general, the resources harvested

under this rule will be consumed by the

local harvester and do not result in a

dollar benefit to the economy. However,

we estimate that 2 million pounds of

meat are harvested by the local

subsistence users annually and, if given

a dollar value of $3.00 per pound,

would equate to $6 million Statewide.

Title VIII of ANILCA requires the

Secretaries to administer a subsistence

preference on public lands. The scope of

this program is limited by definition to

certain public lands. Likewise, these

regulations have no potential takings of

private property implications as defined

by Executive Order 12630.

The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et

seq., that this rulemaking will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more

in any given year on local or State

governments or private entities. The

implementation of this rule is by

Federal agencies, and no cost is

involved to any State or local entities or

Tribal governments.

The Service has determined that this

amendment meets the applicable

standards provided in Section 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State

from exercising management authority

over wildlife resources on Federal

lands.

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512

DM 2, we have evaluated possible

effects on Federally recognized Indian

tribes and have determined that there

are no effects. The Bureau of Indian

Affairs is a participating agency in this

rulemaking.

Drafting Information: William Knauer

drafted this amendment under the

guidance of Thomas H. Boyd, of the

Office of Subsistence Management,

Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Curt Wilson, Alaska State Office, Bureau

of Land Management; Greg Bos, Alaska

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; Sandy Rabinowitch Alaska

Regional Office, National Park Service;

Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office,

Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken

Thompson, USDA-Forest Service,

provided additional guidance.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 242

Administrative practice and

procedure, Alaska, Fish, National

forests, Public lands, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

50 CFR Part 100

Administrative practice and

procedure, Alaska, Fish, National

forests, Public lands, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Federal Subsistence

Board amends Title 36, part 242, and

Title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below.

PARTll SUBSISTENCE

MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR

PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA

1. The authority citation for both 36

CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd,

3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C.

1733.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 39817

2. Section ll.26 is amended by

adding paragraph (i) (10) (v) to read as

follows:

§ll.26 Subsistence taking of fish.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(10) * * *

(v) You may not use gillnets in

freshwater.

* * * * *

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Kenneth E. Thompson,

Acting Regional Forester, USDA—Forest

Service.

Thomas H. Boyd,

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

[FR Doc. 00–16037 Filed 6–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M; 4310–55–M

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION

36 CFR Part 1228

RIN 3095–AA81

Agency Records Centers

AGENCY: National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Summary of comments received

on final rule.

SUMMARY: This document describes the

comments that the National Archives

and Records Administration (NARA)

received in response to the invitation for

public comment on three sections of our

final rule on agency records center

storage standards, published December

2, 1999. We are publishing this

document to inform the public of the

comments and our disposition of the

comments.

DATES: The final rule was effective

January 3, 2000, except §§ 1228.234,

1228.236, and 1228.238 which were

effective March 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Allard at (301) 713–7360, ext.

226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NARA

published its final rule, Agency Records

Centers, on December 2, 1999 (64 FR

67634). In that final rule, we delayed the

effective date of three new provisions

concerning exceptions and waivers to

the facility standards to allow a 60-day

public comment period. These three

new provisions are intended to make it

easier for facilities to gain certification.

We received timely comments from two

offices in the Veterans Administration,

an individual, Iron Mountain, United

Mine Workers of America (UMWA),

Contract Services Association of

America (CSA), and PRISM

International (PRISM). We also

considered late comments from the

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition Reform (DoD) and the

Coalition for Government Procurement

(Coalition).

One of the agencies stated that they

had no comment and the individual

commented that the reasoning behind

the waiver is understandable. A

discussion of the other major comments

follows, organized by subject. Most of

these comments reiterated comments

raised earlier in the rulemaking and

addressed in the final rule.

Timing of Approvals of Waivers

The UMWA endorsed the three

sections with one recommended

modification to § 1228.238(c). That

provision applies to waiver of roof

requirements for underground storage

facilities. It states that NARA will

normally grant the waiver and notify the

requesting agency within 10 work days

if the agency has not also requested a

waiver of a different requirement under

§ 1228.236. If the agency has another

waiver request pending for the same

facility, NARA will respond to all of the

waiver requests at the same time and

within the longest time limits.

UMWA argued that approval of one

waiver for a facility should not be

delayed because another waiver is

received unless the initial waiver would

be impacted by the new filing for a

waiver. While a waiver of roof

requirements can be considered

independently from waivers addressed

by § 1228.236, a facility that requires a

waiver of another NARA requirement

cannot be approved to store Federal

records until the requested waiver of the

other provision(s) is approved. We

would prefer to make one notification

when all waivers are approved and we

expect that agencies will submit all

waiver requests for a facility at one time.

Limit the Scope of the Regulation to

Permanent/Archival Records

Iron Mountain, PRISM, CSA, and the

Coalition recommended revising

§ 1228.222(a) to limit the entire

regulation to permanent archival

Federal records. We rejected this

proposal because (1) recommendations

to change other sections of the

regulation were outside the scope of the

request for comment on § 1228.234,

1228.236, and 1228.238, and (2) NARA

had previously addressed comments on

our position that all Federal records, not

just permanent records, require a

minimum level of protection (see 64 FR

67634). We also note that permanent

archival records are those records that

have been transferred to NARA’s legal

custody, not records still in the creating

agency’s custody. The regulation covers

permanent and temporary records that

are in the creating agency’s custody.

As we stated in the preamble to the

proposed rule (64 FR 23504), in our

initial regulatory flexibility analysis (64

FR 50028), and again in the final rule,

Federal records provide essential

documentation of the Federal

Government’s policies and transactions

and protect rights of individuals. The

Government has an obligation to protect

and preserve these records for their

entire retention period, even if that

retention period is only a few years, as

is the case with IRS income tax returns

or invoice payments. NARA believes

that records storage facilities should be

structurally sound, protect against

unauthorized access, and protect against

fire and water damage to the records,

whether the records are temporary or

permanent. Only in the area of

environmental conditions is the length

of time the records are retained a

significant consideration in setting

standards.

NARA’s Facility Standards are

Inconsistent With Commercial

Standards and Best Practices

Iron Mountain, CSA, the Coalition,

and DoD expressed concern that we did

not ‘‘baseline’’ the standards against

current commercial best practices and

standards. These comments argued that

adherence to local building codes and

selected National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) standards provide

sufficient protection for records in

commercial records centers. We did not

accept these comments, which also had

been made in response to the proposed

rule and initial regulatory flexibility

analysis. In the preamble to the

December 2, 1999, final rule, we

discussed at some length why we did

not share their views (see 64 FR 67635

and 67639–67640). In brief, the local

fire-safety components of building codes

are designed to protect the life and

safety of occupants, mitigate against the

spread of a fire to adjacent structures,

and to protect fire fighters, not to limit

the loss of valuable contents. The NFPA

standards cited by the industry

comments pertain to the protection of

facilities storing bulk quantities of blank

or waste paper, not records. NARA’s

standards supplement the building

codes to provide a safety level for the

items stored.

The commercial records storage

industry does not currently have any

widely accepted or ANSI-approved

standards. Unfortunately, they do have

a record of disastrous fires, each with