46416 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

corrected to read ‘‘G. Request for 

Comments’’. 

Guy Traynor, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. E6–13118 Filed 8–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–135866–02] 

RIN 1545–BA93 

Section 1248 Attribution Principles; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–

135866–02) that was published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, June 2, 2006 

(71 FR 31985) providing guidance for 

determining the earnings and profits 

attributable to stock of controlled 

foreign corporations (or former 

controlled foreign corporations) that are 

(were) involved in certain 

nonrecognition transactions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gilman, (202) 622–3850 (not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–135866–02) that is the subject of 

this correction is under section 1248 of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, REG–135866–02 

contains errors that may prove to be 

misleading and are in need of 

clarification. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–135866–02) that was 

the subject of FR Doc. E6–8551 is 

corrected as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority : 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

Par. 2. On page 31991, instructional 

Par. 4. is amended by adding a new 

entry at the end of the amendatory 

instruction to read as follows: 

Adding new paragraph (g). 

§ 1.1248–1 [Corrected] 

Par. 3. On page 31991, § 1.1248–1 is 

amended by adding a new paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1.1248–1 Treatment of gain from certain 

sales or exchanges of stock in certain 

foreign corporations. 

* * * * * 

(g) Effective date. Paragraph (a)(4) and 

paragraph (a)(5), Example 4, of this 

section apply to income inclusions that 

occur on or after the date that paragraph 

and example are published as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

Guy Traynor, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. E6–13119 Filed 8–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

RIN 1018–AT99 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C; 

Nonrural Determinations 

AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would revise the list 

of nonrural areas identified by the 

Federal Subsistence Board (Board, we, 

us). Areas determined to be nonrural are 

not eligible to participate in the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program on 

Federal public lands in Alaska. We 

propose to change Adak’s status to rural. 

We also propose to add Prudhoe Bay 

and the Kodiak Area, including the City 

of Kodiak, the Mill Bay area, Womens 

Bay, Bell’s Flats, and the Coast Guard 

Station to the list of nonrural areas. The 

following areas would continue to be 

nonrural, but we propose changes in 

their boundaries: the Kenai Area; the 

Wasilla/Palmer Area, including Point 

McKenzie; the Homer Area, including 

Fritz Creek East (except Voznesenka) 

and the North Fork Road area; and the 

Ketchikan Area. We propose no other 

changes in status. However, new 

information could lead to changes not 

proposed at this time. 

DATES: We must receive your written 

public comments no later than October 

27, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

electronically to Subsistence@fws.gov. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file 

format and other information about 

electronic filing. You may also submit 

written comments to the Office of 

Subsistence Management, 3601 C Street, 

Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Attention: Pete Probasco, Office of 

Subsistence Management; (907) 786–

3888. For questions specific to National 

Forest System lands, contact Steve 

Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program 

Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, (907) 786–3888. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments 

Electronic filing of comments is 

preferred: You may submit electronic 

comments and other data to 

Subsistence@fws.gov. Please submit as 

MS Word or Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files, 

avoiding the use of any special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

Background 

In Title VIII of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126), 

Congress found that ‘‘the situation in 

Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, 

no practical alternative means are 

available to replace the food supplies 

and other items gathered from fish and 

wildlife which supply rural residents 

dependent on subsistence uses * * *’’

and that ‘‘continuation of the 

opportunity for subsistence uses of 

resources on public and other lands in 

Alaska is threatened * * *.’’ As a result, 

Title VIII requires, among other things, 

that the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) 

implement a program to provide rural 

Alaska residents a priority for the taking 

of fish and wildlife on public lands in 

Alaska for subsistence uses, unless the 

State of Alaska enacts and implements 

laws of general applicability that are 

consistent with ANILCA and that 

provide for the subsistence definition, 

priority, and participation specified in 

sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 46417 

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 priority in the State subsistence 

statute violated the Alaska Constitution. 

The Court’s ruling in McDowell caused 

the State to delete the rural priority from 

the subsistence statute which 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 Departments 

published the Temporary Subsistence 

Management Regulations for Public 

Lands in Alaska in the Federal Register 

(55 FR 27114). Permanent regulations 

were jointly published on May 29, 1992 

(57 FR 22940), and have been amended 

since then. 

As a result of this joint process 

between Interior and Agriculture, these 

regulations can be found in the titles for 

Agriculture and Interior in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) both in title 

36, ‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property,’’ and title 50, ‘‘Wildlife and 

Fisheries,’’ at 36 CFR 242.1–28 and 50 

CFR 100.1–28, respectively. The 

regulations contain the following 

subparts: Subpart A, General Provisions; 

Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart 

C, Board Determinations; and Subpart 

D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and 

Wildlife. 

Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C 

of these regulations, as revised May 7, 

2002 (67 FR 30559), and December 27, 

2005 (70 FR 76400), the Departments 

established a Federal Subsistence Board 

(Board) to administer the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program, as 

established by the Secretaries. 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. National Park Service; the 

Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM); the Alaska 

Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs; and the Alaska Regional 

Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through 

the Board, these agencies participate in 

the development of regulations for 

Subparts A, B, and C, and the annual 

Subpart D regulations. 

Rural Determination Process 

With a Federal Register notice on 

October 5, 1990 (55 FR 40897), the 

newly established Federal Subsistence 

Board initiated the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement as a 

vehicle for widespread public review 

and participation in the development of 

the final temporary regulations. The 

rural determination process was 

included, and subsequently on 

November 23, 1990 (55 FR 48877), the 

Board published another notice in the 

Federal Register explaining the 

proposed Federal process for making 

rural determinations, the criteria to be 

used, and the application of those 

criteria in preliminary determinations. 

Public meetings were held in 

approximately 56 Alaskan communities, 

specifically to solicit comments on the 

proposed Federal Subsistence 

Management Program. On December 17, 

1990, the Board adopted final rural and 

nonrural determinations, which were 

published on January 3, 1991 (56 FR 

236). Final programmatic regulations 

were published on May 29, 1992, with 

only slight variations in the rural 

determination process (57 FR 22940). 

Federal subsistence regulations 

require that the rural/nonrural status of 

communities or areas be reviewed every 

10 years, beginning with the availability 

of the 2000 census data. The Board 

evaluated several options for conducting 

the review and decided to adopt an 

approach similar to that taken in 1990, 

which used criteria established in 

Federal subsistence regulations. The 

review was conducted with an emphasis 

on what has changed since 1990. 

Although the process uses data from 

the 2000 census for its review, some 

data were not compiled and available 

until 2005. Data from the Alaska 

Department of Labor were used to 

supplement the census data. 

During February–July 2005, the staff 

of the Federal Subsistence Management 

Program conducted an initial review of 

the rural status of Alaska communities, 

looking at the 2000 census data for each 

community or area with an emphasis on 

what had changed since 1990. From this 

initial review, staff compiled a report 

that included a proposed list of 

communities and areas for which 

further analysis appeared warranted. In 

addition, the report included the 

method used to develop this list. In 

August–October 2005, the public and 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils were invited to comment on 

the results of this initial review. 

At a meeting in Anchorage on 

December 6–7, 2005, the Board took 

public testimony and determined that 

additional information was needed on 

10 communities and areas before it 

decided upon any potential changes. 

• For three communities, analysis 

was focused on evaluation of rural/ 

nonrural status, as follows: 

Kodiak, Adak, and Prudhoe Bay: 

Currently Kodiak and Prudhoe Bay are 

considered rural, and Adak is 

considered nonrural. These three 

communities were further analyzed as 

to their rural/nonrural status. 

• For five nonrural groupings of 

communities and areas, further analysis 

evaluated the possibility of excluding or 

including places, as follows: 

Fairbanks North Star Borough: 

Evaluate whether to continue using the 

entire borough as the nonrural area, or 

separate some outlying areas and 

evaluate their rural/nonrural status 

independently. 

Seward Area: Evaluate whether to 

exclude Moose Pass and similarly 

situated places from this nonrural 

grouping and evaluate their rural/ 

nonrural status independently. 

Wasilla/Palmer Area: Evaluate 

whether to include Willow, Point 

MacKenzie, and similarly situated 

places in this nonrural grouping. 

Homer Area: Evaluate whether to 

include Fox River, Happy Valley, and 

similarly situated places in this 

nonrural grouping. 

Kenai Area: Evaluate whether to 

exclude Clam Gulch and similarly 

situated places from this nonrural 

grouping and evaluate their rural/ 

nonrural status independently. 

• In addition, two areas were 

recommended for further analysis as 

follows: 

Ketchikan Area: Evaluate whether to 

include Saxman, and areas of growth 

and development outside the current 

nonrural boundary, and evaluate the 

rural/nonrural status of the whole area. 

Delta Junction, Big Delta, Deltana and 

Fort Greely: Evaluate whether some or 

all of these communities should be 

grouped, and their rural/nonrural status 

evaluated collectively. 

This list for additional analysis 

differed from the proposed list put out 

for public comment in July 2005, in 

that: (1) The scope of the review was 

broadened for the Ketchikan area, 

currently considered nonrural, to 

include an analysis of rural/nonrural 

characteristics of the entire area; (2) the 

rural/nonrural status of Prudhoe Bay 

was added; and (3) additional analysis 

of Sitka was not believed to be 

necessary. 

Sitka, whose population had 

increased from 8,588 people in 1990 to 

8,835 in 2000, had been identified as an 

area possibly warranting further 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
46418 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

analysis. However, during its December 

6–7, 2005, meeting, the Board heard 

substantial public testimony regarding 

the rural characteristics of Sitka and 

determined that no additional analysis 

was necessary. The Board is proposing 

to leave Sitka’s rural status unchanged. 

During January–May 2006, Federal 

subsistence staff conducted in-depth 

analyses of each community or area on 

the Board-approved list of communities 

and areas identified for further analysis. 

On June 22, 2006, the Board met in 

executive session to develop the list of 

communities and areas they believe to 

be nonrural. Those communities and 

areas are identified in this proposed 

rule. 

Population size is a fundamental 

distinguishing characteristic between 

rural and nonrural communities. Under 

the current programmatic guidance in 

Federal subsistence regulations: 

• A community with a population of 

2,500 or less is deemed rural, unless it 

possesses significant characteristics of a 

nonrural nature, or is considered to be 

socially and economically a part of a 

nonrural area. 

• A community with a population of 

more than 7,000 is deemed nonrural, 

unless it possesses significant 

characteristics of a rural nature. 

• A community with a population 

above 2,500 but not more than 7,000 is 

evaluated to determine its rural/ 

nonrural status. The community 

characteristics considered in this 

evaluation may include, but are not 

limited to, diversity and development of 

the local economy, use of fish and 

wildlife, community infrastructure, 

transportation, and educational 

institutions. 

Communities that are economically, 

socially, and communally integrated are 

combined for evaluation purposes. The 

Board identified three guidelines or 

criteria for analysis to assist in its 

determination of whether or not to 

group communities in its review of rural 

determinations. The criteria to be used 

include: (1) Are the communities in 

proximity and road-accessible to one 

another? The first criterion, proximity 

and road accessibility, is considered a 

logical first step in evaluating the 

relationship between communities, and, 

applied in relation to the other two 

criteria, is considered a reasonable 

indicator of economic, social, and 

communal integration. (2) Do they share 

a common high school attendance area? 

The second criterion, regarding sharing 

a common high school attendance area, 

is taken to be an indicator of the social 

integration of communities. This is an 

improvement by way of modification 

from the former criterion of a shared 

school district. The public pointed out 

in past testimony that attendance in a 

common school district often reflects 

political or administrative boundaries 

rather than social integration. A shared 

social experience is better captured by 

the shared high school criterion. (3) Do 

30% or more of the working people 

commute from one community to 

another? This criterion, regarding 

whether working people commute from 

one community to another, was 

identified as providing meaningful 

information relating to the grouping of 

communities. Also, the U.S. Census 

uses this criterion because commuting 

to work is an easily understood measure 

that reflects social and economic 

integration. These criteria were not 

considered separately, but assessed 

collectively, with the recommendation 

to group communities being dependent 

upon the collective assessment. 

Community characteristics and 

specific indicators that the Board used 

to evaluate rural/nonrural status 

include: (1) Economy—wage 

employment, percent unemployment, 

per capita income, diversity of services, 

cost-of-food index, and number of stores 

defined as large national retailers; (2) 

community infrastructure—including 

the cost of electricity; (3) fish and 

wildlife use—variety of species used per 

household, percentage of households 

participating, level of average harvest 

per capita for all subsistence resources 

combined, and level of average harvest 

per capita for salmon and large land 

mammals only; (4) transportation—

variety of means, predominant means, 

and length of road system; and (5) 

educational institutions present in the 

community. 

The Board’s analysis and preliminary 

efforts to distinguish between rural 

places and nonrural places were heavily 

reliant on population size, but when the 

Board used other characteristics, its 

approach was based on a totality of the 

circumstances. Unemployment is 

generally higher and per capita income 

is generally lower in rural places than 

in nonrural places. Cost of food and cost 

of electricity were generally higher in 

the rural communities than in the 

nonrural. Subsistence per capita harvest 

of all resources shows a pattern of 

increasing amount with decreasing 

population size among nonrural areas, 

and typically higher levels in rural 

communities. The per capita harvest of 

salmon and large land mammals also 

shows a general pattern of increasing 

amount with decreasing population size 

among nonrural areas, and typically 

higher levels in rural communities. 

There were no large national retailers 

found in the rural communities 

examined (other than Kodiak which is 

being proposed as nonrural), or in the 

three smallest nonrural communities or 

areas. Population density was generally 

higher for most nonrural places than it 

was for rural places. 

Summarized below are the Board’s 

recommendation for each area analyzed 

and the justification for that 

recommendation. 

Adak: Recommend changing Adak’s 

status from nonrural to rural. Following 

the closure of the military base, the 

community of Adak has decreased in 

population by 94 percent from 1990 to 

2000. It currently has 167 residents 

(2005), which is well below the 

presumptive rural threshold of 2,500 

persons. Adak is also extremely remote 

and is accessible only by boat or plane, 

with the nearest community (Atka) 169 

miles away. With the changes that have 

occurred since the 1990s, Adak now has 

rural characteristics typical of a small 

isolated community. 

Prudhoe Bay (including Deadhorse): 

Recommend changing Prudhoe Bay’s 

status from rural to nonrural. In 2000 

Prudhoe Bay had one permanent 

household comprised of five people. 

There were reportedly no permanent 

residents in February 2006. Prudhoe 

Bay has none of the characteristics 

typical of a rural community. Prudhoe 

Bay is an industrial enclave built for the 

sole purpose of extracting oil. The oil 

companies provide everything 

employees need: Lodging, food, health 

care, and recreation. The thousands of 

people in Prudhoe Bay do not live there 

permanently, but work multi week-long 

shifts. They eat in cafeterias and live in 

group quarters. There are no schools, 

grocery stores, or churches. Subsistence 

is not a part of the way of life. Hunting 

in the area and possession of firearms 

and ammunition are prohibited. Based 

on its industrial enclave characteristics, 

Prudhoe Bay should be determined to 

be nonrural. 

Fairbanks North Star Borough: No 

changes to this nonrural grouping are 

recommended. In applying the grouping 

criteria as indicators of economic, 

social, and communal integration, the 

Board believes that the current nonrural 

boundary of the Fairbanks Area should 

continue to be defined as the Fairbanks 

North Star Borough boundary. No 

census designated places (CDPs) should 

be excluded from the nonrural grouping 

for the following reasons: (1) All CDPs 

are road accessible to one another. 

Although the Harding-Birch Lakes and 

Salcha areas are more sparsely 

populated than central areas of the 

borough, both communities include 

many occasional-use homes owned by 

Fairbanks residents. Further, both 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 46419 

places are home to only a few yearround residents. (2) The majority of the 

Borough’s high school students are 

bused to one of the schools located in 

Fairbanks, North Pole, or Eielson. (3) 

The Remainder area of the North Star 

Borough should be included in the 

grouping because the majority of the 

population is road connected and over 

half (57 percent) of the workers residing 

in this area commute to Fairbanks for 

employment. Additionally, 75 percent 

of the workers living in Harding–Birch 

Lakes drive to the City of Fairbanks to 

work, and 71 percent of the working 

population in Pleasant Valley commute 

to the City of Fairbanks. 

Delta Junction Vicinity: No changes 

are recommended for the rural status of 

Delta Junction, or the communities in 

the immediate vicinity. In applying the 

grouping criteria as indicators of 

economic, social, and communal 

integration, the Board believes that the 

four Delta Junction vicinity CDPs 

assigned for analysis (Delta Junction, 

Big Delta, Deltana, and Fort Greely) 

should be grouped as an area for 

purposes of rural/nonrural analysis 

because they fulfill the three guidelines 

for grouping: (1) All four CDPs are road 

connected and proximal; (2) the 

majority of the high school-aged 

students from Big Delta, Deltana, and 

Fort Greely attend high school in Delta 

Junction; and (3) in the two outlying 

CDPs, over 30 percent of the workers 

commute within the vicinity (41 percent 

of the workers living in Big Delta 

commute to either Delta Junction, 

Deltana, Fort Greely, or to a Remainder 

area within the Southeast Fairbanks 

Census Area, and 45 percent of the 

workers in Deltana commute to Delta 

Junction or Fort Greely). 

The four places grouped into the Delta 

Junction Area should remain rural in 

status. The population size of the 

grouping (3,921) places it in the 

nonpresumptive midrange, and 

information on the characteristics of the 

grouping, although somewhat limited, is 

indicative of a rural character. The 

recent economic upswing to the area 

due to construction of the Missile 

Defense system at Fort Greely and 

development of the Pogo Mine is 

thought to be temporary. 

Seward Area: No changes to this 

nonrural grouping are recommended. In 

applying the grouping criteria as 

indicators of economic, social, and 

communal integration, the Board 

believes that the Moose Pass, Crown 

Point, and Primrose CDPs should 

remain within the Seward Area 

grouping. Moose Pass, Crown Point, and 

Primrose CDPs meet all the criteria for 

grouping: proximity and roadaccessibility to the Seward Area; their 

students attend the high school in 

Seward; and the level of workers 

commuting to Seward for employment 

is greater than 30 percent. 

Wasilla/Palmer Area: Include the 

Point MacKenzie CDP in the nonrural 

Wasilla/Palmer Area grouping; do not 

include the Willow CDP. The Board 

believes that the Point Mackenzie CDP 

meets all the criteria for grouping with 

the Wasilla/Palmer Area. The Point 

Mackenzie CDP is in proximity to the 

Wasilla/Palmer Area and roadaccessible; their students attend Wasilla 

High School; and the level of workers 

commuting to the Wasilla/Palmer Area 

for employment is at 50 percent. This 

change would make Point McKenzie 

part of a nonrural area, a change from 

its current rural status. The Board 

recommends that the Willow CDP not 

be included in the Wasilla/Palmer Area 

grouping. Students in the Willow CDP 

are located in two attendance areas for 

high schools, within and outside of the 

Wasilla/Palmer Area. The level of 

commuting for workers to the Wasilla/ 

Palmer Area is at 23.9 percent, which is 

below the criteria identified for 

grouping. 

Kenai Area: Adjust the boundaries of 

the nonrural Kenai Area to include all 

of the current Sterling CDP, and propose 

no change to the current grouping and 

status of Clam Gulch CDP as part of the 

nonrural Kenai Area. It appears that 

Clam Gulch CDP should continue to be 

included in the Kenai Area grouping 

because, although students of Clam 

Gulch CDP attend high school outside of 

the Kenai Area, the commuting of 

workers to the Kenai Area is on the 

order of 30 percent, and Clam Gulch is 

connected by paved highway to the 

Kenai Area, with which it has been 

grouped since initial determinations 

were made in 1990. It also appears that 

Cohoe CDP should remain within the 

Kenai Area grouping. Cohoe students 

attend a high school in the Kenai Area 

and the level of work commuting, at 

69.5 percent, is significantly above the 

minimum criteria for grouping. The 

Sterling CDP has been part of the 

nonrural Kenai Area since 1990. For the 

2000 census, the Sterling CDP has 

expanded in size, such that a significant 

portion of the CDP extends beyond the 

current boundary of the nonrural Kenai 

Area. The Board believes that the 

boundaries of the Kenai Area should be 

adjusted to include all of the current 

Sterling CDP. Students within the 

Sterling CDP go to high school within 

the Kenai Area and the level of 

commuting is at 61.2 percent of 

workers, well above the minimum 

criteria for grouping. 

Homer Area: Adjust the boundaries of 

the nonrural Homer Area to include all 

of the Fritz Creek CDP (not including 

Voznesenka), and the North Fork Road 

portion of the Anchor Point CDP. This 

change would make Fritz Creek East, 

except for Voznesenka, and the North 

Fork Road portion of the Anchor Point 

CDP nonrural, a change from their 

current rural status. The Board has 

tentatively concluded for Fritz Creek 

East that, except for Voznesenka, the 

residents are economically, socially, and 

communally integrated with the Homer 

Area. Fritz Creek East is in proximity 

and road-connected to the Homer Area. 

The Homer High School attendance area 

includes their students, and 43.8 

percent of their workers commute to the 

Homer Area. It appears that Voznesenka 

should not be included in the Homer 

Area because, while it is in proximity 

and road-connected to the Homer Area, 

the number of jobs shown as being 

located within the Homer Area is only 

19.5 percent, and Voznesenka students 

attend high school in Voznesenka. 

The Board believes that residents of 

the North Fork Road area fully meet two 

of the three criteria, proximity and 

commuting of workers. For the third 

criteria, although students have the 

option of attendance in Nikolaevsk 

School or Ninilchik High School, the 

vast majority go to Homer High School. 

This is sufficient basis for considering 

the North Fork Road area of the Anchor 

Point CDP to be economically, socially, 

and communally integrated with the 

nonrural Homer Area. 

The Board believes that residents of 

the Happy Valley CDP fulfill only the 

proximity criterion for grouping with 

the Homer Area. Happy Valley students 

are within the Ninilchik School high 

school attendance area, and less than 30 

percent of Happy Valley workers 

commute to the Homer Area (14.4 

percent). It appears that residents of the 

Happy Valley CDP should not be 

included with the Homer Area. 

It appears that the Nikolaevsk CDP, 

north of the Anchor Point CDP and 

connected to the Homer Area by the 

North Fork Road, does not warrant 

inclusion in the Homer Area. There is 

a K–12 school in Nikolaevsk, and data 

show that only 22 percent of jobs held 

by Nikolaevsk residents were located in 

the Homer Area. 

It appears that residents of Fox River 

CDP, primarily in the communities of 

Razdolna and Kachemak Selo, do not 

meet any of the three criteria, which 

would indicate that Fox River residents 

are not economically, socially, or 

communally integrated with the Homer 

Area. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
46420 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Kodiak Area: Define the Kodiak Area 

to include the road system, including 

the City of Kodiak, the Mill Bay area, 

Womens Bay, Bell’s Flats, and the Coast 

Guard Station, but not including 

Chiniak, Pasagshak, and Anton Larsen, 

and change the status of the Kodiak 

Area, as defined, from rural to nonrural. 

The Board believes that the Kodiak 

Station CDP should be included in the 

Kodiak Area grouping. The Kodiak 

Station CDP directly fulfills two of the 

three criteria for being grouped in the 

Kodiak Area, and special consideration 

is warranted in relation to the third 

criterion: (1) The Kodiak Station CDP is 

road-connected and adjacent to the City 

of Kodiak; (2) the Kodiak Station CDP 

does not have a high school; all students 

attend high school in the City of Kodiak; 

and (3) the special circumstance of 

enlisted employment accounts for the 

overall commuting level of workers to 

Kodiak City being an estimated 11 

percent of all working residents. 

However, this can be attributed to the 

fact that enlisted personnel residing on 

the base are by duty assignment bound 

to the base. Working dependents, who 

are not bound to employment on the 

base, virtually all work in Kodiak City. 

While the worker commuting criterion 

is thereby not met if one pools enlisted 

personnel and working dependents, ties 

to the Kodiak Area are otherwise 

evident. The Board believes that the 

Womens Bay CDP should be included in 

the Kodiak Area grouping. Womens Bay 

CDP fulfills all three criteria for being 

grouped in the Kodiak Area: (1) 

Womens Bay CDP is road-connected 

and proximal to the City of Kodiak; (2) 

Womens Bay CDP does not have a high 

school; students attend high school in 

the City of Kodiak; and (3) more than 30 

percent of the working residents are 

employed in the City of Kodiak. 

The Board believes that the Chiniak 

CDP should not be included in the 

Kodiak Area grouping because (1) 

although there is a road from Chiniak to 

the City of Kodiak, it is a minimum of 

a one-hour trip, and the 14 miles closest 

to Chiniak are unpaved; (2) there is a 

partial high school in Chiniak to grade 

10, and only two-fifths of the high 

school-aged children attend school in 

Kodiak. 

The Board believes that the roadconnected Remainder area should be 

included in the Kodiak Area grouping, 

with the exception of the Pasagshak and 

Anton Larsen portions. The roadconnected Remainder area, with the 

exceptions as noted, is proximal to the 

City of Kodiak; students from the roadconnected Remainder area attend high 

school in the City of Kodiak; and more 

than 30 percent of the working residents 

of the Remainder area are employed in 

the City of Kodiak. The road-connected 

Remainder area of the Kodiak Area 

includes people residing in Anton 

Larsen and Pasagshak. There is no 

information about these ‘‘sub-areas’’ of 

the road-connected Remainder area, 

thus it is unknown if students living in 

these areas are taught through 

correspondence, home-schooled, or 

travel to Kodiak to attend high school. 

It is also unknown how many people 

commute to Kodiak City to work. 

However, the Board determined that 

despite the lack of information 

regarding the three criteria for grouping, 

the remoteness of Pasgashak and Anton 

Larsen is comparable to the remoteness 

of Chiniak, and therefore elected to 

propose no change in the rural status of 

these areas. 

The population of the Kodiak Area—

estimated at approximately 12,000 in 

2005—is well above the presumptive 

nonrural population of 7,000 in Federal 

regulations. The population has 

increased slightly since 1990. Kodiak’s 

per capita income is relatively high and 

it also has a 2-year college, high 

diversity of services, a large national 

retailer, fast food restaurants, and roads 

linking the outlying area to the city. Of 

the communities examined during this 

analysis, the Kodiak Area is 34 percent 

larger in population than the next 

largest rural place, and its use of fish 

and wildlife is 24 percent lower. While 

the per capita harvest of subsistence 

resources is higher in the Kodiak Area 

than in some rural areas, it is well below 

the levels in some other rural 

communities. 

Ketchikan Area: Define the Ketchikan 

Area to include Pennock Island, parts of 

Gravina Island, and the road system 

connected to the City of Ketchikan, 

except for the community of Saxman. 

Saxman would retain its current rural 

status, and the Ketchikan Area, as 

defined, would retain its nonrural 

status. Saxman is directly adjacent to 

Ketchikan, connected by road, and 

surrounded by the outlying Ketchikan 

development. Visually, the only 

distinguishing feature to indicate the 

boundary between Ketchikan and 

Saxman is a sign on the South Tongass 

Highway. Saxman has clearly been 

overtaken and is surrounded by the 

geographic expansion of Ketchikan; 

Saxman students attend high school in 

Ketchikan; and 64 percent of the 

workers in Saxman commute to 

Ketchikan for their employment, with 

another 8 percent commuting to the 

Remainder area of the borough to work. 

Even though the grouping criteria would 

indicate including Saxman with the 

Ketchikan Area, social and economic 

characteristics indicate that Saxman 

should not be grouped in the Ketchikan 

Area. Saxman is a small, close-knit 

community that is socially and 

politically separate from Ketchikan. The 

residents of Saxman have two distinct 

entities to separate themselves from 

Ketchikan, the traditional government 

(Organized Village of Saxman) and the 

municipal government (City of Saxman). 

Socioeconomic indicators suggest 

distinctions between the two 

communities. For example, Saxman has 

a higher unemployment rate, lower per 

capita income, higher percentage of 

residents below the poverty level than 

those found in Ketchikan, and a 70 

percent Native population. Another 

distinguishing characteristic of the 

community is that Saxman residents 

depend much more heavily on the 

harvest of subsistence resources. 

Saxman’s average per capita harvest of 

217 pounds is substantially more than 

has been estimated for the Ketchikan 

Area. Thus, while the grouping criteria 

lead to including Saxman with the 

Ketchikan Area, the unique 

socioeconomic characteristics of 

Saxman suggest that it should remain 

separate from the Ketchikan Area. 

The Remainder fulfills all three 

criteria for grouping with the Ketchikan 

Area: (1) The Remainder, other than 

nearby Gravina and Pennock Islands, is 

road-connected to the City of Ketchikan; 

(2) Students in the Remainder attend 

high school in Ketchikan; and (3) Over 

30 percent of the workers from the 

Remainder commute to work in the City 

of Ketchikan. Presently, most of the 

Remainder is included in the nonrural 

Ketchikan Area, established in 1990, 

except for extensions of the highway to 

the north and south that have since 

occurred. 

The population of the Ketchikan Area 

was estimated at 12,720 in 2005 

(excluding Saxman), having decreased 

slightly from 1990. Ketchikan possesses 

many nonrural characteristics, 

including having a 2-year college, a 

large national retailer, car dealerships, 

fast food restaurants, and roads linking 

the outlying surrounding area to the 

city. Although the pulp mill closed, 

there is still some diversity in the 

economy with tourism, fishing, fish 

processing, timber, retail services, and 

government providing the majority of 

employment. There is a hospital and a 

high diversity of services offered. The 

Ketchikan Area had the sixth highest 

population in the state in 2005, 

considering community groupings as 

defined by the Board. All other areas 

with higher populations are currently 

considered nonrural in Federal 

subsistence regulations. Three areas 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 46421 

with smaller populations are currently 

classified as nonrural and are not 

proposed for a change in status: the 

Homer Area, Seward Area, and Valdez. 

Harvest of subsistence resources in the 

Ketchikan Area is lower than is 

characteristic of rural communities. 

This change would make the 

extended road connected areas of 

Ketchikan nonrural, a change from their 

current rural status. 

The list of nonrural communities and 

areas, along with those other nonrural 

communities or areas whose status 

would remain unchanged, is published 

herein as the proposed rule. All other 

communities and areas of Alaska not 

listed herein would retain their rural 

determination. We propose to amend 

Section ll.23, which identifies those 

communities and areas of Alaska that 

are determined to be rural and nonrural. 

We have made maps available for the 

nonrural areas. The purpose of these 

maps is to provide to the subsistence 

user an overall graphic representation of 

the extent of the nonrural areas. To view 

maps, go to the Office of Subsistence 

Management Web site at http:// 

alaska.fws.gov/asm/home.html. If you 

do not have access to the internet, you 

may contact the Office of Subsistence 

Management at the address or phone 

number shown at ADDRESSES or FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

respectively, and we will send the maps 

to you. 

During August–October 2006, the 

public and Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Councils are invited to 

comment on the proposed rule. 

Hearings in Kodiak, Sitka, Saxman, and 

Ketchikan will be held in September 

and October 2006. The specific dates, 

times, and locations will be announced 

in locally and Statewide—circulated 

newspapers or you may call the phone 

number shown at FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Additional 

hearings may be scheduled by the 

Board, as appropriate. In December 12–

13, 2006, in Anchorage, Alaska, the 

Federal Subsistence Board will meet to 

consider the comments received and 

may make changes to the proposed rule. 

From the decisions made in December, 

the Board will develop a final rule for 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

effective date of any community or area 

changing from a rural to nonrural status 

is 5 years after the date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

For communities or areas that change 

from nonrural to rural, the effective date 

is 30 days after the date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

Because the Federal Subsistence 

Management Program relates to public 

lands managed by an agency or agencies 

in both the Departments of Agriculture 

and the Interior, we propose to 

incorporate identical text into 36 CFR 

part 242 and 50 CFR part 100. 

Conformance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Authorities 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance 

A Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for developing a 

Federal Subsistence Management 

Program was distributed for public 

comment on October 7, 1991. That 

document described the major issues 

associated with Federal subsistence 

management as identified through 

public meetings, written comments, and 

staff analysis, and examined the 

environmental consequences of four 

alternatives. Proposed regulations 

(Subparts A, B, and C) that would 

implement the preferred alternative 

were included in the DEIS as an 

appendix. The DEIS and the proposed 

administrative regulations presented a 

framework for an annual regulatory 

cycle regarding subsistence hunting and 

fishing regulations (Subpart D). The 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) was published on February 28, 

1992. 

Based on the public comments 

received, the analysis contained in the 

FEIS, and the recommendations of the 

Federal Subsistence Board and the 

Department of the Interior’s Subsistence 

Policy Group, the Secretary of the 

Interior, with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Agriculture, through the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture—Forest 

Service, implemented Alternative IV as 

identified in the DEIS and FEIS (Record 

of Decision on Subsistence Management 

for Federal Public Lands in Alaska 

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

and the selected alternative in the FEIS 

defined the administrative framework of 

an annual regulatory cycle for 

subsistence hunting and fishing 

regulations. The final rule for 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, 

B, and C, published May 29, 1992, 

implemented the Federal Subsistence 

Management Program and included a 

framework for an annual cycle for 

subsistence hunting and fishing 

regulations. The following Federal 

Register documents pertain to this 

rulemaking: 

FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN

ALASKA, SUBPARTS A AND B 

Federal Register 

citation Date of publication Category Detail 

57 FR 22940 ...... May 29, 1992 ............... Final Rule ..................... ‘‘Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska; 

Final Rule’’ was published in the Federal Register establishing a Federal Subsistence Management Program. 

64 FR 1276 ........ January 8, 1999 ........... Final Rule (amended) .. Amended 7 FR 22940 to include subsistence activities occurring on inland navigable waters in which the United States has a reserved 

water right and to identify specific Federal land units where reserved 

water rights exist. Extended the Federal Subsistence Board’s management to all Federal lands selected under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska Statehood Act and situated 

within the boundaries of a Conservation System Unit, National Recreation Area, National Conservation Area, or any new national forest or 

forest addition, until conveyed to the State of Alaska or an Alaska 

Native Corporation. Specified and clarified Secretaries’ authority to 

determine when hunting, fishing, or trapping activities taking place in 

Alaska off the public lands interfere with the subsistence priority. 

66 FR 31533 ...... June 12, 2001 .............. Interim Rule .................. Expanded the authority that the Board may delegate to agency field officials and clarified the procedures for enacting emergency or temporary restrictions, closures, or openings. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
46422 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN

ALASKA, SUBPARTS A AND B—Continued 

Federal Register 

citation Date of publication Category Detail 

67 FR 30559 ...... May 7, 2002 ................. Final Rule ..................... In response to comments on an interim rule, amended the operating 

regulations. Also corrected some inadvertent errors and oversights of 

previous rules. 

68 FR 7703 ........ February 18, 2003 ....... Direct Final Rule .......... Clarified how old a person must be to receive certain subsistence use 

permits and removed the requirement that Regional Councils must 

have an odd number of members. 

68 FR 23035 ...... April 30, 2003 ............... Affirmation of Direct 

Final Rule.

Received no adverse comments on 68 FR 7703. Adopted direct final 

rule. 

68 FR 60957 ...... October 14, 2004 ......... Final Rule ..................... Established Regional Council membership goals. 

70 FR 76400 ...... December 27, 2005 ..... Final Rule ..................... Revised jurisdiction in marine waters and clarified jurisdiction relative to 

military lands. 

An environmental assessment was 

prepared in 1997 on the expansion of 

Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is 

available from the office listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 

Secretary of the Interior with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture determined that the 

expansion of Federal jurisdiction did 

not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the human 

environment and therefore signed a 

Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Compliance With Section 810 of 

ANILCA 

The intent of all Federal subsistence 

regulations is to accord subsistence uses 

of fish and wildlife on public lands a 

priority over the taking of fish and 

wildlife on such lands for other 

purposes, unless restriction is necessary 

to conserve healthy fish and wildlife 

populations. A section 810 analysis was 

completed as part of the FEIS process. 

The final section 810 analysis 

determination appeared in the April 6, 

1992, ROD, which concluded that the 

Federal Subsistence Management 

Program may have some local impacts 

on subsistence uses, but that the 

program is not likely to significantly 

restrict subsistence uses. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no new 

information collection requirements 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

information collection requirements 

described in the CFR regulations were 

approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 

and were assigned clearance number 

1018–0075, which expires August 31, 

2006. We will not conduct or sponsor, 

and you are not required to respond to, 

a collection of information request 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

Other Requirements 

Economic Effects—This rule is not a 

significant rule subject to OMB review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

rulemaking will impose no significant 

costs on small entities; this rule does 

not restrict any existing sport or 

commercial fishery on the public lands, 

and subsistence fisheries will continue 

at essentially the same levels as they 

presently occur. The number of 

businesses and the amount of trade that 

will result from this Federal land’related 

activity is unknown but expected to be 

insignificant. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

preparation of regulatory flexibility 

analyses for rules that will have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

which include small businesses, 

organizations, or governmental 

jurisdictions. The Departments have 

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. 

This rulemaking will impose no 

significant 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 

tackle, boat, sporting goods dealers, and 

gasoline dealers. The number of small 

entities affected is unknown; however, 

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 the effects 

will not be significant. 

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 Secretaries have determined and 

certify pursuant to the Unfunded 

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

seq., that this rulemaking will not 

impose a cost of $100 million or more 

in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. The 

implementation of this rule is by 

Federal agencies, and no cost is 

involved to any State or local entities or 

Tribal governments. 

The Secretaries have determined that 

these regulations meet the applicable 

standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 

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

Civil Justice Reform. 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State 

from exercising subsistence 

management authority over fish and 

wildlife resources on Federal lands 

unless the State program is compliant 

with the requirements of that Title. 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), 512 DM 2, 

and E.O. 13175, we have evaluated 

possible effects on Federally recognized 

Indian tribes and have determined that 

there are no substantial direct effects. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a 

participating agency in this rulemaking. 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use. This Executive 

Order requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this rule 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 13211, affecting 

energy supply, distribution, or use, this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 46423 

action is not a significant action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

William Knauer drafted these 

regulations under the guidance of Peter 

J. Probasco of the Office of Subsistence 

Management, Alaska Regional Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Anchorage, Alaska. Chuck Ardizzone, 

Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land 

Management; Greg Bos, Carl Jack, and 

Jerry Berg, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; Sandy 

Rabinowitch and Nancy Swanton, 

Alaska Regional Office, National Park 

Service; Dr. Warren Eastland, Pat 

Petrivelli, and Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska 

Regional Office, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs; and Steve Kessler, Alaska 

Regional Office, 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. 

List of Subjects 

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 Secretaries propose to 

amend title 36, part 242, and title 50, 

part 100, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below. 

PART ll—SUBSISTENCE 

MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR 

PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for both 36 

CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 

would continue 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. 

Subpart C—Board Determinations 

2. In Subpart C of 36 CFR part 242 

and 50 CFR part 100, § ll.23(a) would 

be revised to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

§ll.23 Rural Determinations. 

(a) The Board has determined all 

communities and areas to be rural in 

accordance with § ll.15 except the 

following: 

(1) Fairbanks North Star Borough; 

(2) Homer area—including Homer, 

Anchor Point, North Fork Road area, 

Kachemak City, and the Fritz Creek area 

(not including Voznesenka); 

(3) Juneau area—including Juneau, 

West Juneau, and Douglas; 

(4) Kenai area—including Kenai, 

Soldotna, Sterling, Nikiski, Salamatof, 

Kalifornsky, Kasilof, and Clam Gulch; 

(5) Ketchikan area—including all 

parts of the road system connected to 

the City of Ketchikan (except Saxman), 

Pennock Island, and parts of Gravina 

Island; 

(6) Kodiak area—including the City of 

Kodiak, the Mill Bay area, the Coast 

Guard Station, Womens Bay, and Bells 

Flats; 

(7) Municipality of Anchorage; 

(8) Prudhoe Bay; 

(9) Seward area—including Seward 

and Moose Pass; 

(10) Valdez; and 

(11) Wasilla/Palmer area—including 

Wasilla, Palmer, Sutton, Big Lake, 

Houston, Point MacKenzie, and 

Bodenberg Butte. 

You may obtain maps delineating the 

boundaries of nonrural areas from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Subsistence Management. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 24, 2006. 

Peter J. Probasco, 

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. 

Dated: July 24, 2006. 

Steve Kessler, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA—Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–6902 Filed 8–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

RIN 1018–AU15 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C 

and Subpart D—2007–2008 

Subsistence Taking of Wildlife 

Regulations; 2007–2008 Subsistence 

Taking of Fish on the Kenai Peninsula 

Regulations 

AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

establish regulations for hunting and 

trapping seasons, harvest limits, 

methods, and means related to taking of 

wildlife for subsistence uses during the 

2007–2008 regulatory year. The 

rulemaking is necessary because 

Subpart D is subject to an annual public 

review cycle. When final, this 

rulemaking would replace the wildlife 

taking regulations included in the 

‘‘Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart D—

2006–2007 Subsistence Taking of Fish 

and Wildlife Regulations,’’ which expire 

on June 30, 2007. This rule would also 

amend the Customary and Traditional 

Use Determinations of the Federal 

Subsistence Board and the General 

Regulations on taking of wildlife. In 

addition, at the request of the 

Southcentral Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Council, the Federal 

Subsistence Board is accepting 

proposals to revise the regulations for 

fishing seasons, harvest limits, and 

methods related to taking of fish on the 

Kenai Peninsula for subsistence uses 

during the 2007–2008 regulatory year. 

DATES: The Federal Subsistence Board 

must receive your written public 

comments and proposals to change this 

proposed rule no later than October 20, 

2006. Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Councils (Regional Councils) 

will hold public meetings to receive 

proposals to change this proposed rule 

on several dates from September 7, 

2006, through October 20, 2006. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on the public 

meetings, including dates. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit proposals 

electronically to Subsistence@fws.gov. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file 

formats and other information about 

electronic filing. You may also submit 

written comments and proposals to the 

Office of Subsistence Management, 3601 

C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 

99503. The public meetings will be held 

at various locations in Alaska. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on locations of 

the public meetings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete 

Probasco, Office of Subsistence 

Management; (907) 786–3888. For 

questions specific to National Forest 

System lands, contact Steve Kessler, 

(907) 786–3592. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Review Process—Regulation 

Comments, Proposals, and Public 

Meetings 

The Federal Subsistence Board 

(Board), through the Regional Councils, 

will hold meetings on this proposed 

rule at the following Alaska locations, 

on the following dates: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL