Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52509

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

X. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

Agency has submitted a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this rule in today’s Federal Register.

This is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. Section 180.1190 is added to

subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1190 Glyphosate Oxidoreductase

[GOX or GOXv247] and the genetic material

necessary for its production in all plants;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

Glyphosate Oxidoreductase [GOX or

GOXv247] and the genetic material

necessary for its production in all plants

are exempt from the requirement of a

tolerance when used as plant-pesticide

inert ingredients in all plant RACs.

Genetic material necessary for its

production means the genetic material

which comprise genetic material

encoding the GOX proteins and their

regulatory regions. Regulatory regions

are the genetic material that control the

expression of the genetic material

encoding the GOX proteins, such as

promoters, terminators, and enhancers.

[FR Doc. 97–26190 Filed 10–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 36

RIN 1093–AA07

Transportation and Utility Systems In

and Across, and Access Into,

Conservation System Units in Alaska

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior is implementing this final rule

to revise and simplify the regulatory

definition of the term ‘‘economically

feasible and prudent alternative route’’

as used in the review of proposed

transportation and utility systems in

Alaska under Title XI of the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA).

DATES: Effective date: This rule becomes

effective November 7, 1997.

Compliance date: This rule will apply

to agency decisionmaking under

ANILCA Title XI beginning November 7,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Funk, Alaska Field Office,

National Park Service, 2525 Gambell

Street, Room 107, Anchorage, AK

99503–2892. Phone: (907) 257–2589.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 2, 1980, the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA) was signed into law as

Public Law 96–487 (94 Stat. 2371, 16

U.S.C. 3101, et seq.). Title XI of

ANILCA, which is entitled

‘‘Transportation and Utility Systems In

and Across, and Access Into,

Conservation System Units,’’

established guidelines and procedures

for submitting and processing

applications for transportation and

utility systems (TUS) in Alaska when

any portion of the route or the system

will be within any conservation system

unit, national recreation area, or

national conservation area. In addition,

Title XI authorizes special access,

temporary access, and access to

inholdings.

On July 15, 1983, the Department of

the Interior (Department) proposed

comprehensive regulations to

implement ANILCA Title XI on lands in

Alaska under the jurisdiction of the

National Park Service (NPS), the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

(48 FR 32506). On September 4, 1986,

the Department published final Title XI

regulations (51 FR 31619).

In early 1987, the Trustees for Alaska

and other groups (Trustees) sued the

Department to challenge the Title XI

regulations as exceeding the authority

granted to the Department by ANILCA.

Parties intervening in the case included

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the

Alaska Miners Association, the Alaska

Forest Association, and the Resource

Development Council for Alaska, Inc. In

orders dated April 29, 1991, and March

16, 1993, the U.S. District Court for the

District of Alaska granted summary

judgment to the Department. The

Trustees appealed the lower court’s

decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit, which assigned the

case to a mediator to explore whether

review and possible revision of the Title

XI regulations might provide a basis for

settlement.

On September 17, 1996, the

Department proposed (61 FR 48873) one

revision to the 1986 regulations in order

to improve the regulations’ workability

and reduce the opportunities for delays

in decisionmaking. The proposal

followed substantial review and

consultation with interested parties both

within and outside the Department. The

proposal provided an additional

advantage of offering a focus for the

consensus necessary to settle the

longstanding litigation. The litigation

was dismissed on August 30, 1996,

subject to reinstatement if the final

regulations differed from the proposal.

The Department did not propose any

other revisions of the Title XI

regulations. Thus, for example, the 1986

regulations implementing the Title XI

provisions concerning access to

inholdings, special access, and

temporary access will remain intact.

Also, the Department did not propose

any changes to the regulatory provisions

governing access to subsistence

resources under Title VIII of ANILCA

(see 36 CFR 13.46 (NPS) and 50 CFR

36.12 (FWS)). Finally, neither the

proposed nor this final rule concerns

recognition or management of R.S. 2477

rights-of-way.

Summary of Public Comments

Six comments were received in

response to publication of the proposed

rule. None of the responses objected to

the proposed revision of 43 CFR 36.2(h).

The Alaska Department of Law stated

that the revision would be consistent

with the August 30, 1996, Order issued

by the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit in Trustees for

Alaska v. United States Department of

the Interior, No. 93–35493 (Trustees).

The Department of Law added,

however, that the State does not

necessarily concur with the facts and
52510 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

interpretations presented in the

proposed rule.

The Pacific Legal Foundation,

commenting on behalf of several

intervenors in Trustees, stated that the

revision is neither necessary nor useful.

However, the Foundation supports the

change in order to settle the litigation.

The comments submitted by the

Trustees for Alaska (on behalf of the

appellants in the litigation), the

Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club,

all support the revision. The Wilderness

Society and the Sierra Club also

provided comments on other provisions

of 43 CFR Part 36 that they believe

should be revised. The Department

considered these issues while preparing

the proposed rule and concluded that

no other provisions of part 36 require

modification at this time.

Finally, the United States Small

Business Administration commented on

the lack of support in the proposed rule

for the Department’s certification that

the proposed revision will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

The factual basis for this conclusion is

in the nature of the proposed revision.

As stated in the background to the

proposed rule, the purpose of the

revision is to ‘‘improve the regulations’

workability and reduce the

opportunities for delays in decisionmaking.’’ In essence, the revision will

replace an elaborate formula with a

simpler and more straightforward

definition. Because the revision is for

purposes of clarification and its effect is

primarily procedural and beneficial, the

rule would have no significant

economic effect or change on a

substantial number of small entities. It

follows that the final rule does not

require preparation of a regulatory

analysis.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 36.2 Definitions

As a general matter, ANILCA Title XI

established the following criteria for

approval of a transportation or utility

system across a conservation system

unit, national conservation area, or

national recreation area in Alaska: (1)

The proposed transportation or utility

system must be ‘‘compatible with the

purposes for which the unit was

established,’’ and (2) there must be no

‘‘economically feasible and prudent

alternative route for the system.’’ This

rulemaking revises the regulatory

definition of the term ‘‘economically

feasible and prudent alternative route’’

in the second criterion by replacing the

complex definition promulgated in 1986

with the simpler definition originally

proposed in the 1983 rulemaking.

The revised definition which the

Department is adopting is the same as

the definition originally proposed in

1983 (48 FR 32506) as follows:

‘‘Economically feasible and prudent

alternative route’’ means a route either

within or outside an area that is based on

sound engineering practices and is

economically practicable but does not

necessarily mean the least costly alternative

route.

This definition in the opinion of the

Department is simpler and more

straightforward than the elaborate

formula which was added in the final

1986 regulations. The revised definition

includes the economic considerations

mentioned in the legislative history, but

avoids the complex and potentially

misleading quantitative analysis

required by the 1986 definition. The

revised definition also avoids the

opportunities for delay and controversy

inherent in the 1986 definition. Finally,

the revised definition will facilitate

decisions consistent with the statutory

preference for routing a TUS outside a

conservation system unit, national

recreation area, or national conservation

area expressed in ANILCA section

1104(g)(2)(B). A technical correction to

this definition replaces the term

‘‘alternate route’’ with the analogous,

statutorily used term, ‘‘alternative

route.’’

Drafting Information

The primary authors of this rule are

David A. Watts of the Solicitor’s Office,

Department of the Interior, David A.

Funk of the Alaska Regional Office,

National Park Service, and Molly N.

Ross, Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks,

Department of the Interior, Washington,

DC.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain collections

of information that require approval by

the Office of Management and Budget

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995.

Compliance With Other Laws

This rule was reviewed by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866. The Department

of the Interior determined that this

document 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 Department 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.

The Department has determined that

this rule meets the applicable standards

provided in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988.

This rule is not a major rule under the

Congressional review provisions of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 8–4(2)).

The Department has determined this

rule is categorically excluded from the

procedural requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act pursuant to

516 DM 2, Appendix 1.5. The action

was previously covered by an

Environmental Assessment and a

Finding of No Significant Impact. None

of the exceptions to the categorical

exclusions in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2,

applies.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 36

Access, Alaska, Conservation system

units, National parks, Rights-of-way,

Traffic regulation, Transportation,

Utilities, Wildlife refuges.

In consideration of the foregoing, 43

CFR Part 36 is amended as follows:

PART 36—TRANSPORTATION AND

UTILITY SYSTEMS IN AND ACROSS,

AND ACCESS INTO, CONSERVATION

SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA

1. The authority citation for part 36

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 668dd et seq.,

and 3101 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1201.

2. Section 36.2 is amended by revising

paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 36.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(h) Economically feasible and prudent

alternative route means a route either

within or outside an area that is based

on sound engineering practices and is

economically practicable, but does not

necessarily mean the least costly

alternative route.

* * * * *

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Donald J. Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

Dated: September 23, 1997.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and

Minerals Management.

[FR Doc. 97–26625 Filed 10–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P