2350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Questions 

The FHWA requests input on each of 

the following questions. In addition, 

comments and input may be offered on 

any part of this notice. 

1. Regardless of the ultimate 

restructuring format chosen, would you 

support separating the current material 

in the MUTCD into two documents? 

Please explain your reasoning for 

supporting or opposing the concept of 

having two documents. 

2. Referring to the examples shown 

for Chapter 2B, should the format of the 

MUTCD and the Applications 

Supplement remain consistent between 

the two documents? For example, 

should the same headings, such as 

‘‘Support’’ and ‘‘Option’’ be used in the 

Applications Supplement? Should the 

type of section, figure, and table 

numbering remain consistent between 

the MUTCD and the Applications 

Supplement? Should the sections in the 

Applications Supplement have a one-toone correspondence to the sections of 

the MUTCD, even if that means that 

some sections of the Applications 

Supplement would either be skipped or 

simply have a sentence that says 

something such as ‘‘No additional 

guidance is available for this section’’? 

3. Regarding the philosophy of the 

type of material to retain in the MUTCD 

versus the Applications Supplement, 

does Option A move enough material to 

the Applications Supplement, thus 

achieving the goal of a streamlined 

MUTCD, or does Option B better 

achieve the intended result while 

maintaining the appropriate balance to 

retain material deemed critical to traffic 

control device design and road user 

safety in the MUTCD? Please explain 

the reasoning for your response to this 

question. 

4. How would restructuring the 

MUTCD affect the approval process of 

the MUTCD in your State? If your State 

develops a supplement to the MUTCD 

or creates its own State MUTCD that is 

in substantial conformance with the 

National MUTCD, how would 

restructuring the National MUTCD 

impact your organization? 

5. Describe the use of the printed 

version of the MUTCD within your 

agency compared to the electronic 

version. Which users prefer the printed 

version and which users prefer the 

electronic version? Why? 

6. In addition to providing hotlinks 

between the new MUTCD and the 

Applications Supplement, would 

providing hotlinks in the Applications 

Supplement to supplementary 

documents or additional resources be 

helpful or more cumbersome for 

MUTCD users? Should the important 

elements of the additional resources be 

incorporated into the Applications 

Supplement? 

7. After the initial edition of the 

Applications Supplement is developed 

by the FHWA as a part of the process 

of developing the next edition of the 

MUTCD, should the FHWA continue to 

maintain and update the Applications 

Supplement, or should some other 

organization or group take on this 

responsibility? Please explain the 

reasoning for your response to this 

question. If you feel that another 

organization should be responsible for 

the Applications Supplement, please 

provide thoughts on the appropriate 

organization and why. 

8. Is there an advantage to the FHWA 

(or some other organization or group) 

making revisions to the Applications 

Supplement without seeking public 

comments and why? Should there be a 

structured process for making revisions 

to the Applications Supplement? If yes, 

what should this involve and who 

should be included in the process? How 

often should this occur? 

9. Should the FHWA consider other 

options for splitting MUTCD content 

into separate documents? Please 

explain. 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 

114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; 

and, 49 CFR 1.85. 

Issued on: December 20, 2012. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00373 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2012–0104; 

FXFR13350700640–134–FF07J00000] 

RIN 1018–AY85 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska—2014–15 

and 2015–16 Subsistence Taking of 

Wildlife Regulations 

AGENCY: 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 

2014–15 and 2015–16 regulatory years. 

The Federal Subsistence Board is on a 

schedule of completing the process of 

revising subsistence taking of wildlife 

regulations in even-numbered years and 

subsistence taking of fish and shellfish 

regulations in odd-numbered years; 

public proposal and review processes 

take place during the preceding year. 

The Board also addresses customary and 

traditional use determinations during 

the applicable cycle. When final, the 

resulting rulemaking will replace the 

existing subsistence wildlife taking 

regulations. This rule would also amend 

the general regulations on subsistence 

taking of fish and wildlife. 

DATES: Public meetings: The Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils 

will hold public meetings to receive 

comments and make proposals to 

change this proposed rule on several 

dates between February 12 and March 

26, 2013, and then hold another round 

of public meetings to discuss and 

receive comments on the proposals, and 

make recommendations on the 

proposals to the Federal Subsistence 

Board, on several dates between August 

19 and October 30, 2013. The Board will 

discuss and evaluate proposed 

regulatory changes during a public 

meeting in Anchorage, AK, in January 

2014. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for specific information on dates and 

locations of the public meetings. 

Public comments: Comments and 

proposals to change this proposed rule 

must be received or postmarked by 

March 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The 

Federal Subsistence Board and the 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils’ public meetings will be held 

at various locations in Alaska. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific 

information on dates and locations of 

the public meetings. 

Public comments: You may submit 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

FWS–R7–SM–2012–0104, which is the 

docket number for this rulemaking. 

• By hard copy: U.S. mail or handdelivery to: USFWS, Office of 

Subsistence Management, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, MS 121, Attn: Theo 

Matuskowitz, Anchorage, AK 99503– 

6199, or hand delivery to the Designated 

Federal Official attending any of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2351 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Council public meetings. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on locations of 

the public meetings. 

We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Review Process section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Attention: Peter J. Probasco, Office of 

Subsistence Management; (907) 786– 

3888 or subsistence@fws.gov. For 

questions specific to National Forest 

System lands, contact Steve Kessler, 

Regional Subsistence Program Leader, 

USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region; 

(907) 743–9461 or skessler@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under Title VIII of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126), 

the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) 

jointly implement the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program. This 

program provides a preference for take 

of fish and wildlife resources for 

subsistence uses on Federal public 

lands and waters in Alaska. The 

Secretaries published temporary 

regulations to carry out this program in 

the Federal Register on June 29, 1990 

(55 FR 27114), and final regulations 

were published in the Federal Register 

on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). The 

Program has subsequently amended 

these regulations a number of times. 

Because this program is a joint effort 

between Interior and Agriculture, these 

regulations are located in two titles of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): 

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 subparts as follows: 

Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart 

B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board 

Determinations; and Subpart D, 

Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife. 

Consistent with subpart B of these 

regulations, the Secretaries established a 

Federal Subsistence Board to administer 

the Federal Subsistence Management 

Program. The Board comprises: 

• 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; 

• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 

• The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. 

Forest Service. 

• Two public members appointed by 

the Secretary of the Interior with 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

Through the Board, these agencies 

and public members participate in the 

development of regulations for subparts 

C and D, which, among other things, set 

forth program eligibility and specific 

harvest seasons and limits. 

In administering the program, the 

Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 

subsistence resource regions, each of 

which is represented by a Regional 

Advisory Council. The Regional 

Advisory Councils provide a forum for 

rural residents with personal knowledge 

of local conditions and resource 

requirements to have a meaningful role 

in the subsistence management of fish 

and wildlife on Federal public lands in 

Alaska. The Regional Advisory Council 

members represent varied geographical, 

cultural, and user interests within each 

region. 

Public Review Process—Comments, 

Proposals, and Public Meetings 

The Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Councils have a substantial 

role in reviewing this proposed rule and 

making recommendations for the final 

rule. The Federal Subsistence Board, 

through the Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Councils, will hold 

public meetings on this proposed rule at 

the following locations in Alaska, on the 

following dates: 

Region 1—Southeast Regional Council ............................................................... Ketchikan .............................................. March 12, 2013. 

Region 2—Southcentral Regional Council ........................................................... Anchorage ............................................. February 20, 2013. 

Region 3—Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Council .................................................... Kodiak ................................................... March 26, 2013. 

Region 4—Bristol Bay Regional Council ............................................................. Naknek .................................................. February 12, 2013. 

Region 5—Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta Regional Council ....................................... Hooper Bay ........................................... February 27, 2013. 

Region 6—Western Interior Regional Council ..................................................... Galena .................................................. March 5, 2013. 

Region 7—Seward Peninsula Regional Council .................................................. Nome .................................................... March 12, 2013. 

Region 8—Northwest Arctic Regional Council .................................................... Kotzebue ............................................... March 5, 2013. 

Region 9—Eastern Interior Regional Council ...................................................... Tok ........................................................ February 20, 2013. 

Region 10—North Slope Regional Council .......................................................... Barrow ................................................... February 26, 2013. 

During April 2013, the written 

proposals to change the subpart D, take 

of wildlife regulations and subpart C, 

customary and traditional use 

determinations, will be compiled and 

distributed for public review. During the 

30-day public comment period, which is 

presently scheduled to end on June 7, 

2013, written public comments will be 

accepted on the distributed proposals. 

The Board, through the Regional 

Advisory Councils, will hold a second 

series of public meetings in August 

through October 2013, to receive 

comments on specific proposals and to 

develop recommendations to the Board 

at the following locations in Alaska, on 

the following dates: 

Region 1—Southeast Regional Council ............................................................... Petersburg ............................................ September 24, 2013. 

Region 2—Southcentral Regional Council ........................................................... Copper Center ...................................... October 2, 2013. 

Region 3—Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Council .................................................... Cold Bay ............................................... September 24, 2013. 

Region 4—Bristol Bay Regional Council ............................................................. Dillingham ............................................. October 29, 2013. 

Region 5—Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta Regional Council ....................................... St. Marys ............................................... September 25, 2013. 

Region 6—Western Interior Regional Council ..................................................... Fairbanks .............................................. October 8, 2013. 

Region 7—Seward Peninsula Regional Council .................................................. Nome .................................................... October 8, 2013. 

Region 8—Northwest Arctic Regional Council .................................................... Kiana ..................................................... August 21, 2013. 

Region 9—Eastern Interior Regional Council ...................................................... Fairbanks .............................................. October 16, 2013. 

Region 10—North Slope Regional Council .......................................................... Barrow ................................................... August 19, 2013. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
2352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

A notice will be published of specific 

dates, times, and meeting locations in 

local and statewide newspapers prior to 

both series of meetings. Locations and 

dates may change based on weather or 

local circumstances. The amount of 

work on each Regional Advisory 

Council’s agenda determines the length 

of each Regional Advisory Council 

meeting. 

The Board will discuss and evaluate 

proposed changes to the subsistence 

management regulations during a public 

meeting scheduled to be held in 

Anchorage, Alaska, in January 2014. 

The Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Council Chairs, or their 

designated representatives, will present 

their respective Councils’ 

recommendations at the Board meeting. 

Additional oral testimony may be 

provided on specific proposals before 

the Board at that time. At that public 

meeting, the Board will deliberate and 

take final action on proposals received 

that request changes to this proposed 

rule. 

Proposals to the Board to modify the 

general fish and wildlife regulations, 

wildlife harvest regulations, and 

customary and traditional use 

determinations must include the 

following information: 

a. Name, address, and telephone 

number of the requestor; 

b. Each section and/or paragraph 

designation in this proposed rule for 

which changes are suggested, if 

applicable; 

c. A description of the regulatory 

change(s) desired; 

d. A statement explaining why each 

change is necessary; 

e. Proposed wording changes; and 

f. Any additional information that you 

believe will help the Board in 

evaluating the proposed change. 

The Board immediately rejects 

proposals that fail to include the above 

information, or proposals that are 

beyond the scope of authorities in 

§ ll.24, subpart C (the regulations 

governing customary and traditional use 

determinations), and §§ ll.25 and 

___.26, subpart D (the general and 

specific regulations governing the 

subsistence take of wildlife). If a 

proposal needs clarification, prior to 

being distributed for public review, the 

proponent may be contacted, and the 

proposal could be revised based on their 

input. Once distributed for public 

review no additional changes may be 

made as part of the original submission. 

During the January 2014 meeting, the 

Board may defer review and action on 

some proposals to allow time for 

cooperative planning efforts, or to 

acquire additional needed information. 

The Board may elect to defer taking 

action on any given proposal if the 

workload of staff, Regional Advisory 

Councils, or the Board becomes 

excessive. These deferrals may be based 

on recommendations by the affected 

Regional Advisory Council(s) or staff 

members, or on the basis of the Board’s 

intention to do least harm to the 

subsistence user and the resource 

involved. A proponent of a proposal 

may withdraw the proposal provided it 

has not been considered, and a 

recommendation has not been made, by 

a Regional Advisory Council. The Board 

may consider and act on alternatives 

that address the intent of a proposal 

while differing in approach. 

Tribal Consultation and Comment 

As expressed in Executive Order 

13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ the 

Federal officials that have been 

delegated authority by the Secretaries 

are committed to honoring the unique 

government-to-government political 

relationship that exists between the 

Federal Government and Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as 

listed in 75 FR 60810 (October 1, 2010). 

Consultation with Alaska Native 

corporations is based on Public Law 

108–199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 

118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public 

Law 108–447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, 

Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which 

provides that: ‘‘The Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget and 

all Federal agencies shall hereafter 

consult with Alaska Native corporations 

on the same basis as Indian tribes under 

Executive Order No. 13175.’’ 

The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act does not provide 

specific rights to Tribes for the 

subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and 

shellfish. However, because tribal 

members are affected by subsistence 

fishing, hunting, and trapping 

regulations, the Secretaries, through the 

Board, will provide Federally 

recognized Tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations an opportunity to consult 

on this rule. 

The Board will engage in outreach 

efforts for this rule, including a 

notification letter, to ensure that Tribes 

and Alaska Native corporations are 

advised of the mechanisms by which 

they can participate. The Board 

provides a variety of opportunities for 

consultation: Proposing changes to the 

existing rule; commenting on proposed 

changes to the existing rule; engaging in 

dialogue at the Regional Council 

meetings; engaging in dialogue at the 

Board’s meetings; and providing input 

in person, by mail, email, or phone at 

any time during the rulemaking process. 

The Board will commit to efficiently 

and adequately providing an 

opportunity to Tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations for consultation in regard 

to subsistence rulemaking. 

The Board will consider Tribes’ and 

Alaska Native corporations’ 

information, input, and 

recommendations, and address their 

concerns as much as practicable. 

Developing the 2014–15 and 2015–16 

Wildlife Seasons and Harvest Limit 

Regulations 

Subpart C and D regulations are 

subject to periodic review and revision. 

The Federal Subsistence Board 

currently completes the process of 

revising subsistence take of wildlife 

regulations in even-numbered years and 

fish and shellfish regulations in oddnumbered years; public proposal and 

review processes take place during the 

preceding year. The Board also 

addresses customary and traditional use 

determinations during the applicable 

cycle. 

The text of the final rule published 

June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35482) for the 

2012–14 subparts C and D regulations is 

the text of this proposed rule. These 

regulations will remain in effect until 

subsequent Board action changes 

elements as a result of the public review 

process outlined above in this 

document. 

Compliance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Authorities 

National Environmental Policy Act 

A Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement that described four 

alternatives for developing a Federal 

Subsistence Management Program was 

distributed for public comment on 

October 7, 1991. The Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

was published on February 28, 1992. 

The Record of Decision (ROD) on 

Subsistence Management for Federal 

Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 

6, 1992. The selected alternative in the 

FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the 

administrative framework of an annual 

regulatory cycle for subsistence 

regulations. 

A 1997 environmental assessment 

dealt with the expansion of Federal 

jurisdiction over fisheries and is 

available at the office listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 

Secretary of the Interior, with 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, determined that expansion 

of Federal jurisdiction does not 

constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the human 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2353 

environment and, therefore, signed a 

Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Section 810 of ANILCA 

An ANILCA § 810 analysis was 

completed as part of the FEIS process on 

the Federal Subsistence Management 

Program. 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. The final § 810 

analysis determination appeared in the 

April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that 

the Federal Subsistence Management 

Program, under Alternative IV with an 

annual process for setting subsistence 

regulations, may have some local 

impacts on subsistence uses, but will 

not likely restrict subsistence uses 

significantly. 

During the subsequent environmental 

assessment process for extending 

fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of 

the effects of this rule was conducted in 

accordance with § 810. That evaluation 

also supported the Secretaries’ 

determination that the rule will not 

reach the ‘‘may significantly restrict’’ 

threshold that would require notice and 

hearings under ANILCA § 810(a). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and you are not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. This proposed 

rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

OMB approval. OMB has reviewed and 

approved the following collections of 

information associated with the 

subsistence regulations at 36 CFR 242 

and 50 CFR 100: Subsistence hunting 

and fishing applications, permits, and 

reports, Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Council Membership 

Application/Nomination and Interview 

Forms (OMB Control No. 1018–0075 

expires January 31, 2013). 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this 

proposed rule is not significant and has 

not reviewed this rule under Executive 

Order 12866. OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’ 

actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

preparation of flexibility analyses for 

rules that will have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, which include small 

businesses, organizations, or 

governmental jurisdictions. In general, 

the resources to be harvested under this 

rule are already being harvested and 

consumed by the local harvester and do 

not result in an additional dollar benefit 

to the economy. However, we estimate 

that two million pounds of meat are 

harvested by subsistence users annually 

and, if given an estimated dollar value 

of $3.00 per pound, this amount would 

equate to about $6 million in food value 

statewide. Based upon the amounts and 

values cited above, the Departments 

certify 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. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

Under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. It 

does not have an effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more, will not cause 

a major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, and does not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. 

Executive Order 12630 

Title VIII of ANILCA requires the 

Secretaries to administer a subsistence 

priority 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. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 there is no cost 

imposed on any State or local entities or 

tribal governments. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Secretaries have determined that 

these regulations meet the applicable 

standards provided in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12988, regarding 

civil justice reform. 

Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the proposed 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 it meets certain 

requirements. 

Executive Order 13175 

The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not 

provide specific rights to tribes for the 

subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and 

shellfish. However, the Board will 

provide Federally recognized Tribes and 

Alaska Native corporations an 

opportunity to consult on this rule. 

Consultation with Alaska Native 

corporations are based on Public Law 

108–199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 

118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public 

Law 108–447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, 

Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which 

provides that: ‘‘The Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget and 

all Federal agencies shall hereafter 

consult with Alaska Native corporations 

on the same basis as Indian tribes under 

Executive Order No. 13175.’’ 

The Secretaries, through the Board, 

will provide a variety of opportunities 

for consultation: Commenting on 

proposed changes to the existing rule; 

engaging in dialogue at the Regional 

Council meetings; engaging in dialogue 

at the Board’s meetings; and providing 

input in person, by mail, email, or 

phone at any time during the 

rulemaking process. 

Executive Order 13211 

This Executive Order requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. However, this proposed rule is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, 

distribution, or use, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
2354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Drafting Information 

Theo Matuskowitz 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. Additional 

assistance was provided by: 

• Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management; 

• Sandy Rabinowitch and Nancy 

Swanton, Alaska Regional Office, 

National Park Service; 

• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional 

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; 

• Jerry Berg and Jack Lorrigan, Alaska 

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; and 

• Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional 

Office, U.S. Forest Service. 

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. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Subsistence 

Board proposes to amend 36 CFR 242 

and 50 CFR 100 for the 2014–15 and 

2015–16 regulatory years. The text of 

the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 

242.24, 242.25, and 242.26 and 50 CFR 

100.24, 100.25, and 100.26 is the final 

rule for the 2012–14 regulatory period 

(77 FR 35482; June 13, 2012). 

Dated: December 11, 2012. 

Peter J. Probasco, 

Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Acting Chair, Federal 

Subsistence Board. 

Steve Kessler, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00325 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0639; FRL–9769–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Arkansas; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve two revisions to the Arkansas 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Arkansas Department 

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to 

EPA on February 17, 2010 and 

November 6, 2012. The February 17, 

2010 proposed SIP revision to the 

Arkansas New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program updates the Arkansas SIP 

to incorporate by reference (IBR) 

requirements for the Federal PSD 

permitting program under EPA’s 

November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour 

Ozone Implementation rule. The 

November 6, 2012 proposed SIP 

revision to the Arkansas NSR PSD 

program provides the state of Arkansas 

with the authority to issue PSD permits 

governing greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and establishes appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new stationary sources and 

modifications to existing stationary 

sources become subject to Arkansas’s 

PSD permitting requirements for their 

GHG emissions. The November 6, 2012 

proposed SIP revision also defers until 

July 21, 2014 application of the PSD 

permitting requirements to biogenic 

carbon dioxide emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources. EPA is proposing to approve 

the February 17, 2010, and November 6, 

2012 SIP revisions to the Arkansas NSR 

PSD permitting program as consistent 

with Federal requirements for PSD 

permitting. EPA is also proposing to 

rescind the GHG PSD Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arkansas 

that was put in place to ensure the 

availability of a permitting authority for 

GHG permitting in Arkansas, upon final 

approval of the November 6, 2012 PSD 

SIP revisions. EPA is proposing this 

action under the Clean Air Act (the Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0639, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Mike Miller at 

miller.michael@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Mr. Mike Miller, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), at fax number 214– 

665–6762. 

• Mail: Mr. Mike Miller, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Mike 

Miller, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Such deliveries are 

accepted only between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays, and not 

on legal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0639. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email, if you believe that it is CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with