14008 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 

[REG–131418–14] 

RIN 1545–BN27 

Reporting for Qualified Tuition and 

Related Expenses, Education Tax 

Credits; Comment Period Reopening 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury and the IRS are reopening the 

comment period for REG–131418–14, 

relating to the reporting requirements 

for qualified tuition and related 

expenses under Section 6050S, as well 

as to the proposed amendments to the 

regulations on the education tax credits 

under section 25A. 

DATES: The comment period for REG– 

131418–14, 81 FR 50657 (August 2, 

2016) is reopened, and additional 

written or electronic comments and 

requests for a public hearing must be 

received by April 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are strongly 

encouraged to submit additional public 

comments electronically. Submit 

electronic submissions via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and 

REG–131418–14) by following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 

Department of the Treasury (the 

‘‘Treasury Department’’) and the 

Internal Revenue Service (the ‘‘IRS’’) 

will publish for public availability any 

comment submitted electronically, and 

on paper, to its public docket. Send 

paper submissions to: CC:PA:01:PR 

(REG–131418–14), Room 5203, Internal 

Revenue Service, P.O. 7604, Ben 

Franklin Station, Washington, DC 

20044. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning section 25A, Mon Lam or 

YoungNa Lee at (202) 317–4178; 

concerning section 6050S, Blaise 

Dusenberry at (202) 317–5405 (not tollfree numbers): Concerning submissions 

of comments, Vivian Hayes, (202) 317– 

6901 (not a toll-free number) or by email 

to publichearings@irs.gov (preferred). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed regulations were published on 

August 2, 2016, (81 FR 50657) and a 

correction was made on September 26, 

2016 (81 FR 65983) (the ‘‘2016 proposed 

regulations’’). Generally, the 2016 

proposed regulations provided guidance 

to educational institutions relating to 

the preparation and submission of 

reporting forms under section 6050S, for 

use by students claiming educational 

credits under section 25A. The 2016 

proposed regulations also would amend 

the Income Tax Regulations on the 

education tax credits under section 25A 

to conform the regulations to the rules 

for changes made to section 25A by the 

Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 

(Pub. L. 114–27 (129 Stat. 362)) (TPEA) 

and the Protecting Americans from Tax 

Hikes Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114–113 (129 

Stat. 2242)) (PATH Act). In addition, the 

2016 proposed regulations would 

amend the Income Tax Regulations on 

the education tax credits under section 

25A to update the definition of qualified 

tuition and related expenses in § 1.25A– 

2(d) to reflect changes made by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5 (123 Stat. 

115)), to clarify the prepayment rule in 

§ 1.25A–5(e), and to clarify the rule for 

refunds in § 1.25A–5(f). 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

are considering finalizing the 2016 

proposed regulations and, therefore, are 

reopening the comment period with 

respect to the 2016 proposed regulations 

for 60 days. Comments that were 

previously submitted in accordance 

with the 2016 proposed regulations will 

be considered and do not need to be 

submitted again in response to this 

reopening of the comment period. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS are 

particularly interested in comments 

regarding the impact of any statutory 

changes on the reporting process. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS are 

also interested in the impact of 

technological changes to the reporting 

process. 

In addition, the Treasury Department 

and the IRS are also considering 

updating the section 25A regulations to 

reflect statutory changes to the 

education tax credits under section 25A 

since the TPEA and PATH Act, 

including changes made by the Tax Cuts 

and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115–97 (131 Stat. 

2054)), the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115–141 (132 Stat. 

351)), and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116– 

260 (134 Stat. 1182)). Specifically, the 

statutory changes modify the amount of 

the American Opportunity Tax Credit 

(AOTC); modify the number of years an 

eligible student can claim the AOTC; 

increase the phaseouts for the Lifetime 

Learning Credit and the AOTC; repeal 

the inflation adjustment; and change the 

‘‘Hope Credit’’ to the ‘‘American 

Opportunity Tax Credit’’ and remove 

the terminology of ‘‘Hope Credit.’’ The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on the need for 

updating the section 25A regulations to 

reflect any such statutory changes in 

final regulations. 

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor, 

Section Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Section, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure 

and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2024–03862 Filed 2–23–24; 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 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2024–0017; 

FXRS12610700000–234–FF07J00000] 

RIN 1018–BH67 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska—Subpart B; 

Federal Subsistence Board 

Membership 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

revise the regulations concerning the 

composition of the Federal Subsistence 

Board (Board) by adding three public 

members nominated or recommended 

by federally recognized Tribal 

governments, requiring that those 

nominees have personal knowledge of 

and direct experience with subsistence 

uses in rural Alaska including Alaska 

Native subsistence uses, defining 

requirements used for the selection of 

the Board Chair, affirming the 

Secretaries’ authority to replace 

members from the Board, and affirming 

the Secretaries’ responsibility and 

oversight regarding Board decisions 

while incorporating a ratification 

requirement. In January 2022, the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

held joint consultations with federally 

recognized Tribes of Alaska and various 

Tribal Consortia. Later during October– 

November 2022, DOI leadership and the 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, held joint consultations 

with various Alaska Tribes regarding 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14009 

fisheries. Approximately 445 individual 

subsistence users and representatives 

from Alaska Native Tribes, Tribal 

consortia, Alaska Native organizations, 

and Native corporations participated in 

the consultations, and a majority of the 

commenters specifically requested 

increasing the number of public 

members to five and adding more voting 

members who represent Alaska Native 

Villages and have local knowledge and 

direct subsistence experience. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received or postmarked by 

April 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R7–SM–2024–0017, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking action. Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, check the Proposed Rule box to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or 

hand delivery: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R7–SM–2024– 

0017; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

5275 Leesburg Pike; MS: PRB (JAO/3W); 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Review Process—Comments below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amee Howard, Deputy Assistant 

Regional Director, Office of Subsistence 

Management; 907–786–3888; 

subsistence@fws.gov. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2024–0017 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

When Alaska became a State in 1959, 

Alaska Natives held aboriginal title to 

lands across the new State. Immediately 

after statehood, Alaska Natives filed 

blanket protests to State land selections 

authorized by the Statehood Act. 

Because the State’s land selection rights 

were only for ‘‘vacant, unappropriated 

and unreserved lands,’’ the Secretary of 

the Interior imposed a formal land 

freeze on any title transfers to Alaska in 

1969. After oil was discovered at 

Prudhoe Bay in the late 1960s, an 

injunction against the Secretary of the 

Interior’s attempt to grant a right of way 

for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline made it 

clear that Congress would have to settle 

aboriginal claims before an oil pipeline 

across Alaska could be built. Congress 

then extinguished aboriginal title in the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) in 1971. 43 U.S.C. 1603(b). 

The ANCSA conference report reflects 

that Congress anticipated that the 

Secretary of the Interior would ‘‘exercise 

his existing withdrawal authority’’ to 

‘‘protect Native subsistence needs and 

requirements.’’ H. Conf. Rep. No. 92– 

746 at 37 (1971). The Secretary 

immediately reinitiated withdrawals to 

protect subsistence while a solution was 

negotiated. In 1980, this issue, among 

others, was addressed in the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA). Title VIII of ANILCA 

addressed the loss of aboriginal hunting 

and fishing rights by providing rural 

residents, including Alaska Native rural 

residents, with protections for 

continuing use of subsistence uses on 

the public lands. The congressional 

findings in ANILCA describe this intent 

and purpose: 

The Congress finds and declares that— 

. . . (4) in order to fulfill the policies and 

purposes of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act and as a matter of equity, it 

is necessary for the Congress to invoke its 

constitutional authority over Native affairs 

and its constitutional authority under the 

property clause and the commerce clause to 

protect and provide the opportunity for 

continued subsistence uses on the public 

lands by Native and non-Native rural 

residents; and 

(5) the national interest in the proper 

regulation, protection, and conservation of 

fish and wildlife on the public lands in 

Alaska and the continuation of the 

opportunity for a subsistence way of life by 

residents of rural Alaska require that an 

administrative structure be established for 

the purpose of enabling rural residents who 

have personal knowledge of local conditions 

and requirements to have a meaningful role 

in the management of fish and wildlife and 

of subsistence uses on the public lands in 

Alaska. 

16 U.S.C. 3111 (emphasis added). Based 

on these findings, Congress declared 

that there would be a subsistence 

priority for ‘‘rural residents’’ on ‘‘public 

lands’’ in Alaska: 

nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and 

wildlife and other renewable resources shall 

be the priority consumptive uses of all such 

resources on the public lands of Alaska when 

it is necessary to restrict taking in order to 

assure the continued viability of a fish or 

wildlife population or the continuation of 

subsistence uses of such population, the 

taking of such population for nonwasteful 

subsistence uses shall be given preference on 

the public lands over other consumptive 

uses; 

16 U.S.C. 3112 (2). Congress’s references 

to fulfilling the purposes of ANCSA 

(where aboriginal hunting and fishing 

rights had been lost), and its 

constitutional authority over Native 

affairs clarify that title VIII’s rural 

subsistence provisions are intended, 

among other purposes, to address the 

loss of Alaska Native aboriginal hunting 

and fishing rights. See Robert T. 

Anderson, The Katie John Litigation: A 

Continuing Search for Alaska Native 

Fishing Rights After ANCSA, 51 Ariz. 

St. L.J. 506, 522 (2017). 

Title VIII originally contemplated the 

State administering the ANILCA rural 

subsistence priority. It outlined a State 

regulatory structure to protect 

subsistence uses by rural Alaska 

residents, providing that if, within one 

year of ANILCA’s enactment, the State 

‘‘enacts and implements laws of general 

applicability which are consistent with, 

and which provide for the definition, 

preference, and participation specified 

in’’ ANILCA for rural residents, then the 

Secretary shall not implement the 

provisions of ANILCA directing the 

establishment of regional advisory 

councils. 16 U.S.C. 3115(d). And such 

State laws, ‘‘unless and until repealed, 

shall supersede such sections [of 

ANILCA] . . . for the taking of fish and 

wildlife on the public lands for 

subsistence uses.’’ Id. 

However, the State was unable to 

implement title VIII through State 

regulations. When ANILCA was enacted 

in 1980, an Alaska statute provided a 

priority for nonwasteful subsistence use 

of wild, renewable resources, but it did 

not limit the priority to ‘‘rural Alaska 

residents,’’ as ANILCA requires. See 

Bobby v. Alaska, 718 F. Supp. 764, 767, 

788–791 (D. Alaska 1989). The State 

promulgated regulations recognizing the 

rural priority, and, after the Federal 

Government reviewed and approved the 

regulatory scheme, the State became 

responsible for overseeing 

implementation of title VIII. See id. at 

767. Then, in 1985, the Alaska Supreme 

Court struck down the State regulations’ 

limitation of the subsistence priority to 

rural Alaska residents. Madison v. 

Alaska Dep’t of Fish & Game, 696 P.2d 

168 (Alaska 1985). Without that 

eligibility limitation, the State’s 

subsistence priority no longer complied 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14010 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1The references to ‘‘commenters’’ below refer to 

the comments received from these same 

participants in connection with the consultations. 

with ANILCA, and the Secretary of the 

Interior withdrew certification of the 

State’s regulatory scheme, pending 

enactment of State subsistence-use 

legislation consistent with ANILCA. See 

Bobby, 718 F. Supp. at 768. The Alaska 

Legislature then amended the State’s 

subsistence laws to remedy the 

inconsistency with ANILCA. See id.; see 

also Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. Alaska, 

860 F.2d 312, 314 (9th Cir. 1988). But 

in 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court 

voided the amended State subsistence 

statute after finding that a rural priority 

violates Alaska’s Constitution. See 

McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 

1989). 

As a result of Alaska’s inability to 

satisfy ANILCA’s requirements for State 

management, the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture were obligated 

under ANILCA to effectuate the rural 

subsistence priority. See 16 U.S.C. 3115. 

ANILCA authorizes the Secretaries to 

‘‘prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary and appropriate to carry out 

[their] responsibilities’’ under title VIII. 

16 U.S.C. 3124; see 16 U.S.C. 3102(12). 

In 1990, the Secretaries promulgated 

regulations providing ‘‘[s]ubsistence 

taking and uses of fish and wildlife on 

public lands shall be administered by a 

Federal Subsistence Board.’’ See 

Temporary Subsistence Management 

Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, 

55 FR 27114 at 27123 (June 29, 1990); 

Final Regulations, 57 FR 22940 (May 29, 

1992). As a result, pursuant to title VIII 

and its regulations, which have been 

amended several times since 1992, the 

Secretaries jointly implement the 

Federal Subsistence Management 

Program (Program), which provides a 

priority for taking of fish and wildlife 

resources for subsistence uses in Alaska. 

Only Alaska residents of areas identified 

as rural are eligible to participate in the 

Program. 

Because the Program is a joint effort 

between the Departments of the Interior 

and Agriculture (USDA), these 

regulations are located in two different 

titles of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR): The USDA regulations are at title 

36, ‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property,’’ and the DOI regulations are 

at title 50, ‘‘Wildlife and Fisheries,’’ at 

36 CFR 242.1–28 and 50 CFR 100.1–28, 

respectively. Consequently, to indicate 

that identical changes are proposed for 

regulations in both titles 36 and 50, in 

this document we present references to 

the specific section of both titles of the 

CFR as: § ll.10. 

The Program 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 Program. Subpart C sets forth 

important Board determinations 

regarding program eligibility, i.e., which 

areas of Alaska are considered rural and 

which species are harvested in those 

areas as part of a ‘‘customary and 

traditional use’’ for subsistence 

purposes. Subpart D sets forth specific 

harvest seasons and limits. Subparts A 

and B fall under the purview of the 

Secretaries, but the Board participates in 

the development of regulations for 

subparts C and D. 

In administering the Program, the 

Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 

subsistence resource regions, each of 

which is represented by a Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council 

(Council). The 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 

Council members represent varied 

geographical, cultural, and user interests 

within each region. 

The current 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, 

National Park Service; 

• The Alaska State Director, Bureau of 

Land Management; 

• The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs; 

• The Alaska Regional Forester, USDA 

Forest Service; and 

• Two public members appointed by 

the Secretary of the Interior with 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

Proposed Rulemaking Action 

In January 2022, DOI and USDA held 

joint consultations with approximately 

445 individual subsistence users and 

representatives from federally 

recognized Tribes of Alaska, Tribal 

consortia, Native organizations, and 

Alaska Native corporations. In October– 

November 2022, DOI leadership and the 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, held joint consultations 

with various Alaska Tribes regarding 

fisheries. During all of these 

consultations, a primary request from 

commenters was to make changes to the 

Federal Subsistence Board, including 

increasing the number of public 

members to five and adding more voting 

members who represent Alaska Native 

Villages and have local knowledge and 

direct subsistence experience.1 The 

report detailing the information 

received during these consultations is 

the ‘‘Federal Subsistence Policy 

Consultation Summary Report,’’ which 

can be found as a supplementary 

document in Docket No. FWS–R7–SM– 

2024–0017 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

We propose to revise titles 36 (in part 

242) and 50 (in part 100) of the CFR at 

§ ll.10 to be responsive to that request 

by defining the requirements used for 

the selection of the Board Chair, 

increasing the number of public 

members of the Board, and including a 

voice for federally recognized Tribal 

governments to nominate or recommend 

a certain number of the public members 

of the Board. We propose that the Board 

Chair, like the two current public 

members, be required to possess 

personal knowledge of and direct 

experience with subsistence uses in 

rural Alaska. We further propose adding 

three public members to the Board, all 

of whom will be required to possess 

personal knowledge of and direct 

experience with subsistence uses in 

rural Alaska, including Alaska Native 

subsistence uses, and will be nominated 

or recommended by federally 

recognized Tribal governments. 

As is currently required in the 

regulations, the Board Chair and all 

public members will be appointed by 

the Secretary of the Interior with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture. Also as is currently the 

case, the public members will become 

special governmental employees for the 

purpose of serving on the Board. The 

Secretaries retain the authority to 

remove public members from the Board, 

and also retain their existing authorities 

to replace agency personnel on the 

Board, and we have added language 

affirming those authorities in this 

proposed rule. Because this proposed 

rule would increase the total number of 

Board members, the number required 

for a quorum would increase to six. 

Lastly, consistent with title VIII, we 

propose clarifying that the Secretaries 

retain the authority to modify, 

disapprove, or stay any action taken by 

the Board, and also propose 

incorporating a requirement for 

ratification. Recognizing that a Board’s 

action may be time sensitive, we 

propose that for temporary special 

actions (36 CFR 242.19(b) and 50 CFR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14011 

100.19(b)), Board actions will not 

become effective for 10 calendar days, 

allowing an opportunity for the 

Secretaries to modify, disapprove, stay, 

or expressly ratify Board actions. If the 

10 calendar days elapse without action 

by the Secretaries, the Board decision 

will be deemed automatically ratified by 

the Secretaries (with the Secretaries 

retaining discretion to revisit the 

ratification). For emergency special 

actions (36 CFR 242.19(a) and 50 CFR 

100.19(a)), the Board action will 

likewise not become effective for 10 

calendar days unless the Board 

determines that the emergency situation 

calls for responsive action within 24 

hours to protect subsistence resources or 

public safety. For other Board actions 

(i.e., actions that follow the regular 

adoption process in 36 CFR 242.18 or 50 

CFR 100.18), the Secretaries retain, and 

will exercise when appropriate, their 

authority to modify or disapprove 

actions prior to publication in the 

Federal Register, as is the current 

practice. 

I. Increase in Number of Public Board 

Members 

The current Board includes a Chair, 

two public Board members, and five 

Federal agency personnel. None of the 

current agency personnel, nor any of 

their predecessors, are federally 

qualified subsistence users while 

serving on the Board as a result of the 

urban location for their duty location. 

The Secretaries are proposing to add 

three public members nominated or 

recommended by Tribes, while also 

requiring that they possess personal 

knowledge of and direct experience 

with subsistence uses in rural Alaska, 

including Alaska Native subsistence 

uses, for the purpose of ensuring 

adequate representation by members 

with rural subsistence experience on the 

Board at any particular meeting. Adding 

three public members to the Board 

could further the goals of ANILCA and 

also could be responsive to commenters’ 

requests for: (1) an increase in the 

number of public board members to 

five; and (2) adding more voting 

members who represent Alaska Native 

villages and have local knowledge of 

direct subsistence experience. 

Related to this, the Secretaries 

specifically request public comments on 

the issues listed below: 

(1) Are federally recognized Tribal 

governments the only groups that 

should nominate/recommend public 

board members that possesses the 

qualifications identified in this 

proposed rule? Should Alaska Native 

Corporations and other entities also be 

included as entities to nominate/ 

recommend public board members, so 

long as the nominees possess personal 

knowledge of and direct experience 

with subsistence uses in rural Alaska 

(including Alaska Native subsistence 

uses)? 

(2) Would it be preferable for federally 

recognized Tribes to nominate/ 

recommend only two of the three new 

public board members? 

(3) How should the Secretaries solicit 

and receive nominations/ 

recommendations? Should the 

Secretaries broadly solicit nominations 

or recommendations from federally 

recognized Tribal governments, or 

should the Secretaries identify as a 

matter of their sole discretion one or 

more specific federally recognized 

Tribal governments? 

(4) Is the proposed quorum of six 

appropriate with the addition of the 

three new public board members, or 

should it be increased? 

Commenters also expressed concerns 

that the public Board members at 

present do not have alternates who can 

stand in for them in times of illness or 

unavailability due to conflicts with 

subsistence activities. This is not the 

case for Federal agency personnel, who 

have qualified designees who can act in 

their stead. This issue was specifically 

raised by the Board in a meeting with 

the Secretary. While the Secretaries 

preliminarily view the proposal to add 

additional public board members as 

eliminating the need to further consider 

whether public board members should 

have the ability to appoint alternates, 

the Secretaries invite public comment 

on this issue. 

Commenters also focused on the 

desirability of considering Indigenous 

Knowledge in connection with Board 

decision making. The Secretaries 

preliminarily view this approach/ 

practice as consistent with the 

Secretaries’ policies and broader Federal 

Government policy. For example, on 

November 22, 2022, the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

and Council on Environmental Quality 

released the ‘‘Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Indigenous Knowledge’’ at the White 

House Tribal Nations Summit. The 

guidance and accompanying 

implementation memorandum 

recognized that, to make the best 

scientific and policy decisions, the 

Federal Government should value and, 

as appropriate, respectfully consider 

Indigenous Knowledge in the decisionmaking process. The implementation 

memorandum for all Federal agencies 

noted that ‘‘. . . the U.S. Government 

can fulfill its trust responsibilities to 

Tribal Nations, recognize Tribal 

sovereignty and self-governance, and 

honor its commitment to strengthening 

relations with Indigenous Peoples by 

including Indigenous Knowledge in 

Federal decision making.’’ Further, the 

implementation memorandum 

encouraged Federal agencies ‘‘to pursue 

and promote inclusion of Indigenous 

Knowledge in Federal scientific and 

policy decisions consistent with this 

Guidance. . . .’’ The Guidance started 

with the following recognition: 

The Federal Government recognizes the 

valuable contributions of the Indigenous 

Knowledge that Tribal Nations and 

Indigenous Peoples have gained and passed 

down from generation to generation and the 

critical importance of ensuring that Federal 

departments and agencies’ (Agencies) 

consideration and inclusion of Indigenous 

Knowledge is guided by respect for the 

sovereignty and self-determination of Tribal 

Nations; the Nation-to-Nation relationship 

between the United States and Tribal Nations 

and the United States’ trust responsibility; 

and the need for the consent of and honest 

engagement with Tribal Nations and 

Indigenous Peoples. 

As discussed further below, 

incorporating to a greater degree this 

substantial and diverse body of 

Indigenous Knowledge into its decision 

making might better enable the Board to 

address subsistence uses for all federally 

qualified users in implementing the title 

VIII rural subsistence priority. 

Alaska, given its vast and varied 

geography, has a wide variety of 

subsistence uses based on place and 

seasons. The variations include 

differences in species of fish, land 

mammals, and marine mammals subject 

to harvest, in addition to seasonal 

availability of the same resource, such 

as salmon, across different areas of the 

State. The breadth of subsistence 

practices may indicate a need for a 

diversity of subsistence use experiences 

on the Board to improve Federal 

decision making. 

Consistent with this, many 

commenters highlighted the importance 

of Alaska Native ‘‘ecological knowledge 

and observations by local stakeholders 

to promote sustainable harvests and 

protect habitats.’’ Federal Subsistence 

Policy Consultation Summary Report 

(June 14, 2022) (bia.gov). One of the five 

questions asked of attendees to the 

January 2022 consultations on 

subsistence was ‘‘How has climate 

change affected subsistence? ’’ The 

followup question posed was ‘‘What 

changes could be made to subsistence 

policies, regulations, or laws to help you 

adapt to those changes? ’’ The 

commenters requested the inclusion of 

Indigenous Knowledge to inform 

decision making as noted above, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14012 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2See also U.S. Census Bureau, Percent American 

Indian and Alaska Native Alone or in Combination, 

Total Population by County: 2020, https://public.

tableau.com/shared/NMZXRS84J?:showVizHome=n 

(showing the Alaska Native population makes up 

96.9% of the Kusilvak Census Area, 88.5% of the 

Bethel Census Area, 88.1% of the Northwest Arctic 

Borough, 82.6% of the Nome Census Area, 79.9% 

of the Dillingham Census Area, and 77.2% of the 

Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area). https://www.adfg.

alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/subsistence/ 

Trends_in_Population_Summary_2019.pdf. 

they ‘‘emphasized the need to make 

real-time management decisions that are 

responsive to evolving, on-the-ground 

conditions and fluctuations caused by 

climate change.’’ Federal Subsistence 

Policy Consultation Summary Report 

(June 14, 2022) (bia.gov). 

These comments reflect the 

unprecedented challenges the Alaska 

subsistence community is facing 

regarding the availability of subsistence 

resources as a result of climate change 

and other factors. The Secretaries 

acknowledge that the regional advisory 

councils provide opportunities to 

incorporate Indigenous Knowledge into 

Board decision making. The Secretaries 

view this proposed rule as creating 

another structural path for providing 

Indigenous Knowledge to the Board. 

Additional public board members who 

meet the specified qualifications have 

the potential to expand and diversify 

the kinds of evidence and knowledge 

available to the Board for critical 

decisions. See ‘‘What is ‘‘Indigenous 

Knowledge’’ And Why Does It Matter? 

Integrating Ancestral Wisdom and 

Approaches into Federal DecisionMaking,’’ available at https://

www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/newsupdates/2022/12/02/ (last accessed Oct. 

24, 2023). The Secretaries again invite 

comments on all of these issues. 

The Secretaries’ inclusion of 

recommendations/nominations from 

federally recognized Tribes honors the 

Secretaries’ political relationship with 

Tribal Nations and their commitment to 

strengthening relations with Indigenous 

Peoples. The Secretaries’ consideration 

of these nominations/recommendations 

also would recognize Tribes’ 

qualifications to identify individuals 

who possess personal knowledge of and 

direct experience with subsistence uses 

in rural Alaska, both Native and nonNative, and also to identify individuals 

who are best able to present Indigenous 

Knowledge that can be included in the 

Board’s decision making. Tribal 

governments are well-situated to make 

these recommendations in part because 

Alaska Natives comprise approximately 

55 percent of the rural population in all 

areas of the State and constitute a much 

larger majority—82 percent of the 

population—in the most remote and 

roadless regions. See James A. Fall, 

Alaska Populations Trends and 

Patterns, 1960–2018 at 11, ADF&G Div. 

of Subsistence, Alaska Dep’t of Fish & 

Game (2019); Alaska Native Population, 

Alaska Native Policy Center.2

In proposing this rule, the Secretaries 

acknowledge that they will retain 

ultimate authority to decide whether to 

appoint to the Board the particular 

individuals nominated or recommended 

by Tribes; the Secretaries are not 

delegating their authority to appoint. 

II. Qualifications of Chair 

In addition, the Secretaries propose to 

require that the Board Chair possess 

personal knowledge of and direct 

experience with subsistence uses in 

rural Alaska. 

III. Term Limits 

The Secretaries also are considering 

whether to impose term limits as to 

public Board members, including 

potentially the Chair. The proposed 

regulatory text includes reference to the 

potential for the Secretaries to establish 

term limits for service of Board 

members in such circumstances as the 

Secretaries deem appropriate. The 

Secretaries invite public comment on 

other possible approaches, such as 

including specific term limit 

requirements, with or without staggered 

terms, in the regulatory text that would 

apply when new appointments are 

made (and not to existing members). 

The comments may address, for 

example, what specific term limits may 

be appropriate (i.e., what duration 

measured in years) and whether and 

how they should be renewable. 

IV. Oversight Responsibility and 

Ratification Requirement 

Consistent with title VIII, the 

Secretaries propose clarifying that the 

Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary 

of Agriculture with respect to a unit of 

the National Forest System, retains the 

authority to modify, disapprove, stay, or 

expressly ratify any action taken by the 

Board. The Secretaries also propose to 

incorporate a requirement for 

ratification. Under the proposal, 

recognizing that the Board may need to 

act quickly in response to changed 

circumstances, temporary special 

actions of the Board will not become 

effective for 10 calendar days (or any 

longer period specified by the Board 

when taking the action), allowing an 

opportunity for the Secretaries to 

modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly 

ratify the actions. For emergency special 

actions (36 CFR 242.19(a) and 50 CFR 

100.19(a)), the Board action will 

likewise not become effective for 10 

calendar days unless the Board 

determines that the emergency situation 

calls for responsive action within 24 

hours to protect subsistence resources or 

public safety. If the Secretaries do not 

take action (i.e., to modify, disapprove, 

stay, or expressly affirm) during the 10 

calendar days (or the longer period), the 

Board decision will be deemed 

automatically ratified by the Secretary 

for purposes of the proposed regulation 

(with the Secretary retaining discretion 

to revisit prior express or automatic 

ratifications). For other Board actions 

(i.e., actions that follow the regular 

adoption process in 36 CFR 242.18 and 

50 CFR 100.18), the Secretaries retain, 

and will exercise when appropriate, 

their authority to modify or disapprove 

actions prior to publication in the 

Federal Register, as is the current 

practice. 

The Secretaries provide proposed 

draft regulatory text for this specific 

proposal at the end of this document, 

but also invite public comment on this 

proposal and expressly request 

comments on the following: 

(1) Should the Secretaries consider 

adopting a different framework that, 

while not requiring ratification, allows 

for review of emergency and temporary 

Board actions? For example, should the 

Secretaries consider a framework in 

which the effective date of Board 

actions would be delayed to allow the 

Secretaries a limited time to review 

those actions (and potentially stay the 

action for a further limited time to 

facilitate decision making concerning 

whether to modify or disapprove the 

action)? 

(2) Are the proposed timeframes for 

ratification of special actions and 

emergency actions sufficient to allow for 

the Board to respond to evolving 

resource and subsistence issues in real 

time while allowing for appropriate 

Secretarial oversight and approval? 

(3) What specific mechanism(s) 

should the Secretaries use to modify, 

disapprove, stay, or expressly affirm an 

emergency or temporary Board action 

(i.e., what would be the form of the 

Secretary of the Interior’s action, and 

how would it best be communicated to 

the Board and public)? 

(4) Would it be helpful and/or 

necessary for the Secretaries to make 

any conforming changes to the other 

regulations in 36 CFR part 242 and 50 

CFR part 100, such as the regulation 

governing Board reconsideration of 

actions (36 CFR 242.20 and 50 CFR 

100.20), if the ratification requirement is 

included in the final rule? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14013 

Public Review Process—Comments 

You may submit written comments 

and materials concerning this proposed 

rule by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via 

https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment, including any personal 

identifying information, will be posted 

on the website. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R7–SM–2024–0017. 

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 82 FR 4915 (January 17, 2017). 

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.’’ 

Because Tribal members are affected 

by subsistence regulations, the 

Secretaries will provide federally 

recognized Tribes of Alaska and Alaska 

Native corporations an opportunity to 

consult on this proposed rule. 

As stated above, the Secretaries 

previously conducted consultations 

where the subject of Board membership 

was addressed. The Secretaries have 

directed that DOI and USDA 

representatives will hold joint 

consultations regarding this rulemaking 

effort. The Secretaries will engage in 

outreach efforts for this proposed rule, 

including a notification letter, to ensure 

that Tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations are advised of the 

mechanisms by which they can 

participate. The Secretaries will commit 

to efficiently and adequately providing 

an opportunity to Tribes and Alaska 

Native corporations for consultation 

regarding this subsistence rulemaking. 

The Secretaries will consider Tribes 

of Alaska and Alaska Native 

corporations’ information, input, and 

recommendations, and will address 

their concerns as much as practicable. 

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 by contacting: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence 

Management, 1011 E Tudor Road, MS 

121, Anchorage, Alaska 99503–6199. 

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 

environment and, therefore, signed a 

finding of no significant impact. 

Similarly, this proposed rule does not 

constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. Further, a detailed 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not 

required because the rule is covered by 

a categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 

46.210(i): ‘‘Policies, directives, 

regulations, and guidelines: that are of 

an administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature; or 

whose environmental effects are too 

broad, speculative, or conjectural to 

lend themselves to meaningful analysis 

and will later be subject to the NEPA 

process, either collectively or case-bycase.’’ We have also determined that the 

proposed rule does not involve any of 

the extraordinary circumstances listed 

in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require 

further analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Section 810 of ANILCA 

An ANILCA section 810 analysis was 

completed as part of the FEIS process on 

the 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 restrictions are 

necessary to conserve healthy fish and 

wildlife populations. The final section 

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 restrict subsistence uses 

significantly. 

During the subsequent environmental 

assessment process for extending 

fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of 

the effects of the subsistence program 

regulations was conducted in 

accordance with section 810. That 

evaluation also supported the 

Secretaries’ determination that the 

regulations will not reach the ‘‘may 

significantly restrict’’ threshold that 

would require notice and hearings 

under ANILCA section 810(a). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

This proposed rule contains existing 

information collections. All information 

collections require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, 

and you are not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. OMB has reviewed and 

approved the information collection 

requirements associated with this 

rulemaking and assigned the OMB 

Control Number 1018–0075 (expires 

January 31, 2024, and, in accordance 

with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency may 

continue to conduct or sponsor this 

collection of information while the 

submission is pending at OMB). This 

proposed rule makes no substantive 

changes to the currently approved 

information collections. We anticipate a 

minor increase in the estimated number 

of annual responses and annual burden 

hours associated with the currently 

approved FWS Form 3–2321, 

Membership Application. We estimate 

the total burden associated with this 

information collection to be 15,429 

annual responses, 6,953 annual burden 

hours, and no non-hour cost burden. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
14014 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will 

review all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this proposed 

rulemaking action is not significant. 

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 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, which include 

small businesses, organizations, or 

governmental jurisdictions. The revised 

Board composition put forward under 

this proposed rule would not result in 

effects to the economy. The 

Departments certify that this rulemaking 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Congressional Review Act 

Under the Congressional Review Act 

(5 U.S.C. 804 (2)), this proposed rule is 

not a major rule. It will 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 

will 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 in Alaska. 

Likewise, these proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule 

would be by Federal agencies, with no 

cost imposed on any State or local 

entities or Tribal governments. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Secretaries have determined that 

these proposed regulations meet the 

applicable standards provided in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, regarding civil justice 

reform. 

Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this 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 

public lands unless it meets certain 

requirements. 

Executive Order 13175 

As described above under Tribal 

Consultation and Comment, the 

Secretaries will provide federally 

recognized Tribes of Alaska and Alaska 

Native corporations a variety of 

opportunities for consultation, 

commenting on proposed changes to the 

existing regulations, and providing 

input in person, by mail or email, 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. 

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 Secretaries of the Interior 

and Agriculture propose to amend 36 

CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 as set 

forth below. 

PART ll—SUBSISTENCE 

MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR 

PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 36 CFR 

part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 continues 

to read as follows: 

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

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

1733. 

Subpart B—Program Structure 

■ 2. In subpart B of 36 CFR part 242 and 

50 CFR part 100, amend § ll.10 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 

(d)(2); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (d)(11) through 

(13). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ll.10 Federal Subsistence Board. 

(a) Authority. The Secretary of the 

Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

hereby establish a Federal Subsistence 

Board and delegate to it the authority for 

administering the subsistence taking 

and uses of fish and wildlife on public 

lands and the related promulgation and 

signature authority for regulations of 

subparts C and D of this part. The 

Secretaries retain their existing 

authority to restrict or eliminate 

hunting, fishing, or trapping activities 

that occur on lands or waters in Alaska 

other than public lands when such 

activities interfere with subsistence 

hunting, fishing, or trapping on the 

public lands to such an extent as to 

result in a failure to provide the 

subsistence priority. The Secretaries 

also retain the ultimate responsibility 

for compliance with title VIII of 

ANILCA and other applicable laws and 

maintain oversight of the Board. 

(b) Membership. (1) The voting 

members of the Board are: A Chair who 

possesses personal knowledge of and 

direct experience with subsistence uses 

in rural Alaska to be appointed by the 

Secretary of the Interior with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Agriculture; five public members who 

possess personal knowledge of and 

direct experience with subsistence uses 

in rural Alaska, three of whom shall be 

nominated or recommended by 

federally recognized Tribal governments 

in Alaska and shall possess personal 

knowledge of and direct experience 

with subsistence uses in rural Alaska 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 14015 

(including Alaska Native subsistence 

uses), to be appointed by the Secretary 

of the Interior with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska 

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional 

Director, National Park Service; the 

Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest 

Service; the Alaska State Director, 

Bureau of Land Management; and the 

Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. Each Federal agency 

member of the Board may appoint a 

designee. 

(2) Public board members serve at the 

will of the Secretaries. The Secretaries 

maintain their authorities for 

replacement of Federal agency 

members, public board members, or any 

designees. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) A quorum consists of six members. 

* * * * * 

(11) The Secretary of the Interior, or 

the Secretary of Agriculture with respect 

to a unit of the National Forest System, 

retains authority to (at any time) stay, 

modify, or disapprove any action taken 

by the Board. 

(12) Temporary special actions of the 

Board are not effective unless ratified by 

the Secretary of the Interior or the 

Secretary of Agriculture with respect to 

a unit of the National Forest System. To 

allow an opportunity for the Secretaries 

to modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly 

ratify any temporary action taken by the 

Board, such Board actions will not 

become effective until at least 10 

calendar days after the date of the action 

(or any longer period specified by the 

Board when taking the action). For 

emergency special actions, the Board 

action will likewise not become 

effective for 10 calendar days (or any 

longer period specified by the Board 

when taking the action) unless the 

Board determines that the emergency 

situation calls for responsive action 

within 24 hours to protect subsistence 

resources or public safety. If no action 

is taken by the Secretary to modify, 

disapprove, stay, or expressly ratify 

within 10 days (or the longer period 

specified by the Board), the emergency 

or temporary Board action will be 

deemed automatically ratified for 

purposes of this subpart. The Secretaries 

may revisit a prior ratification (express 

or automatic) of a Board action at any 

time. For other Board actions (i.e., 

actions that follow the regular adoption 

process in § ll.18), the Secretaries 

retain, and will exercise when 

appropriate, their authority to modify or 

disapprove actions prior to publication 

in the Federal Register, as is the current 

practice. 

(13) The Secretaries may establish 

term limits for service of Board 

members in such circumstances as the 

Secretaries deem appropriate. 

* * * * * 

Joan Mooney, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management, and Budget, Department 

of the Interior. 

Homer L. Wilkes, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03604 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P; 4333–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 70 and 71 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0401; FRL–9118–03– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV61 

Clarifying the Scope of ‘‘Applicable 

Requirements’’ Under State Operating 

Permit Programs and the Federal 

Operating Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On January 9, 2024, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed a rule titled, ‘‘Clarifying the 

Scope of ‘‘Applicable Requirements’’ 

Under State Operating Permit Programs 

and the Federal Operating Permit 

Program.’’ The EPA has received 

requests for additional time to review 

and comment on the proposed rule 

revisions. The EPA is extending the 

comment period on the proposed rule 

that was scheduled to close on March 

11, 2024, by an additional 30 days, until 

April 10, 2024. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the proposed ruled published in the 

Federal Register on January 9, 2024 (89 

FR 1150), is being extended by 30 days. 

Written comments must be received on 

or before April 10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2023–0401, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2023–0401 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0401. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

OAR Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Matthew Spangler, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C504–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC; telephone 

number: (919) 541–0327; email address: 

spangler.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: After 

considering the requests to extend the 

public comment period received from 

various parties, the EPA has decided to 

extend the public comment period for 

30 days, until April 10, 2024. This 

extension will ensure that the public 

has additional time to review proposed 

rule. 

Scott Mathias, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03781 Filed 2–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 18–295 and GN Docket No. 

17–183; FCC 23–86; FR ID 192755] 

Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; 

and Expanding Flexible Use in MidBand Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 

GHz 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) explores additional steps 

it could take and rules it could modify 

to provide more utility for very low 

power (VLP) unlicensed devices. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS