18316 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

included. Any comments not marked

privileged or confidential business

information will be deemed to be

nonconfidential. An original and five

copies, plus two copies of the

nonconfidential version, should be

submitted no later than 20 days after the

date of this notice to: Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, Department of

Commerce, Room 1800H, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Information submitted by

any person is exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act

(5 U.S.C. 552). However,

nonconfidential versions of the

comments will be made available to the

applicant if necessary for determining

whether or not to issue the Certificate.

Comments should refer to this

application as ‘‘Export Trade Certificate

of Review, application number 96–

AE003.’’ The Rice Millers’’

Association’s (‘‘RMA’’) original

Certificate was issued on August 16,

1996 (61 FR 43733, August 26, 1996). A

summary of the application for an

amendment is as follows.

Summary of the Application

Applicant: Rice Millers’’ Association,

4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 305,

Arlington, Virginia 22203–1616.

Contact: Cynthia H. Tough, Vice

President of International Affairs for the

USA Rice Federation, Telephone: (703)

351–8161.

Application No.: 96–AE003.

Date Deemed Submitted: March 31,

1997.

Proposed Amendment: RMA seeks to

amend its Certificate to expand the

eligibility for membership in the RMA

Certificate to include both mill members

and associate members. Associate

members include a broad range of

companies with an interest in the rice

industry, including bag manufacturers,

brokers, equipment manufacturers/

suppliers, exporters, food processing

companies, freight forwarders, grain

elevators, grain merchandisers, industry

associations, inspection companies,

management companies, port

authorities, and stevedoring/shipping

companies. Any proprietor, partnership,

or corporation, whether or not engaged

in rice milling in the United States,

which is not a member of RMA and

which wishes to participate in the

activities covered by the Certificate, may

join the ETCR upon meeting the

qualifications for membership in RMA.

Therefore, the definition of ‘‘Member’’

in RMA’s Certificate would be amended

to read as follows: ‘‘Member’’ means a

member of the Rice Millers’ Association

which has been certified as a ‘‘Member’’

within the meaning of Section 325.2(l)

of the Regulations and is listed in

Attachment I. Members must sign the

Operating Agreement of the Rice

Millers’’ Association Export Trade

Certificate of Review in order to

participate in the certified activities.

Any RMA member, including any mill

member or associate member, which is

not a Member listed in Attachment I

may join RMA’s Export Trade Certificate

of Review by requesting that RMA file

for an amended certificate and by

signing the Operating Agreement. Any

proprietor, partnership, or corporation

either engaged in rice milling in the

United States or not engaged in rice

milling in the United States, which is

not a member of RMA and which

wishes to participate in the activities

covered by this certificate, may join

RMA’s membership upon meeting the

qualifications for membership and then

request that RMA file for an amended

certificate. A Member may withdraw

from coverage under this certificate at

any time by giving written notice to

RMA, a copy of which RMA will

promptly transmit to the Secretary of

Commerce and the Attorney General.’’

Dated: April 9, 1997.

W. Dawn Busby,

Director, Office of Export Trading, Company

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–9617 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–I

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 040997A]

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of an

experimental fishing permit.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

of an application from John Gauvin,

Groundfish Forum, Inc., for an

Experimental Fishing Permit (EFP). If

awarded, this permit would be used to

systematically test the effects of a

different trawl net design on species and

size composition of catch in trawls

targeting flatfish. It is intended to

promote the objectives of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area (FMP).

ADDRESSES: Copies of the EFP

application are available from Steven

Pennoyer, Administrator, Alaska

Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,

AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent

Lind, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP

and its implementing regulations at 50

CFR part 679.6 authorize issuance of

EFPs to allow fishing that would

otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for

issuing EFPs are contained in the

implementing regulations. NMFS

received a request from the applicant on

March 14, 1997, that, if approved,

would be used to systematically test the

effects of a different trawl net design on

species and size composition of catch in

trawls targeting flatfish. Information

from this experiment could be used by

the fishing industry to reduce catches of

non-target species (e.g., pollock and

cod) while fishing for flatfish, thereby

reducing waste and discard of those

species.

In accordance with regulations, NMFS

has determined that the proposal

warrants further consideration and has

initiated consultation with the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) by forwarding the application

to the Council. The Council will

consider the EFP application during its

April 15–19, 1997, meeting and has

invited the applicant to appear in

support of the application if he so

desires.

A copy of the application is available

for review from the NMFS Regional

Administrator (see ADDRESSES).

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seg.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–9630 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 033197C]

Secretary’s Report to Congress on the

Pribilof Islands as Required Under

Public Law 104–91

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of submission of report

to Congress.

SUMMARY: Public Law 104–91, section

3(c) requires the Secretary of Commerce

to prepare and submit a report on

necessary actions to resolve Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18317

1A Century of Servitude (Jones, Dorothy Knee,

University Press of America, Library of Congress

card no. 80–1407—currently out of print) and

Slaves of the Harvest, published by the Pribilof

Island School District—no additional citation

available) have been recommended by the

Pribilovian people as guides providing a full

accounting of the Islands from Aleutian discovery

to the people’s recent struggle with autonomy.

2Pelagic sealing is the practice of killing seals at

sea. It is less selective and less productive than

taking seals on land where surplus adult males can

be identified and females and pups may be

protected.

responsibility on the Pribilof Islands.

The Report was prepared by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and was signed by the

Secretary of Commerce on March 17,

1997. This Notice is intended to publish

the main text of the Report and provide

information regarding its availability.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Briscoe in the Office of General

Counsel, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 301–713–

1393.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 6, 1996, President Clinton

signed Public Law 104–91. Under

Section 3 of the law the Secretary of

Commerce was directed to undertake

certain activities with regard to the

Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Section 3(c)

directed the Secretary to prepare a

report for Congress which proposed

necessary actions by the Secretary and

Congress to resolve all federal

responsibilities on the Islands.

The Report to Congress on the Pribilof

Islands was signed by the Secretary of

Commerce on March 17, 1997. The text

of the Secretary’s Report is attached to

this Notice. Full copies of the Exhibits

to the Report consist of thousands of

pages of documents submitted under the

Report process by local entities and

residents. Due to the volume of the

Exhibits, it was not possible to publish

them with this Notice. Full copies of all

Exhibits are available at the City Office

on St. Paul (907–546–2331), at the City

Office on St. George (907–859–2263), at

the Regional Archives facility of the

National Archives in Anchorage, 645

West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage AK, 99501

(907–463–2408), and at the Office of

General Counsel, NOAA, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910

#(301–713–1393).

Secretary’s Report on the Pribilof

Islands as Required by Public Law 104–

91

Prepared By: The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration for the

Department of Commerce

Final, March 17, 1997.

I. Introduction

The Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St.

George are islands of volcanic origin

that lie 800 miles west-south west of

Anchorage, Alaska in the Bering Sea.

Each island has an approximate land

area of 44 square miles generally

contained by precipitous cliffs. St. Paul,

the larger of the two islands, has a

current population of approximately

780 people. The population of St.

George is approximately 120 people.

The Pribilof Islands were discovered

by Russian navigators in 1786 as a result

of their search for the breeding grounds

of the North Pacific Fur Seal (‘‘the fur

seal’’). The next one hundred years were

marked by intense harvest of the fur

seals to exploit Chinese, Russian and

European markets. To harvest the

commercially valuable species on the

Islands, the Russians enslaved and

relocated Aleuts from the southeast who

were proficient at killing the seals.

When the United States purchased the

Territory of Alaska from the Russians in

1867, responsibility for the welfare of

the Pribilovian Aleuts fell to the Federal

Government. Since 1867, the United

States Government has worked to

promote the autonomy and selfgovernance of the Pribilovian people,

and thereby fulfill its obligations to

them. Following decades of progressive

change in the Federal Government’s

administration of the Islands, Congress

in 1983 enacted legislation to terminate

Federal management of the Pribilof

Islands.

On January 6, 1996, President Clinton

signed Public Law 104–91 (‘‘P.L. 104–

91’’). Section 3(c) of the law, entitled

‘‘Resolution of Federal

Responsibilities,’’ requires the Secretary

of Commerce to submit to the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation of the Senate, and the

Committee on Resources of the House of

Representatives

* * * a report proposing necessary actions

by the Secretary of Commerce and Congress

to resolve all claims with respect to, and

permit the final implementation, fulfillment

and completion of—

(a) Title II of the Fur Seal Act Amendments

of 1983 (16 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.);

(b) The land conveyance entitlement of

local entities and residents of the Pribilof

Islands under the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);

(c) the provisions of this section; and

(d) any other matters which the Secretary

deems appropriate.’’

This is the Report of the Secretary of

Commerce (‘‘Secretary’’) as required

under P.L.–104–91.

This Report examines the historical

and contemporary relationship of the

United States government to the

Pribilovian people to afford the context

for evaluating current circumstances

and Federal responsibilities. The Report

is organized as follows: Section II

examines historical Federal

involvement; Section III describes the

current economies on the Islands of St.

George and St. Paul and the relationship

of the Pribilovian people to the Federal

Government; Section IV describes and

categorizes the claims asserted against

the United States by local entities and

residents and, where applicable,

provides recommendations for

additional Federal action; Section V sets

forth the position of the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and its

recommendations for resolution of

Federal responsibility on the Pribilof

Islands.

II. A History of Federal Involvement on

the Pribilof Islands

This Report cannot fully chronicle the

complex history of the Pribilof Islands.1

It is the aim of this Section to provide

an historical overview of Federal

involvement with the Pribilof Islands as

they have evolved into independent,

self-sustaining American communities.

A. Origins

The U.S. Government first became

directly involved with the Pribilof

Islands and the Pribilovian people in

1867 when the islands were acquired

with the Territory of Alaska.

Immediately thereafter, in 1868, the

Islands were declared to be a special

Federal reserve for purposes of

management and preservation of fur

seals and other fur bearing species.

In the first 40 years of Federal

ownership of the Pribilof Islands, the

lives of the Pribilovians were directed

by the companies harvesting the seals

under contract with the U.S.

Government. During this period, the

Pribilovian people derived their

livelihood through employment with

the fur sealing companies and their lives

were subject to the dictates of those

companies.

Largely unregulated, the effects of the

private, commercial harvest were

devastating on the fur seal population.

By 1890, the effects of over-harvest and

pelagic sealing 2 brought the population

close to extinction. At the close of the

last private contract in 1909, it was

estimated that only 300,000 fur seals

remained worldwide.

As a result of the decline in the fur

seal population, Federal attention paid

to the Islands increased. Although the

Government’s focus remained primarily

on management of the fur seal harvest,

the Federal response ensured greater

engagement by the United States with

the lives of the Pribilovian people.
18318 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

3See Act of April 21, 1910, 36 Stat. 326.

4See 16 U.S.C. §§ 631a-631q, 58 Stat. 104.

5As cited in Slaves, Ibid. at 143.

6The IRA was developed to help native

Americans retain their identity through the

establishment of tribal self-government, the

preservation of religious and cultural freedom, and

the prevention of economic exploitation.

7On August 10, 1988, the President signed

legislation authorizing a $21.4 million trust fund for

residents of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. The

legislation was intended as compensation for Aleuts

who were evacuated from their homes during

World War II. The compensation is part of a larger

reparation of $1.3 billion paid Japanese-Americans

interned during the War.

Pelagic sealing and mass, commercialcontract sealing in the United States was

curbed in 1910 when the Sixty-First

Congress passed ‘‘An Act to protect the

seal fisheries of Alaska, and for other

purposes’’ (‘‘the 1910 Act’’).3 The effect

of the 1910 Act was to abolish the lease/

permit system of seal harvest open to

the general trading public and to replace

it with a broader government authority

vested in the Secretary of Commerce

and Labor to manage and protect the

seal population. To promote

conservation of the fur seal, the 1910

Act prohibited the killing of seals by

anyone other than an officer, agent or

employee of the Federal Government.

The 1910 Act further directed that

whenever seals were killed or sealskins

taken the Pribilovians were to be

employed and were to receive fair

compensation for their labor. To

administer the program, the 1910 Act

specified that the Secretary had:

* * * the authority to furnish food,

shelter, fuel, clothing, and other necessaries

of life to the native inhabitants of the Pribilof

Islands and to provide for their comfort,

maintenance, education and protection.

Notwithstanding relatively minor

amendments made in 1912 to give effect

to the Fur Seal Treaty of July 7, 1911

between the United States, Great

Britain, Japan and Russia, the 1910 Act

remained in force until repealed by the

Fur Seal Act of February 26, 1944 (‘‘the

1944 Act’’).4 The 1944 Act served

primarily to vest control over the fur

seals, salmon, and other fisheries in

Alaska in the Department of the Interior

(‘‘DOI’’), which administered the

program through the Bureau of

Commercial Fisheries (‘‘BCF’’). It came

on the heels of Japan’s abrogation of the

1911 treaty on October 23, 1941 and

completion of a provisional fur seal

conservation agreement between Canada

and the United States which followed in

1942.

War between the United States and

Japan was declared in 1941 and in 1942,

the Japanese launched a surprise attack

on Dutch Harbor, Unalaska. The attack

on the Aleutian Chain dramatically

exposed the United States’ vulnerability

in the Bering Sea and thrust the Pribilof

Islands directly into the war zone.

Because of the threat of attack, the

Pribilovians were evacuated from their

homes and interned at Funtner Bay on

Admiralty Island, Alaska. Their

internment lasted two years and they

returned to the Pribilofs at the close of

the war in May, 1944.

B. The Late 1940s: The Post-War Era

Internment at Funtner Bay lead to

familiarity with other Alaskan natives

and in 1948 the Pribilovians joined the

Alaska Native Brotherhood (‘‘ANB’’). As

a result of the efforts of the ANB on

behalf of the Pribilof Aleuts, the

Secretary of the Interior in 1949

designated a group to study living

conditions of native communities

around the Bering Sea.5

The DOI study found that living

standards on the Pribilof Islands were

on par with the highest income groups

of any native people in Alaska and that

living conditions there were exemplary.

The survey group recognized, however,

that the role of the Federal Government

as guardian of their welfare limited the

Pribilovian’s sense of liberty and was

inconsistent with the status of wage

earning natives elsewhere in the Alaska

Territory. To temper this disparity,

recommendations were made to

restructure certain operational functions

on the Islands. As a result of the

recommendations, a job classification

and cash compensation wage plan was

instituted. The plan included annual

and sick leave, retirement benefits and

disability insurance. Food, housing,

clothing, health, education and

recreation costs continued to be paid by

the government.

Although Pribilovian monetary

compensation under the new system

remained below that of their neighbors,

a relatively high standard of living was

ensured by the offsets provided through

the in-kind compensation they

continued to receive. As demonstrated

by the study, the result was that during

this period the Pribilovians enjoyed

greater health, recreational, educational

and medical benefits than any other

Alaskan native group.

The survey group also recommended

that the St. Paul community receive a

charter, constitution and bylaws in

compliance with the 1934 Indian

Reorganization Act (‘‘IRA’’).6 The St.

Paul charter was established in 1950

and with it the Pribilovian communities

of St. Paul and St. George found a voice

in Federal and territorial government

decision-making. They were also given

responsibility for handling all economic

affairs of the community and for safeguarding the peace, safety and morals of

the village.

In 1951, the St. Paul IRA council

exercised its new rights by filing a claim

for native land rights and compensation

for past injustices. The land rights were

ultimately resolved in 1971 under the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

(‘‘ANCSA’’), discussed below. The claim

for past injustices was ultimately

brought under the Fair and Honorable

Dealings Act, and was settled in 1976.7

Additional changes that marked the

post-war era included the establishment

of a voting precinct on the Islands and

the agreement of the Territory of

Alaska’s Department of Health and

Education to provide technical guidance

to the Federal Government on medical

and educational services. In 1948, a

fourth class post office was established

on St. Paul and regular mail service

connecting St. Paul to the outside world

was instituted by Reeve Aleutian

Airways. In 1949 the first tourists were

welcomed to the Islands and regular

commercial flights were instituted.

These flights enabled the Pribilovians to

travel beyond the confines of their

Islands. In the early 50’s, large electrical

generators were installed which were

capable of providing electricity beyond

the standard 11:00 p.m. curfew. In short

order, modern electrical appliances

became household fixtures on the

Pribilof Islands.

The introduction of modern

conveniences, wages and buying power

and the possibility of travel to the

outside world, together with the support

services still provided by the

government, brought them to a socioeconomic level on par with, if not

surpassing, many other communities in

Alaska and the United States (See A

Century of Servitude for a good

description of this period). In light of

these changes, DOI began to re-evaluate

the role of the Pribilof Island program.

C. The 1950s: Federal Attrition and the

Beginning of Autonomy

From 1942 until 1957, the Pribilof fur

seals were protected by the interim

treaty executed in 1942. In 1957, the

Interim North Pacific Fur Seal

Convention between Canada, Japan, the

Union of Soviet Republics, and the

United States was enacted. It

established a Fur Seal Commission

comprised of representatives of the four

governments to coordinate research and

management of the fur seal resource.

As the United States’ international

policy regarding fur seals on the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18319

8Many of these debts were ultimately forgiven. In

1995, outstanding municipal debts for fuel and

services were settled through an agreement for inkind services.

9P.L. 89–702, 80 Stat. 1091.

10House Report, Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Commission, House Report No. 2154, Cong. News,

Sept. 29, 1966, p. 3630.

Pribilofs continued to evolve toward

conservation, BCF realized that their

role and presence on the Islands would

diminish. In 1959, BCF announced that

the Pribilof fur seal harvest would, over

time, become a seasonal operation. BCF

recognized that this change in policy

would significantly affect the

Pribilovian people. They acknowledged

that the local people would need job

training and, given the remoteness of

the Pribilofs, recommended off-island

relocation.

Preparing for the radical changes that

would result from a reduced Federal

harvest, BCF arranged for general skills

training in Anchorage through the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). To

encourage participation, individuals

were paid to attend the training. Despite

this incentive, enrollment was low.

While the BCF training initiative was

largely ignored, their off-island

relocation suggestions were met with

intense and vociferous opposition. As a

result, and recognizing the relative

inaccessibility and geographic

inhospitability of St. George, BCF

revised its relocation plan to

accommodate habitation on St. Paul

only. It was the opinion of BCF that

with the decline in the Federal seal

harvest program, particularly on St.

George, the number of houses ultimately

needed for employees should be held in

check. In the years that ensued, the

Bureau encouraged the voluntary

relocation of St. George residents to St.

Paul by providing new homes on St.

Paul to St. George residents who moved

there. In further support of this policy,

new home building on St. George

ceased, and all vacant homes there were

destroyed.

BCF dropped its outward relocation

efforts after disapproval voiced during

Committee on Commerce hearings

conducted in 1965. The belief that the

St. George Pribilovians should be

relocated, however, would survive, and

would be reintroduced in the next

amendments to the Fur Seal Act.

D. The 1960s: Self-Autonomy

(1) The Federal Wage System

In 1960, BCF appointed Howard

Baltzo as the new director of the Pribilof

Island Program. Mr. Baltzo’s primary

mandate was to improve the overall

living conditions of the Pribilof people

in light of impending program changes.

The changes Mr. Baltzo made to the

program are set forth in his May 1963

report entitled Program for

Administration of the Pribilof Island

Federal Reservation Embracing

Management of the Fur Seal Resource

and Development of the Resident Aleut

Inhabitants. As result of Mr. Baltzo’s

work, the Federal Civil Service wage

scale was introduced in 1962 for all

people on the Islands working for the

Federal Government. With this change,

Pribilovian wages were brought into

parity with the rest of the Federal

workforce. In turn, in kind

compensation such as free rent and food

were substantially reduced, being

provided only to those with insufficient

wages to cover necessities. The Federal

Government did, however, continue to

maintain and administer the stores,

laundries, houses, streets, and all public

buildings and to fund educational and

medical services for all Pribilovians on

both Islands. To preserve Federal jobs,

Pribilovian residents continued to be

employed in these services.

While in many ways a boon, the

Federal wage-scale system brought with

it the realities of unemployment. Based

on civil service job definitions, many

people were newly classified as

temporary or part-time employees. Still

others lost their jobs. Although they

now had autonomy and full wages,

without the security of in-kind benefits,

many people were caught in the

unfortunate position of not being able to

pay their bills. Individual indebtedness

to the Federal Government for rent,

food, clothing and fuel began to mount.8

Some Islanders left to seek work on

mainland Alaska. Most, however,

stayed.

(2) The Fur Seal Act Amendments of

1966

In 1965, Senate hearings were held

regarding the role of the Federal

Government on the Pribilof Islands

(‘‘the Bartlett Hearings’’). At these

hearings, the Pribilovians testified that

they would feel more secure owning

their own homes and managing the

affairs of their villages as self-governed

municipalities.

The product of the Bartlett Hearings

was the Fur Seal Act Amendment of

1966 (‘‘the 1966 Act’’).9 Amendments to

Title I of the 1966 Act incorporated

changes that ensured implementation of

the Interim Convention on the

Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals

signed February 9, 1957, and amended

by protocol dated October 8, 1963.

Amendments to Title II of the 1966 Act

were designed to foster self-sufficiency

and self-governance among the native

inhabitants of the Pribilof Islands.

Recognizing the significant positive

changes brought about on the Islands

since 1950, the Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries reported in House

Report No. 2154:

During the past 16 years progress has been

made in placing the resident Aleuts on the

same basis as other citizens and other Federal

employees. They are now compensated on a

wage rate basis comparable to that in other

Alaska communities. They are charged

reasonable rates for housing, household

supplies, and community services provided

by the Government. A locally elected

community council manages certain affairs of

the community, including the

implementation of local ordinances. The St.

Paul Island Community Council operates a

cooperative canteen-store facility, and

members of the Aleut community serve as

deputy magistrate, postmaster, and local lawenforcement officers. A small number of

home-operated restaurants and theater

enterprises also have developed.

The Department of Interior and your

committee wants to encourage the

development of the Aleut community

still further, and significantly reduce

Federal expenditures for the fur seal

industry operation. Accordingly, the

Department now plans three gradual

changes in its program for

administration of the islands. These

involve: first, the transfer to the Aleut

community on St. Paul of greater

responsibility for the administration and

management of the village coupled with

increased opportunities for

development of new economic activity

within the expanded community;

second, the consolidation of the St.

George Island community with that on

St. Paul Island on a voluntary basis -as

housing and other facilities on St. Paul

increase; and third, transition from yearround to seasonal fur seal industry

operations by the Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries.10

To accomplish these objectives and

give effect to the desires of the

Pribilovian people, section 206 of the

1966 Act authorized the Secretary of the

Interior to set apart land on St. Paul

Island for the establishment of a

townsite. The townsite was to be

surveyed into lots, blocks, streets and

alleys and the Secretary was to issue a

patent for the townsite to a trustee

appointed by him. It was the duty of the

trustee to convey to all individual

natives of both islands title to improved

or unimproved surveyed lots or tracts of

land within the townsite. These tracts

included plots with government homes

on them.

Conveyance was contingent on

payment for the property to the

Secretary. Before issuance of the patent
18320 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

11Foote, Dan C., V. Fischer, George W. Rogers. St.

Paul Community Study, Institute of Social,

Economic and Government Research, University of

Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1968, p. 72, as cited in

Slaves, ibid. At 159.

12 43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq, 85 Stat. 688, Pub.L. 92–

203.

13The regional corporation for both villages is the

Aleut Corporation, currently ranked as the 32nd

largest revenue generator in the State.

and any conveyance, the Secretary was

required to make a determination that a

self-governing community on St. Paul

was in existence, or was likely to be

imminently and successfully

established. Adhering to their policy of

consolidation of the Pribilovians on St.

Paul Island, no townsite set-aside was

authorized for St. George.

Proceeds from the sale of the lands,

together with other available funds such

as tax revenues, were to be given to the

established local governing body on St.

Paul to enable it to provide needed

municipal services. In addition, section

206 provided for a sliding-scale 5 year

payment to the community to fund

municipal services. The first payment

was in the sum of $50,000.00. At the

close of each succeeding 4 fiscal years,

the payments would be $40,000.00,

$30,000.00, $20,000.00, and $10,000.00,

respectively. Finally, all unsold

property remaining after 5 years and no

longer required by the Government was

to be conveyed to the incorporated

municipality, together with all surveyed

streets and alleys.

In 1967, just one year after passage of

the 1966 Act, a team of researchers from

the University of Alaska came to the

islands to study St. Paul’s economy in

light of their emerging self-governance.

Based upon available information, the

researchers estimated that the average

household income on St. Paul was

approximately $9,830, while the

expenditure for living expenses was

$1000 less. They concluded that there

was an income and savings base with

potential to provide economic selfsufficiency through responsible local

leadership.

The report concluded:

The future of St. Paul rests with the people

of the community regardless of what

determinations are made by others or what

development plans may be prepared. It will

be up to the local people to decide whether

or not to incorporate as a municipality, and

without a positive vote, the town-site

provisions of the Fur Seal Act will not apply.

Likewise, the carrying out of the

development programs, the broadening of the

economic base, and other potentials that exist

are all dependant on support by the local

population * * * St. Paul has the potential

for emerging as a vital community. In the

long run, however, the future of the Pribilofs

rests to a large degree on the attitudes of the

young people. How they see their future will

determine the future of St. Paul.11

Over the ensuing five years, the

community failed to incorporate as a

municipality. As a result, the Secretary

was unable to make the requisite

determination of self-governance to

permit the land transfers and the

realization of the people’s desire for

home ownership was delayed.

Despite this delay, a number of

positive changes were brought to bear

on the Islands as a result of the 1966

Act. Effective in 1966, responsibility for

some community services, including

police and fire protection, were

transferred to the local council. The first

public tavern opened its doors on St.

Paul the same year, and the community

took over operation of the hotel that

summer. Soon, the community

equipped and was operating a

maintenance and repair shop and a

recreation hall. St. Paul established two

movie houses, four refreshment stands,

and a barber shop. In 1967, the U.S.

Coast Guard Loran Station and the

Weather Bureau began to train local

residents for jobs. And for the first time,

Pribilovian residents enjoyed private car

ownership as vehicles were sold by

departing Federal employees and

construction contractors.

The 1966 Act also served to enhance

the retirement benefits of the Pribilovian

people. Under a 1951 ruling, the Civil

Service Commission had advised the

Secretary of the Interior that the resident

Aleuts performing services for the

Government were considered Federal

employees only as of 1950 when they

received compensation in the form of

wages. Under that ruling, elder Aleuts of

retirement age would not receive credit

service before 1950. Section 208 of the

1966 Act changed the administrative

ruling of the Civil Service Commission

by extending retirement credit for

service prior to 1950. It also eliminated

deposit requirements by those

individuals for the accrual of benefits.

E. The 1970s: Self Governance

Effective October 30, 1970,

‘‘Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970’’ (35

F.R. 15627; 84 Stat. 2090) transferred

the functions of BCF to the Secretary of

Commerce. As a result, the

responsibilities of the Federal

Government for continued

administration of the Pribilof Island

Program were assumed by the National

Marine Fisheries Service (‘‘NMFS’’) of

the newly organized National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration

(‘‘NOAA’’).

In 1971, a resolution to accept a

charter to incorporate St. Paul was

finally passed. On June 29, 1971, the

village of St. Paul became a fourth class

Alaskan city and assumed all

responsibility to provide public services

to its residents. Meanwhile, the voices

of combined Alaskan native groups had

succeeded in bringing about reforms

regarding the status of land ownership

throughout the State. On December 18,

1971, Congress moved to resolve all

Alaskan aboriginal land claims by

enacting the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act (‘‘ANCSA’’).12

In 1973, the Fur Seal Commission

adopted the United States’

recommendation to establish a major

research program for fur seals by setting

aside St. George Island as a research

reserve. The goal of the research was to

compare population dynamics and

behavior between the harvested

population on St. Paul and an

unharvested population on St. George.

As a result, the commercial harvest of

seals ceased on St. George after 1972.

Economically, the effect was to further

diminish Federal employment on St.

George. The decision was within the

Secretary’s authority and lent further

support to the administration’s declared

policy of relocating the St. George

islanders because of the relative

inability of that remote island to support

any kind of economy.

ANCSA required the establishment of

Regional and Village native corporations

through which the claims of all entitled

natives, including the Pribilovians,

would be settled. The settlement

included the distribution of 40 million

acres of land throughout the State and

the payment of $962,500,000.00 over an

eleven-year period. Transfer of title for

all ANCSA conveyances was made

through the Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’).

To comply with the village

corporation provisions of ANCSA, the

people of St. Paul established the

Tanadgusix Corporation (‘‘TDX’’) while

the people of St. George established the

Tanaq Corporation. TDX received the

right to select 138,240 acres of land in

the Aleutians, Alaska Peninsula, and St.

Paul. Ultimately, 113,000 acres

conveyed to TDX. Tanaq received the

right to select 115,200 acres. 106,000

acres were ultimately conveyed. A full

discussion of remaining ANCSA land

entitlements to be resolved is included

in the statement and comments from the

Department of Interior at Exhibit A.

Under sections 1610(b), 1611(a) and

1613(a) of the ANCSA, conveyances to

the native corporations were to include

surface rights to the core township lands

where each village was located. ANCSA

also directed that subsurface rights be

transferred to the regional

corporations.13 On the Pribilof Islands,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18321

14See Alaska District Council of the Assemblies

of God, Inc., 8 IBLA 153, 155 (Nov. 22, 1972), and

opinion of February 5, 1975 from the Regional

Solicitor to the BLM State Director (attached as

Exhibit 1).

15Under the proposal, responsibility for

commercial harvest of the fur seal remained with

the Federal government; subsistence harvest,

however, would continue to be allowed.

these provisions created an immediate

impasse to the pending transfer of the

townsite under the 1966 Act. Under

section 206 of the 1966 Act, the Federal

Government was obligated to sell tracts

of Federal property to Pribilovian

individuals as part of the townsite

concept. Under ANCSA, the Federal

Government was directed to convey

interim title to the townships and other

lands to the native corporations at no

cost. The corporations, in turn, were to

transfer title to their shareholders. In

both instances, the property to be

transferred included government

housing.

Faced with a choice of having

residents purchase their own land and

homes under the 1966 Act or receiving

them at no cost under ANCSA, the City

of St. Paul voted to take the property

and houses through the ANCSA process.

Meanwhile, the Department of Interior

ruled that the townsite provisions of

section 206 of the 1966 Act were

preempted by the conveyance

provisions of ANCSA.14

Having resolved ANCSA as the

appropriate mechanism for transfer,

NMFS released the majority of property

on St. George and St. Paul for corporate

selection. Under section (3)(e) of

ANCSA, the Federal Government was

allowed to retain certain property

necessary for its public mission.

Accordingly, the Federal Government

retained the fur seal rookeries and a

number of facilities required for the

continued administration of the Islands

as a special reserve.

Viewing ANCSA as a guarantee for a

more prosperous and secure future on

the Islands, the people found renewed

vigor and support for their desire to

remain on St. George and St. Paul.

Recognizing the economic limitations of

the ANCSA settlement, the Federal

Government continued to encourage the

voluntary relocation of St. Georgians to

St. Paul and the voluntary migration of

unemployed Pribilovians to mainland

Alaska and the rest of the United States.

The practical effect of ANCSA and its

interplay with the 1966 Act was to

establish six entities competing for

limited resources on two remote islands.

While opportunities for economic

growth and self-governance were

promoted under both acts, the

underlying tensions between the entities

arising in subsequent disputes over

money, facilities, land and land use

would create as many problems as it

resolved. That tension would prove to

divide the community in enduring

fashion, fostering attitudes that would

ultimately diminish the bright prospect

envisioned by the University of Alaska

researchers in 1967. Ultimately, these

tensions have affected the ability of the

islands to self-govern efficiently and

cooperatively.

F. The 1980s: Termination of Federal

Responsibility

(1) The Fur Seal Act Amendments of

1983

With the mechanisms for the transfer

of land in place and operational under

ANCSA, and systems of self-government

established commensurate with ANCSA

and the 1966 Act, the attention of

Congress in the early eighties turned to

the promotion of a self-sufficient and

self-sustaining economy on the Pribilof

Islands.

Despite the programmatic decline of

Federal involvement on the Islands,

annual funding for the Pribilof program

had doubled between 1970 and 1982 to

$6.3 million annually. Approximately

95 per cent of each year’s funds were

spent in support of social welfare

programs. Recognizing the autonomy of

the Pribilovian people and faced with

tight budget constraints and an

increasing national deficit, the

Administration’s 1983 budget proposed

to phase-out Federal support on the

Pribilofs over four years at a cost of

$15.8 million.

In a joint effort to derive a better

solution than a slow phase-out, the

Secretary of Commerce and the

Governor of Alaska formed a working

group composed of State, Island and

Federal representatives. At the first

meeting of the work group, State and

Island positions advocated that the

Federal Government provide annual

appropriations for 5 more years at

current levels. Recognizing that

continued Federal appropriations for

social welfare programs would do

nothing to create a stable and selfsustaining economy on the Islands, the

Administration proposed that one

answer was to build upon the Pribilof’s

location in the midst of the Bering Sea

fisheries. To capture this potential, the

Secretary suggested the creation of a

one-time $20 million trust to replace the

annual appropriations for social welfare

and support. Combined with a

commitment by the State to construct

harbors on both Islands, the trust would

give the Pribilovians the resources

needed to make the transition to a selfsustaining economy. In addition, the

Secretary proposed the transfer of

previously exempt ANCSA properties. 15

During subsequent meetings, the

Administration advanced its proposal.

The State responded by supporting

harbor construction on both Islands.

The State also expressed its willingness

to assume normal State functions

related to transportation and community

services, including the provision of

schools and educational services and

responsibility for airport services. (The

State’s commitments along these lines

are articulated in correspondence dated

May 11, 1982 and September 28, 1982

from Governor Hammond to

Administrator Calio, and in a

Memorandum of Understanding signed

by the State dated February 10, 1984.

All of these documents are attached at

Exhibit 2.)

Over the course of the next several

months, the Administration worked

with State and Island leaders to develop

a Memorandum of Intent (‘‘MOI’’)

describing the concept of a phase-out

linked to the Federal trust

appropriation, the transfer of Federal

property and State assistance for the

construction of a harbor on each Island.

Under the MOI, all parties

acknowledged that the United States

desired to terminate Federal program

funding on the Pribilofs under Title II of

the Fur Seal Act (‘‘FSA’’) while at the

same time maintaining its Treaty

obligations under Title I. (A copy of the

MOI is attached as Exhibit 3.) To ensure

that there was no misunderstanding

about the intent of the United States to

terminate all Title II Federal

responsibility on the Islands, the MOI

and a letter carefully explaining the

Administration’s position were sent to

every household on the islands. (A copy

of the letter is attached as Exhibit 4).

As a result of negotiations and

consultation conducted within the

framework of the MOI, the

Administration set forth in draft

legislation its proposal to provide for

the orderly termination of Federal

management of the Islands. The bill,

H.R. 2840, was based on legislation

presented in the House of

Representatives on April 28, 1983. It

was supported by all of the parties

affected by it.

Recognizing the need to bifurcate

responsibility for the provision of socioeconomic welfare development under

Title II of the Act from NOAA’s

responsibility for protection and

conservation of the fur seal under Title
18322 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

16Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries

and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of

the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries—

Pribilof Islands, H.R. 2840, 98th Congress, House of

Representatives, May 19, 1983, pp. 260–263.

17 Ibid. At 290.

18 Ibid. at 273.

19 Ibid. at 335.

20 Ibid. at 299. 21 16 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.

I, then NOAA Deputy Administrator

Anthony Calio testified to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and

Fisheries that:

The principal purpose of amending the Fur

Seal Act is to end Federal administration, as

you have indicated, in the Pribilof Islands,

while continuing to fulfill the obligation of

the United States under the Interim

Convention on the Conservation of North

Pacific Fur Seals * * * I believe that the

conceptual basis of these amendments is

sound and that the time is ripe for the islands

to become independent of Federal control

* * * If the funds are appropriated, the

Department of Commerce will seek no further

funds for the Pribilofs other than those

needed to maintain an adequate research and

conservation program and to implement the

Fur Seal Convention.16

From the outset, it was the

Administration’s position that the onetime trust appropriation be used solely

to replace social welfare and support

services on the Islands and that the

success of the proposal was contingent

on the commitment by the State for

harbor development. This position was

shared by all negotiating entities. The

ANCSA village corporations and the

governing entities of both Islands,

together with the Department of

Commerce, agreed in the 1983 MOI that:

* * * the State of Alaska’s appropriation

of the monies necessary to construct boat

harbors on St. Paul and St. George Islands

and the State’s assumption of the

responsibilities for airports, roads, and other

facilities upon the Islands in accordance with

applicable laws and regulations is an

indispensable contribution to achieving the

goal of self-sufficiency on the Pribilofs.

And, as stated by NOAA during

Congressional hearings on the proposed

1983 amendments:

* * * $20 million was proposed in

addition to the $6.5 million available for

fiscal year 1983. We estimate that $4 million

is needed annually to provide for basic

community needs on both Islands during the

transition to a self reliant economy.

Assuming that the $20 million is placed in

an interest bearing account, the appropriation

should last 5–7 years. We thought this would

be ample time to develop a new economic

base.17

In response to questions raised during

those hearings about whether the $20

million would be used for the

development of the harbor facilities,

former NOAA Administrator Anthony

Calio stated that:

The purpose of the $20 million was to try

to provide some sort of independence for the

islanders, to provide them with some capital

to pay their current expenses and for future

development. We would not try to constrain

the use of those funds in any way as far as

the executive branch is concerned. It is

essentially a capital fund for their own use.

If they feel that in their best interest that is

the way to utilize that money, we would not

put a constraint on it. We feel that this

should not be done, however.18

Legal counsel for St. Paul Island

concurred with this position.

Responding to a question concerning

use of the trust money for the harbor

during the hearings, Attorney Tony

Smith stated:

It is our expectation that the $20 million

will be used in other areas, not for the harbor.

We have done a careful analysis of just

maintaining the utilities on the island, and

on St. Paul it is going to cost, as best we can

determine, about $2.9 million a year during

the transition to maintain the sewer, water,

light, power, and essentially the airport, the

roads, the infrastructure. Our analysis

indicates $4.1 million on both islands * * *

[The Bill] does not preclude it [use of the

trust for harbor construction], but one of our

concerns * * * is that the infrastructure and

the harbor both need to proceed down

parallel tracks. I am very concerned about an

effort to take part of the $20 million to

construct the harbor * * *

St. Paul’s intention is to maintain the

infrastructure and get the harbor completed,

and we have figured out how to do that with

a State appropriation and to have those two

run parallel. And hopefully 3 to 4 years

down the road we will have a viable, robust

entrepreneurial endeavor.19

As pointed out by the State during the

hearings, development of the harbors

was decidedly in the best interests of

the State. As stated by the Deputy

Director of the Alaska’s Division of

Community Planning:

This is an internationally significant

fishery, as you know, and studies done by the

State Department of Commerce confirm that

those two harbors could have the linchpin

[sic] of a very successful fishing industry in

the Bering Sea.20

As conceived by engineering firms

hired by the islands to consult on the

project, construction of the harbors was

to be accomplished in three phases.

Phase I consisted of the building of

breakwaters and a wharf on each island.

Phase II consisted of the development of

on-shore processors. Phase III consisted

of on-going harbor improvements.

Estimates of the amount of time to

complete the projects ranged from the

conservative (8 years) to the optimistic

(3–4 years).

As initially presented, the

consultants’ estimates for construction

of the two harbors was in the range of

$24 to $30 million. By the time of the

hearings, the State had already

appropriated and committed $7 million.

That money was used to start

construction of the Phase I breakwaters.

In addition, the State, through the

subsequent administration, had

submitted a budget request for an

additional $10.4 million.

During the hearings, it was the State’s

position that any shortfall between the

money they were able to obtain and

what was needed would have to be

borne by Federal or private sources.

Responding to the State’s position, John

Phillips, Special Assistant to

Administrator Calio, stated that when

the engineering firms learned of the

State funding limit, their plans had been

modified and that even at the $17

million level, harbor completion to

Phase I was obtainable. The harbor

consultants also expressed their opinion

that once the Phase I breakwaters were

built, private investors would be drawn

to the islands and would prove to be a

ready source of private funding for

Phase II and Phase III on-shore

development and improvements. In

support of this assumption, they cited

private willingness to invest in the

development of fisheries resources

which had been achieved at Dutch

Harbor and Akutan, areas considerably

more limited in terms of resource

proximity.

Satisfied that the State’s initial

commitment and emerging private

investment would support harbor

development, and that the one-time

federally funded trust would be used for

infrastructure, the Fur Seal Act

Amendments of 1983 (‘‘the 1983 Act’’) 21

was enacted. Under the 1983 Act, the

Department of Commerce’s

responsibilities with regard to the

Islands were limited to (1) Establishing

the one-time trust (‘‘the Trust’’) to be

administered by a non-government

trustee in order to promote the

development of a stable, self-sufficient,

enduring and diversified economy not

dependent on sealing (section 1166); (2)

transferring formerly withheld Federal

property to Island entities under a

Transfer of Property Agreement

(‘‘TOPA’’) (section 1165); (3) continuing

to administer retirement benefits

(section 1168), and (4) continuing

management of the rookeries to ensure

compliance with the Fur Seal

Convention (Title I and section 1161).

The State was given responsibility for

providing standard educational needs

(section 1163) and the Secretary of

Health and Human Services was given
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18323

22Public Law 99–662, enacted November 17,

1986.

responsibility for providing medical and

dental services (section 1164).

A Master Trust Agreement under the

1983 Act was signed on November 21,

1983. Separate trusts for St. Paul and St.

George were established on March 14,

1984 and March 27, 1984, respectively.

In accordance with his authority, and at

the request of people of St. George, the

Trust was divided into two portions.

Using a formula devised by the

Secretary, $12 million was allotted St.

Paul, $8 million to St. George.

Faced with declining oil revenues in

1985, the Sheffield administration was

ultimately unable to secure the

requested $10.4 million it sought to

finish the harbors. As a result, despite

previous commitments, no more than

the original $7 million was invested by

the State in harbor development in the

first five critical years of the final phaseout.

(2) Harbor Development and Emerging

Economies

(a) St. Paul. Using a significant

portion of the $7 million appropriated

by the State, St. Paul was able to

complete their Phase I project. The

result was construction of a 750 foot

breakwater and 200 foot dock by 1986.

Over time, the breakwater was

susceptible to damage from overtopping

during winter storms. With no available

State funding for harbor improvements,

the City turned to the Army Corps of

Engineers. Taking advantage of the

newly enacted Water Resources

Development Act (WRDA),22 the City in

1986 applied for authorization to

construct a larger harbor. Their request

relied on a 1979 Corps navigability

feasibility study that recommended an

1800 foot breakwater, a 900 foot dock,

and a channel dredged to 23 feet below

mean low water. Once completed, the

harbor would accommodate nine to ten

100-foot crab vessels.

The City’s request for the harbor was

approved under section 204(e) of WRDA

in June of 1988. Following minor

modifications to the General Design

Memorandum, the total Federal share

for the project in 1989 was $19,635,200.

The City of St. Paul was able to secure

matching funds through State

appropriations and local investment.

Meanwhile, in 1986, St. Paul’s trustee

had begun Phase II processing

initiatives by contacting major seafood

processors and seeking their investment

in a diversified fish processing

capability. As a result of the trustee’s

efforts, St. Paul had drawn four seafood

processors to its shores by 1994.

In addition to ensuring the harbor

project under WRDA, the City

undertook maintenance of infrastructure

needs of St. Paul as envisioned by the

1983 Act. They also assumed

responsibility for a number of other,

non-traditional municipal roles

including providing utilities, selling

bulk and marine fuel, and operating a

snack and gift shop. In the late eighties,

as a result of committing trust funds to

harbor development following the

State’s inability to appropriate monies,

St. Paul requested supplemental trust

appropriations totaling approximately

$3 million. These funds were used to

support City infrastructure needs.

While the City solidified its

responsibilities for trust-related

municipal ventures, TDX was able to

expand their investments with outside

companies. As a result, TDX built their

own 300 foot dock, leased facilities and

land to the processors, and developed a

crab-pot storage facility. They also

pursued numerous off-island ventures

including development of hotels in

Anchorage and Seattle.

The Corps of Engineers Harbor project

was completed in 1990. By 1995, St.

Paul had grown to become the number

two fishing port in Alaska. As reflected

in shared fisheries and fisheries landing

taxes and fees in the State, St. Paul is

second only to Unalaska in generating

revenues. It is also the primary crab

processing location in the Bering Sea.

(b) St. George. With ANCSA and the

1983 Act bolstering their intent to

sustain a foothold in the Bering Sea, the

City of St. George incorporated as a

second class city on September 13,

1983. Acting expeditiously, they

obtained State approval and initial

funding to construct a State harbor in

1984. Despite their ambition, they

ultimately received little State support.

In 1985, their State grant of $3 million

for harbor development was reduced to

$1 million as a result of budget cuts. To

meet ongoing dredging demands, the

City of St. George followed St. Paul’s

lead and immediately requested

assistance from the Army Corps of

Engineers. Because the City of St.

George was unable to raise local or state

matching funds, no Army Corps projects

could commence. In 1986,

unanticipated site conditions led to the

default of a State recommended harbor

contractor and the City had to take over

as general contractor. By 1987, the

breakwaters were still not complete and

winter storms threatened much of the

existing structure. That same year the

State notified the City that no further

State funding would be appropriated

before 1989.

In 1988, Army Corps of Engineers

dredging assistance of $4 million was

finally approved. To raise matching

funds, the City issued general obligation

bonds in the amount of $3 million, sold

$1.2 million of municipal and

construction equipment and borrowed

$700,000 from the Tanaq Corporation.

In 1989, with dredging underway, All

Alaska Seafoods Company committed to

process on a floating fish-processing

plant in the harbor when dredging was

completed. Ultimately, dredging delays

in the narrow channel prevented

startup. Meanwhile, local fisheriesrelated businesses failed as a result of

limited markets and lack of fisheries

infrastructure.

With its Trust nearly depleted, the

City of St. George in 1988 requested a

$3.7 million authorization from

Congress for basic human needs

assistance. They received $1.1 million.

In 1990, they requested $2.6 million. As

they requested the second

appropriation, the City was

contemplating permanent closure based

on significant debt. Their request

explained that their harbor was set to

support self-sufficiency by 1992. Today,

the inhospitable shoreline and

inclement weather of the island

continues to contribute to the inability

of St. George to complete their harbor.

By 1990, the St. George Trust was

nearly depleted. Efforts to attract private

industry to the remote island had failed,

and the City has since survived solely

through ongoing funding through State

and Federal construction projects. As

stated by Peter Hocson, the trustee for

the St. George trust, in his 1988 annual

report to former Administrator Calio:

The single obstacle standing in the way of

a self-sustaining economy, as envisioned by

the Fur Seal Amendment Act of 1983, is the

lack of the State of Alaska’s funding to

complete the boat harbor.

In 1993, the Army Corps of Engineers

contributed an additional $3 million to

conduct in-blasting and dredging

operations designed to secure the

harbor. Together with the $8 million

trust allocation, the $3 million

supplemental needs trust

appropriations, the initial Army Corps

of Engineers investment of $4 million

and a $1 million facilities upgrade

appropriation, a conservative estimate

of the Federal Government’s

contribution to St. George’s economy

since 1983 totals $19 million.

III. The Cities Today

(A) St. Paul

As the continued growth of the harbor

brought increasing prosperity to St.

Paul, it also made the resources required
18324 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

23The City filed suit on November 21, 1996

against the Secretary of Commerce and Under

Secretary of NOAA to abrogate that agreement, as

well as transfer decisions reached under the 1983

ACT TOPA. TDX joined the dispute in a parallel

proceeding against the Secretary and Under

Secretary filed December 20, 1996. Copies of the

Complaints in each case are attached as Exhibits

5(a) and 5(b).

24Evidence of these attitudes is reflected in the

TDX newsletter attached as Exhibit 6 which was

distributed to all shareholders and ultimately

dispersed across the small island.

25See Final Conservation Plan for the northern

fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), prepared by the

National Marine Mammal Laboratory/Alaska

Fisheries Science Center for the National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1993.

for a sustained economy more scarce

and valuable. The unfortunate result

was that the relationship between the

City of St. Paul and TDX Corporation

grew increasingly adversarial. Having

assumed responsibility for so many

daily activities through administration

of trust related activities, the City’s need

for land, particularly harbor-side, grew.

Under ANCSA, ownership and control

of available lands vested with TDX.

Frustrated by their inability to obtain

lands from TDX, the City brought a law

suit against TDX in 1985 challenging the

distribution of property under section

14(c) of ANCSA. Settlement was

achieved in three years.23

Continually deadlocked in similar

disputes over terms and conditions of

land use, TDX and the City have

historically blocked each other from or

delayed each other’s goals. Today, the

continued and heightened inability of

island leaders to share their island’s

resources and to work cooperatively has

created an atmosphere of mistrust and

divisiveness. During testimony taken on

St. Paul in preparation for this Report,

St. Paul citizens repeatedly informed

Commerce personnel that the City’s

single-minded focus on harbor

construction, TDX’s unwillingness to

make land and property available to its

shareholders, and the two entities

inability to get along as the source of

much resentment and frustration.

In oral statements made for purposes

of this Report, St. Paul citizens and

shareholders of TDX referred to

incidents of intimidation, bullying and

coercion by TDX officers to influence

land dispute settlement and shareholder

proxy votes. Several local citizens and

one TDX representative stated that TDX

would not sell any land to local citizens,

and that land use and business

development was available only through

leases with TDX. The leases set rental

rates on par with those of industrial

properties surrounding the Anchorage

Airport. They also included provisions

for mandatory building development

and improvements to be relinquished

without compensation at expiration of

the lease. Faced with these terms, local

entrepreneurs wait for more reasonable

leases of limited government properties.

As a result, the local, small business

economy is effectively chilled by the

citizen’s own village corporation.

Without these opportunities,

unemployment persists and the costs of

goods and services from off-island

remain high.24

Finally, St. Paul is also experiencing

the effects of imported labor within its

local infrastructure. Local residents

allege that they were promised

management positions and as a result

have refused to work any front line

positions. As a result, vacancies at the

processing facilities have been filled by

workers from Asia and the Phillipines.

This foreign labor pool is housed and

fed aboard the processors. Overall, they

contribute relatively little to the

economy.

Despite these difficulties, evidence of

St. Paul’s commercial success is readily

apparent. The City’s annual operating

budget is roughly $18 million.

According to 1990 Census Bureau

information, the median income per

family is $49,900.00. The average

income as of 1994 was $34,000.00. In

the words of St. Paul’s former City

Manager, success has outstripped all

expectations. In a letter to Trustee Jay

Gage at the termination of the St. Paul

Trust, the City Manager and Trust

Advisor wrote:

* * * [W]e wish to * * * put in the record

our acknowledgment and gratitude for your

service to St. Paul. In retrospect, had it not

been for your foresight and fortitude in

administering the St. Paul Trust, we may not

have the robust economy we have today.

Through your wisdom, you directed most of

the Trust funds towards establishing a port

on St. Paul while assuring that our people

did not endure undue economic hardship.

In short, you have accomplished your

mission to assist St. Paul Aleuts achieve [sic]

economic independence and diversification

away from seal harvesting above and beyond

anyone’s expectations. Indeed, what you

have accomplished is nothing short of an

economic miracle, considering that this was

all done in less than half a generation under

very adverse circumstances.

(A copy of the City Manager’s letter is

attached as Exhibit 7)

Increased activity in the harbor and

the expanse of the Bering Sea fishery

has prompted the City to explore

additional international markets. They

now seek to establish a Free Trade Zone,

and look forward to continued harbor

improvements through the Army Corp

of Engineers. Toward this end, and as a

result of unprecedented growth, a

second Corps feasibility study was

commissioned in 1995. That report

caused Congress in September, 1996 to

authorize an additional $18.9 million to

modify and improve the harbor.

Together with the previous $19

million commitment, the $12 million

trust portion under the 1983 Act, the $1

million share of funding for facilities

improvements in 1984, and the $3

million in supplemental needs

appropriations granted the trust in the

mid-eighties, a conservative estimate of

the total Federal contribution to St.

Paul’s economy since 1983 totals nearly

$55 million.

While the last five years have seen a

growth in the economy of St. Paul, they

have also seen a decline in fur seals,

harbor seals, sea lions and several

species of sea birds throughout the

Pribilofs.25 These declines are

particularly alarming on St. Paul

because of the possibility of cumulative

effects brought to bear by rigorous

weather conditions, increased

opportunity for oil spills, general

marine disturbance, rodent

introduction, and effluent discharges of

fish processing wastes. The fur seals are

currently listed as a depleted species

under the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (‘‘MMPA’’) and the red-legged

kittiwake, whose population has

declined to 40–50 per cent of its 1970

level and is being considered for listing

under the Endangered Species Act

(‘‘ESA’’). Roughly 80 per cent of the

world’s population of each of these

species make their home on the Pribilof

Islands. Together with the myriad of

other wildlife species that inhabit the

Islands, they are the primary reason the

Islands are referred to as ‘‘the Galapagos

of the North.’’

(B) St. George

While St. Paul has grown and

prospered, St. George has struggled. The

Island’s rugged topography and foggy

climate have effectively frustrated the

provision of goods and services since

Russian occupation. Possessing no

natural geography to accommodate a

harbor, shipments by sea have

traditionally been limited. Mail service

by air proved equally confounding, and

in the 50s and 60s was limited to air

drops due to the risks associated with

aircraft landing. Modern technology has

brought only minor advances and

treacherous island conditions continue

to contribute to the difficulties of

establishing an independent economy.

In November, 1996, after a $6 million

State investment in runway expansion,

the FAA ruled the Island’s airstrip too

dangerous to permit any plane larger

than a six-seater Piper Navajo to land.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18325

26Additional liabilities associated with the

harbor’s development include delays from

inclement weather and unforeseen site conditions.

In the late eighties, the City was named a third

party defendant in a law suit brought by a dredging

contractor against the Army Corps for increased

costs associated with unforeseen site conditions.

The contractor prevailed and was granted a

judgement of $1,095,187 for which the Corps now

seeks contribution from the City.

27Undependent Auditor’s Report: City of St.

George prepared by Mikunda, Cottrell & Co., C.P.A.,

May 18, 1995.

With no protective shoreline, St.

George’s harbor continuously requires

major dredging and expansion to fend

off the inhospitable and over-powering

Bering Sea. Despite assurances that their

harbor would reach sufficiency and

provide a self-sustaining economy by

1992, the ongoing need for harbor

dredging and improvement has instead

compounded existing debt. To complete

1994 dredging and harbor

improvements, the City sold revenue

bonds in the amount of $865,000.00. In

addition, the City was forced to draw

down its surplus cash, thereby resulting

in a working capital deficiency. To meet

their debts, the City has budgeted

reductions in its work force, deferred

building maintenance, and reduced

engineering, legal and travel expenses.26

Having significantly extended its

debt, St. George faces an uncertain

economic future. Faced with the need

for substantial ongoing, sustained

improvements the St. George harbor

remains effectively unfinished and

without significant draw to shore-side

fish processors. As a result, the City

continues to need supplemental

infrastructure and human needs

assistance.

At the close of 1994, the City’s longterm debt was assessed at $3,081,039.

By the start of the year 2000, it is

estimated that $2,802,877 will still be

required to clear the City’s debt. As

stated in an independent auditor’s

report dated May 18, 1995:

* * * the City experienced significant

costs in excess of grant revenues in the

construction of its harbor dredging and

improvement project in prior years causing a

working capital deficiency, which raises

substantial doubt about its ability to continue

as a going concern.27

IV. The Claims Asserted

The Statements of the State of Alaska

and the Department of Interior required

under Public Law 104–91 are attached

at Exhibit A. In addition, the

Department of Interior has included its

request for resolution of the Terms and

Conditions of its agreement with the

Islands under the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act. That claim is included as part of

Interior’s submission at Exhibit A.

A copy of all local entity and resident

statements of claims is attached as

Exhibit B. The process for collecting the

statements is described in section (I)

below. The essence of the information

submitted as claims by local entities and

residents may not necessarily be rights

that are enforceable in court but, in

some instances can be more

appropriately described as assertions

that are inherently equitable and arise

out of the past intergovernmental

relationship. The claims are what the

Pribilovians expect from the Federal

Government to resolve alleged harms

caused as a result of the United States

history with the Pribilovian people.

We do not interpret P.L. 104–91 as

raising a claims process of potential

lawsuits against the United States.

Nevertheless, this is the tenor that was

created throughout the process based on

the nature and form of claims

submitted. Accordingly, what follows is

a general outline of the types of claims

raised by the Pribilovians and the

Department’s response. In some cases,

the Department has determined that no

further action is necessary and in others,

the Department makes specific

recommendations.

Given the magnitude and nature of

submissions, an individual response to

each of the over 85 claims was not

possible. To focus and present the

Report, local entity and resident claims

have been categorized according to eight

broad areas of concern. A summary of

the statement of claims is attached as

Exhibit 8. The categories of claims are:

continued economic growth, failed

transition, real property, trust issues,

fisheries issues, retirement issues, seals/

rookeries issues, environmental cleanup

issues, and P.L.104–91 process issues.

Submissions were also received

regarding health care and the settlement

reached under the Fair and Honorable

Dealings Act case for past injustices.

Because these areas are outside of the

Secretary’s authority, these issues are

not addressed in this Report, but have

been referred to the appropriate agency

for their review.

Some of the claims submitted seek

specific performance; the majority seek

monetary damages. Conservative

estimates of the total claims is roughly

$500 million. During an October, 1996

public meeting to summarize the claims,

Island spokespersons indicated that

‘‘amount to be determined claims’’

would likely bring the total to $1

billion.

In the sections below, each category of

claim is generally described, followed

by a description of federal activities

related to the claims and the Secretary’s

response and recommendations. Where

applicable, relevant and applicable laws

and regulations are provided, together

with a discussion of the Agency’s

implementation of the law.

(A) Continued Economic Growth

These claims relate to assertions that

the U.S. Government has an ongoing

obligation to ensure the sustained and

economic growth of the Pribilovian

people. They include claims for past

expenses incurred as their economy

grew (building renovations, upgrades

and construction, housing repairs), as

well claims for current costs of

maintaining homes and the municipal

infrastructure.

The Secretary has undertaken an

analyses of his responsibilities under

Title II of the 1983 Act and has

concluded that no ongoing obligations

of the Secretary exist which would

direct the Secretary to seek

appropriations for these collective

claims. As discussed in Section III, the

$20 million trust established under the

1983 Act was a one-time payment to

‘‘promote,’’ not guarantee, an

independent economy on the Pribilof

Islands. The trust funds were to be used

to cover infrastructure expenses (income

maintenance, human needs and

municipal services) for approximately

5–7 years as harbor development was

pursued by the State. Accordingly, it is

the opinion of the Secretary that

requests for reimbursement of costs

associated with successful municipal

growth are without merit.

Because housing repair and municipal

infrastructure costs account for the

majority of the ‘‘Continued Economic

Growth’’ claims asserted, they are

discussed in greater detail below.

(1) Housing

These claims raise the assertion that

the U.S. Government promised to repair,

or has an inherent obligation to repair,

all homes conveyed to the Pribilovian

people under ANCSA and the 1983 Act.

Under the 1966 Act, townsite

properties on St. Paul were to be

purchased by local residents according

to a patent issued by the Secretary (see

section III(E)). During discussions with

the City of St. Paul regarding the

transfers in 1971, NOAA stated its

policy that it would be incumbent upon

the Aleut residents purchasing the

homes to provide for their continued

repair and maintenance. NOAA’s policy

reflected the intent of Congress that the

autonomy of the Pribilovian people

include paying for goods and services

previously provided by the government.

The City’s ‘‘Community Development

Plan of 1971’’ prepared and distributed
18326 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

28The report is attached as Exhibit 11.

later that year includes a statement

articulating NOAA’s position.

Ultimately, the transfer of homes was

accomplished under the terms of

ANCSA. During negotiations with the

TDX and Tanaq Corporations in 1974

regarding the transfer of property under

ANCSA, NOAA agreed to make major

repairs to five houses on St. Paul and

three on St. George. Additionally,

NOAA agreed to make minor repairs to

all houses on both islands on a priority

basis. The provisions for minor repair

are contained in a December 22, 1976,

Memorandum of Understanding

(‘‘MOU’’) between TDX, Tanaq and the

Department of Commerce/NOAA. (A

copy of the MOU is attached as Exhibit

9).

Pursuant to the agreement, NOAA

agreed to be responsible for exterior

water leaks, storm windows, means of

ingress and egress in the event of fire,

broken or leaky fixtures, the satisfactory

operation of heating units, ventilation,

electrical outlets, structural integrity,

cabinetry, and insulation. Areas outside

NOAA’s responsibility included

remodeling, additions, floor coverings,

painting, tile repair and the finishing of

basements. Repair of houses pursuant to

the MOU was completed in 1977.

The policy of Pribilovian

responsibility for home repair and

maintenance was announced again by

NOAA in a letter to island leaders on

April 22, 1976. (A copy of the letter is

attached as Exhibit 10). Citing the MOU,

the letter states that:

The Government will not be responsible

for repairs and maintenance on the houses

and other quarters except as noted above

after interim title is granted. In the future

there will be a need and desire to repair,

remodel and build homes. The Government

does not intend to act as wholesale or retail

supplier nor as contractor for construction

and repair of private homes. We are

suggesting that these functions would be

better handled by some individuals or the

Corporations who may wish to set up home

construction and building-supply businesses

such as are available in most other

communities. We believe this would be the

best way to meet this future need for both

communities.

(2) Code Compliance and Facilities

Upgrades

During the State, Federal and local

working group meetings held in 1983 to

formulate a plan for phase-out under the

1983 Act, NOAA and the State

discussed the need to bring Federal

facilities up to code prior to transfer.

Based on requirements set out in a

facilities report prepared by the State in

1982, NOAA spent 1983 Pribilof Island

Program funds to correct minor fire and

safety deficiencies which brought the

facilities up to code.

On August 22, 1984, President Reagan

signed H.R. 6040, the Supplemental

Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1984.

The bill appropriated $2 million to

NOAA to upgrade Federal property

prior to transfer under the 1983 Act. In

the interests of equity, Administrator

Calio decided that the $2 million would

be split equally between the two

islands. During subsequent discussions

with State and local entities regarding

funding of future upgrades, all entities

agreed that it was incumbent on the

State and local government to seek

additional funding to upgrade facilities.

The State’s commitment is reflected in

a report to then Governor Sheffield

summarizing discussions about use of

the $2 million appropriation 28

Department of Transportation estimates

of required funding to upgrade facilities

on St. Paul and St. George at that time

were $6.5 million and $4.8 million,

respectively.

To make the best use of the

immediately available Federal funds,

the Cities of St. George and St. Paul

were asked to prepare priority lists of

upgrade projects. These lists were

submitted to NOAA in early October,

1984. St. Paul’s initial list reflected

long-term capital improvements

designed to accommodate the Cities

impending growth. Its upgrades list

included improvements to the airport

and the expansion of existing sewer,

electrical and water distribution

systems. The accompanying report

included an analysis of multiple

funding sources including grants, loans

and private investment. The City’s

estimate of total expenditures required

approximated $50 million. St. George’s

original upgrades list reflected

improvements to existing structures

based on current needs. The St. George

project list totaled approximately $2

million.

During meetings over the following

two weeks, priority projects obligating

$1million per island were chosen for

funding through cooperative

agreements. Financial assistance awards

under the agreements were issued

October 26, 1984.

It is the Secretary’s position that the

1983 Act trust and transfer of property

constituted the entirety of the Federal

government’s responsibility to promote

and foster an enduring economy on the

Pribilof Islands under the Fur Seal Act.

The Secretary finds no additional law,

regulation, agreement or implied duty to

continue the repair and maintenance of

homes or facilities on the Pribilof

Islands.

(B) Failed Transition

These claims assert that the transition

from a sealing-based economy to one

independent of sealing has failed as a

result of improper or insufficient

government support during phase-out.

Examples of claims include assertions

that the Federal Government defaulted

on harbor construction, that the

government caused undue economic

and social hardship by infringing on

Pribilovian rights to engage in

commercial harvest of seals during

transition, that the government failed to

provide income maintenance through

the period of transition, and that the

Department failed to properly

administer the transition.

It is the opinion of the Secretary that

the trust served its purpose to St. Paul

most effectively. Accordingly, it is the

opinion of the Secretary that the

transition of the City of St. Paul to an

independent economy has been

successful and that any claims to the

contrary are without sufficient basis.

Section 1166(d) of the 1983 Act

provided that the trust authorized could

be divided based on the goals and

objectives of the Pribilovian people.

That split was not mandatory, but was

chosen by the people of St. George

despite practical realities and evidence

that a self-sustained existence was

practically impossible given the island’s

harsh climate and inhospitable

geography.

Evidence indicates that the

establishment of a self-sustaining

economy on St. George is an unrealistic

venture. It is the Secretary’s opinion

that an in-depth evaluation of the

possibility of achieving self-sufficiency

is warranted with regard to the Island,

but is beyond the scope of this Report.

Accordingly, the Secretary recommends

that an independent economic and cost

analysis be undertaken to assess the

viability of continued public support.

(C) Real Property Claims

These claims relate to the distribution

of real property under ANCSA, the 1983

Act and accompanying TOPA and

subsequent private agreements between

entities redistributing their allotments.

In sum, the claims collectively seek a

complete redistribution of property

amounting to a total abrogation of all

that has been accomplished under preexisting legislation and associated

agreements. It is the Secretary’s opinion

that the real property transfers required

have been, or are being, fulfilled in

accordance with law and that the real

property claims are without merit. The
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18327

history and status of land transfers on

the Pribilof Islands by the federal

government follows.

A Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) dated December 22, 1976, by and

among NOAA, on behalf of the

Department of Commerce, St. George

Tanaq Corporation, and Tanadgusix

Corporation, was instituted to resolve

conflicts concerning land ownership on

the Pribilof Islands, under ANCSA. The

MOU identified 47 tracts of land to be

retained in federal ownership by the

Department on the islands of St. Paul

and St. George. Page 3, paragraph (1) of

the MOU identified these tracts as

‘‘* * * land and any improvements

thereon to be retained in fee simple by

the Federal Government as the smallest

practicable tracts enclosing land

actually used in connection with the

administration of a Federal installation,

within the meaning of Sec. 3(e)(1) of

ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. 1602(e)(1).’’ The

MOU thereby constituted a Section 3(e)

determination of the Department of

Interior, as defined by ANCSA,

designating federal lands withdrawn

from selection under ANCSA, to be

retained by the Department of the

Commerce.

Section 205(a) of the 1983 Act

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

transfer real and personal property held

by the Department of Commerce on the

Pribilof Islands, ‘‘[p]rovided, [t]hat such

property is specified in a document

entitled ‘Transfer of Property on the

Pribilof Islands: Descriptions, Terms

and Conditions,’ . . . .’’ (Emphasis in

original.) Section 205(b) further sets

forth the contents of the TOPA.

Under authority of the 1983 Act,

negotiations were conducted and

agreement was reached between the

Department of Commerce, the

Tanadgusix and St. George Tanaq

Corporations, the City of St. Paul, the

City of St. George, the Aleut Community

of St. Paul, the Aleut Community of St.

George and the State of Alaska on

properties previously retained by the

Department of Commerce under ANCSA

to be transferred by the Secretary to the

other parties. The TOPA was executed

on February 10, 1984.

To date, nearly all of the transfers

specified in the TOPA for properties on

the Island of St. George have taken

place. Actual transfer of title to the

properties was performed through the

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of

Land Management (BLM). The transfers

were effected through BLM based on

that agency’s experience in conveying

Federal lands under ANCSA and its

resources, including surveying,

available for the job.

Most of the parcels on the Island of St.

Paul to be transferred under the TOPA

were surveyed by the BLM in 1983.

Additional survey work was conducted

by BLM in 1993 and 1994. However, the

legal descriptions of some of the

properties are not yet adequate for

transfer to occur and some additional

survey work may be required in 1997 to

complete the descriptions.

The Department will continue to work

with the Alaska office of BLM in

Anchorage in order to effect the

conveyance of title to the native,

municipal and state entities on St. Paul

as expeditiously as possible, in

fulfillment of the TOPA.

Section 205(d) of the 1983 Act

requires that, within sixty (60) days of

the transfer of property under TOPA,

the Secretary transmit a report to the

appropriate Senate and House

committees stating the fair market value

of the real and personal property

conveyed, as of the date of conveyance.

The Department will timely request that

the General Services Administration, or

a contractor qualified to provide

property appraisals, perform a property

valuation survey of the St. Paul property

to be transferred, to ensure that the fair

market value report will be ready for

transmittal to the Congressional

committees within the 60-day deadline.

(D) The Trust

These claims relate to assertions that

the 1983 Act trust was insufficient,

improperly administered, misused or

generally misunderstood. It is the

opinion of the Secretary that the trust

responsibilities set forth in the 1983 Act

were properly executed by NOAA, that

the trust purposes were effectively met

with the funds appropriated, and that

all steps were taken to ensure that the

trust was fully understood by the

Pribilovian communities. Accordingly,

it is the opinion of the Secretary that all

allegations suggesting that the trust was

misused or poorly administered by the

government are without merit.

The 1983 Act created a $20 million

trust (‘‘the Trust’’) to ‘‘— promote the

development of a stable, self-sufficient

enduring and diversified economy’’ on

the Pribilof Islands. 16 USC section

1166(a)(1). The objective of the Trust, as

stated throughout Congressional

hearings on the topic, was to end

Federal administration of the Pribilof

Islands. It was a logical and sequential

step following the 1966 Act which took

the initial step toward Federal phase-out

by promoting municipal self-governance

by the Pribilovian people.

Under the 1983 Act, responsibility for

establishing and administering the Trust

was given to the Secretary of Commerce.

16 USC 1166(a). To effectuate trust

responsibilities, Congress directed that

at least one trust instrument be

established by the Secretary to address

matters relating to standards and

procedures associated with the Trust. 16

USC 1166(c). Additionally, Congress

provided that the trust appropriation

could be divided between the two

Islands and that two separate trust

portions could be set up under the

original trust instrument to reflect

individual Island goals and objectives.

16 USC 1166(d). To effectuate St.

George’s desire for autonomy, the Trust

was bifurcated and two additional

documents were created, the St. Paul

Trust Agreement and the St. George

Trust Agreement. These documents

governed the duties, obligations and

rights of the Trustor, the St. Paul and St.

George Trustees, and all beneficiaries

under the respective trusts.

The primary trust instrument

(hereinafter ‘‘the Master Trust

Agreement’’) was signed on November

21, 1983. As stated in Article II, the

purpose of the Master Trust was:

‘‘lto promote and foster the transition on

the Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St. George

from welfare and sealing economies to stable,

self-sufficient, enduring and diversified

economies. Such purpose includes but is not

limited to the provision of basic and essential

human services * * *’’

The St. Paul Trust Agreement was

signed March 14, 1984. The designated

Trustee was Mr. Jay Gage. The St.

George Trust Agreement was signed

March 27, 1984. Peter D. Hocson was

designated Trustee on July 18, 1984.

Varying only in minor detail, both

Trust Agreements established the

appointment of a Trust Advisor

responsible for recommending

distributions from the Trust. The

Advisor was to be appointed by the

Secretary and was to be an entity

located and functioning on the Islands,

which, in the opinion of the Trustor,

was knowledgeable concerning the

Islands’ economies and needs, and

which could adequately represent the

interests of the Pribilovians. It was the

duty of the Advisor to provide written

recommendations to the Trustee

specifying the projects or uses to which

distributions from the trusts should be

made.

Throughout the administration of the

Trusts, both Islands had local

representatives as Advisors. The

Advisors chosen were, for St. Paul, the

City Manager and for St. George, the

Mayor and their respective staffs. These

entities were chosen based on their

status as City leaders and their

understanding of the needs of their

people.
18328 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

The Trustee’s obligations under both

trust agreements were to invest the

Trust and to direct disbursements.

Unless the Trustee was qualified at

investment functions, an Investment

Advisor was to be consulted prior to

Trust investments. With regard to

disbursements, the Trustees were

responsible for evaluating each

Advisor’s recommendations. The

Trustees were to approve the Advisor’s

disbursement recommendations unless

they determined that the projects or

uses set forth in the Advisor’s

Recommendation were not consistent

with the purposes of the Trust or would

not best achieve the goal of furthering

the trust purposes. In determining that

the proposed use was not in the best

interest of the purposes of the trust, the

Trustees were granted sole discretion as

the ultimate fiduciaries of the trusts.

The Trustees were also responsible for

providing annual reports to the

Secretary and Congress regarding the

use of the Trusts and progress being

made.

As Trustor, the Secretary’s roles and

responsibilities were limited to

establishment and oversight of the

Trust, including the authority to remove

the Trustee if warranted, and selection

of the Trust Advisors.

Both the St. Paul and St. George Trust

Agreements contained automatic

termination clauses effective 10 years

after initiation unless extended by

consent of all parties. The St. George

Trust was terminated in the Spring of

1994. At termination, the trust corpus

had been fully distributed. The St. Paul

Trust was terminated in the Spring of

1994, with the exception of the

distribution of final assets from the sale

of an interest in the fishing vessel

Northern Eagle consummated in

December 1996.

It is the opinion of the Secretary that

the Federal Government’s

responsibilities under the 1983 Act to

establish and oversee the Trust have

been completed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, it is the Secretary’s

opinion that the claims asserted

regarding administration of the trust are

without merit. With regard to the

sufficiency of the Trust, it is the opinion

of the Secretary that the success of St.

Paul evidences that sufficiency.

(E) Fisheries Issues

The communities of St. George and St.

Paul have expressed the opinion that

the fishery resources surrounding the

Pribilof Islands should be set aside for

their exclusive use, and that NMFS

inappropriately allocated fisheries

resources surrounding the Pribilof

Islands to offshore fleets through the

Inshore-Offshore program and to other

Community Development Quota

(‘‘CDQ’’) communities through the CDQ

programs.

In a May 29, 1996 legal opinion,

NOAA General Counsel concluded that

the 1983 Act did not create any specific

fishing privileges for the residents of St.

George or St. Paul, and that the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(‘‘the Council’’) and Secretary have

provided fishing opportunities to the

Pribilovians through the CDQ programs.

The NOAA General Counsel legal

opinion regarding these issues can be

found at Exhibit 12. In essence, the CDQ

programs have been administered by

NOAA without privilege or prejudice to

any native entity or tribe. The

Pribilovians are no exception to this

rule. The fisheries program in the Bering

Sea is administered as follows.

The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Management Area (BSAI) in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are

managed by the Secretary pursuant to

the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for

groundfish in the BSAI. The FMP was

prepared by the Council (Council)

pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) at 16

U.S.C. 1801, et seq., and is implemented

by Federal regulations at 50 CFR part

679. General regulations that also

pertain to U.S. fisheries are codified at

50 CFR part 620.

(1) Pollock CDQ Program

The pollock CDQ program was

developed by the Council as part of

Amendment 18 to the BSAI FMP (the

Inshore-Offshore program). The final

rule implementing Amendment 18 (57

FR 23321, June 3, 1992) allocated

pollock for the CDQ program only for a

temporary period from 1992 through

1995. The amendment allocated seven

and one-half percent of the Bering Sea

pollock Total Allowable Catch (TAC) to

a Bering Sea pollock CDQ reserve, plus

seven and one-half percent of the

Aleutian Islands pollock TAC to an

Aleutian Islands CDQ reserve. Eligible

Western Alaska communities could

apply for CDQ allocations from the

pollock CDQ reserves by submitting a

Community Development Plan (CDP) to

NMFS. Regulations (57 FR 54936,

November 23, 1992) implemented the

pollock CDQ program for 1992 and 1993

by specifying the process for applying

for a CDQ allocation and the required

contents of the Community

Development Plans (CDPs). A

subsequent regulatory amendment (58

FR 32874, June 14, 1993) implemented

the pollock CDQ program for 1994 and

1995.

The Council recommended reauthorizing the pollock CDQ program in

the BSAI for an additional 3 years as

part of Amendment 38 to the BSAI FMP,

and NMFS approved this amendment

on November 28, 1995. Regulations

implementing the pollock CDQ program

for 1996 through 1998, were published

on December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63654,

corrected 61 FR 20, January 2, 1996).

The CDQ program was developed to

provide the eligible CDQ communities

with a means for starting or supporting

commercial fisheries business activities

that will result in an ongoing, regionally

based, commercial fisheries-related

economy. Both St. George and St. Paul

are eligible communities under the

pollock CDQ program, and have

participated and benefited from the

CDQ program since its establishment in

1992. St. George is a member of a CDQ

group named the Aleutian Pribilof

Island Community Development

Association (APICDA), which includes

the communities of Atka, False Pass,

Nelson Lagoon, Nikolski, and St.

George. APICDA was allocated 18

percent of the pollock CDQ reserves for

1992 through 1998.

St. Paul is the sole member of the

CDQ group named the Central Bering

Sea Fishermen’s Association (CBSFA).

CBSFA was allocated ten percent of the

pollock CDQ reserves for 1992 and

1993, eight percent of the reserves for

1994 and 1995, and four percent for

1996 through 1998. A description of the

CDQ projects that benefit St. George and

St. Paul through APICDA and CBSFA

activities can be found at Exhibit 13.

(2) Halibut and Sablefish CDQ Program

St. George and St. Paul also

participate in the halibut and sablefish

CDQ program. However, the Council’s

authority to manage halibut is not

derived from an FMP as is the case with

pollock and sablefish. The domestic

fishery for halibut in the BSAI is

managed by the International Pacific

Halibut Commission (IPHC) as provided

by the Convention between the United

States and Canada for the Preservation

for the Halibut Fishery of the Northern

Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea

(Convention), and the Halibut Act. The

Convention and the Halibut Act

authorize the Council to develop

regulations that are in addition to, but

not in conflict with, regulations adopted

by the IPHC affecting the U.S. halibut

fishery. Under this authority, the

Council may develop, for approval by

the Secretary of Commerce, limitedaccess policies for the Pacific halibut

fishery in the BSAI.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18329

29 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

30 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

The Council proposed adding the

halibut and fixed gear sablefish (H/S)

fisheries to the CDQ program beginning

in 1995, as part of the Individual

Fishery Quota (IFQ) program. The IFQ

final rule (58 FR 59375, November 9,

1993) implemented the H/S CDQ

program with no expiration date. St.

George and St. Paul are the sole

participants in the CDQ group named

Pribilof Island Fishermen (PIF), for the

purpose of harvesting a halibut CDQ

allocation. For 1995 through 1997, PIF

has been allocated 50 percent of the

halibut that is available in IPHC area 4C.

For 1995, this amounted to 385,000

pounds of halibut. Halibut CDQ harvest

in St. George and St. Paul is

accomplished by the small local fishing

fleet, and the halibut are sold to local

shoreside processors. Therefore, the

benefits from the halibut CDQ fishery in

the Pribilof Islands accrues directly to

the local residents.

The community of St. George

participates in the sablefish CDQ

program through APICDA. APICDA has

been allocated 10 percent of the

Aleutian Islands sablefish CDQ reserve

for 1995 through 1997. The benefits to

St. George resulting from participation

in the sablefish CDQ program are

described in APICDA’s H/S CDP, which

is available from the NMFS Alaska

Regional Office (907–586–7228).

It is the opinion of the Secretary that

no special or exclusive fisheries rights

have been created for the Pribilovian

people under the 1983 Act, the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, or any other law

or regulation. It is the further opinion of

the Secretary that the Federal

government has properly and legally

implemented the requirements of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 1983 Act

and all applicable and associated

regulations. Accordingly, the Secretary

finds the communities’ requests for

specific performance and monetary

damages without merit.

(F) Seals and Rookeries

These claims involve complaints and

requests regarding subsistence fur seal

harvest and the continued management

of the fur seal rookeries by NOAA, and

suggestions from the St. Paul

Stewardship Program for the overall

protection of the ecosystems of the

Pribilof Islands in a balanced and

integrated fashion.

The Pribilof Islands are a world-class

special reserve established to ensure the

conservation and protection of the

northern pacific fur seal and other

wildlife species. Perhaps the single most

important aspect of the Islands is their

use as the primary breeding and pup

rearing habitat of the northern fur seal.

The Fur Seal Act (‘‘the 1983 Act’’),

Marine Mammal Protection Act,

(‘‘MMPA’’) 29 and the Endangered

Species Act (‘‘ESA’’),30 and their

implementing regulations all require a

significant commitment from NOAA for

the protection, conservation and

management of marine mammal species

dependent on the Pribilof region.

On June 17, 1988, NMFS declared the

Pribilof Island’s stock of northern fur

seals depleted under the MMPA.

Amendments to the MMPA enacted

November 23, 1988 (Public Law 100–

711) directed the Secretary of Commerce

to develop a conservation plan on

northern fur seals ‘‘conserving and

restoring the species or stock to its

optimum sustainable population’’ (‘‘the

Plan’’). The Plan was finalized and

approved by the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries in June,

1993. It serves as the guide for those

activities believed necessary to restore

the northern fur seal to pre-depleted

levels.

The broad-based objectives of the Plan

in achieving pre-depletion goals are (1)

to conduct extensive research on the

health, mortality, physiology, sociology,

and habits of the seals and the effects of

disturbances to their habitat and the

Pribilof ecosystem; (2) to assess and

avoid or mitigate possible adverse

effects of human-related activities on or

near the Pribilof Islands and on other

habitat, and (3) to enforce existing

regulations.

Under the Plan, the efforts of the

Agency must be coordinated with the

Aleut communities and other resource

management agencies and user groups

on each island. Conversely, whenever

any significant activity is proposed,

planned or contemplated by the

community or any other group, NMFS

input should be obtained to ensure that

the actions will not jeopardize the seals

or damage their habitat.

Examples of NMFS coordinated

efforts to prevent negative impacts on

the Pribilof fur seal herd and the Bering

Sea ecosystem include working with

EPA to develop Clean Water Act Section

402 discharge permits that will reduce

the impact of seafood processing wastes

in local waters; working with the Coast

Guard to promote their presence during

heavy fishing seasons, and assisting the

Department of Interior with its rat

control program. With regard to

coordination with the local community,

NMFS has hired local residents to patrol

the rookeries to minimize disturbance,

encouraged the establishment of comanagement bodies such as the Aleut

Fur Seal Commission, and participated

in St. Paul’s Interagency Work Group

established to coordinate economic

growth and development and joint use

of island property.

In the path of overwhelming growth

on St. Paul Island resulting from the

mandates of Title II of 1983 Act, NMFS’

mission of protecting the Island’s

resources under Title I of the Act and

the MMPA is growing increasingly

difficult. With limited resources, the

program faces the potential inability to

effectively monitor and provide input

and guidance on the multitude of plans

for development on the Island. The

difficulty that NMFS faces in carrying

out the directives of the Plan are

exacerbated by the demands of the local

leadership to support continued growth

under the alleged 1983 Act authorities

of Title II. That the tenor of these

requests is adversarial further restrains

the Agency’s goals of effective

coordination among Island entities.

Ironically, the insistence of the

Pribilovian people for NOAA’s ongoing

commitment to provide economic

growth ultimately stands to effectively

impede and interfere with the Agency’s

statutory responsibilities to manage the

fur seal reserves.

NOAA values the environmental

knowledge of the indigenous people of

the Islands and is committed to

continued coordination and the sharing

of experience that will help to achieve

a balance in the use of the Islands’

natural resources. Toward this end, the

Agency appreciates the Stewardship

Program’s comments and supports many

of the concepts presented. NOAA looks

forward to resolution of the issues

underlying this Report so that viable

coordination amongst all entities can be

achieved.

With regard to claims that the fur seal

subsistence harvest is improperly or

unfairly administered, it is the opinion

of the Secretary that the program is

being conducted properly and legally

under the regulations implemented

under section 105(a) of the 1983 Act.

(G) Retirement Benefits

The Pribilovian people have asserted

that the Federal Government has failed

to provide sufficient retirement benefits,

has improperly credited those benefits,

or has otherwise failed to inform the

people of their benefits.

The first Federal retirement benefits

were granted the Pribilovians in 1950

under the cash compensation and wage

plan instituted by the Department of

Interior. Under that system, full time

Federal employees engaged in the

commercial fur seal harvest or in

support services received retirement
18330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

31 In the Department of Commerce and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, Public Law

104–134, a portion of the Department’s 1996 $10

million appropriation for cleanup was intended for

stabilization of the historic sealing plant on St.

George (see H. Rep. No. 104–378, explanatory

statement at p. 132).

benefits for work conducted from 1950

forward. Under the Bartlett Act of 1966,

the retirement benefits bestowed in

1950 were expanded to include

compensation for work performed prior

to 1950. Deposit requirements to accrue

pre-1950 benefits were not required.

The provisions of the 1983 Act

significantly enhanced and expanded

retirement benefits to the Pribilovian

people by extending benefits to all

Pribilovians who had worked for the

Federal Government, regardless of

whether they had previous coverage

under the Civil Service Retirement

System (‘‘CSRS’’) (e.g., temporary or

seasonal). These benefits were granted

only to those employees who were on

the rolls of the Federal government on

October 28, 1983, and who transferred

without a break in service to one of the

six Island entities (The Cities of St. Paul

and St. George, the village corporations,

and the IRA councils). The intent of the

Act was to provide continuity of

retirement benefits to those Pribilovians

who met this criteria.

For entity employees to be eligible for

extended, full-time benefits, Pribilovian

individuals only had to have worked

one day in any calendar year to receive

retirement credit for the entire year.

This one day system is both unique and

generous. To balance the inequities

posed to pre-1983 retirees with parttime, seasonal, and temporary service,

their benefits were recalculated to give

them full-time credit to enhance their

annuities.

In September, 1983, representatives

from the NOAA’s Western

Administrative Support Center’s Human

Resources Division (‘‘HRD’’), the

Pribilof Program Office of NMFS and

participating island entities negotiated a

memorandum of understanding

(‘‘MOU’’) explaining the Act and

establishing the process by which the

program would be administered. (A

copy of the MOU is attached as Exhibit

14.) Under the MOU, the entities agreed

to maintain pay records of each

employee entitled to the transfer of

federal employee benefits and to

forward this information to HRD

together with a check for the amounts

withheld from the employees’ pay. The

entities also agreed to provide matching

funds for benefits. HRD agreed to

maintain all records of the employees,

to annually certify a master list of

eligible employees, to serve as the

liaison between the entities and the

Office of Personnel Management

(‘‘OPM’’), and to serve as the point of

contact regarding all Federal personnel

issues.

In October 1983, HRD and NMFS

representatives spent several weeks on

the Islands explaining the new

provisions and their impacts to

participating employers. They also

assisted the entities in setting up their

reporting systems to ensure that they

would comply with and implement the

Act.

In 1984 HRD staff and a retirement

program manager from OPM returned to

the Islands to explain the provisions of

the Act and the process for

implementing it to the general public.

Meetings were held with residents on

both islands. Teleconferences were

conducted to inform off-island

recipients.

At OPM’s request, HRD returned to

the Islands in 1985 to work with the

entities to ensure that all annuity and

survivor paperwork was correctly

completed and submitted for

recomputation purposes. Since that

time, the MOU continues to work

effectively as written.

During NOAA’s visit to the Islands in

June, 1996, many individuals

questioned the Agency’s calculation and

crediting of benefits. A list of individual

complaints was subsequently

investigated by HRD. HRD found no

instances of improper crediting of

retirement service nor any errors in

other benefits calculations. To alleviate

specific concerns, HRD contacted all

individuals with specific questions by

telephone.

HRD is scheduling a trip to the

Islands in the Spring of 1997 to reexplain the retirement benefits. In the

meantime, HRD continues to resolve

benefits issues on an individual, needsbased basis.

(H) Environmental Clean-up

Public Law 104–91 section 3(a)

directs that the Secretary ‘‘* * *

cleanup landfills, wastes, dumps,

debris, storage tanks, property,

hazardous or unsafe conditions, and

contaminants * * *’’ on lands

previously owned and administered by

NOAA. In addition, the Secretary is

responsible under section 120 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) for the assessment and

remediation of hazardous wastes on any

property to be transferred.

In the summer of 1989, the Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation (‘‘ADEC’’) issued a Notice

of Violation against NOAA as a result of

a small oil spill at the Salt Lagoon on

St. Paul Island. Investigations ensued,

the site was boomed, and, over time, the

seep was abated. As a result of the

incident, TDX notified NOAA that it

was concerned about potential

environmental compliance issues on

property being transferred to them

under the TOPA. Initial concern

surrounded the underground storage

tanks at the gas station and at the power

plant. General concern was later

expressed about leaking drums and

potentially contaminated soil. Although

all property transfers had been

completed on St. George, public leaders

there voiced similar concerns about

property on their island.

In 1992, the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’) undertook a preliminary

investigation of St. Paul and St. George

to assess potential contamination and

liability under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) and the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (‘‘RCRA’’). EPA determined that site

conditions on St. George warranted no

further action and proceeded with an

expanded site investigation on St. Paul.

In November, 1994, EPA issued its

finding that no contamination posing a

risk to human health or the environment

under Federal law existed on St. Paul.

Accordingly, the Agency issued a

second ‘‘no further action’’

determination.

Despite the EPA’s findings, island

entities continued to allege that the

United States government had caused

and created island-wide hazardous

waste contamination. In response to

these ongoing allegations, NOAA

approached ADEC to negotiate a TwoParty Agreement which would address

cleanup of all potential contamination

on the island. The Two-Party Agreement

was signed on January 26, 1996. (A copy

of the Two-Party Agreement is attached

as Exhibit 15.) Its four corners

effectively establish the basic

framework, cleanup objectives and time

lines for NOAA’s environmental

cleanup of the islands. To date, no

ongoing sampling has revealed

contamination posing a threat to human

health or the environment. The majority

of work under the Agreement focuses on

the removal of solid waste and debris,

and on the closure of existing landfills.

P.L. 104–91 defines cleanup activities

to be achieved under section 3(a) to

mean the planning and execution of

remediation actions for land described

under the law and the redevelopment of

landfills to meet statutory

requirements.31 With the exception of

the sealing plant stabilization, the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18331

32 61 Fed. Reg. 25632 (May 22, 1996).

cleanup obligations of section 3(a),

including activities related to the

landfills are being met under the terms

of the Two-Party Agreement.

In response to the directives of section

3(d) of Public Law 104–91 requiring, to

the maximum extent practicable, the use

of local hire to effect cleanup, the

Department published a notice of

availability for Federal assistance in the

Federal Register on May 22, 1996. The

notice solicited applications from local

entities and residents and explained the

selection process.32 Priority was given to

those projects that were defined in the

Two-Party Agreement. To assist the

Pribilovians, the Department also held

meetings on the Islands to explain the

grants process. The Department also

held a workshop in Anchorage, Alaska,

to provide instruction to interested

parties on preparing the required

Federal forms.

As a result of the solicitation, two

cooperative agreements were

implemented with local entities to

promote the use of local hire in

achieving cleanup as directed by section

3(d) of PL–104–91. The agreements,

totaling over $5 million, were executed

between NOAA and Tanaq on St.

George and the joint venture of Bering

Sea Ecotech (a TDX subsidiary) and

Bristol Environmental Corporation on

St. Paul. Both agreements require the

removal of surface debris (vehicle hulks

and other assorted solid waste) and the

excavation of abandoned underground

fuel storage tanks (‘‘USTs’’) and

associated petroleum contaminated

soils. Work under the cooperative

agreements is being conducted pursuant

to the Two-Party Agreement and is

expected to be completed by June, 1997

on St. George and September, 1997 on

St. Paul. All field work under the TwoParty Agreement is expected to be

completed by the close of FY 1998. The

Department also intends to fund an

award to stabilize the sealing plant on

St. George Island upon receipt of an

acceptable proposal from any local

entity or resident of the Islands. Other

cooperative agreements may also be

executed for additional projects

identified in the Two-Party Agreement

and other projects authorized under P.L.

104–91, as the Secretary determines

necessary.

The State of Alaska has agreed that

satisfaction of the terms of the TwoParty Agreement will entitle NOAA to

certification from ADEC that all

necessary and required work to ensure

compliance with environmental laws

has been met. Moreover, completion of

work associated with the landfills and

stabilization of the sealing plant will

result in satisfaction of the Secretary’s

obligations under P.L. 104–91.

Section 3(c)(2) of P.L. 104–91 requires

the Secretary to include in this Report

the estimated costs for conducting

necessary actions to resolve Federal

responsibility on the Islands. Congress

has appropriated $20.1 million for

Pribilof Island activities. Total project

costs under the Two-Party Agreement

are estimated to range from $21.1 to

$25.5 million (which includes up to

$3.4 million contingency to

accommodate uncertainties associated

with unforeseen site conditions during

remediation, variable work seasons

based on weather conditions, and the

availability of skilled workers). The FY

1998 budget request includes no new

funds for the Pribilof Islands cleanup.

Any requirements above currently

available funds would be

accommodated with funds requested for

NOAA in the President’s FY 1998

budget.

Further, based on guidance provided

by Congress, at least $2.7 million is

needed for stabilization of the sealing

plant and activities related to landfills

under P.L. 104–91. Should additional

projects be required under P.L. 104–91,

or as a result of this Report, funds above

$2.7 million will be required. Funding

for P.L. 104–91 projects is not included

in the $20.1 million appropriated for

Pribilof Island activities to date.

With the exception of ongoing

administrative costs associated with

processing retirement benefits and

completing property transfers under the

TOPA, these costs constitute the

entirety of funds required to finalize

current Federal responsibilities on the

Islands.

(I) Public Law 104–91 Process

Representatives of the Pribilovians

have alleged that the process for input

to this Report has been unfair in that

inadequate notice and funding was

provided to permit a timely response.

Section (3)(c) of Pub. Law 104–91

directs the Secretary of Commerce to

prepare this Report proposing necessary

final actions to resolve Federal

responsibility on the islands and to

include the ‘‘statements of claims of

local entities and residents.’’ A

description of the Report purpose and

process were set forth in explicit detail,

including an approved form for

submission of statements, in the Federal

Register on April 30, 1996. A copy of

the Federal Register Notice together

with a letter explaining the notice was

sent to every resident of the islands on

April 29, 1996. (The letter and Federal

Register notice are included as Exhibits

15 and 16.)

As set forth in the Federal Register

notice, local entities and residents were

initially given three months to submit

their statements. In April, 1996, local

entities and residents sought and

obtained an extension for preparation of

the Report and for their submission of

claims. As a result, the deadline for

submission of statements was extended

from July 6, 1996 to October 6, 1996 and

final Report submission was moved to

January 6, 1997. Notice of the extension

was provided through a televised public

meeting on the Islands in May, 1996. To

accommodate an extremely tight turn

around and the practical difficulties of

coordinating the Report through several

agencies over the holiday season, NOAA

requested and obtained two additional

30 day extensions for the Report. Notice

of these extensions were provided

counsel to the local entities and in no

way prejudiced the rights of local

entities or residents.

In the course of preparing the Report,

NOAA personnel conducted five public

meetings on the Islands. In addition,

NOAA personnel conducted informal

meetings at the Community Elder Center

and at the TDX annual shareholder’s

meeting. NOAA also conducted several

impromptu meetings during their visits

at the request of island leaders. Written

notice of the formal meetings were

provided to all residents. The first

formal meetings, conducted in May,

1996, explained the Report purpose and

process. The second formal meetings, in

June, 1996, provided for the taking of

oral statements of local residents. The

final formal meeting in October, 1996,

summarized the submissions made by

local entities and residents.

It is the opinion of the Secretary that

the Department provided timely notice

and opportunity to submit statements

and that the P.L. 104–91 process was

executed in compliance with all

applicable principles of due process.

V. Summary and Final

Recommendations

The legislation directing this Report

resulted from ongoing discussion

between NOAA and representatives of

the Islands regarding the responsibility

of the Federal Government to continue

to provide for and guarantee the future

of the Pribilovian people. Unable to

articulate specific legal claims or

otherwise establish a basis for continued

appropriations through negotiations

with NOAA in 1996, this report

mechanism was introduced by the

Pribilovian representatives to give voice

to those issues perceived to be
18332 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

inhibiting the Pribilovians’ ability to

arrive at a self-sustaining economy.

It is the opinion of some of the

Pribilovian people that the Federal

Government has not concluded its

obligations to the Pribilovian people. It

is the Secretary’s opinion that the

Federal Government has fulfilled, or is

in the final stages of fulfilling, all

obligations to the Pribilovian people as

directed by Congress through legislation

enacted over the last 50 years.

At least one-third of the claims

submitted for this Report express

dissatisfaction with the way land or the

1983 Act trust has been controlled, used

or distributed by a competing island

entity. An equal number of claims allege

the past or present failure or

unwillingness of the Federal

Government to act to resolve these

disputes. As this Report is being

written, both TDX and the City of St.

Paul have initiated separate lawsuits

against the Secretary of Commerce and

the Under Secretary of NOAA to resolve

a land dispute previously resolved in

two distinct settlement agreements. (A

copy of the complaints filed are

attached as Exhibits 5(a) and 5(b)).

After several visits to the Islands by

NOAA and Department personnel,

including meetings for the taking of the

statements of the local people, and as a

result of an analysis of the claims

submitted, it is the opinion of the

Secretary that these claims are without

adequate foundation in law, or under

any existing policy or agreement.

The debate over administration of

ongoing Federal obligations is also

detracting from the Department’s ability

to meet its responsibilities under Title II

of the 1983 Act. As the Federal agency

responsible for protecting the welfare

and habitat of the fur seal under Title I

of the 1983 Act, a role as provider of

indefinite and ongoing support for

economic (e.g., commercial)

development under Title II creates an

internal paradox. Any interpretation

that Title II of the 1983 Act guaranteed

the Pribilovian people an unrestrained

and indefinite economy administered

through the Department is at odds with

the clear intent of the Act and places the

Department in an untenable and

incommensurable position. The

depleted status of the fur seal demands

that the Department be permitted to

pursue statutory obligations goals

unfettered.

Conditions on St. George are widely

divergent from those on St. Paul and the

Secretary recognizes the difficulty of

assessing the struggles of one entity in

the shadow of another’s success. To

ensure that due consideration is given to

the entirety of the Pribilovian question,

the Secretary recommends that Congress

authorize and direct an independent

economic assessment of the practical

realities facing the Island of St. George.

The Secretary further suggests that such

analysis be undertaken within the

parameters of a clearly articulated

economic objective. The Department is

unable to estimate the costs of this

analysis.

The Secretary also recognizes that the

opinions and positions presented in this

Report will not be widely accepted by

those entities and residents who

submitted statements. We do not believe

that it was Congress’ intent that the P.L.

104–91 process be used as a claims

process representing potential lawsuits

against the United States government.

As set out in the Federal Register notice

commencing this process (attached as

Exhibit 17), it was not the intent of the

Secretary that this Report serve as a

claims process. Despite repeated

attempts to dissuade the claims concept,

the Pribilovian people adhered to it. It

is the Secretary’s view that section 3(c)

is best understood as encompassing

‘‘claims’’ associated with Pribilof Island

land transfers and grants and

cooperative agreements to promote

environmental cleanup. It seems clear

that, regardless of Congressional intent,

the larger, well-supported Island entities

will persist in pursuing claims against

the United States and the Department.

To minimize the extensive and

consuming administrative and

transactional costs associated with the

defense of these potential claims, the

Secretary recommends that Congress

establish a claims process to be

administered through the United States

Court of Federal Claims.

The Department is unable to predict

how many of the 85 potential claims

that have been raised under the P.L.

104–91 process will be actively pursued

by Pribilovian representatives in a

formal, adjudicative setting. The

Department is therefore unable to

estimate the costs of this

recommendation.

This Report was signed by the

Secretary of Commerce on March 17,

1997.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Terry Garcia,

Assistant Secretary for Oceans and

Atmosphere, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9586 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

Meeting of the Public Advisory

Committee for Trademark Affairs

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark

Office is announcing, in accordance

with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Public Law

92–463), an open meeting of the Public

Advisory Committee for Trademark

Affairs.

DATES: The meeting will be held from

10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on Monday,

May 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office, 2121 Crystal Drive, Crystal Park

2, Room 912, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: David

E. Bucher, Deputy Assistant

Commissioner for Trademark Policy and

Projects, by mail marked to his attention

and addressed to Office of the Assistant

Commissioner for Trademarks, Patent

and Trademark Office, 2900 Crystal

Drive, South Tower Building, Suite

10B10, Arlington, VA 22202–3513; by

telephone at (703) 308–9100, ext. 20; by

fax at (703) 308–9099; or by e-mail to

dave.bucher@uspto.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to public

observation. Accordingly, seating will

be available to members of the public on

a first-come-first-served basis. Members

of the public will be permitted to make

oral comments of three (3) minutes

each. Written comments and

suggestions will be accepted before or

after the meeting on any of the matters

discussed. Copies of the minutes will be

available upon request. The agenda for

the meeting is as follows:

(1) Opening remarks

(2) Financial Report

(3) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Report

(4) Business Process Reengineering Report

(5) Report on Service and Examination

Activities

(6) Discussion of Policy Issues in

Examination

(7) Legislation and International Affairs

Report

(8) Discussion of Trademark/Domain name

issues

(9) Discussion of prospective hearings on

Intent-to-Use

Dated: April 10, 1997.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 97–9681 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P