32282 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

cases where shipping is affected,

commercial vessels may request

permission from the Captain of the Port

Chicago to transit the safety zone.

Approval will be made on a case-bycase basis. Requests must be made in

advance and approved by the Captain of

the Port before transits will be

authorized. The Captain of the Port may

be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard

Group Milwaukee on Channel 16, VHF–

FM.

Dated: June 6, 2001.

R.E. Seebald,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Chicago.

[FR Doc. 01–15049 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 13

RIN 1024–AC83

Special Regulations; Wrangell-St. Elias

National Park and Preserve

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The proposed rulemaking will

add the communities of Dot Lake,

Tetlin, Tanacross, Northway (including

Northway, Northway Village and

Northway Junction) and Healy Lake as

resident zone communities for

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park

(WRST). This action is in response to

instructions from the Secretary of the

Interior and requests by the Park

Subsistence Resource Commission

(SRC), the Southcentral Alaska Federal

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council,

and the affected communities. The

addition of these communities to the

resident zone will allow residents to

engage in subsistence activities in the

park without a National Park Service

(NPS) subsistence permit.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted by mail, fax, or electronic mail

through August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Superintendent, WrangellSt. Elias National Park and Preserve,

P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska

99573. Fax (907) 822–7216. Email:

Devi_Sharp@nps.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devi

Sharp, Chief of Natural Resources,

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and

Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center,

Alaska 99573. Telephone (907) 822–

5234.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1981, the NPS published

regulations in 36 CFR, part 13 to

implement the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) for

the national park system units in

Alaska. Because ANILCA restricted

subsistence use in national parks to

local rural residents, the implementing

regulations included a method for

identifying these residents. The primary

method was to designate nearby

communities with significant

concentrations of subsistence users as

‘‘resident zone communities’’. All of the

residents in these communities are

considered to be local rural residents

and, therefore, eligible to use the park

for subsistence purposes in accordance

with regulations adopted or approved

by the Department of Interior. Initially

18 communities near the park were

designated as resident zone

communities. At the time those

communities were selected there were

few published sources of information

documenting subsistence use of park

resources. The authors of the regulations

had to rely heavily on the input of local

residents regarding their subsistence

uses of the park to determine which

communities or areas would be eligible

for resident zone status. Some

communities near the park, including

Dot Lake, Tetlin, Tanacross, Northway,

and Healy Lake were not fully

represented at the meetings when

testimony was taken, and were not

included in the resident zone when the

final part 13 rule was published on June

17, 1981 (46 FR 31836). Section 13.43

provides a method and criteria (see

following section, ‘‘Application of

Criteria’’) for adding communities to the

resident zone. The residents of Dot

Lake, Tetlin, Tanacross, Northway, and

Healy Lake have tried, since the

regulations were published, to be added

in accordance with § 13.43. This

proposed rule responds to that effort.

Origin of Requests To Add New

Communities

Discussions by the SRC leading to a

formal recommendation to add

Northway to the Wrangell-St. Elias

National Park resident zone were

recorded in 1985. In August 1986, the

Subsistence Resource Commission

(SRC) forwarded their first

recommendation to the Secretary of the

Interior requesting that Northway be

included as a resident zone community.

The State of Alaska responded to the

SRC in September of 1986 indicating

that the issue was an NPS decision and

that the State could not act directly to

implement the recommendation. The

Secretary of the Interior responded to

the request in May of 1988. His

response, in part, was,

In order to designate the community of

Northway as a resident zone community,

NPS would have to determine whether or not

a significant concentration of people who

permanently reside in this community have

a history of customary and traditional

subsistence use in the park * * *

Then, in 1989 the State Regional

Advisory Council for the Interior and

Southcentral regions of Alaska

recommended to the Board of Game the

addition of Northway to the resident

zone for Wrangell-St Elias National

Park. In response to the

recommendation the US Fish and

Wildlife Service director, who had been

delegated the responsibility to review

and respond to regional council

recommendations, replied;

The Subsistence Resource Commission for

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park did not

provide any documentation or indication that

such documentation existed in association

with their recommendation. Therefore, the

recommendation was denied and will not be

reconsidered until data is available to

indicate a resident zone designation is

warranted.

Again in December of 1991, the SRC

forwarded a recommendation to the

Secretary for the addition of Northway

to the resident zone. The Secretary’s

response (July 1992) was, in part,

* * * the NPS must first verify that a

significant concentration of local rural

residents with a history of subsistence use of

the park’s resources currently resides within

the community of Northway. If this

‘‘significant concentration’’ requirement is

verified, the NPS will define the boundaries

of the community for resident zone

designation purposes, and initiate a

rulemaking process to add Northway as a

park resident zone community.

After establishment of the Federal

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council

system in 1993, the request to add

Northway and Tetlin was forwarded by

the Southcentral and Eastern Interior

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils

to the Federal Subsistence Board, as

well. The response to the regional

advisory council (February 1994) came

from the Regional Director of NPS. His

response, in part, said,

The park is currently seeking funding to

conduct the surveys necessary to assess

Northway’s possible addition as a resident

zone community. Before NPS considers

conducting any studies regarding the

community of Tetlin and its potential

designation as a resident zone community,

consultation with the SRC is warranted. The

Federal Subsistence Board is currently

gathering information on the customary and

traditional uses of large mammal species in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32283

the Upper Tanana region by communities of

that region, including Tetlin and Northway.

We expect the information accumulated as a

result of that process will contribute to the

question of whether the community of

Northway had a customary and traditional

subsistence use of the lands within the park.

In 1994, information documenting the

customary and traditional use of

resources by residents of these

communities was compiled for the

Federal Subsistence Board. During the

process, residents of these communities

contributed information regarding their

use of park resources that had not

previously been documented in

subsistence studies. This information,

coupled with previous study data,

indicated that the addition of these

communities into the resident zone had

substantial merit.

The recommendation to add

additional communities to the WrangellSt. Elias National Park resident zone

evolved across a period of 10 years. The

Subsistence Resource Commission for

the park as well as state and federal

regional advisory groups supported the

inclusion of new communities to the

resident zone. Formal recommendations

to regulators as well as meeting minutes

indicate the overall support at the

public advisory group level. These

recommendations have been the subject

of public testimony for the past 10

years. Minutes from meetings of the

SRC, regional advisory councils and

local advisory committees provide a

public record reflecting the high level of

support for these proposals in the

villages. Comments submitted by the

villages regarding subsistence issues in

the state also reflect their sentiment on

this issue.

Studies and Information Used

In determining which additional

communities outside the park boundary

were eligible for inclusion in the

resident zone, the NPS considered all

relevant evidence concerning these

communities’ qualifications. NPS

reviewed studies of the subsistence use

of resources in the region,

independently analyzed data collected

in such studies and considered mapped

information developed in the past

decade. NPS considered comments

received from the general public, the

state of Alaska and the local and

regional advisory groups. NPS also

relied on the knowledge of its own local

field staff and the considerable

traditional knowledge of the people who

inhabit the region.

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The NPS considered issuance of

permits (pursuant to 36 CFR 13.44) to

all eligible subsistence users in the

villages of Dot Lake, Tetlin, Tanacross,

Northway, and Healy Lake. This

alternative was rejected, however,

because of the burden this process

would place on the subsistence user and

the large administrative workload the

NPS would shoulder as a result of

taking such an action. For NPS to

determine which individuals or

households are eligible for a permit each

household in these communities would

be required to document, in detail, their

subsistence use of the park. Previous

attempts by NPS to encourage eligible

households to come forward for permits

have elicited no response. The Native

people in these villages find this process

foreign to their culture and choose not

to participate in it. The NPS is seeking

to avoid implementation of such an

invasive process when it may clearly

and legitimately be avoided. This

decision is supported in House and

Senate discussions prior to passage of

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). (S.

Rep. No. 96–413, supra, 170–71; 126

Cong. Rec at H 10541).

Application of Criteria

NPS regulations in 36 CFR 13.43(a)(2)

set forth the criteria by which resident

zone communities or areas may be

added or deleted. This section states, in

part, that a resident zone shall include,

The communities or areas near a national

park or monument which contain significant

concentrations of rural residents who,

without using aircraft as a means of access

for purposes of taking fish and wildlife for

subsistence uses * * * have customarily and

traditionally engaged in subsistence uses

within a national park or monument.

The preamble to these regulations (46

FR 31841, June 17, 1981) clarifies how

the agency intended the ‘‘significant

concentration’’ criteria be interpreted.

As a result of public comment on the

1981 proposed rule, NPS recognized

that there would necessarily be

limitations in any numerical data

developed by NPS to make such

decisions. NPS determined that an

evaluation of communities or areas

eligible for inclusion in a resident zone

would need to consider the unique

variables associated with each area,

many of which cannot be reduced to a

numerical value.

The 1981 preamble notes that, in

establishing the criteria for adding and

deleting resident zones, NPS chose to

substitute the word ‘‘significant’’ for

‘‘preponderant’’ in the phrase

‘‘communities and areas * * * which

contain significant concentrations of

rural residents who, without the use of

aircraft * * * have customarily and

traditionally engaged in subsistence

uses within a national park or

monument.’’ The term ‘‘preponderant’’

implied more numerical precision than

is possible without an extensive

standardized study of rural villages in

the state. The term ‘‘significant’’ was

adopted to clarify that the subsistence

experts must exercise some discretion in

examining the nature and needs of each

community.

Furthermore, the National Park

Service stated that concentrations may

be ‘‘significant’’ in relative quantity

(predominant numbers) or quality (e.g.,

cultural vitality, community leadership

and influence)(46 FR 31850, June 17,

1981). Again, NPS recognized the

variability in the subsistence harvest of

resources across the state and the

incomparable factors that define

individual communities and people in

each region that should be considered in

such an evaluation.

Studies conducted in these

communities that attempt to quantify

the subsistence use of resources

generally only represent a period of use

of one year, and usually rely on a

sample of the community to produce a

harvest picture for the community as a

whole. Although these data make

important contributions to the literature

on subsistence use of resources in this

region, the studies were not designed to

address the specific question of use of

resources in the national park.

Therefore, this rulemaking does not rely

solely on the limited numeric data

generated by these studies. Instead, this

analysis focuses on the quality of the

use and the importance of resource

harvests to the Native people of the

region.

Analysis

Dot Lake, Tetlin, Tanacross,

Northway, and Healy Lake are rural

Alaska Native villages consisting,

primarily, of Athabaskan Indian people.

According to the 1990 census, the

communities contain 58, 95, 94, 77, and

85% Athabaskan Indians, respectively.

These Athabaskans are descendants of

one of a number of Ahtna, Tanacross

and Upper Tanana bands that harvested

resources and otherwise occupied the

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park area.

The non-Native populations of these

communities were generally born

outside of the state, with an average

length of residency of 11 years (based on

a 1987 survey).

The Upper Tanana, Tanacross and

Ahtna Athabaskan people who reside in

these communities are recognized as

two of nine linguistic subgroups of

Interior Alaska. Historically, these

people thought of themselves in terms

32284 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

of small, local bands constituting both

social and geographical units. Bands

generally consisted of a group of

families with a defined territory.

Through marriage, geography and

common interests, bands would be

sufficiently interlocked to consider

themselves part of a larger unit, or

regional band (i.e., Upper Tanana,

Tanacross or Ahtna).

At the turn of the century there were

at least six different bands of central and

upper Tanana Athabaskans between the

White River and Healy Lake on the

Tanana River; and two upper Ahtna

bands occupying the area between the

Mentasta and Wrangell Mountains.

These areas roughly include the

northern one-third of the Wrangell-St.

Elias National Park and Preserve.

Each band was associated with a

specific territory within the region.

However, the people were seasonal

migrants and households with extensive

kin connections and might hunt over

large areas of another band’s territory.

At no one time was the whole area

occupied, but it did constitute the

hunting territory of the group. Early

anthropologists visiting the region

described the bands as something of a

cultural continuum consisting of a

series of interlocking local bands whose

culture varied only in minor details

from one to the next, rather than as

discrete units. A great deal of

communication and interaction among

the bands occurred. The diversity of

resources available was often limited in

a given band’s territory, necessitating

cooperation with other bands for use of

their lands and resources.

The Athabaskan culture is based on a

flexible system of exchange. Territory,

resources and people readily crossed

band territories as the need arose.

Relations between the Ahtna and Upper

Tanana and Tanacross Indians were

close enough to allow exchange of

goods, information and food when

needed. Marriages across lines resulted

in a net of kin ties that can be traced

today through the Native villages in the

region.

The Athabaskan people were seasonal

fish and wildlife hunters and gatherers,

moving from one temporary dwelling to

another as necessary to exploit local

resources. Their movement to fall,

winter, spring and summer camps was

a common practice. As hunters and

gatherers in a relatively harsh

environment, survival commonly

depended upon their ability to know

and utilize alternative plant and animal

resources when conditions warranted.

Often, when resources were in short

supply, travel to distant places to

harvest resources in another band’s

territory was necessary.

Ketchumstuk, Mansfield and

Batzulnetas are sites of seasonal camps

important to the Athabaskan people in

this region. Caribou fences located near

Ketchumstuk and Mansfield provided a

means of harvesting meat for a large

number of people of both Upper

Tanana, Tanacross and Ahtna descent.

Likewise, Batzulnetas is one of the few

close places where salmon can be

harvested; its resources are used by

many through an extensive sharing

network. Batzulnetas, located within the

boundaries of Wrangell-St Elias

National Park, was occupied

continuously for more than a century

until about 1940.

The late nineteenth to early twentieth

century was a time of accelerated

cultural change for Interior

Athabaskans. From the time of the first

non-Native-contact (about 1880),

material goods, technological changes,

imposed harvest limits and epidemic

diseases introduced in the region caused

major changes in the Native culture and

subsistence lifestyle. Traditional

dwellings were abandoned, people

adapted to new technology and semipermanent riverine villages sprang up in

place of seasonal camps. Seasonal

movements were then reduced to a dual

pattern of winter villages and summer

fish camps. During that time Batzulnetas

continued to be occupied, at least

seasonally, for the purpose of

subsistence hunting and fishing.

Mining had a tremendous impact on

subsistence hunting during the period.

In 1913, several thousand people

flooded into the region via the White,

Tanana and Copper Rivers during the

‘‘Chisana stampede’’ in search of gold.

Miners largely employed Native people

as hunters or hunted themselves for

food. Depletion of wildlife resources

due to the large influx of people, here

as well as in other parts of the state,

prompted the implementation of harvest

regulations in 1926 that affected the

subsistence harvests of resources by

Native people in the region.

Mandatory schooling imposed in

about 1950, seasonal labor opportunities

and steady access to trade goods

contributed to a more sedentary lifestyle

for most Native people in the region. By

then Tetlin, Tanacross, Northway, and

Healy Lake had become permanent

settlements at or near their modern day

locations. Dot Lake was evolving from a

seasonal camp for Alaska Highway

workers to a village composed primarily

of Alaska Native people of Ahtna, Upper

Tanana and Tanacross Athabaskan

descent who migrated there from several

local villages.

After World War II, Alaska gained

statehood (1959). Resource development

prospered, accelerating the Native land

claims process. The trans-Alaska oil

pipeline was built from 1974 to 1977,

causing economic and demographic

changes that continued years after

completion. Capital improvements in

urban and rural areas of the state funded

primarily by oil revenues created

employment opportunities. Rapid

population growth followed the

development of support industries and

the growth of state and federal

infrastructures. The large influx of

people into the region resulted in an

increasingly more common imposition

of regulatory prohibitions on the harvest

of certain species, the season of harvest

and so on to protect a dwindling supply

of game. Each of these factors in some

respect contributed to changes in the

subsistence way of life.

Despite the changes that have

occurred, in recent decades, the Native

people of these villages still identify

with the places where they were raised

and from which their parents came.

Places such as Batzulnetas, Mansfield

and Ketchumstuk remain of primary

importance to Athabaskan people in

these communities. Although none of

these sites is permanently occupied

today, they continue to be used

seasonally for the purpose of hunting,

fishing and gathering within the current

regulatory structure.

Although some new technological

advances have been employed by Native

subsistence users, the use of aircraft for

harvest of resources seldom occurs.

Only a fraction of the people in these

communities have used an aircraft in an

effort to harvest resources. Documented

instances did not occur in the park.

The amount and diversity of resources

harvested are two measures that

distinguish these five subsistence

communities from others. They harvest

a wide variety of resources (caribou,

moose, fish, and so forth) typical of

rural subsistence users across the state;

and they are high harvesters of

resources. The number of species

harvested in these communities rank

among the highest of any community in

the region. Study data indicate that

residents in the five communities

harvest salmon, moose and caribou from

Batzulnetas. Other species may be

harvested from that area as well.

Exchange and gifting of resources

harvested for subsistence purposes

remain a central component of the

Athabaskan culture. Such exchanges

occur in the context of a potlatch, to

reciprocate for the assistance given by

another, or to provide native foods for

elders and those unable to hunt.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32285

Reciprocal relations and gifting

strengthen kinship ties between the

people of these communities and

educate the children in the ways of the

Athabaskan people. Exchanges are made

in the form of harvested resources, use

of technology (such as a fishwheel) and

the offer of the use of preferred fishing

or hunting sites, such as Batzulnetas.

Exchange and gifting result in the

distribution of resources throughout

households in local communities

although the actual harvest may have

been accomplished by only a few.

Examples of the gifting and exchange of

resources harvested from Batzulnetas

are documented in the literature for Dot

Lake Tetlin, Tanacross, Northway, and

Healy Lake.

Conclusion

Dot Lake Tetlin, Tanacross, Northway,

and Healy Lake are all rural

communities near Wrangell-St. Elias

National Park and Preserve. The

communities contain a significant

concentration of Athabaskan Indians

whose lifestyle is centered around the

subsistence harvest of resources in the

same areas their ancestors used for

centuries. This area includes

(approximately) the northern third of

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and

Preserve, which is composed of both

park lands and preserve. Residents of

these communities do not use aircraft in

the subsistence harvest of resources in

this area.

Effects of Proposed Regulation

The purpose of this rule is to add five

communities to the subsistence resident

zone for Wrangell-St.Elias National Park

in accordance with the procedure at 36

CFR 13.43(b). This action is in response

to instructions from the Secretary of the

Interior and requests from several FACA

advisory groups and individual park

subsistence users. A collateral

administrative purpose consistent with

the Secretary’s instructions is to add a

paragraph to § 13.73 establishing a

method for determining community and

area boundaries for resident zone

purposes.

Drafting Information

The primary authors of this regulation

are Jay Wells, Wrangell-St.Elias National

Park and Preserve, and Janis Meldrum

and Paul Hunter, Alaska System

Support Office, Anchorage, Alaska.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (EO

12866)

This document is not a significant

rule and is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of

$100 million or more on the economy.

It will not adversely affect in a material

way the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, Local,

or tribal governments or communities.

The net effect of adoption of this rule

would be to reduce costs by eliminating

the need for subsistence users to apply

for a permit. The cost saving would

accrue to the affected user groups and

the park through reduction of actual and

potential administrative costs.

(2) This rule will not create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency. There will be no change

in the manner or substance of

interaction with other agencies.

(3) This rule does not alter the

budgetary effects or entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights

or obligations of their recipients.

Current and potential subsistence

permittees will continue to be eligible

under the resident zone system.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal

or policy issues. This rule is the direct

consequence of an existing regulatory

method for administering the resident

zone system. While the decision

concerning adding or deleting a

particular community could be

controversial, the regulatory process for

making the decision is well established

in existing regulations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior

certifies that this document will not

have a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic

consequences of this rule will be to

reduce administrative costs for private

citizens and for the park. The permitting

process that would be eliminated for the

residents of five communities operates

directly between individual subsistence

users and the park. Therefore, there is

no impact on small entities and a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and

Small Entity Compliance Guide are not

required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more.

This rule applies to individual

subsistence users. It has no applicability

to small businesses.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, Federal, State, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions. This rule will

reduce costs for private citizens and the

federal government. It will eliminate the

need for subsistence users in five

communities to apply to the National

Park Service for a subsistence permit.

The rule will eliminate application costs

to individual subsistence users such as

the cost of a phone call, postage, or

travel to the park office, and will reduce

the current and potential administrative

processing costs for the park.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not affect foreign trade.

The interaction of the subsistence

economy and the general economy is

unchanged by this rule.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued

an Executive Order (EO 13211) on

regulations significantly affect energy

supply, distribution, and use. Executive

Order 13211 requires agencies to

prepare Statements of Energy Effects

when undertaking certain actions. As

this interim rule is not expected to

significantly affect energy supplies,

distribution, or use, this action is not a

significant energy action and no

Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year. The

rule does not have a significant or

unique effect on State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector. This

rule affects the permitting process

between individual subsistence users

and the park. There is no involvement

of small governments in this

relationship. The subsistence activities

affected occur only on federal public

lands within a national park.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the rule does not have significant

takings implications. This rule will

modify regulations in a manner that

reduces the regulatory impact on private

citizens, and is, therefore, excluded

from EO 12630.

32286 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Federalism (EO 13132)

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule applies to the permitting

relationship between individual

subsistence users and the park for

activities occurring on federal public

lands within the park. The rule does not

change or impact the relationship of the

park with State and local governments.

Civil Justice Reform (EO 12988)

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that this rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This regulation does not require an

information collection from 10 or more

parties and a submission under the

Paperwork Reduction Act is not

required. An OMB form 83–I is not

required. This rule will eliminate permit

applications for residents of the five

affected communities, thus reducing the

level of previously approved

information collection (see 46 FR 31854)

associated with subsistence

management in the park.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.

However, Environmental Assessments

(EA’s) and findings of no significant

impact (FONSI’s) have been completed

and are on file in the NPS office at 2525

Gambell St, Anchorage, AK 99503 and

at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and

Preserve offices in Copper Center.

Government-to-Government

Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512

DM 2 there are no effects on federally

recognized Indian tribes. This rule

applies to individual subsistence users.

If the rule is adopted, the result will be

an elimination of the requirement for

certain subsistence users to apply for a

permit to engage in allowable

subsistence activities in the park.

Subsistence use on federal public lands

is not managed as a tribal activity and

the federal subsistence program does

not apply on Native owned lands.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite your

comments on how to make this rule

easier to understand, including answers

to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) Does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’

appears in bold type and is preceded by

the symbol ‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered

heading; for example, § 13.73

[amended]. (5) Is the description of the

rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the proposed rule? What

else could we do to make the rule easier

to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that

concern how we could make this rule

easier to understand to: Office of

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may

also email the comments to this address:

Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Public Participation

If you wish to comment, you may

submit your comments by any one of

several methods. You may mail

comments to: Superintendent, WrangellSt. Elias National Park and Preserve,

P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska

99573. You may also comment via the

Internet to Devi_Sharp@nps.gov. Please

submit Internet comments as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Please also include ‘‘ATTN: RIN 1024–

AC83’’ and your name and address in

your Internet message. Fax: (907) 822–

7216. Finally, you may hand-deliver

comments to Wrangell-St. Elias National

Park and Preserve, Mile 105.5 Old

Richardson Highway, Copper Center,

Alaska. Our practice is to make

comments, including names and home

addresses of respondents, available for

public review during regular business

hours. Individual respondents may

request that we withhold their home

address from the rulemaking record,

which we will honor to the extent

allowable by law. There also may be

circumstances I which we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this prominently at the beginning of

your comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives of officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and

record keeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 36

CFR part 13 is amended as follows:

PART 13—NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

UNITS IN ALASKA

Subpart C—Special Regulations—

Specific Park Areas in Alaska

1. The authority citation for Part 13

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 462(k), 3101 et

seq.; § 13.65 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a–

2(h), 1361, 1531.

2. Amend § 13.73 as follows:

a. By revising the heading of

paragraph (a)(1) and by adding the

following entries in alphabetical order

to the list of communities in paragraph

(a)(1);

b. By redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as

paragraph (a)(3);

c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(2);

d. By revising the heading of newly

redesingated paragraph (a)(3).

The addition and revisions read as

follows:

§ 13.73 Wrangell-St. Elias National Park

and Preserve.

(a) Subsistence—(1) What

communities and areas are included in

the park resident zone?

* * * * *

Dot Lake

* * * * *

Healy Lake

* * * * *

Northway/Northway Village/Northway

Junction

* * * * *

Tanacross

* * * * *

Tetlin

* * * * *

(2) How are boundaries determined

for communities added to the park

resident zone? Boundaries for

communities and areas added to the

park resident zone will be determined

by the Superintendent after consultation

with the affected area or community. If

the Superintendent and community are

not able to agree on a boundary within

two years, the boundary of the area or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32287

community added will be the boundary

of the Census Designated Place, or other

area designation, used by the Alaska

Department of Labor for census

purposes for that community or area.

Copies of the boundary map will be

available in the park headquarters

office.

(3) What communities are exempted

from the aircraft prohibition for

subsistence use?

* * * * *

Dated: June 5, 2001.

Marshall Jones, Jr.,

Acting Assistant to the Assistant Secretary,

Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–14787 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DE053–1029b; FRL–6996–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Delaware; Conversion of the

Conditional Approval of the NOX RACT

Regulation to a Full Approval and

Approval of NOX RACT Determinations

for Three Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Delaware State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the Delaware Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control

(DNREC). These revisions were

submitted to satisfy the condition

imposed by EPA in its conditional

limited approval of Delaware’s

regulation requiring reasonably

available control technology (RACT) for

major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX).

EPA is proposing to convert its

conditional limited approval of

Delaware Regulation 12, Control of NOX

Emissions, to a full approval. EPA is

also proposing to approve three sourcespecific NOX RACT determinations. In

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of

this Federal Register, EPA is approving

the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If EPA receives no adverse

comments, EPA will not take further

action on this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, EPA will

withdraw the direct final rule and it will

not take effect. EPA will address all

public comments in a subsequent final

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief,

Air Quality Planning and Information

Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

the Delaware Department of Natural

Resources & Environmental Control, 89

Kings Highway, Dover, Delaware 19901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, and Melik

Spain, (215) 814–2299, at the EPA

Region III address above, or by e-mail at

quinto.rose@epa.gov and

spain.melik@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information, please see the

information provided in the direct final

action with the same title that is located

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section

of this Federal Register publication.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Elaine B. Wright,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–14899 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6994–5]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 36

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), requires that

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(‘‘NCP’’) include a list of national

priorities among the known releases or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

throughout the United States. The

National Priorities List (‘‘NPL’’)

constitutes this list, and is intended

primarily to guide the Environmental

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the

Agency’’) in determining which sites

warrant further investigation. This rule

proposes to add 10 new sites to the

General Superfund Section of the NPL.

These sites will be assessed to

determine the nature and extent of

public health and environmental risks

associated with them, and to determine

what CERCLA-financed remedial

action(s), if any, may be appropriate.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these

proposed listings must be submitted

(postmarked) on or before August 13,

2001.

ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail

original and three copies of comments

(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency;

CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code

5201G); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

NW., Washington, DC 20460.

By Express Mail or Courier: Send

original and three copies of comments

(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency;

CERCLA Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway; Crystal Gateway #1,

First Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.

By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format

only may be mailed directly to

superfund.docket@epa.gov. E-mailed

comments must be followed up by an

original and three copies sent by mail or

express mail.

For additional Docket addresses and

further details on their contents, see

section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public

Comment,’’ of the Supplementary

Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603–8835,

State, Tribal and Site Identification

Center, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G);

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; or the

Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424–

9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

B. What Is the NCP?

C. What Is the National Priorities List

(NPL)?