```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32282-32287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14787]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Wrangell-
St. Elias National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, 
Alaska 99573. Fax (907) 822-7216. Email: [email protected].

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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Wrangell-
St. 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

[[Page 32284]]

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 semi-permanent 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.

[[Page 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 32286]]

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 ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for 
example, Sec. 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: [email protected].

Public Participation

    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of 
several methods. You may mail comments to: Superintendent, Wrangell-St. 
Elias National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska 
99573. You may also comment via the Internet to [email protected]. 
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.; Sec. 13.65 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h), 1361, 1531.

    2. Amend Sec. 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:

Sec. 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

[[Page 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
```