55022 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

clearcutting under the Proposed Action; 

clearcut and regenerate an additional 

three aspen stands. This alternative 

would also result in a temporary 

opening of approximately 73 acres. 

Under a second alternative the 

following activities would be deferred: 

harvesting stands of aspen forest type; 

potential salvage harvesting; harvesting 

within 124 acres of historic or current 

goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nest 

sites (the Forest Plan requires at 

minimum a 30-acre nest buffer); road 

construction and reconstruction. 

Responsible Official 

The responsible official for this 

project is Joel Skjerven, Eagle RiverFlorence District Ranger, 1247 E. Wall 

Street, Eagle River, WI 54521. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The decision will be limited to 

answering the following questions based 

on the environmental analysis: (1) What 

actions would be used to address the 

purpose and need; (2) where and when 

will these actions occur; and (3) what 

mitigation measures and monitoring 

requirements would be required. 

Scoping Process 

The Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest 

began the scoping process for this 

project as an environmental assessment 

during May 2008. Persons and 

organizations on the District’s mailing 

list were sent information packages, and 

a notice was placed in the newspaper of 

record. The project is listed in the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet Schedule of 

Proposed Actions, and is viewable on 

the Forest Web page at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/r9/cnnf/. Click on 

‘‘Project Proposals and Decisions,’’ then 

‘‘Grub Hoe Vegetation and 

Transportation Management Project.’’ 

Preliminary Issues 

The following issues will be analyzed 

in the EIS: Effects of the proposed 

activities on soils, water, Regional 

Forester Sensitive Species plants and 

wildlife, and non-native invasive 

species. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review: A draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for comment. The comment 

period on the draft environmental 

impact statement will be 45 days from 

the date the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes the notice of 

availability in the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that it is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 45- 

day comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21. 

Dated: September 15, 2008. 

Jeanne M. Higgins, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E8–22340 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Notice of Final Flat Fee Policy for 

Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees 

in the Alaska Region 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of final policy. 

SUMMARY: The Alaska Region of the 

Forest Service is publishing a final 

regional flat fee policy. The initial 

proposal was published in the Federal 

Register on September 15, 2006 (71 FR 

54454). The revised policy published 

April 18, 2008 (73 FR 21098) differed 

enough from the initial proposed policy 

to merit public notice and comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trish Clabaugh, (907) 586–8855. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In The Tongass Conservancy v. 

Glickman, No. J97–029–CV, slip op. (D. 

Alaska Sept. 19, 1998), the court held 

that the Forest Service’s land use fee 

system must be fair to the plaintiff 

outfitter and guide, as well as based on 

the market value of the use of National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. In addition, 

based on a concern that different fees 

were being charged for the same type of 

commercial use of NFS lands, the court 

held that there was ‘‘insufficient 

evidence in the record to support a 

conclusion that the fees charged 

plaintiff were both fair and based upon 

the value of the use of Forest Service 

lands available to the plaintiff.’’ The 

Tongass Conservancy, slip op. at 2. The 

court ordered the Alaska Region of the 

Forest Service to undertake actions 

consistent with the court’s ruling and 

applicable law. 

In response, on July 21, 1999, the 

Alaska Region published in the Federal 

Register for public notice and comment 

a proposed interim flat fee policy for all 

outfitting and guiding in the Alaska 

Region (Alaska Region Interim Flat Fee 

Policy or ARIFFP) (64 FR 39114, July 

21, 1999). The notice for the final 

interim ARIFFP was published in the 

Federal Register and went into effect on 

February 14, 2000 (65 FR 1846, January 

12, 2000). 

In August 2003, the Anchorage-based 

appraisal firm Black-Smith and 

Richards, Inc. (BSR) completed its phase 

II market study (Final Phase II Report) 

on development of a land use fee system 

for outfitting and guiding in the Alaska 

Region that is both fair to the outfitters 

and guides, and based on market value 

of the use of NFS lands for outfitting 

and guiding. The Final Phase II Report 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55023 

identified two possible methods for land 

use fee schedule development in this 

context: (1) The modified ARIFFP, 

which relates fees to gross revenues 

from outfitting and guiding conducted 

on NFS lands, and (2) the bottom-up 

pricing method (BUPM), which ties 

outfitting and guiding land use fees to 

fees charged for comparable unguided 

recreational uses on non-federal lands 

(Final Phase II Report at 19). 

On September 15, 2006, the Alaska 

Region published a notice of a proposed 

flat fee policy in the Federal Register 

(71 FR 54454) with a 90-day comment 

period. The agency received two 

requests for an extension of the 

comment period. The Forest Service 

extended the comment period until 

March 15, 2007 (71 FR 74896). The 

Alaska Region received 40 comments 

from individuals, outfitters and guides, 

the travel industry, and the Southeast 

Alaska Conservation Council. 

The initial proposal published on 

September 15, 2006, was based on the 

modified ARIFFP. The Alaska Region 

developed the revised proposal based 

on the BUPM and review of comments 

received on the initial proposal; BSR 

market survey data; recommendations 

from a working group tasked to review 

comments on the initial proposal; the 

need to simplify administration of the 

land use fee program in the Alaska 

Region for outfitters and guides and the 

Forest Service; and application of sound 

business management principles. 

The revised proposal was published 

in the Federal Register on April 18, 

2008. The Forest Service received 15 

comments during the comment period, 

which ended June 2, 2008. This notice 

addresses those comments and 

establishes the final flat fee policy for 

outfitting and guiding land use fees in 

the Alaska Region, consistent with The 

Tongass Conservancy case. 

Comments Received on the Revised 

Proposed Flat Fee Policy 

Comments Related to Activities 

Comment. One respondent 

commented that the increased fee for 

road-based nature tours is excessive. 

Response. Road-based nature tours 

visit NFS lands that are similar in 

character to those visited by remotesetting nature tours; they differ mainly 

in their modes of access. The two 

activities were combined in the general 

recreation group because the market 

does not recognize a high level of 

stratification in setting fees for general 

recreation. The general recreation 

activity is consistent with The Tongass 

Conservancy v. Glickman, which holds 

that to be fair to outfitters and guides, 

the Alaska Region’s outfitting and 

guiding land use fee system must 

establish similar fees for similar uses of 

NFS lands. The Tongass Conservancy, 

slip op. at 8. In addition, combining 

nine activities from the initial proposal 

into one general recreation category in 

the final policy reduces the potential for 

charging for the level of service 

provided and mode of transportation 

used to access NFS lands and assures 

greater fairness to a larger segment of 

outfitters and guides. 

Comment. One respondent questioned 

why the remote-setting nature tour fee is 

higher than the road-based fee. 

Response. Both remote-setting nature 

tours and road-based nature tours are 

now included in the general recreation 

category and are charged the same fee. 

Comment. One respondent questioned 

why the fee for over-snow vehicle tours 

was $10, identical to the fee charged for 

heli-skiing, given that the daily rate for 

heli-skiing is $900, compared to $180 to 

$225 for over-snow vehicle tours, and 

given that over-snow vehicle tours 

average two to three hours on NFS 

lands. Another respondent stated that 

over-snow vehicle tours should be 

included in the general recreation 

category because of their low cost and 

environmental impacts, lack of add-on 

costs, and short duration on NFS lands. 

Response. The difference in price 

charged for over-snow vehicle and heliskiing tours is primarily a function of 

the cost of transporting guests to NFS 

lands and is not attributable to 

significant differences in the quality or 

quantity of NFS lands used. A higher 

land use fee for helicopter skiing and 

over-snow vehicle tours than for general 

recreation is justified because of the 

more limited amount of NFS lands 

available for safe motorized winter 

sports. The $10 fee is consistent with 

market observations of prices charged 

for unguided off-road motor sports, as 

reported in the BSR market survey 

(Final Phase II Report at 26). The market 

does not differentiate between partial 

day and whole day use. Under the 

Independent Offices Appropriations Act 

of 1952, Office of Management and 

Budget Circular No. A–25, and Forest 

Service regulations, the standard for 

determining land use fees charged by 

the Forest Service is the market value of 

the use of NFS lands, not the impact of 

the use on NFS lands. Therefore, it is 

not appropriate to take into account the 

resource impacts of outfitting and 

guiding activities in setting land use 

fees. 

Comment. One respondent 

commented that the fee for general 

recreation should be $4.00, rather than 

$5.00, and questioned the Forest 

Service’s determination that a charge of 

$5.00 per day is fair based upon 

available market data for unguided use. 

Response. BSR prepared an Interim 

Phase II report dated July 12, 2002. 

Additional market data were used for 

the Final Phase II Report dated August 

5, 2003. Based on reconciliation of 

available market data for unguided uses, 

the Final Phase II Report concludes that 

a fee of $5.00 per day is appropriate for 

general recreation use (Final Report 

Phase II at 23). The Final Phase II Report 

further states that the market does not 

distinguish between partial days and 

whole days, the point of origin, or the 

mode of transportation used to conduct 

an activity. 

Comment. One respondent 

commented that freshwater fishing 

should be categorized with general 

recreation because fish-bearing streams 

are not limited in supply in Alaska, and 

there is not a high demand for Forest 

Service outfitting and guiding permits 

for freshwater fishing. 

Response. According to the BSR 

market survey, the value of an 

individual unit of unguided use for 

fishing in the Alaska Region is $10 per 

day (Final Phase II Report at 27). In 

general, in the Alaska Region, in 

comparison with NFS lands available 

for general recreation, NFS lands 

available for freshwater fishing in 

streams where a guide would take a 

client for a quality experience are more 

limited in extent than other general 

recreation uses. 

Short-Stop Fees 

Comment. One respondent stated that 

his use qualifies for a short-stop fee. 

Response. Short-stop fees are charged 

for trips that use NFS lands incidental 

to the purpose of the trip (Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, sec. 37.05). 

The attraction of the Chugach and 

Tongass National Forests is not 

incidental to the purpose of outfitted 

and guided trips in Alaska. In general, 

nonfederal landowners charge the same 

rate for unguided recreational uses, 

regardless of the time per day spent on 

their lands. Therefore, the Alaska 

Region believes that a short-stop fee is 

not appropriate for outfitting and 

guiding land uses in Alaska. 

Comments Related to Fees Charged 

Comment. One respondent questioned 

how the Forest Service balances the 

market value of an activity with 

charging similar fees for similar 

activities, using as an example black 

and brown bear hunting, which are 

similar activities, but are charged 

different fees. The respondent also 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55024 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

asked how big game hunting fees are 

determined. 

Response. The fees charged for big 

game hunting depend on the relative 

scarcity of NFS lands available for 

hunting particular species. For example, 

in the Alaska Region, the amount of 

NFS lands available for trophy coastal 

brown bear hunting is much smaller 

than the amount of NFS lands available 

for black bear hunting. Thus the fee for 

brown bear hunting is proportionally 

higher than the fee for black bear 

hunting. Deer habitat is the most 

plentiful of any habitat for big game 

species in the Alaska Region. The BSR 

market survey supports a fee for an 

unguided, multi-day deer hunt of 

approximately $100. Due to the more 

limited market data, the fees for the 

other big game species are derived from 

the ratio between the tag fee charged by 

the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game for each species and the fees for 

the corresponding species reflected in 

the BSR market survey (Final Phase II 

Report at 41–53). These ratios are 

further supported by ratios of per hunt 

revenues for the big game species 

reported by outfitters and guides in 

2002. 

Comment. One respondent stated that 

the fees for outfitters and guides 

operations are unreasonably high. 

Response. The Alaska Region 

developed the final fee policy for 

outfitting and guiding based review of 

comments received on the revised 

proposal; BSR market survey data; 

recommendations from a working group 

tasked to review comments on the 

initial proposal; the need to simplify 

administration of the land use fee 

program in the Alaska Region for 

outfitters and guides and the Forest 

Service; and application of sound 

business management principles. 

Comment. One respondent noted that 

it is not sound business practice to 

charge the same fee to both small and 

large businesses, which have a large 

disparity in the cost of their tours. 

Response. The Forest Service is 

directed by The Tongass Conservancy 

ruling to devise a fee schedule ‘‘that is 

fair and will not result in the assessment 

of disparate fees charged TTC and other 

similarly situated users for similar use 

of National Forest lands.’’ The Tongass 

Conservancy, slip op. at 8. The 

differences in fees charged for the 

different activities in the final flat fee 

policy are a function of the 

characteristics of the NFS lands used for 

those activities and the value of 

comparable unguided recreational uses. 

The fees in the final flat fee policy are 

not tied to outfitters’ and guides’ gross 

revenues, which in the Alaska Region 

are often a function of the cost to 

transport clients to NFS lands and the 

different level of services provided by 

outfitters and guides. Basing the flat fees 

on the costs of outfitters and guides in 

the Alaska Region would result in 

disparate fees for similar uses of NFS 

lands, and therefore would not be 

consistent with The Tongass 

Conservancy ruling. 

Fees Charged For Multiple Activities 

Comment. One respondent stated that 

hunts for multiple species should 

continue to be charged a fee only for the 

species with the highest fee. Another 

respondent stated that for big game 

hunting, the Forest Service should 

charge the full fee for the species with 

the highest fee and charge a reduced fee 

for all other species involved. 

Response. Fees for hunts involving 

multiple species will be charged only 

for the species with the highest fee. For 

example, an outfitter and guide 

authorized to conduct hunts for both 

brown bear and deer will be charged a 

fee only for brown bear hunting when 

the hunt includes both species. 

Comment. One respondent questioned 

how the fees will be determined if they 

are based on actual use reports and how 

prepayment will be determined if more 

than one activity is authorized under a 

permit. Another respondent wanted 

clarification on determination of the fee 

when an outfitter or guide is authorized 

to conduct multiple activities on the 

same day. 

Response. The current practice of 

prepayment of outfitter and guide fees 

based on the total amount of use 

authorized in permits will not change. 

If an outfitter or guide is authorized for 

more than one activity, estimates of use 

will be based on past actual use records 

or anticipated use. 

When an outfitter or guide conducts 

more than one authorized activity on a 

given day, the Alaska Region charges 

the outfitter or guide only one fee, and 

that fee is whatever activity has the 

highest fee. For example, if an outfitter 

or guide conducts hiking and freshwater 

fishing, the fee will be the charge for 

freshwater fishing, since it is higher 

than the fee for hiking (which is 

included in general recreation). 

Comments Requesting Clarification 

Comment. The State of Alaska 

requested clarification of the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game’s 

responsibility for maintaining the 

sustainability of fish and wildlife 

pursuant to section 1314 of Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) and affirmation of the 

fact that the fees in the revised policy 

will not diminish that responsibility. 

Response. Nothing in the final flat fee 

policy diminishes the State’s 

responsibility for managing fish and 

wildlife in Alaska’s National Forests 

pursuant to section 1314 of ANILCA. 

The Alaska Region affirms that 

responsibility in Forest Service Manual 

Supplement 2323.32, which states that 

‘‘the taking of fish and wildlife shall be 

conducted in accordance with the 

provisions of ANILCA, Section 1314, 

and other applicable State and Federal 

laws.’’ 

Basis of Forest Service Fees 

Comment. Some respondents stated 

that the purpose of land use fees is to 

cover administrative costs and help the 

Service offset any impacts that activities 

may have on the land. 

Response. Under the Independent 

Offices Appropriations Act of 1952, 

OMB Circular No. A–25, and Forest 

Service regulations, the standard for 

determining land use fees charged by 

the Forest Service is the market value of 

the use of NFS lands, not the impact of 

the use on NFS lands. Forest Service 

regulations state that the fees charged to 

outfitters and guides are ‘‘based on the 

fair market value of the rights and 

privileges authorized, as determined by 

appraisal or other sound business 

management principles’’ [36 CFR 

251.57(a)(1)]. Therefore, it would not be 

appropriate to take into account the 

impacts of outfitting and guiding 

activities in setting land use fees. 

Implementation 

Comment. Some respondents 

suggested a phased-in implementation 

for the fee policy. One respondent 

believed that the proposed flat fee 

system would pose an undue burden for 

lower-priced tour operators. Another 

respondent requested a waiver or 

reduced fee for outfitting and guiding 

services that were contracted prior to 

implementation of the fee policy. 

Response. The Forest Service is 

delaying implementation of the final flat 

fee policy until January 1, 2010, to give 

outfitters and guides in the Alaska 

Region time to make price adjustments 

based on the policy. Once it is 

implemented, the fee schedule in the 

final policy will be updated in 

accordance with the Implicit Price 

Deflator-Gross Domestic Product (IPD) 

and periodic market surveys of 

unguided land use fees. 

Comparison of the Current and Final 

Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees 

Table 1 displays the Alaska Region 

outfitting and guiding activities in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55025 

column 1. The activities that are shown 

in bold are the final flat fee policy 

activities. Column 2 shows the 2008 fees 

charged for those activities. The fees for 

the final policy for outfitting and 

guiding land use in the Alaska Region 

that will be effective January 1, 2010, 

are shown in column 3. These fees 

apply to both temporary and priority 

use permits. The minimum fee for 

outfitting and guiding, regardless of the 

size of their business, is $100. 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55026 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN24se08.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55027 

Implementation 

The final land use fee policy will 

become effective January 1, 2010. The 

Alaska Region intends to conduct a 

market review approximately every five 

years to update the land use fees for 

outfitting and guiding based on a market 

survey of fees charged by non-federal 

landowners for unguided recreational 

activities that are comparable to those 

conducted by outfitters and guides in 

the Alaska Region. As part of the market 

survey, the Alaska Region will evaluate 

market data regarding comparable 

unguided recreational activities 

conducted on non-federal land that are 

submitted by the outfitting and guiding 

industry, and outfitters and guides in 

the Alaska Region. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

This proposed policy will establish 

administrative fee categories and 

procedures for calculating land use fees 

for outfitters and guides operating in the 

Alaska Region of the Forest Service. 

Section 31.12 of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 

43180, September 18, 1992) excludes 

from documentation in an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement ‘‘rules, 

regulations or policies to establish 

Service-wide administrative procedures, 

program processes or instructions.’’ The 

Alaska Region’s preliminary assessment 

is that this final policy falls within this 

category of actions and that no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

would require preparation of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Regulatory Impact 

This final policy has been reviewed 

under USDA procedures and Executive 

Order 12866 on regulatory planning and 

review. The Office of Management and 

Budget has determined that this not a 

significant policy. The final policy 

cannot and may not reasonably be 

anticipated to lead to an annual effect of 

$100 million or more on or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or state, local, or 

tribal governments or communities; 

create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; raise 

novel legal or policy issues; or 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights or obligations of 

beneficiaries of those programs. 

Accordingly, this final policy is not 

subject to OMB review under Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 13422. 

This final policy has also been 

considered in light of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 

601 et. seq.). The final policy will affect 

a substantial number of small entities. 

However, the impact on those entities 

will not be significant. The final fee 

increases are not significant when 

compared to the amounts charged by 

these entities to their clients and can 

readily be absorbed. Accordingly, the 

final policy will not affect the 

competitive position of small entities in 

relation to large entities, nor will the 

final policy substantially affect small 

entities’ cash flow, liquidity, or ability 

to remain in the market. In addition, the 

final policy will not impose new recordkeeping requirements on small business 

holders of special use authorizations. To 

the contrary, the greater efficiency and 

consistency achieved by the final policy 

in simplifying the fee categories and the 

method for updating fees will benefit 

both outfitters and guides in the Alaska 

Region and the Forest Service. 

Therefore, no further analysis is 

required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

No Takings Implications 

This final policy has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

12630. The Alaska Region has 

determined that the final policy will not 

pose the risk of a taking of private 

property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final policy has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988 on civil 

justice reform. Upon adoption of the 

final policy, (1) all state and local laws 

and regulations that are in conflict with 

this final policy or that will impede its 

full implementation will be preempted; 

(2) no retroactive effect will be given to 

this final policy; and (3) it will not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the Alaska 

Region has assessed the effects of the 

final policy on state, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This final policy will not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any state, local, or tribal government or 

anyone in the private sector. Therefore, 

a statement under Section 202 of the act 

is not required. 

Federalism and Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Alaska Region has considered 

this final policy under the requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 on federalism 

and has determined that the final policy 

conforms with the federalism principles 

set out in this Executive Order; will not 

impose any compliance costs on the 

States; and will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

Alaska Region has determined that no 

further assessment of federalism 

implications is necessary. 

Moreover, this final policy will not 

have Tribal implications as defined by 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ and therefore advance 

consultation with Tribes is not required. 

Energy Effects 

This final policy has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 

2001, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ The Alaska 

Region has determined that this final 

policy will not constitute a significant 

energy action as defined in the 

Executive Order. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This final policy does not contain any 

record-keeping or reporting 

requirements or other information 

collection requirements as defined in 5 

CFR part 1320 that are not already 

required by law or not already approved 

for use. The information collection 

being requested as a result of this action 

has been approved by OMB. 

Accordingly, the review provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320 do not apply. 

Dated: September 11, 2008. 

Paul K. Brewster, 

Deputy Regional Forester Alaska Region. 

[FR Doc. E8–22424 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES