|
|
3410-11-P; 4310-55-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 242
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 100
RIN 1018-
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C and
Subpart D -- Subsistence Taking of Fish, Customary Trade
AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise regulations related to the
customary trade of fish taken under Subsistence Management Regulations. The
rulemaking is necessary because Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act allows the use of subsistence-taken resources in customary
trade. However, our current regulations do not provide clear guidance as to what
is or is not allowed in this regard. When final, this rulemaking would replace
the existing regulations included in the "Subsistence Management Regulations for
Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C and Subpart D -2002 Subsistence Taking of Fish
and Wildlife Resources," which expire on February 28, 2003.
DATES: The Federal Subsistence Board must receive your written public
comments on this proposed rule no later than March 29, 2002. Federal Subsistence
Regional Advisory Councils (Regional Councils) will hold public meetings to
receive comments on this proposed rule from February 20, 2002 - March 21, 2002.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the public
meetings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit electronic comments and other data to
Bill_Knauer@fws.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file formats
and other information about electronic filing. You may submit written comments
and proposals to the Office of Subsistence Management, 3601 C Street, Suite
1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. Public meetings will be held at various locations
in Alaska. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on
locations of the public meetings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence
Management; (907) 786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest System
lands, contact Ken Thompson, Regional Subsistence Program Manager, USDA, Forest
Service, Alaska Region, (907) 786-3592.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Review Process -- Regulation Comments, Proposals, and Public Meetings
The Federal Subsistence Board (Board) will hold meetings on this proposed
rule at the following locations in Alaska:
Region 1 - Southeast Regional Council Hoonah March 12, 2002
Region 2 - Southcentral Regional Council Anchorage March 5, 2002
Region 3 - Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Council Kodiak March 18, 2002
Region 4 - Bristol Bay Regional Council Dillingham February 28, 2002
Region 5 - Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Council Tuntutuliak March 6, 2002
Region 6 - Western Interior Regional Council McGrath March 19, 2002
Region 7 - Seward Peninsula Regional Council Nome February 26, 2002
Region 8 - Northwest Arctic Regional Council Kotzebue March 21, 2002
Region 9 - Eastern Interior Regional Council Circle Hot Springs February 25,
2002
Region 10 - North Slope Regional Council Barrow February 20, 2002
We will publish notice of specific dates, times, and meeting locations in local
and statewide newspapers prior to the meetings. We may need to change locations
and dates based on weather or local circumstances. The amount of work on each
Regional Council's agenda will determine the length of the Regional Council
meetings.
Electronic filing of comments: You may submit electronic comments and other data
to Bill_Knauer@fws.gov. Please submit as either WordPerfect or MS Word
files, avoiding the use of any special characters and any form of encryption.
The Board will discuss and evaluate proposed changes to this rule during a
public meeting scheduled to be held in Anchorage, May 14, 2002. You may provide
additional oral testimony before the Board at that time. The Board will then
deliberate and may take final action on requested changes to this proposed rule
at that public meeting.
Background
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
(16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a joint program to grant a
preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands,
unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability
that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition,
preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA.
The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior previously
found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December 1989, the Alaska
Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State of Alaska that the rural
preference in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution.
The Court's ruling in McDowell required the State to delete the rural
preference from the subsistence statute and, therefore, negated State compliance
with ANILCA. The Court stayed the effect of the decision until July 1, 1990.
As a result of the McDowell decision, the Department of the Interior and
the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990,
responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. On
June 29, 1990, the Temporary Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands
in Alaska were published in the Federal Register (55 FR 27114-27170). On
January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276), the Departments published a final rule to extend
jurisdiction to include waters in which there exists a Federal reserved water
right. This amended rule became effective October 1, 1999, and conformed the
Federal Subsistence Management Program to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in
Alaska v. Babbitt. Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of these
regulations, as revised January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276), the Departments
established a Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to administer the Federal
Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition includes a Chair
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the
Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service; the Alaska State Director,
U.S. Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through
the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for
Subparts A, B, and C, and the annual Subpart D regulations.
All Board members have reviewed this rule and agree with its substance. Because
this rule relates to public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text would be
incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.
Applicability of Subparts A, B, and C
Subparts A, B, and C (unless otherwise amended) of the Subsistence
Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, 50 CFR 100.1 to 100.24 and 36
CFR 242.1 to 242.24, remain effective and apply to this rule. Therefore, all
definitions located at 50 CFR 100.4 and 36 CFR 242.4 would apply to regulations
found in this subpart.
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils
Pursuant to the Record of Decision, Subsistence Management Regulations for
Federal Public Lands in Alaska, April 6, 1992, and the Subsistence Management
Regulations for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR 242.11 (1999) and 50 CFR
100.11 (1999), and for the purposes identified therein, we divide Alaska into
ten subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal
Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Regional Council). The Regional Councils
provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions
and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence
management of fish and wildlife on Alaska public lands. The Regional Council
members represent varied geographical, cultural, interest, and user diversity
within each region.
The Regional Councils have a substantial role in reviewing the proposed rule and
making recommendations for the final rule. Moreover, the Council Chairs, or
their designated representatives, will present their Council's recommendations
at the Board meeting in May 2002.
Recognizing Customary Trade Practices
Title VIII of ANILCA specifically identifies customary trade as a recognized
part of subsistence uses. Therefore, in the development of the Federal
subsistence regulations, we made an attempt to accommodate ongoing customary
trade practices. Although the Federal subsistence management regulations for
fisheries were adopted from State regulations, we made numerous modifications to
more accurately reflect ANILCA Title VIII and the Federal mandate. One example
of this is in the area of regulations relating to customary trade where the
State has an almost complete prohibition on exchange for cash of
subsistence-taken resources. The State currently allows only one customary trade
practice (the sale of herring roe on kelp in southeast Alaska.) The current
Federal regulations provide for the limited sale of subsistence-taken fish,
their parts, or eggs as customary trade, so long as it does not constitute a
significant commercial enterprise. The Federal regulations also prohibit
purchase or barter for the use in, or resale to a significant commercial
enterprise. Part of the current confusion and uncertainty relates to the term
"significant commercial enterprise" and the need to still provide for customary
trade. Presently, the term "significant commercial enterprise" is not defined,
and is therefore, unenforceable. Additionally, there is a concern that by
allowing customary trade, the door is open for valuable subsistence resources to
become a commodity to the commercial market by those who wish to elude the
system and abuse this legitimate use for monetary gain. Another concern
expressed by the Regional Councils is the need to have customary trade addressed
on a Regional level.
Recognizing these concerns, the Board initiated an agreement with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to assemble information relative to the sharing,
distribution, and exchange of wildlife resources. They placed the issue before
the Regional Councils in order to solicit further input. In late 2000, the Board
established a Customary Trade Task Force composed of representatives of the 10
Regional Councils, fishery biologists, enforcement personnel, anthropologists,
and others. This Task Force was charged with developing draft regulatory
language defining the intent of customary trade as identified in ANILCA Title
VIII. They met several times during 2001, requested public comments, and
eventually developed draft language that was presented to the Board on December
12, 2001, as one of six options for Board consideration.
During this same period, the Board initiated tribal consultation with 229
Federally recognized tribes. In addition, Federal staff met with representatives
of several villages, Tribal associations, and Regional Corporations. The
consultation was conducted pursuant to the Department of Interior, Alaska Policy
on Government to Government Relations with the Alaska Native Tribes. Three
tribal governments submitted comments. All of the comments and recommendations
followed the proposed regulatory language.
During the process, the customary trade issue was presented to the Regional
Councils and seven of the Councils made specific Regional recommendations.
Included as part of the Task Force draft language was a $1,000 cap for the
exchange of cash for salmon between rural residents and others (commercial
entities other than fishery businesses or individuals other than rural
residents). The Regional Council comments generally related to the cap and a
need to address regional needs and differences. Some Regional Councils thought
this too high; others thought it too low. Some Regional Councils also had a
concern with draft language restricting barter to others. The specific
recommendations of the Regional councils are summarized below by Fishery
Management Area:
Kotzebue Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Kotzebue Area
exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00 annually.
Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area
The total cash value of salmon taken in the Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area
exchanged in customary trade by each household member to others is not limited.
Yukon-Northern Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Yukon-Northern
Area exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00 annually.
Kuskokwim Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Kuskokwim Area
exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00 annually.
Bristol Bay Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Bristol Bay
Area exchanged in customary trade to rural residents may not exceed $1,000.00
annually.
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Bristol Bay
Area exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $400.00 annually.
Aleutian Islands Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Aleutian
Islands Area exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00
annually.
[The Regional Council also recommended: These regulations will expire in two
years from the effective date of the regulations unless extended, superseded,
modified, or revoked.]
Alaska Peninsula Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Alaska
Peninsula Area exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00
annually.
[The Regional Council also recommended: These regulations will expire in two
years from the effective date of the regulations unless extended, superseded,
modified, or revoked.]
Chignik Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Chignik Area
exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00 annually.
[The Regional Council also recommended: These regulations will expire in two
years from the effective date of the regulations unless extended, superseded,
modified, or revoked.]
Kodiak Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Kodiak Area
exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00 annually.
[The Regional Council also recommended: These regulations will expire in two
years from the effective date of the regulations unless extended, superseded,
modified, or revoked.]
Cook Inlet Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Cook Inlet Area
exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00 annually. At
least 50% of all fish taken by a household under subsistence regulations must be
kept for the household's consumption.
Prince William Sound Area
The total cash value per household member of salmon taken in the Prince William
Sound Area exchanged in customary trade to others may not exceed $1,000.00
annually. At least 50% of all fish taken by a household under subsistence
regulations must be kept for the household's consumption.
Yakutat Area
The total cash value of salmon taken in the Yakutat Area exchanged in customary
trade by each household member to others is not limited.
Southeastern Alaska Area
The total cash value of salmon taken in the Southeastern Alaska Area exchanged
in customary trade by each household member to others is not limited.
The Customary Trade Task Force received 17 written comments from the public,
government agencies, private organizations, and individuals expressing concerns
regarding the issue of customary trade generally and regarding the draft
regulatory language in particular. There was general recognition that customary
trade is integral to the subsistence way of life; however, some commenters said
that subsistence should not include any cash transactions. Some commenters said
that there is a need to authorize existing practices without creating new uses
or expanding existing ones, while others stated that there is little or no need
to regulate this practice. Some commenters expressed concern that an
inappropriate cash limit would create a hardship for subsistence people. There
is concern that the sheer number of Federally-qualified subsistence users will
have an impact on resources and that this proposed regulation will give
customary trade the same priority as the use of fish for food, culture, economy,
and resources. Neither does it address potential impacts on commercial
fisheries. Some commenters expressed concern that setting a dollar amount would
attract the unscrupulous. Others said it would invite abuse by authorizing
significant cash sales. Others believe that setting a cash limit would protect
the resource. Of those commenting on the cash limit, not one said that there
should NOT be a limit. Concern was expressed that improperly processed fish
present a health risk to the consumers. There is also concern that these
proposed regulations may put many subsistence fishers in violation of State and
Federal food laws. Many commenters expressed concern that the Board's projected
timeline for finalizing this proposed regulation is too brief. It does not
provide adequate time to determine necessary harvest amounts or to correlate
with State regulations. Nor does it allow time to address all the issues the
proposed regulation raises.
At its December 2002 meeting, the Board considered six options for a proposed
rule regarding customary trade. They were:
1) Publish the proposed rule for public comment with the draft regulatory
language, including a permitting requirement, as recommended by the Customary
Trade Task Force. This includes: no limits on customary trade transactions
between rural residents; imposes a $1,000 limit per family member for
customary trade and barter of salmon, their parts or their eggs between rural
residents and others; requires a Federal customary trade and barter permit to
implement this provision; and prohibits exchanges with fisheries businesses;
2) Publish the proposed rule for public comment with the draft regulatory
language, as recommended by the Customary Trade Task Force, except replace the
permitting requirement with a recordkeeping requirement. Option 2 would be
identical in regulatory language to Option 1, with the exception of language
addressing the transactions between a rural resident and others. Instead of
establishing a Federal customary trade and barter permit, Option 2 would track
the exchanges and transactions between rural residents and others for salmon,
their parts, or their eggs by implementing a recordkeeping requirement;
3) Allow unlimited barter for transactions between rural residents and others.
Option 3 would be a variation of either Option 1 or Option 2, and arises from
concerns that barter between a rural resident and others should not be limited.
The Permitting Requirement under Option 1 and the Recordkeeping Requirement
under Option 2 would impose limitations on barter involving salmon, their eggs,
or their parts between a rural resident and others. Option 3 would remove the
restriction on barter by deleting any and all reference to barter;
4) Provide for regional limitations for exchanges between rural residents and
others. This option would include draft regulatory language as proposed by the
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils during their fall 2001 meetings.
In some instances, Regional Councils recommended modifying the restrictions on
transactions between a rural resident and others for salmon, their parts, or
their eggs on a regional basis, while in other instances Regional Councils
recommended going forward with the $1,000 limit as recommended by the Task
Force. Additionally, for the Bristol Bay Area, the Regional Council proposed to
restrict the customary trade between rural residents. The regional language
proposed by the Councils could be included with the regulatory language in
Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3;
5) Publish the proposed rule for public comment with the draft regulatory
language, as recommended by the Customary Trade Task Force, except maintain the
status quo for transactions between rural residents and others. Through the
development and review of draft regulatory language for customary trade by the
Task Force and the Regional Advisory Councils, there was general support and
consensus for unlimited transactions between rural residents and the prohibition
of transactions with fisheries businesses. Many of the concerns raised have been
directed at the transactions between a rural resident and others. Option 5 would
maintain the status quo for transactions between a rural resident and others,
allowing further discussions and analyses to occur before proposing further
restrictions on the transactions between a rural resident and others in a
proposed rule; and,
6) Defer publication of a proposed rule to provide more opportunity for informal
comment. Option 6 would defer publication of draft regulatory language for
customary trade of fish in a proposed rule. Concerns were raised that
significant changes and options (i.e. permitting requirement or recordkeeping
requirement) were developed after the fall meetings of the Regional Advisory
Councils and without their full input.
After hearing the report of the Task Force, the six options, and comments from
Regional Council Chairs, ADF&G, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
and other members of the public, the Board decided to implement Option 5 and
initiate a formal rulemaking process with this proposed rule.
Because most traditions of customary trade among rural subsistence users occur
between local users and involve small amounts of fish, the Board does not
believe that this rule will create additional harvest of the resources nor
insert additional fish into the commercial markets. Likewise, nothing in this
proposed rule would displace, supersede, or preempt any State or Federal food
safety laws and regulations governing the processing, handling, or sale of fish.
However, there is now the opportunity for further comments and Regional Council
input prior to implementation of a final rule. Additionally, since this rule
would occur in subpart D of the Federal Subsistence Management Regulations, it
would be subject to annual review and subject to revision yearly as needed or
deemed appropriate.
This rulemaking will provide a clear mechanism and focus for public comments
either directly to the Board in writing or orally at their May 2002 meeting or
to the Regional Councils during their February/March 2002 meetings. The Board
invites comments on this proposed rule, the six options considered by the Board
at their December 2001 meeting, and the regional recommendations provided by the
Regional Councils. The Board will expand public awareness of this proposed rule
and the opportunity to comment through targeted mailouts to interested parties,
news releases, additional Tribal consultation, and by posting on the Office of
Subsistence Management website at http://www.r7.fws.gov/asm.home.html.
The Board's estimated schedule for this rulemaking is as follows:
! Regional Council meetings including comment on this rule Feb./Mar. 2002
! Public comment period ends on this rule Mar. 29, 2002
! Federal Subsistence Board deliberation and action on this rule May 2002
! Publication of a final rule June 2002
! Final Rule effective July 1, 2002
Conformance with Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for developing a Federal
Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7,
1991. That document described the major issues associated with Federal
subsistence management as identified through public meetings, written comments,
and staff analysis and examined the environmental consequences of four
alternatives. Proposed regulations (Subparts A, B, and C) that would implement
the preferred alternative were included in the DEIS as an appendix. The DEIS and
the proposed administrative regulations presented a framework for an annual
regulatory cycle regarding subsistence hunting and fishing regulations (Subpart
D). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February
28, 1992.
Based on the public comment received, the analysis contained in the FEIS, and
the recommendations of the Federal Subsistence Board and the Department of the
Interior's Subsistence Policy Group, the Secretary of the Interior, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Forest Service, implemented Alternative IV as identified in the DEIS
and FEIS (Record of Decision on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands
in Alaska (ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS and the selected alternative in
the FEIS defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for
subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. The final rule for Subsistence
Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR
22940-22964, published May 29, 1992, amended January 8, 1999, 64 FR 1276, and
June 12, 2001 66 FR 31533) implemented the Federal Subsistence Management
Program and included a framework for an annual cycle for subsistence hunting and
fishing regulations.
Compliance with Section 810 of ANILCA
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence
uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and
wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to
conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. A Section 810 analysis was
completed as part of the FEIS process. The final Section 810 analysis
determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD, which concluded that the
Federal Subsistence Management Program may have some local impacts on
subsistence uses, but the program is not likely to significantly restrict
subsistence uses.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed amendments do not contain information collection requirements
subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. We will not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required
to respond to, a collection of information request unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Other Requirements
This rule was not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include
small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. The Departments
have determined that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking will impose no significant costs on small entities; the exact
number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result from this Federal
land-related activity is unknown. The aggregate effect is an insignificant
positive economic effect on a number of small entities, such as tackle, boat,
and gasoline dealers. The number of small entities affected is unknown; but, the
fact that the positive effects will be seasonal in nature and will, in most
cases, merely continue preexisting uses of public lands indicates that they will
not be significant.
In general, the resources traded under this rule will be consumed by local rural
residents and do not result in a dollar benefit to the economy. However, we
estimate that 24 million pounds of fish (including 8.3 million pounds of salmon)
are harvested by the local subsistence users annually and, if given a dollar
value of $3.00 per pound for salmon [Note: this is actually much higher than the
current commercial value for salmon.] and $ 0.58 per pound for other fish, would
equate to about $34 million in food value Statewide. We anticipate that only a
very small portion of this harvest might be used in customary trade and most of
that would remain in the local village or region.
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence
preference on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition
to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings
of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost
of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or
private entities. The implementation of this rule is by Federal agencies, and no
cost is involved to any State or local entities or Tribal governments.
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable
standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 on
Civil Justice Reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising management authority
over wildlife resources on Federal lands.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
"Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments" (59
FR 22951), 512 DM 2, and E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on
Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no
effects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a participating agency in this
rulemaking.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. This Executive Order
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, this
action is not a significant action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Drafting Information
William Knauer drafted these regulations under the guidance of Thomas H.
Boyd, of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor Brelsford, Alaska State Office,
Bureau of Land Management; Rod Simmons, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Bob Gerhard, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken
Thompson, USDA-Forest Service, provided additional guidance.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public
lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public
lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board proposes
to amend Title 36, part 242, and Title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below.
PART - SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA
1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR Part 242 and 50 CFR Part 100
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586;
43 U.S.C. 1733.
Subpart D - Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife
2. In Subpart D of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100, §___.27(c) is
revised to read as follows:
§ .27 Subsistence taking of fish, wildlife, and shellfish; general
regulations.
(c) * * *
(11) Transactions Between Rural Residents - The exchange between rural residents
in customary trade of subsistence-harvested fish, their parts, or their eggs,
legally taken under the regulations in this part, unprocessed or processed using
customary and traditional methods, is permitted.
(12) Transactions Between a Rural Resident and Others - Customary trade for
fish, their parts, or their eggs, legally taken under the regulations in this
part from a rural resident to commercial entities other than fisheries
businesses or from a rural resident to individuals other than rural residents is
permitted, so long as it does not constitute a significant commercial
enterprise.
(13) No Purchase By Fisheries Businesses - If you are required to be licensed as
a fisheries business under Alaska Statute, AS 43.75.011, you may not purchase or
receive in customary trade for commercial purposes or barter or solicit to
barter for, subsistence taken fish, their parts, or their eggs.
* * * * *
___________________________ ____________________________
Thomas H. Boyd Date Kenneth E. Thompson Date
Acting Chair Acting Regional Forester
Federal Subsistence Board USDA-Forest Service