Rule2026-21299
Alaska; Wildlife, Harvest, and Access
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 19, 2026
Effective
November 18, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentNational Park Service
Abstract
The National Park Service (NPS) amends its regulations for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other harvest-related activities in Alaska and the procedures used to restrict public use and access in Alaska park areas, including for subsistence. This rule restores the regulatory framework adopted to implement the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) in 1981 that guided management for more than three decades, with targeted updates to that framework in response to public comments and further agency review. The restored framework recognizes the complementary and distinct roles of the State of Alaska, the Federal Subsistence Management Program, and the NPS in managing public uses and resources in Alaska park areas. The rule removes regulatory changes made in 2015, 2017, and 2024 that departed from that framework. These amendments are consistent with Executive Orders 14153 and 14192 and Secretary of the Interior's Orders 3422 and 3447.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65985-66000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21299]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 13
[NPS-AKRO-NPS0043368; PPAKAKROD0-PPMPSAS1Y.Y00000-PX.XAKRO27C8.00.1]
RIN 1024-AE96
Alaska; Wildlife, Harvest, and Access
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) amends its regulations for
hunting, fishing, trapping, and other harvest-related activities in
Alaska and the procedures used to restrict public use and access in
Alaska park areas, including for subsistence. This rule restores the
regulatory framework adopted to implement the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) in 1981 that guided management
for more than three decades, with targeted updates to that framework in
response to public comments and further agency review. The restored
framework recognizes the complementary and distinct roles of the State
of Alaska, the Federal Subsistence Management Program, and the NPS in
managing public uses and resources in Alaska park areas. The rule
removes regulatory changes made in 2015, 2017, and 2024 that departed
from that framework. These amendments are consistent with Executive
Orders 14153 and 14192 and Secretary of the Interior's Orders 3422 and
3447.
DATES: This rule is effective November 18, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Comments received on the proposed rule are available on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. NPS-2026-0034.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Striker, Regional Director, Alaska
Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501; phone (907)
227-6163; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acede7fef3fec9cbd9c0cdd8c5c3c2dfecc2dcdf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86c7cdd4d9d4e3e1f3eae7f2efe9e8f5c6e8f6f5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule updates and restores
regulations for Alaska park areas to the framework in place from 1981
through amendments beginning in 2015. A table summarizing this
restoration is included in the ``Final Rule'' section below. Detailed
explanations are included in that section and in the ``Background'' and
``Summary and Responses to Public Comments'' sections below.
This rule does not alter the federal subsistence priority
established in ANILCA. Federal Subsistence Management Program
regulations and the rural preference for qualified users on federal
public lands in ANILCA Title VIII are unchanged. What this rule means
for subsistence users:
<bullet> Permit requirements for collecting animal parts for
handicrafts--removed. The 2017 changes added a mandatory permit for
collecting antlers, bones, and similar materials to create handicrafts
for barter and customary trade. This rule removes the permit
requirement; collection for these purposes remains allowed.
<bullet> Restrictions for harvesting bears over bait for
subsistence uses--removed. Bait and other restrictions added in 2017,
which limited subsistence users to using natural or legally harvested
remains, are removed; regulations issued by state and federal boards
govern these uses unless the statutory
[[Page 65986]]
criteria and procedures in ANILCA are met for a closure.
<bullet> Public hearings before closures affecting fish and
wildlife harvest--restored. The requirement to hold a hearing in the
affected vicinity before closures affecting the harvest of fish and
wildlife was removed in 2015. This rule restores that local hearing
requirement.
<bullet> Notice requirements for local rural residents--restored
and updated. The requirement to post signs and/or provide notice in
local newspapers, radio broadcasts, posted maps, and post office
notifications was eliminated in 2015. The final rule restores these
locally focused notice requirements, which remain essential tools for
reaching remote communities with limited connectivity, and updates the
regulatory text to ensure posted signs are required in addition to (not
in the place of) published notice.
This rule does not expand or restrict NPS closure authorities
beyond what Congress has provided for Alaska. It does not affect state
management authority over Alaska's fish and wildlife resources or
affect the authority of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
under Title VIII of ANILCA, including the authority that the
Secretaries delegated to the Federal Subsistence Board. The rule does
not reopen areas closed to harvest by statute.
Background
In 1980, ANILCA established 10 national preserves, two national
monuments, and eight new or expanded national parks across Alaska.
Since enactment, the NPS has managed these units of the National Park
System (System) under a regulatory framework that recognizes multiple,
complementary state and federal authorities. The State of Alaska
manages fish and wildlife populations on all lands under state
regulations and requirements in the Alaska Constitution; the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture (through the Federal
Subsistence Management Program) currently administer the subsistence
taking and uses of fish and wildlife on federal public lands, as set
forth in ANILCA Title VIII; and the NPS manages park areas in Alaska
according to ANILCA provisions that expressly allow subsistence and
sport hunting, fishing, and trapping in national preserves and
subsistence harvest in certain specified parks and monuments according
to applicable state and federal law. As part of its management of these
areas, the NPS may close areas or restrict activities according to
Alaska-specific criteria and procedures, including consultation and
public participation requirements. See ANILCA Titles II, VIII, and
XIII; see also Alaska Dep't of Fish & Game v. Fed. Subsistence Bd., 139
F.4th 773, 779, 783-84 (9th Cir. 2025).
These provisions reflect Congress's comprehensive and intentionally
negotiated balance among competing uses, authorities, interests, and
values. In enacting ANILCA, Congress affirmed the State of Alaska's
existing authorities to manage Alaska's fish and wildlife resources and
the NPS's authority to manage for specific unit purposes, with
constraints on the discretion each manager has to close or restrict
uses authorized in ANILCA.
Implementing regulations adopted in 1981 (46 FR 31836), 1983 (48 FR
30252), and 1986 (51 FR 31619) reflected this structure and governed
Alaska park areas for more than three decades, recognizing state
management authorities, the Secretary of the Interior's (Secretary)
responsibilities in ANILCA Title VIII, including in parks and monuments
that are closed to hunting except for subsistence, and NPS's authority
to close areas and restrict activities in accordance with Alaska-
specific criteria and procedures, one of numerous unique management
directives for NPS in ANILCA. This final rule restores the regulatory
framework that governed Alaska park areas from ANILCA's passage until
the discretionary shift in 2015 to advance administration policy goals.
The rule reinstates regulations that reflect ANILCA's balanced
compromise and were designed to implement this unique, Alaska-specific
approach.
Legal Authority
The proposed rule outlined the legal authorities supporting this
action. See, e.g., 91 FR 11483, 11484 (Mar. 10, 2026). In short, ANILCA
established a clear, Alaska-specific framework in which national
preserves are managed as units of the System while expressly allowing
the harvest of fish and wildlife resources under applicable state and
federal law. Congress affirmed the State of Alaska's responsibility for
managing fish and wildlife resources except as provided in Title VIII,
limited the NPS's involvement in regulations implementing Title VIII,
and set out the statutory criteria and procedures for closures and
restrictions in Alaska park areas, particularly for subsistence uses
and other authorized harvest activities.
This framework guided the regulations adopted in the 1980s that
successfully carried out ANILCA's unique requirements for more than
three decades, until policy-driven interpretations in 2015 and 2017
departed from its balanced mandates for Alaska. This framework
continues to guide NPS in restoring that proven regulatory approach and
is the baseline for evaluating each of the amendments.
Regulatory Development
The proposed rule explores the history that led to this rule in
significant detail. See, e.g., 91 FR 11484-87. In short, ANILCA
expanded or established park areas in Alaska within an overarching
framework for managing federal lands and interests that differs from
more general and nationwide frameworks in important respects. This
means System units in Alaska have a unique management structure for
preserving nationally significant natural, cultural, scenic, and
wildlife resources as well as continuation of the Alaska way of life,
including harvesting renewable natural resources for food, clothing,
shelter, familial and cultural ties; access and transportation for
traditional activities and connecting communities; long-term use,
occupancy, and storage; and other uses Congress determined should
continue in Alaska subject to the provisions in ANILCA.
Since ANILCA, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and NPS have
implemented these provisions in regulations at 36 CFR part 13, 43 CFR
part 36, and 43 CFR part 51 (formerly at 50 CFR part 100) as follows.
1981-2014 (the established framework): NPS regulations adopted
shortly after ANILCA's passage included Alaska-specific provisions for
hunting, fishing, trapping, subsistence, access, and public
participation. Regulations recognized complementary state and federal
authorities and provided transparent criteria and procedures for
closures affecting authorized uses.
2015: Starting with a proposed rule in 2014, NPS regulations for
Alaska were amended to depart from the established framework. The 2015
amendments introduced narrower interpretations of ANILCA's provisions
to support broader application of System-wide prohibitions;
recharacterized statutory closure criteria as broader ``factors'';
reduced public engagement requirements; altered notice and consultation
procedures; and removed cross-references to applicable state and DOI
authorities. These changes marked a shift toward greater consistency
with management practices outside Alaska and broader discretion for
unit managers, rather than the Alaska-specific approach required by
ANILCA.
Public comments on the 2015 changes included significant opposition
from Alaska Native Tribes, villages,
[[Page 65987]]
corporations, and organizations. The Alaska Federation of Natives
adopted Resolution 14-42 finding the rulemaking ``overreaching, vague,
and indiscrimina[te]'' noting it ``would further criminalize Alaska
Native traditional resource management practices.'' Tanana Chiefs
Conference also opposed the rule for its potential impacts on
subsistence, member Tribes, and traditional homelands. Many commenters
observed there was no consultation or notice before publication and
procedural amendments received sparse attention.
2017: The NPS made additional revisions to its Alaska-specific
regulations to address subsistence uses of renewable natural resources.
Among other things, these changes added a permit requirement for
collecting nonedible animal parts for handicrafts; restricted methods
and types of bait used in harvesting bears for subsistence; and
prohibited collection of live raptor chicks under a falconry permit
(preempting state regulation at 5 AAC 92.037).
2020: In a 2020 rulemaking, NPS removed most of the 2015
prohibitions on state-authorized activities including harvesting bears
over bait, which was allowed from 2020 through 2024 after being
prohibited in 2015; it has been limited for federally qualified
subsistence users since 2017. In a lawsuit challenging the 2020
rulemaking, the U.S. District Court noted the 2020 rulemaking
principally concerned the relationship between the federal and state
management systems and the scope of NPS's regulatory authority, while
the administrative record reflected limited evidence of population-
level impacts under state management and the specific harvest practices
at issue. Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Haaland, 632 F. Supp. 3d 974,
996-1002 (D. Alaska 2022). The court affirmed the NPS's conclusion that
the practices reauthorized in 2020, including bear baiting, would not
adversely impact populations or interfere with NPS's statutory
obligations. Id. at 1002. The 2020 changes did not address the
procedural, interpretive, and administrative changes made in 2015 and
2017.
2024: NPS reinstated the prohibition on bear baiting in preserves,
attempted to further define ``trapping'' in ways that are unnecessarily
duplicative of the State's trapping regulations, and added an
unnecessary severability provision.
Now: Executive Order 14153 Sec. 3(b)(xix) directed rescission of
the 2024 changes and restoration of the regulations adopted in 2020.
This rule implements that direction and goes further to address the
changes in 2015 and 2017 that the 2020 rulemaking did not consider.
This rule restores the established Alaska-specific framework,
regulatory language, decision criteria, public procedures, and
underlying interpretations that implemented Congress's direction for
Alaska park areas from their establishment until the changes in 2015
and 2017. The NPS believes a return to this proven framework more
closely reflects Congress's direction by preserving subsistence uses,
local participation, and government coordination, and by providing
greater consistency, clarity, and predictability in park
administration.
Administrative Direction
As recognized in the proposed rule, 91 FR 11486, this rule's
comprehensive and updated restoration of the pre-2015 regulations is
also consistent with current Executive and Departmental policy
direction concerning Alaska, regulatory reform, public access,
subsistence uses, hunting and fishing, and coordination with state and
local partners in managing public lands.
Executive Order 14153 directs federal agencies to review and revise
actions affecting Alaska and specifically directs DOI bureaus to
consider the cultural significance of hunting and fishing in Alaska,
the priority for subsistence in ANILCA, meaningful consultation with
state resource agencies, and consistency between hunting and fishing
opportunities on federal and state lands. Secretary's Order 3422 guides
implementation through directed actions affecting Alaska and the
administration of federal lands and resources. Executive Order 14192
and Secretary's Order 3447 direct agencies to remove unnecessary
regulatory burdens, improve regulatory clarity, and strengthen
coordination with state, tribal, territorial, and local partners. The
directives in Secretary's Order 3447 are specific to hunting and
fishing on DOI-managed public lands. Restoring the established Alaska-
specific framework directly advances all of these directives.
Requests for Action
The proposed rule details the history of requests for action
related to the changes in the final rule. See 91 FR 11487. In short,
since the 2015 and 2017 changes, stakeholders have consistently raised
concerns about those amendments affecting the closure process, public
participation, consultation requirements, subsistence uses, permitting
requirements, and the relationship between Alaska-specific regulations
and System-wide regulations under ANILCA. Questions regarding the
consistency of these amendments with ANILCA and its unique roles for
federal and state managers have remained at the forefront of public
comments, letters, petitions, and litigation since 2015.
The final rule responds to these concerns through a comprehensive
review of the procedural, interpretive, and administrative amendments
adopted in 2015 and 2017 that were not reconsidered in the 2020 or 2024
rulemakings. In addition to implementing the direction in Executive
Order 14153 to rescind the 2024 rule and restore the 2020 rule, NPS
considered, among other things, the May 19, 2025, letter from Safari
Club International and the October 10, 2025, Petition for Rulemaking
submitted by the Alaska Outdoor Council, which both requested a broader
review of the changes that began in 2015 and restoration of the
established Alaska-specific provisions that endured for decades before
those changes.
Consistent with NPS's review of ANILCA's requirements for Alaska,
regulatory implementation from 1981 to 2015, the operation of NPS
regulations under subsequent amendments, public comments on the
proposed rule, and the potential environmental impacts from adopting
it, the final rule restores the established regulatory provisions that
implemented Congress's unique direction for Alaska park areas for more
than three decades, addressing issues previous rulemakings left
unresolved, with updates and clarifications in response to public
comments and NPS's further review.
Finalized Changes
By rescinding these new and modified regulations, the NPS restores
the Alaska-specific procedures for restricting activities and closing
park areas to public use, entry, and access to the language and
procedures in 36 CFR part 13 in effect before the changes made in 2015,
which further restores alignments with the Alaska-specific procedures
for access in 43 CFR part 36. This rule removes the changes made
through the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rulemakings that ultimately reduced
public engagement, omitted required consultation with the State, and
allowed for discretionary closures without the unique criteria and
procedures previously established in the DOI and NPS regulations for
Alaska park areas to comply with ANILCA. This rule maintains the NPS's
authority to limit use, entry, and access through those criteria and
procedures.
[[Page 65988]]
Consistent with FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
515-16 (2009), NPS acknowledges its awareness this rule represents a
change in position from that taken in the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules.
For the reasons discussed here and in detail in the proposed rule, 91
FR 11489, the NPS concludes this rule: (1) is permissible under ANILCA
and the NPS Organic Act, which allow for the state-regulated harvest
activities and procedural protections this rule restores; (2) is better
than the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules because it returns to the fixed
durational limits, consultation requirements, locally targeted notice
and hearing requirements, and other longstanding, Alaska-specific
criteria and procedures rather than relying on System-wide standards
and electronic notifications; and (3) is supported by good reasons,
including public comments from subsistence users and Alaska Native
organizations supporting removal of the 2017 permit requirements. The
NPS has finalized these conclusions after reviewing public comments and
preparing the final rule.
With specified exceptions for unrelated changes, the NPS restores
its long-standing Alaska-specific regulations at 36 CFR part 13 by
rescinding:
<bullet> changes made in 2015 that were not changed in 2020,
including,
[cir] changes to the Alaska-specific closure process, including
reduced public engagement, discretionary timelines, and subjective new
``factors'' beyond the specified criteria for closure in ANILCA,
[cir] narrowed interpretations of Congress's balanced mandates for
Alaska to support broader application of System-wide prohibitions and
policies,
[cir] removal of references to applicable state and federal
authorities, and
[cir] revisions to Sec. 13.490 that facilitated the 2017
preemption of subsistence uses regulated through state and federal
board processes that are open to the public and NPS participation in
decision-making, not merely for consultation prior to preemptive action
of unlimited duration;
<bullet> most changes made in 2017, unless it provides relevant
clarification that advances implementation of ANILCA's balanced
mandates for Alaska, including,
[cir] a more appropriately detailed definition of ``customary
trade'', and,
[cir] a definition for ``handicraft'' as a term used in the
definition of ``customary trade'' with distinguishing features from the
referenced definition in DOI regulations; and
<bullet> changes made in 2024, in their entirety.
Based on a review of the full record, including comments on the
proposed rule, the NPS has determined that reverting to its pre-2015
regulations is a substantial improvement over the changes that began in
2015 that fundamentally altered the unique management framework
Alaskans relied on following ANILCA. For the reasons stated above and
in the proposed rule, 91 FR 11483, the NPS rescinds the regulatory
changes made in 2015 that were not rescinded in 2020; changes made in
2017, with the exception of the definitions for ``customary trade'' and
``handicraft'', which are retained; and the changes made in 2024. The
rule also makes targeted updates to reflect subsequent developments,
like the relocation of the Federal Subsistence Management Program to
the Office of the Secretary and its regulations from 50 CFR part 100 to
43 CFR part 51, and incorporates clarifying revisions in response to
public comments.
I. Hunting and Trapping--Sec. 13.40 (Restored) and Sec. 13.42
(Removed)
The rule restores pre-2015 language governing the harvest of fish
and wildlife in national preserves, including the requirement that non-
emergency closures to non-subsistence uses become effective only after
the superintendent consults with the appropriate state agency and
representatives of affected users. Section 13.42, added in 2015 and
amended in 2017 and 2024, is deleted in its entirety.
II. Harvesting Bears Over Bait--Restrictions Removed for All Users
NPS acknowledges this aspect of the rule represents a change in
position from the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules, which prohibited or
limited using bait to harvest bears. Consistent with FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 556 at 515-16, NPS provides the following
analysis.
(a) Authority. Allowing the harvest of bears over bait under state
regulations in effect since 1982 is permissible under ANILCA and the
NPS Organic Act. ANILCA expressly allows hunting in national preserves
under applicable state and federal law. The district court confirmed
NPS's conclusion that the 2020 allowance would not adversely impact
wildlife populations or contravene NPS's statutory duties. Alaska
Wildlife Alliance, 632 F. Supp. 3d at 993. No new data has emerged
since that decision indicating this regulated harvest activity will
have population-level effects. The NPS maintains management authority,
including closure authority under the Alaska-specific criteria and
procedures restored in this rule, consistent with ANILCA to address any
issues that might arise.
(b) Improvements. The 2015 and 2024 prohibitions were based
primarily on public safety concerns and NPS policy favoring natural
wildlife behaviors and ecosystem dynamics. On review, neither basis
supports categorical prohibition. Regarding public safety, NPS
estimates no more than 10 bears per year (2 black bears, up to 8 brown
bears) will be harvested over bait across all national preserves,
consistent with historical levels from 1982 through 2015 and from 2020
through 2024. State regulations require permits; minimum setbacks from
roads, trails, dwellings, and public facilities; registration of bait
stations with the State; and completion of a bear baiting clinic. 5 AAC
92.044. The Alaska Board of Game has stated it has no information on
bear baiting causing public safety concerns and found no fact-based
support for that concern in any state that allows the practice. The one
study cited in the 2024 rule (Herrero 2018) is, on further review,
relevant only to human-bear conflicts at campgrounds and other
congregation points, not remote bait stations. NPS is not aware of
safety incidents from bait stations established in unauthorized
locations within Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve. NPS Management
Policies Sec. 8.2.5 recognizes that not all hazards in areas managed
as natural environments can be eliminated; a categorical prohibition is
not required to manage residual risk. Regarding natural conditions, the
district court's 2022 decision confirmed that bear baiting does not
contravene NPS's statutory duties. The Alaska Board of Game has stated
that bear baiting tends to focus harvest on mature bears while avoiding
female and immature bears, making it compatible with sustainable
population management.
(c) Reliance interests. The 2015 prohibition was in effect from
2015 to 2020, lifted from 2020 to 2024, and reimposed from 2024 to the
present. This demonstrates that reliance on any particular rule was
limited after 2015. Conservation interests supporting the 2015 and 2024
prohibitions do not have a sufficient reliance interest to override the
analysis above. The NPS will continue to monitor harvest and visitor
safety and retains full authority to, among other things, close
specific areas if a documented concern arises meeting the criteria in
Sec. 13.50 and Sec. 13.490.
(d) Factual findings. To the extent the 2015 amendments expressed
concern that state regulations do not adequately
[[Page 65989]]
address public safety risks from bear baiting, state requirements for
permits, setbacks, and educational clinics partially mitigate those
risks. To the extent the 2024 rule relied on the Herrero study and an
informal survey of bear biologists, the NPS does not rely on those
findings because: (1) the study is inapplicable to remote bait
stations; (2) the biologist survey addressed theoretical risks without
reference to actual documented incidents in Alaska; and (3) the State
of Alaska's decades of operational experience without documented public
safety incidents are more probative than speculation without context or
data.
III. Definition of Trapping--Sec. 13.1 (Restored)
The definition of ``trapping'' in Sec. 13.1 was amended in 2024 to
define the circumstances where individuals may use firearms to take
similarly redefined ``furbearers'' under a state trapping license.
State regulations at 5 AAC 92.075(d) and 92.095(a)(8) already address
these circumstances and no basis exists for NPS to impose a duplicative
and unnecessary regulation. The rule restores the former definition for
``trapping'' and removes the definition of ``furbearer'' as unnecessary
under the restoration. This change eliminates a regulatory burden that
lacks a corresponding management benefit, and is consistent with
direction in Executive Order 14192 to remove unnecessary regulations
and in Executive Order 14153 to maximize consistency in harvest
opportunities across public lands.
IV. Live Wildlife Collection/Falconry--Sec. 13.42(j) (Removed)
The 2017 rule added Sec. 13.42(j) which prohibited the regulated
collection of live raptor chicks in national preserves on the basis
that such activities are not ``hunting or trapping'' and are therefore
subject to System-wide prohibition at 36 CFR 2.2(a)(2). This conclusion
is not consistent with Congress's direction for national preserves in
Alaska. The State of Alaska manages falconry under 5 AAC 92.037, which
requires permits and applies on all public lands in Alaska. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service manages migratory raptors under 50 CFR 21.82
and 21.85, which authorize chick collection under state permits.
Removing Sec. 13.42(j) restores the pre-2017 framework and recognizes
the adequate management of falconry activities by the State and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The NPS requested input on any documented
management need for this prohibition, and public comments did not
identify impacts or concerns to justify retaining it.
V. Subsistence Collection--Sec. 13.482 (Removed) and Sec. 13.485
(Revised)
As noted before and elsewhere, this rule does not alter the federal
subsistence priority established in ANILCA, Federal Subsistence
Management Program regulations, or ANILCA's rural preference for
qualified users on federal public lands. The 2017 rule added Sec.
13.482, which created a mandatory permit system for collecting
nonedible animal parts for use in handicrafts for barter and customary
trade. This permit requirement was opposed by nearly every commenter
representing subsistence users and Alaska Native organizations in the
2017 rulemaking, who noted the activity was already authorized under
ANILCA, the permit added burdens for subsistence users who already must
hold federally qualified status, the most common collection method is
opportunistic gathering and is incompatible with a permit system
requiring advance authorization, and subsistence users had been engaged
for nearly a decade in good faith in the regulatory process only to
receive additional restrictions rather than the clarification they
sought.
Removing Sec. 13.482 does not prohibit the uses it addressed;
collection of animal parts for handicrafts remains authorized under
ANILCA Title VIII and applicable federal regulations. The permit
requirement and any conditions attached to it are removed. The removal
of this permit requirement is a deregulatory action that will benefit
subsistence users by removing unnecessary administrative burdens. The
definition of ``animal parts'' in Sec. 13.420 is likewise removed as
unnecessary, while the definitions of ``customary trade'' and
``handicraft'' are retained with minor technical edits to align with
federal regulations at 43 CFR part 51, with NPS-specific modifications
including products made from plant materials and excluding trophies or
European mounts of horns or antlers. Section 13.485(b) is revised to
restore pre-2017 language authorizing noncommercial gathering of plant
materials and dead or downed timber for firewood without a permit.
VI. Closure and Restriction Procedures--Sec. 13.50 (Restored)
The 2015 rule significantly revised closure procedures in ways that
reduced public engagement, eliminated durational requirements, removed
specific notice methods essential to local rural residents, and
recharacterized statutory ``criteria'' as discretionary ``factors.''
This rule restores the pre-2015 procedures, as follows.
(a) Emergency closures: 30-day maximum; may not be extended.
Emergency closures affecting harvest of fish and wildlife resources
require notice and hearing before taking effect. Other emergency
closures take effect on notice.
(b) Temporary closures: affecting fish or wildlife harvest requires
notice and hearing in the affected vicinity and other appropriate
locations before taking effect. Other temporary closures take effect on
notice. Maximum duration of 12 months may not be extended.
(c) Permanent closures: published as rulemaking in the Federal
Register with a minimum 60-day public comment period and public
hearings in the affected area and other appropriate locations.
(d) Notice requirements: all closures and restrictions shall be
published in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the state
and at least one local newspaper where available; posted at community
post offices in the affected vicinity; made available for broadcast on
local radio stations in a manner reasonably calculated to inform
residents in the affected vicinity; and designated on a map available
for public inspection at the superintendent's office and other
convenient locations. The proposed rule language has been revised
slightly (replacing an ``or'' with ``and') to confirm that all of these
notice methods must be utilized in addition to the posting of
appropriate signs.
(e) Openings: Federal Register notice required with hearings on
request in the affected vicinity and other appropriate locations before
a final determination.
(f) Facility closures and restrictions: restored as a distinct
category with defined criteria (public health, safety, and protection
of public property), duration (limited to the circumstance requiring
closure), and notice requirements.
These restorations directly respond to concerns from rural Alaska
residents and communities that the changes in 2015 to rely on website
postings and discretionary notice were inadequate to inform residents
of changes affecting subsistence and harvest activities in remote
areas. Fixed durations and defined criteria provide predictability,
consultation requirements restore meaningful government engagement, and
hearing requirements restore opportunities to engage decision-makers
before closures take effect.
[[Page 65990]]
VII. Subsistence Provisions --Sec. Sec. 13.400, 13.470, 13.480, 13.490
(Restored)
As stated elsewhere, this rule does not alter the federal
subsistence priority established in ANILCA, Federal Subsistence
Management Program regulations, or ANILCA's rural preference for
qualified users on federal public lands. Section 13.400 is revised to
add clarifying language confirming that the regulations in subpart F
governing subsistence uses apply to local rural residents and others
authorized to conduct those activities, and recognizing that Alaska
laws relating to the taking of fish and wildlife apply within park
areas to the extent consistent with applicable federal law, including
ANILCA and 43 CFR part 51.
The rule restores references to applicable state law in Sec. Sec.
13.470 (subsistence fishing) and 13.480 (subsistence hunting and
trapping) to ensure subsistence users can conduct these activities in
compliance with applicable state and federal law, as was the case under
regulations in effect from 1981 through 2015 for park areas.
Section 13.490 is revised to restore the requirement for adequate
notice and public hearing in the affected vicinity and other
appropriate locations before the superintendent temporarily closes a
park area to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife. Consultation with
the Federal Subsistence Board and provisions for temporary closures are
retained, including the duration standard (``only so long as reasonably
necessary to achieve the purposes of the closure'').
Section 13.1902(d), which imposed bait restrictions on subsistence
bear harvest at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, is
removed.
VIII. Clarifications in Response to Comments--Sec. Sec. 13.35 and
13.400 (Revised)
Minor clarifying language is added to structural provisions at
Sec. Sec. 13.35 and 13.400 to confirm that limitations generally
applicable to park visitors do not generally apply to subsistence
users. Alaska park areas operate under ANILCA's balanced mandates in
addition to System-wide direction. These revisions respond to concerns
about confusion over which rules apply to subsistence users as they
cross jurisdictional boundaries.
IX. Severability--Sec. 13.42(k) (Removed)
The 2024 Rule added a severability provision the NPS has determined
is unnecessary and it is not retained in this rule. Notwithstanding the
NPS having determined that a stand-alone severability provision is
unnecessary to include in the 36 CFR part 13 regulations, the NPS
intends the provisions of this final rule to be severable. If any
provision of this rule, or the application of any provision to any
person or circumstance, is held invalid, the NPS intends that the
remainder of the rule and its application to other persons or
circumstances remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Final Rule
For the reasons stated above, the NPS rescinds the regulatory
changes in 2015 that were not rescinded in 2020, the changes in 2017
except the definitions for ``customary trade'' and ``handicraft'' in 36
CFR 13.420, and the changes in 2024 in their entirety, and makes other
minor improvements. Rescinding the changes restores management of
Alaska park areas to the framework in effect since passage of ANILCA
and restores the Congressionally directed state and federal authorities
for management of hunting, fishing, and trapping as practiced in Alaska
since statehood. The following table illustrates these changes and how
the final rule compares to the established and modified frameworks.
Table 1--Summary of Key Regulatory Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former framework
Regarding (before 2015) 2015/2017/2024 changes 2026 final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting and trapping in national Allowed under Added prohibitions on Restores pre-2015
preserves. applicable federal and specific state- framework; removes
non[dash]conflicting authorized harvest prohibition not
state law and activities. rescinded in 2020.
regulations.
Bear baiting......................... Allowed for all user Prohibited (2015); Allowed for all user
groups under state law limits for subsistence groups under state
(since 1982). (2017); allowed law.
(2020); prohibited
(2024).
Emergency closures or restrictions-- 30-day maximum Extended to 60 days for 30-day maximum
duration. duration; not fish/wildlife harvest duration; not
extendable. closures; no maximum extendable.
for other emergencies.
Emergency closures or restrictions-- Required before Removed................ Required before
hearing. closures affecting closures affecting
fish/wildlife harvest. fish/wildlife harvest.
Temporary closures or restrictions-- 12-month maximum No identified maximum 12-month maximum
duration. duration; not duration. duration; not
extendable. extendable.
Temporary closures or restrictions-- Required in affected Removed................ Required in affected
hearing. vicinity and other vicinity and other
appropriate locations. appropriate locations.
Closure or restriction notice--local Required notice in Optional............... Required notice in
news. state and regional state and regional
newspaper, if newspaper, if
available, and on available, and on
local radio stations. local radio stations.
Closure or restriction notice--post Required posting in Optional; Provided when Required posting in
offices. local post offices. reasonably likely to local post offices.
inform residents in
the affected vicinity.
Closure or restriction notice--map... Required publicly Optional............... Required publicly
available map. available map.
Closure or restriction notice--NPS Optional............... Required written Optional.
website. determination posted
on NPS website.
Permanent closures or restrictions-- Federal Register Federal Register notice Federal Register
public comment. notice, 60-day minimum if specific criteria notice, 60-day minimum
public comment period, are met, no required public comment period,
hearings on request. minimum public comment hearings on request.
period length.
Openings............................. Federal Register Federal Register notice Federal Register
notice, hearings on if specific criteria notice, hearings on
request. are met. request.
Facility closures.................... Separate process with Removed................ Separate process with
criteria, duration, criteria, duration,
notice. notice.
[[Page 65991]]
Subsistence collection of animal Allowed without a Allowed with a permit, Allowed without a
parts. permit. defined ``animal permit; no regulatory
parts'' (2017). definition of ``animal
parts''.
Falconry/live raptor collection...... Allowed under state and Prohibited (2017)...... Allowed under state and
federal permits. federal permits.
Definition of ``Trapping''........... Based on taking Based on taking Based on taking
furbearers under a furbearers under a furbearers under a
trapping license. trapping license; trapping license.
firearm use during
trapping defined
(2024).
Subsistence fishing--methods......... Must comply with state Removed references to Must comply with state
and federal law. state law and applied and federal law.
nationwide regulatory
prohibitions.
Subsistence hunting/trapping......... Must comply with state Removed references to Must comply with state
and federal law. state law. and federal law.
Definitions of ``subsistence uses'', Defined ``subsistence Revised definitions and No changes to pre-2015
``customary trade'', and uses'', including added definition of definition of
``handicraft''. ``customary trade''. ``handicraft'' (2017). ``subsistence uses''
or 2017 definitions of
``customary trade''
and ``handicraft''.
Subsistence closures--consultation... Consult with State Consult with State and Consult with State and
before closures take Federal Subsistence Federal Subsistence
effect. Board before closures Board before closures
take effect. take effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language has been added to address changes in circumstances, like
relocation of the Federal Subsistence Management Program into the
Office of the Secretary, and to respond to public comments, including
concerns from subsistence users about which rules apply to which user
groups. Ministerial edits have been made to the regulatory text that is
being restored to conform to current Federal Register drafting
standards.
Summary and Responses to Public Comments.
On March 10, 2026, the NPS published the proposed rule in the
Federal Register (91 FR 11483). The proposed rule was open for an
initial 30-day public comment period. The NPS extended the comment
period on April 10, 2026, (91 FR 18340) in response to several requests
for more time to review the proposal. In total, the comment period was
open for 46 days. The comment period closed on April 24, 2026. The NPS
invited comments through the mail, hand delivery, and through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
The NPS received 5,172 comments on the proposed rule, including
submissions from organizations representing more than 48,000 collective
signatories. A summary of the pertinent issues raised in the comments
received and NPS responses are provided below.
Statutory Consistency and Priorities
1. Comment: Several commenters stated the proposed rule and its
approach to management are inconsistent with NPS's obligations under
the law, including the NPS Organic Act, Wilderness Act, and ANILCA,
arguing that National Park System units must be managed to prioritize
conservation and natural processes over consumptive uses.
NPS Response: Through ANILCA, Congress mandated that consumptive
uses such as subsistence and sport hunting, fishing, and trapping be
allowed in Alaska's national preserves under applicable state and
federal law and that certain parks and monuments be available for
subsistence uses. ANILCA Sec. Sec. 203, 1313, and 1314. The
continuation of these activities is one of the intrinsic values
Congress saw in establishing preserves in Alaska as distinct from parks
and monuments, where hunting would only continue for federally
qualified users in specified areas. In its report on the language that
became ANILCA through a negotiated compromise with the U.S. House of
Representatives, the U.S. Senate Committee for Energy and Natural
Resources explained this intentional approach:
Like the House-passed bill, the Committee amendment directs that
a preserve be managed as a national park except that all forms of
hunting be permitted to continue. This includes sport, subsistence,
and guided hunting . . . . The Committee also adopted an amendment
clarifying that trapping shall be allowed in national preserves and
that the statutory requirement that the taking of fish and wildlife
be allowed does not deprive the Secretary of his traditional
authority to close public lands located within conservation system
units to the taking of fish and wildlife under statutory criteria.
In allowing trapping to continue within preserves, it was not the
intent of the Committee to allow exploitative forms of commercial
trapping to occur. The intent of the committee is to allow
individual Alaskans to continue to operate their own trap lines
within the preserves, even though those individuals might not
qualify as subsistence users . . . . The Secretary, through the
National Park Service, is expected to monitor trapping operations
within the preserves and the associated wildlife populations and
issue appropriate regulations to insure that exploitative forms of
trapping do not take place and that there is no substantial or
permanent harm to the wildlife populations. S. Rep. 96-413, 96th
Cong. 1st Sess. 1979, at 307-308.
Some concerns with accommodating these and other consumptive use
mandates rest on the premise that managing for natural processes under
the NPS Organic Act and Wilderness Act is an exclusive, independent
standard from other applicable laws. That premise does not hold for the
areas established and expanded under ANILCA, which referenced both laws
in specifying which uses are allowed, grounds for restricting them, and
procedures to enact those restrictions. Regulatory expectations
discussed by the committee, such as allowing activities necessary to
conduct consumptive uses and limits only where monitoring shows
exploitation or substantial harm, are the ways Congress defined
resource protection for these areas given the unique Alaska context. In
implementing those expectations, the final rule is not deprioritizing a
natural processes standard in favor of consumptive uses, it is applying
the standards Congress wrote for Alaska park areas.
2. Comment: In Title VIII of ANILCA, Congress established a federal
priority for customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife
resources by rural residents on federal public lands and
[[Page 65992]]
certain waters in Alaska. Commenters raised concerns that proposed
changes would diminish the federal subsistence priority by allowing
state-regulated harvest activities in national preserves, potentially
increasing competition for subsistence resources with insufficient
attention to subsistence users and their expertise, perspective, and
needs.
NPS Response: The federal subsistence priority for rural Alaska
residents cannot be diminished or overridden by state law or NPS
regulation. ANILCA Title VIII and Federal Subsistence Board regulations
are unchanged and addressed in this rulemaking through the restored and
updated language. The final rule acknowledges subsistence opportunities
and preferences are available in certain Alaska park areas under both
federal and state regulations, and that NPS's authority is contingent
on the Alaska-specific criteria and procedures in ANILCA.
While the State cannot implement ANILCA's rural preference under
the state constitution, it remains an important manager of Alaska's
fish and wildlife resources on federal lands, including harvest
seasons, methods, means, limits, and other regulations. This authority
was affirmed in the Alaska Statehood Act, again in section 1314 of
ANILCA, and is recognized in implementing regulations for wildlife
refuges at 50 CFR 36.11. On all lands, Alaska law requires that, if a
portion of a stock or population can be harvested consistent with
sustained yield principles, a reasonable opportunity will be provided
with a preference for subsistence uses that applies to all Alaska
residents.
The Federal Subsistence Board, in cooperation with Subsistence
Regional Advisory Councils, Subsistence Resource Commissions, the NPS,
the public, local experts, Tribes, other federal land managers, and the
State of Alaska carries out the Secretary's responsibilities under
Title VIII of ANILCA, which include ensuring: the continuation of
subsistence uses by rural residents on federal public lands; rural
residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and requirements
have a meaningful role in the management of fish and wildlife and of
subsistence uses on the public lands in Alaska; and rural residents
engaged in subsistence uses have reasonable access to subsistence
resources on the public lands. The NPS has the authority to preempt
state law where necessary to implement the NPS Organic Act, Wilderness
Act, ANILCA, and other statutory direction. The NPS has not found it
necessary to exercise that authority in issuing this rule.
The Secretary's delegation of authority to the Federal Subsistence
Board is to administer the subsistence taking and uses of fish and
wildlife on public lands and the related promulgation and signature
authority for regulations in subparts C and D of 43 CFR part 51 and 36
CFR part 242. The Board is empowered, to the extent necessary, to
implement Title VIII of ANILCA, to undertake various actions as set
forth in 43 CFR 51.10(d)(4) and 36 CFR 242.10(d)(4), including the
following:
<bullet> issue regulations for the management of subsistence taking
and uses of fish and wildlife on public lands;
<bullet> allocate subsistence uses of fish and wildlife populations
on public lands;
<bullet> ensure that the taking on public lands of fish and
wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority
over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes;
<bullet> restrict the taking of fish and wildlife on public lands
for nonsubsistence uses or closing public lands to the take of fish and
wildlife for nonsubsistence uses when necessary for the conservation of
healthy populations of fish or wildlife, to continue subsistence uses
of fish or wildlife, or for reasons of public safety or administration;
<bullet> restrict the taking of a particular fish or wildlife
population on public lands for subsistence uses, closing public lands
to the take of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses, or otherwise
modifying the requirements for take from a particular fish or wildlife
population on public lands for subsistence uses when necessary to
ensure the continued viability of a fish or wildlife population, or for
reasons of public safety or administration;
<bullet> establish priorities for the subsistence taking of fish
and wildlife on public lands among rural Alaska residents;
<bullet> restrict or eliminate taking of fish and wildlife on
public lands; and
<bullet> determine what types and forms of trade of fish and
wildlife taken for subsistence uses constitute allowable customary
trade.
Of note, however, the Federal Subsistence Board's regulations do
not authorize subsistence uses in Glacier Bay National Park, Kenai
Fjords National Park, Katmai National Park, and that portion of Denali
National Park established as Mt. McKinley National Park prior to
passage of ANILCA, where subsistence taking and uses are prohibited. 43
CFR 51.3(a); 36 CFR 242.3(a). Also, the subsistence regulations in 43
CFR part 51 do not supersede agency-specific regulations. Id. State and
federal regulations can be in effect in the same area unless the
Federal Subsistence Board or the NPS have closed or restricted use of
the area by non-federally qualified users or to all harvest or entry.
Changes made to NPS regulations in 2015 to support the preemption
of state law in national preserves removed language recognizing this
unique partnership of authorities and procedures. The restored and
updated language in the final rule clarifies that federally qualified
users can continue subsistence uses of fish and wildlife regulated by
state and federal boards consistent with NPS regulations, including
Alaska-specific procedures for area closures and user restrictions.
Under the final rule, Alaskans and others can continue making board
proposals and guide the management of customary and traditional uses
without encountering the discretionary permissions and automatic
preemptions added for certain park areas in 2015 and 2017. Public use
will continue to be managed in Alaska park areas in accordance with
federal law and, under the final rule, more specifically in accordance
with the criteria and procedures in ANILCA.
To ensure federally qualified subsistence users are unaffected or
benefited by these changes, the final rule adds clarifying revisions to
36 CFR 13.35 and 13.400. These revisions confirm general limitations
for park visitors do not apply to federally qualified users engaged in
subsistence, including those defined as ``local rural residents'' in
Sec. 13.420 and other authorized users (e.g., those with a federal
harvest permit from another bureau or agency). The rule restores the
regulatory framework adopted immediately after ANILCA's passage, when,
as now, the State did not have a program to implement the mandates in
Title VIII, see 46 FR 31836, 31839, 31860-62 (June 17, 1981). The text
is updated as needed to reflect the development of a federal program to
carry out those mandates.
3. Comment: A number of commenters opposed deferring to the State
of Alaska in managing fish and wildlife resources, noting authorized
practices may conflict with federal mandates for the NPS. Conversely,
comments were received asserting the State is the appropriate and legal
administrator of fish and wildlife resources on all lands in Alaska,
with exceptions that do not apply in this
[[Page 65993]]
rulemaking, and that direction to align federal and state regulations
will have positive effects.
NPS Response: The NPS does not ``defer'' to the State of Alaska in
implementing federal mandates. As explained above, the State manages
fish and wildlife on all lands in Alaska except as specifically
modified by Congress, and the NPS manages System units consistent with
the Alaska-specific criteria, procedures, and priorities outlined in
ANILCA. In adopting the clarifying amendment that became ANILCA Sec.
1314, the Senate Committee stated:
This Section, adopted as a Committee Amendment, preserves the
status quo with regard to the responsibility and authority of the
State to manage fish and wildlife, and reconciles this authority
with the Act, including the subsistence title. At the same time, the
Section confirms the status quo with regard to the authority of the
Secretary to manage the wildlife habitat on federal lands. The
Section also clarifies that fishing shall be permitted in national
parks and monuments and that subsistence uses shall be permitted
where specifically provided by the Act. S. Rep. 96-413, at 308.
The ``status quo'' division of state-federal authorities in Sec.
1314 is primarily about resource management and not about implementing
Title VIII. It was in effect when the final rule language was initially
adopted in 1981, a few months after ANILCA's passage; in 1982, when the
Secretary approved the State's program to administer the federal
subsistence priority; in 1985, when the Secretary intervened during the
program's compliance issues (outside of parks and monuments); in 1989,
when a state court found the State's program violated the Alaska
Constitution; and in 1990, when the Federal Subsistence Management
Program was established to administer the priority. Despite these
shifts, the state-federal authorities Congress established for Alaska
did not change, including NPS's limited role and responsibilities under
ANILCA. The final rule acknowledges establishment of the federal
program, updates references to its newly relocated regulations in 43
CFR part 51, and restores the ``status quo'' language that provided
decades of stability for all park users.
The final rule also improves consistency for hunting and fishing
across DOI-administered lands in Alaska, as directed in Secretary's
Order 3447 Sec. 4(b)(3), while preserving the distinctions for
National Park System units outlined in ANILCA and other laws. In
enacting a single, comprehensive law governing all the federal lands in
one state, Congress was able to build consistencies into jurisdictional
landscapes in Alaska, and, shortly after ANILCA's passage, similar
regulatory language was adopted for managing public uses in Alaska's
national preserves and wildlife refuges based on similar or the same
provisions. See 46 FR 31818, 31819 (June 17, 1981); 46 FR 31836. With
the Congressionally directed restoration of regulations for wildlife
refuges in 2017, this final rule solidifies the long-standing
alignments in Congress' design. Revisions in the final rule will
simplify compliance and enforcement by making it easier for eligible
users to cross jurisdictional boundaries while harvesting under state
or federal regulations in Alaska's wildlife refuges and preserves and
under federal regulations in other park areas (as noted above, Klondike
Gold Rush and Sitka national historical parks, Katmai and Kenai Fjords
national parks, and parts of Denali National Park are closed to harvest
by law).
Conservation and Public Use
4. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern the proposed rule
would harm tourism, asserting that hunting and trapping can reduce
opportunities for non-consumptive uses and damage Alaska's reputation
as a destination for wildlife viewing and photography.
NPS Response: Section 1313 of ANILCA recognizes that, for national
preserves in Alaska, ``the Secretary may designate zones where and
periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted
for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal
protection, or public use and enjoyment.'' Understanding that all of
these reasons have implications for tourism, and using the best
available information, including diverse and meaningful experiences
shared by park users in their comments on the proposed rule, the NPS
has not found evidence that regulated harvest impairs or is likely to
impair opportunities for non-consumptive uses in Alaska's park areas.
Most areas where harvest occurs are highly remote, with few if any
overlapping uses. A number of factors affect successful wildlife
viewing for all user groups in all areas where animals largely dictate
the encounter. Populations in Alaska park areas have been targeted by
hunters and trappers for millennia and demonstrate significant
variations in tolerance levels for humans regardless of their activity.
Environmental analyses prepared for the 2015, 2020, and 2024 Alaska-
specific rulemakings did not identify a correlation between harvest
activities addressed in those rules and measurable impacts in wildlife
viewing opportunities across Alaska park areas. To the extent harvest
activities affect visitor experiences, those effects are more likely to
be location-specific rather than indicative of a broader reduction in
non-consumptive recreational opportunities across Alaska park areas.
Limiting one user group without impacting other user experiences could
contribute to the problem those limits are looking to resolve (e.g.,
reducing user conflicts and barriers for allowed uses). The final rule
maintains ANILCA's balanced mandates for federal public lands in
Alaska.
5. Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that harvest methods
authorized by the State of Alaska and available under state law will
impact natural ecosystem dynamics, like predator-prey relationships and
pack formations. A smaller number of commenters opposed all state-
regulated harvest opportunities as potentially incompatible with or a
violation of conservation purposes and values.
NPS Response: As explained in the response to Comment 3, Congress
restricted the NPS's general management authority over hunting,
fishing, or trapping in Alaska park areas; it affirmed the State's
existing authority; and it provided that, when NPS uses its management
authority to close areas to allowed uses, it must meet certain
requirements, including ``consultation with the appropriate State
agency having responsibility over hunting, fishing, and trapping
activities.'' ANILCA Sec. 1313 (cross-referencing Sec. 816, where
unit manager discretion to restrict regulated harvest by federally
qualified subsistence users is further restricted).
State and federal managers have defined roles and enforcement
obligations that work together for the safe, responsible management of
Alaska's public lands. Under the final rule, NPS continues to steward
habitats, protect resources, and implement closures when statutory
criteria and procedures are met, in consultation with the State, which
continues to establish harvest methods and other regulations in
managing populations for sustainability under the Alaska Constitution.
When the State and NPS work together to meet these interconnected
obligations, the Federal Subsistence Management Program is more
effective in exercising its delegated authority to regulate subsistence
uses under ANILCA Title VIII, including necessary closures. Directing
comments, proposals, and information on harvest activities to state
[[Page 65994]]
officials and established processes, including the Alaska Boards of
Fisheries and Game, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the
Alaska State Legislature, or to the Federal Subsistence Board, will
ensure that input is considered in the venues where population
management decisions and policies are made for Alaska.
Some commenters view this intersectional management collaboration
using each organization's respective authorities as a prohibited form
of deference, as noted in Comment 3, or as an abdication of NPS's duty
to allow for natural processes and ecosystem dynamics and to protect
fish and wildlife resources for future generations, as noted in Comment
1. Many argued NPS should take a stronger position in shaping harvest
regulations that affect Alaska park areas, including through
discretionary preemption based on administrative criteria and values,
which the restored and updated language in the final rule would not
support. The NPS has the authority to preempt state law where necessary
to implement the NPS Organic Act, Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and other
statutory direction. The NPS has not found it necessary to exercise
that authority in issuing this rule.
As explained in the detailed preamble for changes to NPS
regulations in 2020, 85 FR 35181 (June 9, 2020), regulated harvest in
Alaska cannot legally function as a predator control program, which can
only be conducted under specific requirements in federal and state law
and have not been authorized in Alaska park areas. The NPS believes the
final rule language is more consistent with balanced statutory mandates
for Alaska, for the reasons explained in this rulemaking and based on
decades of proven workability and cooperation toward science-based,
user-informed conservation objectives.
6. Comment: Regarding the NPS's closure authorities, a large number
of comments specifically opposed the use of bait in harvesting bears,
sharing ethical concerns and potential risks to wildlife populations
and public safety.
NPS Response: Harvest methods are established under applicable
state and federal regulations that are continuously refined through
regional input and monitoring. These regulations, and the publicly
accountable processes that create and rigorously maintain them, define
ethical practices from a management standpoint. The NPS is committed to
its ongoing participation in these defined regulatory processes, as a
stakeholder and a resource manager with independent authorities, and to
continuing to work collaboratively with the public, subsistence users,
gateway communities, Alaska Native Tribes and corporations, other
federal agencies, and the State in executing distinct and shared
responsibilities in a transparent and consistent manner based on our
respective authorities.
Harvesting bears over bait has been regulated across Alaska since
1982 with no evidence of notable public safety incidents or population-
level impacts. To the contrary, this harvest method can be effective at
targeting animals with an established tolerance for human activities,
which are more likely to be involved in an incident, and to close the
distance and expand the time available for targeting a particular sex
or age class, which is a key consideration in managing populations for
sustainability. Analysis supporting the rule's determinations is set
out in detail in Section II of the ``Finalized Changes'' section above.
The NPS will continue to monitor and may close areas if a specific
concern arises using the appropriate criteria and procedures in ANILCA.
Comments submitted on the proposed rule and in previous rulemakings
provide detailed data and analyses that support NPS's conclusion this
state-authorized activity is not detrimental to wildlife conservation
and public safety at current levels.
Procedural Issues
7. Comment: Commenters questioned whether the rulemaking process
meets the procedural requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, and section 810 of ANILCA, sharing
concerns about sufficiency, rationale, and transparency.
NPS Response: With this final rule and associated decision-making
materials, including an environmental assessment and section 810 of
ANILCA analysis, the NPS has fully complied with all applicable
procedural requirements. The rule is supported by a detailed
administrative record, including the above-referenced analyses, public
notice and comment and consultations with state officials, tribal
governments, and Alaska Native corporations. This is not to imply that
input provided during the comment period and consultations is uniformly
supportive of the final rule, from a substantive perspective, only
that, from a procedural perspective, that input was fully considered in
developing the final rule.
8. Comment: Some commenters found the proposed rule unclear and
potentially misleading without more information, with recurring
concerns that certain provisions could lead to unintentional loopholes,
inconsistent application in the field, and challenges in determining
where rules apply. Commenters did not find the proposed rule made it
clear what is changing for Alaska park areas.
NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that confusion can occur in any
rulemaking process and has endeavored in its outreach efforts to focus
on providing accurate and detailed information in open dialogue, and
comments expressing confusion have influenced NPS's approach to
modifications and explanations in this final rule.
One area of confusion revolves around the amount of language being
changed, with a rulemaking format that makes it hard to compare
versions of the regulation, and which appears to be inconsistent with
NPS's statement it is making minor changes. Although the proposed and
final rules contain substantial text showing edits, much of this
language is not new, not all of it represents a change to current
language and most of it reflects long-standing regulations in place for
more than 30 years. The main goal is to make a single change across
multiple provisions: a return to the framework that more closely
adheres to ANILCA's requirements in implementing its mandates for
Alaska park areas. Changes to the restored regulations reflect changes
in the governing situation, like the creation of the Federal
Subsistence Board and its relocation into the Office of the Secretary,
or respond to comments on the proposed rule, which made several
requests for specific information and ideas for reform. See 91 FR
11483, 11486, 11488, 11491, and 11492.
Another identified area of confusion relates to changes in
definitions, specifically modifying established terms like
``subsistence uses'' and ``customary trade'' and more recent terms like
``handicraft'', leading to questions about what activities are allowed,
who qualifies, and how enforcement will work. Clear definitions can
help public land users and enforcement officials better understand
compliance with unique laws like ANILCA.
One of the requests made in the proposed rule for specific reform
ideas involves NPS's definition of ``customary trade''. 91 FR 11483,
11491. Reverting to the pre-2015 language does not seem to cover the
breadth of activities implicated by this term, and if the current
definition does or could do that better, retaining or reforming it
would be an improvement over pre-2015 regulations. One alternative to
retention would be to adopt the definition used by the Federal
Subsistence Management
[[Page 65995]]
Program at 43 CFR 51.4, which is very similar to the current NPS
definition, or to include a cross-reference to that definition in 36
CFR 13.420 along with any differences, similar to the definition for
``handicraft''. Without a clear expression of a need for reform in the
comments, the final rule retains the current definitions of ``customary
trade'' and ``handicraft'' (a term used in NPS's definition of
``customary trade'') to provide consistency for subsistence users and
law enforcement. This change from the proposed rule also reduces the
amount of edited text in the final rule, addressing the source of
confusion described earlier.
The final rule does not retain the recently added definition for
``animal parts''. As noted above and in the proposed rule, 91 FR 11491,
this does not mean subsistence use and gathering of animal parts is not
allowed in Alaska park areas. This definition was added when NPS began
regulating these activities, primarily due to concerns that general
rules and policies prohibiting visitors from removing natural objects
may be interpreted to prohibit subsistence uses. See 82 FR 3626, 3627
(January 12, 2017). Reflecting on these stated concerns, the
definition's decade in use addressing them, comments encouraging
removal of unnecessary barriers to subsistence, and statutory direction
and guidance in ANILCA Title VIII, NPS does not see the same value in
retaining the definition for ``animal parts'' as it does for
``customary trade'' and ``handicraft''. A basic understanding of the
term should suffice for compliance and enforcement purposes.
To make the relationship between nationwide rules, administrative
policies, and ANILCA easier to understand in practice moving forward,
the final rule adds minor wording changes in 36 CFR 13.35 and 13.400.
These adjustments are intended to reduce confusion about how System-
wide prohibitions apply to local residents and others authorized to
conduct subsistence activities. They also clarify that subsistence uses
are not treated or managed the same way as general public uses, and
that Alaska park areas operate under ANILCA's balanced mandates rather
than System-wide direction alone, unless Congress states otherwise.
These edits and the final rule's restoration of Alaska-specific closure
procedures in the sections they address (36 CFR part 13, subparts B and
F) also respond to comments expressing confusion about which
authorities apply in a given situation and concerns about how closures
are administered and communicated.
Several commenters cautioned that greater alignment between state
and federal regulations in Alaska park areas could unintentionally give
state managers too much authority over subsistence uses on federal
public lands. Many expressed frustration about the overlapping state
and federal systems in park areas and conflicting priorities, even with
specific roles assigned to each manager. As in Comment 2, commenters
noted state management actions do not always support customary and
traditional uses by prioritizing opportunities for all Alaskans,
marginalizing regional input, and increasing competition and harvest
pressure on struggling stocks and populations, and that obscure
phrasing in the proposed rule could expand the reach of those actions.
Comments frequently referred to direction in ANILCA to ensure rural
residents are advising in management decisions and prioritized among
consumptive users of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources.
Alaska's system of ``dual management'' is a measured and complex
approach to these overlapping systems to meet constitutional and
statutory mandates, and commenters are correct that federal and state
priorities are not always aligned, an issue of particular concern for
communities that rely heavily on wild food resources. To be clear, this
rule does not change ANILCA's rural subsistence priority or the intent,
priorities, or structure of the Federal Subsistence Management Program.
Under dual management, the State manages fish and wildlife populations
according to sustained yield principles on all lands and waters unless
Congress modifies that authority, like in ANILCA Title VIII, and
federal agencies have their own responsibilities and authorities on
federal lands to protect public safety, meet statutory purposes, and
fulfill federal mandates, like the rural subsistence priority. This
structure is explicitly recognized in ANILCA and the rules and land use
plans that guide managers and decision-makers in Alaska. As discussed
in the response to Comment 2, this rule does not change that division
of authorities. State law will continue to govern harvest activities on
all lands to the extent permissible under federal law. However, so long
as the State cannot implement the rural subsistence priority required
in ANILCA, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are
responsible for administering ANILCA's framework for the subsistence
taking and uses of fish and wildlife on public lands and have delegated
most of their responsibilities to the Federal Subsistence Board. The
NPS will carry out its respective duties to manage park areas,
including consultation with the Federal Subsistence Board under the
2015 revisions to Sec. 13.490, which is retained in the final rule.
State and federal managers will carry out their respective duties, and
the revisions in this rulemaking will better equip unit managers in
Alaska to meet NPS's obligations within this shared system consistent
with the balanced mandates in ANILCA. The NPS has the authority to
preempt state law where necessary to implement the NPS Organic Act,
Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and other statutory direction. The NPS has not
found it necessary to exercise that authority in issuing this rule.
To help limit the potential for other misunderstandings, now or in
the future, a table is included in the section entitled ``Final Rule''
above to show which regulations are changing in a substantive way with
a short summary explaining the change.
9. Comment: Some comments supported or opposed changes beyond those
in the proposed rule. Several urged the NPS to expand the scope of the
rule by reinstating restrictions removed in 2020, by adding more
restrictions, or by adding more harvest opportunities and improved
access. Commenters also requested more definitions (e.g., ``sport''
hunting) and expanded policy-based explanations on the circumstances
where regulated harvest might conflict with National Park System
purposes and values.
NPS Response: The NPS has decided that the final rule should
closely adhere to the proposed rule and the framework that implemented
ANILCA's balanced mandates for more than three decades. Many comments
advocating broader changes, whether to restrict or expand harvest
opportunities and access, reflect competing interests similar to those
Congress weighed in enacting ANILCA's balanced compromise, where the
type of protected area and scope of permitted uses were calibrated to
accommodate Alaska-specific needs and interests within a single
comprehensive statute. See, e.g., 126 Cong. Rec. S11052, S11116, (Aug.
18, 1980) (statement of Sen. Tsongas) (describing the ``compromise
worked out during many hours of debate and discussions on these
issues'' in ``trying to protect in a balanced way the legitimate
concerns of numerous interest groups'', including the State of Alaska,
noting ``91.4 percent of Alaska is open to sport hunting'' under the
compromise); S. Rep. 95-64, pt. 2, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 1978, 487
(statement of Sen. Andrus) (``We have designated national park
preserves
[[Page 65996]]
where hunting would still be permitted; we don't do that in the lower
48. Subsistence hunting would be permitted in areas where it would not
in the lower 48.''); S. Rep. 96-413, at 145 (describing the amendment
to designate Cape Krusenstern ``as a national monument rather than a
preserve'' to reduce the potential for user conflicts, noting ``there
is little sport hunting in the area at this time while this is one of
the most important and concentrated subsistence use areas in the
State''). Given the purpose of this rulemaking, NPS has concluded that
revisiting these broader policy questions would not be warranted
without a substantial basis for departing from the time-honored,
Alaska-specific framework the final rule restores, addressed through a
separate rulemaking process with that objective.
Adhering closely to the proposed rule, and its close adherence to
the regulations that guided management of Alaska park areas from
ANILCA's passage until 2015, will minimize disruption for users and
managers and restore the Alaska-specific procedures they long relied on
for responsible and cooperative resource management. The NPS has
considered the comments encouraging additional or different action and
determined that changes in the final rule must meet an exacting
standard with a compelling reason, like the creation of the Federal
Subsistence Management Program, or make important clarifications, like
the definition for ``customary trade'' and other reforms to facilitate
allowed uses and the continuation of subsistence uses. Many comments
included valuable recommendations for improvements to the framework
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which would require or benefit
from consultation, notice and comment, and environmental analysis in a
separate rulemaking process.
In the final rule, definitions are aligned with state and federal
regulations to the greatest extent practicable to promote consistency
across jurisdictional boundaries and simplify compliance in the places
where people hunt, fish, and trap in Alaska. Congress intended for all
forms of regulated hunting to be allowed in national preserves under
applicable state and federal law, where relevant distinctions between
subsistence and ``sport'' hunting are made and enforced in Alaska park
areas. Consistent with that direction, this rule restores the roles,
responsibilities, and limitations that governed wildlife management in
Alaska park areas for decades following their establishment in ANILCA.
While commenters expressed differing views regarding wildlife
conservation and access to harvest opportunities, the restored
regulations reflect the balance Congress directed for Alaska and the
framework that successfully implemented that balance for decades. The
NPS has concluded that departures from this long-standing framework,
whether to expand or restrict authorities, should be supported by
substantial justification, thoughtful analysis, meaningful public
engagement, and a demonstrated basis in law for improving upon this
proven management approach for Alaska park areas.
10. Comment: Community leaders, tribal governments, Alaska-based
organizations, and others shared concerns and frustration with the
rulemaking process, public engagement, and government-to-government
consultation, highlighting the limited amount of time for outreach and
meaningful contributions.
NPS Response: The NPS takes these concerns seriously and
acknowledges that 46 days is a shorter comment period than some
stakeholders requested for this rule. A 15-day extension was provided
in direct response to requests for more time, recognizing that
extension did not fully address the concerns from affected communities.
As noted above, the NPS received 5,172 comments during the public
comment period for the proposed rule, including submissions from
organizations representing more than 48,000 collective signatories. The
NPS carefully considered all of these comments in finalizing this rule.
The NPS undertook the following steps to engage on this rulemaking.
In April and May 2025, NPS sent letters to federally recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native corporations with interests in Alaska park areas
inviting pre-consultation on the proposed rule, following up on each
letter with direct calls and emails. The letter described the proposed
action at that time as recission of the 2024 Rule and reinstatement of
the 2020 Rule. The NPS met in person or virtually, as indicated in the
request, with every Tribal entity that requested a meeting. Following
publication of the proposed rule on March 10, 2026, with an expanded
proposed action, NPS presented the rule at Alaska Board of Game
meetings, Subsistence Resource Commission meetings, and Subsistence
Regional Advisory Council meetings across the state. A second
consultation letter sent in April 2026 included information on the
expanded proposed action. Formal consultation commenced following
publication of the proposed rule for public comment and continued for
the life of the project. The NPS followed these letters with calls and
emails, and met with every entity that requested a meeting in the venue
and format of their choosing to best facilitate their meaningful
engagement. DOI and NPS leadership met with the Alaska Federation of
Natives on April 8, 2026. NPS leadership met with the Alaska
Congressional Delegation on multiple occasions during the comment
period. NPS consulted directly with the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game at the staff and leadership level.
NPS acknowledges some affected communities, particularly in rural
areas with limited connectivity and without a regular NPS presence, may
have had less opportunity to engage than those in more accessible
locations. Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils formally
requested an extension to the public comment period, stating the
initial 30-day window was unreasonably short and insufficient to
analyze the complex proposed changes encompassing four separate
rulemakings over the last decade. Comments noted the timing prevented
most advisory bodies from reviewing and convening to discuss the rule
during their scheduled meetings and emphasized the importance of
meaningful and informed participation from the communities represented
on the councils. The Gates of the Arctic Subsistence Resource
Commission was the only commission with a scheduled meeting during the
comment period that had time to review the proposed rule and prepare
recommendations and was the only commission that commented on the
proposed rule.
NPS has attempted to account for this in its review of the record,
giving particular weight to comments from advisory bodies and entities
whose mandates are specifically designed to represent the interests of
rural communities. The concerns those groups have expressed, including
opposition to permits, support for the rural subsistence priority, and
requests for clear and accessible procedures, are reflected in the
final rule.
The NPS is committed to improving government-to-government
consultation processes for Alaska-specific rulemakings, including
providing earlier notice of proposed actions, meaningful accommodation
of advisory body meeting schedules whenever practicable, and more time
for intergovernmental review prior to the publication of a proposal.
[[Page 65997]]
Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based on public comments received and NPS's further review, the
final rule makes the following changes to the proposed rule:
1. The title of this rule has been changed to reflect its scope
that addresses hunting and trapping in national preserves, but also
subsistence harvest of live wildlife and plant materials, and
procedures used to restrict public use and access to Alaska park areas,
including for subsistence.
2. Sec. 13.50(f), notice methods: The proposed rule and pre-2015
regulations could be interpreted to allow for public notice through the
posting of appropriate signs, instead of or in addition to newspaper
publications, radio broadcasts, post office flyers, available maps, and
other methods likely to inform affected users. The final rule replaces
``or'' with ``and'' to confirm that all the listed notice methods are
required, where available, rather than having an option to close areas
to harvest through the posting of signs alone.
3. Sec. Sec. 13.35(g) and 13.400(e), authorized users: In response
to comments and further agency review, the final rule adds language to
clarify that generally applicable limitations on park visitors do not
generally apply to those authorized to harvest renewable resources for
subsistence uses in park areas in Alaska, including local rural
residents, as defined in Sec. 13.420, and other federally qualified
users engaged in authorized harvest activities (e.g., subsistence
permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act).
4. Sec. 13.400(e), new citation: A cross-reference to the Federal
Subsistence Board regulations at 43 CFR part 51 was added in response
to comments, including from the Alaska Federation of Natives, seeking
greater specificity for subsistence users than a general reference to
ANILCA as applicable federal law.
5. Sec. 13.420, definitions: The proposed rule solicited comment
on revising the definition of ``customary trade.'' No submissions
included specific reforms that would improve upon any particular
definition. Rather than reverting to the pre-2015 language, the final
rule retains the current definitions of ``customary trade'' and
``handicraft'' to provide continuity and reduce confusion for
subsistence users and enforcement personnel.
6. Sec. 13.420, revised citation: The final rule updates the
cross-reference in the definition of ``handicraft'' to Federal
Subsistence Board regulations formerly located at 50 CFR part 100 which
were transferred to 43 CFR part 51 to align with the transfer of the
Office of Subsistence Management to the Office of the Secretary of the
Interior. See 90 FR 34142 (July 18, 2025).
7. Sec. 13.490, consultation: In response to comments and agency
review, the requirement to consult with the Federal Subsistence Board
before temporarily closing a park area to harvest for subsistence uses
is retained in the final rule as an important update for ensuring rural
Alaska residents have a meaningful role in the management of fish and
wildlife and subsistence uses on all public lands in Alaska.
Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 and 14192
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and has been submitted for review by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This rule is a deregulatory action under
Executive Order 14192. It removes the 2017 permit requirement for
collecting animal parks for handicrafts, removes restrictions for all
user groups on hunting bears over bait, and removes the 2024 firearm-
related definition of ``trapping'' and its associated compliance
burdens, without imposing any new permit, reporting, or recordkeeping
requirements on regulated entities. The rule also restores fixed
procedural requirements (e.g., durational limits, consultation
obligations, and notice requirements) that constrain agency discretion
and reduce regulatory uncertainty for the public, which the 2015 and
2017 rules had displaced with greater focus on System-wide standards
and less focus on affected areas and users. Because this rule aligns
federal and state requirements, rather than adding or maintaining
conflicting layers of regulation, NPS does not consider it a new
regulatory burden for purposes of this classification.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
This final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. This certification is based on information contained in the
economic analyses found in the report entitled ``Benefit-Cost and
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Alaska Wildlife, Harvest, and Access
Regulations (RIN 1024-AE96).'' The report may be viewed in the docket
for this rulemaking action by visiting <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> and
searching for ``RIN 1024-AE96''.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
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. It addresses public
use of lands and waters administered by the NPS and imposes no
requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing
the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only
affects use of federally administered lands and waters. It has no
direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is
not required.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes and ANCSA Corporations--Executive Order
13175 and Department Policy
The DOI strives to strengthen its government-to-government
relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation
with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance
and Tribal sovereignty. This rule was informed by feedback from Tribal
entities. In April 2025, the NPS invited Alaska Native Tribes and
[[Page 65998]]
corporations organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) to participate in pre-consultation regarding NPS's wildlife
management practices in Alaska. The NPS incorporated feedback received
and met with all Tribal entities that requested a meeting. The NPS has
evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and
under the Department's Tribal consultation and ANCSA Corporation
policies. Because the rule does not restrict Title VIII subsistence
harvest, the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on
federally recognized Tribes or ANCSA Corporation lands, water areas, or
resources. Consultation and communication with Tribes and ANCSA
Corporations was considered by the NPS throughout the rulemaking
process.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not
required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required
to respond, to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.)
The NPS has prepared a Wildlife, Harvest, and Access in National
Parks and Preserves in Alaska Environmental Assessment (EA) to
determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment under the NEPA. The EA included
appropriate available information and an analysis of impacts for public
safety, wildlife, federal subsistence use, and public use and
experience resource issues. The EA incorporated feedback received
during the public comment period on the proposed rule and during
consultation with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations and with the State of
Alaska. On September 28, 2026, the Regional Director, Alaska Region,
signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that identified the
preferred alternative in the EA as the selected action. This rule is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required
because of the FONSI. A copy of the EA and FONSI are available online
at <a href="https://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro">https://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro</a> by clicking the link entitled
``https://parkplanning.nps.gov/AlaskaWildlifeRule2026'' and then
clicking the link entitled ``Document List.''
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use--Executive Order 13211
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in Executive Order 13211; the rule is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the
rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as
a significant energy action. A statement of energy effects is not
required.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13
Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends
36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:
PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA
0
1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751,
320102; Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Pub. L. 104-333, Sec. 1035,
110 Stat. 4240, November 12, 1996.
0
2. In Sec. 13.1:
0
a. Remove the definition of ``Furbearer''; and
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Trapping''.
The revision to read as follows:
Sec. 13.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Trapping means taking furbearers under a trapping license.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 13.35, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 13.35 Preservation of natural features.
* * * * *
(g) Nothing in this section shall apply to local rural residents or
others authorized to take renewable resources for subsistence uses.
0
4. In Sec. 13.40 revise the section heading and paragraphs (d) and (e)
to read as follows:
Sec. 13.40 Taking of fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Hunting and trapping. (1) Hunting and trapping are allowed in
national preserves in accordance with applicable Federal and non-
conflicting State law and regulations.
(2) Violating a provision of either Federal or non-conflicting
State law or regulation is prohibited.
(3) Engaging in trapping activities as the employee of another
person is prohibited.
(4) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use a
firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking any species of
bear, caribou, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, coyote, arctic and red
fox, mountain goat, moose, Dall sheep, lynx, bison, musk ox, wolf and
wolverine until after 3 a.m. on the day following the day in which the
flying occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on
regularly scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained
public airports.
(5) Persons transporting wildlife through park areas must identify
themselves and the location where the wildlife was taken when requested
by an NPS employee or other authorized person.
(e) Closures and restrictions. The Superintendent may prohibit or
restrict the non-subsistence taking of fish or wildlife in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 13.50. Except in emergency conditions,
such restrictions shall take effect only after the Superintendent has
consulted with the appropriate State agency having responsibility over
fishing, hunting, or trapping and representatives of affected users.
Sec. 13.42 [Removed]
0
5. Remove Sec. 13.42.
0
6. Revise Sec. 13.50 to read as follows:
Sec. 13.50 Closure and restriction procedures.
(a) Authority. The Superintendent may close an area or restrict an
activity on an emergency, temporary, or permanent basis.
(b) Criteria. In determining whether to close an area or restrict
an activity on an emergency basis, the Superintendent shall be guided
by factors such as public health and safety, resource protection,
protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses,
endangered or threatened species conservation, and other management
considerations necessary to ensure that the activity or area is being
managed in a manner compatible with the purposes for which the park
area was established.
(c) Emergency Closures. (1) Emergency closures or restrictions
relating to the taking of fish and wildlife shall be accomplished by
notice and hearing.
(2) Other emergency closures shall become effective upon notice as
prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(3) No emergency closure or restriction shall extend for a period
exceeding 30 days, nor may it be extended.
[[Page 65999]]
(d) Temporary closures or restrictions. (1) Temporary closures or
restrictions relating to the taking of fish and wildlife, shall not be
effective prior to notice and hearing in the vicinity of the area(s)
directly affected by such closures or restrictions, and other locations
as appropriate;
(2) Temporary closures shall be effective upon notice as prescribed
in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(3) Temporary closures or restrictions shall not extend for a
period exceeding 12 months and may not be extended.
(e) Permanent closures or restrictions. Permanent closures or
restrictions shall be published as rulemaking in the Federal Register
with a minimum public comment period of 60 days and shall be
accompanied by public hearings in the area affected and other locations
as appropriate.
(f) Notice. Emergency, temporary, and permanent closures or
restrictions shall be:
(1) Published in at least one newspaper of general circulation in
the state and in at least one local newspaper if available, posted at
community post offices within the vicinity affected, made available for
broadcast on local radio stations in a manner reasonably calculated to
inform residents in the affected vicinity, and designated on a map
which shall be available for public inspection at the office of the
Superintendent and other places convenient to the public; and
(2) Designated by the posting of appropriate signs.
(g) Openings. In determining whether to open an area to public use
or activity otherwise prohibited, the Superintendent shall provide
notice in the Federal Register and shall, upon request, hold a hearing
in the affected vicinity and other locations as appropriate prior to
making a final determination.
(h) Facility closures and restrictions. The Superintendent may
close or restrict specific facilities for reasons of public health,
safety, and protection of public property for the duration of the
circumstance requiring the closure or restriction. Notice of facility
closures and restrictions will be available for inspection at the park
visitor center. Notice will also be posted near or within the facility,
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected
vicinity, or made available to the public by such other means as deemed
appropriate by the Superintendent. Violating facilities closures or
restrictions is prohibited.
(i) Prohibitions. Except as otherwise specifically permitted under
the provisions of this part, entry into closed areas or failure to
abide by restrictions established under this section is prohibited.
0
7. In Sec. 13.400, redesignate paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and add
a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 13.400 Purpose and policy.
* * * * *
(e) The regulations in this subpart apply to local rural residents
and other Alaskan individuals authorized to take renewable resources
for subsistence uses. The State of Alaska is authorized to regulate the
taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses within park areas to
the extent such regulation is consistent with applicable Federal law,
including but not limited to ANILCA, and Department of the Interior
regulations at 43 CFR Part 51.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 13.420:
0
a. Remove the definition for ``Animal parts''; and
0
b. Revise the definitions for ``Handicraft''; and ``Subsistence uses''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 13.420 Definitions.
* * * * *
Handicraft. As used in this part, the term has the same meaning as
used in federal subsistence regulations (43 CFR part 51) except that:
(1) The term also includes products made from plant materials; and
(2) The term does not include a trophy or European mount of horns
or antlers.
* * * * *
Subsistence uses. As used in this part, the term ``subsistence
uses'' shall mean the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska
residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family
consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools or transportation;
for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible
byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family
consumption; for barter or sharing for personal or family consumption;
and for customary trade. For the purposes of this paragraph, the
terms--
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 13.470 to read as follows:
Sec. 13.470 Subsistence fishing.
Fish may be taken by local rural residents for subsistence uses in
park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with
applicable State and Federal law, including the provisions of Sec. 2.3
of this chapter and Sec. 13.40. Local rural residents in park areas
where subsistence uses are allowed may fish with methods and means
permitted under applicable State and Federal law.
0
10. Revise Sec. 13.480 to read as follows:
Sec. 13.480 Subsistence hunting and trapping.
Local rural residents may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence
uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance
with applicable State and Federal law.
Sec. 13.482 [Removed]
0
11. Remove Sec. 13.482.
0
12. Revise and republish Sec. 13.485 to read as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (c) through (e); and
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (f) as paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 13.485 Subsistence use of timber and plant material.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the non-
commercial cutting of standing timber by local rural residents for
appropriate subsistence uses, such as firewood or house logs, may be
permitted in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed as follows:
(1) For standing timber of diameter greater than three inches at
ground height, the Superintendent may permit cutting in accordance with
the specifications of a permit if such cutting is determined to be
compatible with the purposes for which the park area was established;
and
(2) For standing timber of diameter less than three inches at
ground height, cutting is authorized unless restricted by the
Superintendent.
(b) The noncommercial gathering by local rural residents of fruits,
berries, mushrooms, and other plant materials for subsistence uses, and
the noncommercial gathering of dead or downed timber for firewood,
shall be allowed without a permit in park areas where subsistence uses
are allowed.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the
Superintendent, after notice and public hearing in the affected
vicinity and other locations as appropriate, may temporarily close all
or any portion of a park area to subsistence uses of a particular plant
population. The Superintendent may make a closure under this paragraph
only if necessary for reasons of public safety, administration,
resource protection, protection of historic or scientific values,
conservation of endangered or threatened species, or the purposes for
[[Page 66000]]
which the park area was established, or to ensure the continued
viability of the plant population. For purposes of this section, the
term ``temporarily'' shall mean only so long as reasonably necessary to
achieve the purposes of the closure.
(1) If the Superintendent determines that an emergency situation
exists and that extraordinary measures must be taken for public safety
or to assure the continued viability of a particular plant population,
the Superintendent may immediately close all or any portion of a park
area to the subsistence uses of such population. Such emergency closure
shall be effective when made, shall be for a period not to exceed sixty
(60) days, and may not subsequently be extended unless the
Superintendent establishes, after notice and public hearing in the
affected vicinity and other locations as appropriate, that such closure
should be extended.
(2) Notice of administrative actions taken pursuant to this
section, and the reasons justifying such actions, shall be published in
at least one newspaper of general circulation within the State and at
least one local newspaper if available, and information about such
actions and reasons also shall be made available for broadcast on local
radio stations in a manner reasonably calculated to inform local rural
residents in the affected vicinity. All closures shall be designated on
a map which shall be available for public inspection at the office of
the Superintendent of the affected park area and the post office or
postal authority of every affected community within or near the park
area, or by the posting of signs in the vicinity of the restrictions,
or both.
0
13. In Sec. 13.490, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 13.490 Closure to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the
Superintendent, after consultation with the State and the Federal
Subsistence Board, and after adequate notice and public hearing in the
affected vicinity and other locations as appropriate, may temporarily
close all or any portion of a park area to subsistence uses of a
particular fish or wildlife population only if necessary for reasons of
public safety, administration, or to assure the continued viability of
such population. For purposes of this section, the term ``temporarily''
shall mean only so long as reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes
of the closure.
* * * * *
Sec. 13.1902 [Amended]
0
14. In Sec. 13.1902, remove paragraph (d).
Kevin J. Lilly,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2026-21299 Filed 10-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 19, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.