Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve; Use of Off-Road Vehicles for Subsistence Purposes by Residents of Anaktuvuk Pass

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to amend special regulations for Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (Gates) to establish a process by which the Superintendent can establish reasonable mitigation measures on the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for subsistence purposes by local rural residents of Anaktuvuk Pass, but only when such use is causing or likely to cause an adverse impact to public health and safety, resources, historic or scientific values, subsistence uses, or endangered or threatened species.

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)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66034-66040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 13

[NPS-GAAR-NPS0043903; XXXXXX]
RIN 1024-AF12


Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve; Use of Off-Road 
Vehicles for Subsistence Purposes by Residents of Anaktuvuk Pass

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to amend special 
regulations for Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (Gates) 
to establish a process by which the Superintendent can establish 
reasonable mitigation measures on the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) 
for subsistence purposes by local rural residents of Anaktuvuk Pass, 
but only when such use is causing or likely to cause an adverse impact 
to public health and safety, resources, historic or scientific values, 
subsistence uses, or endangered or threatened species.

[[Page 66035]]


DATES: Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. ET on December 18, 2026.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically:
    <bullet> Go to the Federal Register website: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov">https://www.federalregister.gov</a>. In the search box, enter 1024-AF12, the 
regulation identifier number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Click on the 
green ``Submit a Public Comment'' button at the top of the document and 
follow the instructions for submitting comments; or
    <bullet> Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter 1024-AF12, the RIN for 
this rulemaking. On the resulting page, select the Dockets tab and then 
click on the title of the rule. Next, click the ``Open for Comments'' 
box, then click the blue ``Comment'' box and follow the instructions 
for submitting comments.
    (2) By hard copy:
    <bullet> Mail to: Superintendent, Gates of the Arctic National Park 
and Preserve, 101 Dunkel St., Suite 110, Fairbanks, AK 99701.
    Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in 
any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must 
include the words ``National Park Service'' or ``NPS'' and must include 
the docket number or RIN (1024-AF12) for this rulemaking. Comments 
received may be posted without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 
including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to view the proposed rule and 
comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and search for 
``1024-AF12.'' Be sure to check the Dockets Tab, Documents Tab, and 
Comment Tab for possible results.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Dowdle, Superintendent, Gates of 
the Arctic National Park and Preserve; (907) 519-0420; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3cec2d1c8fcc7ccd4c7cfc6e3cdd3d08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a9a5b6af9ba0abb3a0a8a184aab4b7eaa3abb2">[email&#160;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. In compliance with the Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, the plain language 
summary of the proposal is available on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> in the docket 
for this rulemaking.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

ORV Use by Residents of Anaktuvuk Pass

    Anaktuvuk Pass is a small remote village, without road access, 
entirely within the administrative boundaries of Gates. Anaktuvuk Pass, 
named ``the place of caribou droppings,'' sits along an ancient 
migration route that has guided the caribou--and the people who follow 
them--for centuries. Most of the residents of Anaktuvuk Pass are inland 
I[ntilde]upiat, or Nunamiut people, and Anaktuvuk Pass is their last 
remaining settlement. These nomadic people roamed the Brooks Range for 
generations, living off the land, before dispersing in the early 1900s 
due to the collapse of the caribou population. By the 1940s, several 
Nunamiut families returned to their ancestral home, settling in the 
broad, treeless valley of Anaktuvuk Pass, decades before the 1980 
establishment of Gates. Many residents continue to rely on subsistence 
activities like caribou hunting to support their way of life.
    In 2024, Anaktuvuk Pass was home to 395 residents, with 
I[ntilde]upiat making up over 84% of the population. The community's 
economy is intertwined with the land, primarily relying on subsistence 
hunting of caribou. The pursuit of caribou, along with fishing and 
gathering, sustains the community.
    Anaktuvuk Pass residents have long relied on motorized access, 
including snowmachines in winter and ORVs in summer, to pursue 
subsistence resources. The final nomadic Nunamiut relocated to the 
modern-day village during the 1950s. After permanent settlement, 
Nunamiut were unable to follow the caribou during their seasonal 
migrations, the people of Anaktuvuk Pass ventured out from the village 
within what is today, Gates, to subsistence hunt. Beginning in the 
1960s, and increasing during the 1970s, ORVs were regularly used by the 
residents of Anaktuvuk Pass engaging in subsistence activities. In the 
years leading up to and immediately following the passage of the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), residents of 
Anaktuvuk Pass relied increasingly on ORVs for subsistence hunting as 
was documented in a 1985 study titled, In the National Interest: A 
Geographically Based Study of Anaktuvuk Pass I[ntilde]upiat Subsistence 
Through Time.
    The first documented observance of an ORV by residents of Anaktuvuk 
Pass is believed to have occurred in 1950 when the United States 
Geological Survey brought multiple large, tracked vehicles to the 
village to conduct summer exploration and mapping work. By the early 
1970s, the number of ORVs owned and operated by residents of Anaktuvuk 
Pass began to increase. By 1980, the year ANILCA became law, it is 
estimated there were between fifteen and twenty-eight ORVs in Anaktuvuk 
Pass. ORVs in Anaktuvuk Pass were regularly deployed in the 1970s as 
the primary means of summer transportation that allowed subsistence 
hunters to reach and transport game farther from the village and 
considered the only effective means of subsistence hunting in the 
summer. ORV use had been particularly important for reaching locations 
fairly distant from the village where subsistence species are likely to 
be encountered during the summer months. Subsistence hunters 
interviewed about their summer hunts explained they used their ORVs to 
``bring meat back after animals had been killed out in the field'' and 
traveled extensively throughout the region to find caribou. Additional 
information available to NPS demonstrates that ORVs were used around 
Anaktuvuk Pass for subsistence purposes in Gates before its 
establishment. See, e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Effects of All 
Terrain Vehicle Traffic on Tundra Terrain Near Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska 
(1988); NPS, Effects of All-Terrain Vehicle Use in the Vicinity of 
Anaktuvuk Pass, Gates of the Arctic National Park, Alaska: I. Study of 
Established, Recovery, and New Trail Segments (1988); and NPS, The 
Anaktuvuk Pass All-Terrain Vehicle Study 1986-1988: A Narrative Report 
of Field Operation and Dispersed ATV Use (1989).

ANILCA Statutory Framework

    Title VIII of ANILCA establishes a statutory framework intended to 
protect subsistence uses by rural Alaska residents. Congress expressly 
recognized the importance of subsistence resources to the physical, 
economic, traditional, and cultural well-being of rural Alaska 
communities and directed that such uses be protected on the public 
lands of Alaska. Section 201(4)(a) of ANILCA established Gates and 
provides, among other things, that subsistence uses by local residents 
shall be permitted in the park where such uses are traditional, in 
accordance with title VIII of ANILCA. In turn, Section 811(a) of ANILCA 
provides that the Secretary ``shall ensure that rural residents engaged 
in subsistence uses have reasonable access to subsistence resources on 
the public lands.'' 16 U.S.C. 3121(a). Section 811(b) of ANILCA 
provides that ``[n]otwithstanding any other provision

[[Page 66036]]

of this Act or other law, the Secretary shall permit on the public 
lands appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, 
motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally 
employed for such purposes by local residents, subject to reasonable 
regulation.'' 16 U.S.C. 3121(b). ANILCA's text is clear and 
unambiguous, reflecting Congress's express intent ``to provide the 
opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to 
continue to do so.'' 16 U.S.C. 3111(1).
    Through enactment of this language, Congress directed that 
reasonable subsistence access be ensured and that traditionally 
employed means of surface transportation be permitted for subsistence 
purposes, subject only to reasonable regulation. Accordingly, Title 
VIII reflects a congressional policy favoring the continuation of 
subsistence uses and the practical ability of rural residents to reach 
and harvest subsistence resources. These congressional findings and 
policies inform the NPS's interpretation of Sections 811(a) and 811(b) 
and confirm that ANILCA's subsistence provisions are intended to 
preserve meaningful and practical access for subsistence purposes.
    ANILCA distinguishes between requiring subsistence access and 
regulating subsistence access. Section 811(b) directs that the 
Secretary ``shall permit'' appropriate use of traditionally employed 
means of surface transportation for subsistence purposes while 
authorizing reasonable regulation of those uses. Accordingly, an agency 
may take only reasonable measures necessary to address demonstrated 
impacts of a means of surface transportation within the scope of 
Section 811(b), while at the same time ensuring that reasonable access 
is maintained consistent with the purposes of Title VIII.

NPS Prohibition of ORV Subsistence Access to Gates

    On January 28, 1986, an official within the NPS Alaska Regional 
Office sent a memorandum to the superintendent of Gates concluding that 
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) do not constitute means of surface 
transportation that have been ``traditionally'' employed for 
subsistence purposes in Gates. The terms ORV and ATV have been used 
interchangeably over time to refer to similar classes of vehicles. The 
1986 Memorandum stated that ``until it can be shown that ATVs are 
traditional in [Gates] as defined by Webster and Black [dictionaries], 
they are prohibited for subsistence uses in the park.'' The 1986 
Memorandum thus concluded that ATVs ``are not permitted by ANILCA'' and 
had ``not been shown to be a traditionally employed means of surface 
transportation for subsistence uses.'' This interpretation of 
``traditional'' and the prohibition on ATV use for subsistence purposes 
was incorporated into the Gates General Management Plan (GMP), which 
stated that within Gates, ``the use of ORVs, which are defined in the 
GMP to include ATVs, for subsistence is not allowed because the use has 
not been shown to be a traditional means of access.''
    On December 17, 1992, NPS entered into a land exchange agreement 
(1992 Agreement) with the Nunamiut Corporation, the city of Anaktuvuk 
Pass, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation that was amended in 
1993 and 1994. In 1996, Congress ratified the 1992 Agreement in section 
302 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Act). 
In the Act, Congress recognized that ``[u]nlike most other Alaskan 
Native communities, the village of Anaktuvuk Pass is not located on a 
major river, lake, or coastline that can be used as a means of access. 
The residents of Anaktuvuk pass have relied increasingly on snow 
machines in winter and all-terrain vehicles in summer as their primary 
means of access to pursue caribou and other subsistence resources.'' 
Public Law 104-333, 110 Stat. 4093 (1996).
    The 1992 Agreement allowed some ATV access in Gates for subsistence 
uses. Specifically, certain non-wilderness areas of Federally-owned 
park land were opened to dispersed ATV use. The land exchange agreement 
was intended in part ``to resolve the longstanding dispute over 
subsistence use of ATVs only on public lands in and around Anaktuvuk 
Pass.'' H.R. Rep. No. 104-8 (1995). However, the land exchange 
agreement did not ``conf[i]rm or deny that ATV access to public lands 
for subsistence use is a statutorily protected traditional access right 
under ANILCA,'' and did ``not purport to resolve this issue.'' Id. 
Accordingly, the dispute over whether ORVs, including ATVs, may be used 
in Gates continued. Local residents of Anaktuvuk Pass contend the ATV 
access granted by the 1992 Agreement is insufficient for Anaktuvuk Pass 
residents who rely on subsistence uses, in part, because caribou herds 
now migrate further west and south of the village. As a result, local 
residents have reported that the subsistence hunters of Anaktuvuk Pass 
are unable to reach the caribou needed to feed their community because 
they are prohibited from using ORVs within the boundaries of Gates 
where the caribou now frequently congregate during hunting season.
    On May 16, 2026, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum issued a 
Memorandum concluding that:

    NPS's 1986 interpretation is inconsistent with ANILCA's broader 
statutory context regarding the continuance of subsistence uses. . . 
. The better reading of the term ``traditionally employed'' in 
Section 811(b) is one that allows for the continuation of surface 
transportation means that were in use for subsistence purposes at 
the time of Gates' creation. This interpretation is bolstered by 
ANILCA's legislative history as well as the agency interpretations 
associated with ANILCA implementing regulations enacted in 1981.

    The Memorandum concludes that information contained in several 
studies from the mid- to late-1980s ``demonstrates that ORVs were used 
for subsistence purposes in Gates before its establishment.'' The 
Memorandum adopted technical corrections to the GMP that removed 
language that adopted the NPS's previous interpretation of 
``traditional'' in the 1986 Memorandum. The language of the GMP was 
revised to state that in Gates, ``the use of ORVs for subsistence is 
allowed because the use has been shown to be a traditional means of 
access.''

Proposed Rule

Purpose for the Rule

    The NPS is proposing to amend the special regulations for Gates to 
codify in NPS regulations that, for purposes of implementing section 
811(b) of ANILCA, off-road vehicles (ORV) used by local rural residents 
of Anaktuvuk Pass constitute a means of surface transportation 
traditionally employed for subsistence purposes. This rule would codify 
technical corrections made to the 1986 GMP for Gates that reversed a 
previous conclusion that ORVs did not meet the dictionary definitions 
of ``traditional'' and were thus prohibited for subsistence purposes in 
Gates. This prohibition had confined local residents of Anaktuvuk pass 
to areas where subsistence uses were unreachable and only certain types 
of ORVs were allowed. As stated in a Memorandum issued by Secretary 
Burgum on May 16, 2026, that made the technical corrections to the GMP, 
the prohibition was based on a misreading of ANILCA, including lack of 
consideration of ANILCA's statutory purpose. The Memorandum directed 
NPS to ``complete a regulatory process in consultation with key 
stakeholders within six months of this decision to

[[Page 66037]]

enact the minimal regulations that may be necessary to avoid adverse 
impacts.'' This rule would implement that direction by establishing a 
process by which the Superintendent can establish reasonable mitigation 
measures on the use of ORVs for subsistence purposes by local rural 
residents of Anaktuvuk Pass, but only when such use is causing or 
likely to cause an adverse impact.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to provide regulatory 
certainty and clarity regarding use of ORVs for subsistence purposes in 
Gates consistent with Federal law. This proposed rule implements 
ANILCA's affirmative protections for subsistence access within the 
specific factual circumstances present in Gates, where the residents of 
Anaktuvuk Pass rely extensively on subsistence resources for food 
security and cultural continuity. It reflects NPS's determination, 
based on the text of ANILCA, Congress's findings and statements of 
policy, the legislative history of Title VIII, and documented 
longstanding use of ORVs by residents of Anaktuvuk Pass, that ORVs 
constitute a means of surface transportation traditionally employed for 
subsistence purposes within the meaning of Section 811(b). This rule 
does not create a new subsistence access right. Rather, it provides a 
clear regulatory framework governing the exercise of an existing 
statutory right recognized and protected by ANILCA, as further 
explained below.

Consistency With ANILCA

    The NPS's 1986 Memorandum was based on a misinterpretation of the 
phrase ``traditionally employed'' in ANILCA as explained in the 
Secretary's May 16, 2026, Memorandum. To reach the conclusion that ORV 
use was not ``traditionally employed,'' NPS looked to dictionary 
definitions of the word ``traditional'' rather than considering the 
meaning of ``traditionally employed'' in the context of ANILCA, the 
purpose behind the statute, the history of the peoples and lands, and 
the priority placed on subsistence uses. The dictionary definitions, 
generic definitions without the unique context of Alaska and ANILCA, 
employed concepts like ``successive generations,'' ``[c]ultural 
continuity embodied in a massive complex of evolving social attitudes, 
beliefs,'' and ``[a]n inherited or established way of thinking, feeling 
or doing.'' Based on this context-less definition, the NPS concluded in 
1986 that ORV use was not ``traditional'' and prohibited its use, 
thereby cutting off the community of Anaktuvuk Pass from rights 
preserved by ANILCA that should have been recognized with the passage 
of that Act.
    The NPS's 1986 interpretation was inconsistent with ANILCA's 
broader statutory context regarding the continuance of subsistence 
uses. Congress generally sought to preserve the status quo with respect 
to subsistence with a focus on its continuation. The better reading of 
the term ``traditionally employed'' under Section 811(b) is one that 
allows for the continuation of surface transportation means that were 
in use, for some decades, for subsistence purposes at the time of 
Gates' creation. This interpretation is bolstered by ANILCA's 
legislative history. The section-by-section analysis in the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources report for the bill that 
became ANILCA stated that the text of ANILCA Section 811 ``recognize[d] 
the importance of'' snowmobiles and motorboats. S. Rep. No. 96-413 at 
275 (1979). Those means of access were not singled out as the exclusive 
means of subsistence access, but rather, as illustrative examples of 
``means of surface transportation traditionally employed.''
    Applying the correct interpretation of ANILCA Section 811 within 
the greater context of ANILCA requires the conclusion that ORV use was 
``traditionally employed'' by local rural residents of Anaktuvuk Pass 
given the extensive factual record of that use as explained above. This 
proposed rule would codify the technical corrections to the GMP made by 
the Secretary's May 16, 2026, Memorandum in order to foster consistency 
and certainty for the residents of Anaktuvuk Pass who rely on 
subsistence uses for village life and well-being, consistent with the 
requirements of ANILCA.
    In addition to codifying the proper interpretation of 
``traditionally employed'' made by the Secretary's Memorandum, this 
rule allows the NPS to take reasonable mitigation measures consistent 
with ANILCA. Section 811(b) of ANILCA provides that ``use for 
subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of 
surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes by 
local residents'' is subject to ``reasonable regulation.'' 16 U.S.C. 
3121(b). Such regulation should be narrowly tailored and minimally 
burdensome to accomplish ANILCA's statutory mandate, as stated in 
Section 811(a) of ANILCA, that the Secretary shall ``ensure that rural 
residents engaged in subsistence uses have reasonable access to 
subsistence resources on the public lands.'' 16 U.S.C. 3121(b). 
Specific to Gates, Section 201(4) of ANILCA expressly requires NPS to 
permit subsistence uses by local residents in Gates where such uses are 
traditional.
    Regulations governing subsistence uses in National Park System 
units in Alaska are in 36 CFR part 13, subpart F. These regulations 
authorize closure and restrictions of subsistence uses under certain 
conditions across all Alaska park areas, but specific System units have 
regulations tailored to the circumstances of subsistence use in those 
units. The management approach to implementing mitigation measures that 
is proposed in this rule is tailored to the specific statutory, 
factual, and geographic circumstances of Anaktuvuk Pass within Gates.
    Consistent with the isolated location of Anaktuvuk Pass, the 
absence of road access, the community's reliance on subsistence 
resources, and the limited number of local residents engaged in such 
activities, the NPS has determined that the general regulatory 
framework found in 36 CFR 13.460 for prohibitions and closures on 
subsistence ORV use is not the management approach best suited to these 
circumstances. Rather, the NPS has determined that a narrowly tailored 
regulatory framework is appropriate here because it protects access 
required by ANILCA while preserving the agency's authority to address 
demonstrated adverse impacts when supported by specific facts and 
evidence.
    This approach would allow the NPS and the residents of Anaktuvuk 
Pass to work together to manage the critical resources of Gates, 
combining local traditional knowledge and empirical science, for all of 
its purposes as directed by Congress in Section 201(4)(a) of ANILCA.
    In developing this proposed rule, the NPS recognizes the importance 
of consultation with key stakeholders including the Nunamuit people, 
the community of Anaktuvuk Pass, and associated entities and has 
engaged with stakeholders accordingly. The current regulatory process 
reflects continued consultation, coordination, and cooperation with the 
local community and stakeholders that will persist through this 
regulator process and beyond. DOI is seeking comment on the proposed 
rule. In particular, DOI is interested in information about the number 
of ORVs in use annually in Gates for subsistence purposes and 
information about the expected change as a result of this proposed 
regulation. DOI also requests comments on the costs and benefits of the 
proposed rule.

Elements of the Rule

    The rule adds a new section 13.1005 to 36 CFR part 13, subpart M, 
Special

[[Page 66038]]

Regulations--Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. The title 
of this section is ``Off-road vehicle use for subsistence purposes in 
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve.''
    Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Sec.  13.1005 would codify the 
technical change made by the Secretary's May 16, 2026, Memorandum. 
Paragraph (a) would establish that operating a motor vehicle off road 
in Gates is prohibited except by authorized residents engaged in 
subsistence uses as already defined in 36 CFR 13.420. ``Authorized 
residents'' would be defined as local rural residents of Anaktuvuk 
Pass, reflecting the unique needs of this small, land-locked, rural 
community. Paragraph (b) would provide that ORVs constitute a means of 
surface transportation traditionally employed for subsistence purposes 
by authorized residents of Anaktuvuk Pass and that such use is 
permitted pursuant to section 811(b) of ANILCA. Paragraph (c) would 
address the scope of that use for subsistence purposes.
    Paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of Sec.  13.1005 would establish 
specific requirements that must be met before the superintendent can 
establish reasonable mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts from 
subsistence ORV use by local rural residents of Anaktuvuk Pass.
    Paragraph (d) would provide an operating standard, requiring that 
the authorized use be conducted in a manner that prevents waste or 
unnecessary damage to park resources, avoids the herding, harassment, 
hazing or driving of wildlife, and is reasonably related to lawful 
subsistence uses.
    Paragraph (e) would place certain limitations on ORV use. It would 
establish a presumption in favor of ORV uses for subsistence purposes 
as defined in the rule and allow the implementation of reasonable 
mitigation measures (including closures) to address impacts of such use 
as long as that mitigation does not require authorized residents to 
incur unreasonable costs. This paragraph also would establish 
procedures for the imposition of mitigation measures. Paragraph (e)(1) 
would provide that the need for mitigation measures must be based on 
clear evidence that the use is causing or likely to cause an adverse 
impact. The rule would require the Superintendent to develop a written 
determination that articulates why the impact is an adverse impact and 
explains why the mitigation measures are the least restrictive measures 
capable of mitigating the identified adverse impact. The rule would 
require that the written determination be supported by specific and 
articulable facts in the administrative record. Paragraph (e)(2) would 
require the Superintendent to provide authorized residents notice of 
proposed mitigation measures 30 days in advance. The rule would require 
that the notice contain the information required in (e)(1), be 
published in the Federal Register and otherwise disseminated through 
means of notification reasonably expected to reach authorized 
residents, and invite authorized residents to consult with the 
Superintendent. Paragraph (e)(3) would require consultation with 
authorized residents and hold one public hearing before implementing 
the mitigation measures. Paragraph (e)(4) would provide that the 
Superintendent may issue a final written determination following the 
consultation and 30-day advance notice period providing that the final 
determination contains the information required in (e)(1) and explains 
why the findings have not changed since the initial notice. The rule 
also would require that the final determination address input from 
authorized residents and allow continuing reasonable access by ORV to 
subsistence resources during the mitigation period. Paragraph (e)(5) 
would allow mitigation measures to be imposed, with the concurrence of 
the Regional Director, to address an emergency situation without 
advance notice or consultation provided that such emergency mitigation 
measures must expire after 45 days. The rule would require that notice 
of an emergency mitigation measure be provided to authorized residents 
as soon as practicable after implementation of the mitigation measure.
    Paragraph (f) of the rule would clarify that nothing in the new 
Sec.  13.1005 authorizes recreational ORV use. Paragraph (g) would 
explain that the regulations in the rule would govern if there is a 
conflict with prior agency policy or park planning documents concerning 
whether the ORVs are traditionally employed for subsistence use in 
Gates. Paragraph (h) of the rule would define ``adverse impact'' as a 
direct significant impact to public health and safety, resources, 
historic or scientific values, subsistence uses, or endangered or 
threatened species. This paragraph also would require that adverse 
impacts be currently occurring or reasonably foreseeable.

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. The NPS will determine whether this rule is an 
Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action after consideration of public 
comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). No small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rule, which would codify the allowance of subsistence 
ORV use by local rural residents of Anaktuvuk Pass in NPS regulations, 
and establish specific requirements that must be met before the 
superintendent can establish reasonable mitigation measures to avoid 
adverse impacts from such use. This action is not expected to have 
adverse economic effects on any sector, including small entities. For 
these reasons, the NPS certifies that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Congressional Review Act

    This proposed rule, if finalized, is not anticipated to be a major 
rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This proposed rule:
    (a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more.
    (b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    (c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1531) requires that agencies assess whether a rule would impose a 
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector of 
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. 
As of 2025, that threshold is approximately $206 million (2024 
dollars). This rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, 
or Tribal

[[Page 66039]]

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of 
the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is 
required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This proposed rule would not effect 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 
proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 
rule would only affect use of federally administered lands and waters. 
It would have no direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary 
impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive 
Order 12988. This proposed 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 Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations 
(Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

    The Department of the Interior 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. The NPS has evaluated 
this proposed rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and 
under the Department's consultation policy and has tentatively 
concluded that this rule would not have substantial direct effects on 
Alaska Native Tribes or Alaska Native Corporation lands, water areas, 
or resources. Additionally, the Department requests comments on the 
proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This proposed rule contains no new or modified information 
collections. All information collections require approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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.)

    A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a 
categorical exclusion. This rule does not involve any of the 
extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require 
further analysis under NEPA. The NPS has determined that changes in 
this rule are categorically excluded under the DOI NEPA Handbook 
Appendix Sec.  2 (February 2026), Sec.  12.5A(10), which covers 
modifications or revisions to existing regulations, or the promulgation 
of new regulations for NPS-administered areas, provided the 
modifications, revisions or new regulations do not: (a) Increase public 
use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area 
or causing physical damage to it; (b) introduce noncompatible uses 
which might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area, or 
cause physical damage to it; (c) conflict with adjacent ownerships or 
land uses; or (d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. The 
NPS will document the application of this categorical exclusion to this 
rule.

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the 
definition in Executive Order 13211; this proposed rule is not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy, and this proposed rule has not otherwise been designated 
by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs as a significant energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects 
in 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 
proposes to amend 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. Add Sec.  13.1005 to subpart M as follows:


Sec.  13.1005   Off-road vehicle use for subsistence purposes in Gates 
of the Arctic National Park and Preserve.

    (a) General prohibition. Operating a motor vehicle off road in 
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve is prohibited except by 
authorized residents as defined in this section when engaged in 
subsistence uses as defined by Sec.  13.420 of this part. For purposes 
of this subpart, ``authorized residents'' means local rural residents 
of Anaktuvuk Pass.
    (b) Permitted use. For purposes of implementing section 811(b) of 
ANILCA, off-road vehicles constitute a means of surface transportation 
traditionally employed for subsistence purposes by authorized 
residents. As a result, off-road vehicles are permitted to be used by 
authorized residents for subsistence purposes in Gates of the Arctic 
National Park and Preserve.
    (c) Scope of use. Vehicles authorized under paragraph (b) of this 
section may be used for subsistence uses defined by Sec.  13.420 of 
this part.
    (d) Operating standard. Use authorized by this section must be 
conducted in a manner that:
    (1) Prevents waste or unnecessary damage to park resources;
    (2) Avoids the herding, harassment, hazing, or driving of wildlife; 
and
    (3) Is reasonably related to lawful subsistence uses.
    (e) Limitations on off-road vehicle use. The regulations contained 
in this section establish a presumption in favor of the subsistence 
uses described in this section. The Superintendent may require the 
implementation of reasonable mitigation measures (including closures) 
to address impacts of off-road vehicle use authorized by this section, 
which do not cause local authorized residents to incur unreasonable 
costs. Mitigation measures may only be required in compliance with the 
following procedures:
    (1) The need for mitigation measures must be based upon clear 
evidence that such use is causing or is likely to cause an adverse 
impact as defined in paragraph (h) of this section. In support of any 
such measures, the Superintendent must develop a written determination 
that:
    (i) Articulates why the impact supporting the need for mitigation 
measures constitutes an adverse impact as defined in paragraph (h) of 
this section;

[[Page 66040]]

    (ii) Articulates why the mitigation measures are the least 
restrictive measures capable of mitigating the identified adverse 
impact; and
    (iii) Is supported by specific, articulable facts in the 
administrative record.
    (2) The Superintendent must provide authorized residents with 
notice of proposed mitigation measures at least 30 days prior to 
requiring such measures. The notice must:
    (i) Contain the information required in paragraph (e)(1);
    (ii) Be published in the Federal Register and disseminated through 
means of notification reasonably expected to reach authorized 
residents; and
    (iii) Invite authorized residents to consult with the 
Superintendent consistent with paragraph (e)(3).
    (3) Prior to implementing mitigation measures to address adverse 
impacts defined in paragraph (h), the Superintendent must participate 
in meaningful consultation with authorized residents, to include at 
least one public hearing.
    (4) Following consultation and the 30-day notice period, the 
Superintendent may issue a final written determination requiring 
compliance with the proposed mitigation measures, provided that the 
final determination must:
    (i) Contain the information required in paragraph (e)(1) and 
explain why the Superintendent's findings have not changed since 
issuance of the notice required by paragraph (e)(2);
    (ii) Address input from authorized residents provided during the 
consultation process; and
    (iii) Allow continuing reasonable use of off-road vehicles for 
subsistence purposes during the mitigation period.
    (5) Mitigation measures may be imposed, with the concurrence of the 
Regional Director, to address an emergency situation without advance 
notice or consultation and shall expire after 45 days. Notice of a 
mitigation measure to address an emergency situation must be provided 
to authorized residents as soon as practicable after implementation of 
the mitigation measure.
    (f) No recreational authorization. Nothing in this section 
authorizes recreational off-road vehicle use.
    (g) Relationship to other authorities. This section implements 
sections 201(4)(a) and 811 of ANILCA for Gates of the Arctic National 
Park. In the event of a conflict between this section and prior agency 
policy or park planning documents concerning whether the vehicles 
described in paragraph (b) are traditionally employed for subsistence 
use in Gates, this section governs.
    (h) Definition of adverse impact. For purposes of this section, 
``adverse impact'' means a direct significant impact to public health 
and safety, resources, historic or scientific values, subsistence uses, 
or endangered or threatened species. For purposes of this section, 
adverse impacts to Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve must 
be currently occurring or reasonably foreseeable and cannot be based on 
impacts that are remote, speculative, dependent on uncertain future 
events, based on generalized climatic patterns, or derived from any 
type of modeling.
    (i) Applicability. The regulations in this section apply 
notwithstanding any other provision contained in this chapter.

    Dated: October 14, 2026.
Kevin J. Lilly,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2026-21300 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>