[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11483-11495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04606]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 13
[NPS-AKRO-NPS0040343; PPAKAKROD0, PPMPSPD1Y.YM0000]
RIN 1024-AE96
Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service proposes to amend its regulations
for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other natural resource harvest in
national preserves in Alaska and for the procedures used to restrict
public use and access in Alaska park lands. These changes restore
National Park Service interpretations of law, policies, and regulations
adopted to implement the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act of 1980 that were in effect for over three decades. Rulemaking in
2015, 2017, and 2024 preempted methods of State-authorized fish and
wildlife harvests, revised codified and established procedures for
restricting public access and activities in Alaska park lands, and
added severability provision, among other changes. The revisions in
this proposed rule are consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14153,
E.O. 14192, and Secretary of the Interior's Order (S.O.) 3422 titled
``Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential.''
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 p.m. ET
on April 9, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier
Number (RIN) 1024-AE96, by either of the following methods:
(1) Electronically:
Go to the Federal Register website: https://www.federalregister.gov. In the search box, enter ``1024-AE96'', 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
[[Page 11484]]
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter ``1024-AE96'', 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: Mail to: National Park Service, Regional
Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK
99501. Comments delivered on external storage devices (flash drives,
compact discs, etc.) will not be accepted.
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-AE96) for this rulemaking. Comments
received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, search for ``1024-AE96'' and then click on
the ``Dockets'' tab. In compliance with the Providing Accountability
Through Transparency Act of 2023, the plain language summary of the
proposal is available on Regulations.gov in the docket for this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Striker, Regional Director
(Acting), Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK
99501; phone (907) 227-6163; email: [email protected].
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:
Background
Legal Authority
Section 1313 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) provides that ``[a] National Preserve in Alaska shall be
administered and managed as a unit of the National Park System in the
same manner as a national park except as otherwise provided in this Act
and except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and
subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve
under applicable State and Federal law and regulation.'' 16 U.S.C.
3201.
Section 1314(a) of ANILCA reaffirms that ``Nothing in this Act is
intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority of the
State of Alaska for management of fish and wildlife on the public lands
except as may be provided in title VIII of this Act, or to amend the
Alaska constitution.'' 16 U.S.C. 3202(a). Section 1314(c) provides
further instructions on provisions for harvests and areas closed to all
harvests in park units. 16 U.S.C. 3202(c).
Title VIII of ANILCA established a priority opportunity for
customary and traditional subsistence uses of fish and wildlife by
rural residents over other consumptive uses of fish and wildlife on
Federal public lands, including Alaska's National Preserves. As part of
its management for sustainability under the Alaska Constitution, the
State authorizes regulated take on Federal lands, while the Federal
Subsistence Board acts as the Federal regulating agency to assure a
subsistence priority is provided to rural residents. The Federal
Subsistence Board is authorized to ``close public lands to hunting,
trapping, or fishing, or take actions to restrict the taking of fish
and wildlife necessary to conserve healthy populations'' and ``continue
subsistence uses of such populations'', while the National Park Service
(NPS) retains authority ``to issue regulations necessary for the proper
management of public lands under [its] jurisdiction in accordance with
ANILCA and other existing laws'' (e.g., to restrict activities where
statutory criteria are met). 43 CFR 51.13.
Beginning with Statehood in 1959, fish and wildlife harvest
activities were regulated by the State of Alaska on all Federal and
non-Federal lands and waters, subject to certain Federal laws. The
three pre-statehood national parks were closed to all harvests except
sport fishing. In 1978, Alaska adopted a statutory preference for
subsistence uses among consumptive uses, which was regulated by the
Boards of Fisheries and Game along with other uses. Upon passage of
ANILCA, NPS adopted regulations in 1981 and 1983, which continued to
recognize state-authorized harvests and methods for recreational,
subsistence, commercial, and other uses apply to park units except
where closed under ANILCA. In ANILCA, Congress established statutory
criteria and a public engagement process that would protect traditional
activities and methods of access on and across Federal lands for
hunting, trapping, and other activities to occur. From NPS adoption of
regulations implementing ANILCA in 1981 through the NPS regulations and
policies in effect in 2014, the application of state-authorized
harvests remained relatively unchanged.
2015 Rule
On October 23, 2015, NPS reinterpreted its legal authorities and
policies in publishing a final rule (2015 Rule; 80 FR 64,325)
implementing major changes to its regulations for harvest and access on
park lands in Alaska, as follows:
1. NPS added a new 36 CFR 13.42 that, among other things,
prohibited: (1) trapping in a preserve as the employee of another; (2)
transporting wildlife through parks without identification; (3) any
state law identified by NPS as related to ``predator reduction''
efforts; (4) fourteen specific activities (including bear baiting); and
(5) obstructing others engaged in lawful hunting. A previously existing
prohibition on taking certain species after having been airborne the
day before was moved into this new section. NPS also amended its
interpretation of national policies and revised its Alaska-specific
regulations for hunting and trapping in national preserves, including
prohibiting certain harvest practices otherwise regulated by the State
of Alaska. Information surrounding the rule focused public attention on
certain harvest methods and values despite finding no impacts to
wildlife populations and confirming that finding through an
environmental analysis.
2. NPS revised the closure procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 and 36 CFR
13.490(a) to remove the well-established public participation process
and criteria for restricting public use and access that, for over three
decades, were prescribed in regulations for all park units in Alaska at
36 CFR parts 1 and 13 (beginning in 1981) and for all conservation
system units in Alaska at 43 CFR part 36 (since 1986). Information
surrounding the rule characterized these changes to public use, access,
notice, and opportunity to be heard on park management actions as
``updating'' the definitions and processes.
3. NPS removed paragraph (e) from 36 CFR 13.400 and revised 36 CFR
13.470 and 36 CFR 13.480 to remove references to state law and the
State of Alaska. Paragraph (e) in 36 CFR 13.400 had made clear that the
State of Alaska's regulation of the taking of fish and wildlife in park
areas was authorized. The 2015 Rule's removal of this express provision
created confusion regarding the State's management authority in parks.
NPS stated the revisions to 36
[[Page 11485]]
CFR 13.470 and 36 CFR 13.480 were done to update the regulations to
reflect Federal management of subsistence, but the 2015 Rule failed to
explain that this provision had operated for years in the context of
Federal management without issue. The 2015 Rule's deletion of
references to the State of Alaska created ambiguity as to the extent of
the State's authority to manage hunting and fishing in parks. These
revisions reflected a reinterpretation of ANILCA as limiting
``subsistence'' to those harvests and users regulated by the Federal
Subsistence Board under Title VIII, inadvertently closing park lands to
state-authorized harvests for subsistence uses.
4. NPS revised 36 CFR 13.40 to ``allow'' use of native fish for
non-subsistence fishing. NPS authorized this use of native species as
bait for fishing and certain traditional harvest methods as an
exception to nationwide NPS prohibitions that preempted those methods
in other states. This ``allowance'' codified NPS's reinterpreted claim
of authority to apply nationwide prohibitions to preempt state law in
Alaska without meeting the criteria and process Congress required in
Section 1313 of ANILCA, which limits NPS authority to restrict state-
authorized harvests to specific criteria ``consistent with the
provisions of section 816'' and ``for reasons of public safety,
administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and
enjoyment'' after consultation with the State.
The 2015 Rule was supported by organizations supporting
preservation and opposing certain harvest methods, and was opposed by
Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Federation of Natives, Tanana Chiefs
Conference, the State of Alaska, hunting and fishing advisory groups,
gateway communities, and others affected by the harvest limits and
disenfranchised by the process changes affecting access and traditional
activities. The environmental analysis found no substantial difference
in impact on NPS resources between the no action and preferred
alternative adopted in the 2015 Rule. Numerous commenters objected to
the omission in the analysis of significant impacts to the human
environment and to the State's mandate for sustainable wildlife
management.
2017 Rule
On January 12, 2017, the NPS published a final rule (2017 Rule; 82
FR 3626) that used regulations modified in the 2015 Rule to make
unilateral changes affecting subsistence uses and other traditional
activities, as follows:
1. NPS added a new 36 CFR 13.482 to require a permit for
subsistence collection of animal parts and revised 36 CFR 13.485 to
institute limitations on the ability of subsistence users to gather
plant materials for handicrafts for customary trade. These revisions
limited public participation and consultation with the State and
subsistence userson management decisions and obscured requirements for
managers limiting public access and traditional activities, such as
removing the process required for park units in Alaska in 43 CFR part
36. In addition to removing these requirements for restricting
protected access and authorized activities, NPS expanded its claim of
discretionary authority by redefining the nature of a ``closure'' to
allow more intense management of the public and park resources without
needing to consult with the public or State and Federal managers.
For example, in its response to comment 11 (82 FR 3630), NPS
claimed that ``requiring a permit or otherwise putting conditions on an
activity is not a closure,'' which ignores the fact a park is
``closed'' to any individual who fails to, cannot, or should not have
to adhere to a given restriction. ANILCA and its implementing
regulations recognize public entry, access, and use as ``open until
closed'' to enable continuation of traditional activities, as
prescribed by those regulations. The 2017 Rule claimed these
activities, along with heritage activities like falconry and the
customary and traditional uses of natural items in the park, were in
conflict with nationwide regulations and revised policy
interpretations, requiring more intense management and a discretionary
permitting system.
When NPS removed its long-standing regulatory criteria, durations,
and categories for emergency, temporary, and permanent restrictions and
closures in the 2015 Rule, it expanded the discretion park
superintendents exercise to implement these restrictions and closures
without acknowledging the laws, policies, and well-established
procedures in nationwide and Alaska-specific regulations at 36 CFR
parts 1 and 13 that guided ANILCA implementation for over three decades
before the 2015 and 2017 expansions.
2. NPS revised 36 CFR 13.420 Definitions to, among other things,
insert a reference to ANILCA in ``subsistence uses'' that had the
effect of displacing state authorized subsistence harvest from parks.
NPS again changed the definition of ``subsistence'' in reinterpreting
its authorities and policies to support discretion for more intense
management actions, including permanent closures without rulemaking
(e.g., state-authorized subsistence uses) and requiring user permits
instead of using park-specific or statewide regulations to govern the
collection of natural objects and animal parts used to barter, make
handicrafts, or for other customary and traditional uses.
For example, based on the environmental impact analysis supporting
the 2017 Rule, the NPS Regional Director determined written
authorization from NPS is required to collect animal parts and plant
materials to make handicrafts for barter and customary trade.
Collecting living or dead fish and wildlife ``or the parts or products
thereof, such as antlers or nests'' is prohibited in nationwide NPS
regulations, 36 CFR 2.1, along with most unpermitted commercial uses,
e.g., 36 CFR 5.3. Because plant collection was authorized in Alaska-
specific regulations, e.g., 36 CFR 13.485(b), and park-specific
regulations, 36 CFR 13.1006 and 13.1504, a subsequent determination
gave superintendents discretion to require written authorization for
``collecting plants for making handicrafts for customary trade.'' 82 FR
3629 (response to comment 9).
Subsistence users expressed concerns about losing access to these
irreplaceable materials and adding more permits to already permitted
uses. In opposing the rule's basis and approach, users explained that
gathering occurs simultaneously and opportunistically in search of all
natural resources supporting a subsistence way of life, and the effect
of the rule undermines congressional intent in ANILCA. See, e.g., 82 FR
3628 (comment 2), 3629 (comments 5, 8-10), and 3630 (comments 11 and
18). Tribal organizations and remote communities requested additional
allowances and certainties, including for migratory bird eggs, steam
bath rocks, and trade in unworked materials for apprentices, Elders,
and culture camps. See, e.g., 82 FR 3630 (comments 12 and 18).
3. NPS revised 36 CFR 13.42 to add a paragraph (j) prohibiting the
collection of living wildlife without an NPS permit and specifically
disallowing use of State of Alaska and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
permits and regulations for falconry. NPS also revised 36 CFR 13.480 to
add a paragraph (b) only allowing certain types of bait to be used for
subsistence bear baiting and adding paragraph (d) to 36 CFR 13.1902 to
require a permit for use of other types of bait. NPS provided
notifications of regulatory intent to the public and State of Alaska
but limited consultations to specific closures. The title of the 2017
[[Page 11486]]
Rule characterized it as a ``subsistence'' rule, and the summary only
referred to subsistence harvests, whereas the final rule included two
new harvest closures unrelated to subsistence harvests (for falconry
and bear baiting). The environmental assessment did not address the
closures or acknowledge comments provided by subsistence users, the
State of Alaska, gateway communities, Alaska Native corporations,
tribal councils, advisory councils, and others concerned about the
impacts and confusion resulting from new, undefined discretionary
limits on public heritage activities and adaptive wildlife management,
which may be available to view on a list of restrictions maintained by
NPS without a public process.
The combined effect of these changes effectively expanded NPS's
authorities to limit harvests administered through State of Alaska,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Federal Subsistence Board
regulations.
Secretarial Order 3347, issued March 2, 2017, directed the
Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to advance conservation,
increase recreation opportunities, and improve consultation with State
of Alaska wildlife managers. On June 22, 2017, the DOI published a
Federal Register notice (82 FR 28429) calling for identification of
unnecessary regulations and, on July 14, 2017, ordered reconsideration
of the entire 2015 Rule. S.O. 3356, issued on September 15, 2017,
directed improved collaboration for public access and wildlife
conservation. The NPS published a Federal Register notice on November
15, 2017 (82 FR 52868), of its intent to conduct a review of the 2015
Rule. S.O. 3366, issued on April 18, 2018, directed the DOI bureaus to
ensure Federal regulations complement State regulations on surrounding
lands and enhance recreational uses of public lands. Although S.O. 3347
and S.O. 3356 were cited in a proposed rule issued May 22, 2018 (83 FR
23621), NPS emphasized the reauthorization of specific hunting
practices prohibited by the 2015 Rule and ignored significant impacts
and issues in the 2015 and 2017 rules reiterated by the State of
Alaska, subsistence users, and many others in oral and written
comments.
The State of Alaska submitted extensive information and comments on
the May 22, 2018, proposed rule to show the rulemaking effort, like the
2015 Rule, was focusing public attention on certain hunting and
trapping methods and downplaying substantial changes to the decision-
making process that public land users, the State, and the NPS's
conservation partners rely on. Despite recognition that the 2015 Rule
relied on inaccurate claims only ``sport'' hunting would be affected,
and acknowledgement of the effects on displaced users, the May 22,
2018, proposed rule retained the 2015 and 2017 rules' limited
opportunities for residents who harvest for subsistence purposes under
State and Federal regulations.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second unanimous ruling
in Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. 28 (2019), finding ``Alaska is
different'' and the application of general NPS prohibitions to park
units in Alaska must recognize the unique context and lifestyle that
Congress sought to protect in ANILCA. Since general NPS regulations
were the basis for determinations that became the 2017 Rule, and since
strict application of those general regulations to Alaska creates
barriers for priority public uses, cultural preservation, and
traditional activities, the NPS is seeking public comment on returning
to the Alaska-specific approach to managing these uses in effect before
the 2017 Rule, as proposed, or on using a different approach consistent
with NPS management responsibilities outlined in ANILCA and other
authorities.
2020 Rule
On June 9, 2020, NPS published a final rule (2020 Rule; 85 FR
35,181), that removed paragraphs (f) and (g) from 36 CFR 13.42. These
deletions removed the prohibition on State of Alaska actions related to
predator reduction and the prohibition on the fourteen specific
practices, including bear baiting. Most of the hunting methods restored
by the 2020 Rule were already prohibited by the State and the other
hunting methods had no impact on NPS resources.
The 2020 Rule did not address the other provisions of 36 CFR 13.42
added by the 2015 Rule, nor did it address the 2015 Rule's removal of
references to State law in 36 CFR 13.400, 36 CFR 13.470, and 36 CFR
13.480, changes to the closure procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 and 36 CFR
13.490, or the closure effected by 2015 Rule's revisions to 36 CFR
13.40.
Similarly, the 2020 Rule did not address the closure effected by
the 2017 Rule's prohibition on collection of living wildlife in 36 CFR
13.42(j), including through a falconry permit, nor did it address the
2017 Rule's limitation on subsistence uses by adding ANILCA to the
definition of subsistence in 36 CFR 13.420, the subsistence bear
baiting limitations imposed by the revisions to 36 CFR 13.480 and 36
CFR 13.1902, or the limitations imposed on subsistence plants and
animal plant gathering effected by the 2017 Rule's revisions to 36 CFR
13.482 and 36 CFR 13.485.
In August 2020, several groups challenged the 2020 Rule and, in a
September 2022 decision, a district court concluded the 2020 Rule
violated the Administrative Procedure Act and remanded it to the NPS
without vacatur. See Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Haaland, 632 F. Supp.
3d 974, 1004-1005 (D. Alaska 2022). The district court's ruling was
appealed.
2024 Rule
On July 3, 2024, the NPS again published a final rule (2024 Rule;
89 FR 55,059) that examined and reinstated one of the harvest
restrictions--the prohibition on bear baiting--in revisions to 36 CFR
13.42(f) and modified trapping regulations in Alaska preserves to
preempt laws the State may enact in the future through revisions to the
definition of ``trapping'' in 36 CFR 13.1. NPS also added a
severability provision in 36 CFR 13.42(k). Nothing in the 2024 Rule
addressed or modified the significant changes in policy interpretations
adopted in the 2015 and 2017 rules regarding expanded NPS authorities
based on values and removal of public participation in decisions
involving access and traditional activities. In developing the 2024
Rule, the NPS narrowly sought input from Tribal entities, subsistence
user groups, and the State of Alaska on the small set of proposed
changes to harvest methods and trapping regulations. Likewise, there
was no analysis of impacts of the 2015, 2017, and 2020 rules related to
the 2024 Rule in the environmental assessment. After publication of the
2024 Rule, the appeal of the 2020 Rule was dismissed as moot and the
district court's decision was vacated.
On January 20, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14153, ``Unleashing
Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' directing the Secretary of
the Interior to, among other things, rescind the 2024 Rule and
reinstate the 2020 Rule. E.O. 14153 also directed all bureaus in the
DOI to ensure to the greatest extent possible that harvest
opportunities on Federal lands are consistent with similar
opportunities on State lands. Soon after, on January 31, 2025, the
President issued E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' directing all Federal agencies to alleviate unnecessary
regulatory burdens. On February 3, 2025, S.O. 3422, ``Unleashing
Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' directed the Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks to develop an action plan
describing the necessary and appropriate steps to execute direction in
[[Page 11487]]
E.O. 14153. On January 7, 2026, S.O. 3447, ``Expanding Hunting and
Fishing Access,'' directed DOI bureaus to, among other things, remove
unnecessary regulatory barriers to hunting and fishing on DOI-managed
lands and to improve regulatory alignment with State wildlife agencies.
The NPS developed this proposed rule consistent with that plan and
these orders, with guidance from multiple stakeholder requests for
specific actions addressing the full suite of regulatory and policy
changes that began in 2015.
Requests for Action
Disputes and uncertainties persisted after the final rules issued
in 2015 and 2017, as stakeholders continued to comment on, litigate,
and demand closer review of the modifications and supporting
information. Multiple stakeholder groups were involved in challenging
and defending the 2015 and 2020 rules in court on matters that were not
fully addressed by the regulatory actions that resolved those cases,
meaning disputes and uncertainties are likely to continue. For example,
no rulemaking effort since 2015 has attempted to address or reconsider
modifications to the closure process or the disproportionate impact on
Alaskans, Tribes, local businesses, and public land users less affected
by the harvest provisions, including subsistence users.
A ``Petition for New Rulemaking Regarding Hunting on National
Preserves in Alaska'' (Petition) was filed on August 9, 2017, by the
Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation and Alaska Professional Hunters
Association seeking repeal of the 2015 Rule to restore the pre-2015
status quo of harvests and access administered through the well-
understood, decades-old procedures. The Petition noted the
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for the
2015 Rule suggested that no significant adverse impact on NPS resources
was likely to occur under the State management regime preempted by the
rule. Preemption of those authorities changed again in the 2020 and
2024 rules. Through this rulemaking, NPS can examine, compare, and
learn more from the public about the five-year period with the 2015
Rule restrictions and the five-year period that followed to assess the
environmental impacts and build on prior determinations.
The Alaska-based chapters of Safari Club International filed a
similar request with the DOI on September 15, 2017, to rescind the
entire 2015 Rule and parts of the 2017 Rule, noting strenuous
objections and new information provided by the affected public and
State managers were ignored in both the 2015 and 2017 rules. This
request questioned the sufficiency of evidence supporting the
precautionary protection of NPS resource values that supersedes
procedures adopted by the DOI in 43 CFR part 36 to safeguard public
access and activities protected in ANILCA.
The NPS received another request from Safari Club International on
May 19, 2025, again asking the DOI Secretary to rescind the 2015 Rule
and parts of the 2017 Rule in addition to rescinding the 2024 Rule,
providing comments previously submitted by the State of Alaska and a
coalition of Alaska conservation organizations amplifying similar
concerns raised in a prior rulemaking (Docket #NPS RIN 1024-AE38).
The Alaska Outdoor Council, an organization of outdoor clubs and
individuals who participate in harvests, access, and other activities
on Alaska's public lands, submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to the
Interior Department on October 10, 2025, to restore the pre-2015
policies and regulations by repealing the 2015 Rule, parts of the 2017
Rule, and the 2024 Rule. The Petition described impacts on Alaskans
from changes since 2014, deficiencies in public information and
consultation in the sequential rulemaking processes, and failure to
meet the standard set in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S.
502 (2009), that would justify the significant changes NPS made in 2015
and 2017 to the well-established regulations and policies in use for
over three decades. The Petition proposed a preamble identifying agency
considerations and specific changes to restore the pre-2015 regulations
and policies that implemented ANILCA protections for access, public
participation, and State consultation in management decisions, and for
State-authorized harvests in Alaska's parks and preserves.
Proposed Changes
By rescinding these new and modified regulations, the NPS proposes
to restore the procedures for restricting and closing public entry and
access on national park lands to the language and procedures in 43 CFR
36 and 36 CFR 13 in effect before the 2015 Rule. The proposed changes
would remove changes made through the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules that
insulated managers from public involvement, removed required
consultation with the State, and allowed for discretionary closures
without unique criteria established in the regulations to comply with
ANILCA. The proposed rule restores and maintains the NPS's authority to
restrict public access, entry, and uses for reasons provided under the
closure procedures in effect since the preserves were established in
Alaska.
Consistent with FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. at
515-16, NPS acknowledges its awareness this proposed rule represents a
change in position from that taken in the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules.
For the reasons that will be discussed below, the NPS preliminarily
concludes the proposed rule: (1) is permissible under ANILCA and the
NPS Organic Act; (2) is better than the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules; and
(3) is supported by good reasons. NPS cannot finalize these conclusions
at this time because it needs to receive and consider public comments
and develop a final rule.
With specified exceptions for unrelated changes, the NPS proposes
to restore its longstanding Alaska-specific regulations at 36 CFR part
13 by rescinding changes made in the 2015 Rule, 2017 Rule, and 2024
Rule, that:
unnecessarily preempt State law;
frustrate effective management of fish and wildlife
resources in Alaska park units, including for subsistence;
interfere with management of wildlife resources by other
bureaus and offices in the DOI with delegated authorities from the DOI
Secretary, including the Federal Subsistence Board and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service;
eliminate public notice and engagement on NPS management
decisions, including for subsistence users guaranteed a ``meaningful
role in the management of fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses''
(16 U.S.C. 3111);
are substantially similar to regulations for Alaska
national wildlife refuges nullified by Congress in 2017 through the
Congressional Review Act; and
cannot demonstrate a verifiable basis for limiting public
access and land uses.
The NPS has determined the 2015 Rule and 2017 Rule fundamentally
altered the management framework Alaskans relied on following ANILCA
for a sustainable harvest of fish and wildlife, to preserve culture, to
conserve and protect lands and resources, and to pass on traditions.
These rules unnecessarily interfere with the decision-making process
outlined in ANILCA and the DOI regulations at 43 CFR part 36 protecting
access and public use on NPS-administered lands in Alaska.
Evaluating the full scope of revisions at 36 CFR part 13 that
originated in the 2015 Rule, and recommendations and information
provided in the requests for
[[Page 11488]]
action described above, aligns with the President's and the DOI
Secretary's directions to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on
public lands users, meaningfully consult with the State, and ensure
harvest opportunities on Federal lands are consistent with similar
opportunities on State lands.
Based on a review of the full record, the NPS has preliminarily
determined this proposed rule is a substantial improvement and that
changes to NPS regulations in 2015, 2017, and 2024 were not necessary
to protect wildlife or visitor safety, making their continued
application inconsistent with ANILCA and NPS management policies. The
NPS requests public input on this preliminary conclusion, particularly
regarding any desirable modifications that resulted in positive
outcomes for park users, affected communities, and regional management
partners.
The NPS is also reconsidering conclusions that supported these
prior rulemakings, taking into account deficiencies and concerns
identified by requests for action, in public comments, and during
litigation. For example, the importance of creating space for Alaska's
system of dual management in the State's and NPS's respective decision
frameworks has been a common concern shared by Tribes, the State, and
regional stakeholders since the 2015 Rule. In the preamble to that
rule, NPS concluded the word ``subsistence'' in ANILCA and its
implementing regulations means subsistence activities by rural
residents under Federal laws, rather than the customary and traditional
uses of Alaska's fish and wildlife that is regulated and prioritized
under both State and Federal laws. See 80 FR 64,329. Corresponding
edits to 36 CFR 13.470 and 13.480 removed the incorporation of State
laws by reference and had the unintended effect of displacing State
laws governing those uses. Allowances in 36 CFR 13.400 for subsistence
uses to occur consistent with applicable State and Federal law have not
proven effective at maintaining the balance struck in the pre-2015
regulations that park users and resource managers relied on for 35
years, which this rulemaking proposes to restore.
This proposed rule would effect these changes by, among other
things, restoring the appropriately balanced references to State law in
36 CFR 13.40, 36 CFR 13.400, 36 CFR 13.420, 36 CFR 13.470, and 36 CFR
13.480 from the pre-2015 rules. As part of the restoration of 36 CFR
13.40, certain measures moved out of that provision by the 2015 Rule
and put into 36 CFR 13.42, will be restored through edits to 36 CFR
13.40 and deletion of 36 CFR 13.42.
This proposed rule repeals the significant changes to legal and
policy interpretations of State authority to regulate harvests and NPS
authorities to preempt such harvests, including the assertion of
discretionary authority to regulate subsistence uses adopted in the
2015 and 2017 rules. This proposed rule more closely aligns harvest
regulations in national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska
regulations, ensuring that hunting opportunities on preserve lands are
consistent with similar opportunities on State, private, and other
Federal lands, as they were before the 2015 Rule. This alignment
reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens inherent in conflicting and
redundant harvest regulations in Alaska, where evolving land ownership
is checker-boarded with Federal designations, State lands, Native
Corporation lands, and various allotments, upon which wildlife
populations move freely throughout.
This proposed rule would eliminate the potential for conflict in
the 2015 changes to 36 CFR parts 1 and 13 with the DOI regulations
implementing ANILCA at 43 CFR part 36 that specify public involvement
and criteria prior to closing park lands to public access and protected
uses. The 2015 Rule and 2017 Rule changes to 36 CFR part 13 reduced
public involvement in the closure process. These rule changes also
expanded the authority the NPS historically exercised: (1) to regulate
subsistence harvests, including unintentionally preventing federally
qualified users from participating in subsistence harvests on over 20
million acres of national preserves; and (2) to regulate fish and
wildlife populations traditionally, and appropriately, managed by the
State under the Alaska Constitution. Reinstatement of the pre-2015
closure process includes restoring the closure timelines Alaskans
requested and relied on, notifications that were replaced by an
overreliance on electronic communications, and long-standing
requirements for meaningful consultation with the affected public and
the State, using defensible criteria for discretionary closures
consistent with ANILCA.
Further, this proposed repeal of the remainder of the 2015 Rule is
consistent with, although not required by, Public Law 115-20 (April 3,
2017), whereby Congress disapproved a parallel final 2016 rule enacted
for national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Regardless of whether the 2015
Rule for national preserves was ``substantially the same'' or not, both
the national wildlife refuge and NPS rules prohibited similar hunting
practices with similar amendments to regulations enacted to implement
ANILCA, were developed simultaneously within the DOI, and applied to
millions of acres of land across all regions of Alaska, with similar
impacts to the same wildlife populations and public uses. Comments made
in passing Public Law 115-20 noted the NPS 2015 Rule ``also deserves
repeal'' as it similarly portended to address certain harvest methods
while making other significant procedural changes. If adopted, this
proposed rule would satisfy multiple requests to restore fish and
wildlife management in Alaska to a regulatory framework consistent with
ANILCA that existed for decades with no impacts on NPS resources, as
acknowledged throughout this process.
For the most part, this proposed rule does not directly address
subsistence harvest by rural residents regulated under Title VIII of
ANILCA, but it helps alleviate the incidental burdens on subsistence
imposed by the 2015 and 2017 rules, among other things.
The other two bases upon which the district court found the 2020
Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act were addressed by
certain statements in the preamble to the 2024 Rule. Those statements
are not disturbed by this proposed rule.
Bear Baiting
This proposed rule would remove a prohibition established by the
2015 Rule on using bait to attract or take bears on national preserves
in Alaska, preempting long-standing, recent, and future State
regulations governing the use, where authorized. The prohibition was
removed by the 2020 Rule, then reestablished by the 2024 Rule. Removing
this prohibition would restore application of State of Alaska hunting
regulations in effect for decades before the 2015 Rule and between the
2020 Rule and the 2024 Rule. See 5 AAC 92.085(4), 92.044. In the 2024
Rule, the NPS stated prohibiting bear baiting was supported by public
safety concerns and informed by NPS policy that directs the NPS to
promote the safety of those who visit National Park System units (see
2006 NPS Management Policies, section 8.2.5). The NPS also stated that
prohibiting bear baiting was supported by NPS policy that directs the
NPS to protect natural wildlife populations (see 2006 NPS Management
Policies, section 4.4.2). This proposed rule responds to the
opportunity afforded in current direction to invite public input on the
result of these changes and examine any
[[Page 11489]]
lessons learned from this practice being allowed and prohibited.
As shown by the above summary of the 2015 and 2024 rules' treatment
of this practice, the NPS is aware this proposed rule would be a change
in policy from the 2015 and 2024 rules. Fox, 556 U.S. at 515-16. So far
as the other Fox factors are concerned, the NPS's discussion below will
show how: (1) allowing the practice is permissible under ANILCA and the
NPS Organic Act; (2) NPS believes this proposed rule is better than the
previous rules; and (3) the proposed rule is supported by good reasons.
These conclusions are preliminary because this is a proposed rule. The
NPS will update these conclusions as appropriate for whatever final
rule the NPS develops.
The NPS notes the 2015 Rule was not based on ``factual findings''
that would implicate the need for a ``reasoned explanation'' for
disregarding those findings. See 80 FR 64,334 (response to comment 19).
To the extent the 2024 Rule purported to have been based on ``more
recent factual findings,'' the NPS's discussion below will provide the
``reasoned explanation'' for disregarding them.
Before addressing the Fox factors, the NPS acknowledges that one of
the district court's bases for concluding the 2020 Rule violated the
Administrative Procedure Act was the NPS's disregard without
explanation of its conclusion in the 2015 Rule that State regulations
fail to address public safety concerns associated with bear baiting.
Alaska Wildlife Alliance, 632 F. Supp. 3d at 1005. In this proposed
rule, the NPS explains why State regulations partially mitigate public
safety concerns from bear baiting, even though there may be some non-
compliance. To the extent it appears in the future that the 2015 or
2024 rules' concerns regarding non-compliance with State regulations
might pose unacceptable risks to public safety, the NPS is confident
the proposed rule allows any such risks to be addressed with closures,
enforcement actions, or other measures, as appropriate and consistent
with ANILCA.
In regard to public safety concerns informed by NPS policy, the NPS
estimates very few individuals used bait to attract or take bears when
this practice was governed by State of Alaska regulations from 1982
until the 2015 Rule prohibition and between the 2020 Rule and the 2024
Rule. The NPS has no reason to believe this practice will occur more
frequently than it did during those periods if once again governed by
State of Alaska regulations. The NPS expects there would be few baiting
stations established and the number of bears taken at stations would be
low. It is difficult to predict how many more bears might be taken due
to the proposed rule, and thus how much more bear baiting might occur,
because neither the NPS nor the State of Alaska maintain data on the
total number of bears taken over bait in national preserves in Alaska
when this practice was allowed in previous years.
The NPS evaluated several data sources to estimate the total number
of bears that could be expected to be taken over bait as a result of
this proposed rule. Miller et al. (2017) found that more liberalized
hunting regulations for brown bears, including bear baiting, resulted
in an increased harvest of brown bears on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula.
However, compared to the Kenai Peninsula, most national preserves in
Alaska are more difficult to access for the purpose of bear baiting.
Hilderbrand et al. (2013) estimated that less than 2 black bears per
year were harvested over bait in national preserves in Alaska when this
practice was allowed during the period from 1992 to 2010. Most bears
were harvested along the McCarthy Road corridor in Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve, due to this being one of the few areas with
an extensive road network. Other national preserves in Alaska are rural
and roadless, making it difficult to establish bait stations. Although
there are no data specific to the harvest of brown bears over bait in
national preserves, data from the State of Alaska reveals that between
2012 and 2016, 40 brown bears were taken over bait in certain areas
where baiting is allowed and that are adjacent to, within, or overlap
with, national preserves (NPS, 2019a; SOA, 2018). This indicates a
total of approximately 8 brown bears per year. These harvest numbers
are not specific to national preserves, however, and it is possible
that the harvest of brown bears would be similar to that of black bears
(i.e., 2 per year). The NPS estimates that very few hunters used bait
to attract or take bears in national preserves when this practice was
governed by State of Alaska regulations between the 2020 Rule and the
2024 Rule.
Based on the available data, compared to baseline conditions, NPS
anticipates that the proposed rule would result in the harvest of no
more than 10 bears per year (2 black bears and up to 8 brown bears,
where authorized). Thus, because any increase in bear baiting is
expected to be minimal, NPS also expects that whatever additional
public safety risk may be created, if any, would be minimal as well.
Statements made by Tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) corporations, and the State of Alaska during pre-consultation
on this rule support these estimates. These entities largely opposed
the prohibition in the 2015 Rule and 2024 Rule, and the limitations on
subsistence users in the 2017 Rule, as unnecessary due to limited
participation and no instances of public safety issues, and confusing
due to long-standing, data-informed, user-led regulation through the
State and Federal boards.
The NPS identified two primary risk factors in the 2024 Rule
related to bear baiting. The first factor was risk to public safety
from bears defending a food source. The NPS finds several
considerations diminish risks to public safety from bears defending a
food source at a bait station. State of Alaska regulations require a
permit and bait station areas be signed and located more than \1/4\
mile from publicly maintained roads (including logging roads, if they
are publicly maintained), trails, and the Alaska Railroad, and more
than one mile from a house or other permanent dwelling (except for
cabins on the opposite side of a major river system), a business, a
school, a developed campground, or developed recreational facility. See
5 AAC 92.044. In addition, the State requires all bait stations be
registered with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and all
persons wishing to register a bait station be at least 18 years of age
(increased from age 16 in 2017), and to have successfully completed an
ADF&G-approved bear baiting clinic either in person or online. ADF&G
continually updates and improves access to online materials concerning
bear baiting requirements, guidance, safety and ethics; and may
prohibit bear baiting in local areas for a variety of reasons including
public safety. NPS records indicate the majority of bait stations in
Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve did not comply with the State's
minimum distance requirements, but no public safety issues were
reported. The NPS reaffirms its conclusion in the 2024 Rule that State
regulations may reduce public safety risks associated with bait
stations and there is minimal risk of visitors approaching a bear
defending bait.
The NPS expects this rule would result in very few bait stations
established across all national preserves. Even if some stations are
established in unauthorized locations, measured against the total
population of visitors to national preserves in Alaska, the risk to
public safety from bears defending a food source at unauthorized
locations would be extremely low.
[[Page 11490]]
Regarding theoretical risks to public safety from bears that might
become habituated and conditioned to human food at bait stations, the
State of Alaska Board of Game commented on the 2024 Rule that it had no
information on bear baiting causing safety concerns by habituating
bears to human-provided food and had found no fact-based support for
this concern in any state that allows bear baiting. See letter dated
March 9, 2023, from the Alaska Board of Game to the NPS Regional
Director.\1\ This is consistent with the Board of Game Chair's comments
on the 2014 proposed rule, and similarly repeated by the State and many
others during each of the rulemakings, that there is no evidence bears
visiting bait stations become conditioned to human-provided foods; the
bears are likely to be harvested and those not harvested may become
site-conditioned to revisit that site. (Comment ID NPS-2014-0004-1223).
The 2024 Rule cited one study (Herrero, S. 2018) in support of
determining the risk factors of bear baiting which, upon further
review, the NPS determined is not relevant to bear bait stations in
remote areas; it is only relevant to human-bear conflicts created by
associating people with campgrounds and other human congregation points
with regular food sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NPS-2023-0001-13341 (last accessed Feb. 18, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 Rule noted as ``another consideration'' that bear baiting
would increase the number of food conditioned bears and that those
bears would be more likely to be killed in defense of life or property.
As NPS's discussion above demonstrates, there is no reason to expect
bear baiting will result in more food conditioned bears and more bears
taken in defense of life and property because the practice has not had
that effect when authorized in the past.
The 2024 Rule also identified the prohibition on bear baiting in
Denali State Park as a supporting basis for prohibiting bear baiting in
national preserves. 89 FR 55,063. While there may be situations in
which consistency between management of State parks and national
preserves is preferable, the NPS now concludes that this is not the
situation with bear baiting. Among other possible reasons why the
inconsistency is appropriate here, Denali State Park is approximately
300,000 acres while national preserves make up approximately twenty-two
million acres. Accordingly, prohibiting bear baiting in national
preserves has a much more restrictive effect than prohibiting bear
baiting in one State park.
The 2024 Rule placed substantial weight on a query of 28 bear
management and research biologists from across North America to support
a ban on bear baiting on national preserves in Alaska. Respondents
provided their opinions of public safety risks from bears defending a
food source and expressed views of baiting as the functional equivalent
of feeding bears that may alter their natural behavior. The query did
not specifically request their opinions about risks to public safety if
bears become habituated to human food at bait stations, which the NPS
expects would exist in very low numbers as a result of this rule.
Although the query of biologists is perhaps useful for understanding
potential risks, the NPS now finds the lack of data on any particular
public safety risks from bear baiting in Alaska is more persuasive. The
NPS finds the State of Alaska's experience particularly relevant here
given that the State has allowed bear baiting since before the 2015
Rule without experiencing any notable public safety concerns. The NPS
expects that if bear baiting caused public safety issues, the State
would be aware of them through its active monitoring and research
activities and its bear baiting management. Thus, the NPS now considers
the speculative risks identified in the survey less persuasive than the
State's experience in not encountering public safety concerns from bear
baiting.
Section 8.2.5 of NPS Management Policies acknowledges it is not
possible to eliminate all hazards in NPS System units, in particular in
areas managed as natural environments. To the extent they exist, this
policy does not require the NPS to eliminate all potential risks to
public safety from infrequent bear baiting in national preserves in
Alaska. The NPS manages national preserves as natural environments that
present numerous risks to public safety that cannot be completely
eliminated. No documentation exists of public safety issues under State
management of bear baiting on other Federal, State, and private lands
or on preserve lands prior to the 2015 Rule or when allowed between the
2020 Rule and 2024 Rule. For these reasons, the NPS has determined that
a complete prohibition on using bait to attract or take bears on
national preserves in Alaska and limitations on the use in the 2017
Rule are not supported by public safety concerns. This conclusion is
further supported by comments from Tribal governments on the 2017 Rule,
noting subsistence users have been harvesting bears over bait for
decades without incident, and that food-conditioned bears are most
likely to be attracted to bait stations with human food items and
harvested to reduce the potential for a public safety issue. (Comment
ID NPS-2016-0001-0011).
Although the NPS primarily relied upon public safety concerns to
support closures in 2015, 2017, and 2024, the NPS also indicated
closure was consistent with NPS policy to protect natural wildlife
populations (see 2006 NPS Management Policies, section 4.4.2). The NPS
has further considered the application of this policy to bear baiting
and concludes that 2006 NPS Management Policies, section 4.4.2 is not
an appropriate justification for banning or preempting the management
of this activity in Alaska. This conclusion is based upon the estimated
low number of bears taken over bait between the 2020 Rule and the 2024
Rule, which indicate that allowing bear baiting to occur again under
State of Alaska and Federal Subsistence Board regulations would not
create population-level concerns. This conclusion is further supported
by statements from the State of Alaska Board of Game made in comments
on the 2024 Rule, that it has information that hunting bears over bait
focuses the harvest on mature bears while avoiding female and immature
bears and, therefore, is part of an effective game management strategy.
See letter dated March 9, 2023, from the Alaska Board of Game to the
NPS Regional Director. Furthermore, we note the district court's
September 2022 decision affirmed NPS's conclusions that the practices
authorized in the 2020 Rule, which included bear baiting, would not
adversely impact wildlife populations or contravene NPS's statutory
duties. Alaska Wildlife Alliance, 632 F. Supp. 3d at 1002. There is no
new or additional data that has become available since the 2020 Rule or
the district court's 2022 decision to suggest that reinstating bear
baiting now will have population-level effects on bears.
Experience managing public uses by the NPS and the State of Alaska
since bear baiting was authorized in 1982, with and without
restrictions in place, has identified no areas where harvest authorized
by the Alaska Board of Game or Federal Subsistence Board presents a
public safety concern. If any are identified, the NPS maintains the
authority to close that area to harvest, as outlined in 36 CFR 13.50
and 13.490.
This change would be effected by the proposed rule's deletion of 36
CFR 13.42, which currently includes a prohibition on bear baiting in 36
CFR
[[Page 11491]]
13.42(f). As with the entirety of the proposed rule, the NPS is aware
this proposed rule would represent a change in position from the 2015
and 2024 rules and finds the new policy represented by this proposed
rule is better than the policies implemented in the 2015 and 2024
rules, that the proposed rule is supported by good reasons, and that,
to the extent the 2015 and 2024 rules relied on factual findings, the
above discussion provides a reasoned explanation for disregarding those
previous findings. And again, all these conclusions are preliminary and
will be revisited and updated as the NPS hears from the public and
finalizes a rule on this and the other topics addressed by this
proposed rule.
Definition of Trapping
The 2024 Rule attempted to clarify the definition of ``Trapping''
in 36 CFR 13.1 to limit circumstances under which individuals can use
firearms to take furbearers under a State of Alaska trapping license,
notwithstanding what that license may allow. The NPS has determined
this clarification did not contribute to clarity and is unnecessary
and, therefore, is inconsistent with E.O 14192 to reduce unnecessary
regulations. The NPS also determined that the 2024 Rule is inconsistent
with the direction in E.O. 14153 to ensure to the greatest extent
possible harvest opportunities on Federal lands are consistent with
similar opportunities on State lands. State of Alaska regulations
address the circumstances in which furbearers may be taken by firearm
(5 AAC 92.075(d), 92.095(a)(8)) and the NPS requests public input on
the need to establish different rules. The 2024 Rule stated that
clarifying the definition would more closely align the definition of
``trapping'' for NPS System units in Alaska with the definition that
applies to other NPS System units outside of Alaska. This reasoning
does not independently support the preemption of State law.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would revise the definition of
``Trapping'' and remove the definition of ``Furbearer'' in in 36 CFR
13.1 for being unnecessary.
Live Wildlife Collection
In the 2017 Rule, the NPS addressed public inquiries about the
collection of raptor chicks in national preserves for training and use
in hunting, clarifying that the activity itself is not considered
hunting and is therefore prohibited in national preserves. This closure
was based on general System-wide prohibitions at 36 CFR 2.2(a)(2) and
was adopted through a categorical exclusion for modifications to
existing regulations that do not increase use. Falconry activities in
Alaska are managed through State regulations (5 AAC 93.037) and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service regulations (50 CFR 21.82 and 21.85),
including the collection of live chicks for training. The NPS proposes
to restore that management through full deletion of 36 CFR 14.42,
including (j), and requests input on the necessity for and impacts
realized under full prohibition in the 2017 Rule.
Subsistence Collection
ANILCA authorizes subsistence collection as the priority public use
of most Alaska park units, including ``for barter, or sharing for
personal or family consumption; and for customary trade,'' and requires
management actions ``cause the least adverse impact possible on rural
residents who depend upon subsistence.'' 16 U.S.C. 3112-13. At the
request of subsistence resource commissions organized under ANILCA
section 808, the NPS and subsistence users collaborated for nearly a
decade to resolve a regulatory gap for collecting nonedible natural
items for the creation of handicrafts, including a 2012 environmental
assessment. While two individual Alaska NPS park units closed the gap
with a simple allowance in regulation, see 36 CFR 13.1006 and 13.1504,
the NPS identified a potential conflict with unregulated use and NPS
System-wide regulations at 36 CFR 2.1, 2.2, and 5.3, prohibiting
similar activities by the general public. The 2017 Rule purported to
resolve this conflict and minimize the potential for adverse impacts to
NPS resources and values through the creation of a mandatory permit
system and other restrictions.
The NPS proposes to rescind the 2017 Rule in its entirety,
including limitations on subsistence bear baiting (by deleting 36 CFR
13.1902(d)) and the collection of wildlife for falconry (by deleting 36
CFR 13.42, including (j)), as discussed above, as well as the attempt
to resolve this perceived conflict in NPS authorities with closures and
additional procedures that are no longer justified by any management
needs. Removal of language is not intended to affect any authorized
uses. The proposed rule would effect these changes through deleting the
definition of ``animal parts'' and ``handicraft'' in 36 CFR 13.420 and
by removing 36 CFR 13.482, and revising 36 CFR 13.485. These changes
will reduce the regulatory burden on users, not institute prohibitions.
For example, deleting 36 CFR 13.482 that was added as part of the 2017
Rule, does not mean the uses it describes are no longer authorized; it
means they will not be conditioned by the regulations added in 2017.
The NPS would like input on any uses that may be affected by full
rescission. The two park-specific regulations regarding the definition
of ``customary trade'' are retained and other parks may enact the same
or a similar provision if the conditions require it. The NPS would also
like input on whether a similar provision should be adopted as a State-
wide clarification in 36 CFR 13.420.
Public Closure Procedures
The NPS proposes to restore its long-standing procedures for
engaging the public in management decisions to respond to identified
challenges with the revised approach, align with administrative
direction to reduce the regulatory burden on the public, and eliminate
the potential for conflict between DOI regulations at 43 CFR part 36
and NPS regulations at 36 CFR part 13 by ensuring limitations on public
access and use are consistent with ANILCA. The proposed rule would
accomplish this by revising 36 CFR 13.50 and 36 CFR 13.490 as necessary
to restore the pre-2015 language. For example, the 2015 Rule removed
the provision formerly at 36 CFR 13.50(h) and its specific criteria,
duration, and notice requirements for ``Facility closures and
restrictions'', as well as the unique procedures for ``Openings'' in 36
CFR 13.50(g). Other than re-lettering, no changes to these provisions
had been included in the proposed rule. Among other things, this change
eliminated the opportunity to request hearings ``in the affected
vicinity and other locations as appropriate'' before a final opening
determination is made. Facility closures and openings become effective
on posting to the NPS website. 36 CFR 13.50(f). This is not always a
reliable means of notifying people accessing facilities in Alaska's
remote parklands, especially since the 2015 Rule also removed the
requirement for local radio station and newspaper announcements of
proposed closures.
The 2015 Rule also replaced statutory ``criteria'' in the Alaska-
specific closure process with ``factors'' drawn from emergency closure
criteria, and including any ``other management considerations.'' 36 CFR
13.50(b). The 2015 Rule replaced three well-established closure
durations with six new closure categories: non-emergency, emergency,
emergency and related to the take of fish or wildlife, non-emergency
and related to the take of fish or wildlife, related to the take of
wildlife and prohibited under other new provisions in the 2015 Rule,
and rulemaking-eligible closures. The
[[Page 11492]]
proposed rule doubled the only remaining durational requirement (for
emergency closures and restrictions), 36 CFR 13.50(e)(2), which became
a less finite ``duration of the emergency'' in the final rule (except
for harvest restrictions). See 80 FR 64,327 and 64,340 (response to
comment 56). In this proposed rule, NPS seeks public comment on the
impact of these changes and whether the increased complexity is
beneficial for users.
Severability
The 2024 Rule added a severability provision to 36 CFR 13.42(k)
that the NPS has determined is unnecessary and that would be deleted by
the proposed rule.
Proposed Rule
For the reasons stated above, the NPS proposes to rescind the
remainder of the 2015 Rule and to rescind the 2017 and 2024 rules in
their entirety. The proposed changes would restore the management of
park lands in Alaska to the regulatory framework in effect since
passage of ANILCA in 1980 and restore State regulatory authority for
management of hunting, fishing, and trapping as practiced in Alaska
since statehood.
Ministerial edits have been made to the regulatory text that is
being restored to conform to current Federal Register drafting
standards.
Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review E.O.s--12866 and 14192
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of
E.O. 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 proposed rule is expected to be an
E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The NPS has certified that the 2015 Rule, the 2017 Rule, the 2020
Rule, and the 2024 Rule would not have a significant economic effect on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). These certifications were based upon
cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in reports for
each of those rules.\2\ This rule would restore regulations for
hunting, fishing, trapping, and other natural resource harvest in
national preserves that existed before the 2015 Rule. This rule would
rescind changes to such regulations made by the 2015 Rule, the 2017
Rule, and the 2024 Rule, without making any other changes to the
regulations. As a result, the NPS expects that this rule also would not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses can be
found as follows: 2015 is available at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=1&projectID=49062&documentID=61262 (last
accessed Feb. 18, 2026); 2017 is available at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=1&projectID=35955&documentID=70264 (last
accessed Feb. 18, 2026); 2020 is available at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=105761 (last accessed
Feb. 18, 2026); 2024 is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NPS-2023-0001-18040 (last accessed Feb. 18, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
This proposed 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 proposed 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--E.O. 12630
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism--E.O. 13132
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, the proposed rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This proposed
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--E.O. 12988
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 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 Indian Tribes and ANCSA Corporations--E.O. 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 proposed rule was informed by feedback
from Tribal entities. In April 2025, the NPS invited Tribes and ANCSA
Corporations to participate in pre-consultation regarding NPS's
wildlife management practices in Alaska. The NPS continues to
incorporate feedback received, and to meet with all Tribal entities
that requested a meeting. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the
criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation
and ANCSA Corporation policies. Because the rule does not restrict
Title VIII subsistence harvest and feedback from Tribes and ANCSA
Corporations indicates using bait to attract or take bears on national
preserves is uncommon, 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 is ongoing and feedback will continue to be
considered by the NPS throughout the rulemaking process.
The NPS reviewed the input by local Alaska Native Tribes and
Corporations, Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, NPS
Subsistence Resource Commissions, and others during the comment period
for the 2015 Rule and determined there was significant opposition to
the 2015 Rule largely overlooked. For example, the Alaska Federation of
Natives at their 2014 Annual Convention adopted Resolution 14-42, which
found the rule ``is overreaching, vague, and indiscriminate and would
further criminalize Alaska Native traditional resources management
practices'' and ``that the National Park Service should not adopt'' it.
Tanana Chiefs Conference similarly found ``the proposed rule does
impact subsistence use, Tribes, and ANCSA corporation's land'' and, for
a number of reasons, ``opposed the proposed rule.'' Ahtna, Incorporated
objected to the proposed rule as it ``contains misleading information,
difficult to understand and read, and creates mistrust between the
public and National Park System.'' Ahtna, like many others, pointed out
[[Page 11493]]
how prior rulemakings claimed to not affect Federal subsistence users
but ``the fact of the matter is that this action will have an effect on
rural users of the National Park System.'' Many of the above
organizations complained there was no consultation prior to publication
of the proposed rule finalized in 2015 and the limited consultation
focused on justifying prohibitions of methods of harvests without
discussing the changes to public involvement and closure criteria for
access to park lands and public uses. Consistent with many similar
comments by these affected Tribes and other groups, the NPS finds no
substantive basis for the changes made by the 2015 Rule to the status
quo in effect since passage of ANILCA.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This proposed 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 will prepare an environmental assessment to determine
whether this proposed rule will have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment under the National Environmental
Policy Act. The environmental assessment will include appropriate new
information and an analysis of impacts evaluated in the environmental
assessments prepared for the 2015 Rule, the 2017 Rule, the 2020 Rule,
and the 2024 Rule, all of which resulted in a finding of no significant
impact. The environmental assessment will incorporate feedback received
during pre-consultation, consultation with Tribes and ANCSA
Corporations, and during public comment periods.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use--E.O. 13211
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the
definition in E.O. 13211; the proposed 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.
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
The NPS is required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988
(section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential
memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule the NPS publishes must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that the NPS has not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help the NPS revise the rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you should identify the numbers of
the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or
sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables
would be useful, etc.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the DOI, whenever practicable, to afford the
public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding
this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time.
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. 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. 13.40 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
4. Remove Sec. 13.42.
0
5. 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,
[[Page 11494]]
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.
(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;
(2) Designated by the posting of appropriate signs; or
(3) Both.
(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
6. In Sec. 13.400, redesignate paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and add
a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(e) 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.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 13.420:
0
a. Remove definitions for ``Animal parts'' and ``Handicraft''; and
0
b. Revise the definition for ``Subsistence uses''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 13.420 Definitions.
* * * * *
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 term--
(1) ``Family'' shall mean all persons related by blood, marriage,
or adoption, or any person living within the household on a permanent
basis; and
(2) ``Barter'' shall mean the exchange of handicrafts or fish or
wildlife or their parts taken for subsistence uses--
(i) For other fish or game or their parts; or
(ii) For other food or for nonedible items other than money if the
exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature; and
(3) ``Customary trade'' shall be limited to the exchange of furs
for cash.
0
8. 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. Sec. 2.3 of this chapter and 13.40. Provided, however, that local
rural residents in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed may
fish with a net, seine, trap, or spear where permitted by State law.
0
9. 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
10. Remove Sec. 13.482.
0
11. In Sec. 13.485:
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.
* * * * *
(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.
* * * * *
0
12. 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 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
[[Page 11495]]
``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).
Jessica Bowron,
Comptroller, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-04606 Filed 3-6-26; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P