SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (hereafter referred to as “the Secretaries”) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program (hereafter referred to as “the Program”). The Program provides a priority for take of fish and wildlife resources for nonwasteful subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. Only Alaska residents of areas identified as rural are eligible to participate in the Program. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out the Program in the Federal Register on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 27114), and final regulations on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). Program officials have subsequently amended these regulations many times. Because the Program is a joint effort between the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, these regulations are located in two titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The Agriculture regulations are at title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and the Interior regulations are at title 43, “Public Lands: Interior,” at 36 CFR 242.1-28 and 43 CFR 51.1-28, respectively. Consequently, to indicate that identical changes are proposed for regulations in both titles 36 and 43, in this document we will present references to specific sections of the CFR as shown in the following example: § __.24.

The Program regulations contain subparts as follows: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife. Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established the Board to administer the Program. The Board comprises:

• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• Five public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
• The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service (NPS);
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and
• The Pacific Geographic Area Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service.

Through the Board, these agencies and public members participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D. Subpart C sets forth important Board determinations regarding program eligibility ( i.e., which areas of Alaska are considered rural and which species are harvested in those areas as part of a “customary and traditional use” for subsistence purposes). Subpart D sets forth specific seasons, limits, and other harvest parameters and requirements.

In administering the Program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Council). The Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.

The Board conducts rulemaking for the Program on a biennial schedule with the process of revising the fish and shellfish regulations and the process for revising the wildlife regulations occurring during opposite years. The Board addresses “customary and traditional use” determinations during the applicable biennial cycle. The regulations at § __.4 define “customary and traditional use” as “a ( printed page 67483) long-established, consistent pattern of use, incorporating beliefs and customs which have been transmitted from generation to generation.” Since establishment of the Program regulations in 1992, the Board has made a number of customary and traditional use determinations at the request of affected subsistence users. These determinations have resulted in revisions to the regulations at § __.24. Those modifications, along with some administrative corrections, were published in the Federal Register as follows:

Current Rulemaking Action

The Departments published a proposed rule, Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska—2026-27 and 2027-28 Subsistence Taking of Wildlife Regulations, on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6922), to amend the regulations in subparts C and D of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 for seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means related to taking of wildlife for subsistence uses. Since the Department of the Interior Federal subsistence regulations were subsequently relocated from 50 CFR part 100 (90 FR 34148, July 18, 2025), the regulations referenced in the remainder of this document will be 36 CFR part 242 and 43 CFR part 51.

The proposed rule opened a comment period that closed on April 4, 2025. The Departments advertised the proposed rule on the Program's web page and social media, and it was sent via email. The Councils met between February 19 and April 2, 2025, and in addition to other business, received suggestions for proposals from the public. The Board received a total of 84 proposals, 1 of which was classified as invalid. The invalid proposal requested a change to the Unit 2 black bear harvest limit for nonresidents, which is outside of the Board's authority. The Board received 7 valid proposals for changes to subpart C (customary and traditional use determinations) and 76 valid proposals for changes to subpart D regulations (which are specific provisions regarding the take of fish and wildlife). In addition, 18 wildlife closure reviews were presented for comment as required ( printed page 67484) by Board policy that specifies a review of each closure at least every 4 years. The Board also addressed one request for reconsideration submitted in response to the Board changing the status of Ketchikan from nonrural to rural, and one deferred proposal from the previous fish and shellfish regulatory cycle (90 FR 34152, July 18, 2025).

The public submitted twelve general comments, which are available for review at www.regulations.gov in Docket No. DOI-2024-0011. Most of these comments supported some combination of the proposed rule and the Title VIII rural priority and conservation mandate. Another comment expressed concern for effects on wildlife populations but supported the Board's holistic decision-making process. The remaining comment supported including proposed meeting dates to maximize participation. We provided fall and winter meeting dates and locations for the ten Councils. We did not provide specific dates for the Board meeting because the dates were unknown. The remaining public comment was outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

After the comment period closed, the Board posted the proposals on the Program website and distributed a news release notifying the public on May 7, 2025. The public then had 55 days, until June 30, 2025, to comment on the proposed regulatory changes.

The 10 Councils met again between September 16, 2025, and March 13, 2026, received public comments, and formulated their recommendations to the Board on proposals and closure reviews for their respective regions. The public also had an opportunity to comment at the Board meeting. Therefore, the public received extensive opportunity to review and comment on all changes.

The Councils had a substantial role in reviewing the proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. Moreover, a Council Chair, or a designated representative, presented each Council's recommendations at the Board's public meeting held April 21-24, 2026.

Summary of Board Actions on Proposals and Closure Reviews

The Board's actions on each proposal and closure review are listed in table 2 below. When making decisions, the Board may consider, among other factors, whether a proposal:

• provides a subsistence priority on public lands;
• is supported by substantial scientific evidence and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK);
• recognizes principles of fish and wildlife conservation;
• provides opportunity; and
• would not be detrimental to or place undue burden on rural Alaskan subsistence users.

The Board considered 83 wildlife proposals and 18 wildlife closure reviews during the 2026-28 wildlife regulatory cycle. The Board adopted 51 of the proposals, deferred 5, approved the withdrawal of 3 (WP26-27 and WP26-41/42), rejected 12, and took no action on 12. The Board acted on 18 wildlife closure reviews, voting to retain status quo on 13 of them, rescind 3, and take no action on 2. The Board adopted deferred fisheries proposal FP25-02 as modified by the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council and determined the requests for reconsideration of Ketchikan's rural status (RFR25-01) do not meet the threshold for further consideration.

Consensus agenda: The consensus agenda is made up of proposals and closure reviews for which there is agreement concerning a proposed regulatory action among the affected Councils, a majority of the Interagency Staff Committee members, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Anyone may request that the Board remove a proposal or a closure review from the consensus agenda and place it on the non-consensus agenda. Proposals or closure reviews may be taken off the consensus agenda following the agreement of at least one Board member; such proposals or closure reviews then follow the Board's process for non-consensus items and are deliberated and voted on individually. Wildlife proposals WP26-22 regarding trapping setbacks in Unit 7, WP26-62b regarding establishing a muskox hunt in Unit 22A, and WP26-66 regarding wolf hunting in Unit 23 were moved from the consensus agenda to the non-consensus agenda at the request of the public and agreement by the Board. Of the proposals and closure reviews being considered, 39 were on the consensus agenda. The Board votes en masse on the consensus agenda after deliberation and action on all other proposals.

Of the proposals on the consensus agenda, the Board adopted 17 as they were written, adopted 3 with modifications, rejected 8, and took no action on 5. Of the closure reviews on the consensus agenda, the Board retained the status quo on four and rescinded two. Analysis and justification for the action taken on each proposal on the consensus agenda can be found in the Board meeting book and transcripts for the meeting that occurred April 21-24, 2026 in Anchorage, AK.

Non-consensus agenda: Of the proposals and closure reviews being considered, 59 were on the Board's non-consensus agenda. The Board adopted 15 as written, adopted 16 with modification, deferred 5, rejected 4, took no action on 7, and withdrew 3. Of the closure reviews on the non-consensus agenda, the Board retained the status quo on nine, retained one with modification, rescinded one, and took no action on one. Analysis and justification for the action taken on each item on the non-consensus agenda can be found in the Board meeting book and transcripts.

All of the documents referenced in this section are available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, AK 99503 or on the OSM website ( www.doi.gov/​subsistence).

The final regulations in this document reflect Board review and consideration of Council recommendations, Tribal and Alaska Native corporation consultations, and public and ADF&G comments. Proposals and closure reviews in table 2 with a Board action of “adopt,” “adopt with modification,” “rescind,” or “modify” are reflected in the regulation promulgation section of this document as amendments to the Program regulations. Because this rule concerns public lands managed by a bureau or bureaus in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 43 CFR part 51.

This rule also makes administrative corrections to the regulations and corrects errors discovered since the last rulemaking (table 3).

One of the corrected errors resulted from the publication process of the final rule published on July 26, 2022 (87 FR 44846). That rule mistakenly identified the start of the moose hunting season in Unit 3 as September 1 instead of September 15. The September 15 start date was set in 1996 (61 FR 39698) and has not been changed by any subsequent action. There were no proposals to change season dates for moose in Unit 3 during the 2022 wildlife regulatory cycle leading to 87 FR 44846. The September 15 season start date was ( printed page 67496) originally adopted by the Board after notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. This rule replaces September 1 with September 15 in section __.26(n)(3) to reflect the date set by the Board in 1996 that was erroneously changed to September 1 in 2022.

The remaining changes corrected a spelling error, removed closures no longer in effect, and made minor changes to Board adopted regulatory language that improve regulatory clarity. In the first change to language adopted by the Board, regarding Unit 23 muskrat hunting, the season description was changed from “No Closed Season” to “July 1-June 30”. While there is functionally no difference between the two season descriptions, the change was made to be consistent with year-round season descriptions throughout regulation. In the second change to language adopted by the Board, concerning Unit 26C musk ox, the word “Federal” was added before the words “public lands” to be consistent with other federal subsistence regulations referring to such lands.

Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities

Administrative Procedure Act Compliance

The Board has provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), including publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register , participation in multiple Council meetings, additional public review and comment on all proposals for regulatory change, and opportunity for additional public comment during the Board meeting prior to deliberation. Additionally, an administrative mechanism exists to request reconsideration of the Board's decision on any proposal for regulatory change (36 CFR 242.20 and 43 CFR 51.20). Therefore, the Board believes that sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons regarding Board decisions.

The administrative correction to the Unit 3 moose season start date was not identified as a proposed change in the proposed rule. We find that there is good cause to make this change without notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). First, we find that notice and comment is unnecessary because the change merely fixes an inadvertent error in the publication process and thus would not have benefitted from public input. In addition, it is impractical to make this correction with notice and comment because such notice and comment would delay making the correction until after September 1, 2026 and thus likely lead to continued confusion as to when hunting can begin.

The notice and comment process is also unnecessary for the remaining administrative changes not identified in the proposed rule, which include correcting a spelling error, removing closures no longer in effect, and making changes to Board-adopted language that improve regulatory clarity. In these cases, we find good cause that the notice and comment process is unnecessary because the changes are of a technical nature, are not substantial, and are unlikely to be of interest to the public.

In the more than 30 years that the Program has been operating, no benefit to the public has been demonstrated by delaying the effective date of the subsistence regulations. A lapse in regulatory control could affect the continued viability of fish or wildlife populations and future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon the date set forth in DATES to ensure continued operation of the subsistence program.

National Environmental Policy Act

A draft environmental impact statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.

A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, determined that expansion of Federal jurisdiction does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment and, therefore, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact.

DOI conducted a Determination of NEPA Adequacy of the 1992 and 1997 documents and determined that there were no changes that warrant a new NEPA review in accordance with DOI NEPA Manual Section 3.1.

Section 810 of ANILCA

An ANILCA section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.

During the subsequent 1997 environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of the subsistence program regulations was conducted in accordance with section 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the regulations will not reach the threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA section 810(a).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has reviewed and approved the collections of information associated with the subsistence regulations at 36 CFR part 242 and 43 CFR part 51 and assigned OMB Control Number 1090-0014. We 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. This control number has an expiration date of 09/30/2028.

Regulatory Planning and Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has been submitted for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to ( printed page 67497) reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed these proposed revisions and additions to the CFR in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. In general, the resources to be harvested under this rule are already being harvested and consumed by the local harvester and do not result in an additional dollar benefit to the economy. However, we estimate that 2 million pounds of meat are harvested by subsistence users annually and, if given an estimated dollar value of $3.00 per pound, this amount would equate to about $6 million in food value statewide. Based upon the amounts and values cited above, the Departments certify that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Congressional Review Act

Under the Congressional Review Act, which was adopted as Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will 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.

Executive Order 12630

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required. The scope of federal subsistence management is limited by definition to certain public lands and waters in Alaska.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. This rule will be implemented by Federal agencies with no cost imposed on any State or local entities or Tribal governments.

Executive Order 12988

The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, regarding civil justice reform.

Executive Order 13132

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally administered lands and waters. It has no direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13175

Title VIII of ANILCA does not provide rights specific to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, proposed regulations may have Tribal implications, and the Board provided federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations opportunities to consult on this rule. Consultations with Alaska Native Corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, 118 Stat. 452 (Jan. 23, 2004), as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, 118 Stat. 3267 (Dec. 8, 2004), which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.” In addition, the Department of the Interior manual acknowledges DOI's responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis at 512 DM 4, 5, 6, and 7.

The Secretaries, through the Board, provided a variety of opportunities for consultation: commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.

On April 21, 2026, the Board provided federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations a specific opportunity to consult on this rule prior to the start of its public regulatory meeting. Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were notified by mail and telephone and were given the opportunity to attend in person and via teleconference.

Executive Order 13211

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this rule is not a significant regulatory action affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no statement of energy effects is required under E.O. 13211.

Executive Order 14153

E.O. 14153 directs all bureaus of the Department of the Interior to consider the Alaskan cultural significance of hunting and fishing and the statutory priority of subsistence management required by ANILCA, to conduct meaningful consultation with the State fish and wildlife management agencies prior to enacting regulations that affect the ability of Alaskans to hunt and fish on public lands, and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that hunting and fishing opportunities on Federal lands are consistent with similar opportunities on State lands.

The Board offered consultation with the State of Alaska on all matters addressed during this regulatory cycle. In addition, the State was afforded opportunities to provide input into the analyses of all the proposed changes to the regulations and to provide comments to the Councils and the Board on regulatory matters being considered. The Board considered all comments and information provided by the State in this process. The Board also reviewed applicable State regulations. We minimized deviations from State hunting and fishing opportunities to the extent possible while still meeting the ANICLA mandates for the Program.

Executive Order 14192

E.O. 14192 requires that, for each new regulation issued, at least 10 prior regulations be identified for elimination. The purpose is to ensure that the cost of planned regulations is responsibly managed and controlled through a rigorous regulatory budgeting process. DOI has determined this rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rulemaking is related to routine ( printed page 67498) hunting and fishing regulatory actions, as described in M-25-28, “ Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”.

Drafting Information

Justin Koller drafted this under the guidance of Director Crystal Leonetti of the Office of Subsistence Management, Department of the Interior, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by:

• Jonathan (Brent) Vickers, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;
• Eva Patton, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Jill Klein, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Gregory Risdahl, Subsistence Program Leader, Pacific Geographic Area, USDA-Forest Service.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board amends title 36, part 242, and title 43, part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.